Sometimes, what should seem obvious apparently isn’t — at least not in Washington.

That’s where a bill to bolster the security of U.S. elections is facing headwinds from, ironically, elected officials. The measure (which is one of several ideas being floated on this pressing issue) is being pushed by Democrats and is backed by a few Republicans; it is facing resistance from other Republicans and, especially, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who has declared that the bill, which has passed the House, won’t even get a vote in the Senate.

In the wake of what has happened to our election process in recent years (the 2016 attack on the process by Russia was detailed in Robert Mueller’s recent 448-page report on the matter), the refusal by lawmakers — and, in particular, the stonewalling by one powerful senator — to address or even consider the matter is a baffling dereliction of duty.

If absolutely nothing else, lawmakers have a responsibility to protect the sanctity of elections, which is THE engine the runs our democracy.

The House election security bill calls for numerous measures, and to be sure, recent history was in mind when some sections of it were drafted. The measure would require paper ballots to check against computer hacking and would set early-voting standards. It would also target more conventional, corruptive foreign influences in U.S. elections by tightening campaign finance laws and requiring the president and vice president to release their tax returns. It would also create independent commissions to handle legislative redistricting.

These are sensible proposals that not only help secure the democratic process from foreign influences and computer vulnerabilities, but also monitor the process for political games such as gerrymandering.

McConnell has declared that he opposed the bill because he believes it should be up to state and local governments to oversee their own elections.

He’s also said, in effect, the measure is designed to bolster the prospects of Democratic candidates. However, if building safeguards against foreign attacks on the election process and cleaning up political abuses is seen as an attempt to help Democrats, what does the reverse suggest?

That might be found in an unfortunate comment made by President Donald Trump in an interview last week, when he said he would be open to seeing foreign information on an opposing candidate during an election. This seems to reflect the lack of concern and outright defensiveness he has exhibited on the issue of foreign meddling. As it is, critics say his comment comes off as a virtual invitation to other countries to impact our elections. (An effort Thursday by Democratic Virginia Sen. Mark Warner to pass a bill requiring campaigns to report any contacts from foreign nationals working to interfere in a presidential election was blocked by Republican Sen. Marsha Blackburn of Tennessee. Again, what does this suggest?)

Our elections are about us and about our voices being heard, not filtered or suppressed or compromised. The U.S. election process faced that interference in 2016, according to numerous intelligence agencies that have investigated the matter, suggesting that the sanctity and legitimacy of our democracy was and is in peril. Doing nothing hurts our defenses and leaves us prone to more interference. In short, doing nothing about this serious problem makes no sense at all.


(7) comments


Oh how soon (and convenient) that you forget several statements that Hillary Clinton made in aquiring dirt on her opponents. True typical radical lefty hyperbole. How ignorant do you think people are? Just Google Hillary Clinton scandals. Oh and let's not forget the Obama administration weaponizing the intelligence community against a Presidential candidate. You don't think that was election interference? Wow you have a conveniently short attention span don't you?


Huh, I googled "Hillary Clinton scandals" and not a one came up about acquiring dirt on her opponents. There was stuff about Clinton Foundation, Uranium One, but not a single thing about acquiring dirt... True typical thug righty hyperbole. Make stuff up and make others prove me wrong... the sky is red, take my word for it. You lie as much a Trump does, chromedome (aptly named I must say).


Sorry, I mis-spoke, to be correct it was In fact, Brian Fallon, the press secretary for Hillary Clinton’s unsuccessful 2016 campaign, once said he would have been willing to travel to Europe to confirm dirt about then-candidate Trump. But I am sure that you will have some clever response absolving Hillary of any skin in that game .


Oh, and just to clarify, I am neither left nor right nor in between. I am a realist, I did not and would never vote for Trump, just I have never voted for anyone named Clinton, Bush or Obama, yet I voted for each Presidential election since I became eligible to vote in 1980. You see ignorant people like you are so quick to assume that just because I criticize the Looney left that I am an uptight, white, right guy. If I disparage the uptight white right, well unless you aren't paying attention, you can guess the rest. It's people like you that have helped to bring this Country to where it is today, the laughing stock of the modern World. I love my Country, it's my government that I can't stand


AHAHAHAHAHA! It's nice that you are very proud of your history of voting for losers! Typical libertarian... I love my country, can't stand the government. GGAAAHHH!!! TAXES ARE THEFT!!!! GGAAAHHHH!!!! If this country is the laughing stock of the modern world I know exactly why... One word, Trump.


So the press secretary for a candidate wants dirt on someone....hmmm, not even close to the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES saying on record that he would take dirt from a foreign entity...the freaking president....PATHETIC


chromedome42 has right. Both the R & the D politicians are out of touch. Term limits would help but that will never happen. The looney right is bad but the looney left is very dangerous. Hopefully I''l be gone before the collapse. It would be fun to come back in 100 years or so and see how Socialism/Communism is working out. Oh and here's a couple of descriptives for you. Democratic Socialism: oxymoron. Bernie Sanders: moron.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.