When Russian interference was exposed in the lead-up to the 2020 election, there was widespread concern that foreign powers could significantly disrupt electoral processes and distort the results. Amid a highly polarised environment, a host of concerns emerged from law enforcement agencies to local elections officials. These included preparing for potential disputes over ballot counting, setting up paper backups in case of disruptions to voting systems, and tracking the flow of money to Nashville-based companies involved in spreading Russia’s narrative.
Those concerns proved unfounded, and the US election went smoothly. But that shouldn’t serve as a reason to ignore the many ongoing threats against democracy. As the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab (DFRLab) explains, this year’s malign influence campaigns appear to surpass previous ones in sophistication and scope—even if they have not yet had significant impact.
The threat of prosecution can have a dramatic effect on the ability to protect voters and election officials from these threats. If a local official were to fear that their efforts to prevent interference might not be rewarded, they might be more inclined to engage in potentially illegal conduct such as aggressively purging voters from the rolls or to bolster their own cause by promoting disinformation and doubt about election integrity. Similarly, a federal agency head who is concerned that his or her picks might be prosecuted for investigating perceived adversaries of the president may be more likely to enable interference. The revolving door between state and federal offices can create a powerful incentive to undermine democracy for personal gain.