On Lawfare, Paul Rosenzweig addresses the topic of Critical Infrastructure, its Constitutional realities, and how, really, this is not an attempt to rig the Electoral system:
So … what does it actually mean in practice to be designated as CI? It means that a sector of the economy is so important that the Federal government will work to provide as much support as it can to the sector through cooperative public-private interactions. The overall structure of the CI program is governed by Presidential Policy Directive-21. As the policy puts it, the main role of DHS is coordination and assessment, not direction and control:
[The] Secretary of Homeland Security evaluates national capabilities, opportunities, and challenges in protecting critical infrastructure; analyzes threats to, vulnerabilities of, and potential consequences from all hazards on critical infrastructure; identifies security and resilience functions that are necessary for effective public-private engagement with all critical infrastructure sectors; develops a national plan and metrics, in coordination with [Sector Specific Agencies] SSAs and other critical infrastructure partners; integrates and coordinates Federal cross-sector security and resilience activities; identifies and analyzes key interdependencies among critical infrastructure sectors; and reports on the effectiveness of national efforts to strengthen the Nation’s security and resilience posture for critical infrastructure.
…
The result of a designation as CI is that the Federal government will provide assistance in coordination and assessment functions to members of the sector. For example, DHS conducts assessments on infrastructure and communities to help businesses and local government officials make decisions about where to put resources to enhance security before an event and improve recovery after an event. In the context of elections, DHS (along with other Federal agencies involved in elections and/or cybersecurity) might help state and local election officials with an assessment of whether or not they are actually vulnerable to attack and if so, offer advice on how best to mitigate that vulnerability.
What does it mean for the next election?
One final point: The way the system of designation works, none of this, NONE, will happen before the next election. Not the designation; not the formation of the ES-ISAC and not the training, assessment or review.
In short, the Obama “takeover” of the electoral system is just another bug-a-boo scare tactic unworthy of serious consideration. Worse yet, the myth’s propogation is itself a further cause of eroding confidence in our electoral system. The only appropriate response is to drive a stake through its heart as quickly and thoroughly as possible—an endeaver to which I hope this blog post contributes.
If conservatives want to worry about the corruption of the electoral system, this might be the place to start:
These are poll numbers from a democratically blue state. A liberal state. A progressive state. And yet our state Senate is 71% Republican (74% if you include Virgil Smith) and the state House is 57% Republican (59% if you include Harvey Santana.) In other words, the state of Michigan is being run by people who do not represent the views of the citizens of the state of Michigan and they have systematically put in place safeguards to ensure that they hold onto that power. [EclectaBlog]
And – unless you’re a conservative who thinks a racism is a compatible co-philosophy – this law, fortunately struck down by the courts, should also worry you:
A federal appeals court has struck down North Carolina’s voter identification law, holding that it was “passed with racially discriminatory intent.”
The ruling also invalidated limits the same state law placed in 2013 on early voting, same-day registration, out-of-precinct voting, and preregistration.
The three judges assigned to the case — all Democratic appointees — were unanimous that the Republican-controlled North Carolina legislature violated the U.S. Constitution and the Voting Rights Act three years ago by enacting the measure requiring voters to show certain types of photo ID at the polls.
“The record makes clear that the historical origin of the challenged provisions in this statute is not the innocuous back-and-forth of routine partisan struggle that the State suggests and that the district court accepted,” Judge Diana Motzwrote on behalf of Judges James Wynn and Henry Floyd. “Rather, the General Assembly enacted them in the immediate aftermath of unprecedented African American voter participation in a state with a troubled racial history and racially polarized voting. The district court clearly erred in ignoring or dismissing this historical background evidence, all of which supports a finding of discriminatory intent.” [WaPo]
