Can Blockchain Secure Our Elections?

Perhaps the answer to securing election results and increasing trust in them is more technology, not less.

At the annual Bitcoin Conference in May, Screven County Elections Supervisor Stacey Scott discussed using Bitcoin’s blockchain to secure the 2024 election results in her county.

Simple Proof, a tech startup leveraging Bitcoin’s OpenTimestamps protocol, made history in November 2024 when Screven County became the first U.S. county to secure its election results on the Bitcoin blockchain, specifically in block 869,047. Toriello explained in the interview, “Our hash-only solution allows organizations like Screven County to prove a document’s existence at a specific time without exposing its contents. This is critical for sensitive records like voter rolls, where privacy and integrity are paramount.” Stacey Scott, who oversaw the implementation in Screven County, added, “This technology gave us a way to ensure our election results were tamper-proof, building trust with our voters.”

The hash-only functionality enables clients to generate cryptographic hashes — a kind of unique identifier derived from the data of the files using commonplace cryptography. The process can be done locally, ensuring sensitive data remains secure while anchoring a timestamp to Bitcoin’s immutable blockchain.

This approach, as Toriello noted, addresses the dual need for transparency and confidentiality in government processes. Screven County’s adoption followed Simple Proof’s earlier success in timestamping Guatemala’s 2023 presidential election, a project Toriello credited with protecting both data integrity and his personal safety during his work as an election auditor.

Here is a video, released yesterday, of a conversation with Scott and Simple Proof CEO Carlos Toriello:

When I ran for Secretary of State in 2018, I talked about blockchain’s promise in securing election data. It’s appealing because a blockchain is almost impossible to hack, especially large blockchains like the one used to undergird the cryptocurrency Bitcoin.

Use of this technology in the election process is not without its critics. However, the articles I’ve read seem to conflate using blockchain to secure results with internet voting. What Screven County is doing is not internet voting, nor is it voting via the blockchain; it’s using the blockchain to secure the votes once they are cast, by attaching the unique identifiers described above.

Kudos to the folks in Screven County for embracing blockchain technology.

Perhaps the Blue-Ribbon Study Committee on Election Procedures should invite Mrs. Scott to testify.