The Vote Must Go On: Disaster-Proofing Elections

The report "Fostering Resilient Elections: Opportunities for Stronger Election Administration and Emergency Management Collaboration" (September 2025), published by the Center for Tech and Civic Life, is a timely and insightful contribution to one of democracy's most urgent challenges: how to keep elections running when calamity strikes.

Drawing from consultations with election officials and emergency managers across 24 U.S. states, the paper offers a grounded, nonpartisan roadmap for strengthening preparedness, coordination, and trust between two vital sectors that often meet for the first time—literally—“in the middle of a hurricane.”

The authors deserve high praise for addressing a clear and current concern, and for presenting a practical, systems-level approach to election resilience. They show that while emergency managers focus on life safety and infrastructure, and election administrators focus on access and integrity, both share a common mission: continuity under pressure.

The report’s step-by-step recommendations—from integrated planning and crisis communication protocols to joint tabletop exercises and continuity-of-operations plans—illustrate a mature understanding of how electoral systems must evolve in an age of compounding risk. The report also stands out for its clarity on the cultural and operational gap between the two professions.

As it notes, election officials operate under rigid legal deadlines that cannot be postponed even during natural disasters, while emergency managers are trained for flexible, all-hazards response. By encouraging year-round engagement, shared situational awareness, and a unified “language of resilience,” the paper helps bridge this divide with actionable realism rather than abstract theory.

The paper is a vital step toward institutionalizing the principle that the vote must go on—no matter the storm, the fire, or the flood. It reminds us that democratic continuity, like emergency management, depends on foresight, not reaction.

And now, the call to action is ours. Election administrators everywhere should read this report, pick up the phone, and reach out to their emergency management counterparts. Start the conversation, build the relationship, and plan together—even if the sky is clear today. Because the time to strengthen elections is not when the storm arrives, but long before it forms.

Only two e-voting companies pass Upguard cybersecurity test

 

A recent study by cybersecurity consulting firm Upguard has revealed that only two e-voting technology companies have cleared its security test. In an article posted on its website, the global company details how it selected 6 of the biggest names in e-voting and ranked them according to their CSR (cybersecurity rating).

This Upguard study is important in shedding light into the state of cybersecurity in the e-voting industry. It should raise red flags, and spur election authorities into paying more serious attention to the cybersecurity posture of their vendors.

The study gave London-based Smartmatic the highest score with an 808 CSR out of a possible 950, making it the only one in the sample to earn the rating of Good. The rest either received a rating of Warning or Average.

“Relatively speaking, Smartmatic’s security posture is decent,” the article said. The article cites some issues with Smartmatic’s website that the company needs to remedy. Namely: disabled HTTP Strict Transport Security, lack of secure cookies, and disabled DMARC.

Coming in second with 561 CRS is ClearBallot which was rated Average. It was cited for its “semi-bolstered website perimeter security posture” but was cautioned about common flaws such as lack of SSL, HTTP Strict Transport Security, DMARC and DNSSEC that “plague its web presence.”

The rest of the companies received a rating of Warning, with OSET Foundation scoring 390, Dominion Voting 342, Unisys Voting Solutions 219. Bringing up the rear was ES&S with a dismal 143 CSR, which the study attributed to “a myriad of perimeter security flaws, saying “For example, lack of sitewide SSL render its website vulnerable to man-in-the-middle (MITM) attacks, while the exposure of ports typically assigned to file sharing services and database communications give attackers additional potential attack vectors. A lack of DMARC and DNSSEC also contribute to ES&S' low score.”

While public is not normally interested in cybersecurity as it relates to e-voting, this discovery should change that, and should prompt heightened vigilance in ensuring that all e-voting systems are designed with security in mind.

Strong authentication and authorization mechanisms; use of encryption to protect data in transit and at rest; incorporation of regular security audits and testing to identify and address vulnerabilities; and rigorous independent testing and certification to ensure their security and reliability. All these practices should be baked into every e-voting system.

Is mobile voting empowering the U.S. election technology?

Voting mechanisms have come a long way since the days of Ancient Greece when casting stones was a way to choose Athenian politicians. Many simple but effective systems created thousands of years ago have been used right up to the present day.

The last few decades have seen a movement towards more computer-based voting systems, especially after the contentious 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. By creating these electronic systems, it was hoped that casting ballots would be easier and more secure for voters, and the results would be more accurate.

Nevertheless, as election methods in the U.S. are primarily left to the individual states, some are experimenting not only with electronic voting in the polling stations. They are also developing mobile options and new approaches designed to enhance the voting experience.

Two examples from the US

West Virginia is one such state attempting to roll out a new e-voting system. This pilot program, aimed to be an entirely internet-based voting experience, was tested during the 2018 midterm elections among military members serving out of the country. A company called Voatz developed an application that uses facial recognition and scans a sanctioned photo to confirm your voting status. The company claimed its blockchain technology was sufficient to guarantee the integrity of the vote tally. However, security experts have expressed serious reservations
.
According to its developers, the mobile app "uses biometric authentication to identify individual users before allowing them to mark an electronic ballot, and the votes are then recorded in a private blockchain." It began as a trial in May 2018 during the primary elections, targeting overseas voters in two countries. While the trials were successful, they also have raised much controversy.

Los Angeles County started developing an innovative voter-centered election system expected to launch by the 2020 elections. The Registrar-Recorder County Clerk has been working, since 2009, on an initiative called Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP) to replace its aging voting system. The non-proprietary, publicly-owned solution aims to be responsive to the needs and behavior of a diverse electorate and focuses on accessibility and human-centered voting experience. The County is working with Smartmatic in this project. The company will be responsible for the interactive ballot display, which will allow voters to mark their choices on their mobile device and then scan in their QR code in person for fast and easy voting at a vote center.

Ultimately, the concept of innovating in election technology with blockchain has shown to be worth more than mere experiments. Mobile voting with the use of a safer and verified interface is an opportunity for Election Commissions to eradicate voter fraud as well as boost turnout. The technology could enhance convenience for citizens even in the diaspora, notwithstanding the time and distance. It would as well be quite beneficial to convey transparency, minimize the electoral expenses, streamline the counting process, and guarantee that all votes are counted.

Securing elections in the United States

Protection of election integrity has been keeping poll authorities around the world busy lately, especially after important elections of 2016 (e.g. US Presidential and Brexit) have revealed how vulnerable this democratic exercise is to the remote manipulation of external powers employing newfangled technologies.

The menu options for those wishing to disrupt a democratic election have grown in recent times thanks to rapid technological advancements. From misinformation campaigns using platforms like Facebook and Twitter, to “real” hacking of email servers to compromise political parties.

The perception that voting machines can be hacked from afar have also made election commissioners and voters alike jittery. A recent poll conducted by the University of Chicago revealed that 8 out of 10 respondents were concerned with the possibility of hackers breaking into electronic voting machines and tampering with votes.

For the last year or so, large technology companies such as Facebook and Twitter have been taking actions to tackle the fake news problem. In the Philippines, for example, Facebook has started to crack down on pages and accounts peddling fake news.

Election experts, on the other hand, recommend two key actions to strengthen security of voting machines:

- Implementing voting machines that print a VVPAT: The use of paper vouchers allow voters to verify their votes and give auditors an easy way to compare electronic results vis a vis a printed copy.

- Allow audits after the close of voting: auditors should be able to randomly select voting machines, paper vouchers and other elements involved in the election to confirm that the votes agree with the printed minutes.

The Government of the United States is already taking actions to modernize its electoral system. Congress has recently awarded 380 million dollars to states for this purpose.  

This is a big step in the right direction. Yet the task of protecting the vote must include everyone – electoral authorizes, technology companies, civil society, and the general public.

Only in this way can a secure, transparent, and credible electoral system can every be truly realized.

The US elections technology oligopoly

 

Last week we learned from the Wall Street Journal that “Election machines used in more than half of U.S. states carry a flaw disclosed more than a decade ago that makes them vulnerable to a cyberattack”. A startling development, considering that the midterms are around the corner, and that China has allegedly joined the list of foreign powers trying to meddle in US elections.

Although the reason why a flaw of this magnitude is still present is manifold, recent studies point at the concentrated structure of the industry as one of the main causes for the poor state of the US election infrastructure.

In 2017, a Penn Wharton professor, Lorin Hitt, and a team of six students published a report titled “The Business of Voting”. According to their findings, “the industry is dominated by three firms that are moderate in size and neither publicly nor independently held, limiting the amount of information available in the public domain about their operations and financial performance. Meanwhile, the customer base is highly fragmented, with election technology decision-making dispersed across more than 10,000 county election officials.”

The three firms in question -Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart Intercivic- control approximately 92% of the voting machines used in the US. The existence of an oligopoly which controls US elections is undoubtedly a problem that needs to be addressed. 

As pointed out in the Wharton study, the lack of competitiveness leads to an inefficient market.  “First, the companies can exert their market power to lock-in clients”.  And second, “the industry’s high degree of concentration reduces investment in making voting machines more secure. The three incumbent companies can easily cooperate in carving up the existing market. And little outside competition, according to the authors of the report, means “limited incentives for innovation”.

The inefficiencies of this oligopoly have become evident in recent weeks.

On September 26, the city of Chicago awarded a 10-year contract for approximately $31 million to Dominion Voting Systems. The decision to purchase technology from the Canadian-based company was made months ago following a public bidding, yet the acquisition of technology is now being questioned. ES&S, the largest manufacturer in the country, filed a lawsuit against the county and the office of its chief procurement officer on September 25. According to ES&S, the “proposed voting system was not compliant with Illinois law, and likewise could not meet the requirements [of the request for proposals], because it had not been certified by the Illinois State Board of Elections.”

A similar episode is unfolding in Louisiana where ES&S is accusing state officials of favoring Dominion during the bidding process. In June, it was revealed that ES&S “had coaxed state and local elections officials —including South Carolina's election chief— to serve on an “advisory board” that gathers twice annually for company-sponsored conferences for at least nine years.”

Ethics experts have questioned this practice, labeling it as potentially corrupt. “This is a massive promotional opportunity for ES&S,” said Virginia Canter, chief ethics counsel for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, D.C. “It’s highly inappropriate for any election official to be accepting anything of value from a primary contractor. It shocks the conscience … I think it compromises their integrity.”

To cope with the shortcomings of this inefficient market, the Penn Wharton study recommends:

• Buyer coalitions, which can give jurisdictions greater bargaining power for getting vendors to provide systems that are both better priced and more customized to their needs;
• Open source technology, which proponents believe may catalyze the development of new competitive markets in voting systems solutions;
• Modified certification processes, to support a move to modular voting systems built from less expensive commercial off

It is time to take action.

The Philippines 2016 general elections: a plan for automation

Preparing for a major general election is a long and complicated process that can involve many moving pieces. This is all in addition to all the campaigning and debates in which the various candidates may participate. A growing number of democracies around the world are utilizing electronic voting technology in some form and another. One of the best examples to emerge from the Asia Pacific (APAC) region is the Philippines, a country that will be holding its national and local elections in May 2016.

The people of the Philippines will be heading to the polls in less than a year and the electoral commission for the country still has a great deal of preparation and planning ahead of it. Most notably, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) is currently accepting and reviewing bids for the machines to be used in the vote counting process. Comelec for the Republic of the Philippines is still keeping its options open, choosing whether next year's presidential election will be fully automated, partially automated, or if it will use a more traditional manual method.

The Republic of the Philippines is hardly a stranger to electronic voting technology, having already utilized the technology in 2010 and 2013. Indeed, the country was applauded  for “putting technology to new and better use.”  Given the tremendous success in both elections, it can be safely assumed that the country will continue its development and adoption of e-voting technology for the 2016 general elections.

While a bid put forth by Smartmatic and Total Information Management was initially disqualified due to a failure to submit valid Articles of Incorporation, that ban has since been overturned and the bid to provide some 23,000 new vote-counting machines can and will be suitably considered. As Comelec is still considering a hybrid solution for the 2016 election, the requirement for the new machines is still up to debate and may be changed. The machines in this case will use the aforementioned OMR technology, the same as was used in the 2010 and 2013 elections.

The Philippines is a nation with a democratic conviction and the upcoming general elections will once again demonstrate why the country continues to be a shining example of how e-voting can be best implemented in the Asia Pacific region. 

E-voting encouraged in Zimbabwe and Nigeria

E-voting modalities continue to gain in popularity across the globe, despite what some of the opponents of electronic voting technology may have to say about its challenges and limitations. It is only be modernizing the electoral process and updating it to an increasingly interconnected and digitally-powered world that democracies can continue to be relevant.

This is one of many steps needed to appeal to younger voters in particular, but also the mass electorate as a whole. Technology can improve transparency, developing a greater level of trust that voters can have in the electoral process and in the reported results of elections. Without trust and transparency, an election holds no weight among a nation's citizens.

What is curious is that some of the biggest advancements in e-voting adoption are coming not from established democracies in fully developed nations, but rather in relatively young democracies in economies that are still struggling and in development. Indeed, Africa has become a major point of discussion in this regard.

It should come as little surprise, then, that e-voting is gaining support in countries like Nigeria and Zimbabwe. More specifically, the Nigerian Computer Society (NCS) is encouraging the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) in the country to adopt electronic voting for its upcoming general elections. It is said that a “huge percentage of the voting population” is unable to collect the Permanent Voter's Card (PVC) and the card reader machines may be non-functional. 

The NCS believes that e-voting will help to reduce costs and bolster transparency. They say is more accessible for economies and governments of all sizes. By having the infrastructure in place, costs can be saved in the long run through economies of scale. According to NCS President, Professor David Adewumi, the lack of computer literacy is not an issue, as even “the old people in the villages now use mobile phones.”

In much the same manner, the Elections Resource Centre (ERC) is urging the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission to adopt electronic voting paradigms in time for its elections in 2018. They can gain from and leverage the recent experience in Namibia with e-voting  to improve its own implementation of the e-voting technology. Namibia was the first African country to use the technology and it did so in a “flawless” manner that was “praised the world over.” 

In addition to cost savings, perhaps one of the greatest advantages to e-voting is that “it removes human error and rigging” of manual paper ballots, said ERC director Tawanda Chimhini. “We want a situation where those defeated in the elections can endorse the results.” Again, this comes back to transparency and legitimacy, an area where many elections in Africa continue to struggle.

How Hybrid elections offer the best of both worlds

All change, political or otherwise, is inevitably met with some opposition. Traditionalists want to keep things the way they are and futurists want to abandon the status quo completely in favor of something completely new. Of course, neither group is wholly correct in its perspective and instead society far more commonly moves through a series of transitions. 

Ken Zirkel

For an extended period of time, horse-drawn carriages existed alongside the new automobiles. Landline telephones continue to be used in parallel with the growth of the mobile phone industry. And election technology is no different. It would be unfair and unrealistic to expect that the public at large can completely depart from voting practices of the past to adopt something brand new and unfamiliar.

The history of voting machines is a long and storied one. The original ballot box was actually used to hold little colored balls. This eventually evolved to paper ballots, mechanical levels, punch cards and, most recently, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machines. The move to touchscreen terminals specifically is in line with changes in society as a whole. More people are using computers, smartphones and tablets and the electronic interface is becoming more familiar and more comfortable than its analog counterpart. It also helps that e-voting technology provides tremendous advantages in terms of economies of scale, efficiency and timeliness. 

And as ubiquitous as the Internet has become for many facets of modern life, from communication to online banking, it has not yet become the cultural norm in many parts of the world to cast a vote in a municipal, regional or federal election via the Internet. Physical polling stations, supervised and managed by election staff and volunteers, are still the most widespread practice and it is the one that most people know.

While it does make sense to utilize electronic-based technologies for these physical polling places, it may not make sense to abandon precinct-based voting altogether in favor of an online-only solution. It is too drastic and too dramatic of a paradigm shift. 

In the province of Nova Scotia in Canada, the Cape Breton Regional Municipality recently ruled that it will be utilizing a hybrid voting system for its upcoming District 10 byelection rather than using an electronic-only system. People can vote via a secure website or telephone in a week-long advance poll or they can vote via paper ballot on the actual election day. Running a hybrid election like this does cost more money than if either system were used on its own, but this is a necessary cost to provide the greatest access to all citizens. 

In the last election, 56.4 percent of the voters in Cape Breton's District 10 utilized the e-voting system to cast their vote. The physical polling stations, which can be mobile in nature, are being used such that military veterans and seniors living in care homes can more easily exercise their “right to mark an X,” said Deputy mayor Kevin Saccar. 

There are risks and rewards, pros and cons to any voting system, whether it's a paper ballot, electronic voting machine or a secure website. By providing voters with the option for how they wish to vote, governments can help to encourage the greatest level of voter turnout possible.