Article Page
Published by Keshav Arun on July 21st, 2026
Privacy Notice
All quoted materials on this page are reproduced verbatim from Aaron Spikol. Minor formatting adjustments may be made for readability. All quoted material remains the property of its respective authors, speakers, or copyright holders and is provided for educational, research, and commentary purposes.
Aaron Spikol
Aaron Spikol is a graduate of Stanford University, where he earned both his J.D. and Ph.D. He is a Knight-Hennessy Scholar and graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point. Because of his unique background in the U.S. Army and election security, we interviewed him for his experience with both the national security and democratic ideals aspect of this resolution.
Why Does Election Security Matter?
Who should I vote for? When should I vote? Am I registered to vote? Those are questions that are usually asked during primaries, mid-terms and general elections. However, many may, "Ask is the election secure, and legitimate?" If the answer to that question is no, then none of the other questions asked earlier matter, this is basic syllogism of voting.
When Aaron said, " No one would say that a fully unsecured voting system is a good thing, right? If there was no security, and everyone can vote as many times as they wanted, there'd be actually no confidence in the outcome of the election. So that would just undermine the point of having elections in the first place."
This is very true, especially for bills like California Assembly Bill 1921, and California Assembly Bill 860, where the main goal was to increase voter turnout to get a more accurate election. This in practice was called, "ballot-harvesting," where any person designated by the voter could drop-in the ballot. But the worry with this illustrated by Aaron was, "Sometimes ballot harvesters can coerce people into voting certain ways or into voting when they don't want or would rather not vote."
These policies reveal the fundamental challenge of election security: a government that prioritizes voter access without security risks losing the whole point of an election, to choose the people running your country.
What Has Election Security Justified?
Though the last section explained why election security is important to a democracy, another key aspect to consider is to what extent has "election security" been used to deprive those of their vote?
When we asked Aaron he explained, "There's a very broad history related to election regulations. It's definitely true that things like literacy tests, and grandfather clauses, things that were used historically, especially in the south to try and restrict black people from voting in the United States." In the south, that may still be the case. In Florida and Tennessee there have been huge disputes of congressional voting maps, and many use the term of gerrymandering to describe the act of redrawing congressional maps to favor one party. We've seen this problem in Alabama, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Texas as well.
The Modern Debate Over Election Security
Though historically ballot-harvesting and gerrymandering produced an edge to elections, it usually only provided a small, not significant difference, as shown in Aaron's quote when he stated: "Simply what both parties are trying to do is try and gain a very small advantages at the margin based on what they predict the kind of partisan effects that these regulations will be" However, in the modern age social media and AI deepfakes have played a huge role in elections. In fact, in 2024 the DeSantis campaign spread an ad that utilized AI-generated deepfakes of President Trump hugging Anthony Fauci, a person who was not very popular to the Trump campaign. This had definitely changed many people's vote, even though none of it was true.
In response to occurrences similar to this that took place nationwide, many have suggested the government regulates AI deepfakes, but Aaron explains that, "There's always the question of who watches the watchman, right? If the government's in charge of making these decisions, how would you hold it accountable?"
The problem with the government being in charge of speech, especially during elections is that incumbent candidates may use this opportunity to "regulate speech" that hurts their campaign or exposes their true motives behind bills they are willing to sponsor or co-sponsor. Aaron added that, "There's a very direct incentive for people in office to try and cover up what might be malfeasance, whether they're stealing money, or just basic incompetence. There's a real concern that once you put the government in charge, you have reason to believe in advance that they have an incentive to cover up and prevent what's being discussed."
