Restoring Confidence in South Carolina Elections
Restoring Confidence in South Carolina Elections
This is proposed Election reform for the people by the people developed by an elite cadre of grassroots election experts to forge a bold plan for securing the people’s vote and shielding our Constitutional Republic from the threat of election tampering.
Members of our group spent months preparing this. Please spread this far and wide.
South Carolina has long been viewed as a reliably “red state,” a bastion of conservative values rooted in our constitutional republic. But that foundation is cracking. Today, the “R” might stand for “Ready to Undermine the Republic” or “Resistant to Transparent Voting.” The recent county GOP reorganizations across the state expose a troubling reality: election interference isn’t just a national threat—it’s festering here, subverting the democratic processes that sustain our constitutional system and exposing dangerous vulnerabilities that threaten the security of our Republic.
In Georgetown County, interference took the form of exclusion. The County Chair issued a memo barring members from participating in the reorganization if they were “associated” with MySCGOP, a grassroots group within the party. What constitutes “associated”? An email subscription? A YouTube view? A single meeting? This vague decree isn’t a rule—it’s a calculated move to rig the process by silencing dissent. Electoral interference strikes at the heart of free speech, thought, and association—rights enshrined in our Constitution. Leaders who are secure in their vision don’t need to meddle; they prevail through fair debate within the republican framework.
Beaufort County’s interference came as manipulation. The current leadership forced their chosen slate of delegates forward, curtailing opportunities for other candidates to compete. This wasn’t a democratic process within a republic—it was a power play to control the outcome, denying members their rightful voice in party governance. Interference here didn’t just tilt the scales; it broke them.
Charleston County pushed interference into subversion. Voters were forced to vote by holding up green and red cards instead of hand-marked ballots, with the result decided by a subjective call from the meeting’s temporary president—an establishment ally. When the vote seemed close, and attendees demanded a division of the house to verify it, they were shut down. No paper trail, no accountability—just a predetermined result. This isn’t how a constitutional republic conducts its business; interference mocks the transparency and verifiability our system demands.
These acts of interference erode the four pillars of Gold Standard Elections—accessibility, security, transparency, and verifiability—that uphold our constitutional republic.
When voting methods are opaque—like waving cards with no record—trust in the process collapses. And when ballots are reportedly counted in secret or, as in Charleston two years ago, destroyed, the interference becomes blatant. Disillusioned party members disengage, withhold support, and warn others to steer clear. Can we fault them?
South Carolina is emerging as the epicenter of election interference, not from external forces but from within. If the Republican Party can’t conduct internal elections without tampering, what hope is there for preserving our constitutional republic at higher levels? President Trump, in his inauguration speeches, vowed to protect this republic and return power to the people. Yet these reorganization tactics—rigged slates, suppressed votes, destroyed evidence—reek of entrenched power defying that promise. His endorsement of Senator Lindsey Graham, broadly unpopular among South Carolinians across party lines, only widens the gap between rhetoric and reality.
The stakes are monumental. Election interference at the local level threatens the integrity of our entire constitutional system. South Carolina’s GOP must lead by example, ensuring every vote within its ranks is accessible, secure, transparent, and verifiable—principles that reflect the republic we’re meant to be. Voters deserve a process free of meddling, one that honors their role in this system—not one that leaves them doubting whether their voice counts. The party must act decisively, or South Carolina risks becoming a symbol of interference over republican ideals.
Team leader Laura Scharr discusses recent movements to reform elections with Mike Dakkak from ITNnews.
Here is the breakdown of the fact sheet on the EO. This EO is likely priming the pump for further Executive Orders. Stay tuned.
Are we getting our money’s worth?
Our state Election Commission spends thousands of dollars annually for ERIC, the Electronic Registration Information Center, and Kopis to maintain our rolls (a $6 Million, five-year contract). Yet our voter rolls have some concerning anomalies. Simple database best practices and hygiene seem to be ignored.
Why are there:
*9 registrants over 115
*98 under 18
*hundreds if not thousands registered at commercial (non-domicile) addresses–that is illegal.
*and more?
Watch to find out what we found.
Laura and Tara from SC Safe Elections speak with Argentina and Costa Rica voters to discuss how they vote with people, paper, and pens—no machines! And guess what? They can finish counting by 9 PM and the process is observable by party delegates and representatives. They vote on Sunday on ONE DAY with NO mail-in ballots except for people outside the country.
This is an eye-opening interview—lots of good nuggets of information.
If countries like Argentina, with 44 million people, can do this, why can’t America?
For Immediate Release
Contact Laura Scharr for more information: lscharr@gmail.com 803-331-3721, scsafeelections.org
SCSafeElections.org Supports the Make Elections Secure Again (MESA) Bill that Removes Electronics from Federal Elections and Ensures Transparency of the Vote
Lexington, SC -March 5th, 2025-
Momentum from Congress and Trump will revamp the election process to ensure a system for the people by the people:
Grassroots group SC Safe Elections (SCSE) has worked tirelessly to ensure that voters feel confident their vote is counted accurately and transparently. We have analyzed all steps in the process by canvassing eight counties, poll observation, analysis of the machine certification and vulnerabilities, scrutinizing federal and state election laws, and developing processes and procedures for re-engineering all phases of the election ecosystem as demonstrated in our Gold Standard Elections whitepaper.
We are excited to support Congressman Pete Session (R-Tx) ’s bold action in drafting a groundbreaking bill that repeals HAVA and replaces machines with hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots that are counted at the precinct level. This bill limits precinct size to a maximum of 1,500 and calls for paper poll books to validate voters who must provide government-issued photo IDs and an affidavit of U.S. citizenship. Absentee ballot requests are limited to military personnel, overseas voters, and persons with physician-certified medical conditions.
Polls show that 60% of likely voters want to vote with hand-marked paper ballots, and 56% are willing to volunteer to hand-count those ballots on election night.
We urge our South Carolina legislators to follow Congressman Session’s lead by supporting Bill H 3628, the Gold Standard Election Bill. Representative Rob Harris, a member of SC Safe Elections and a fierce advocate for election reform, has sponsored this bill. He and his family have seen firsthand the issues regarding elections. Rep. Harris states, “The people of South Carolina deserve to know how their vote was counted and to have a transparent system. They need to be able to observe the entire process, including the ballot count. The Gold Standard Election Bill will help voters feel more confident that their vote was accurate.”
H3628 calls for:
SC Safe Elections urges all SC legislators to prioritize and support this bill to preserve our constitutional republic and respond to the people’s will. We also encourage citizens in SC to call their representatives and senators to ask them to support elections for the people by the people by supporting H3628.
*******
In this video, team leader Laura Scharr talks about the recent polling conducted by Rasmussen that shows 60% of US likely voters want to vote using hand-marked paper ballots, and 56% of them are willing to volunteer to count on election night. This is a slam dunk, so why are legislators unwilling to codify these measures? Even India and other European countries have more secure elections where they hand-count, hand-marked paper ballots (not the barcoded ballots we currently have) and can finish counting by midnight.
Are foreign actors influencing source code for our elections?
Guest post by Application Security/Cybersecurity Expert Julie Baker
Open-source software has been the foundation of software development for decades now. I doubt there is an application or an operating system in use today that does not have some open-source libraries or components. I know many utilize a high percentage of open-source components. There are many benefits to open source software – https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-to-open-source-and-its-benefits/. These are very utopian ideals, but then there is human nature, which leads to the fact that there are also significant security risks that go along with its use – https://owasp.org/www-project-open-source-software-top-10/. These are both well-known to those of us in application security, and I will not spend time on those very real issues here. Instead, I want to focus on specific concerns regarding the open-source project Yocto[i].
Late last year, the State of South Carolina upgraded its election systems to EVS 6.3.0.0. As part of this update, DS300 tabulators were purchased, and these run a Yocto image. The ESS EVS 6300 Certificate and Scope of Conformance.pdf[ii] only mentioned Yocto once in the document. I expected more information about the image, especially regarding updates, versions, and anti-virus protection. But there is nothing in the conformance document about this. I became curious and decided to do some research into Yocto.
What I discovered about Yocto is concerning. Yocto is an open-source project. Open source projects emphasize openness and collaboration amongst their members, and they have historically followed a decentralized model. Members often share code, ask and answer questions, and help and support each other as part of the community. Security is usually a collaborative effort, but Yocto now has a security team, a new and welcome development.
Additionally, “Without fanfare, Yocto Project touches most people’s lives without their knowledge,” notes Richard Purdie, lead Architect at Yocto Project. “At least half the world’s internet traffic passes through routers built using Yocto. Add in mobile phone masts, software in cars, and software inside core server components. Billions of devices around us are relied upon daily, making it a key piece of easily overlooked critical infrastructure software.”[iii] Even if Yocto was not being used to generate software for ES&S election infrastructure, it is critical because it is ubiquitous.
How open-source communities work sounds quite idyllic, and it can be. However, it is not so idyllic when there is a direct push from the U.N. and globalist governments like Germany and China to centralize, govern, and monitor these open-source communities and projects. This is done through direct funding grants, membership fees, participation in leadership, and everyday community collaboration, all under the guise of sustainability and the public good. It sounds like USAID; only this funding is to subvert critical open-source communities and software. There has been an increase in momentum for this centralization and governance in the past three years because the critical nature of these communities and what they produce has come to the attention of the “powers that be.” The fact that ES&S is generating software for critical election infrastructure using tools from an open-source project with these issues increases the likelihood that the software has been compromised.
The Evidence
This very interesting article that I found while doing research on this – is worth a read.
Shared post – Linux Foundation decreased Linux spending to 3.2% in 2022.
[i] “The Yocto Project is an open-source collaboration project that provides templates, tools, and methods to help you create custom Linux-based systems for embedded system deployments in connected edge devices, servers, or virtual environments, regardless of the hardware architecture.”[i] An embedded system is a small computer that’s built into a larger device or machine to control it and allow the user to interact with it. ES&S uses a Yocto project image on its DS200 and DS300 tabulators – the computers that count the votes.
[ii]https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system/files/ESS%20EVS%206300%20Certificate%20and%20Scope%20of%20Conformance.pdf
[iii] https://www.yoctoproject.org/blog/2023/10/10/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project/
[iv] Linux Foundation – Wikipedia
[v] https://www.yoctoproject.org/blog/2023/10/10/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project/
[vi] https://www.yoctoproject.org/about/participants/
[vii] https://www.sovereign.tech/tech/yocto
[viii] https://www.linuxfoundation.org/blog/sovereign-tech-fund-boosts-yocto-project
[ix] Sustainability | Linux Foundation
[x] Understanding the State of Open Source Funding in 2024
[xi] OSPOs for Good 2024 | Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies
[xii] Leadership | Linux Foundation
[xiii] https://www.computerweekly.com/news/366608127/The-rise-and-rise-of-open-source-in-China
My name is Laura Scharr, and I am the founder of SC Safe Elections. We are a nonpartisan group aiming to restore confidence in our elections. I am also the co-author of a whitepaper on how to re-engineer our election ecosystem, called Gold Standard Elections. I have grave concerns about Bills S36 and S37. These bills do not set the gold standard for elections. We must remember that the foundation of our Republic is the confidence of our voters and candidates in the electoral process. If passed, these bills will only serve to erode that confidence.
Bill S36
Bill S 36 increases the precinct size from 1500 to 3000 and allows the county board of registrations total flexibility in moving/changing polling locations or precincts. While this may be convenient for the election commission as it may reduce vote locations, it is far less convenient for voters as it reduces accessibility and increases confusion, travel times, and wait times.
The entire purpose of this bill is to make it extremely difficult to hand-count hand-marked ballots. We MUST NOT lose the flexibility and ability to do so. This is especially important given that the new presidential administration is eager to go to one day of voting with hand-counted hand-marked paper ballots and this bill hamstrings our ability to do so.
Instead, our state should be an innovator—one of the first to step up and prove this model viable. We have done pilot tests on this and are able to count 100 ballots with 11 races in 1 hour with a 4-person team. 1,000 ballots could be counted with 3 teams of 4 before midnight if we keep these precincts to a manageable size.
Now is not the time to be making significant changes in the wrong direction, given that:
Currently, precincts are granted waivers to maintain their size, with many already exceeding the recommended limit. Instead of moving in this direction, we should plan for precincts to be small and manageable and establish accountability measures to create new ones if they exceed the size limit.
Just as a company responds to growing demand by opening more stores, we should adapt to the needs of our constituents, not the administrative convenience of the agency serving them.
Bill S 37
Early and continuous vote uploading and reporting is counterproductive to the goal of safe and secure elections. Too many potential attack vectors and bad actors could obtain that information, and the risk-reward ratio doesn’t make sense.
The only reason for that is to cheat and potentially call-in last-minute voters. This undermines the trust of the voters and must be addressed. There must be no vote totaling until the polls close. County employees would know the local results and would be reporting these to the Election Commission via the ENR Election Night Reporting computer (which is connected to the internet). There is no reason why the election director or board of elections should have that information early. That is a severe risk and one that could be easily compromised.
Securing our vote must always trump convenience. Early uploading of results is unnecessary as it doesn’t save much time. Computers at the county are programmed to speed the process. It is not the number of flash drives that determines time, it is the amount of data. The time it takes to upload data will be the same it will just be spread across different flash drives.
Our election data is heavily loaded toward early voting, which is roughly 50% of the vote total. This is why early voting data is problematic from a fraud perspective. Early uploading (and reporting) of data essentially gives a select few the election results early. It allows “bad actors” more data and time to act. Given the issues of the last several years regarding elections, we must show voters we are working to mitigate risk, not increase it.
While uploading results early and continuously is convenient for election workers, it only adds risk to the process. Given the lack of trust in election systems, our legislators should be looking for ways to mitigate risk and enhance transparency of the election process. We urge the committee to vote NO to these bills, as it is our collective responsibility to ensure the integrity of our elections.
ACTION NEEDED:
Contact the following subcommittee members today! Tell them to vote no on S36 and No to sections 9 and 10 of S37.
We need to ensure that elections are by the people for the people. Let’s reduce risk, not increase it by commingling precincts and uploading results early.
Here are the emails and contact numbers for the judiciary subcommittee:
georgecampsen@scsenate.gov, michaeljohnson@scsenate.gov, joshkimbrell@scsenate.gov, tameikadevine@scsenate.gov, allenblackmon@scsenate.gov, edsutton@scsenate.gov, jeffzell@scsenate.gov
Campsen, George E. “Chip”, III
District 43 – Beaufort, Charleston & Colleton Counties
Business phone: (803) 212-6340
District 16 – Lancaster & York Counties – Map
Columbia Address
510 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone 803-212-6172
District 11 – Spartanburg County – Map
Columbia Address
502 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone 803-212-6108
District 19 – Richland County – Map
Columbia Address
612 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia, 29201
Business Phone (803) 212-6172
District 27 – Chesterfield, Kershaw & Lancaster Counties – Map
Columbia Address
510 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone 803-212-6048
District 20 – Charleston County – Map
Columbia Address
613 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone (803) 212-6056
District 36 – Calhoun, Clarendon, Orangeburg & Sumter Counties – Map
Columbia Address
610 Gressette Bldg.
Columbia 29201
Business Phone (803) 212-6040