In 2017, when the U.S. Department of Homeland Security declared the electoral system “critical infrastructure,” state and local election officials around the country were forced to take cybersecurity much more seriously. And it wasn’t long before physical threats and misinformation also became a greater concern. 

In North Carolina, state board of elections director Karen Brinson Bell said the DHS’s designation “didn’t take anything off her plate.” Instead, the responsibilities of election officials like her only grew, especially in battleground states like North Carolina.

In the lead up to this year’s election, Brinson Bell said “everything is a concern” when it comes to election security. Like her counterparts across the region, she’s especially focused on cybersecurity, preventing physical threats and battling misinformation around the elections process, while communicating to voters that the electoral system in North Carolina is actually safe and secure. 

“We had to become much more adept at telling our story, being accessible to the public, helping them understand what is really a complex, methodical, multilayer process in all that we do,” Brinson Bell said. “And it’s not soundbite friendly.”

Other states in the region like Pennsylvania, which was at the center of the 2020 election denial campaign and is considered a “must-win” for both former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris in this year’s presidential race, are also confronting the same concerns as North Carolina. 

Earlier this year, Pennsylvania launched a task force focused on election threats like misinformation related to the adoption of new voting systems and no-excuse mail-in voting.  

“In recent years, we’ve seen bad-faith actors attempt to exploit these changes by spreading lies and baseless conspiracy theories, and attempting to delegitimize our safe, secure and accurate elections,” said Pennsylvania Secretary of the Commonwealth Al Schmidt in a February news release. “This task force has been working together to develop and coordinate plans to combat this dangerous misinformation and continue providing all eligible voters with accurate, trusted election information.”

2020 Hindsight

Many election officials didn’t have a plan for handling the 2020 presidential election fallout, Brinson Bell said. From protests fueled by misinformation and lawsuits seeking to overturn the results, states like Georgia and Pennsylvania were mired in controversy, and North Carolina was “just on the bubble” of facing the same issues. 

“For North Carolina, we have to think about, what can we learn from those states?” Brinson Bell said. “It’s unfortunate what they went through, but it’s unfortunate if we don’t learn from it.” 

In North Carolina, according to one recent poll, nearly 50% of those who responded said they won’t believe the results of the election.  

One major focus for Brinson Bell is making sure that voters understand the election process and how it actually operates — even promoting physical transparency at the county level, like urging election staff to use clear plastic tubs with labels to store ballots instead of recycled cardboard boxes. 

“That’s not election jargon,” Brinson Bell said, “but it’s something clear to the public.” 

Now, Georgia, another battleground state in the region, is mired in controversy surrounding its state election board, which recently approved new rules that critics believe will “sow confusion, compromise ballot security and potentially enable rogue county boards to block certification of election results in November,” according to reporting by the Washington Post.  

Later this month, the board is scheduled to vote on whether to require counties to count ballots by hand at each precinct, which critics believe could produce inaccurate results and be less secure. 

Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger described the election board as “a mess,” and told the Washington Post, “Legal precedent is pretty clear. You shouldn’t change rules in the middle of an election.” 

Physical Security, New Rules and Turnover

Elections officials are also working to boost physical security in the lead-up to the election. 

In North Carolina, Brinson Bell said workers are securing doors and installing panic buttons at county elections offices. Staff are also being trained in de-escalation techniques to counter voter intimidation and other physical threats. Earlier this year, Georgia passed an election security law requiring police to take a one-hour class on election laws, which also included training in de-escalation, though the new law doesn’t go into effect until 2025. 

In North Carolina, a 2023 voter identification law will be in effect for this year’s election and photo ID will be required. Mississippi, Georgia, Tennessee and Ohio also have strict photo ID requirements for voting.

Staff turnover, specifically county election directors, has been another concern of Brinson Bell, who earlier this summer said more than 60% of county election directors have left their post since 2019. For many of the replacements, she said, this will be their first presidential election. 

“While there’s much that’s the same processes and routines, the volume, the intense scrutiny and being a battleground state with so many high profile contests on our ballot this year, it’s just a different environment to be a new director,” Brinson Bell said.  

Urban-Rural Divide

It’s not just Appalachia’s battleground states taking election security seriously. Other states in the region are also working to combat misinformation and thwart physical and cybersecurity threats.

Deak Kersey, chief deputy and chief of staff for the West Virginia Secretary of State’s Office, said the state has focused on cybersecurity since DHS’s critical infrastructure designation went into effect. 

“West Virginia was not in a great spot eight years ago,” Kersey said. “Nobody knew what cybersecurity really was, as far as the Feds really considered it.” 

Since then, the state has pushed to disperse Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, funds to counties, which have used the funds to update voting equipment, like purchasing new ballot-marking equipment that’s ADA accessible and electronic poll books. In August, the state election commission approved sending nearly $1 million in HAVA funds to 24 counties. 

DHS also awarded $1 million to North Carolina this year, but the money can’t be spent until the state’s General Assembly authorizes it. If and when it does, then the state elections office will have to decide whether to disperse it between counties or keep some of it at the state level to continue funding a statewide cybersecurity expert to monitor for doxing, denial-of-service attacks, phishing schemes and other online threats.  

“I don’t mean to make light of a million dollars, but that doesn’t go far in a state with 100 counties,” Brinson Bell said.

The funding issues hit especially hard in the state’s rural counties.

“I think some of the concerns in Western North Carolina really are reflective of sort of that rural-urban divide in North Carolina — the economically distressed counties versus those that are prospering more,” Brinson Bell said. 

It’s a concern across Appalachia, where most of the region is rural. And while federal funding will help, elections officials have less than two months left before the election to see how far it will go to update equipment, implement new security measures and hire new people to replace outgoing directors.