republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The Obama administration’s DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson announced on January 6 that he had determined that U.S. elections “should be designated as a subsector of the existing Government Facilities critical infrastructure sector.” Johnson’s statement went on to say:
Within days, the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) issued a statement describing DHS’s announcement as “legally and historically unprecedented, raising many questions and concerns.” NASS’s statement went on to say:
The opposition to this attempted federal power grab is gratifying to those who oppose encroachment by the federal government into what is clearly the domain of the states. Particularly gratifying is the statement explaining that decentralization of the electoral processes and low levels of electronic connectivity are actually security strengths in our elections. These statements by NASS are a welcome dose of electoral sanity compared to recent advocacies for Internet voting and secure transmission of precinct vote counts, both of which increase centralization and electronic connectivity.
The New American has published numerous articles with criticisms of Internet voting and, in reporting from Iowa at last year’s Republican presidential caucuses, questioned the wisdom of secure transmission of precinct results:
But one argument that is missing from the debate is constitutionality. This attempted federal action is blatantly unconstitutional. Apologists for federal intervention in state elections have quoted Article I, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution, which says: