vox--2020-02-06--The Trump administration is freezing New Yorkers’ access to Global Entry

The Trump administration is halting New Yorkers ’ registration to Global Entry and other programs that offer faster processing for pre-vetted travelers in response to a state sanctuary law that prevents information-sharing with federal authorities .
Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli told reporters on Thursday that New York ’ s Green Light Law — which offers state driver ’ s licenses to unauthorized immigrants — also prevents the agency from accessing Department of Motor Vehicles records .
Those records , he said , are essential to appropriately vet New Yorkers for “ Trusted Traveler ” programs like @ @ @ @ @ @ @ travelers arriving in the US .
Cuccinelli said that the policy change , first announced on Fox News ’ s Tucker Carlson Tonight , was in the interest of public safety .
Since federal law enforcement officers can no longer access the data they need to ensure that an applicant is indeed a Trusted Traveler , terrorists and other criminals could go undetected .
The new policy will only affect New York residents .
They will be able to maintain their Trusted Traveler status until it expires , but no applications for new @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that status will be approved .
Those who have pending applications for Trusted Traveler status will also be rejected and their application fees will be reimbursed , according to DHS .
Democrats are calling the new restrictions a form of retaliation against New York ’ s sanctuary state laws .
“ The Trump Administration ’ s ban on all New Yorkers applying for Global Entry and other Trusted Traveler programs is a purely punitive move that has nothing to do with security , ” Rep. Bennie Thompson , chair of the House Committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement Thursday .
“ It is clearly a blatant attempt by the White House to score political points and perpetuate a partisan fight with New York elected officials.
” The Green Light Law took effect in December , allowing unauthorized immigrants to apply for state driver ’ s licenses as well as preventing state DMV officials from handing over any of its database information to federal authorities absent a court order .
Dozens of other states have enacted similar laws offering driver ’ s licenses to unauthorized immigrants , but none of them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DMV records .
California , Connecticut , Nevada , Utah , Colorado , New Mexico , Washington , Illinois , Vermont , Maryland , Delaware , Hawaii , and Oregon , as well as Puerto Rico and Washington , DC , already offer driver ’ s licenses to unauthorized immigrants — meaning that roughly 5.3 million unauthorized immigrants nationwide are eligible to get one , according to 2017 estimates .
New Jersey also recently passed a similar law .
Immigrant advocates continue to lobby other states to pass similar laws , including Florida @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Texas , and Massachusetts , which first proposed such legislation 15 years ago .
Research suggests that making driver ’ s licenses available to unauthorized immigrants improves safety .
Obtaining a license requires testing and training on road safety , as well as proof that an applicant can get auto insurance .
Drivers with licenses are also more willing to cooperate with law enforcement , reducing burdens on police forces .
A 2016 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found that after California implemented its driver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hit-and-runs dropped between 7 percent and 10 percent on average — amounting to roughly 4,000 fewer such accidents annually .
Such policies also have financial benefits , both for local governments and for drivers .
The Fiscal Policy Institute found in 2017 that state and county governments could collect about $ 57 million in annual revenue , as well as $ 26 million in one-time revenues , by issuing 150,000 driver ’ s licenses to unauthorized immigrants in New York City .
The researchers also determined that it would likely lower auto insurance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York City also found that having a driver ’ s license provides additional financial stability for families and increases employment opportunities for unauthorized immigrants .
Having a car allows them to look for jobs and housing that are not located near public transportation .
It also helps shield them from deportation .
If a police officer pulls over an unauthorized immigrant driving without a license , they could be referred to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and sent to removal proceedings .
Why the administration cares so much about DMV records US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ citizens of 11 other countries — Argentina , India , Colombia , the UK , Germany , Panama , Singapore , South Korea , Switzerland , Taiwan , and Mexico — can qualify for Global Entry .
The application requirements differ by country , but US citizens and green card holders can apply if they pay a $ 100 fee and provide a valid passport and another form of identification , such as a driver ’ s license or state ID that includes proof of residence .
They must also be interviewed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a background check .
The Homeland Security Department says that an applicant might be denied if they have been convicted of any crime , have pending criminal charges , or have outstanding warrants , as well as if they have violated any immigration laws or are found to be inadmissible to the US .
DMV records help US Customs and Border Protection conduct a background check on applicants : They contain information to verify identity , residence , and biographical data provided by applicants , as well as criminal records .
The agency @ @ @ @ @ @ @ New York criminal court databases , with the exception of non-criminal driving offenses , such as running a stoplight , speeding , making an illegal turn , or having parking meter violations .
But the agency can ’ t verify other information provided by applicants without the DMV records , Theresa Cardinal Brown , the director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center , tweeted Thursday .
“ [ T ] he inability of CBP to now access and validate any of this basic information for New York residents would @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible , to conduct the necessary criminal and background checks that are the foundation of trusted traveler programs , ” she said .
“ So DHS does have valid concerns with the severe and categorical restriction on access to DMV data in the NY state law that would impede its border and law enforcement functions outside of immigration enforcement.
” But experts said there are also costs to limiting Global Entry access in New York , which has some of the busiest airports nationwide : DHS says that New Yorkers ’ access to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one that it can take away if they no longer comply with security standards .
Aside from Global Entry , the other affected programs include Nexus , which is for travelers entering the US from Canada by plane , land border , or sea ; Sentri , which is for travelers entering the US from Canada and Mexico via plane or a land border ; and the Free and Secure Trade program , which is for truck drivers entering and exiting the US from Canada and Mexico .
TSA PreCheck , a program @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security lines at the airport , isn ’ t affected .
Cuccinelli said New York was reintroducing one of the security vulnerabilities that made 9/11 possible : the “ failure of information-sharing across entities of government.
” “ President Trump certainly made it clear that if sanctuary city politicians won ’ t keep their people safe , we ’ ll do the best we can to keep them safe , ” he said .
New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement that she was still reviewing the policy ( which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ court ) , but framed it as an attempt to “ punish New Yorkers for passing its own laws and standing up to [ Trump ’ s ] xenophobic policies.
” It ’ s just one of many instances in which the Trump administration has targeted sanctuary cities and states .
The administration has also tried to withhold federal law enforcement grants from them and to vacate California ’ s sanctuary laws ( but has mostly failed ) .

The state of New York announced Friday that it will sue the Trump administration over its decision to block New Yorkers from enrolling in Global Entry and other programs that offer faster processing for pre-vetted travelers, calling the move “political retribution” for the state’s sanctuary policies.
Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli had told reporters on Thursday that New York’s Green Light Law — which offers state driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants — prevents the agency from accessing Department of Motor Vehicles records. Those records, he said, are essential to appropriately vet New Yorkers for “Trusted Traveler” programs like Global Entry, which is for international travelers arriving in the US.
Cuccinelli said that the policy change, first announced on Fox News’s Tucker Carlson Tonight, was in the interest of public safety. Since federal law enforcement officers can no longer access the data they need to ensure that an applicant is indeed a Trusted Traveler, terrorists and other criminals could go undetected.
But New York Attorney General Letitia James said in a statement Friday that there was a more sinister motive behind the policy change: “This is political retribution, plain and simple, and while the president may want to punish New York for standing up to his xenophobic policies, we will not back down,” she said, adding that preventing New Yorkers from accessing Trusted Traveler programs would not only inconvenience travelers, but also harm the state’s economy.
Acting DHS Secretary Chad Wolf, however, didn’t back down:
I made clear to the Governor yesterday that suspending Trusted Traveler Programs for NY had nothing to do with drivers licenses and everything to do with the breakdown in information sharing. My response to the press conference. pic.twitter.com/kzzZ18p1sc — Acting Secretary Chad Wolf (@DHS_Wolf) February 7, 2020
The new policy will only affect New York residents. They will be able to maintain their Trusted Traveler status until it expires, but no new applications for Trusted Traveler status or applications to renew that status will be approved. Those who have pending applications for Trusted Traveler status will also be rejected and their application fees will be reimbursed, according to DHS.
Other Democrats have also called the new restrictions a form of retaliation against New York’s sanctuary state laws.
“The Trump Administration’s ban on all New Yorkers applying for Global Entry and other Trusted Traveler programs is a purely punitive move that has nothing to do with security,” Rep. Bennie Thompson, chair of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said in a statement Thursday. “It is clearly a blatant attempt by the White House to score political points and perpetuate a partisan fight with New York elected officials.”
New York’s Green Light Law
The Green Light Law took effect in December, allowing unauthorized immigrants to apply for state driver’s licenses as well as preventing state DMV officials from handing over any of its database information to federal authorities absent a court order.
Dozens of other states have enacted similar laws offering driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants, but none of them include such a blanket prohibition on accessing DMV records.
California, Connecticut, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Illinois, Vermont, Maryland, Delaware, Hawaii, and Oregon, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, already offer driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants — meaning that roughly 5.3 million unauthorized immigrants nationwide are eligible to get one, according to 2017 estimates. New Jersey also recently passed a similar law.
Immigrant advocates continue to lobby other states to pass similar laws, including Florida, Kansas, Minnesota, North Carolina, Texas, and Massachusetts, which first proposed such legislation 15 years ago.
Research suggests that making driver’s licenses available to unauthorized immigrants improves safety. Obtaining a license requires testing and training on road safety, as well as proof that an applicant can get auto insurance. Drivers with licenses are also more willing to cooperate with law enforcement, reducing burdens on police forces.
A 2016 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal found that after California implemented its driver’s license law in 2015, hit-and-runs dropped between 7 percent and 10 percent on average — amounting to roughly 4,000 fewer such accidents annually.
Such policies also have financial benefits, both for local governments and for drivers. The Fiscal Policy Institute found in 2017 that state and county governments could collect about $57 million in annual revenue, as well as $26 million in one-time revenues, by issuing 150,000 driver’s licenses to unauthorized immigrants in New York City. The researchers also determined that it would likely lower auto insurance premiums overall.
An analysis conducted by New York City also found that having a driver’s license provides additional financial stability for families and increases employment opportunities for unauthorized immigrants. Having a car allows them to look for jobs and housing that are not located near public transportation.
It also helps shield them from deportation. If a police officer pulls over an unauthorized immigrant driving without a license, they could be referred to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and sent to removal proceedings.
Why the administration cares so much about DMV records
US citizens, green card holders, and citizens of 11 other countries — Argentina, India, Colombia, the UK, Germany, Panama, Singapore, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, and Mexico — can qualify for Global Entry.
The application requirements differ by country, but US citizens and green card holders can apply if they pay a $100 fee and provide a valid passport and another form of identification, such as a driver’s license or state ID that includes proof of residence. They must also be interviewed in person, get fingerprinted, and pass a background check.
The Homeland Security Department says that an applicant might be denied if they have been convicted of any crime, have pending criminal charges, or have outstanding warrants, as well as if they have violated any immigration laws or are found to be inadmissible to the US.
DMV records help US Customs and Border Protection conduct a background check on applicants: They contain information to verify identity, residence, and biographical data provided by applicants, as well as criminal records.
The agency can access the same criminal records in New York criminal court databases, with the exception of non-criminal driving offenses, such as running a stoplight, speeding, making an illegal turn, or having parking meter violations. But the agency can’t verify other information provided by applicants without the DMV records, Theresa Cardinal Brown, the director of immigration and cross-border policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, tweeted Thursday.
“[T]he inability of CBP to now access and validate any of this basic information for New York residents would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to conduct the necessary criminal and background checks that are the foundation of trusted traveler programs,” she said. “So DHS does have valid concerns with the severe and categorical restriction on access to DMV data in the NY state law that would impede its border and law enforcement functions outside of immigration enforcement.”
But experts said there are also costs to limiting Global Entry access in New York, which has some of the busiest airports nationwide:
Agree. This makes all air travelers less safe. Bunches known and unknown travelers into same queue, hurting everyone's security. I was Chief of Staff at @CBP when we launched Global Entry. Best crime fighting took in the skies. https://t.co/iRsiSzfwFJ — Marco Lopez (@1marcolopez) February 6, 2020
The potential political motivations
DHS says that New Yorkers’ access to Trusted Traveler programs is a privilege — one that it can take away if they no longer comply with security standards.
Aside from Global Entry, the affected programs include Nexus, which is for travelers entering the US from Canada by plane, land border, or sea; Sentri, which is for travelers entering the US from Canada and Mexico via plane or a land border; and the Free and Secure Trade program, which is for truck drivers entering and exiting the US from Canada and Mexico. TSA PreCheck, a program that allows travelers to go through shorter security lines at the airport, isn’t affected.
Cuccinelli said New York was reintroducing one of the security vulnerabilities that made 9/11 possible: the “failure of information-sharing across entities of government.”
“President Trump certainly made it clear that if sanctuary city politicians won’t keep their people safe, we’ll do the best we can to keep them safe,” he said.
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, however, framed the move as a form of “extortion” and “punishment for refusing to fall in line” with the administration’s immigration agenda in a statement Friday.
“There is no rational basis for this politically motivated ban, and we are taking legal action to stop the federal government from inconveniencing New Yorkers to score political points,” he said.
It’s just one of many instances in which the Trump administration has targeted sanctuary cities and states. The administration has also tried to withhold federal law enforcement grants from them and to vacate California’s sanctuary laws (but has mostly failed).


vox--2020-02-06--Bernie Sanders has declared victory in Iowa, without the final results

MANCHESTER , New Hampshire — Sen. Bernie Sanders ( I-VT ) declared victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday afternoon , minutes after Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez called for a “ recanvass ” to audit too-close-to-call Iowa results .
“ We are now at a point with some 97 percent of the precincts reporting , where our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes , ” Sanders told reporters in a Manchester field office .
“ In other words , some 6,000 more Iowans came out on caucus night to support our candidacy than the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 6,000 more people come out for you in an election than your nearest opponent , we here in northern New England call that a victory.
” The Iowa caucuses have still not officially been called for any candidate , but the results show an extremely close race between Sanders and former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg .
Buttigieg declared victory on Monday night before any results were released , but has not spent much time touting a win since then on the trail in New Hampshire .
This is the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reported popular vote tallies — making it the first time a candidate could make an argument like Sanders ’ s .
With 97 percent of precincts reporting in caucuses after major delays , there is a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent separating the top two candidates in the traditional metric the Iowa Democratic Party has reported in the past : “ state delegate equivalents ” ( also known as SDEs ) , which determines how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention .
“ As it stands right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end with a tiny fraction of an advantage in the SDEs .
That may change , we may go in the lead by a little bit , ” Sanders said .
“ Given the remaining precincts outstanding and mathematical errors which we are discovering in the data , we could well end up with more SDEs.
” Even though the number of SDEs had determined Iowa winners in the past — and is the metric the Iowa Democratic Party is prioritizing — Sanders argued that the race for national delegates and raw vote @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who won in 2020 .
He and Buttigieg are tied for their number of national delegates : 11 each , so far .
“ But this difference — no matter who inches ahead in the end — is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee , ” Sanders stressed .
“ Those national delegates , not the state delegates , are the ones that really matter in the nominating process.
” Iowa ’ s real importance isn ’ t @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the momentum generated by winning here .
The first-in-the-nation contest bestows momentum on a frontrunner or frontrunners .
In declaring himself victorious and highlighting the popular vote tallies , Sanders is trying to capture the narrative and focus it squarely on himself .
As Sanders pointed out repeatedly on Thursday , he is leading in the popular vote in Iowa , on both the first and second realignment .
Sanders told reporters he had just minutes before learned of DNC Chair Tom Perez calling for a recanvass , or “ hand audit ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would not change the raw vote totals his campaign had received in Iowa .
On the first alignment vote , Sanders received 42,672 votes compared to Buttigieg ’ s 36,718 .
On the second and final alignment vote , Sanders ’ s vote totals increased to 44,753 while Buttigieg went up to 42,235 .
“ We won an eight-person election by some 6,000 votes , that is not going to be changed , ” Sanders said .
“ What may be changed in this so-called ‘ recount ’ is a few SDEs here.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Thursday , Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued a statement saying recanvasses may be requested by individual candidates , rather than the DNC .
“ Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan request a recanvass , the IDP is prepared , ” Price said .
“ In such a circumstance , the IDP will audit the paper records of report , as provided by the precinct chairs and signed by representatives of presidential campaigns.
” Sanders — along with other top candidates — seems eager to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to New Hampshire ’ s traditional secret-ballot primary on Tuesday , February 11 , which officials here anticipate will proceed much more smoothly than the chaos of the Iowa caucuses .
Sanders won the state in 2016 by 22 points , and many are watching to see whether he can replicate that with another win next week .

MANCHESTER, New Hampshire — Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) declared victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday afternoon, minutes after Democratic National Committee Chair Tom Perez called for a “recanvass” to audit too-close-to-call Iowa results.
“We are now at a point with some 97 percent of the precincts reporting, where our campaign is winning the popular initial vote by some 6,000 votes,” Sanders told reporters in a Manchester field office. “In other words, some 6,000 more Iowans came out on caucus night to support our candidacy than the candidacy of anyone else. And when 6,000 more people come out for you in an election than your nearest opponent, we here in northern New England call that a victory.”
The Iowa caucuses have still not officially been called for any candidate, but the results show an extremely close race between Sanders and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg declared victory on Monday night before any results were released, but has not spent much time touting a win since then on the trail in New Hampshire.
This is the first year the Iowa Democratic caucuses have reported popular vote tallies — making it the first time a candidate could make an argument like Sanders’s. With 97 percent of precincts reporting in caucuses after major delays, there is a razor-thin margin of 0.1 percent separating the top two candidates in the traditional metric the Iowa Democratic Party has reported in the past: “state delegate equivalents” (also known as SDEs), which determines how many delegates each candidate will get at the Iowa state convention.
“As it stands right now ... either I or Mr. Buttigieg will end with a tiny fraction of an advantage in the SDEs. That may change, we may go in the lead by a little bit,” Sanders said. “Given the remaining precincts outstanding and mathematical errors which we are discovering in the data, we could well end up with more SDEs.”
Even though the number of SDEs had determined Iowa winners in the past — and is the metric the Iowa Democratic Party is prioritizing — Sanders argued that the race for national delegates and raw vote totals are a much bigger determinant of who won in 2020. He and Buttigieg are tied for their number of national delegates: 11 each, so far.
“But this difference — no matter who inches ahead in the end — is meaningless because we are both likely to receive the same number of national delegates to the Democratic National Convention in Milwaukee,” Sanders stressed. “Those national delegates, not the state delegates, are the ones that really matter in the nominating process.”
Iowa’s real importance isn’t delegates, however, it’s the momentum generated by winning here. The first-in-the-nation contest bestows momentum on a frontrunner or frontrunners. In declaring himself victorious and highlighting the popular vote tallies, Sanders is trying to capture the narrative and focus it squarely on himself.
As Sanders pointed out repeatedly on Thursday, he is leading in the popular vote in Iowa, on both the first and second realignment.
Sanders told reporters he had just minutes before learned of DNC Chair Tom Perez calling for a recanvass, or “hand audit” of the results, but insisted it would not change the raw vote totals his campaign had received in Iowa. On the first alignment vote, Sanders received 42,672 votes compared to Buttigieg’s 36,718. On the second and final alignment vote, Sanders’s vote totals increased to 44,753 while Buttigieg went up to 42,235.
“We won an eight-person election by some 6,000 votes, that is not going to be changed,” Sanders said. “What may be changed in this so-called ‘recount’ is a few SDEs here.”
After Perez called for a recanvass on Thursday, Iowa Democratic Party Chair Troy Price issued a statement saying recanvasses may be requested by individual candidates, rather than the DNC.
“Should any presidential campaign in compliance with the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan request a recanvass, the IDP is prepared,” Price said. “In such a circumstance, the IDP will audit the paper records of report, as provided by the precinct chairs and signed by representatives of presidential campaigns.”
Sanders — along with other top candidates — seems eager to put Iowa behind him and move on to New Hampshire’s traditional secret-ballot primary on Tuesday, February 11, which officials here anticipate will proceed much more smoothly than the chaos of the Iowa caucuses. Sanders won the state in 2016 by 22 points, and many are watching to see whether he can replicate that with another win next week.


vox--2020-02-06--It’s not just Iowa: Election tech is messy

Election security in the United States seems more precarious than ever .
As the November 2020 election grows closer , states and counties have charged ahead with their own plans to secure — and improve — their voting systems .
Congress , meanwhile , has failed to send much-needed reforms to the president ’ s desk .
Anxiety over the mechanics of this year ’ s election has spiked following the disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucus .
While there ’ s no reason to believe that the very poorly developed app used in the caucus was hacked , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of fronts , as it ’ s increasingly becoming clear that the integrity of the nation ’ s elections can be compromised in a variety of ways .
In fact , after the phone number for reporting precinct results was posted online , supporters of President Donald Trump managed to flood phone lines and interfere with the counting of results , according to Bloomberg .
You could say the country is more vulnerable to election interference than ever .
Some worry , with good reason , that the worst is yet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ agree on election security On Tuesday , Sen. Mark Warner ( D-VA ) said in a statement that the Iowa mess demonstrated the “ overall failure ” of efforts to protect the integrity of US elections .
And across the aisle , Sen. Marco Rubio ( R-FL ) warned in a tweet that the “ meltdown ” hinted at how “ Russian or Chinese hackers [ could ] tamper with preliminary reporting system [ s ] .
” But protecting the electoral process has hardly been a point of bipartisan cooperation .
Several @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election have stalled , including legislation that would require campaigns to report any contact from foreign governments to the FBI and a proposal that would make it a federal crime to hack into a federal voting system .
Meanwhile , none of the several bills that would require voting systems to create a paper trail , among other reforms , have moved forward .
Regardless , states have been making their own improvements since the 2016 election , like moving to voting machines with paper trails and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ And last year , the federal government sent $ 425 million to states to beef up their election security , though that funding actually comes from the Help America Vote Act , a Bush v. Gore-inspired 2002 law .
Importantly , lawmakers and the president did come together to create the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency , which focuses , in part , on election security .
A spokesperson told Recode that the agency is remaining in contact with the Democratic National Committee .
The Brennan Center for Justice , a public policy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American elections is actually closer to $ 2.2 billion .
The director of its Election Reform Program , Lawrence Norden , told Recode that Congress has generally handled this issue “ poorly ” and that the Iowa fiasco makes clear why elections need to be secure and backed up on paper .
At the same time , companies pushing other forms of new election tech — which have raised security concerns of their own — are distancing themselves from whatever happened in Iowa .
Meanwhile , the Nevada Democratic Party , which had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ company that produced the app used in Iowa , announced it won ’ t be using “ the same app or vendor ” for its own caucuses .
A security firm told ProPublica that the app was so badly safeguarded , it could have been hacked , and information sent to and from the app could have been intercepted .
An assault on US elections could occur at many levels of voting infrastructure .
As a 2018 Vox investigation into the state of the US elections infrastructure reported , these attacks might target @ @ @ @ @ @ @ accounts , voter registration systems , and even the voting machines themselves .
Securing all of these systems throughout the country is a difficult task that involves not only technical improvements and cybersecurity but also training and coordinating with local elections officials on how their systems could be implicated by national security threats .
Still , what happened in Iowa highlights how the introduction of new technology and insufficient back-up procedures can disrupt the voting process .
It also raises new concerns about the best way to ensure the security and integrity of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Iowa results continues to raise questions : On Thursday morning , the New York Times reported on inconsistencies in the results from more than 100 precincts .
States and counties are moving forward with simple reforms : Paper backups and audits One of the most important security “ innovations ” that election authorities are pursuing is actually pretty boring : voting machines that produce a paper trail of every vote .
While there ’ s no federal law requiring that results of national elections are backed up with a hard copy , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 28 million people voted on machines that didn ’ t produce paper records .
In the 2020 general election , however , he expects that number to drop to roughly 16 million .
In fact , no more than eight states are expected to use such voting machines this November .
That might seem a little bit like technological backtracking , but it ’ s not .
“ The concern has always been , if the paperless machines are hacked , [ if ] there ’ s a software bug , or [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” Norden told Recode , “ you may not be able to confirm vote totals.
” The move to more machines that produce a paper trail is hardly the only enhancement that states have made since the last presidential election .
For instance , Illinois has turned to so-called “ cyber navigators , ” who are essentially cybersecurity experts sent to conduct risk assessments at election offices and determine what sort of security improvements they might need .
These navigators can also conduct assessments of phishing attempts , test voting systems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ testing ) , and evaluate election authorities ’ physical security , according to the Illinois State Board of Elections ’ s executive director .
Meanwhile , the Department of Homeland Security has been offering consultations and resources to local election officials and pushing a slew of defensive technologies and procurements they can adopt .
And officials have also turned to simulations of potential cyberattacks — such as those provided by the Belfer Center ’ s Defending Digital Democracy Project — to better prepare themselves .
In November , 24 states will require post-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Brennan Center .
And four states have laws that specifically require a particular kind of audit called a “ risk-limiting audit , ” which involves hand-counting a statistically determined sample of votes to check that votes have been counted accurately .
( The National Council of State Legislatures provides a helpful explanation of this process on its website ) .
Other states are instituting electronic pollbooks , which Norden says can help make running a polling place faster as well as reduce errors .
( Norden noted that new , underlying technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ least one state , Alaska , has moved away from the somewhat common practice of allowing certain categories of people — often members of the military who are overseas — to vote online , which is typically done by email or via a state ’ s online portal .
Those absentee Alaska voters will have to turn to more time-tested modes of communication , namely fax and snail mail .
Those methods have their own security vulnerabilities , though they ’ re less susceptible to hackers .
It ’ s worth pointing out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite direction .
Late last month , the state legislature voted to expand its electronic voting allowances to include people with physical disabilities , legislation that West Virginia Gov .
Jim Justice signed on Wednesday .
One company says blockchain and biometrics will address states ’ security woes .
Election security experts don ’ t agree .
One startup , Voatz , is developing technology that could enable online , blockchain-based elections , despite the widespread concerns of election security experts .
The technology has already been used by some voters in elections @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Tuesday , the company released a statement emphasizing that its system was not used in Iowa .
Voatz also clarified that it provides a form of mobile voting , not a platform to tabulate results .
The Voatz platform uses not only blockchain technology but also biometric verification .
Voters first need to download the Voatz app .
( The company says that “ only recently manufactured smartphone models from Apple , Samsung , and Google are supported with Voatz.
” ) Then they can verify their identity by taking a picture of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fingerprint scan and the use of facial recognition technology .
The actual voting happens in the app , which employs blockchain technology to store the vote securely and make it available to the state board of elections or whichever entity is doing the counting .
Voatz also emphasizes the fact that every vote cast via the app is backed up with a paper copy .
The details of this complex-sounding process haven ’ t allayed the worries of election security experts who say that blockchain-based elections — a model being pushed by a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about cybersecurity and the secrecy of the ballot .
And last year , researchers published a review of their unanswered questions about the Voatz platform , questioning its data retention policies and facial recognition feature , among a wide range of other concerns .
Voatz did not respond to Recode ’ s request for comment by the time of publication .
David Jefferson , a computer scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a co-author of the paper , told Recode he ’ s reached out directly to Voatz with questions but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ worth highlighting that the Voatz app has already been targeted in a hacking attempt , though neither the system nor any votes were compromised .
In October , the Department of Justice said the FBI had launched an investigation into the apparent “ attempted intrusion ” of the platform , but neither agency would provide Recode with an update .
This month , the Washington State district that covers Seattle will host the first-ever election in which all voters will be able to use a web portal on their phones ( or computers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( which has received support from the same philanthropy — Tusk Philanthropies — that is supporting the Voatz app ) .
Apps aren ’ t the only new voting tech , but all systems need to have a paper ballot and backup New election technology consistently raises all kinds of concerns over security , accuracy , and usability .
We certainly saw those concerns on display after the app used in the Iowa Democratic caucuses malfunctioned , leading to confusion , hacking fears , and delayed results .
Again , Iowa election officials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and a CISA spokesperson says the agency has “ no reporting of any malicious cyber activity.
” This year , Los Angeles County will use a new publicly owned voting system that uses “ open source ” technology called Voting Solutions for All People ( VSAP ) .
This new platform , which will cost the county as much as $ 280 million , will introduce new touchscreen pads and a paper record of every vote .
Those machines will be used in the California presidential primaries , and if all goes well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ used in the general election as well .
LA County built the platform with help from London-based election tech company Smartmatic , whose CEO recently argued on Twitter that Iowa invested too little in its election technology and therefore suffered from a “ lack of technology.
” But even the new Smartmatic system being deployed in Los Angeles has drawn criticism .
As the Associated Press reported in January , testers found that “ seals , locks , labels , and sensors can all be bypassed ” on the VSAP hardware , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ removed .
Testers also found that “ unrestricted access to , and the ability to boot from , the USB port allows access to data.
” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has vowed to fix these issues ahead of the state ’ s March 3 primary .
Meanwhile , the Beverly Hills City Council has sued the county over other design flaws that it argues could disadvantage certain candidates .
And in the wake of Iowa ’ s recent debacle , it does feel like the development of some new election technology @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iowa demonstrates why we need to back up our elections , the Brennan Center ’ s Norden says .
Technical difficulties occur , whether they ’ re caused by a hack , a software bug , or a system that simply doesn ’ t work .
The point is : We need paper backups and systems for checking an election ’ s results , even when those fail .
No election is perfect , he says , but people still need to be able to vote .
Open Sourced is made possible by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists .

Election security in the United States seems more precarious than ever. As the November 2020 election grows closer, states and counties have charged ahead with their own plans to secure — and improve — their voting systems. Congress, meanwhile, has failed to send much-needed reforms to the president’s desk.
Anxiety over the mechanics of this year’s election has spiked following the disaster that was the Iowa Democratic caucus. While there’s no reason to believe that the very poorly developed app used in the caucus was hacked, the fiasco does have lawmakers spooked on a number of fronts, as it’s increasingly becoming clear that the integrity of the nation’s elections can be compromised in a variety of ways. In fact, after the phone number for reporting precinct results was posted online, supporters of President Donald Trump managed to flood phone lines and interfere with the counting of results, according to Bloomberg.
You could say the country is more vulnerable to election interference than ever. Some worry, with good reason, that the worst is yet to come.
Congress is struggling to agree on election security
On Tuesday, Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) said in a statement that the Iowa mess demonstrated the “overall failure” of efforts to protect the integrity of US elections. And across the aisle, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) warned in a tweet that the “meltdown” hinted at how “Russian or Chinese hackers [could] tamper with preliminary reporting system[s].”
But protecting the electoral process has hardly been a point of bipartisan cooperation. Several common-sense bills proposed in the wake of Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election have stalled, including legislation that would require campaigns to report any contact from foreign governments to the FBI and a proposal that would make it a federal crime to hack into a federal voting system. Meanwhile, none of the several bills that would require voting systems to create a paper trail, among other reforms, have moved forward.
Regardless, states have been making their own improvements since the 2016 election, like moving to voting machines with paper trails and instituting procedures for auditing election results. And last year, the federal government sent $425 million to states to beef up their election security, though that funding actually comes from the Help America Vote Act, a Bush v. Gore-inspired 2002 law. Importantly, lawmakers and the president did come together to create the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which focuses, in part, on election security. A spokesperson told Recode that the agency is remaining in contact with the Democratic National Committee.
The Brennan Center for Justice, a public policy nonprofit, says the cost of securing American elections is actually closer to $2.2 billion. The director of its Election Reform Program, Lawrence Norden, told Recode that Congress has generally handled this issue “poorly” and that the Iowa fiasco makes clear why elections need to be secure and backed up on paper.
At the same time, companies pushing other forms of new election tech — which have raised security concerns of their own — are distancing themselves from whatever happened in Iowa. Meanwhile, the Nevada Democratic Party, which had been working with Shadow Inc., the company that produced the app used in Iowa, announced it won’t be using “the same app or vendor” for its own caucuses. A security firm told ProPublica that the app was so badly safeguarded, it could have been hacked, and information sent to and from the app could have been intercepted.
An assault on US elections could occur at many levels of voting infrastructure. As a 2018 Vox investigation into the state of the US elections infrastructure reported, these attacks might target election websites, government officials’ email accounts, voter registration systems, and even the voting machines themselves. Securing all of these systems throughout the country is a difficult task that involves not only technical improvements and cybersecurity but also training and coordinating with local elections officials on how their systems could be implicated by national security threats.
Still, what happened in Iowa highlights how the introduction of new technology and insufficient back-up procedures can disrupt the voting process. It also raises new concerns about the best way to ensure the security and integrity of elections. Meanwhile, ongoing doubt over the Iowa results continues to raise questions: On Thursday morning, the New York Times reported on inconsistencies in the results from more than 100 precincts.
States and counties are moving forward with simple reforms: Paper backups and audits
One of the most important security “innovations” that election authorities are pursuing is actually pretty boring: voting machines that produce a paper trail of every vote. While there’s no federal law requiring that results of national elections are backed up with a hard copy, Norden says that in 2016, nearly 28 million people voted on machines that didn’t produce paper records. In the 2020 general election, however, he expects that number to drop to roughly 16 million. In fact, no more than eight states are expected to use such voting machines this November.
That might seem a little bit like technological backtracking, but it’s not.
“The concern has always been, if the paperless machines are hacked, [if] there’s a software bug, or [if] they fail in some way,” Norden told Recode, “you may not be able to confirm vote totals.”
The move to more machines that produce a paper trail is hardly the only enhancement that states have made since the last presidential election. For instance, Illinois has turned to so-called “cyber navigators,” who are essentially cybersecurity experts sent to conduct risk assessments at election offices and determine what sort of security improvements they might need. These navigators can also conduct assessments of phishing attempts, test voting systems with simulated attacks (also known as penetration testing), and evaluate election authorities’ physical security, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections’s executive director.
Meanwhile, the Department of Homeland Security has been offering consultations and resources to local election officials and pushing a slew of defensive technologies and procurements they can adopt. And officials have also turned to simulations of potential cyberattacks — such as those provided by the Belfer Center’s Defending Digital Democracy Project — to better prepare themselves.
In November, 24 states will require post-election audits of paper records, according to the Brennan Center. And four states have laws that specifically require a particular kind of audit called a “risk-limiting audit,” which involves hand-counting a statistically determined sample of votes to check that votes have been counted accurately. (The National Council of State Legislatures provides a helpful explanation of this process on its website).
Other states are instituting electronic pollbooks, which Norden says can help make running a polling place faster as well as reduce errors. (Norden noted that new, underlying technology must also be secure.) At least one state, Alaska, has moved away from the somewhat common practice of allowing certain categories of people — often members of the military who are overseas — to vote online, which is typically done by email or via a state’s online portal. Those absentee Alaska voters will have to turn to more time-tested modes of communication, namely fax and snail mail. Those methods have their own security vulnerabilities, though they’re less susceptible to hackers.
It’s worth pointing out that West Virginia is moving in the opposite direction. Late last month, the state legislature voted to expand its electronic voting allowances to include people with physical disabilities, legislation that West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice signed on Wednesday.
One company says blockchain and biometrics will address states’ security woes. Election security experts don’t agree.
One startup, Voatz, is developing technology that could enable online, blockchain-based elections, despite the widespread concerns of election security experts. The technology has already been used by some voters in elections in Utah and West Virginia. On Tuesday, the company released a statement emphasizing that its system was not used in Iowa. Voatz also clarified that it provides a form of mobile voting, not a platform to tabulate results.
The Voatz platform uses not only blockchain technology but also biometric verification. Voters first need to download the Voatz app. (The company says that “only recently manufactured smartphone models from Apple, Samsung, and Google are supported with Voatz.”) Then they can verify their identity by taking a picture of their government ID, followed by a fingerprint scan and the use of facial recognition technology. The actual voting happens in the app, which employs blockchain technology to store the vote securely and make it available to the state board of elections or whichever entity is doing the counting. Voatz also emphasizes the fact that every vote cast via the app is backed up with a paper copy.
The details of this complex-sounding process haven’t allayed the worries of election security experts who say that blockchain-based elections — a model being pushed by a slew of startups — generally raise concerns about cybersecurity and the secrecy of the ballot. And last year, researchers published a review of their unanswered questions about the Voatz platform, questioning its data retention policies and facial recognition feature, among a wide range of other concerns. Voatz did not respond to Recode’s request for comment by the time of publication.
David Jefferson, a computer scientist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and a co-author of the paper, told Recode he’s reached out directly to Voatz with questions but never heard back.
It’s worth highlighting that the Voatz app has already been targeted in a hacking attempt, though neither the system nor any votes were compromised. In October, the Department of Justice said the FBI had launched an investigation into the apparent “attempted intrusion” of the platform, but neither agency would provide Recode with an update.
This month, the Washington State district that covers Seattle will host the first-ever election in which all voters will be able to use a web portal on their phones (or computers) provided by the company Democracy Live (which has received support from the same philanthropy — Tusk Philanthropies — that is supporting the Voatz app).
Apps aren’t the only new voting tech, but all systems need to have a paper ballot and backup
New election technology consistently raises all kinds of concerns over security, accuracy, and usability. We certainly saw those concerns on display after the app used in the Iowa Democratic caucuses malfunctioned, leading to confusion, hacking fears, and delayed results. Again, Iowa election officials insist the app was not hacked, and a CISA spokesperson says the agency has “no reporting of any malicious cyber activity.”
This year, Los Angeles County will use a new publicly owned voting system that uses “open source” technology called Voting Solutions for All People (VSAP). This new platform, which will cost the county as much as $280 million, will introduce new touchscreen pads and a paper record of every vote. Those machines will be used in the California presidential primaries, and if all goes well, they’re expected to be used in the general election as well. LA County built the platform with help from London-based election tech company Smartmatic, whose CEO recently argued on Twitter that Iowa invested too little in its election technology and therefore suffered from a “lack of technology.”
But even the new Smartmatic system being deployed in Los Angeles has drawn criticism. As the Associated Press reported in January, testers found that “seals, locks, labels, and sensors can all be bypassed” on the VSAP hardware, which could allow ballots to be inserted or removed. Testers also found that “unrestricted access to, and the ability to boot from, the USB port allows access to data.” California Secretary of State Alex Padilla has vowed to fix these issues ahead of the state’s March 3 primary.
Meanwhile, the Beverly Hills City Council has sued the county over other design flaws that it argues could disadvantage certain candidates. And in the wake of Iowa’s recent debacle, it does feel like the development of some new election technology is being rushed.
What happened in Iowa demonstrates why we need to back up our elections, the Brennan Center’s Norden says. Technical difficulties occur, whether they’re caused by a hack, a software bug, or a system that simply doesn’t work. The point is: We need paper backups and systems for checking an election’s results, even when those fail. No election is perfect, he says, but people still need to be able to vote.
Open Sourced is made possible by the Omidyar Network. All Open Sourced content is editorially independent and produced by our journalists.


vox--2020-02-06--The Iowa caucus smartphone app disaster, explained

Monday night ’ s Iowa caucuses were supposed to offer America a first look at the Democratic Party ’ s frontrunner in the 2020 presidential race , based on the results of the first primary battle .
That didn ’ t quite happen .
Instead , after a chaotic night full of errors and mismanagement , the party had still failed to name a winner by the next afternoon .
While party leaders and pundits alike are struggling to figure out what went wrong , it looks like a hastily built and reportedly insufficiently tested smartphone app is at the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the Iowa Democratic Party ’ s smartphone app would compromise the Iowa caucus results were , in the end , well-founded .
But the issue doesn ’ t appear to have been the work of foreign hackers determined to infiltrate our democratic process .
No , it was probably something much more ordinary : The app didn ’ t work very well .
For 2020 , the Iowa caucus process was slightly revamped .
Instead of one set of results , as in all previous years , there would be three .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ how this all works . )
In addition to this complication , the actual number of votes each candidate received would also be counted and reported ; in previous contests , all precincts had to report was the name of the winner .
All those results would be reported by the precinct chair through a newly developed smartphone app .
If the precinct chair could not or did not want to use the app , they could report the results over the phone .
Also for the first time this year , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ vote , with caucus-goers recording their choices on pieces of paper collected by their caucus precinct chair .
Between all the rules changes to the caucus process itself — the part where everyone casts votes — and the volunteers reporting the results , somewhere everything fell apart .
Early on , volunteers complained that they were unable to download , log in to , and use the app as instructed .
According to the New York Times , many precinct chairs didn ’ t use the app at all , citing difficulty downloading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they had always preferred to call in the results as they had in the past , and that ’ s what many of them tried to do when the app wasn ’ t working .
Many reported that phone lines at party headquarters were busy for hours , as potentially hundreds of volunteers from more than 1,600 precincts tried calling in their results .
It ’ s unclear so far why the phone center had so much trouble responding to the calls .
Some precinct chairs even tried taking photos of their results @ @ @ @ @ @ @ headquarters in Des Moines , and even then they weren ’ t able to get through to party officials .
By the end of the night , the Iowa Democratic Party issued a statement blaming “ inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results , ” and said it would have to validate them via the paper trail .
The statement also said that the app was not hacked , nor did it malfunction .
A second statement issued Tuesday morning offered a more detailed account : Many questions remain about the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ debacle , especially in terms of security .
Ahead of the caucuses , Iowa Democratic Party leaders refused to disclose who developed the app , arguing that if potential hackers didn ’ t know who made the app , it would be that much harder for them to figure out how to hack it .
We now know that the app was built by a for-profit company called Shadow Inc. , which promotes itself as developing “ affordable and easy-to-use tools for teams and budgets of any size ” for the progressive movement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HuffPost show that the Iowa Democratic Party paid Shadow $ 60,000 to build the app last November , and sources briefed on the app by the party told the New York Times that the app was developed in just two months and never tested at a statewide scale .
Shadow did not respond to multiple requests for comment .
We also know what the app in question looks like .
Vice spoke with Iowa precinct leader Jonathan Green , who struggled to use the app , which is simply called “ IowaReporterApp , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Vice reporters managed to download and install the app on two Android phones , though they report that it would only boot on one of the phones .
Green described the labyrinthine process of attempting to log into the app to report the caucus results — a process that ended with an error message .
“ The situation with Iowa ’ s caucus reveals the risks associated with technology , in this case with a mobile app , but more importantly that there needs to be a low-tech solution in order @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter the cause , ” Marian K. Schneider of Verified Voting told Recode .
“ It ’ s clear that mobile apps are not ready for primetime , but thankfully Iowa has paper records of their vote totals and will be able to release results from those records.
” Shadow , nevertheless , hardly seems like it will disappear after Iowa .
The Nevada Democratic Party has already paid Shadow for services ahead of its Democratic primary on February 22 .
Nevada Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II provided the following statement on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a number of Democratic presidential candidates .
Former South Bend , Indiana , Mayor Pete Buttigieg , for example , has several ties to Shadow .
Federal Election Commission ( FEC ) filings show his campaign paid Shadow tens of thousands of dollars for various services in recent months .
Former Vice President Joe Biden ’ s presidential campaign also paid Shadow , as did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand ’ s .
One of Shadow ’ s investors is Acronym , a well-funded Silicon Valley-based progressive nonprofit that also runs a political action committee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for Barack Obama ’ s presidential campaign , sits on the board .
Acronym said in a statement that it was merely an investor in Shadow and has “ not provided any technology to the Iowa Democratic Party , Presidential campaigns , or the Democratic National Party.
” This appears to contradict a tweet from Acronym ’ s co-founder and CEO Tara McGowan in January 2019 that said her organization had acquired an organizing platform called Groundbase , and that Acronym was “ launching ” Shadow .
The tweet included a link to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from Shadow ’ s website .
That tweet and several more references to Shadow have since been deleted from McGowan ’ s account .
There is no evidence of any improprieties , although many have expressed concern about the secrecy of Shadow and its relatively untested products being trusted in the Democratic primaries .
A bit of sleuthing reveals that many of the people who have identified themselves as Shadow employees on LinkedIn previously worked for Hillary Clinton ’ s 2016 presidential campaign .
Shadow doesn ’ t currently list any staff members @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Democratic Party representatives , however , have insisted that they are confident in the security of the app , that they had done run-throughs of the caucus process , and that they anticipated the night would go smoothly with few hiccups .
Fears over the app ’ s security , in the end , might have been misplaced .
But the app appears to have played a major part in the Iowa caucus disaster nonetheless .
Without results , candidates were at something of a loss on how to respond .
While Buttigieg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sanders ’ s campaign released unverified internal numbers that showed the Vermont senator with a large lead .
The Buttigieg campaign later released numbers of its own , although they were less comprehensive than the Sanders campaign ’ s .
After many preliminary reports showed that Biden did much worse than expected in the caucuses , his campaign issued an angry letter to the Iowa Democratic Party blaming it for “ acute failures ” and demanding “ full explanations ” over what went wrong .
Sen. Elizabeth Warren , meanwhile , didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a speech , told her supporters that the race was “ too close to call.
” The results will be reported at some point , of course , but the damage has likely been done .
The trust in the Iowa caucus process has been severely compromised , and there are renewed calls to prevent Iowa and its unusual process from being the first nominating contest in the next presidential election .
Candidates are now moving on to New Hampshire , where the first primary will be held next Tuesday , February @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nevada will hold its caucus , albeit without the help of Shadow .
Update , February 4 , 2020 , 5:20 pm Eastern : This post has been updated to include new details about the smartphone app in question .

Monday night’s Iowa caucuses were supposed to offer America a first look at the Democratic Party’s frontrunner in the 2020 presidential race, based on the results of the first primary battle. That didn’t quite happen. Instead, after a chaotic night full of errors and mismanagement, the party had still failed to name a winner by the next afternoon. While party leaders and pundits alike are struggling to figure out what went wrong, it looks like a hastily built and reportedly insufficiently tested smartphone app is at the center of the disaster.
The fears that the Iowa Democratic Party’s smartphone app would compromise the Iowa caucus results were, in the end, well-founded. But the issue doesn’t appear to have been the work of foreign hackers determined to infiltrate our democratic process. No, it was probably something much more ordinary: The app didn’t work very well.
For 2020, the Iowa caucus process was slightly revamped. Instead of one set of results, as in all previous years, there would be three. (Vox’s Andrew Prokop explains how this all works.) In addition to this complication, the actual number of votes each candidate received would also be counted and reported; in previous contests, all precincts had to report was the name of the winner.
All those results would be reported by the precinct chair through a newly developed smartphone app. If the precinct chair could not or did not want to use the app, they could report the results over the phone. Also for the first time this year, there would be a paper trail of every vote, with caucus-goers recording their choices on pieces of paper collected by their caucus precinct chair.
Between all the rules changes to the caucus process itself — the part where everyone casts votes — and the volunteers reporting the results, somewhere everything fell apart.
Early on, volunteers complained that they were unable to download, log in to, and use the app as instructed. According to the New York Times, many precinct chairs didn’t use the app at all, citing difficulty downloading or using it. These volunteers said they had always preferred to call in the results as they had in the past, and that’s what many of them tried to do when the app wasn’t working. Many reported that phone lines at party headquarters were busy for hours, as potentially hundreds of volunteers from more than 1,600 precincts tried calling in their results.
It’s unclear so far why the phone center had so much trouble responding to the calls. Some precinct chairs even tried taking photos of their results and hand-delivering them to Iowa Democratic Party headquarters in Des Moines, and even then they weren’t able to get through to party officials.
By the end of the night, the Iowa Democratic Party issued a statement blaming “inconsistencies in the reporting of three sets of results,” and said it would have to validate them via the paper trail. The statement also said that the app was not hacked, nor did it malfunction. A second statement issued Tuesday morning offered a more detailed account:
As precinct caucus results started coming in, the IDP ran them through an accuracy and quality check. It became clear that there were inconsistencies with the reports. The underlying cause of these inconsistencies was not immediately clear, and required investigation which took time. … As part of our investigation, we determined with certainty that the underlying data collected via the app was sound. While the app was recording data accurately, it was reporting out only partial data. We have determined that this was due to a coding issue in our reporting system. This issue was identified and fixed. The application’s reporting issue did not impact the ability of precinct chairs to report data accurately.
Many questions remain about the smartphone app at the center of this debacle, especially in terms of security. Ahead of the caucuses, Iowa Democratic Party leaders refused to disclose who developed the app, arguing that if potential hackers didn’t know who made the app, it would be that much harder for them to figure out how to hack it.
We now know that the app was built by a for-profit company called Shadow Inc., which promotes itself as developing “affordable and easy-to-use tools for teams and budgets of any size” for the progressive movement. State campaign finance records obtained by HuffPost show that the Iowa Democratic Party paid Shadow $60,000 to build the app last November, and sources briefed on the app by the party told the New York Times that the app was developed in just two months and never tested at a statewide scale. Shadow did not respond to multiple requests for comment.
We also know what the app in question looks like. Vice spoke with Iowa precinct leader Jonathan Green, who struggled to use the app, which is simply called “IowaReporterApp,” on the night of the caucuses. The Vice reporters managed to download and install the app on two Android phones, though they report that it would only boot on one of the phones. Green described the labyrinthine process of attempting to log into the app to report the caucus results — a process that ended with an error message.
“The situation with Iowa’s caucus reveals the risks associated with technology, in this case with a mobile app, but more importantly that there needs to be a low-tech solution in order to recover from technological failures — no matter the cause,” Marian K. Schneider of Verified Voting told Recode. “It’s clear that mobile apps are not ready for primetime, but thankfully Iowa has paper records of their vote totals and will be able to release results from those records.”
Shadow, nevertheless, hardly seems like it will disappear after Iowa. The Nevada Democratic Party has already paid Shadow for services ahead of its Democratic primary on February 22. Nevada Democratic Party Chair William McCurdy II provided the following statement on Twitter:
NV Dems can confidently say that what happened in the Iowa caucus last night will not happen in Nevada on February 22nd. We will not be employing the same app or vendor used in the Iowa caucus. We had already developed a series of backups and redundant reporting systems, and are currently evaluating the best path forward.
Shadow has also worked with a number of Democratic presidential candidates. Former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg, for example, has several ties to Shadow. Federal Election Commission (FEC) filings show his campaign paid Shadow tens of thousands of dollars for various services in recent months. Former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign also paid Shadow, as did Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s. One of Shadow’s investors is Acronym, a well-funded Silicon Valley-based progressive nonprofit that also runs a political action committee. David Plouffe, the former manager for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign, sits on the board.
Acronym said in a statement that it was merely an investor in Shadow and has “not provided any technology to the Iowa Democratic Party, Presidential campaigns, or the Democratic National Party.” This appears to contradict a tweet from Acronym’s co-founder and CEO Tara McGowan in January 2019 that said her organization had acquired an organizing platform called Groundbase, and that Acronym was “launching” Shadow. The tweet included a link to a page that has since been removed from Shadow’s website. That tweet and several more references to Shadow have since been deleted from McGowan’s account.
There is no evidence of any improprieties, although many have expressed concern about the secrecy of Shadow and its relatively untested products being trusted in the Democratic primaries. A bit of sleuthing reveals that many of the people who have identified themselves as Shadow employees on LinkedIn previously worked for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign. Shadow doesn’t currently list any staff members’ names on its website.
Iowa Democratic Party representatives, however, have insisted that they are confident in the security of the app, that they had done run-throughs of the caucus process, and that they anticipated the night would go smoothly with few hiccups. Fears over the app’s security, in the end, might have been misplaced. But the app appears to have played a major part in the Iowa caucus disaster nonetheless.
Without results, candidates were at something of a loss on how to respond. While Buttigieg declared victory in a speech, Bernie Sanders’s campaign released unverified internal numbers that showed the Vermont senator with a large lead. The Buttigieg campaign later released numbers of its own, although they were less comprehensive than the Sanders campaign’s.
After many preliminary reports showed that Biden did much worse than expected in the caucuses, his campaign issued an angry letter to the Iowa Democratic Party blaming it for “acute failures” and demanding “full explanations” over what went wrong. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, meanwhile, didn’t address the delayed results and, in a speech, told her supporters that the race was “too close to call.”
The results will be reported at some point, of course, but the damage has likely been done. The trust in the Iowa caucus process has been severely compromised, and there are renewed calls to prevent Iowa and its unusual process from being the first nominating contest in the next presidential election. Candidates are now moving on to New Hampshire, where the first primary will be held next Tuesday, February 11. Eleven days after that, Nevada will hold its caucus, albeit without the help of Shadow.
Update, February 4, 2020, 5:20 pm Eastern: This post has been updated to include new details about the smartphone app in question.


vox--2020-02-06--Scrambled eggs made out of beans: A surprisingly good idea

Splashy deals involving plant-based food companies tend to make the biggest headlines when they ’ re with big-name companies — Burger King , McDonald ’ s , KFC .
But we should also pay attention to more low-key agreements with less recognizable names that arguably have a bigger effect on our food system .
Case in point : today ’ s announcement that Just , a leading producer of plant-based eggs , has partnered with massive international food service provider Sodexo to bring plant-based eggs to the schools , office buildings , hospitals , and other institutions Sodexo serves .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sodexo , though they serve 75 million meals every day at 34,000 locations worldwide .
And you may not have heard of Just , though the San Francisco-based company told me they ’ re outselling all branded almond and soy milks to be one of the bestselling plant-based food products in the supermarkets where they ’ re available .
But the deal is worth paying attention to .
It will replace a lot of eggs , making it in many ways better news than a flashier deal with a brand-name restaurant .
Egg @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but it causes just as many problems — making egg replacements a top priority for environmental and animal activists .
Eggless eggs can ’ t do everything eggs can .
But they can do enough .
Eggless eggs took longer to develop than veggie burgers because eggs are tricky to emulate , and there aren ’ t many plant-based protein sources that behave the way eggs do .
Just makes their plant-based eggs from mung beans .
It took a lot of work to find a protein that would scramble ( food scientists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ foam , and cook just like eggs — and even though the Just Egg now makes an omelet just like the one you ’ d get from a chicken egg , there ’ s still work to do to imitate all egg functions .
Consumers rely on the versatility of eggs .
We use them for baking , breading , frying , boiling , and lots of other preparation methods .
No one has yet made a plant-based egg that can beat eggs for every task , and so , while plant-based eggs @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they can ’ t wholly replace chicken eggs yet .
But there ’ s one major egg consumer who doesn ’ t care about egg versatility : the makers of prepared food for restaurants and retailers .
These suppliers buy eggs in huge volumes for millions of egg sandwiches , millions of servings of scrambled eggs , and massive amounts of baked goods .
And plant-based eggs can offer those purchasers some major advantages .
Sodexo has announced their intent to reduce their carbon emissions , and Just ’ s plant-based eggs , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ % less water , 83 % less land and emit 93 % less CO2 than conventional animal sources.
” The deal , then , lets Sodexo reduce its environmental footprint while consumers get a product that tastes pretty much the same .
( I couldn ’ t tell the difference when I tried it . )
Here ’ s something most people probably don ’ t realize : Factory farming of animals for their eggs is as ugly as factory farming of animals for their meat .
Egg-laying chickens are packed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they often don ’ t have enough space to spread their wings , and they experience horrific health problems thanks to the rate at which they produce eggs .
Watchdogs have found that it ’ s not even rare for chickens ’ intestines to partially fall out under the strain .
The overcrowded conditions lead to massive problems with disease outbreaks .
In 2014-2015 , repeat outbreaks of H5N1 avian flu struck birds in 223 separate outbreaks across the country .
More than 50 million hens were killed , either dying of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it from spreading further .
That ’ s not the only problem .
While in nature a chicken might lay 10 to 15 eggs per year , on farms they lay 250 to 300 a year , and the strain does them immense internal damage .
Plus , farms kill economically useless male chicks at birth , sometimes just by tossing them into a meat grinder .
What about natural or organic eggs ?
Disappointingly , most of those labels are meaningless .
The USDA lets companies label their eggs as organic even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never been outdoors , as long as the barn where they ’ re stocked with thousands or tens of thousands of other chickens technically has a screened porch .
The term “ naturally raised ” is even worse — it means nothing at all — while “ natural ” is about additives , not about how the birds were treated .
Another label , “ cage-free , ” isn ’ t meaningless — it ’ s a real improvement in welfare for the chickens , which get enough space to flap their wings @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no outdoor access , dangerous overcrowding , and intestinal damage remain risks .
Some states have passed laws requiring that animals have access to outdoor space , but the egg industry has bitterly opposed such rules .
That ’ s why eggless eggs are an important element in the fight against factory farming .
When we can get cheap egg-like protein from plants , we can stop engineering chickens to produce eggs at an unsustainable , life-threatening rate — without interfering with anyone ’ s enjoyment of a delicious food .
Sign @ @ @ @ @ @ @ we ’ ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world ’ s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good .
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions , grants , and sponsorships .
Learn more here .

Splashy deals involving plant-based food companies tend to make the biggest headlines when they’re with big-name companies — Burger King, McDonald’s, KFC. But we should also pay attention to more low-key agreements with less recognizable names that arguably have a bigger effect on our food system.
Case in point: Thursday’s announcement that Just, a leading producer of plant-based eggs, has partnered with massive international food service provider Sodexo to bring plant-based eggs to the schools, office buildings, hospitals, and other institutions Sodexo serves.
You probably haven’t heard of Sodexo, though they serve 75 million meals every day at 34,000 locations worldwide. And you may not have heard of Just, though the San Francisco-based company told me they’re outselling all branded almond and soy milks to be one of the bestselling plant-based food products in the supermarkets where they’re available.
Sign up for the Meat/Less newsletter course Want to eat less meat but don’t know where to start? Sign up for Vox’s five-day newsletter full of practical tips — and food for thought — to incorporate more plant-based food into your diet.
But the deal is worth paying attention to. It will replace a lot of eggs, making it in many ways better news than a flashier deal with a brand-name restaurant. Egg agriculture gets less attention than meat, but it causes just as many problems — making egg replacements a top priority for environmental and animal activists.
Eggless eggs can’t do everything eggs can. But they can do enough.
Eggless eggs took longer to develop than veggie burgers because eggs are tricky to emulate, and there aren’t many plant-based protein sources that behave the way eggs do.
Just makes their plant-based eggs from mung beans. It took a lot of work to find a protein that would scramble (food scientists call it “gelation”), foam, and cook just like eggs — and even though the Just Egg now makes an omelet just like the one you’d get from a chicken egg, there’s still work to do to imitate all egg functions.
Consumers rely on the versatility of eggs. We use them for baking, breading, frying, boiling, and lots of other preparation methods. No one has yet made a plant-based egg that can beat eggs for every task, and so, while plant-based eggs have carved out their market niche, they can’t wholly replace chicken eggs yet.
But there’s one major egg consumer who doesn’t care about egg versatility: the makers of prepared food for restaurants and retailers. These suppliers buy eggs in huge volumes for millions of egg sandwiches, millions of servings of scrambled eggs, and large amounts of baked goods. And plant-based eggs can offer those purchasers some major advantages. Sodexo has announced their intent to reduce their carbon emissions, and Just’s plant-based eggs, the company says, “use 98% less water, 83% less land and emit 93% less CO2 than conventional animal sources.”
The deal, then, lets Sodexo reduce its environmental footprint while consumers get a product that tastes pretty much the same. (I couldn’t tell the difference when I tried it.)
The problem with egg agriculture
Here’s something most people probably don’t realize: Factory farming of animals for their eggs is as ugly as factory farming of animals for their meat.
Egg-laying chickens are packed by the tens of thousands into small barns where they often don’t have enough space to spread their wings, and they experience horrific health problems thanks to the rate at which they produce eggs. Watchdogs have found that it’s not even rare for chickens’ intestines to partially fall out under the strain.
The overcrowded conditions lead to massive problems with disease outbreaks. In 2014-2015, repeat outbreaks of H5N1 avian flu struck birds in 223 separate outbreaks across the country. More than 50 million hens were killed, either dying of the flu or slaughtered in efforts to prevent it from spreading further.
That’s not the only problem. While in nature a chicken might lay 10 to 15 eggs per year, on farms they lay 250 to 300 a year, and the strain does them immense internal damage. Plus, farms kill economically useless male chicks at birth, sometimes just by tossing them into a meat grinder.
What about natural or organic eggs? Disappointingly, most of those labels are meaningless. The USDA lets companies label their eggs as organic even if they come from chickens that have never been outdoors, as long as the barn where they’re stocked with thousands or tens of thousands of other chickens technically has a screened porch. The term “naturally raised” is even worse — it means nothing at all — while “natural” is about additives, not about how the birds were treated.
Another label, “cage-free,” isn’t meaningless — it’s a real improvement in welfare for the chickens, which get enough space to flap their wings and turn around. But massive barns, no outdoor access, dangerous overcrowding, and intestinal damage remain risks. Some states have passed laws requiring that animals have access to outdoor space, but the egg industry has bitterly opposed such rules.
That’s why eggless eggs are an important element in the fight against factory farming. When we can get cheap egg-like protein from plants, we can stop engineering chickens to produce eggs at an unsustainable, life-threatening rate — without interfering with anyone’s enjoyment of a delicious food.
Sign up for the Future Perfect newsletter and we’ll send you a roundup of ideas and solutions for tackling the world’s biggest challenges — and how to get better at doing good.
vox-mark Sign up for the newsletter Future Perfect Each week, we explore unique solutions to some of the world's biggest problems. Thanks for signing up! Check your inbox for a welcome email. Email (required) Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again. By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . You can opt out at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. For more newsletters, check out our newsletters page Subscribe
Future Perfect is funded in part by individual contributions, grants, and sponsorships. Learn more here.