Do US states have the funds they need for election security, or don't they?

[naita]

Okay, so “The Republican-controlled House on Thursday eliminated new funding for states to strengthen election security” giving democrats in congress and anyone opposing the GOP on twitter something to shout about. It certainly looks bad to me from a cursory glance.

Further down in the article though we get to this:

States still have money left from the current $380 million appropriation, and lawmakers have not been made aware of any new requests for more money as the November midterm elections approach, he said.

Sessions called the Democrats’ argument a “shrewd political shenanigan that has no merit to it.”

Which could be a valid counter argument, or it could be nonsense, and the journalist doesn’t dig into it. I don’t know where to look for a deeper analysis though, so teeming millions, does Sessions have a point here? Or do the democratic side have a better position?

Will additional money just sit there unused, or will it spur additional programs? Are additional programs necessary or is the current funds all that is needed for any reasonable effort in the near future?

[naita]

This was evidently too dry and technical a question to inspire a reply, but I thought I’d give it at least one bump.

Was the suggested increase in funds a necessity, or meaningless political signaling?

[John_Mace]

When I saw this thread earlier, I was going to say “well, there’s already a thread on the subject, so maybe that’s why no interest”. But the thread was in the Pit, so I didn’t. Now I see that Miller moved that thread to this forum.

You’re doomed.