It is essential for the preservation of our national republic that the integrity of the U.S.‘ electoral process be guarded from both fraud and citizen disenfranchisement. Recently the FBI noted that it found voter registration information had been hacked in the states of Arizona and Illinois. Suggestions have been made that the Russians were responsible, however, security experts have said that the hacking of actually voting machines was less likely.

In the wake of the 9/11 terror attack, the Department of Homeland Security designated 16 sectors of American society deemed as critical to the functioning of the nation. The electoral process was not included in this list as it was understood that the nation would be functional for a while even if an election issue were to arise. Yet with these recent hackings fueling fears of potential voter fraud, there has been talk from DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson of adding the electoral system to its list of critical systems. This idea has not found much favor with conservatives. Even DHS does not see this recent hack as constituting a serious threat. So why this suggestion that DHS become more involved in “protecting” the electoral processes?

The answer may ride upon the push by Washington for a nationalized voting system verses the highly decentralized system currently in place. With each of the 50 states responsible for conducting elections, and there being over 9,000 different election jurisdictions in this country, the argument for a more centralized system may sound appealing. However, the mere fact that the nation’s election system is so decentralized protects it from electronic voter fraud.

What is ironic is on the one hand liberals are adamantly opposed to voter ID laws, and yet on the other hand they argue for centralizing of the nation’s electoral system for the sake of protecting the integrity of the vote. As Investor’s Business Daily stated, “This is not just a bad idea; it is dangerous. America’s polling functions have long been managed at the state and local level, to ensure that our mammoth federal government doesn’t get involved. It should stay that way. This government has stood by as an unprecedented series of cyberattacks have stolen our secrets and endangered our security. We should give them more power? Letting our elephantine government get its giant proboscis under the tent flap for reasons of 'national interest’ is opening up the possibility of political meddling in elections by government officials — either through actual intervention in the running and management of polling places, or by clever regulation that favors one party over another.”