Brazos County residents urge audit of 2020 results, cite missing ballot pages and CVR discrepancies

Three local residents told the Brazos County Commissioners Court on Jan. 7 that they believe the county’s 2020 election records contain discrepancies and asked officials to locate missing ballot pages and consider an independent review.

Mark Holtzapple, a professor of chemical engineering at Texas A&M University speaking as a private citizen, said he and other residents had met with local election staff and produced a 50-page report listing concerns that include voter-roll cleanliness, the security of electronic devices and ballot boxes, emergency procedures, and audit processes. Holtzapple urged the county to treat the group as partners rather than adversaries.

Cindy Wiley, identified as a private citizen, said she and others worry that electronic voting equipment can be manipulated and that documented examples exist. Wiley referenced concerns about machines made by Hart InterCivic and said the issue of possible fraud had been raised publicly for several years.

Dr. Walter Doherty, identified in the public comment as a retired computer science lecturer from Texas A&M University who has served as an expert witness, gave a detailed update to a preliminary audit of the 2020 election he previously provided to county officials. Doherty said the same software produced three different counts for the number of undervotes for president in 2020: the official canvas (537 undervotes), the official cast vote record (285), and his review (2,567). He told the court that two pages of certain absentee ballots were missing from the cast vote record report and that the absent pages amount to 5,134 page images tied to 2,567 ballots, leaving only page 3 of those ballots present in the CVR.

Doherty said each absentee ballot is assigned a unique 32-character CVR ID that should apply to all pages of that ballot and read a list of the missing CVR IDs into the record. He asked the court to place on a future agenda a motion to hire an independent CPA — or one CPA chosen by each major party — to locate and account for the 5,134 missing ballot pages.

Speakers and county staff who received the materials acknowledged receipt. The court did not take any immediate action at the meeting to commission an independent review; public comment concluded and the court proceeded to its agenda.

The speakers repeatedly framed their requests as seeking transparency and partnership with county election officials rather than adversarial confrontation. The county’s election administrator and other staff were referenced during the presentations; the transcript records the speakers saying they had shared their report with county staff and Judge Peters.

The public comments portion of the meeting concluded before the court moved to consider agenda items.

The statements above reflect what speakers said in public comment on Jan. 7; the court did not announce any follow-up action or binding decision on the record during the session.