Top election leaders worry ‘terrifying’ AI will dupe voters | #elections | #alabama

The potential use of content-generating artificial intelligence and deepfake videos to sway or dupe voters is a growing concern of secretaries of state across the country, according to interviews with a dozen and a half top election leaders at their semi-annual gathering held this week in the nation’s capital. “This is the number one issue that we’re talking about behind the scenes at this conference,” said Kentucky Secretary of State Michael Adams. “It’s a big concern,” echoed David Scanlan, secretary of state in New Hampshire. Scott Schwab, the secretary of state in Kansas and newly-installed president of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS), said the challenge of AI in campaigns and elections is “very real, very fast.”Nebraska Secretary of State Robert Evnen warned, “It can also be very damaging and destructive.”Legislation focuses on deepfakesPhil McGrane, who oversees Idaho elections as secretary of state, said he recently tried out a generative AI tool – and quickly discovered its fallibility. “I had it write a bio of me, and it provided information that was written very persuasively but was, in fact, inaccurate.”A few states are starting to take legislative action. In Washington, Steve Hobbs, the secretary of state, said he helped introduce legislation, signed into law in May by Gov. Jay Inslee, that “goes after the deepfakes” by requiring disclosure of manipulated videos in political ads. Such AI-distorted videos make it appear a speaker said something that, in reality, they did not. “We have to get ahead of this threat,” Hobbs said.WATCH FULL INTERVIEWS WITH TOP STATE ELECTION LEADERS AT THE END OF THIS STORY.“I think that it’s just going to make our job harder as election officials and statewide leaders,” said Vermont Secretary of State Sarah Copeland Hanzas. At a briefing Tuesday about AI during the NASS conference, Tim Davis at the Center for Internet Security warned election administrators that “there isn’t one individual, magical thing you can do that would stop all this.” Instead, election officials were advised to use free fraud detection tools, have a plan for a “single source of truth” when generative AI election disinformation begins to spread in their states, and promote media literacy among their constituents. Steve Simon, secretary of state in Minnesota, said in an interview “We, in a democracy business, have to double down on leading with the truth.”“We have to be ready,” said Iowa Secretary of State Paul Pate, for the day when a deepfake of an election leader falsely says voting has been cancelled or rescheduled. That prospect is “terrifying,” said Maggie Toulouse Oliver, secretary of state in New Mexico.States quitting anti-fraud groupBut if election leaders were united on the challenges of AI at this week’s conference – the last before presidential primary voting begins next year – they were clearly divided on how best to detect and prevent voter fraud.So far, nine states, all with Republicans leading their elections, have quit or are quitting the Electronic Registration Information Center, known as ERIC: Alabama, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Ohio, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia. At least five more states are considering leaving or are proposing to make it harder to join in the first place, including Alaska, Arizona, Kentucky, North Carolina, and Oklahoma. In Arizona, a bill to withdraw from ERIC passed both houses of the Republican-controlled legislature earlier this year but was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, who is a former secretary of state. ERIC’s website says it helps states share voter registration data to catch double voting or voters registered in multiple states and helps identify eligible but unregistered voters. The group’s leadership declined repeated requests for an interview about the controversy. As more states drop out, however, some top election leaders say it’s no longer worth the financial cost to taxpayers, which for most states is under $100,000 per year.“Certainly, we’re not getting the bang for the buck,” said Iowa’s Pate, who withdrew his state from participation earlier this year. “Our problem,” explained West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner, “was the barriers to entry in ERIC; they’re stuck at about 31, 32 states, and it wasn’t going to go past that.”But other secretaries said they have no intention of leaving the data-sharing group, which they argue has been unfairly maligned by conspiracy theorists and far-right groups. “It is still the best tool that has ever been invented in the United States of America to prevent fraud,” said Stephanie Thomas, secretary of the state of Connecticut. ‘Sweeping exodus’ of election workersAnother challenge facing many states: election workers quitting amid an onslaught of threats, persistent lies about the 2020 presidential election results, and a lack of resources. Survey results released in April by the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan law and policy institute, showed one in five election workers plan to quit before next year’s presidential election.Nearly two-thirds of the top election administrators interviewed by the Hearst Television National Investigative Unit this week, including Rhode Island Secretary of State Gregg Amore, said they are seeing a higher-than-normal turnover of election workers and administrators. Nevada Deputy Secretary of State for Elections Mark Wlaschin called it a “pretty sweeping exodus.”“In 12 of our 15 counties, we’ve lost a senior election official,” said Adrian Fontes, secretary of state in Arizona. “We’re dealing with a plague of folks leaving the profession now.”In Pennsylvania, where former Philadelphia City Commissioner Al Schmidt, a Republican, was recently appointed as secretary of the commonwealth by Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro, the loss of veteran election workers presents a serious risk, Schmidt said. “When experienced people leave and they’re replaced with less experienced people, they’re more likely to make mistakes, and make mistakes in an environment where everything is perceived as being malicious and intentional and seeking to change the outcome of an election,” he said.In Maine, Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, whose state is also facing turnover, said in response her office is “ramping up training for our clerks, as well as threat assessment and reporting.”Mark Albert is the chief national investigative correspondent for the Hearst Television National Investigative Unit, based in Washington D.C. Tamika Cody, Reid Bolton, David Barcenas, and Carla O contributed to this report. If you know of election security concerns you want us to investigate, send confidential information and documents to the National Investigative Unit at investigate@hearst.com.Watch full interviews with top state election leaders from across the country below: Arizona Secretary of State Adrian FontesConnecticut Secretary of the State Stephanie ThomasIdaho Secretary of State Phil McGraneIowa Secretary of State Paul PateKansas Secretary of State Scott SchwabKentucky Secretary of State Michael AdamsMaine Secretary of State Shenna BellowsMinnesota Secretary of State Steve SimonMississippi Secretary of State Michael WatsonNebraska Secretary of State Robert EvnenNevada Deputy Secretary for Elections Mark WlaschinNew Hampshire Secretary of State David ScanlanNew Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse OliverPennsylvania Secretary of State Al SchmidtRhode Island Secretary of State Gregg AmoreVermont Secretary of State Sarah Copeland HanzasWashington Secretary of State Steve HobbsWest Virginia Secretary of State Mac WarnerThe Hearst Television National Investigative Unit’s ongoing series on election security: Part 1: Gaps in Preparedness Part 2: White House Response Part 3: Voting Vulnerabilities San Francisco Chronicle (print) version DIGITAL EXTRA: Kid Hackers Part 4: Cyber Combat Part 5: Election Security Summit (Day 1; Day 2) Part 6: Troll Hunters SPECIAL: Election Security 30-minute Special Part 7: Paper Ballots Part 8: Lack of Funds Part 9: Operation Blackout Part 10: Digital Disinformation Part 11: Voting App Hack Part 12: Deleting the Deception Part 13: Spotting the Spin Part 14: 2020 Election Summit Part 15: Election Exposure Part 16: Election Exposure Checkup Part 17: Return to Sender Part 18: Inside the Intelligence (Part 1; Part 2) Part 19: Grading the Election (Part 1; Part 2; Part 3) Part 20: Under Review Part 21: Securing the Midterms Part 22: Safeguarding the Midterms Part 23: Lessons Learned Part 24: Fight Over Fraud