The Russia watchFighting Russian infowar; judges & election security; George Soros & anti-Semites, and more

Published 16 October 2018

·  There’s been a George Soros for every era of anti-Semitic panic

·  Federal court ruling in Georgia shows judges have a role to play in election security

·  Collusion judgment looms for key Senate panel

·  How to fight Russian infowar in Central Europe

·  Colorado Springs on front lines of cyber Cold War with Russia

·  Without Russia indictments to feast on, scandalmongers feast on scraps

·  Combatting Russian Dezinformatsya

There’s been a George Soros for every era of anti-Semitic panic (Spencer Ackerman, Daily Beast)
From Russia to Hungary to, now, Donald Trump’s America, a rising authoritarianism plays on an atavistic European hatred. We live in the Soros Age of Anti-Semitism.

Federal court ruling in Georgia shows judges have a role to play in election security (Jessica Marsden, Lawfare)
In the wake of Russia’s interference in U.S. elections, questions persist as to whether Russia changed vote totals and changed the outcome of the election. Former Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson and the Senate intelligence committee each say there is no evidence that the Russians did so. But as technologist Matt Blaze told the New York Times, that’s “less comforting than it might sound at first glance, because we haven’t looked very hard.” And experts agree that our outdated voting technology certainly exposes voters to the risk of interference, as election security experts and election administrators have known for more than a decade.
Last month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia recognized that the risk of election hacking is of constitutional significance—and that courts can do something about it. In Curling v. Kemp, two groups of Georgia voters contend that Georgia’s old paperless voting machines are so unreliable that they compromise the plaintiffs’ constitutional right to vote. In ruling on the voters’ motion for preliminary injunction, Judge Amy Totenberg held that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits—in other words, Georgia’s insecure voting system likely violated their constitutional rights. While the court declined to order relief in time for the 2018 elections, the ruling suggests that Georgia may eventually be ordered to move to a more secure voting system. (Protect Democracy, where I work, has filed an amicus brief in Curling. Protect Democracy also represents Lawfare contributors and editors Benjamin Wittes, Jack Goldsmith, Scott Anderson and Susan Hennessey on a number of separate matters.) (Cont.)