Interesting little PDF from 2019. Elizabeth Warren
HIG MCCarthy & Staple Street Letters
https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/H.I.G.%20McCarthy,%20&%20Staple%20Street%20letters.pdf
Over the last two decades, the election technology industry has become highly concentrated,
with a handful of consolidated vendors controlling the vast majority of the market. In the early
2000s, almost twenty vendors competed in the election technology market.4 Today, three large
vendors-Election Systems & Software, Dominion Voting Systems, and Hart InterCiviccollectively provide voting machines and software that facilitate voting for over 90% of all
eligible voters in the United States.
5 Private equity firms reportedly own or control each of these
vendors, with very limited "information availabl~ in the public domain about their operations and
financial perfonnance."6 While experts estimate that the total revenue for election technology
vendors is about $300 million, there is no publicly available information on how much those
vendors dedicate to research and development, maintenance of voting systems, or profits and
executive compensation.
Concentration in the election technology market and the fact that vendors are often "more
seasoned in voting machine and technical services contract negotiations" than local election
officials, give these companies incredible power in their negotiations with local and state
governments. As a result, jurisdictions are often caught in expensive agreements in which the
same vendor both sells or leases, and repairs and maintains voting systems-leaving local officials
dependent on the vendor, and the vendor with little incentive to substantially overhaul and
improve its products.8 In fact, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), the primary federal
body responsible for developing voluntary guidance on voting technology standards, advises
state and local officials to consider "the cost to purchase or lease, operate, and maintain a voting
system over its life span .. . [and to] know how the vendor(s) plan to be profitable" when signing
contracts, because vendors typically make their profits by ensuring ''that they will be around to
maintain it after the sale.'' The EAC has warned election officials that "[i]f you do not manage
the vendors, they will manage you." 9
10 However, voting machines are reportedly falling apart across
the country, as vendors neglect to innovate and improve important voting systems, putting our
elections at avoidable and increased risk. 11 In 2015, election officials in at least 31 states,
representing approximately 40 million registered voters, reported that their voting machines
needed to be updated, with almost every state "using some machines that are no longer
manufactured."12 Moreover, even when state and local officials work on replacing antiquated
machines, many continue to "run on old software that will soon be outdated and more vulnerable
to hackers."13
==In 2018 alone "voters in South Carolina [were] reporting machines that switched their votes after
they'd inputted them, scanners [were] rejecting paper ballots in Missouri, and busted machines
[were] causing long lines in Indiana."14 In addition, researchers recently uncovered previously
undisclosed vulnerabilities in "nearly three dozen backend election systems in 10 states."== 15 And,
just this year, after the Democratic candidate's electronic tally showed he received an improbable
164 votes out of 55,000 cast in a Pennsylvania state judicial election in 2019, the county's
Republican Chairwoman said, " [ n ]othing went right on Election Day. Everything went wrong.
That's a problem."16 These problems threaten the integrity of our elections and demonstrate the
importance of election systems that are strong, durable, and not vulnerable to attack.
Interesting little PDF from 2019. Elizabeth Warren