Calls to prosecute me for urging election machine mitigation are unjustified because the proposal is lawful and was long championed by Democrats
Source: Cleta Mitchell. "Democrats Want Me In Jail For A Post Explaining Election Security." October 28, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
Mitchell says she only suggested the government use powers it already has to check that voting machines weren't tampered with, mainly by hand-auditing a sample of paper ballots. She points out that Democrats like Ron Wyden pushed for very similar steps in 2019, so she argues that calling for her prosecution is hypocritical and politically motivated.
Conclusion
Cleta Mitchell's X post urging federal action to mitigate voting machine vulnerabilities was neither misinformation nor a crime, and Democrats' demands that she be prosecuted are unjustified and hypocritical.
Premises
- Executive Order 13873 (2019) and the Commerce Department's ICTS regulations (effective February 2024) authorize the Commerce Secretary to require mitigation of technology risks from foreign adversaries, including in critical infrastructure.
- Elections were designated critical infrastructure in 2017, and the author claims all electronic voting systems used in the U.S. are made wholly or partly in China, so the ICTS authority applies to voting machines.
- The mitigation she advocated is modest and already outlined by DHS: states would conduct manual audits of at least 5% of ballots in randomly selected precincts to confirm that machine results match paper ballots. She denies advocating that anyone 'seize' machines.
- Democrats, including Sen. Ron Wyden and 14 colleagues in the 2019 PAVE Act, previously warned that voting machines are vulnerable to hacking and called for hand-marked paper ballots and risk-limiting audits.
- Because her proposal echoes a formerly Democratic position and uses existing legal authority, advocating it cannot reasonably be considered misinformation or criminal, and the reaction reflects partisan animus (Trump Derangement Syndrome) rather than principle.
Assumptions
- Voting machine vulnerabilities are real and significant enough to warrant federal mitigation now, in the 2026 midterms.
- Past Democratic positions on machine security are relevant to whether the current proposal is legitimate and whether current criticism is sincere.
- The ICTS regulations legally extend to domestic election equipment and the Commerce Secretary can apply them nationwide on this timeline.
- Critics' reaction is driven by partisan hostility to Trump rather than by substantive concerns about her proposal or its context.
- Her characterization of her own post (as not calling for seizure) accurately reflects what she wrote and how it could reasonably be read.
- Advocating a policy that was once held by the opposing party is protected and non-misleading regardless of present context or motive.