Is Election Integrity Possible in the Digital Age?

By Maria Orms | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

It often feels like people in the United States fall into three broad perspectives when it comes to election integrity:

Those who believe election tampering is happening

Those who suspect there may be issues but are too scared to speak up

Those who trust that elections are secure, as presented by mainstream narratives

Regardless of where someone stands, there is a growing concern shared across these groups: a sense that individual liberty is eroding, that government accountability is weakening, and that large institutions—both political and corporate—are exerting increasing influence over the direction of the country.

When people ask me which of these perspectives I align with, my answer is consistent: I come from a cybersecurity background, and that experience shapes how I think about these issues. One thing you learn in that field is that any electronic system can be compromised.

That said, electronic interference is only one possible avenue. Manipulation—if it occurs—could also involve more traditional, human-driven methods such as coordination, pressure, or misconduct. These approaches are typically more complex and involve more participants, which can increase the likelihood of exposure.

So what, if anything, is happening here in Colorado?

In Mesa County, Tina Peters claimed she was attempting to preserve evidence related to potential vulnerabilities in voting systems following the 2020 election. Her subsequent prosecution and imprisonment have sparked strong reactions, with supporters arguing that her actions were misunderstood or unjustly punished, and critics maintaining that legal boundaries were crossed.

Beyond the legal arguments, there may be broader effects worth considering. One question is whether high-profile cases like this influence how other election officials approach concerns about system security. In conversations I’ve had with county clerks across Colorado during my campaign travels, many emphasized their adherence to state guidelines and expressed confidence in their processes. At the same time, election integrity debates were muted, as if participants were wary of the consequences of speaking candidly.

From a technical standpoint, current election systems and processes fall short of the established security standards needed to guard against intrusion. In my early career securing top-secret military communications in the U.S. Air Force, I was trained in rigorous and proven design principles for protecting sensitive systems—principles that remain relevant today but are not being consistently applied in modern election infrastructure. This gap represents a serious vulnerability.

Ultimately, regardless of perspective, maintaining public trust in elections requires transparency, rigorous security practices, open dialogue about risks and safeguards, and a mandatory post-election retrospective with publicly released findings and independent review—not the prosecution of individuals who raise concerns in good faith.

A state-level task force should be established to oversee the development, publication, and ongoing review of all election processes and procedures, with mandatory reporting after every election and any election-related complaint. This effort should bring together top-tier cybersecurity professionals and election experts to ensure our elections remain secure, transparent, and resilient—while preserving the freedoms they are meant to protect.

Maria Orms is a U.S. Air Force veteran with a M.S. in Engineering from the University of Colorado – Boulder and an M.S. in Cybersecurity from the University of Denver and has worked in technology for almost 40 years with her CISSP, CCNA and SANS GIAC Forensic Network Analyst Certifications. She has a consulting company, Cybersecurity Inside Out, where she consults with clients on how to ensure the protection of their personal data in the digital world.

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.