Election Integrity penalties for workers federal state and local Election integrity is a crucial aspect of maintaining a fair and democratic electoral process. The penalties for election workers at federal, state, and local levels who violate election laws can vary based on the jurisdiction and the severity of the offense. Here's a general overview: 1. Federal Level: At the federal level, election fraud is taken very seriously. Penalties can include imprisonment, fines, or both. The Department of Justice oversees the enforcement of federal election laws, and violations can be considered felonies, depending on the nature of the offense. For instance, tampering with voting machines or ballot fraud can lead to significant prison time. 2. State Level: Each state has its own set of laws regarding election integrity. Penalties at the state level can also include imprisonment and fines. The severity of the punishment often depends on the specific state laws violated. Some states have stricter laws and penalties than others. State-level election fraud might involve illegal voter registration practices, fraudulent use of absentee ballots, or vote-buying. 3. Local Level: At the local level, election workers are typically governed by the same state laws that apply to state-level election workers. Local election fraud can include actions like manipulating vote counts or interfering with the election process at polling places. Penalties can range from misdemeanors to felonies, depending on the act. 4. It is iportant to note that while there are laws and penalties in place to prevent and punish election fraud, actual instances of such fraud are relatively rare in the United States. The systems and checks in place make widespread fraud difficult. However, the penalties are designed to act as a strong deterrent to maintain the integrity of the election process. In the United States, there are several federal laws that address and penalize election intimidation. Here's an overview of some key statutes: 1. Voting Rights Act, Section 11(b): This section of the Voting Rights Act, codified as 52 U.S.C. § 10307(b), prohibits actual or attempted intimidation, threats, or coercion against a person for voting or attempting to vote, or for urging or aiding any person to vote or attempt to vote​​. 2. 18 U.S.C. § 594 - Intimidation of Voters: This statute makes it illegal for anyone to intimidate, threaten, coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any other person for the purpose of interfering with their right to vote as they choose, or to influence their decision to vote for or against any candidate​​. 3. 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) and 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a): These sections provide criminal penalties for actions such as making a bomb threat to an election official or perpetrating a bomb hoax. For example, 18 U.S.C. § 844(e) specifies criminal penalties of up to 10 years for individuals who engage in such activities​​. 4. 52 U.S.C. § 20511: This statute includes criminal penalties for anyone, including election officials, who knowingly and willfully intimidate, threaten, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce any person for urging or aiding any person in voting or registering to vote in a federal election​​. 5. Civil Lawsuits for Voter Intimidation: Federal law also provides for civil lawsuits based on voter intimidation. Under the Voting Rights Act, it is unlawful to intimidate, threaten, or coerce another individual at the polls, or to coerce any person while registering to vote or voting​​. These laws form a comprehensive framework for protecting the rights of voters and maintaining the integrity of elections by penalizing and deterring acts of intimidation and coercion. The penalties for violating these laws can range from fines to imprisonment, depending on the severity of the offense.

In a jaw-dropping revelation, Election Systems & Software ( ES&S ) has been caught red-handed in an audacious scheme to prevent public access to vital public records related to the administration of elections. The bombshell report suggests that the company is trying to cloak their actions in secrecy and hide critical information from the American public. The hidden treasure trove of data and evidence held hostage by ES&S and their co-conspirators is nothing short of a GAME-CHANGER. It is the ultimate vindication for President Donald J. Trump, providing undeniable evidence that the 2020 and 2022 elections were RIGGED and FRAUDULENT! ES&S BLOCKING THE EVIDENCE: The information that ES&S is seeking to hide from public disclosure, contains the data and evidence that vindicate President Donald J. Trump and prove with absolute certainty that the 2020 and 2022 elections were significantly and materially impacted by massive election fraud and voter fraud via compromised electronic voting systems and voting machines on a nationwide basis. ES&S, the shadowy giant behind the nation's voting systems, has unleashed a disturbing edict this week, instructing all municipalities to HIDE critical public records, data and reports related to government agency-run local, state and federal elections. THE BATTLE FOR ELECTION TRANSPARENCY: In this David vs. Goliath showdown, courageous citizens and watchdogs unite to challenge the election behemoth. The public records requests that spurred the ES&S Security Bulletin were sent out by Christopher Gleason on half of The Justice Society.(https://thejusticesociety.com/) In their edict ES&S falsely states governmental agency customers and election officials that their compliance with The Justice Society public records requests for Audit Logs could potentially compromise the security of elections. What information is ES&S trying to conceal? The logs and data requested are automatically system generated. They are an auditable date/time stamped record of activities and actions taken by administrators and users of the ES&S software and systems. ES&S markets this functionality (https://thejusticesociety.com/ess-ds200-audit-log-marketing-materials/)as a selling point to ensure security of elections administered with their products. DS200 Tabulator(https://www.essvote.com/products/ds200/) Electionware – Election Management Software(https://www.essvote.com/products/electionware/) ES&S CLAIMS LOGS REQUESTED CONTAIN SENSITIVE INFORMATION Behind the veil of a seemingly reasonable claim, ES&S's dark secrets are exposed, Election Systems & Software (ES&S) has been deceiving the nation, as their software and systems behind the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections is anything but secure. Moreover, the data, reports and logs requested across America paint a much different picture than the false claims that the 2020 were secure, free, fair and transparent. Below is an excerpt of ES&S false claims being used to hide the evidence of widespread election fraud through the use of their software and hardware. During the lead up to the 2020 election ES&S was the subject of EAC complaints about claims that ES&S made that their DS200 Tabulators equipped with modems were being marketed as approved (https://www.scribd.com/document/655567271/Correspondence-Between-the-Election-Assistance-Commission-and-ES-S)for use in elections in ES&S marketing materials. In a letter dated March 20, 2020 the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) sent a letter to ES&S about their misrepresentation that their DS200 Tabulators with modems were certified for use in elections by the EAC. The EAC informed ES&S that the use of their DS200 Tabulators equipped with modems will void the EAC certification (https://www.scribd.com/document/663203690/EAC-ES-S-Evs-5-2-0-0-Scope-and-Cert-revised-2-18-15)of the voting system in its entirety. If no modems/network cards are attached to ES&S DS200 Tabulators, how on earth could they be compromised through network or remote access? The apparent contradiction defies all logic, even amidst the raving endorsements of being the "most secure elections on record" by CIS/CISA/DHS/DOJ, democrats, deep state operatives and the so-called "major news networks". WHY IS ES&S HIDING PROOF THAT THE ELECTIONS ARE SECURE? The evidence of secure elections and technology can be found in election reporting data and logs. These records also contain proof of compromised technology used for election fraud. Chris Gleason and his team discovered election manipulation through illegal adjudication of ballots marked as 100% Blank. They found this in October 2022 using ES&S Election Summary Reports (EL45A) from the 2020 November Presidential Election in various Florida counties.Despite winning Florida overall, President Trump lost in 12 counties where a large number of ballots were marked as "BALLOTS CAST - BLANK" by the voting systems unlawfully. WHAT IS A BLANK BALLOT? According to the official ES&S product documentation a Blank Ballot is a ballot that is simply a 100% blank ballot. In both the 2020 and 2022 elections in Florida, Maryland, Arizona and other states millions of voters cast their ballots through various methods. However, a concerning issue arose: ES&S Tabulators marked many of these ballots as "100% Blank," effectively nullifying the ballots and cancelling the votes of those voters. The ES&S DS200 Tabulators are not the only ballot image scanners used to administer elections. ES&S also sells a high volume ballot scanner called the DS850 that also seems to be illegally adjudicating large numbers of ballots as 100% Blank these are used to process ballots received in vote by mail elections. Although President Trump won the 2020 Presidential Election in Florida he did lose in some counties. In every county that he “lost in” across Florida there were massive numbers of “Ballots Cast – Blank” See below: 2020 - Miami-Dade County Election Summary Results 2020 - Broward County Election Summary Results 2020 Orange County Election Summary Results 2020 - Hillsborough County Election Summary Results 2020 – Palm Beach County Election Summary Results In one Florida County, Pinellas long considered a “Bell Weather County” Julie Marcus, a hand picked by Gov. Ron DeSantis altered the 2020 Election Results to conceal the evidence of election fraud (https://miamiindependent.com/breaking-gleason-files-affidavit-in-pinellas-county-accusing-officials-of-perjury-forgery-altering-election-documents/)and voter fraud by not reporting the number of “Ballots Cast – Blank” as required under Florida Election Law Statutes. 2020 – Pinellas County Election Results Summary – ALTERED TO HIDE BLANK BALLOTS Gleason and his team have since discovered that in the 2020 November General Election that 16,804 Pinellas County voters had the ballots that they cast illegally adjudicated as 100% BLANK and 7,805 voters had the ballots that they casted deemed “Damaged” and were “Duplicated”, “Adjudicated” and printed using Runbeck Systems Software that was the subject of great importance in the Arizona election fraud related to the Kari Lake election. As you can see above there were 16,804 Blank Ballots that were interfered with being cast. This was 2.977% of all the ballots cast in the 2020 Presidential election. In Pinellas County President Donald J. Trump “lost” to Joe Biden by 1,241 votes. NATIONWIDE PATTERN OF ELECTION FRAUD VIA VOTING SYSTEMS This pattern has and continues to occur today in elections counties across America. As Gleason and his team further investigated the widespread election fraud in Florida elections under Ron DeSantis and his hand-picked appointees they found similar problems in Maryland, where ES&S Voting Systems were used without proper certifications and void certifications. These discoveries are the subject of an election fraud lawsuit in United States Court of Appeals, Gibson v Maryland.(https://www.scribd.com/document/663183341/Gibson-v-Maryland-CorrectedBrief-as-Filed-8-3-2023) The administration of elections with uncertified or uncertifiable voting systems is illegal and voids the illegal certification of elections nationwide. The data, evidence and reports that ES&S is seeking to cover up is the evidence that Joe Biden is not really the duly elected President of the United States and Katie Hobbs is not the duly elected Governor of Arizona. This evidence proves that the indictment of President Donald J. Trump by the Biden DOJ is an attempted coverup of the largest series of frauds and treasons in the history of America. Kari Lake spoke out on Thursday about the massive fraud (https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/08/kari-lake-advocates-decertifying-2020-election-rather-than/)during the 2020 presidential election. In order to impeach Biden he would need to be the legitimate duly elected President of the United States (https://twitter.com/KariLake/status/1687244422512275456?s=20)and he isn’t. Fraud Vitiates all things. During the 2022 November Election in Arizona, several counties reported concerning discrepancies related to "Ballots Cast - Blank." Apache and Pima counties listed a significant number of such ballots, indicating interference with voters' right to cast and have their ballots counted accurately. Coconino and Santa Cruz counties, on the other hand, omitted this category from their election reports, raising suspicions of illegal modifications to conceal the number of affected voters. This casts doubt on the integrity of the election process in those counties. An unacceptable number of Blank Ballots calls into question the accuracy and dependability of the ES&S voting systems and the ease of their use to commit election fraud. In Arizona for the 2022 November Election, Pima County listed that 5,309 Ballots Cast were 100% Blank. This means that 1.317% of the Pima voters who cast ballots on election day, early voting and provisionally had their right to cast a ballot and have it counted accurately interfered with. Their right to vote illegally taken away by the use of ES&S Tabulators. This calls into question the reliability and accuracy of the ES&S software and hardware used to conduct elections. How can the results being generated by these machines be trusted? When the audit logs and system logs are hidden by the Election Fraud Mafia they can't be trusted. MASSIVE ELECTION FRAUD RICO ENTERPRISE In Florida, Ron DeSantis and his hand-picked Secretary of State Cord Byrd have colluded with ES&S, Dominion Voting, and compromised elections officials to destroy the evidence of the widespread election fraud. They went so far to conceal their frauds, treasons and subversive activities that they passed a law restricting the disclosure of elections related results and data to the public in the same legislation that allowed Governor Ron DeSantis to run for President without having to resign.(https://miamiindependent.com/on-day-he-announces-for-president-ron-desantis-signs-election-fraud-legalization-act/) The new election law (https://miamiindependent.com/why-does-florida-senate-bill-7050-subvert-public-election-transparency/)has been called “The Florida Election Fraud Legalization Act” by election integrity watchdog groups. The legislation was rushed through to the dismay of election advocates on both sides of the political spectrum. There are numerous lawsuits in Florida about the widespread election fraud by election officials and their co-conspirators. Any claims by Governor Ron DeSantis that there were no issues with the 2020 Presidential Election are 100% false and can be proven using the public records data that he and his friends at ES&S and Dominion want to illegally hide. Furthermore, there have been massive discoveries that call into question the legitimacy of the 2022 elections. Many of these facts and evidence are the subject of the Scott v DeSantis lawsuit currently unfolding in Leon County Florida. THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA'S SOUL Prepare for an EPIC SHOWDOWN as the forces of TRUTH and TRANSPARENCY clash with the shadows of deceit! The stakes have never been higher as they are for 2024—this battle will DEFINE the future of America! (Source: Chris Gleason, CDM, August 7, 2023)

Election Integrity for America Election Integrity: Most Voters Expect Cheating Will Affect 2024 Outcome Wednesday, June 14, 2023 (Source: Rasmussen Reports dated June 14, 2023). A majority of voters continue to suspect widespread election fraud, and expect cheating at the ballot box to influence the 2024 presidential election. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 54% of Likely U.S. Voters believe cheating is likely to affect the outcome of the next presidential election, including 30% who think it’s Very Likely. Forty-one percent (41%) say election cheating is unlikely to affect the 2024 outcome, including 24% who consider it Not At All Likely. (To see survey question wording, click here.) Voter Fraud? The Heritage Foundation has compiled a database of more than 1,400 recent proven cases of election fraud, which have resulted in more than 1,200 criminal convictions. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters believe it is likely that state and federal officials are ignoring evidence of widespread election fraud, including 36% who think it’s Very Likely. Forty percent (40%) say it’s unlikely officials are ignoring election fraud, including 27% who view it as Not At All Likely. In April, 62% believed it likely that evidence of election fraud was being ignored by officials. The survey of 1,003 U.S. Likely Voters was conducted on June 7-8 and 11, 2023 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. A majority (52%) of voters now believe that cheating likely affected the outcomes of some races in last year's midterm elections, including 30% who say it’s Very Likely. Thirty-eight percent (38%) don’t think last year’s midterm elections were affected by cheating, including 25% who view it as Not At All Likely. Another 10% are not sure. In April, 60% believed the 2022 midterms had been affected by cheating. Election Integrity Trust On the question of which party they trust more to protect the integrity of elections, voters are almost evenly divided, with 40% saying they trust Republicans more and 39% trusting Democrats more, while another 20% are not sure. This mostly reflects the partisan division of the electorate, as 74% of both Democrats and Republicans trust their own party more to protect election integrity. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, 37% trust Republicans more and 29% trust Democrats more to protect the integrity of elections.Republicans are significantly more likely than other voters to suspect cheating in elections. For example, while 43% of Republicans think it’s Very Likely last year’s midterm election outcomes were affected by cheating, only 23% of Democrats and 24% of unaffiliated voters share that opinion. Similarly, 69% of Republicans believe it is at least somewhat likely that cheating will affect the outcome of the next presidential election, compared to 46% of Democrats and 47% of unaffiliated voters. Election Cheating This difference is clearest when it comes to suspicions that election cheating is being covered up. A majority (51%) of Republicans believe it’s Very Likely that state and federal officials are ignoring evidence of widespread election fraud, compared to 28% of Democrats and 30% of unaffiliated voters.There is not a very wide “gender gap” on these questions, although men (44%) are more likely than women voters (38%) to say they trust Republicans more to protect the integrity of elections. Majorities of every racial category – 57% of whites, 54% of black voters and 53% of other minorities – consider it at least somewhat likely that officials are ignoring evidence of widespread election fraud. Black voters are least likely to trust Republicans to protect election integrity. Suspicions of election cheating are highest among voters under 40. Voters 65 and older are most likely to say they trust Republicans more to protect the integrity of elections. Breaking down the electorate by income categories, those in the highest bracket – earning more than $200,000 a year – are most likely to trust Democrats to protect election integrity. President Joe Biden’s strongest supporters are least worried about cheating in elections. Among voters who Strongly Approve of Biden’s job performance as president, only 32% consider it at least somewhat likely that cheating will affect the outcome of the next presidential election. By contrast, among those who Strongly Disapprove of Biden’s performance, 84% think it’s at least somewhat likely the 2024 outcome will be affected by cheating.

The United States holds elections as a fundamental part of its democratic system of governance. Elections serve several important purposes in the United States: Representation: Elections allow citizens to choose their representatives at various levels of government, including the President, members of Congress, governors, state legislators, and local officials. By casting their votes, citizens have a say in shaping the policies and laws that govern the country. Legitimacy: Elections provide a means for the peaceful transfer of power and ensure the legitimacy of the government. Through a free and fair electoral process, elected officials derive their authority from the consent of the governed. Accountability: Elections hold elected officials accountable for their actions. By allowing voters to express their approval or disapproval of the incumbent leaders, elections provide a mechanism for citizens to voice their concerns and hold their representatives responsible for their decisions. Participation: Elections encourage citizen participation in the political process. They offer an opportunity for individuals to engage in civic duty, express their political preferences, and have a voice in shaping the direction of the country. Protection of Rights: Elections help protect citizens' rights and freedoms by allowing them to participate in the decision-making process. By having a say in electing their representatives, citizens can help safeguard their individual liberties and influence policies that affect their lives. Overall, elections in the United States are crucial for maintaining a democratic system that upholds the principles of representation, legitimacy, accountability, participation, and the protection of rights.

The following is a statement from Pam Smith, president and CEO of Verified Voting. For more information, please contact aurora@newheightscommunications.com. PHILADELPHIA (August 3, 2022) — With the 2022 primaries underway and just over three months until the general election, Verified Voting identified several technology takeaways from this election cycle. It pinpointed actionable items that, if taken, would bolster the voting experience before November:  Offer emergency paper ballots to voters when voting technology fails to ensure that eligible voters are not turned away at the polls, and reserve provisional ballots only for unique voting circumstances when they are required Have poll workers inform voters that if ballot scanners are not correctly working at a polling location, they have the right to complete a paper ballot that is stored in an auxiliary bin or other county-approved container – and instruct poll workers to assure voters their ballots will be counted Supply paper copies of voter registration lists at in-person polling locations to avoid long lines if electronic poll books fail when voters are checking in Provide adequate poll worker training to ensure that all voting equipment – including accessible equipment – is available and functioning and any equipment failures are promptly repaired. Have poll workers explicitly instruct voters to carefully verify their printed selections before casting their ballots, especially if they are using a machine to mark their ballots Conduct rigorous pre- and post-election testing, as well as post-election audits as outlined in state law. All voters also have a role to play by checking their ballots before casting them and reducing the spread of disinformation by looking directly to their local elections offices for trusted information.  “We have confidence that election officials have their plans for November, but many of these recommendations are useful during poll worker training. From an election protection standpoint, these are steps that can make a difference when emphasized to front-line workers who help run our elections,” said Pam Smith, president, and CEO of Verified Voting. ###

Election Integrity Initiative A record number of Californians have lost faith and confidence in how our state conducts its elections – and the reasons are well-documented! California’s fraud-prone election practices include outdated voter rolls, ballot harvesting schemes, refusal to verify citizenship status, non-existent signature reviews, etc. That’s why Reform California and Carl DeMaio are leading a two-track campaign to restore election integrity in our state. ‍ Track 1: Qualify and Pass the CA Election Integrity with Voter ID Initiative Reform California Chairman Carl DeMaio has authored a statewide constitutional amendment to restore election integrity by requiring 1) verification of voter ID for any ballot counted; 2) proper maintenance of voter rolls; 3) proper verification of ballot signatures, and 4) audits of the election process to ensure full compliance with federal, state and local laws. The challenge is this: to enact this law, we must collect over 1 million signatures to place the CA Election Integrity with Voter ID Initiative on the ballot. That means we MUST recruit at least 20,000 volunteers statewide to commit to collecting enough signatures, and we must raise $1-2 million to get the job done. Track 2: Require Each County to “Audit the Vote” After Every Election While we work to qualify and pass our statewide ballot initiative, Reform California is working to force individual counties in our state to pass an “Audit the Vote” ordinance to require post-election audits of their local election practices. The “Audit the Vote” initiatives would require each county to evaluate the following: the rate of ineligible voter registrations in their county, whether signatures are being reviewed adequately before ballots are counted, wait times at polling locations, etc. During the Primary and General elections, Reform California will also recruit workers and poll monitors in each county to ensure the ballots are processed correctly – and will be ready to investigate and prosecute any failures to comply with election laws. Until we can restore election integrity, we will never be able to achieve our long-term goal of taking back California from the far Left. We need immediate support from all concerned Californians to get this done!

With a score of 30/100 and a Ranking of 49/50 states, California fails the Election Integrity test. Audit Reveals Evidence of Voter Fraud in California's 2022 Election  June 7, 2023 Image Credit: Canva ‍California Receives Failing Grade on Non-Partisan Election Integrity Scorecard After Audit Finds Evidence of Voter Fraud, Inaccurate Voter Lists, Inadequate Signature Reviews, and Voter Suppression A bombshell report released by the non-partisan Transparency Foundation gives California a failing grade on election integrity and declares "from its failure to maintain accurate voter registration lists to its refusal to verify the identity and eligibility of voters, California has the worst election practices in the nation." Investigators who compiled the report interviewed state and county election officials and conducted an independent audit over 18 months of California's election practices, voter registration lists, ballot signature reviews, and discarded ballots. "The findings of this election integrity audit are quite damning, and they completely refute the false narrative being spun by California politicians and media outlets that the state has no problems with how it conducts elections," says Carl DeMaio with the Transparency Foundation. "The problems are so bad, and the evidence presented is so alarming that we believe there's a clear case that California is repeatedly violating existing election laws, and immediate reforms need to be implemented before the 2024 election," DeMaio warns. ‍ Audit Detects Voter Fraud The Transparency Foundation's audit pinpointed substantial evidence of voter fraud in California. The audit examined mail-in ballots rejected by county election officials because of mismatched signatures and remained "uncured" at the end of the election. The audit found 56% of ballot signatures rejected as mismatched remained "uncured" or unclaimed by voters that supposedly cast them – despite repeated attempts by county officials to get these voters to confirm their identity and their attempt to vote in the election. Even worse, of the 388 individuals with rejected and uncured ballots that were located by investigators and submitted to interviews, the audit uncovered a 14.17% likely fraud rate where the voter denied ever attempting to vote – and some claimed to not even live in California.‍ ‍ Audit Reveals Inadequate Signature Verification The audit revealed a massive disparity in signature rejection rates across California counties – with flawed signature review regulations imposed by the California Secretary of State to blame. For example, in both the 2022 Primary and General Elections, Sacramento County rejected a significantly lower percentage of signatures (.24% in the Primary and .23% in the General) than San Joaquin County (2.18% in the Primary and 2.10% in the General.) Sacramento County was also wildly outside the statewide average of rejected signatures of .70% in the Primary and 1.01% in the General. Put another way, Sacramento County's ballot rejection rate was 438% below the statewide average.   Not only do these disparities raise the concern that some counties are not doing an adequate job of signature reviews, but the extreme nature of the disparities offers the basis to challenge California's ballot signature review regulations on due process and equal protection grounds. ‍ Inaccurate Voter Lists Investigators say the interviews with county election officials and the audit showed that California has failed to maintain a reasonably accurate voter registration list. The report cites policies imposed by California politicians that make it operationally impossible to maintain accurate voter registration lists. The investigation identified more than 6.6 million people since 2010 that moved out of California to another state. Unfortunately, the report notes the VoteCal data system fails to provide county election officials with the data they need to remove someone from the voter rolls when they move out of state. The result? Millions of inactive voters are still on California's voter rolls – many still receive The audit also found evidence of 81,421 potential duplicate or triplicate voter registrations for the same individuals in the state voter registration list. Reinforcing the audit findings, a 2020 survey by Reform California showed nearly one-in-ten California households have received "erroneous" ballots for someone who does not live there, for a dead person, or a duplicate/triplicate poll for the same person. ‍ Election Interference and Voter Suppression Concerns Investigators documented numerous instances at the state and local levels where politicians intentionally misled voters by placing false and biased titles on ballot measures. The report also cites millions in taxpayer funds that have been inappropriately used to manipulate election outcomes by boosting turnout in specific voting blocks, promoting ballot measures, and funding lobbyist groups to influence redistricting maps to benefit the ruling political party and incumbent politicians. Investigators also raise concerns regarding voter suppression, citing a recent move by California politicians to eliminate polling locations on Election Day deliberately. In 2022 one county saw a reduction of 87% in its polling locations on Election Day. Investigators say a case could be made that this move could be successfully challenged in court on voter suppression grounds - pointing to polling that shows that conservative voters prefer to vote on election day. In contrast, liberal voters choose to vote by mail.‍ ‍ California Voters Lack Confidence in the State's Voting System The report cites polls showing California voters do not have trust and confidence in the state's elections and want immediate improvements in election integrity. The Berkeley IGS poll in November 2022 shows sixty percent of all California voters surveyed said that people voting or casting ballots illegally was a threat, with 39% of them saying it was a significant threat. ‍ Failing Score on 9-of-10 Criteria The Transparency Foundation gives California failing grades on all but one of the election integrity criteria applied during the audit. Public Trust and Confidence: FAIL Accurate Maintenance of Voter Lists: FAIL Verifying Identity of Voters: FAIL Confirmation of Eligibility/Citizenship: FAIL Accessibility of Voting: FAIL Security of Election Systems: FAIL Interference in Elections: FAIL Unbiased and Accurate Ballot Titles: FAIL Individual Ballot Tracking and Curing: PASS Post-Election Auditing: FAIL "Election integrity should not be a partisan issue, but a collective commitment to ensuring that all voters have trust and confidence in the process and the outcome – and that's not happening in California," concludes DeMaio. "We hope that this report and the findings of this audit serve as a call to action to finally force politicians and their friends in the media to be honest about California's election deficiencies and commit to reforming these practices before 2024," DeMaio concludes.

These six states will determine the 2024 presidential election. Because historical election returns have proven to be extremely close, each election is vulnerable to voter fraud. Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. BY MYRA ADAMS, OPINION CONTRIBUTOR - 02/23/23 8:00 AM ET The question Republicans are asking is: Can Gov. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) win the White House in 2024? A better, more precise question is: Can he win suburban voters in Pennsylvania? It’s a question all prospective GOP primary candidates should answer. Suburbanites are swing voters, while urban dwellers trend. Democratic and rural residents are overwhelmingly Republican. Therefore, in battleground Pennsylvania, the candidate who captures the suburban vote increases their chances of winning the state’s 19 electoral votes to reach the 270 votes required to win the presidency.  Thus, for Republicans itching to win back the White House, the eventual nominee must appeal to suburban voters in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, North Carolina, Arizona, and Georgia. Winning or losing these six states reduces the 2024 presidential election to its simplest form. But the likelihood of a winning combination is stacked against the GOP. Why? The answer is challenging Electoral College math along with some reality checks. Now don’t expect GOP candidates to explain why or how they will win these six critical states before or during the primary season. When the “electability factor” is raised, it’s usually about winning in general. And Republican primary voters can expect to hear variations of “Fighting to save America” and “Let’s take our country back.” Unfortunately, slogans about uniting America are past their sell-by date since “uniting” means compromise, which, in the eyes of many Americans, equates to surrender. The current leading Republican primary candidate, former President Trump, won six states and the presidency in 2016. But in 2020, he lost five of them (which explains the “former” title). Reversing his losses requires new policies and broader (dare I say moderate?) appeal from a nominee who catches fire among independents in addition to a young and diverse electorate willing to vote for a new White House occupant. Does that candidate exist? An undisputed political fact is that the Republican base alone cannot elect a president. (Same for the Democratic base.) Yet, the depth of national polarization is illustrated by how both parties begin the 2024 race with a list of likely red or blue states spread across the Electoral College map. If a party won a state over the last two presidential elections, it is deemed the “likely” winner in 2024. After the 2020 election and census, the likely red states provide 219 electoral votes, including Texas, Ohio, and Florida. Democrats have 232 votes from possible blue states. Hence, with 538 electoral votes — 87 are battleground votes spread across six states. So now, let’s examine those six states, starting with the most likely to be named the 2024 “mother of all battlegrounds,” even though it was “red” over the last three presidential elections. North Carolina: The 2020 census increased its electoral votes from 15 to 16. North Carolina’s economic and population growth supplements the voter rolls with young, skilled, educated residents who tend to be more progressive and racially diverse. Meanwhile, retirees migrating from northern or midwestern states provide some balance. The state’s movement from solid red began in 2008 when Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) squeezed out a 0.3 percentage-point win over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). Then from 2012 to 2020, North Carolina reverted to red, but it was always close. In 2016, Trump won by a more generous 3.6 percentage points, but his 2020 win was only 1.3 points. Considering the GOP’s narrow electoral path in 2024, North Carolina is a “must-win” — a status once granted to Ohio and Florida.   Georgia: The GOP’s shocking loss of the state’s 16 electoral votes in 2020 guarantees that the next Republican nominee will become one with Georgians. In 2016, Trump won by 5.2 percentage points, only to lose by 0.2 points in 2020. So, was it Trump or a more general trend toward blue? Arizona: Here is another 2020 red-to-blue shocker that is either a one-off or a blue presidential trend. For the electoral math equation, the GOP must win back Arizona’s 11 electoral votes that Trump lost by 0.3 percentage points after winning in 2016 by 3.6 points. But Arizona is not a must-win for Democrats because of the following cushion.   Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania: The three “blue wall” states have voted in unison since 1992. The three states total 44 electoral votes, down from 46 in 2020, with Pennsylvania and Michigan losing one vote.   In 2016 Trump unexpectedly won all three states by fractions that allowed him to reach 270. Then in 2020, Biden reclaimed the “blue wall.” Here are Trump and Biden’s percentage-point margins of victory: Michigan 2016: 0.2  — 2020: 2.8 Wisconsin 2016: 0.7 — 2020: 0.7 Pennsylvania 2016: 0.7 — 2020: 1.2 In politics, always expect the unexpected, and historical voting data only acts as a guide. Nonetheless, the GOP nominee has a steep climb over the blue wall to win at least one of the three states, along with must-wins in Georgia, Arizona, and North Carolina, to reach 272 electoral votes. (Wisconsin, the GOPs best bet, is represented in the 272 total.) All this electoral math gaming precludes unexpected red or blue flips. Still, the 2024 Republican nominee must focus on these six states to reach 270. GOP primary voters should boldly ask whether their candidate can win these states or risk losing the White House. Myra Adams writes about politics and religion for numerous publications. She is a RealClearPolitics contributor and served on the creative team of two GOP presidential campaigns in 2004 and 2008. Follow her on Twitter @MyraKAdams.

The status of election integrity systems can vary over time as states implement and update their election laws and regulations. However, it's worth noting that election laws and systems can be a matter of debate and interpretation. Different individuals and organizations may have varying opinions on which states have effective election integrity systems. It is advisable to refer to official sources such as the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC) or the websites of respective state election authorities for the most up-to-date and accurate information regarding election integrity systems in the United States. We continue to monitor developments in the States.

Voting machines have some potential risks, as with any technology. Some concerns commonly raised about voting machines include: Voting machines have some potential risks, as with any technology. Some concerns commonly raised about voting machines include the following: Malfunction or error: Voting machines can be prone to technical errors or malfunctions that could affect an election's outcome. For example, a machine might register incorrect votes or fail to record votes correctly. Hacking or tampering: Voting machines are also vulnerable to hacking or other forms of tampering, which could potentially alter the results of an election. This is particularly concerning given the potential for foreign interference in elections. Lack of transparency: Because voting machines operate on proprietary software, it can be difficult for election officials and independent auditors to verify their accuracy and security. This lack of transparency can erode public trust in the electoral process. Malfunction or error: Voting machines can be prone to technical errors or malfunctions that could affect an election's outcome. For example, a machine might register incorrect votes or fail to record votes correctly. Hacking or tampering: Voting machines are also vulnerable to hacking or other forms of tampering, which could potentially alter the results of an election. This is particularly concerning given the potential for foreign interference in elections. Lack of transparency: Because voting machines operate on proprietary software, it can be difficult for election officials and independent auditors to verify their accuracy and security. This lack of transparency can erode public trust in the electoral process. Overall, the risks associated with voting machines depend on various factors, including the specific type of machine being used, the security measures in place to protect them, and the overall integrity of the election system. It is important for election officials to carefully consider these risks when deciding whether or how to use voting machines in elections.

People who believe this fantasy know too little about America's bogus election system EMERALD ROBINSON MAY 31, 2023 ∙ PAID 193 59 4 Share Since the 2022 midterms, the hot new idea on the Right is for the GOP establishment to embrace ballot harvesting. This seems, at first glance, to be a perfectly reasonable strategy. Why not copy the Left's mail-in ballot machine? Why not legally cheat as much as the Democrats? This month, even President Trump endorsed the idea of ballot harvesting for the GOP. As most of you know, I have covered the sordid details of America's fraudulent election system more than any other reporter since 2020 — and it's been a daily topic on my TV show "The Absolute Truth" for over a year. Georgia, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New York — the election integrity groups that discovered how the 2020 election was stolen, state by state, have all been guests on my show. My credentials on this subject are impeccable, and I'm here to tell you that the GOP will not solve its election problems by building a ballot-harvesting operation. Why not — you ask? First of all, you just watched Arizona election officials shut down the voting machines in GOP precincts of Maricopa County in the 2022 midterms. It would appear that a GOP ballot harvesting operation would have neutralized that particular strategy — right? That's the problem with having only a superficial knowledge of "ballot harvesting." The cheaters who stole the election from Kari Lake not only had extra ballots but also had access to dirty voter rolls, flimsy poll books, bogus "signature verification" schemes, and a host of other "adjudication" tricks to get the result they wanted. Just consider Arizona's 2022 midterm election. They had an infamous printing company on hand to "process" all the harvested ballots from both sides. To minimize whistleblowers, they hired all their people to handle the votes during the bogus process. They even installed an FBI agent from the "cyber division" to act as the Director of Elections for Arizona — and they installed her one year before the midterms. That's total control of the system. In other words, the cheaters have multiple games to defeat any GOP ballot-harvesting operation. That's just how the federal government works, as any contractor can tell you: "redundant" systems are always built-in in case of emergency. Do you think a bunch of GOP consultants will mislead the FBI, the CIA, and CISA and their army of proxy contractors hiding behind a labyrinth of shell companies with illegal contracts from state election boards that allow them to privatize America's elections? Don't fool yourself: ballot harvesting won't be enough for the GOP to win. Ballots are not enough. Tabulators are not sufficient. Poll books are not enough. Poll workers are not enough. You need to own and control the entire system because America's whole election system is built to be vulnerable. That's why we must get rid of the electronic voting machines. That's why we need paper ballots and one day to vote.

Andi Bayer | Election Integrity Working Group Good news, Virginians! Virginia has withdrawn its membership from the Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC). This non-profit, multi-state partnership purports to keep voter rolls ‘clean and updated,’ but could better be defined as a partisan mass voter registration effort funded by unsuspecting taxpayers. Virginia now joins seven other states (Louisiana, Florida, Missouri, West Virginia, Alabama, Ohio, and Iowa), which have also terminated their contracts with ERIC over the last few months. Texas is also considering withdrawing, and North Carolina had been considering joining but recently changed course. Virginia was one of the first states to join ERIC when it was founded in 2012 by David Becker – a highly partisan and controversial figure – with funding from the Soros Open Society. ERIC’s founder David Becker stated 2018 that ERIC “is the single most effective voter registration drive in the history of the United States.” To be clear, ERIC is a non-governmental, non-profit corporation organized and operated outside the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the structure of ERIC intentionally provides no transparency or accountability to its member states, which must fund the operation. Participation with ERIC requires member states to pay a one-time $25,000 entrance fee to join in addition to annual dues based on each state’s voting-age population, for which Virginia paid $39,000 annually. Under its contract with ERIC, Virginia was obligated to share with ERIC the personally identifiable information (PII) of every active and inactive registered voter, including minors ages 16 and older and non-registered citizens. The data was provided to ERIC via the Department of Elections, the Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV), and numerous state public assistance agencies. However, ERIC was not required to reciprocally share its amassed voter registration data with its member states to clean the voter rolls. Since its inception, ERIC has produced only one annual report in 2017 despite promises to make more. Further, it was discovered that ERIC does share the proprietary data it receives with the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), which is another 501(c)(3) left-wing organization also founded and run by ERIC’s highly partisan originator. Additionally, ERIC provides no information or transparency as to how much data is transferred or stored, with whom the data is shared, as well as the algorithms it or CEIR uses for identifying eligible but unregistered voters (EBUs), much less the types of other analytics performed on the garnered records. ERIC has allegedly misrepresented its office location and intertwined its relationship with the CEIR. It only has a handful of employees to manage its now accrued 350 million records of voters, EBUs, individuals approaching voter age, and non-citizens. The ERIC contract also required the Virginia Department of Elections (ELECT) to contact 95 percent of the EBUs identified by ERIC and CEIR for voter registration at taxpayer expense. Unlike voter roll maintenance, however, states are not mandated by law to perform mass voter registration drives, and for good reason. Instead, the rightful responsibility of the states, as defined by law, is to ensure that sufficient, understandable, and easily accessible opportunities exist for citizens to register to vote online and via the DMV and other state agencies providing public services and assistance. As for ERIC’s claims that it reduces states’ voter roll maintenance workload and improves voter roll accuracy, we also know that 19,000 deceased voters (dating back to 1960) were recently identified by the Virginia Department of Elections, not ERIC, and these records were appropriately removed. Now, Virginia is leaving ERIC for multiple reasons, as noted in Commission Beals’ letter: Costly mandated GOTV activities are unrelated to list maintenance. We are sharing data with 3rd party CEIR for “research purposes” in 2020. ERIC increasingly engages in efforts that are not list maintenance. The board rejected reforms unanimously suggested by the subcommittee. Elevates the voice of a biased non-voting Board member (Becker). Significant dues increase for Virginia because seven States left. Concerns about stewardship, maintenance, privacy, and confidentiality of voter data. Below is an excerpt of Election Commissioner Susan Beals’ letter to ERIC signaling withdrawal: In recent years, ERIC has increasingly engaged in efforts outside of list maintenance and has elevated the voice of a partisan non-voting board member. Virginia participated in efforts to reform ERIC to return the organization's focus to improving electoral integrity through list maintenance. When reform efforts failed, and several states left the organization, it became clear that Virginia’s ERIC investment return was decreasing. After carefully evaluating Virginia’s relationship with ERIC, I at this moment notify you that Virginia is terminating its membership with ERIC for the following reasons: Mandatory activities required by the membership agreement, such as the Eligible but Unregistered mailing, which are unrelated to the list maintenance require the expenditure of hundreds of thousands of dollars in state funds. A review of Virginia’s participation in that mailing also revealed that this requirement involved a third-party group and data sharing with that group for research purposes in 2020. Seven member states have resigned from ERIC, resulting in the announcement that the upcoming year’s budget will require a significant dues increase for remaining members. In addition to an increase in dues, Virginia will see a declining benefit as the state will have access to a reduced amount of states data. The Fairfax GOP commends Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin, Attorney General Jason Miyares, Elections Commissioner Susan Beals, and the Virginia Board of Elections for their decision to withdraw from ERIC.  Andi Bayer co-chairs the Election Integrity Working Group, a volunteer-run project of the Fairfax GOP.

MS-ISAC ADVISORY NUMBER: 2023-055 DATE(S) ISSUED: 06/01/2023 OVERVIEW: A Vulnerability has been discovered in Progress Moveit Transfer, which could allow for potential unauthorized access to the environment, escalated privileges, and remote code execution. MOVEit Transfer is a managed file transfer software that allows the enterprise to securely transfer files between business partners and customers using SFTP, SCP, and HTTP-based uploads. Depending on the privileges associated with the user an attacker could then install programs; view, change, or delete data; or create new accounts with full user rights. Users whose accounts are configured to have fewer user rights on the system could be less impacted than those who operate with administrative user rights THREAT INTELLIGENCE: There is threat intelligence of this vulnerability being exploited in the wild. SYSTEMS AFFECTED: MOVEit Transfer prior to 2023.0.1 MOVEit Transfer prior to 2022.1.5 MOVEit Transfer prior to 2022.0.4 MOVEit Transfer prior to 2021.1.4 MOVEit Transfer prior to 2021.0.6 RISK: Government: Large and medium government entitiesHIGH Small governmentMEDIUM Businesses: Large and medium business entitiesHIGH Small business entitiesMEDIUM Home Users: LOW TECHNICAL SUMMARY: A vulnerability in MOVEit Transfer that could lead to escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access to the environment. Details of this vulnerability are as follows:Tactic: Initial Access (TA0001):Technique: Exploit Public-Facing Application (T1190): The vulnerability is an SQL injection flaw that allows for escalated privileges and potential unauthorized access on target systems. Rapid7 analyzed a sample webshell payload associated with successful exploitation. The webshell code would first determine if the inbound request contained a header named X-siLock-Comment, and would return a 404 "Not Found" error if the header was not populated with a specific password-like value. As of June 1, 2023, all instances of Rapid7-observed MOVEit Transfer exploitation involve the presence of the file human2.aspx in the wwwroot folder of the MOVEit install directory (human.aspx is the native aspx file used by MOVEit for the web interface). RECOMMENDATIONS: In addition to Progress remediation recommendations, we recommend the following actions be taken: Ensure your MOVEit application is receiving and applying updates, definitions, and security patches and mitigations recommended by Progress. (M1051: Update Software) Safeguard 7.1: Establish and Maintain a Vulnerability Management Process: Establish and maintain a documented vulnerability management process for enterprise assets. Review and update documentation annually, or when significant enterprise changes occur that could impact this Safeguard. Safeguard 7.2: Establish and Maintain a Remediation Process: Establish and maintain a risk-based remediation strategy documented in a remediation process, with monthly, or more frequent, reviews. Safeguard 7.3: Perform Automated Operating System Patch Management: Perform operating system updates on enterprise assets through automated patch management on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. Safeguard 7.4: Perform Automated Application Patch Management: Perform application updates on enterprise assets through automated patch management on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. Safeguard 7.6: Perform Automated Vulnerability Scans of Externally-Exposed Enterprise Assets: Perform automated vulnerability scans of externally-exposed enterprise assets using a SCAP-compliant vulnerability scanning tool. Perform scans on a monthly, or more frequent, basis. Safeguard 7.7: Remediate Detected Vulnerabilities: Remediate detected vulnerabilities in software through processes and tooling on a monthly, or more frequent, basis, based on the remediation process. Safeguard 12.1: Ensure Network Infrastructure is Up-to-Date: Ensure network infrastructure is kept up-to-date. Example implementations include running the latest stable release of software and/or using currently supported network-as-a-service (NaaS) offerings. Review software versions monthly, or more frequently, to verify software support. Safeguard 18.1: Establish and Maintain a Penetration Testing Program: Establish and maintain a penetration testing program appropriate to the size, complexity, and maturity of the enterprise. Penetration testing program characteristics include scope, such as network, web application, Application Programming Interface (API), hosted services, and physical premise controls; frequency; limitations, such as acceptable hours, and excluded attack types; point of contact information; remediation, such as how findings will be routed internally; and retrospective requirements. Safeguard 18.2: Perform Periodic External Penetration Tests: Perform periodic external penetration tests based on program requirements, no less than annually. External penetration testing must include enterprise and environmental reconnaissance to detect exploitable information. Penetration testing requires specialized skills and experience and must be conducted through a qualified party. The testing may be clear box or opaque box. Safeguard 18.3: Remediate Penetration Test Findings: Remediate penetration test findings based on the enterprise’s policy for remediation scope and prioritization. Apply the Principle of Least Privilege to all systems and services. Run all software as a non-privileged user (one without administrative privileges) to diminish the effects of a successful attack. (M1026: Privileged Account Management)

https://www.heritage.org/electionscorecard/pages/states/oh.html SECURITY AND VOTER EDUCATION TOOLKIT INTRODUCTION Boards of elections report receiving frequent calls or emails from voters who question the integrity of Ohio’s elections. Some have received requests for tours of their facilities, questions about observing the canvass of election results, and public records requests for election-related material. This document aims to equip boards to respond effectively and continue to educate the public on how elections are run in Ohio so that voters have confidence in our democratic process. RESPONSES TO FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS Below are a few topics that frequently come up with constituents and facts that boards can use to explain why Ohio is a national leader in election security and accuracy: 1) Ohio is a paper ballot state. A paper ballot or a voter-verified paper audit trail documents every vote cast in Ohio. In the November 3, 2020, General Election, 66.5% of ballots cast in Ohio were paper ballots marked by the voter by their hand. The remaining 33.5% of votes were machine-marked and verified by the voter with the voter-verified paper audit trail. In 47 counties, voters use pre-printed paper ballots that are hand marked by each voter. For example, Cuyahoga and Hamilton Counties (two of the three most significant in the state) use paper ballots. In 28 counties, voters use a ballot marking device that prints the ballot for the voters to review their choices after reviewing their actual decisions on the ballot marking machine. The vote is then scanned in a ballot scanner. In 13 counties, voters utilize a Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) voting machine with a voter-verified paper audit trail. The voter may review their choices after reviewing their options on the screen. All Ohio counties provide absentee voters who apply to receive a ballot by mail with a paper ballot. 61.7% of absentee ballots were cast by mail in the November 3, 2020, General Election. The other 38.3% of absentee ballots were released in person during the early voting. 2) No voting machines are connected to the internet. Ever. The law prohibits connecting a voting machine to the internet in any way, and devices certified for use in Ohio are tested for networking capabilities. Certified systems used in Ohio are examined by an independent Voting System Test Laboratory and the bipartisan Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners to ensure they are secure and function as intended. This includes a check for any wireless network capabilities. All boards of elections are required to conduct a whole series of logic and accuracy (L&A) testing on all voting equipment and to conduct pre-election public testing to ensure that all electronic voting systems are accurately and uniformly tabulating votes cast during an election. L&A testing is the systematic pre-election testing of every component of a voting system with every ballot style to demonstrate that the ballots are accurate and that votes will be adequately tabulated. Each Board of elections must conduct L&A testing before every election on every voting machine and each component of automatic tabulating equipment, including backup machines and equipment. Boards are prohibited from deploying any voting equipment without L&A testing. Each Board of elections must test its automatic tabulating equipment before the start of the unofficial canvass to ensure the accurate counting of the votes cast for all offices and on all questions and issues. Voting machines are locked under strict bipartisan custody, and tamper-evident seals are placed on components once tested. Bipartisan election officials verify that the tamper-evident seals are unbroken before the equipment may be used. 3) To register to vote in Ohio, voters must present proper identification. A qualified elector may register to vote with their current and valid driver’s license number, state I.D. card number, or the last four digits of their Social Security number. Whenever a board of elections receives a new or updated voter registration form,m and the information is entered into the county’s voter registration system, the Board issues an Acknowledgment Notice to that voter, informing them of their registration status, polling location, and identification requirements for voting. Whenever an Acknowledgement Notice is returned undeliverable, the Board investigates. If the Board cannot verify the voter’s correct address, the Board changes the registration to inactive status. Unless the voter confirms their address by the voter registration deadline, the voter must cast a provisional ballot. 4) Ohio voters must present identification before casting a ballot. When a voter comes to cast a ballot in person during the early voting period or Election Day, they must present valid identification to the election officials before receiving a vote. All absentee voters who request a ballot by mail must provide identification, including signature verification, on both the application and ballot return/identification envelope. The absentee ballot application is compared to the Board of Elections records before providing a ballot, and the identification envelope is compared to the Board’s records before counting an absentee vote. Each panel of elections maintains the absentee ballot application and identification envelope after each election. 5) After voting concludes in an election, election officials canvass the results - twice. The canvass is the tally of votes for any given election. Ohio performs unofficial and official canvasses, ensuring that every ballot cast is included in the election totals. The unofficial canvass of an election must be conducted on Election Night by state law. The unofficial canvass must be completed in full view of the members of the Board of elections and any observer appointed by R.C. 3505.21(opens in a new window). Counting ballots for the unofficial canvass is continuous until the unofficial canvass is complete. Boards of elections may begin the official canvass of an election no earlier than the 11th day after the election and must begin no later than the 15th day after the election. Each Board of elections must complete its official canvass and certify the results no later than the 21st day after the election. 6) Bipartisan post-election audits are conducted in Ohio’s 88 counties. Post-election audits ensure that the official canvass results match the choices made by voters as recorded on the paper ballot or voter-verified paper audit trail. These post-election audits are done following every election. The post-election audit conducted statewide in all 88 counties following the 2020 general election returned a statewide accuracy rate of 99.98%. See the Secretary of State’s press release for more information: https://www.ohiosos.gov/media-center/press-releases/2021/2021-01-05/. POLL WORKER RECRUITMENT If citizens have doubts about the integrity of the election process, one of the best ways to learn is to serve as poll workers. Here is an example of how to recruit: “The front line of ensuring election integrity is people, and we will be relying on citizens like you, from both parties, as we prepare for future local, state, and federal elections. To protect Ohio’s elections and ensure access to every legal voter, consider serving as a poll worker with your county board of elections. Your paid training and work as a poll worker will give you first-hand experience in work done in all 88 counties to protect the security and accuracy of our elections.” OPEN HOUSE TOURS We encourage the Board of elections to schedule open house events for the public to educate voters and answer their questions. Panels must always balance transparency to the public by ensuring office security. For example, visitors should present identification and sign a visitor log before touring the facilities. During the tour, the Board of elections staff must always accompany visitors. Please review Chapter 2(opens in a new window), Section 1.07 of the EOM, for additional physical security requirements. Boards must report as a Security Event any unauthorized entry or attempts to gain unauthorized access to storage facilities, polling places, early vote centers, and offices of the Board of elections, per Directive 2019-33 (Chapter 15(opens in a new window) of the EOM). OBSERVERS During primary and general elections, observers are appointed in Ohio by political parties, groups of candidates, or issue committees to observe the conduct of the election. Boards of elections must allow the presence of observers who present a valid certificate of appointment for the unofficial or official canvass, recount, or post-election audit. Potential observers should be informed of the following: The role of observers is limited to observing the proceedings of an election. Accordingly, while observers are permitted to watch and inspect, observers are never allowed to handle any election materials. Observers also must not interfere with election officials or poll workers doing their jobs or otherwise slow down the operation of the polling location, Board of elections, or early vote center, nor may they interact with voters in a manner that interferes with or disrupts an election. Voting location managers, directors, deputy directors, and appointing authorities can administratively remove observers from their posts for behavior inconsistent with Ohio law or Secretary of State Directive, or that interferes with, impedes, or disrupts an election. Law enforcement officials have the statutory duty to remove observers at the order of one of the above-listed election officials. PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS FOR ELECTION MATERIALS County prosecutors represent the boards of elections and serve as your attorney. You may receive public records requests to inspect ballots, provisional and absentee envelopes, voting machine tapes and documents, and other similar items. We believe it is essential to remind you of the following when maneuvering through these public records requests: When receiving such public records requests, immediately consult with your county prosecutor and inform the Secretary of State’s Office. There are two relevant Attorney General Opinions regarding applying public records law to ballots, provisional affirmation statements, and poll books: 2004 OAG 050(opens in a new window) and 2011 OAG 012(opens in a new window). In summary, ballots and provisional ballot affirmation statements are under seal and become subject to disclosure or inspection only after the period for any recount or elections contest has passed. Similarly, poll books must remain under seal until the board completes its official election canvass. RESOURCES The Secretary of State, as the chief election officer, provides several public resources that may help answer additional questions: The Ohio SOS Website Election Official Manual(opens in a new window) 2021 Candidate Requirement Guide(opens in a new window) 2022 Candidate Requirement Guide(opens in a new window) Directives, Advisories, Memoranda, and Tie Votes Ohio Election Security Infographic(opens in a new window) 2020 Poll Worker Recruitment Toolkits Security and Voter Education Toolkit (PDF)

Imagine waking up tomorrow to discover that MLB commissioner Rob Manfeld made another rule change to America’s pastime: All performance-enhancing drugs are legal. Imagine the increases in strength, speed, and stamina that baseball would have to contend with as players from every team experimented with pharmaceutical cocktails to give them the ultimate advantage. What we’re about to see in the 2024 election cycle, with the introduction of artificial intelligence, is the rise of "performance-enhancing digital."  AI will revolutionize politics in the months ahead. Across America, digital agencies and operatives – Democrat and Republican – are already experimenting, and while the outcomes are difficult to predict, the differentiating factor for the winning side will be who best leverages AI to its full potential. It won’t be long at all before discerning reality becomes a challenge – in fact, it is happening already. (Getty images) For starters, there are extraordinary applications for AI to navigate the oceans of data that campaigns produce. But, while there is plenty of hype around ChatGPT and the myriad of new AI tools introduced in recent months, machine-learning tools from companies like Facebook, Google and Trade Desk have been helping the best agencies accomplish their tasks for years. AI HAS POWER TO ‘MANIPULATE’ AMERICANS, SAYS SEN. JOSH HAWLEY, ADVOCATES FOR RIGHT TO SUE TECH COMPANIES The challenge is interpreting all the insights into actionable strategies. So far, AI struggles doing that job. Even the most cutting-edge AI can’t match the precision of human expertise, when considering all the other inputs that optimize strategy and make a campaign successful – from the speed of today’s news cycle to the responsible use of cash on hand.  The best practice is to leverage AI as an accelerator, allowing politicos to scale ideas much faster once they’ve brainstormed in the first place and decided to execute them. Video Copywriting for fundraising emails, captions for social media posts, and scripts for campaign videos can now all be produced with an unprecedented level of speed, personalization and diversity. But, before agencies put their production on AI-autopilot, they need to consider the downsides. I’m personally finding that AI’s output is almost always missing an important, imperceptible quality. (Our team calls it "soul.") Soul translates to the special nuances that add authenticity, which is how we connect with voters. We’ve become quite clever with tricks to make AI more accurate, but I’m skeptical of any campaign that leans too heavily on AI-produced content. It will likely contribute to lazy, cookie-cutter messaging that diminishes audience perception and engagement. All that does is hurt your fundraising by leaving your brand vulnerable to being labeled contrived and inauthentic. FOX NEWS POLL: TOP REACTIONS TO AI? VOTERS SAY ‘DANGEROUS’ AND ‘AFRAID’ What’s clear is the slippery slope associated with AI. I’m most concerned about misinformation, deep fakes and AI-generated imagery. From what I’ve seen firsthand, it won’t be long at all before discerning reality becomes a challenge – in fact, it is happening already. The imprisonment of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are two examples.) Video Just on a practical level, consider a current ethical conundrum: It is acceptable for a political agency to write an email in a candidate's voice, sign their name and send it to their followers? But what if AI was used to generate the candidate's script, mimic their voice, and superimpose the words onto pre-captured footage without any visible disclaimers? That's not science fiction; those tools are available now. Where do we draw the line? Agencies and consultants in the politics business typically hold themselves to an ethical standard. However, with the advancement of user-friendly AI tools, deep fakes are surprisingly easy for any individual – with no ties to a given campaign – to generate and distribute with lightning speed. With that in mind, our ethical standard becomes more important than ever before. Building the AI plane in flight feels monumental. But let's be clear: AI isn't ready to run campaigns solo. Video Think about baseball: Even if all players started using performance-enhancing drugs, the new norm would soon set in. Coaching, analysis and players’ innate skills would still rule. This election cycle, I predict the digital industry will juice up with AI, but the campaigns with experience and creative firepower will still win out.  CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER Right now, AI is a tool with mind-boggling potential and boundless scale, but it is a tool that needs human hands. Human beings will still create the true advantage – and win elections. As for the ethical tightropes, they are currently being navigated by people whose mandate is to win at all costs. Politics will get messier. Many expect AI to be responsible for this election cycle’s "October surprise." While that may be likely, there is still time for the global public to condition themselves against AI-driven messaging. As tools become more ubiquitous and further integrated into daily life, we can only hope our eyes for spotting AI will adapt as well. Let us hope we’re fast enough to see the revolution.

‘Election Integrity and Security’ facts vanish from Wyoming state website MAGGIE MULLEN WyoFile.com March 22, 2023 Comments Laramie County residents voted on November 3, 2020, at the Storey Gym polling location. A collection of facts about election integrity and security created by former Wyoming Secretary of State Ed Buchanan has vanished from his agency's website. When a new law stripped Wyoming voters of the ability to change party affiliation on Election Day earlier this month, Secretary of State Chuck Gray called it a “pivotal moment for election integrity.” “Ending crossover voting to protect the integrity of the election process has been our office’s number one priority this session, and we worked diligently on its passage,” Gray said in a March 2 press release. A few days later, a collection of facts about election integrity and security published by the previous administration vanished from his agency’s website. The public information campaign had been spearheaded by former Secretary of State Ed Buchanan, also a Republican, to address concerns, combat misinformation and boost voter confidence following the 2020 election. “This is your trusted source for election information,” the website read. “The information below brings to light the truth about the security and accuracy of Wyoming elections and addresses the various myths about the insufficiencies and inaccuracies in Wyoming’s election process.” Since March 7, a “server error” message appears when attempting to access the now-defunct webpage. “The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable,” it reads. There are no longer links on the site navigating to the page, and the information does not appear anywhere else on the secretary’s website. Secretary Gray ran on an election integrity platform for his first term as the state’s chief elections officer while lobbing unverified claims of “tremendous problems” with Wyoming’s elections. WyoFile did not receive a response by press time to multiple requests from Gray’s spokesman, including questions about removing the webpage and what, if any, plans Gray has to combat misinformation. Newly elected officials often revamp their agencies’ websites, Rep. Dan Zwonitzer, R-Cheyenne, said. He pointed to State Auditor Kristi Racines, who launched a new webpage in her first term dedicated exclusively to documenting the state’s expenditures, and Gov. Mark Gordon, who created Wyoming Sense as a budget transparency tool during his first year in office. Both of those instances were about making additional information accessible to the public. “I would say that it was superbly beneficial information to the public to know that our elections are safe and secure,” Zwonitzer said. “I am optimistic that information (will be) put back on the secretary of state’s website as soon as possible.” Sen. Cale Case, R-Lander, called it “troubling” and was disappointed to see Buchanan’s work removed. In addition to the myth-busting website, Buchanan traveled the state to present the information in person. “He went right into the heart of the Republican Party and made those presentations and said, ‘Look, this is wrong,’” Case said. Before leaving office in 2022 to pursue a judgeship, Buchanan told WyoFile he needed to engage the public and make himself available for whatever questions voters might have. “I think it’s healthy for citizens to ask questions and have a curiosity about how their election systems work,” Buchanan said during a September 2022 interview. “What I don’t think is healthy is taking a national narrative or issues that may or may not have occurred in other states and automatically assuming that Wyoming is the same way.” In June 2022 op-ed, Buchanan outlined the lengths his election division went to review claims MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell made about widespread voter fraud in Wyoming. Each of those claims was disproven by elections staff, Buchanan said. Gray didn't answer the question directly when asked as a candidate if he would continue Buchanan’s public education efforts if elected. “I’m not into the talk that we see a lot from politicians,” Gray said. “I don’t do that. I work on focusing on getting things done.” Before the webpage disappeared, it detailed the three forms of “information pollution” — misinformation, disinformation, and malformation. “Disinformation about election integrity is widespread! Spreading false information is one of the most common methods of attack used by those seeking to disrupt our elections,” it read. It also addressed seven common election-related myths, including the misconception that only some voters in Wyoming use a paper ballot. “Every voter that votes, whether through filling out a paper ballot by hand or using the touchscreen (ExpressVOTE), has a paper ballot that is cast indicating their ballot choice,” it read. It also debunked the theory trumpeted by Lindell that Wyoming’s voting machines are connected to the internet. The state replaced its outdated voting equipment before the 2020 election, none of which has “the hardware or software required to allow internet connectivity, nor does the tabulation computer in each county have the hardware or software required to allow internet connectivity.” The new machines, selected by a task force of lawmakers, county clerks, and other election officials, were “more secure and sophisticated than any other voting machines used in the history of Wyoming’s elections.” The webpage also provided a diagram depicting Wyoming’s audit and election results process. Buchanan’s office worked with the University of Wyoming to pilot an audit using statistical analyses to measure election accuracy. In the case of the 2022 primary election case, about 3,000 ballots were randomly selected for the statistical audit — all of which were adjudicated with 100% accuracy. The webpage also called on voters to stand against misinformation by “spreading facts” and getting involved, such as volunteering as a poll worker. “Be vigilant and understand that misinformation spreads like wildfire, but together we can snuff out the flames and actively participate in elections confidently,” it read. WyoFile is an independent nonprofit news organization focused on Wyoming people, places, and policy.

There have been instances where hackers have revealed how easy it is to hack U.S. voting machines. At DEF CON's Voting Machine Village, hackers were invited to hack various voting machines used in the U.S. and compromised every voting machine available at the 2019 event. However, having a national effect requires substantial resources. In close or marginal races, these vulnerabilities are significant. Awareness is critical. There are several ways to prevent the hacking of voting machines. One way is to use paper ballots to establish a backup vote record. Another way is to outlaw any internet voting. Election officials should conduct rigorous pre- and post-election testing on the machines, conduct post-election audits, ensure devices are always secure, and encourage voters to double-check that their ballots are readable before scanning. Electronic voting machines from a leading vendor used in at least 16 states have software vulnerabilities that leave them susceptible to hacking if unaddressed, the nation's leading cybersecurity agency says in an advisory sent to state election officials. The advisory, obtained by The Associated Press before its expected Friday release, details nine vulnerabilities and suggests protective measures to prevent or detect their exploitation. Amid a swirl of misinformation and disinformation about elections, CISA seems to be trying to walk a line between not alarming the public and stressing the need for election officials to take action. CISA Executive Director Brandon Wales said, "States' standard election security procedures would detect exploitation of these vulnerabilities and, in many cases, prevent attempts entirely." Yet the advisory seems to suggest states aren't doing enough. It urges prompt mitigation measures, including continued and enhanced "defensive measures to reduce the risk of exploitation of these vulnerabilities." The advisory says those measures need to be applied before every election, and it's clear that's not happening in all states that use the machines. (Source A.P.)    

In a win for common sense and the voters of Florida, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-to-1 opinion written by Chief Judge Bill Pryor, upheld several election reforms passed by the Florida Legislature in 2021.  In League of Women Voters of Florida v. Florida Secretary of State, the appeals court on April 27 overruled a lower court decision by Judge Mark Walker, an appointee of President Barack Obama, based on "legal errors and erroneous findings of fact." That was a polite, legal way of saying that Walker was way off-base. Walker had issued an injunction against four provisions of S.B. 90, ruling that they violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and were intended to discriminate against black voters in violation of the 14th and 15th Amendments. (One of those provisions was subsequently repealed by the Legislature, though, and was not an issue in the appeal.) Walker also ordered Florida to preclear any future changes to its election laws for ten years with the U.S. Justice Department or a federal court, giving them the authority to veto any legislation passed by the state Legislature and signed into law by the governor, as well as any referenda approved by the voters of the state.  3 Bones of Contention The three provisions that were the subject of the appeal will: Require all drop boxes to be "monitored in person by an employee" of the election office, which limited their availability to early-voting hours except for drop boxes located at a county election office, and imposed a $25,000 civil penalty on any election supervisor who violated these rules. Prohibit "solicit[ing] voters inside the polling place or within 150 feet of a [drop box] or the entrance to any polling place," with soliciting defined as "engaging in any activity with the intent to influence or effect of influencing a voter." Require third-party organizations that engage in voter registration drives to deliver registration forms to election officials "within 14 days after the applicant completed the application" and, in any event, before registration closes for an upcoming election. The idea that any of these requirements, intended to protect voters and the integrity of the election process, is "discriminatory" is truly bizarre. That's particularly true of the third provision, which ensures that voters get correctly registered and that organizations such as the League of Women Voters don't delay forwarding voter registration applications to election officials. Indeed, it's a head-scratcher as to why the League of Women Voters objected to that provision.  Last year, the 11th Circuit had stayed Walker's injunction after he issued it in March 2022 while the appeal was pending, so these provisions were actually in effect for last year's election. But now the court has overruled Walker's judgment, with only one partial exception, in a decision highly critical of Walker because of the numerous legal errors and unjustified leaps of judgment he made in his ruling. For example, in deciding that the Legislature had passed those provisions to engage in racial discrimination, Walker "delved deep into Florida's past," going back to laws implemented after the end of the Civil War, according to the appeals court. Walker erroneously cited cases where "federal courts ruled that these laws were not racially motivated, and in others, the courts never reached the question." In not a single one of the "cases from this century cited by [Walker] did a court determine that a challenged Florida election law resulted from intentional discrimination." Yet Walker "was persuaded otherwise," saying that Florida's "long history of racial discrimination"—even though it was all ancient history—" informs its present." That was an error "from the start," the appeals court said. Past Isn't Always Prologue Federal courts must remain "mindful of the danger of allowing the old, outdated intentions of previous generations to taint [Florida's] legislative actions always on certain topics." Past discrimination is not an "original sin," said the appeals court, that can be used to "condemn governmental action that is not itself unlawful."  Walker failed to apply the "presumption of legislative good faith," and the state's "more recent history does not support a finding of discriminatory intent." Walker also mistakenly dismissed concerns over voter fraud as a legitimate basis for the legislation, which, as the appeals court pointed out, "does not follow our precedents." Walker's opinion was wrong for three reasons: 1) legislatures don't have to show evidence of past fraud to justify passing legislation to prevent it; 2) the record in the case established "that fraud, including vote-by-mail fraud, has plagued Florida elections in the past"; and 3) the record also showed very clearly that all of the supporters of the bill "sought to prevent the type of fraud that had been observed in Florida and other jurisdictions."  Walker also dismissed concerns about the security of drop boxes as "nonsensical" despite evidence of vandalism of drop boxes in other states, including "items other than ballots … deposited in drop boxes" that could damage or destroy ballots. Walker ignored evidence from a legislative committee of the "overwhelming" concern from a "bipartisan standpoint" about the security of drop boxes. The 11th Circuit also held that Walker's dismissal of legitimate concerns over the chain of custody of mail-in ballots in drop boxes was "unsound." The court rejected Walker's "skepticism" over the need for the anti-solicitation rule because "Florida already bans solicitation." Walker "ignored evidence in the record that existing restrictions were insufficient to maintain order at the polls." That included testimony that election officials received "frequent" complaints "from voters about interference within the 150-foot nonsolicitation zone in past elections," including "performances," "food trucks," and "bullhorns," such that "the scene can become 'quite chaotic at points.'"  The appeals court noted that such "disruptive activities" were not "covered by the narrow definition of solicitation" in the prior law and held that the provision was not discriminatory. Statistical Analysis "Fatally Imprecise" Regarding the provision requiring organizations engaging in voter registration drives to forward voter-registration forms within 14 days, the 11th Circuit concluded that Walker once again ignored the evidence, stating that his opinion could "not withstand clear-error review." Walker held the requirement was intentionally discriminatory even though "there was no direct evidence of racial animus." Instead, Walker summarily (and erroneously) dismissed the justification put forward by supporters of the rule as "not credible," despite testimony in the record from state election officials about organizations turning in forms "on a fairly regular basis" after the state registration deadline had passed, thus causing the voters to be unable to vote in an election. It should not be surprising, therefore, that the 11th Circuit concluded that the bill's "supporters' justifications were credible" and that "the wisdom of the Legislature's policy choices" is not up to courts "to judge." The appeals court further stated that Walker's claim that all three provisions would disparately impact black voters could "not withstand even our deferential review." The court held that Walker based his conclusion on "statistically insignificant" factors such as a "1.3 percentage point difference in the rate at which black and white voters use drop boxes" that came from a "small and unrepresentative sample" used by the challengers' so-called expert. In a thorough analysis, the appeals court pointed out the deep flaws in the statistical analysis that made it unreliable and "fatally imprecise." In conclusion, the 11th Circuit said that Walker's findings do "not withstand examination." He relied on "fatally flawed statistical analyses, out-of-context statements by individual legislators, and legal premises that do not follow our precedents."  Florida's election law changes are neither discriminatory nor unconstitutional, and the state should never have been placed under a requirement of preclearance review of future voting changes, which, the court noted, is "a drastic departure from the principles of federalism" and not justified by the evidence in this case. The court held that imposing a preclearance requirement was "incorrect as a matter of law." Although the anti-soliciting provision was neither discriminatory nor a violation of the 14th or 15th Amendments, the 11th Circuit held that part of the provision was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.  Banning "engaging in any activity intending to influence" a voter was permissible. Still, the second half of the provision that prohibited engaging in any activity with the "effect of influencing a voter" was, the court held, "unconstitutionally vague." Because the second phrase can be severed from the rest of the anti-solicitation provision, the court held that S.B. 90 could be a permissible, non-discriminatory, and constitutional statute. The lone dissenter was Judge Jill Pryor, who is not related to the chief judge, but, like Walker, is an Obama appointee. Rather than deal with the substantive problems raised in the 78-page majority opinion, she issued a one-paragraph dissent. She said that Walker committed "no reversible error" in his "well-reasoned opinion."  Walker's opinion was a lot of things, but "well-reasoned" it was not. The 11th Circuit has done an excellent service by thoroughly analyzing the record and the issues presented and upholding the bulk of Florida's commonsense election-integrity provisions.