|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Among the many follies in which modern governance indulges, few are as indefensible as skimping on election security—a dereliction as baffling as it is dangerous. The republic remains ours “if we can keep it.” That solemn imperative requires more than solemn rhetoric; it demands investment in the mechanisms that ensure its survival. A government that spares no expense in funding aircraft carriers, interstate highways, and border security must likewise recognize the necessity of shoring up the integrity of its elections.
Consider the stark arithmetic of national priorities: In President Trump’s first term, federal investment in election security averaged a modest $400 million annually. This was not an act of extravagance but of prudence—a strategic measure to fortify the democratic process against both domestic negligence and foreign predation. By contrast, the latest congressional budgetary nod toward election security, a paltry $15 million, is the kind of half-measure that satisfies no one but those already inclined to neglect their duties. It is the equivalent of bolting a flimsy lock onto a treasure chest while leaving the back door ajar.
To those with even a passing acquaintance with history, the threat is neither hypothetical nor hyperbolic. Cyber interference by hostile regimes, whether from Beijing, Tehran, or other global antagonists—is no longer a speculative threat scrawled in the fevered notebooks of conspiracy theorists. It is an ongoing reality, as certain as the rising of the sun and the issuing of government regulations. Failing to meet these threats with robust countermeasures is not mere fiscal irresponsibility; it is an abdication of national sovereignty.
Alabama, to its credit, has refused complacency. Thanks to past federal investments, election officials have reinforced their systems and modernized equipment. But let us not be naive: a firewall installed five years ago is not a permanent safeguard. The tools of subversion evolve, and so must our defenses.
In this context, Alabama is fortunate to have Senator Katie Britt positioned on the influential Appropriations Committee, where she has the opportunity to ensure that election security remains a national priority rather than a neglected afterthought. That a republic should provide adequately for its own perpetuation should not be a matter of partisan haggling, but of elementary political hygiene.
To those concerned with federal spending, here is a proposition that even the most ascetic budget hawk should appreciate: money spent on prevention is vastly cheaper than money spent on remediation. The price of a secure election system is measured in millions; the cost of a compromised one is measured in the erosion of public trust, the chaos of contested outcomes, and the slow, cynical unraveling of democracy itself.
The $15 million earmarked in the recent continuing resolution is, at best, a tepid overture—an acknowledgment of duty rather than its fulfillment. The republic deserves better. The question remains whether we will pay the modest price of vigilance today or the exorbitant cost of failure tomorrow.
