Presenters urge state audit of Georgia voter rolls and election technology; lawmakers offer mixed responses

Several citizen presenters told the Georgia House Governmental Affairs Committee that the state’s voter registration files and some county election databases contain address and name errors and that an independent audit and more transparency are needed.

Dr. Rick Richards, presenting data he said he obtained from the Georgia Secretary of State and U.S. Postal Service records, said the state’s February voter roll included hundreds of thousands of problematic records and that many entries could be corrected by automated data‑validation. “The most common precursor to voter suppression or disenfranchisement are when an ineligible registration is allowed to be on the voter roll and an ineligible registration is then not removed when we find out that it’s ineligible,” Richards told the committee. He cited missing middle names, large numbers of registrations tied to PO boxes and addresses that county records showed as closed or vacant.

Philip Davis and Mark Davis—citizen analysts who said they had examined released county databases and ballot files—also testified. Philip Davis described finding readable passwords and encryption material in database files released under open‑records requests, and said in his review some counties stored plaintext or easily derived supervisor passwords that could open or zero out tabulators. He said those files included certificate information and keys that should be kept private and criticized current practices as insecure. Mark Davis recommended a statutory and administrative fix to reduce voting in a voter’s prior jurisdiction after a move: he cited state law and said Virginia’s notice‑and‑follow‑up approach could be a model to reduce voters appearing in multiple jurisdictions after a move.

Jason Fraser, an Athens‑area analyst, urged procedural changes for how counties handle registration challenges and suggested a periodic third‑party audit, improved data‑validation (including address and name normalization), and wider public access to voter lists. He said some counties decline to accept spreadsheet lists or outside data sources in registration challenges, which he argued blocks efficient cleanup.

Committee members pushed back on several specific claims. Representative Adesanya said the Secretary of State’s office already produces routine updates on moves and registrations; Representative Draper cautioned that National Change of Address (NCOA) records alone do not prove a person is ineligible and said federal law requires caution before removing names. Draper also called several technical claims “debunked” and cautioned against repeating disproven allegations about voting machines. Presenters acknowledged differing interpretations of the data; for example, Richards said he did not investigate fraud and focused on data accuracy, while others pressed counties and the secretary of state to automate checks and publish records more openly.

No formal committee action was taken on the presentations. Committee staff said presenters’ materials and contact information would be provided to members; the committee chair said he would consider establishing a standing group to examine the issues further. Representative Draper asked that future hearings include invited speakers representing multiple perspectives so the committee would hear opposing analyses in the same session.

Why it matters: Presenters asked lawmakers to fund or authorize an independent audit of registration lists, improve automated cross‑checks with postal and motor‑vehicle data, and increase transparency about election systems and cyber reports. Lawmakers expressed differing views on whether current practice already addresses those issues and cautioned that federal rules limit removal of registrants when eligibility is uncertain.