Voting officials fear DHS may actually be a threat to elections this year

Voting Officials Concerned About DHS’s Role in Midterm Elections

Voting officials fear DHS may actually - As the nation prepares for this year’s midterm elections, a growing number of local election administrators are expressing apprehension about the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) involvement. This concern stems from the perception that the agency, led by Markwayne Mullin, may not be safeguarding election integrity but instead actively working to challenge results that align with Donald Trump’s preferences. The tension between federal oversight and local autonomy has reached a critical juncture, with officials hesitant to share sensitive data, fearing it could be leveraged to undermine their authority.

A Persistent Claim and Unwavering Doubt

Gary Berntsen, a former CIA operative, has long championed the theory that Venezuela orchestrated the 2020 U.S. election. Though this narrative has been extensively disproven, including through Fox News’ 2023 $787 million settlement with Dominion Voting Systems, Berntsen continues to propagate it. His persistence has led to a unique collaboration with Mullin, now DHS secretary, who has become a vocal advocate for election denialism.

“One of the things that we learned is there’s 14 different technical ways that you can steal an election,” Berntsen explained in a fall 2023 interview with conservative podcaster Lara Logan. This statement, though repeated in media outlets, remains a cornerstone of his argument for ongoing skepticism toward election processes.

Despite his efforts, Berntsen found little traction with the FBI or mainstream media. His breakthrough came when he presented his concerns to Congress, where he was initially met with resistance from both parties. However, one figure stood out: Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma. Berntsen’s allies say Mullin arranged a meeting at Mar-a-Lago, allowing him to brief Trump’s campaign on alleged Venezuelan interference in elections.

From Senate to Homeland Security

Mullin, a U.S. senator at the time, has been a consistent voice for election denial. His public stance, as seen in a January 2, 2021, online post, reveals a deep-seated distrust in the 2020 election results. “Due to all of the fraud and uncertainty surrounding the 2020 election, there is no way I can vote to certify the Electoral College,” he wrote, reflecting the sentiment of many Republicans who resisted certification of the results. Four days later, Mullin joined 147 congressional Republicans in voting against the certification, despite the chaos at the U.S. Capitol.

His history of false claims has intensified fears among election officials that DHS might act as a partisan force rather than an impartial guardian. Matt Crane, a former Republican county clerk and leader of Colorado’s local election officials’ professional group, has been vocal about this distrust. “I’m actively discouraging it,” Crane said, referring to data sharing with the federal government. “I don’t trust how the administration is using that data. I don’t trust they’ll keep it confidential. I can’t in good conscience advocate for my counties to collaborate with them now.”

Trump’s Influence and DHS’s Shift

Trump’s rhetoric about “taking over” elections has further fueled these concerns. His administration has pursued aggressive measures to scrutinize local election systems, including litigation against states to obtain private voter registration data and attempts to access voting machines and ballots. These actions, critics argue, have blurred the lines between oversight and interference.

“They say illegal aliens don’t vote,” remarked Tom Homan, the Trump-appointed White House border czar, on The Charlie Kirk Show in the spring. “But part of DHS’ job is to secure elections. I’m not going to say what our plan is forward, but if only U.S. citizens can vote, I don’t see the issue.”

Homan’s comment underscores the administration’s willingness to use immigration enforcement as a tool for election monitoring, a move that has sparked debate over its legal justification. Meanwhile, Mullin, who once emphasized the need for DHS to act only when a specific threat exists, now leads an agency where many key personnel in election security have left or resigned, leaving the department vulnerable to internal shifts in priorities.

Loss of Confidence in Election Security

The Trump administration’s approach has eroded trust in federal election security. Local officials, regardless of political affiliation, are now wary of sharing data, fearing it could be weaponized against them. This hesitancy is compounded by the fact that the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), a key component of DHS, has lacked a Senate-confirmed leader throughout Trump’s second term. The agency’s leadership vacuum has raised questions about its independence and mission.

“These are not trusted partners anymore,” Crane said, highlighting the perception that the administration has integrated partisan actors into critical roles. He likened this situation to “bringing the fox into the henhouse,” emphasizing the risk of conflict of interest. The consequences of this dynamic are already evident in the midterms, where federal and state collaboration has become a contentious issue.

A Changing Landscape for Election Security

Compared to two years ago, the federal election security framework has evolved dramatically. Previously, agencies like CISA were seen as neutral entities supporting election integrity. Today, however, their actions are scrutinized for potential bias. Berntsen’s theory, once a fringe idea, now resonates with some officials who question the reliability of the process.

Heather Honey, the current DHS point person for elections, has a documented history of spreading election misinformation. This aligns with the broader Trump administration strategy, which has prioritized challenging election outcomes over ensuring their accuracy. As the midterms approach, the stakes are higher: local officials are not only concerned about data security but also about the federal government’s role in shaping the narrative.

Some experts warn that the current climate could lead to unprecedented efforts to disrupt election results. With Mullin at the helm, the DHS has become a central player in this narrative, and its influence over security protocols is seen as a potential risk. “The administration has taken steps that are unprecedented in their scope,” Crane noted. “They’ve created an environment where partisan interests may override election safeguards.”

Implications for the Midterm Election

As the 2024 midterms near, the battle over election integrity has reached a new phase. Local officials are caught between the need for federal support and the fear of being manipulated. The DHS, once a key ally, is now viewed as a potential threat. This shift has left many questioning whether the federal government will act as a bulwark against fraud or as a force to question legitimate outcomes.

“The landscape is completely different,” said a local election official, reflecting the broader sentiment. “Two years ago, we were focused on ensuring smooth operations. Now, we’re constantly preparing for the worst.” With Mullin’s tenure and the administration’s aggressive tactics, the upcoming elections may be defined by a battle between transparency and control, with the DHS playing a pivotal role in shaping the outcome.