Trump’s Executive Order on Election Overhaul Sparks Controversy Over Coded Ballots
Former President Donald Trump’s executive order aimed at revamping U.S. elections contained a seemingly minor provision targeting the use of barcodes and QR codes on ballots. This directive, however, has the potential to significantly impact voting procedures in numerous states. Nineteen states, including three (Georgia, South Carolina, and Delaware) that use such systems statewide, utilize voting machines that generate ballots containing these codes. While some computer scientists, Democrats, and election activists have expressed concerns about these systems, proponents of conspiracy theories surrounding the 2020 election have seized upon the issue, alleging manipulation despite lacking evidence. Trump justified the order as a measure to "protect election integrity."
The controversy surrounding coded ballots centers on the method by which votes are tallied. In traditional systems, voters mark their choices on paper ballots, which are then fed through tabulating machines. These ballots can be retrieved for recounts. In contrast, systems using coded ballots involve voters making selections on touch-screen machines, which then generate a paper record containing a barcode or QR code. This code is scanned to count the vote. Election officials using these systems maintain they are secure and routinely tested to ensure accuracy, comparing results against the retained paper records. Despite these assurances, coded ballots have become a focal point for election conspiracy theories.
Critics argue that the use of barcodes and QR codes introduces vulnerabilities to manipulation and malware. They point to a legal battle over Georgia’s voting system, in which a computer scientist testified about potential security risks. This testimony, however, has been misconstrued to support unsubstantiated claims of election fraud, despite no evidence of actual exploitation. While some election officials defend the accuracy of coded ballot systems, others acknowledge the erosion of public trust. Colorado, for instance, discontinued the use of QR codes on ballots in 2019, citing the importance of voter confidence.
Trump’s executive order faces legal challenges, with some questioning his authority to direct the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, an independent agency established by Congress. The commission sets voluntary guidelines for voting systems, which not all states adhere to. The order’s provision banning coded ballots instructs the commission to incorporate this ban into its guidelines. Furthermore, the order withholds federal funding for states transitioning away from these systems, while exempting equipment used by voters with disabilities.
The potential financial burden of replacing existing voting systems poses a significant challenge for many counties. Some officials express confidence in the accuracy of their current systems, while others are preparing to implement changes. Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, for example, plans to update its voting machines to remove the QR code functionality. Los Angeles County, the nation’s most populous, uses a QR code system it developed and certified, asserting it meets federal guidelines and has a proven track record of accuracy. Modifying or replacing this system would be a costly and time-consuming endeavor.
Georgia, a key battleground state, has become a central point of contention in the debate over coded ballots. While the state maintains that its system is secure and compliant with Georgia law, the state legislature voted to ban QR codes, but without allocating the necessary funds for implementation. This has created a potential impasse, with some officials warning of a looming "train wreck" if the ban takes effect without adequate resources. The ongoing legal challenges and varying opinions on the security and practicality of coded ballot systems underscore the complex and evolving nature of election administration in the United States. The future of these systems remains uncertain as courts grapple with the legality of Trump’s executive order and election officials weigh the costs and benefits of alternative approaches.