Thread by @juliettekayyem

Can I? We dealt with this at @dhs regarding whether we would designate electoral systems as "critical infrastructure" (CI). I lead the Advisory review looking at cyber vulnerabilities against our CI for the Department here. 1/
dhs.gov/sites/default/…

https://twitter.com/StevenLHall1/status/1154430459297726464

States --red & blue -- were against the designation under federalism governance standards that election processes are sole domain of state and local authorities and any requirements would become unfunded mandates. Not unfair concern. 2/

Basically, the sense was that so long as constitutional requirements not violated (due process/equal protection), then the "how" to vote was a core 10th Amendment power reserved to states. This was all happening when Real ID (biometric licensing requirements) were coming 3/

to fruition so there was a whole lot of pushback about fed overreach.
That changed after the 2016 election during transition when DHS, in last days of Obama Admin, designated elections as CI. It basically gives feds ability to set standards, designate money, etc. 4/

There are many reasons not to "federalize" elections; indeed, fact that our election systems are so decentralized is good from security perspective. It means there is not a single point of failure, not one single vulnerability. We like that in CI planning. It's a "shield". 5/

But the "federalize" language was never intended to be used as a "sword" and its being used today disingenuously. The feds can have all sorts of security standards for CI -- nuclear safety, water safety, grid safety -- without "federalizing" them. 6/

Most of our traditional CI is owned by private sector, after all. We haven't federalized them. 7/

Anyway, the anti "federalize" people are taking a legitimate concern that can be appropriately address -- federal security standards with private or local/state governance -- and trying to turn this into some constitutional issue.

Wonder why? 8/8