White House blocks bill that would protect elections

Putin love fest on full display again.


A bill that would have significantly bolstered the nation’s defenses against electoral interference has been held up in the Senate at the behest of the White House, which opposed the proposed legislation, according to congressional sources.

The Secure Elections Act, introduced by Sen. James Lankford, R-Okla., in December 2017, had co-sponsorship from two of the Senate’s most prominent liberals, Kamala Harris, D-Calif., and Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn., as well as from conservative stalwart Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and consummate centrist Susan Collins, R-Me.

Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., was set to conduct a markup of the bill on Wednesday morning in the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs. The bill had widespread support, including from some of the committee’s Republican members, and was expected to come to a full Senate vote in October. But then the chairman’s mark, as the critical step is known, was canceled, and no explanation was given.

Jesus- won’t the GOP and the Trumpistas ever get sick of this clown…

Not as long as he keeps saying the things they’ve longed to hear in public for the last 20 years.

I am Jack’s complete lack of surprise.

The article states that the WH spokesperson is saying the DHS already does this. So one must ask: is DHS doing anything presently to protect elections?

I found this:

this is fine, if the white house says its not broken why fix it?

1 Like

It’s easy to get upset by the media sound bites.

And the administration claims that DHS already has the powers this legislation proposed, so it’s just duplicate bureaucracy.

All the articles I see don’t mention the Administration’s opposition, or at best, buries it deep in the article. Instead they give the impression that the Administration doesn’t want better security.

The articles also assert “significant” bolstering from this initiative, but don’t specify how.

This issue (and media coverage) are a great example of media spin.

The DHS is apparently well able to handle this with current legislation and Dem media have turned this into a conspiracy by Trump and are ready to throw it in as about clause 15 of their imagined articles of impeachment that they are salivating over.

Nice bit of hyperbole.

From the article. This is the kicker more federal government control over the states. I’m betting most states want no part of this.

Perhaps most significantly, the law would mandate that every state conduct a statistically significant audit following a federal election. It would also incentivize the purchase of voting machines that leave a paper record of votes cast, as opposed to some all-electronic models that do not. This would signify a marked shift away from all-electronic voting, which was encouraged with the passage of the Help Americans Vote Act in 2002.

The post where p-a-b says paper ballots are bad.

Paper isn’t good or bad. The stickler is the federal government mandating the states to do something that will likely cost them a lot of money. In any case, much of the legislation looks like a duplication things the DHS already does.

Nice back track.

Paper ballots are not hackable. They have issues, but hackers cannot hack paper ballots.

Not much hyperbole. The Yahoo headline is as follows:

“White House blocks bill that would protect elections”;

To anyone just scanning through it looks like for sure the WH wants to keep elections from being protected. The story below may be true, but the headline makes it a form of Fake News.

Did they block the bill?


What is inaccurate about that headline?

Its not inaccurate, its misleading. Yahoo is creating the false impression that the WH didn’t want secure elections. When you first see the headline that’s what you think…unless you are familiar with the way Yahoo News works, then you assume anything they say is probably misleading.

1 Like

There is no back track but you are making a strawman argument. My argument has nothing to do with the viability of paper ballots.


What a maroon. :roll_eyes:

How is it misleading?

Did the WH block it or not?

You had no “argument”. You copied and pasted a section of the article as if it made some point you failed to explain.