The cast vote records show the timing of votes as they come in for each candidate in a race for a county, precinct or state. These have been distributed to the public via FOIA Freedom of Information Requests in 24 states. Our state of SC is refusing access to these reports because they claim there is publicly identifiable information (PII). This is incorrect. These reports do NOT have any PII.
Some concerned legislators have joined us in asking the AG’s office to reverse an opinion from 2020 just prior to the election that these reports should be disallowed. Here are some related articles.
Laura and Keith from SC Safe Elections discuss our current climate and how we are likely in the midst of an orange revolution and an orange revolution in reverse. We also discuss that we are at the “precipice.” How can we survive the next few months as we move through the precipice.
Cryste Carroll our data analyst for SC Safe Elections discusses some bizarre anomalies in the recent primary data based on her first look at the voter rolls.
SITUATION: SC Safe Elections is a grassroots citizens group dedicated to elections that are transparent, simple and secure. While we appreciate the election integrity measures set into place by S108/Act 150, failure to comply with law renders law useless. It is our goal to restore confidence in the SC election process from start to finish by finding holes in compliance and delivering effective strategies for fixing them. The following observations and data, from reliable witnesses in your districts, demand further urgent action on the part of our elected officials and representatives.
CANVASSING OF 2020 ELECTION: We canvassed 8 major counties in South Carolina and found a high rate of deceased registered voters (many of whom voted), people who had relocated (but still voted), people registered to commercial addresses, and people who voted but whose vote wasn’t counted. These findings, highly indicative of fraud, were delivered to SLED. No action has been taken.
CLICK HERE for more info: https://www.scsafeelections.org/resources/
2022 PRIMARY: We mobilized 40 citizens and created an “Election Defense System” of poll observation and other activities in several counties and documented pervasive anomalies that generated affidavits. Here are our findings:
SC State Election Commission did not follow the SC election laws (7-13-35, 7-13-60, 7-13-72, 7-13-100, 7-13-710, 7-13-1750, 7-13-1770)
Machine glitches flipped votes from one candidate to another in many counties
Tamper resistant seals were voided or missing on “certified” machines
Poor or NO chain of custody practices were observed with ballots, equipment, and thumb drives
Races were missing from ballots due to redistricting
Same-day voter photo IDs issued without proper document proof
Absentee ballot envelopes were examined for signature verification day of receipt and in secret
ES&S MACHINES: Our cyber experts have done a thorough investigation on the ES&S systems and found over 100 vulnerabilities for both the 2020 version as well as the system used in the June 2022 primary. Proprietary agreements between the SEC and ES&S (which were NOT approved and certified by the Secretary of State) violate the SC Constitution requirement that our ballots are to be cast in secret but not counted in secret. Delegating final counts to an off-shore foreign entity, SCTYL, in a black box environment where encryption, shuffling and mixing occurs is also suspect.
STONEWALLING DISCOVERY: Analysis of the Cast Vote Records (CVRs) from the 2020 General Election would allow our experts to decipher whether a thorough audit is necessary. Our attempts at acquiring the CVRs via FOIA have been thwarted by the SEC’s insistence that such records might contain voters’ personally identifiable information, an argument upheld by an opinion letter dated 9/28/2020 from the Office of the Attorney General. If the ballot images or CVRs do contain personally identifiable information, the SEC, charged with maintaining the secrecy of the ballot, has mismanaged the elections so as to nullify the results. This possibility, then, must also be investigated.
URGENT ENTREATIES:
FILE an Injunction or otherwise stop any deletion/purging of 2020 election data.
Acquire CVRs for 2020 general election and 2022 primary.
Eliminate electronic voting. Safe and effective alternatives are at our disposal.
Require substantive end to end audit of votes cast for every primary and general election.
Hold lawbreakers accountable and reconstitute the SEC.
We are subject matter experts. Work with us for true election integrity in South Carolina.
Attached below is our whitepaper summarizing our group’s progress over the last almost two years. We have an amazing group of dedicated passionate citizens who have worked tirelessly to accomplish these tasks. Please share this far and wide and educate everyone through both personal contacts, neighborhood or county meetings, or meeting with your local senator or representative. Everyone needs to better understand the issues and complexity of our current system. Complexity breeds corruption.
We also provide recommendations regarding how to create a better, simpler system that is more transparent.
County council candidate Joe Dill discusses his experience with his primary results, how he contested the results and the power plays that ensued that led the GOP to overturn the local Greenville GOP decision to let him have a new race.
He also talks about several people who had their votes “flipped” while voting in Greenville. Can we trust our complex voting process?
We recently spoke with the Dream Team of America First candidates about their experience with contesting their races due to illegalities and maladministration regarding the June 14th South Carolina Primary.
They talk about how they were not given the courtesy of time and proper procedures as well as that their own party was completely antagonistic. It is a shocking testimony to the state of affairs we are in.
Pat T. discusses how she tried to collect information and observe the primary voting process in Lexington County. Some interesting observations. Counties weren’t following the law with regard to examining the absentee envelopes and she saw an interesting anomaly when she observed the absentee tabulation.
Question for the audience: Have you ever voted in an election and just voted for one down ballot candidate? Me neither.
And below Nancy P. describes the issues she witnessed during her voting experience as well as her role as a poll manager.
There were several concerning issues including vote flipping, precincts moved for a large percentage of the people who came to that poll location and broken/voided security seals.
Our team recently spoke with Jeff O’Donnell to discuss his take on the SC primary and here is his overall take on his confidence in the results of elections after evaluating many systems across the nation.
By Laura Scharr, team leader SC Safe Elections Group
Gateway pundit ran this recent article on election machine certification or lack thereof. This is an issue that was brought up by many starting in November of 2020 and I personally testified about this to some of our South Carolina legislators last year in June. This past Thursday, June 23rd I again testified to this issue in a SCGOP hearing regarding irregularities in the June 14th primary. Here are the details:
First let’s state SC law with respect to system requirements.
S.C. Code §7-13-1640 establishes the requirements for voting machines used in South Carolina. South Carolina’s requirements adhere to the minimum requirements found in HAVA, the Help America Vote Act.
S.C. Code §7-13-1620 (A) further requires that: a voting system may not be approved for use in the State unless certified by a testing laboratory (VSTLs or Voting System Testing Laboratories) accredited by the Federal Election Assistance Commission as meeting or exceeding the minimum requirements of federal voting system standards
South Carolina is 1 of 12 states that require federal certification of voting machines. “Although participation in the program is voluntary, adherence to the program’s procedural requirements is mandatory for participants.”
HAVA, the Help America Vote Act is US Code that states that all rules and regulations as to Vote System Test Laboratories or VSTLs are put in place by the Election Assistance Commission or EAC. There are two main VSTLs Pro V&V and SLI Compliance. In order to meet its statutory requirements under HAVA §15371(b), the EAC has developed the EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program. The procedural requirements of the program are established in the Election Assistance Commission Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual. Even though the program manual is not statute. Statute dictates that the manual set the rules. The procedural requirements of this Manual will supersede any prior laboratory accreditation requirements issued by the EAC.
VSTL’s are VERY important because equipment vulnerabilities allow for deployment of algorithms and scripts to intercept, alter and adjust voting tallies. They also examine the use of COTS (Commercial Off-The-Shelf) components which are a huge potential source of vulnerability.
Certification of our systems in SC
In the 2020 general election our state used our new machines/election management system ES&S version 6.0.2.0.
It was certified by SLI Compliance which was issued a certificate of accreditation on 1/10/18 with an expiration of 1/10/21. Note that our new ES&S system and election machines were put into place in time for our primaries after that test date, in 2019.
According to the vote system’s test laboratory manual version 2.0 effective May 31st 2015 manual page 38, the certificates must not exceed 2 years and must be signed by the Chair of the EAC (not the Executive Director), thus the laboratory’s certification was invalid.
The labs that certified the machines were not in compliance as they had 3 year expiration and were not signed by the Chair of the commission.
Here is a copy of the certificate for the SLI Compliance lab.
this certificate does not comply with Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 as it doesn’t have a 2 year certification and it is not signed by the Chair of the commission.
The manual guidelines were not followed. Note that this was something that affected many states as these systems were used across the country. Furthermore, were there any materials or even minor changes that were made from 2018 until election day in November of 2020? If so, that would require an update to the certification/inspection to ensure the system was still compliant.
System upgrade to 6.1.1.0 that was then used in the June 14th primary
Our ES&S Election Management System was upgraded last year this time to version 6.1.1.0 and it was primarily updated to include Windows 10.
The 6.1.1.0 EMS was certified by Pro V&V, the other testing laboratory, and oddly enough that lab also was noncompliant. It had a certificate dated for the original certification of 2015 and the most recent cert has a 2021 expiration and is also signed by the Executive Director, not the Chair of the commission, so protocols and standards from the manual are not being followed.
notation on the certificate was changed to say “accreditation remains effective until revoked by a vote of the EAC.” This was done after several people starting questioning the validity of the certification of the labs in early 2021.
Once We the People started to investigate these certifications in late 2020 suddenly a memo from Jerome Levato was issued. This memo blamed the delays and lack of certification updates on Covid. Why then? Why not prior to that when Covid was rampant? His mea culpa memo was issued in January of 2021 and he left the agency the next month. Note also that they changed the notation on the certificate to say “accreditation remains effective until revoked by a vote of the EAC.” Note that the manual still requires a 2 year expiration date.
Government contracts arenormally highly scrutinized for compliance
Why couldn’t a small staff of people inspect a system and get the certification? These certifications don’t require a large staff that is in close contact with each other putting people at risk. We had real estate transactions and other contracts being signed during COVID but we couldn’t get our election system certified in an important election year? Seems very suspicious to me.
The test/certification for the 6.1.1.0 was in June of 2020 and they claim it was certified 7-27-20 prior to when it was upgraded in SC last year spring/summer 2021.
As a concerned citizen, I don’t feel comfortable with this process and these explanations. These are governmental contracts which should be under far more scrutiny than your private contracts. Why are we not following the rules? Are we a society of some rules count and others don’t? Do we just change the rules when we think they aren’t in our favor anymore? If the EAC changed the rules, why didn’t they change their manual to be consistent? If I had a marriage certificate that wasn’t signed by the right person would my marriage be legitimate? If I bought a house and the contract wasn’t signed by the correct person would that transaction be legit? The 2-year expiration timeframe is important as these systems are considered “critical infrastructure.” If they are so critical why was this process so lax and procedures not followed? And put your thinking cap on and ask yourself why these certifications weren’t done properly by BOTH labs? What might be the reason for that in critical election years?
