U.S. Election Assistance Commission expands use of election security funds to include countering AI-generated disinformation
Author
![Paige-Mellerio-2.png Image of Paige-Mellerio-2.png](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/610x610/public/Paige-Mellerio-2.png?h=b62b62f2&itok=-6kLMab9)
Paige Mellerio
Upcoming Events
Related News
![Voting machines](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/807x448/public/2024-02/GettyImages-1388632328.jpg?h=49d30c4b&itok=Wo8xz7uK)
Key Takeaways
On February 14, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) unanimously voted to allow Help America Vote Act (HAVA)-authorized election security grant funds to be used to combat election disinformation generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI).
What’s the EAC?
The EAC was established by HAVA to make grants to states and local governments and to serve as the national clearinghouse for information and best practices on election administration. The commission is 4 Senate-confirmed Commissioners, 2 from each political party.
More on the EAC and their role in elections here.
How can election security grants be used to combat AI-generated disinformation?
Election security grant funds can now be used to fund voter education and the promotion of trusted information communications on accurate voting procedures, voting laws and voting technology to counter disinformation generated from AI.
- What else can election security grants be used for? Election security grants can be used to improve the administration of elections for federal office, such as enhancing the cybersecurity of and upgrading voting equipment, voter outreach and post-election auditing costs
- In April 2022 the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) determined that physical security services and social media threat monitoring are eligible uses of HAVA grant funds amid increased threats and harassment towards election workers
Can counties access these funds?
HAVA-authorized funds are traditionally granted at the state-level, meaning each state’s chief election official or office is the primary recipient of federal election administration grant funds.
Learn more about how counties access these critical funds here.
Resource
The County Role in Elections: How Counties Administer Secure and Accurate Elections
![GettyImages-1203196311 (1).jpg Image of GettyImages-1203196311 (1).jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/667x579/public/GettyImages-1203196311%20%281%29.jpg?h=43da5d21&itok=3YDDNFaV)
Related News
![Fishing boat](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/2024-07/GettyImages-1478187164.jpg?h=80e376df&itok=iidfURh6)
U.S. Supreme Court overturns the Chevron doctrine to reshape the federal administrative state
In major ruling, U.S. Supreme Court overturns longstanding precedent deferring to federal agency interpretation of ambiguous statute.
![LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg Image of LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/LACounty-Homelessness_vidthumb.jpg?h=2067eb94&itok=0ROwwCGO)
U.S. Supreme Court protects key flexibility for county governments responding to homelessness
On June 28, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in Grants Pass v. Johnson, a case of major significance for counties working to develop comprehensive responses to the homelessness crisis.
![Opioid-pills_4.jpg Image of Opioid-pills_4.jpg](https://www.naco.org/sites/default/files/styles/385x285/public/Opioid-pills_4_0.jpg?h=d73c3389&itok=_kAR4tLC)
U.S. Supreme Court decision halts Purdue Pharma opioid settlement
Supreme Court ruling upends $6 billion settlement agreement between Purdue Pharma and impacted state, county and tribal governments and residents.