The prevailing wisdom following the 9/11 terror attacks was that a single federal agency tasked with protecting America from national security threats would be more effective than the existing patchwork-bureaucracy. Thus, the Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002 to keep America safe from terrorism. Many conservatives at the time cautioned that limits on the new Department’s jurisdiction were needed to guard against inevitable “mission creep”; to no avail. Nearly 15 years later, those fears have come true with a vengeance. Homeland Security has become the government’s third-largest Cabinet-level agency; with a jurisdiction expanded far beyond its original charter. Like all successful government agencies, Homeland Security understands the basic law of bureaucratic physics – no matter how much power you have, always seek more. …show more content…
“I think it’s kind of the nose under the tent,” Vermont Secretary of State Jim Condos, told Politico, “[a]ll of a sudden [leading] to something else.” Granting Homeland Security similar authority to that which it already enjoys in 16 other government-defined “critical infrastructure sectors,” would allow it to assert jurisdiction over some 9,000 jurisdictions across the country involved in the electoral process. The move would be unprecedented, not only legally, but also in how deep its reach would penetrate into local communities. First, it would set a dangerous precedent that the “threat” of an election hacking event is in and of itself sufficient justification for the federal government to assert and exercise power it never was intended to have. Furthermore, its role in elections would be defined presumably after it assumed power over elections; leaving states with only the illusion of retaining control of their