New York Considers Blockchain for Election Security, But Skepticism Remains

Blockchain may soon be part of New York’s long-term strategy to secure the democratic process—at least in theory. That’s the aim of Assemblymember Clyde Vanel (D-33), who recently filed Assembly Bill A7716, which proposes a formal study by the New York State Board of Elections into the use of blockchain technology for protecting voter records and election results.

The bill, which is currently under review by the Assembly Election Law Committee, calls for a comprehensive report to be delivered within one year. The report would examine blockchain’s potential for enhancing election integrity, as well as provide a detailed overview of how the technology could be applied to current voting systems.

The legislation defines blockchain as a “decentralized, cryptographically secured, immutable, and auditable ledger” capable of delivering an “uncensored truth.” It also mandates that the Board of Elections work in collaboration with the Office of Information Technology Services and consult with experts in blockchain, cybersecurity, voter fraud, and election infrastructure.

If the bill progresses, it must pass through the full Assembly and Senate before being signed into law by the Governor. For now, it remains in committee, pending further discussion or amendments. If passed, the board would be legally obligated to deliver its findings within 12 months.

This is not Vanel’s first attempt to push for such a bill—similar proposals have appeared since 2017, although none have reached the Governor’s desk. This year’s version, however, enters the legislative process amid a broader national interest in blockchain for public infrastructure, even as other states explore the technology in vastly different ways.

For instance, Utah lawmakers recently passed HB230, a bill protecting the right of individuals and businesses to participate in blockchain activities—such as running nodes, using self-hosted wallets, and accepting digital assets as payment. However, lawmakers removed language that would’ve allowed the state to invest directly in Bitcoin. Meanwhile, President Trump’s March executive order proposed the creation of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve, fueling momentum behind public-sector crypto adoption.

International and Domestic Precedents

In 2018, the Swiss city of Zug, known as "Crypto Valley," conducted a trial of a blockchain-based voting system. Residents used the city's eID system to participate in a non-binding vote on local matters. Despite low turnout, officials deemed the trial a success, noting the system's potential for secure and transparent voting.

Similarly, West Virginia piloted a blockchain-based voting platform during the 2018 midterm elections, allowing 144 military personnel stationed overseas to cast their ballots via a mobile application. While state officials reported the project as a first-of-its-kind success, they expressed no plans to expand the program beyond military voters abroad.

Challenges and Skepticism

Despite these trials, the adoption of blockchain voting faces significant hurdles. Security experts have voiced concerns about the vulnerabilities of mobile and blockchain-based voting systems. For instance, Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Chief Technologist at the Center for Democracy and Technology, described mobile voting as a "horrific idea," citing issues with device security and the potential for compromised vote integrity. In contrast, Bradley Tusk of Tusk Montgomery Philanthropies has encouraged mobile voting, arguing that it can turn out more voters, and as a result, “democracy would work a lot better.”

Moreover, the implementation of such systems necessitates robust digital identity verification mechanisms. Establishing a secure and universally accepted digital identity framework is complex, involving coordination across various levels of government and addressing concerns about privacy and accessibility. Given these challenges, widespread adoption of blockchain voting in the U.S. may encounter resistance from multiple stakeholders wary of the risks associated with digital voting platforms.

From a political perspective, the barriers are even more complex. The widespread adoption of blockchain voting in the U.S. is extremely unlikely, not because of a lack of technology, but because of deeply entrenched political interests. Implementing such a system would require uniform digital identity systems and interoperable databases across states and counties. This would require coordination across all levels — states, counties, Congress, and the Senate. Each layer introduces more friction. Local officials may worry about losing control. States with different voting systems might balk at federal influence. Lawmakers themselves could fear greater transparency threatening their own electoral strongholds.

Even if New York succeeds in pushing the study through, the road from report to implementation is a minefield of political, technical, and social hurdles. As the Swiss and West Virginia cases showed, even successful blockchain voting trials have remained experimental. Turning those into real policy in a divided and digitally vulnerable nation like the U.S. is another matter entirely.