Bill Overview
Title: Protect Our Elections Act
Description: This bill requires each state or local government entity responsible for the administration of federal elections to ensure that each election service provider (i.e., contractor or vendor) is a qualified provider with regard to (1) the ownership and control of the provider, (2) the provider's compliance with cybersecurity best practices, and (3) the provider's reporting of its ownership and control. The bill requires the entity to annually evaluate each provider. The bill also specifies reporting requirements for providers, subject to civil penalties.
Sponsors: Rep. Van Drew, Jefferson [R-NJ-2]
Target Audience
Population: People participating in federal elections, primarily voters
Estimated Size: 258000000
- The legislation impacts all individuals who participate in federal elections as it addresses the security and integrity of the voting process.
- By ensuring qualified providers with secure voting systems, the bill aims to protect the votes of all registered voters in federal elections, who are typically citizens over the age of 18.
- The legislation mandates compliance with cybersecurity best practices, directly affecting service providers and indirectly benefiting voters by aiming to prevent election interference.
- The requirement for annual evaluations and reporting by providers could lead to changes in election technologies and procedures, affecting how millions of individuals cast their votes.
Reasoning
- The policy is primarily aimed at enhancing the cybersecurity and reliability of elections in the U.S., which aims to benefit all voters by ensuring the integrity of their votes.
- The policy would particularly be relevant for citizens involved in voting and those working in or with electoral services that might undergo changes in their operational systems.
- It is essential to consider that not all citizens may perceive immediate personal benefits from changes in electoral service providers—it would primarily be about increased trust in the system.
- The cost-effectiveness of such a policy would rely heavily on the size and scope of changes required to achieve compliance with the new standards and the monitoring regime it intends to set up.
- Implementation might initially affect more urban zones where vendor scales are large and systems are sophisticated, given the higher number of votes and dependencies involved.
- The policy could have indirect effects on individuals' sense of security and trust in the voting process, impacting engagement and participation.
Simulated Interviews
IT Security Specialist (New York City, NY)
Age: 43 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy sounds quite necessary in today's digital landscape.
- I'm usually concerned about election integrity issues, and this act addresses some of those concerns with a focus on qualified providers in cybersecurity.
- On a personal level, I think increased vigilance should make the election process more trustworthy for all.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Entrepreneur (Austin, TX)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like the idea that our election system is being updated and secured because I think trust is fundamental.
- While I might not feel day-to-day changes, knowing my vote is secure is really important for participation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired teacher (Boise, ID)
Age: 66 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring knowing the elections process will be more secure and vendors will be held accountable.
- I have participated in elections for decades and knowing my votes are securely counted is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Election Technology Developer (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy means massive compliance shifts and potentially more secure systems, but it might be costly to providers and users alike.
- The technological upgrade is good, but costs and transition could be taxing.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Chicago, IL)
Age: 48 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Honestly, I don't feel the change impacting my daily life too much, but it seems like a positive legal framework for secure elections.
- It's good to know efforts are being made to protect our votes.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Agricultural Worker (Rural Ohio)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm supportive of this act if it ensures no one messes with my vote.
- Rural areas have different priorities, but fair and secure elections are our rights.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Cybersecurity Consultant (Seattle, WA)
Age: 38 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- From a cybersecurity perspective, this is a move in the right direction.
- The bill should enhance trust in electronic voting systems, which is crucial in today's climate.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Nurse (Miami, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There's been a lot of talk about election security and, personally, I'd feel better knowing something tangible is happening to protect my vote.
- There can be unseen benefits in trust and participation strength.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
College student (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 21 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In this digital era, I think improved cybersecurity is critical, and this policy appears to focus on that.
- Voting is our responsibility and knowing my contributions are safe is valuable.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Legal Aid Attorney (Atlanta, GA)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Ensuring provider accountability is crucial in today's interconnected systems.
- This can lead to broader legal frameworks enhancing civic trusts but the proof will be in consistent execution.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $510000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $620000000)
Year 3: $520000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $630000000)
Year 5: $540000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $650000000)
Year 10: $570000000 (Low: $470000000, High: $690000000)
Year 100: $700000000 (Low: $600000000, High: $800000000)
Key Considerations
- The act may necessitate significant costs for state and local entities charged with ensuring compliance and setting up new evaluation mechanisms.
- Cybersecurity improvements can have long-term benefits, potentially outstripping initial costs by reducing vulnerabilities and maintaining the integrity of elections.
- There's potential for indirect economic benefits through job creation in cybersecurity roles.