Experts Matter. Find Yours.
Connect for media, speaking, professional opportunities & more.
Third grade literacy has improved in Michigan according to a new report on Michigan’s Read by Grade 3 law from Michigan State University’s Education Policy Innovation Collaborative, the strategic research partner of the Michigan Department of Education. Pre-pandemic literacy numbers are up – and that should be good news for students, parents and teachers all around. But will that trend sustain – and what do we all need to keep and eye on and do to ensure that success doesn’t slip? Katharine Strunk, director of the Education Policy Innovation Collaborative, or EPIC, and the Clifford Erickson Distinguished Professor of Education Policy at MSU’s College of Education was a key contributor in this report. “Third grade literacy has improved in Michigan, in particular for traditionally underserved students,” Strunk said. “This is a very good sign that many of the specific literacy supports and interventions in place in Michigan are working. While our study shows promising gains for some third graders, the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtably set back educators’ efforts to implement evidence-based strategies to help early learners continue to build their literacy knowledge.” The study also found that educators already believed that interventions required by the Read by Grade 3 law are under-resourced, with a clear shortage of high-quality literacy coaches and educators, and disparities in the availability of effective literacy resources. “Overall, teachers and administrators in Michigan believe that literacy coaches are effective in helping teachers to improve their literacy instruction,” said Tanya Wright, co-author of the report and associate professor of language and literacy in the Department of Teacher Education at MSU’s College of Education. “However, because of limited funding for coaches, many schools and teachers do not have access to literacy coaches, and this limited access seems to be even more of a challenge in traditionally underserved schools and districts.” A full article containing the key details and metrics of this report is attached – and it is worthwhile reading for anyone looking to know more about the state of education in Michigan. And, if you are a journalist looking to cover this report or have questions about education – then let us help with your coverage. Katharine Strunk is a professor of education policy and the Clifford E. Erickson Distinguished Chair in Education at Michigan State University. Katherine is available to speak to media regarding this issue, simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
It’s been an almost-weekly occurrence since the January 6, 2021 storming of the Capitol buildings in Washington. Authorities are meticulously tracking down and arresting those who wreaked havoc on the halls of the country’s democracy. With each arrest comes media coverage – and with that, the attention might be creating a brewing storm further dividing those on the far left and right of American politics. Recently, Steven Chermak, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University was interview by the Washington Post for a piece covering the ‘snowball effect’ of these arrests across the political spectrum. “It is ratcheting up and then getting a response and a back-and-forth,” said Steven Chermak, a professor of criminal justice at Michigan State University. Political violence remains far more common a feature of far-right groups than of those on the far left, according to law enforcement officials and data compiled by those who study extremist violence. Federal authorities have repeatedly described homegrown, right-wing extremists as the most urgent terrorism threat facing the nation. But high-profile right-wing attacks could be spurring far-left extremists to respond in kind, Chermak said. And cases like Baker’s can have a snowball effect, he said: Articles about Baker have been circulated online by members of the Proud Boys, a far-right group with a history of violence, who cite his arrest as evidence that left-wing activists are plotting against them. “An important part of convincing people that there’s an issue and there’s truth to what you’re saying is to home in on an example or home in on a particular case, and then that case becomes representative of a larger problem,” Chermak said. “It’s something to hang your hat on.” February 14 - Washington Post This emerging issue is one we can expect more to see as the investigations, arrests and eventual trials play out. And, if you’re a journalist looking to cover this important topic – then let our experts help. Steven Chermak is a professor in the School of Criminal Justice at Michigan State University. Dr. Chermak is also a lead investigator affiliated with The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terror (START). If you’re looking to talk to an expert or conduct an interview – simply click on his icon now to arrange a time today.
On January 06, America watched with shock as a mob of protesters stormed the gates in Washington, D.C. and invaded the Capitol buildings. For hours, the rioters looted and occupied America’s halls of power and though some were apprehended, many found a way to get out and get back home avoiding arrest. However, media coverage was substantial and some of the protesters were even bold enough to be caught posing for social media. Slowly, authorities are tracking them down, and Dr. Derek Riley, an expert at Milwaukee School of Engineering (MSOE) in the areas of computer science and deep learning, has been explaining how artificial intelligence (AI) technology that’s taught at MSOE is capable of enabling law enforcement's efforts to identify individuals from pictures. "With these AI systems, we’ll show it example photos and we’ll say, 'OK, this is a nose, this is an ear, this is Billy, this is Susie,'" Riley said. "And over lots and lots of examples and a kind of understanding if they guess right or wrong, the algorithm actually tunes itself to get better and better at recognizing certain things." Dr. Riley says this takes huge amounts of data and often needs a supercomputer—like MSOE's "Rosie"— to process it. To get a computer or software to recognize a specific person takes more fine-tuning, Riley says. He says your smartphone may already do this. "If you have a fingerprint scan or facial recognition to open up your phone, that’s exactly what’s happening," Riley said. "So, they’ve already trained a really large model to do all the basic recognition, and then you provide a device with a fingerprint scanning or pictures of your face at the end to be able to fine-tune that model to recognize exactly who you are." Riley says this technology isn't foolproof—he says human intelligence is needed at every step. He added we might be contributing to the data sources some of the technology needs by posting our pictures to social media. "Folks are uploading their own images constantly and that often is the source of the data that is used to train these really, really large systems," Riley said. January 14 – WTMJ, Ch. 4, NBC News The concept of facial recognition and the use of this technology in law enforcement (and several other applications) is an emerging topic – and if you are a reporter looking to cover this topic or speak with an expert, then let us help. Dr. Derek Riley is an expert in big data, artificial intelligence, computer modeling and simulation, and mobile computing/programming. He’s available to speak with media about facial recognition technology and its many uses. Simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
The U.S. House of Representatives is set to vote Wednesday to impeach President Donald Trump for inciting the deadly insurrection at the United States Capitol last week. Many House Democrats have called for Trump’s resignation and urged Vice President Mike Pence to remove him under the 25th Amendment. However, with those two options looking extremely unlikely, Democrats are preparing to impeach the president for a second time. The question is how quickly will impeachment happen? On Monday, the House introduced a single article for "incitement of insurrection," which could allow a fast-tracked floor vote on impeachment by Wednesday. Upon receiving the article, the Senate must take it up either through a vote to dismiss the charge or, if that fails, moving ahead with a trial to determine whether to convict the 45th president. There’s been a lot of coverage – and a lot of opinions shared. If you are a journalist covering this ongoing story, that’s where our experts on this topic can help. Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. If you have questions, let Ginn share her expertise and experience to ensure your coverage is accurate. Ginn is available to speak with media about this topic – simply click on her name to arrange an interview today.
The events that led to the storming of the Capitol buildings last week have garnered attention from just about every news organization across the planet. Pundits and politicians have weighed in on both sides regarding whether President Trump’s words and actions need to be held accountable for the damage to America’s democratic institutions as well as the five people who have since died as a result of the events that occurred on January 6, 2021. Recently, University of Connecticut’s Richard Ashby Wilson, the Gladstein Chair and Professor of Anthropology and Law and an expert on hate speech and incitement on social media shared his perspective in an Op-Ed published in the Los Angeles Times. It’s a thoughtful, methodical, and excellent piece outlining why he believes, in his expert legal opinion, that President Trump crossed the line and now deserves to be held accountable for his crimes. This is a burning topic, and if you are a journalist looking for objective and expert opinion on this topic – then let us help. Richard Ashby Wilson is available to speak with media about this issue – simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.
Are vaccine passports legal in a post-COVID-19 era? Let our experts explain
As America and the world look to slowly round the corner of the safety measures enacted during the COVID-19 pandemic, the new coronavirus vaccines are giving hope of an eventual return to normal. However, with an active anti-vaccination movement afoot and many still skeptical of getting that essential poke in the arm, the World Health Organization said some government officials are suggesting the idea of vaccine passports. A simple piece of identification would end the uncertainty that comes with travel, work and the much sought-after leisure that often means crowded places and smaller spaces. The idea has already caught on in countries in Europe and South America. It may be the safety blanket many seek, but are vaccine passports actually legal? It is a question that’s beginning to get serious coverage. “Having proof of vaccination can be essential for a number of sectors other than health, but we cannot overlook the potential discriminatory consequences that may arise,” said Dr. William Hatcher, an expert in public policy and interim chair of the Department of Social Sciences at Augusta University. Another idea being floated is immunity passports, but Hatcher suggests¬ allowing only people with immunity to work might disadvantage those who haven’t gotten sick or those without the antibodies to prove it. It’s as if, in the eyes of their employer, their lack of infection constitutes a disability. The inequality that immunity passports could foster in these situations may be illegal under the Americans with Disabilities Act. There are also other ethical, practical, and cultural aspects to consider as well. If you are covering this emerging topic and are looking to know more, our experts can help. Dr. Hatcher is a professor of political science and interim chair of Augusta University’s Department of Social Sciences. He is an expert in the areas of public administration and social, economic, and political institutions in local communities. Hatcher is available to speak with media regarding the concept of vaccination and immunity passports. To arrange an interview, simply click on his name.
After a speech by President Donald Trump that inspired a hoard of protestors to storm the Capitol buildings in Washington – there are growing concerns of what the outgoing President might do next. As well, there’s also growing talk about how to prevent what could be another national or even international incident. One such measure that’s been a talking point for journalists, politicians and pundits since Wednesday, and recently has been called-for by Senator Chuck Schumer, is removing the president from office by invoking the 25th Amendment. It’s a topic that Michigan State University’s constitutional expert Brian Kalt knows well. "Section 4 is designed primarily to work against presidents who cannot do anything, not against presidents who are all too able to do bad things—the latter is fodder for the impeachment process," Kalt explains. "So might Section 4 be a realistic option? Perhaps, if the situation in Washington, DC, spirals further out of control between now and January 20. But Section 4 sets that bar high." There’s a lot to know about this topic, especially given the extreme circumstances in which it is used. And, if you are a reporter covering politics and this potential situation, then let our experts help with your questions and ensure your coverage is accurate. Brian Kalt is a Professor of Law and a Harold Norris Faculty Scholar at Michigan State University. He is an expert in constitutional law of the presidency, and he’s available to speak with media regarding how the Constitution and laws play a role in elections. Simply click on his icon to arrange an interview.
U.S.-Iran Crisis: Outlook and Implications
Executive Summary: The immediate crisis following the death of Iranian general Qassem Soleimani in a U.S. airstrike and Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes against two U.S. airbases appears to have settled down. However, the conditions for a future flare-up remain in place because the underlying conditions have not changed. Going forward, each side is likely to double down on its stated strategic objective, with Iran pushing for an end to U.S. presence in the region and the U.S. pushing for an end to the Iranian nuclear program. Further, the norms that had previously prevented an open exchange of fire between the two sides have been eroded. Why It Matters: The events of January 3rd and 8th represent the first time since the skirmishes of the “Tanker Wars” of 1987-88 that the military forces of the United States and Iran have directly and openly exchanged fire with each other. For the last three decades, the contest between the two states has been a shadow war of proxy conflicts, plausible deniability, and non-military measures. The American decision to strike Soleimani and the Iranian decision to fire missiles in response removed many of the guardrails that have set limits on previous escalations of tensions. The Iranian decision to renounce cooperation with the 2015 nuclear agreement places back into contention an issue that had previously brought the U.S. and Israel to the point of war with Iran in 2012-13. Business Impact: Markets have been largely taking a wait-and-see approach in order to determine the form of Iranian response to Soleimani’s death, and they responded with relief when President Trump signaled that the U.S. would not retaliate. To an extent, uncertainty in the Middle East had already been priced into the markets due to tensions in the second half of 2019. A significant or prolonged conflict would have an obvious negative impact on energy markets and regional economies. In addition, American and Western companies operating internationally or their employees could suffer collateral damage from any future Iranian proxy attacks against visible symbols of U.S. presence overseas. Looking Forward: In the immediate term, the resolution of the crisis represented one of the best possible outcomes: Iran has publicly signaled that the missile launches conducted on January 8th constituted the extent of their military retaliation to Soleimani’s death and President Trump’s White House address acknowledged Iran’s desire to de-escalate and spoke of finding mutually beneficial outcomes with no further mention of military action. Going forward, both Iran and the United States are likely to double down on their desired strategic outcomes. Iran will seek to use all of the levers of its influence to drive the United States from the region, beginning with Iraq but also including indirect pressure on the Gulf states that host U.S. forces. Offensive cyber operations and deniable proxy attacks against civilian infrastructure in the Gulf could be part of that campaign, returning to tactics observed in the past. For its part, the United States will continue its maximum pressure campaign over the Iranian nuclear program, with President Trump promising additional economic sanctions even as he stepped back from military action. Therefore, although both sides appear to be committed to non-military means, the points of tension that caused the most recent crisis are all still present and have arguably increased based on Iran’s increased non-compliance with JCPOA. It remains to be seen whether coming close to the brink of open conflict will have changed the risk tolerance of either side or whether the first acknowledged exchange of fires between the U.S. and Iran for 32 years will usher in a new period of low-level conflict. The View from Tehran: Iran has played Soleimani’s death for maximum strategic benefit. The messaging of the past 96 hours was aimed at various audiences within the country, the region, and around the world. Having been caught on the backfoot by the U.S.’s strike on Soleimani, the Supreme Leader allowed the IRGC to retaliate against U.S. forces in Iraq in a calibrated manner, likely calculating that a strike with limited casualties would satisfy demands for vengeance while not prompting a response. Khamenei’s Decision: Ayatollah Khamenei is an inherently conservative figure and one who is above all else motivated by the priority of regime survival. Given their long-standing personal relationship, there is ample reason to believe that his displays of emotion of Soleimani’s death, including weeping over his coffin during the funeral on January 6th, were genuine and heart-felt. However, his expressed desire for revenge has been tempered by the overarching imperative to avoid a conflict that would have threatened the regime’s hold on power, either from within or without. Rally Around the Flag: Within Iran, the regime is seeking to use Soleimani’s death and their subsequent retaliation to build national unity following a period of significant domestic unrest. This has been emphasized by the extended period of mourning for Soleimani, days-long funeral spectacle, and the invocation of religious and cultural symbols associated with Shi’a martyrs. The death of Soleimani comes on the heels of a series of mass protests in Iran that originally began on November 15th in response to proposed increase in the price of gas, but which have since expanded to a wider challenge to the regime. Media reporting from late December suggested as many as 1,500 Iranian civilians have been killed as part of a regime crackdown on the protests, which have been characterized as the most serious challenge to the regime since the Green Movement of 2009. JCPOA as a Wedge Between U.S. and Europe: Iran announced on January 5th that it would cease compliance with the remaining provisions of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action but would be willing to return to compliance if sanctions are removed. The nuance in Iran’s position highlights the fact that it is continuing to attempt to use the nuclear issue to drive a wedge between European signatories to the agreement and the United States, which unilaterally walked away from the treaty in May 2018. Regime Dynamics: Soleimani was a high-profile figure within Iran, but his outsized influence on Iranian foreign policy also created friction with other stakeholders in the regime, including leaders of the conventional military forces, the ministry of foreign affairs, and the intelligence services. He was one of few genuinely strategic thinkers in the Iranian national security apparatus and the one with the most extensive and deepest connections within the Arab-speaking world. His replacement as commander of the Quds Force is his long-time deputy who will be familiar with the day-to-day operations of the IRGC’s external operations arm but will not have the stature or the network of Soleimani. As a result, other stakeholders may jockey to move into the vacuum created by his death. The View from Washington: The present challenge for the U.S. is how to maintain both a deterrent posture and establishing the means to avoid further escalation. The policy on Iraq going forward will have to balance President Trump’s desire to disengage from the conflict while not creating the appearance of having been pushed out by Iran. Escalate to Deter: President Trump’s decision to kill Soleimani reflected an “escalate to deter” strategy, using a sudden and unexpected escalation of force during a crisis in order to reestablish deterrence after previous provocations in 2019 had gone largely unanswered. However, deterrence is only as good as the last demonstration of a willingness to respond. The decision to not respond to Iran’s retaliatory missile strikes reflected a pragmatic decision to de-escalate. National Security Decision-Making: Nearly three years into his presidency, Donald Trump feels increasingly confident making national security decisions based on his own instincts. The original coterie of experienced national security establishment members such as Jim Mattis and H.R. McMaster who had populated the Situation Room during the early days of the administration have largely resigned or been fired and replaced with individuals of lower profile and/or proven loyalty. Although the mechanisms of the formal interagency process continue to function, President Trump increasingly makes decisions based on a network of informal advisors and media sources. Domestic U.S. Considerations: The decision to launch the strike on Soleimani came during a period of high political tension in Washington, as it had been expected this month that the U.S. Senate would begin a trial in response to articles of impeachment passed by the House of Representatives in December. The Soleimani strike is being taken up by both Trump’s supporters and opponents as evidence of either his credentials as a decisive commander-in-chief or his unsuitability for office, depending on their perspective. Congress has proposed votes to limit President Trump’s independent authority to initiate hostilities with Iran, but this is unlikely to gain traction in the Senate. Separately, the first voting in the Democratic primary is less than one month away, and a sudden shift in focus to national security issues could have results that are difficult to predict, either boosting those with national security credentials (such as former vice president Joe Biden and military veteran Pete Buttigieg), or rallying support among primary voters for anti-war (such as Bernie Sanders). Third-Party Perspectives and Responses: Iraq: The strike at Baghdad International Airport that killed Soleimani also killed the deputy commander of Iraq’s Popular Mobilization Front, a coalition of militias that forms a part of Iraq’s official security apparatus. Iraq’s new Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi has condemned the attack as a “massive breach of sovereignty” and an “aggression on Iraq”. Iraq’s parliament passed a draft law on January 5th calling for the removal of all foreign troops from Iraqi soil, but the law was non-binding and the session had been boycotted by most of the Sunni and Kurdish members of the legislature. Iranian presence has also been the recent target of Iraqi ire, such as in November when a crowd of Iraqis burned down the Iranian consulate in the Shi’a holy city of Najaf, and the Iraqi government will likely try to play both sides against each other to maximize its leverage for military and financial support. Withdrawal from Iraq would mean that the remaining American forces in Syria could no longer be supplied or supported through the western desert of Iraq and would therefore also have to be withdrawn. Iran will likely seek to use all its considerable levers of influence in Iraq to convince the government to see through the expulsion of American forces. The United States leaving Iraq and Syria due to Soleimani’s death would be a fitting legacy from the Iranian perspective and a perverse one from the American perspective given that Soleimani was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American servicemembers in Iraq (and thousands of Iraqi civilians) through his support for Shi’a militias in the mid-to-late 2000s. Europe: Statements from European capitals emphasized the need for restraint and de-escalation. French President Macron is likely to view this event as further justification for his proposals that the EU develop a defense and security apparatus independent of NATO in order to avoid being entangled by potentially reckless American actions. Iran will likely continue to use this event as an opportunity to drive a wedge between the U.S. and Europe on the nuclear program and other issues, and their chosen retaliation was likely calibrated at least in part to allow them to continue positioning themselves as a responsible actor. For his part, Trump is urging the European signatories to join him in walking away from the JCPOA in order to increase Iran’s international isolation. United Kingdom: The British government has tried to tread a fine line in its responses to the strike, with Prime Minister Johnson calling for de-escalation while also stating that he “will not lament” the fact that Soleimani is dead. The U.K. is likely trying to balance its desire to remain aligned with France and Germany in trying to keep the JCPOA together with its traditional close alliance with the United States and Johnson’s personal relationship with President Trump. Russia: Unsurprisingly, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the American strike, which removed a valuable interlocutor for Russian forces in Syria. Russian troops and Iranian-backed militias in Syria had periodically found themselves with diverging interests in their campaign to support the Assad regime, and Soleimani performed a critical function in directing the activities of those militias to ensure that both Russia and Iran achieved their strategic objectives in Syria. A potential American withdrawal from Iraq and Syria would advance Russia’s interest in establishing itself as the indispensable foreign power in resolving the crisis in Syria and within the region more broadly. China: In line with their long-standing principle of non-intervention and their own interest, China condemned the strike, but the response was muted overall. Chinese interests are primarily economic and tied to ensuring a steady supply of petroleum. One of China’s newest and most capable naval destroyers recently participated in trilateral naval exercises with Iran and Russia in the Gulf of Oman. Although such exercises primarily serve a strategic messaging and diplomatic function, they do signal an emerging alignment of interests between the three states that would be significant for the response to any future crises.
How will the newest pick to the Supreme Court impact America for decades to come?
It was quick, controversial and the outcome was all but obvious once set into motion, but this week Amy Coney Barret t became the youngest female sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice. A sitting judge, a former professor at Notre Dame Law School and mother of seven became President Donald Trump’s third appointee to America’s highest court during his term. The confirmation has left Democrats concerned that the now conservative make-up may sway some very important upcoming decisions. Barrett's confirmation has left Democrats concerned about the fate of the nation's health care law, the Affordable Care Act, and Roe v. Wade, the landmark decision allowing women to have access to abortions. The court will be hearing a case on the constitutionality of the ACA's individual mandate in November. Barrett could also end up weighing in on a general election-related case involving the man who nominated her, should the results of the race between President Trump and Joe Biden come before the Supreme Court. October 26 - CBS News In an election that may see several lawsuits about voting, mail-in ballots and other key elements that could decide the fate of a state or even the presidential election – the Supreme Court where Donald Trump may have a say indecisions and outcomes. If you are a journalist covering this ongoing story, that’s where our experts on this topic can help. Dr. Martha Ginn, professor of political science at Augusta University, is an expert on the judicial process, constitutional law and the U.S. Supreme Court. Dr. Ginn is available to speak with media about this topic – simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.
Paper ballots, risk-limiting audits can help defend elections and democracy, IU study finds
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- With just over two months before the 2020 election, three professors at the Indiana University Kelley School of Business offer a comprehensive review of how other nations are seeking to protect their democratic institutions and presents how a multifaceted, targeted approach is needed to achieve that goal in the U.S., where intelligence officials have warned that Russia and other rivals are again attempting to undermine our democracy. But these concerns over election security are not isolated to the United States and extend far beyond safeguarding insecure voting machines and questions about voting by mail. Based on an analysis of election reforms by Australia and European Union nations, they outline steps to address election infrastructure security -- such as requiring paper ballots and risk-limiting audits -- as well as deeper structural interventions to limit the spread of misinformation and combat digital repression. "In the United States, despite post-2016 funding, still more than two-thirds of U.S. counties report insufficient funding to replace outdated, vulnerable paperless voting machines; further help is needed," said Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics in the Kelley School, executive director of the Ostrom Workshop and chair of IU's Cybersecurity Program. "No nation, however powerful, or tech firm, regardless of its ambitions, is able to safeguard democracies against the full range of threats they face in 2020 and beyond. Only a multifaceted, polycentric approach that makes necessary changes up and down the stack will be up to the task." For example, Australia -- which has faced threats from China -- has taken a distinct approach to protect its democratic institutions, including reclassifying its political parties as "critical infrastructure." This is a step that the U.S. government has yet to take despite repeated breaches at both the Democratic and Republican national committees. Based on an analysis of election reforms by Australia and European Union nations, they outline steps to address election infrastructure security -- such as requiring paper ballots and risk-limiting audits -- as well as deeper structural interventions to limit the spread of misinformation and combat digital repression. "In the United States, despite post-2016 funding, still more than two-thirds of U.S. counties report insufficient funding to replace outdated, vulnerable paperless voting machines; further help is needed," said Scott Shackelford, associate professor of business law and ethics in the Kelley School, executive director of the Ostrom Workshop and chair of IU's Cybersecurity Program. "No nation, however powerful, or tech firm, regardless of its ambitions, is able to safeguard democracies against the full range of threats they face in 2020 and beyond. Only a multifaceted, polycentric approach that makes necessary changes up and down the stack will be up to the task." For example, Australia -- which has faced threats from China -- has taken a distinct approach to protect its democratic institutions, including reclassifying its political parties as "critical infrastructure." This is a step that the U.S. government has yet to take despite repeated breaches at both the Democratic and Republican national committees. The article, "Defending Democracy: Taking Stock of the Global Fight Against Digital Repression, Disinformation and Election Insecurity," has been accepted by Washington and Lee Law Review. Other authors are Anjanette "Angie" Raymond, associate professor of business law and ethics, and Abbey Stemler, assistant professor of business law and ethics, both at Kelley; and Cyanne Loyle, associate professor of political science at Pennsylvania State University and a global fellow at the Peace Research Institute Oslo. Aside from appropriating sufficient funds to replace outdated voting machines and tabulation systems, the researchers said that Congress should encourage states to refuse to fund voting machines with paperless ballots. The researchers also suggest requiring risk-limiting audits, which use statistical samples of paper ballots to verify official election results. Other suggested steps include: Congress requiring the National Institute of Standards and Technology to update their voting machine standards, which state and county election officials rely on when deciding which machines to purchase. Australia undertook such a measure. Creating a National Cybersecurity Safety Board to investigate cyberattacks on U.S. election infrastructure and issue post-elections reports to ensure that vulnerabilities are addressed. Working with universities to develop training for election officials nationwide to prepare them for an array of possible scenarios, and creating a cybersecurity guidebook for use by newly elected and appointed election officials. "With regards to disinformation in particular, the U.S. government could work with the EU to globalize the self-regulatory Code of Practice on Disinformation for social media firms and thus avoiding thorny First Amendment concerns," Raymond said. "It could also work to create new forums for international information sharing and more effective rapid alert and joint sanctions regimes. "The international community has the tools to act and hold accountable those actors that would threaten democratic institutions," added Stemler, who also is a faculty associate at Harvard University's Berkman Klein Center for Internet and Society. "Failing the political will to act, pressure from consumer groups and civil society will continue to mount on tech firms, in particular Facebook, which may be sufficient for them to voluntarily expand their efforts in the EU globally, the same way that more firms are beginning to comply with its General Data Protection Regulation globally, as opposed to designing new information systems for each jurisdiction."
