Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Duplicate Ballots Missing Images topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Experts tell Georgia State Election Board they found duplicated ballots and missing image files in Fulton review

Georgia State Election Board · October 10, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Two technical witnesses told the board they found thousands of duplicated ballots statewide and tens of thousands of missing ballot images in Fulton County machine count 2, and urged independent investigation and preservation of chain-of-custody records.

Two technical witnesses presented forensic-style analyses to the board alleging numerous problems with source election records. Philip Davis, a software developer who said he reviewed cast vote records across 70 counties, told the board he identified 8,110 duplicate ballots statewide and thousands more in Fulton County’s recounts (he said 550 duplicates in the original Fulton count and 3,930 in the recount). He described a comparison method using patterns of cast-vote records and said he had prepared a slide deck showing original source images and batch assembly patterns.

Clay Parikh, a cybersecurity expert, testified that Dominion-style systems tabulate votes from ballot images and that SHA authentication files and tabulation logs are essential parts of the chain of custody. Parikh told the board he found many valid images with missing SHA files and estimated about 17,800 missing ballot images in Fulton’s machine count 2, which he said raises serious forensic concerns about file integrity and the ability to confirm that images were not tampered with.

Both witnesses urged the board to authorize independent investigators and forensic reviewers and to secure and produce records (TIFF images, SHA files, memory-card metadata, tabulator tapes and batch-load reports) so outside experts can verify claims. The board did not adjudicate the technical evidence at the meeting; members asked procedural questions and asked staff to collect additional material for further review.

Quotes from board discussion and expert testimony were taken directly from testimony and questions presented to the board.