News

If our votes don’t count accurately, we’ve lost the very soul of our Republic. That’s why on Thursday—February 26, 2026—we gathered at the State House with passionate patriots from every corner of our state, Congressman Ralph Norman, Attorney General candidate David Pascoe, and State Representative Rob Harris to demand better.

We’re not just complaining—we’re offering solutions. The current system falls short: black-box electronic machines owned by opaque corporations hide how votes are counted. Voters can’t see, verify, or trust the process. National polls show nearly two-thirds of Americans worry these machines could be hacked or manipulated remotely. In South Carolina, limited observer access, weak chain of custody, unattended machines, and inaccessible audit data only fuel the distrust.

But doubt doesn’t have to win. Momentum is building for real change. We presented our vision: the Gold Standard Elections Act (H.4295), a proven path to secure, transparent, verifiable, and accessible elections for eligible voters only.

Key pillars of the Gold Standard:

• Strict government-issued photo ID with no exceptions
• Citizenship-only registration and voting
• Hand-marked paper ballots—no computers or machines
• Hand-counting at the precinct level using our efficient, tested GS Tally method (cheaper than machines, finished by midnight!)
• Clean voter rolls, small precincts (max 1,500 voters), paper poll books
• Minimal mail-in ballots (military, overseas, legitimate absentees only)
• One Election Day

South Carolina can lead the South—and the nation—by passing H.4295. When every vote is counted publicly and verifiably, confidence returns, turnout rises, and our Republic thrives.

Watch the full press conference video here:

This isn’t a partisan issue. It’s about providing elections for the people by the people. Join us. Contact your legislators. Demand the Gold Standard. Together, let’s make South Carolina the beacon of election excellence.

Thank you for standing with us. Our best days are ahead when our citizens have confidence that their vote counts.

Written by: Laura Downing, Hugh Penri-Williams, CFE, Laura Scharr, Julie Baker

The summary below was written for Oconnee County, but it applies to the rest of South Carolina.

As you can see, the process is complex, involving many people, electronics, and procedures that are neither transparent nor auditable to the people.

Congress is responding to calls for greater election integrity and has recently introduced two bills that would revolutionize federal elections.

The SAVE Act, which was passed in May of 2025, was revised to add Voter ID requirements for voting, and reintroduced on 1-29-26. In addition, the Make Elections Great Again Act was introduced on 1-29-26 and codifies similar provisions for proof of citizenship and Voter ID, while also addressing other measures to reduce potential election mail fraud.

Here is a summary of both bills and our take on them.

Congress must pass the SAVE Act ASAP, and if the MEGA bill can be amended, that would be a good step forward in securing elections. Ideally, we must move to the gold standard of elections.

In other words, we must get rid of electronic voting systems! Here is why.

Here is a video that summarizes the two bills, and a chart below that provides a quick reference for their basic components.

	Save Amerca Act	MEGA Act
Election Integrity Bills	Save America Act “Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act” 1-29-26 introduction   Effective upon enactment	Requires that non-citizens be removed from voter rolls using the DHS SAVE (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) system, the Social Security Administration, and State IDs that confirm citizenship status; must comply with federal requests for information to ascertain citizenship
Voter rolls/Database sharing	Preservation of records to include audit records, certification records, chain of custody, incident reports, reconciliation records, return envelopes, tabulation reports, tech records, and vote-by-mail records.	State shall match voter registration data to Motor vehicle data, Motor Vehicle shall match with Social Security data, and State shall receive data from AG for felonies/etc. DHS on citizenship records.   May use the SAVE system to confirm citizenship. DHS shall conduct investigations to determine removal from lists if unlawfully registered in States, and AG shall share info of potential fraud with
Citizenship to register	Must have proof of citizenship when registering to vote	Must have proof of citizenship when registering to vote
Documentary proof	Required to vote in person for federal election. Absentee voting- must include a copy of an eligible photo ID with the request and submission of the ballot	Include documentary proof of citizenship plus last 4 of the SS# and current valid DL or documentary proof of residence in the state   If no SS# a unique identifying voter number will be assigned applicant may sign attestation under penalty of perjury with an affidavit.
Removal of noncitizens	Upon receipt of documentation that the registrant is a noncitizen
Photo ID	US passport, REAL ID, US Military ID, valid government-issued photo card showing place of birth in the US, government-issued valid photo ID with birth certificate. Must provide a sworn affidavit if you have no proof, and provide other evidence that sufficiently establishes citizenship.	Each state shall at least every 30 days verify eligibility of registrants through all state resources and the SAVE system and remove those who are ineligible by reason of 1) request 2) criminal conviction or mental incapacity pursuant to state law 3) death 4) change in residence 5) citizenship status 6) duplicate registrant States shall remove names of ineligible no later than 15 days prior to each general election.   Requires applicants for motor vehicle driver’s licenses in a new state to indicate whether that state is their residence for voting purposes.   Citizenship should be indicated on drivers’ licenses   There must be a notification to state election officials of those who were recused from jury duty due to non-citizenship
Other	Must provide to vote in person, the vote is provisional, but allows a religious objection affidavit. Other than in person, you must submit a copy of a valid photo ID with the ballot or the last four digits of your SS# and an affidavit. Exceptions: active duty absent uniformed services voter who is absent from the US on the date of the election; Disabled or Elderly	Automatic Voter Registration (AVR) at DMVs—where eligible citizens are registered unless they opt out—would be severely limited or gutted in practice, as people would need to present citizenship documents during routine DMV visits, which most don’t bring for license renewals or address changes.   The bill amends Section 5 of the NVRA to make DMV license applications subject to the new citizenship proof rules, meaning states can’t process voter registration through DMV without that proof.
Record retention requirements		Ballots must be voter-verifiable (NEED TO include amendment that differentiates between a true “paper ballot” and a “Ballot Summary Card”
Abolished barcode tracking for Mail-in Ballots		The requirement is for voter-verifiable paper ballots that allow the use of ballot-marking devices but also provide the option to manually mark each ballot at every in-person location.   Can be counted manually, OR by a counting device, OR read by a ballot tabulator. The paper that comes out of a BMD is a ballot summary card. NOT a paper ballot
Ranked Choice Voting		Prohibited
Make Elections Great Again. Introduced 1-29-26. Applies to elections held in 2027 and beyond		Must provide to vote in person, the vote is provisional, but allows a religious objection affidavit. Other than in person, must submit a copy of a valid photo ID with the ballot or the last four digits of SS# and an affidavit. Exceptions: active duty absent uniformed services voter who is absent from the US on the date of the election; Disabled or Elderly
Universal Mail-in Voting		Ballots received by Election Day

This week, both the South Carolina Senate Judiciary Committee and House Judiciary Committee held important discussions on election-related legislation.

Proof of Citizenship for Voter Registration (S. 128):

The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on S. 128, South Carolina’s SAVE Act equivalent. Sponsored by Senator Michael Johnson (R-York), the bill requires satisfactory proof of U.S. citizenship—such as a driver’s license indicating citizenship, passport, birth certificate, or other approved documents—when registering to vote in state elections.

This directly supports the 2024 constitutional amendment (overwhelmingly passed by voters) that restricts voting in South Carolina elections to U.S. citizens only. The bill adds enforceable protocols to ensure voter registration complies with this mandate.

After discussion and testimony, the committee carried the bill over. Senator Thompson intends to propose minor amendments to address any potential constitutional issues and position it for stronger passage moving forward.

Closing Primaries: Bills H. 3643 and H. 3310:

In the House Judiciary Committee, a packed hearing addressed H. 3643 and H. 3310, which seek to close partisan primaries by limiting participation to voters registered with the respective party (or declaring independent status).

The discussion drew strong public turnout and passionate testimony. Supporters highlighted that taxpayer-funded primaries should reflect party members’ choices, free from interference from outsiders. Critics raised concerns about forcing people to choose affiliations or advocated alternatives such as party conventions.

Rep. Brandon Newton noted early on the major obstacles:

1. The Governor has signaled he would veto the bills.
2. The Senate appears uninterested in pursuing them this session.
3. Deep divisions persist within the Republican Party on the issue.

Committee Chair Jay Jordan recognized the range of views expressed and stressed the importance of reconciliation, revisions, and building a broader consensus before any advancement. It looks like closed primary legislation is dead for this session.

These hearings underscore the active debates around election security and party rules in South Carolina. We will continue to track progress and share more as things develop—whether through committee action, floor votes, or public input opportunities. Your voice continues to play a key role!

Americans want elections they can trust. Electronic voting systems have eroded that trust through repeated vulnerabilities, opaque processes, and unverifiable results. The Gold Standard hand-counted paper ballot system restores confidence by being accessible, secure, transparent, and individually verifiable — all while remaining faster and far less expensive than most people believe.

On November 14–15, 2025, more than 110 citizens from four states gathered on two weeks’ notice to conduct a full-scale mock election and optimization tests. Using real ballots from past elections, volunteer teams hand-counted thousands of votes across 12 races with bipartisan oversight, video documentation, and rigorous reconciliation. Ninety attendees were also certified in the method.

Key Findings

• A precinct of 1,000 ballots with 12 races can be fully counted and reported in roughly 4.5 hours by four small bipartisan teams.
• The process is more accurate than machine tabulation because human reviewers catch voter intent that machines routinely miss (circles instead of filled ovals, stray marks, write-ins with no filled bubble, etc.).
• Reconciliation at every 25-ballot batch catches errors instantly.
• Volunteers overwhelmingly preferred the transparency and reported higher confidence in the results than with any machine system they had previously experienced.
• Total cost per voter is a small fraction of current electronic systems once equipment leases, software licenses, storage, and maintenance contracts are eliminated.

If this proven method can be completed on election night, at a lower cost, with greater accuracy and public trust, the primary objections for hand-counting disappear.

Test Objectives

1. Simulate a realistic county election hand-count for two 1,000-ballot precincts.
2. Refute the narrative that hand-counting is too slow, error-prone, or logistically impossible.
3. Identify variables that maximize speed and accuracy.
4. Demonstrate that decentralized, citizen-overseen hand-counting on paper is the true Gold Standard for election integrity.

Test Design

Location: A typical American polling place — a church fellowship hall in Sioux Falls, SD.
Volunteers: 75+ citizens from South Dakota, Minnesota, Wyoming, and South Carolina (2 weeks’ notice).
Ballots: Real hand-marked paper ballots from previous elections.
Structure: Two 1,000-ballot precincts in separate rooms
Room 1 (High-tech): Overhead cameras + batch scanner for digital preservation and live display.

Room 2 (Low-tech): Paper, pens, and people only.
Team composition per table: four people (two callers, two talliers) with mandatory bipartisan balance.
Batch size: 25 ballots — small enough for rapid reconciliation, large sufficient for efficiency.
Documentation: Color-coded tally binders, chain-of-custody forms, live video, and a simple, secure web app for real-time precinct-to-county reporting.

Observed Performance (November 14 Mock Election)

• Counting began at 2:30–3:00 PM.
• Facility access ended at 6:00 PM (3–3.5 hours available).
• In that short window, teams completed an average of 8 races across 1,000 ballots.
• Extrapolating the observed pace: a full 12-race ballot would finish in ≈4.5 hours — easily within election-night reporting windows used by most counties today.

Optimization Tests (November 15 — 83 Wisconsin ballots one race)

The tests below were conducted to optimize the process further and determine whether any specific variable could be “tweaked” to enhance productivity. Here are the results.

Test	Participants	Test A Time	Test B Time	Tally Sheet	Winner and notes
Daubing with markers versus Tally with pens	Two tables of 4 people	Daubing 4:23 & 4:34	Tally 3:29 & 3:41	Gold Standard Letter size	Tally faster; markers caused order, bleed-through, and cap management issues. Specific colors were hard to discern.
Echo results as you tally in increments of 5; one tallier reveals the cumulative total, and other echoes	Two tables of 4 people	Echo Every 5 3:27 & 3:06	Non-Echo 3:29 & 3:20	Gold Standard Letter size
Echo every number, e.g., the talliers call out the candidates’ cumulative number each time, and another tallier echoes	Two tables of 4 people	Echo every number 4:30 & 5:15	Non-Echo 3:29 & 3:20	Gold Standard Letter size	Much slower; not recommended unless required by law. Non-Echo and or Echoing 5 times beats the echo of every number.
Stack, Sort, and Count method versus the Gold Standard Tally method	Two tables of 4 people	5:15 & 5:07	3:29 & 3:20	No tally sheet needed for Stack and Sort.	Tally approx. 33% faster. Participants did not prefer this method because it was cumbersome, required excessive handling, needed more space, seemed messy, and may have required a better ballot design. Doesn’t work for school board race, e.g., pick 2 or 3, etc.
Count the entire ballot at once vs. Race-by-race (50 ballots, all races)	Two tables of 4	Tally by race I hr. 30 min.	Tally by ballot 2 hours	Count entire ballot at once vs. Race-by-race (50 ballots, all races)	Took the teams a while to get used to the ballot. Once they did, they picked up the rhythm, but tallying by race was 33% quicker. One participant opined that the whole ballot required more brain processing, and others stated that they preferred the top-down format of the traditional tally sheet
Legal versus letter sized tally					Some participants tried the legal-sized tally sheet for a few ballots, but didn’t prefer the size and the amount of hand movement required.

Clear winners: Race-by-race counting on letter-sized tally sheets with optional “echo every 5” reconciliation.

Volunteer Feedback (universal themes) 

“I’ve never felt more confident that every vote was counted exactly as the voter intended.” 

“You can see everything — no black box.” 

“I would do this on election day in a heartbeat.” 

“This is what it looks like for the people to take control of their elections.”

Cost Comparison  

Current electronic systems in most counties: $500,000–$2M+ every 8–10 years for equipment, plus annual licensing, maintenance, and programming. Our cost estimates show that the Gold Standard Hand-count method can be deployed at a much lower cost (no more than 30% of the current system’s price), saving counties and states millions of dollars.

Gold Standard hand-count: 

• One-time printing of ballots & tally sheets 
• Pay Approx. $30/hr. 
• Reusable binders and basic supplies
• Optional scanner and camera equipment 

Estimated Savings of 70% while dramatically increasing transparency and trust.

Interested? Watch this video to hear about this great endeavor from the state leaders who participated from Minnesota, South Dakota, Wyoming, and South Carolina.

Are we going to keep letting them steal our voice with rigged machines — or are we finally going to take our elections back?

The Gold Standard works. It’s time to use it — or lose our Constitutional Republic.

Author: Cybersecurity Expert Julie Baker

Electronic voting—using computers to cast, count, and manage votes—sounds futuristic and efficient. But it’s a terrible idea, riddled with flaws that undermine the integrity of elections. From complexity to vulnerability, the risks are overwhelming. Let’s break down why electronic voting, in all its forms, fails to deliver secure and trustworthy elections, and why alternatives like blockchain and mobile voting don’t solve the problem.

The Core Problems with Electronic Voting

Complexity: The Enemy of Security

In cybersecurity, complexity is a death knell for security. The more intricate a system, the harder it is to secure. Modern electronic voting systems are a labyrinth of components—hardware, software, and networks—each a potential attack vector.

Consider this: today’s voting machines rely on millions of lines of code—3 to 4 million, to be precise—just to count votes. That’s absurd. Any developer will tell you that counting votes shouldn’t require such bloated software. Analyzing this much code for vulnerabilities is a Herculean task, taking years. And with every update, the process starts over. It’s almost as if the systems are designed to evade scrutiny, cloaked in unnecessary complexity.

Centralization: Loss of Local Control

Centralized voting systems strip away local control, handing power to distant entities. Federal involvement in elections—through agencies like CISA, ISACs, the Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and laws like HAVA—introduces risks. Tools like Albert sensors and the Center for Internet Security further erode local oversight. Even at the state level, centralization is a problem. South Carolina, for example, runs a fully centralized voting system from Columbia. When control is concentrated, voters lose their grip on the process. Can centralized control ever be trusted in elections?

Outsourced: Who’s Really in Charge?

Our elections are largely outsourced to private companies like ES&S, Dominion, and Hart InterCivic, many of which are owned by private equity firms. This raises serious questions about transparency. Who are the investors? What’s their security posture? We don’t know, because these companies operate in the shadows, often relying on other third parties—some not even based in the U.S. With so much of the process outsourced, local control is a myth.

Opaque: Black Boxes We Can’t Trust

Electronic voting systems are black boxes. The source code is proprietary, not open-source, so no one outside the companies can inspect it. You can’t pop open the machines to check the hardware either. Is there a cellular modem inside? No way to know. Cast Vote Records (CVRs) and audit logs are often inaccessible, and private companies aren’t subject to FOIA requests. Without transparency or the ability to audit, how can we trust the results?

Vulnerable: A Hacker’s Playground

Software is inherently vulnerable. Developers make mistakes, and those mistakes become exploitable weaknesses. Every update introduces new vulnerabilities. Even air-gapped systems—those supposedly isolated from networks—can be compromised via infected USB drives. No electronic system can ever be 100% secure. Bad actors can manipulate software in real time, leaving no trace. The risks are not theoretical; they’re inevitable.

Can Blockchain Save the Day?

Blockchain—a decentralized, transparent, and immutable digital ledger—sounds like a dream solution for elections. It’s used for cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, as well as real estate and financial transactions. Its appeal for voting is obvious: a secure, tamper-resistant system with no central authority. But is it really the answer?

The Blockchain Mirage

Blockchain isn’t a silver bullet. It’s not just the ledger; it’s the entire ecosystem—software, hardware, third-party integrations, and cryptographic key management—that introduces complexity. And complexity, as we’ve established, breeds insecurity. Blockchain systems can be public, private, or hybrid, permissioned or permissionless, centralized or decentralized. The devil’s in the implementation.

Real-world attacks on blockchain systems prove their vulnerability. Hackers have targeted wallets, cryptographic keys, consensus mechanisms (like 51% attacks), networking protocols (Sybil, Eclipse, DDoS), APIs, decentralized apps, exchanges, smart contracts, and even the foundational blockchain software. Losses have reached billions. Where there’s value—whether money or votes—attackers will follow. Nation-states, too, have a vested interest in controlling or disrupting elections. A truly decentralized, transparent blockchain for voting? Don’t hold your breath—governments like centralized control, as seen in Romania’s 2020 and 2024 elections, which used the EU’s centrally controlled blockchain.

Mobile Voting: A Disaster in the Making

Mobile voting—casting ballots via smartphone—sounds convenient, but it’s a nightmare. A group funded by Tusk Philanthropies is developing a mobile voting system, potentially for use in upcoming midterms. Here’s why it’s a terrible idea:

• Partisan Roots: Despite claims of non-partisanship, the developers lean left, raising concerns about bias.
• No Security Gains: The system aims to be “as secure” as current voting systems—which, as we’ve seen, are far from secure.
• Shady Ties: The cryptography has links to the NSA, DARPA, and Microsoft, and foreign third parties, like a Danish company, are involved in development.
• Complexity Overload: It’s as complex as, if not more than, existing systems, with all the same vulnerabilities.
• Weak Authentication: Relying on SMS or facial recognition opens the door to fraud via synthetic identities and cell phone farms.
• Mail-in Voting 2.0: The system is pitched as a replacement for mail-in voting, which President Trump has criticized. It’s essentially mail-in voting on steroids, amplifying the risks of fraud.

The claim that voters can track their ballots “all the way through” falls apart when ballots are transferred to an “air-gapped” system for printing and tallying, breaking the chain of transparency.

The Bottom Line: Electronic Voting is Irredeemable

Whether it’s current systems, blockchain, or mobile voting, electronic voting is plagued by the same issues:

• Complexity: All these systems are overly complex, creating countless attack surfaces.
• Centralization: Implementation matters, but nation-states and private entities prefer control over transparency.
• Opacity: Lack of access to code, hardware, or audit logs undermines trust.
• Vulnerability: Software and hardware are inherently flawed, and attackers exploit those flaws.
• Outsourcing: Private companies, often with opaque ownership, control the process, eroding local oversight.

With the rise of AI and quantum computing, these vulnerabilities will only grow. Banks set aside millions for fraud and buy cyber insurance because breaches are inevitable. But elections aren’t like banks—you can’t tolerate any fraud. You get one shot, and the system must be 100% secure. That’s impossible with electronic voting.

The Solution: Back to Basics

Electronic voting, in all its forms, enables cheating at scale. Blockchain and mobile voting are shiny distractions, but they’re just as flawed as current systems. The only way to ensure secure, transparent, and trustworthy elections is to return to paper. Hand-marked, hand-counted paper ballots are simple, auditable, and resistant to large-scale fraud.

Say no to blockchain voting. Say no to mobile voting. Say yes to paper. It’s not glamorous, but it’s the only way to protect our elections.