Officials in Georgia and other places undermine trust in elections by disregarding voters’ concerns about integrity

Election Integrity Advocates Await Verdict in Georgia Voting Machine Security Case

Election integrity advocates eagerly await the final verdict ​in a⁢ Georgia ​case about the security of the state’s voting machines. The decision‌ would⁢ significantly affect the election procedures in this key state and beyond. Yet, regardless of the outcome, the case ​brought by a group of bipartisan plaintiffs against⁢ Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger‍ points to a growing ⁢lack of confidence in elections that stretches ‍beyond⁣ Georgia and party lines.

The Curling v. Raffensperger ‍ lawsuit alleges that Georgia’s electronic ballot-marking⁢ devices are ⁢unreliable for counting the results, threatening a ⁤constitutional right‌ to vote. One concern​ is that ⁤voters are unable to confirm that their vote‍ is‍ accurately⁤ reflected‌ in the QR codes. When voters ​opt to ⁢vote in‍ person on‌ a machine, they make their selections, and then a ballot is produced that features ‌both a QR code and readable human text, indicating for whom the individual voted.

A discrepancy ‍between a QR code ⁣and the readable text is not totally unheard of. Although the issue concerned a different brand of machine, Curling ⁢plaintiffs took the ‍stand ⁢and pointed to an issue in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, where voting machines ⁤flipped votes during ‌the last Pennsylvania municipal ‍election. Election officials in Northampton⁤ reassured voters that although⁤ the readable⁢ text on their ballot indicated a vote for a different candidate than desired, the QR code still accurately reflected their intended choice.

The glitch‌ itself⁣ was concerning, but the way election officials addressed the ‍issue is​ perhaps just as problematic. While Northampton County acknowledged the situation, they completely neglected to address complaints that⁤ election officials at certain precincts had instructed voters to vote the opposite of their intention so​ that the readable text would flip to reflect their desired candidate — a suggestion that could have affected the ⁤results of the election. Over ⁣in Georgia, several Curling plaintiffs took notice of the oversight that Northampton seemed to try to sweep under the rug and cited it as an event contributing to their skepticism⁤ toward their own machines.

Concerning Cases

The Curling testimony points to unsatisfying responses to election issues in Georgia as well. Witness Jeanne Dufort testified that during the 2020⁤ election, a coding error caused ballots⁢ for a Republican commissioner to report as votes for the Democrat ​candidate. Dufort also testified that in 2022,‍ results showed no one had voted for a⁤ certain candidate even ​though‍ the candidate knew she had voted for herself and believed her husband and daughter voted for her as well, indicating a serious error in⁤ reporting.

Another witness, Aileen Saya Nakamura, described issues with Georgia’s new GARVIS system, which is used to upload voter registration to electronic poll books used to check in⁣ voters. Because of glitches in ‌the system, voters had ⁤to be turned away at the polls. Much like the issue in Northampton, the error is concerning, but again, the response from Georgia’s secretary of state was even‍ more troubling, as ⁣the secretary​ of state’s website reported only that the GARVIS test in that election was “successful,” and neglected to make any mention of having to⁢ turn voters ‍away.

Cross-examination of Georgia State Election Board Acting Chair Matt Mashburn also alluded to ⁣an unsatisfactory ⁢response to citizens’ election concerns by⁤ the board. The chairman ​was questioned about whether the‌ board had ‌investigated ‌a complaint filed by ‌Kevin Moncla and Joseph ​Rossi about potential ‍violations to Georgia’s election⁤ code in Fulton County. Although Mashburn could‍ not fully remember the document presented, many Georgians remember the complaint dated‍ July 8, ⁣2022, and are ⁤exasperated by the board’s⁤ delay in investigating the ⁣complaint.

Citizens⁢ have a right to know that​ their elections are secure. It is inappropriate‍ for election officials to shirk reasonable⁣ questions about⁢ the security of an ​election, and ​it only feeds tension and distrust. Machines or no machines, the Curling trial‌ has documented ‍numerous election process issues that ⁢must be resolved not‍ just in word, but in deed.

If election officials think ⁢glossing ⁣over issues with sweeping statements and⁤ avoiding deeply important details is going to​ keep election integrity advocates ​in​ the dark about underlying‍ problems, they’ve underestimated the intelligence of concerned citizens and should reconsider​ their approach. ⁣Not only do citizens see when their ‍officials’ narratives conflict ‌with their experience at the polls, but⁢ eventually the rest ⁣of ⁤the country begins to take notice as well.

‍ How did the witness in Georgia’s 2020 election describe the irregularities she witnessed with the electronic voting machines?

Testified that she witnessed irregularities with Georgia’s electronic voting machines during the 2020 election. She claimed that she saw multiple instances where ⁢votes for certain ‌candidates were changed or not recorded accurately. These testimonies raise​ concerns about the reliability and integrity⁣ of Georgia’s voting machines.

The lawsuit, known as‌ Curling v. Raffensperger, focuses on the security of Georgia’s electronic ballot-marking devices. The plaintiffs argue that these machines are unreliable for ​accurately counting the results, which poses a threat to the constitutional right to vote. One of the main concerns is that voters are unable to verify that​ their votes are ​accurately reflected in the QR codes generated by the machines.

The case has attracted significant‍ attention because of its potential ​impact on the election procedures not only in Georgia but also in other states. Election​ integrity ​advocates are‌ eagerly awaiting the final verdict, as it‌ could set a precedent for addressing​ similar concerns⁢ in other jurisdictions. The outcome of the case ‍could also influence ‌the public’s confidence in⁤ election systems nationwide.

The plaintiffs ‌in Curling ‍v. Raffensperger have pointed to other instances‍ of voting machine issues, such as the⁢ flipping of votes in Northampton County, Pennsylvania. Although this ⁢incident ‌involved ‌a different brand of machine, it serves as an example of the potential risks associated with electronic ⁤voting machines. Furthermore, the response of ​election officials to ​these issues has also been criticized. In Georgia, there have been claims that election officials‌ failed to address complaints and concerns regarding⁢ the machines, further eroding trust in the process.

The verdict in the Georgia ​voting machine security case will ​have significant implications for election integrity and⁤ voter confidence. Regardless of the outcome, it highlights the need to address the growing lack of confidence in elections beyond just Georgia and party lines. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring secure and reliable voting systems that safeguard ⁤the constitutional right to vote.