Personally, I do not view InfoSec as inherently technology bound, nor do I see much difference between "Vote for Alice" vs "Give Bob money". The most common phishing example is "Hey CFO, write Bad Bob a check. Thanks, CIO.". Although this might come via email, it could just as easily come over a phone call, a formal letter or even a post-it. Some, but not all of these involve technology, yet we defend against them all.
To protect an organization, one needs to consider all avenues of attack, not just those for which involve technology, nor just those for which we are responsible for defending. When a risk arises that is outside of our expertise, we need just enough knowledge to recognize its impact, know which experts (PR, legal, management, law enforcement, medical, etc) to engage and with what urgency. Our involvement often comes from the fact that technology amplifies the risk, not necessarily because it is the cause or target.
So if it were my election security list, it would include "disinformation campaign", as a risk but the mitigation would likely be deferred to our partners outside of IT. But, as I said, your list -- your decision. I'm just here because I find the topic and the discussion interesting.
If a "tech tie-in" is a prerequisite, keep in mind that many of the disinformation campaigns are successful precisely because technology has significantly elevated the volume (both amplitude and quantity) of non-vetted sources, particularly social media, and us IT people can definitely play a role in detecting the "fake news".
