How States Sold Their Birthright to Run Their Own Elections Without Voters Realizing It
BY TIM STECHSCHULTE
STATEWIDE - This While the 2024 election may have been a conservative victory, there are still looming concerns over the issue of election integrity, specifically pertaining to electronic voting machines. Some have argued that the federal government's increasing control over state elections through the adoption of electronic voting machines amount to the equivalent handing over their own sovereignty and arguing for a return to hand-counted paper ballots to ensure election integrity.
- A state’s Birthright is their Power to Control Elections: Under the Elections Clause, the U.S. Constitution is very clear that it reserves the power to conduct elections to the states, ensuring a separation of powers to prevent centralized, federal authoritarian control.
- Subsidies -The Origin of Federal Control: Following Al Gore’s contentious defeat to George Bush in 2000, Congress passed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) to subsidize states' transition from electromechanical “punch card” voting machines to electronic voting machines. Over the past twenty years, this move has allowed the federal government to slowly gain control over the election process, which is constitutionally a state responsibility. So why would our Federal Government be so eager to promote and subsidize electronic voting over hand-counting ballots? The short answer: control!
- Ohio’s Politicians Protect Voting Machines: Ohio law (Ohio Revised Code 3506.02) mandates the use of electronic voting machines but does not allow counties the option to revert to hand-counted paper ballots, the way Ohio counted votes until the 1930s. In May 2024, a House bill (HB472) attempted to amend this law by giving counties the option to use hand-counted paper ballots but it was rejected by politicians who want to protect the secretive voting process we now have and to continue purchasing machines in perpetuity. The current law means that Ohio’s counties are forever married to the machines since it does not allow for an opt-out provision. Marriage to the machines is allowed, but no allowance for divorce!
HAVA's Impact: The passage of HAVA marked a significant shift in control over elections from states to the federal government. The average voter twenty years ago was clueless that their authority and power to run elections would be so affected by HAVA. Like the biblical account of the first-born son Esau selling his birthright to his younger brother Jacob for a bowl of lentil stew, we sold our voting birthright to Uncle Sam! This shift was further solidified when the federal government declared the election system as national “critical infrastructure” in 2017.
- Illusion of Security: Despite assurances from Secretary of State LaRose that Ohio sets the gold standard for election security, the reality is that electronic voting machines remain hidden behind a veil of secrecy and are vulnerable to manipulation. The federal government, which uses outdated 2005 “voluntary” guidelines to certify the machines, only checks 1% of the source code for malicious content In fact, the federal certification of voting machines has the disclaimer that certification “is not a determination that the system is ready for use in an election. Also, additional safeguards like machine certifications, logic and accuracy testing, and partial post-election audits do not guarantee a secure election.
- Democrats Warned of Machine Vulnerabilities Twenty Years Ago: The vulnerabilities of electronic voting machines have been known for years. After the 2004 election, Democrats suspected vote rigging and held Congressional hearings where a software developer testified under oath that he created vote-flipping software. Subsequent reviews, such as California’s 2009 examination of Diebold machines, revealed significant security flaws.
- Recent Machine Manipulation of Votes Have Been Documented: Recent forensic examinations in Colorado and Georgia found unauthorized software and security vulnerabilities in Dominion voting machines, prompting a security advisory from CISA. The Mesa County Colorado Report found embedded software “backdoors” in Dominion machines that allowed remote access control of the machines through the wireless modems and verified that votes were manipulated. When our organization requested that the Ohio Secretary of State have the Governor appoint an independent cyber team to review the machines, we were ignored.
- Ohio’s Secretary of State Refuses to Provide Proof of Internet Connectivity: Secretary LaRose claims that Ohio’s voting machines are not connected to the internet, as required by State law. However, the discovery of wireless modems in machines in other states suggests that they can connect via cellular networks. When our organization requested test reports to prove that Ohio’s machines lack wireless modems, the Secretary denied our request, citing state “secrets” and national security. We are told to simply trust the system.
- “Albert” Sensors Prove the Machines are Connected to the Internet: For years the Federal Government and mainstream media have claimed that voting machines are not connected to the internet, yet the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), under the guise of national security, rolled out (at no cost to the states) network monitoring devices known as “Albert” sensors for use by Board of Elections (BOEs) beginning in the 2016 presidential election. Albert was sold to the states on the premise that it would monitor all data flowing into and out of the BOE and thus protect against hacking and malware. The question that no one at the state level seemed to ask is “If the machines are not connected to the internet, why are network monitoring devices needed?” In 2019, the Ohio SOS ordered all eighty-eight BOEs use the Albert sensor.
Does The Republican Presidential win in 2024 show that the machines can be trusted? Nothing has been done since 2020 to address the vulnerabilities of the machines in Ohio, and despite our organization raising questions about the machines, the Secretary of State along with State Reps and Senators and Board of Election officials have shown little interest to investigate the matter. In fact, they have doubled down to protect the status quo by saying voters shouldn’t worry since “Ohio has the gold standard for running elections.” On-going analyses of the 2024 presidential election show inconsistencies between top of the ticket and down ballot voting. For example, in some red districts where Trump won, some down-ballot races went blue. While these discrepancies require further analysis, it shows the real possibility that the machines can still be manipulated and jeopardizes the outcome to the 2026 midterms where the control of the House and Senate are at stake.
11Since Election Systems Are Designated National Critical Infrastructure, If the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) Audited State Systems, What Would They Find? Aside from the fact that the election system in Ohio (and throughout the country) is not transparent and has been proven to be vulnerable to hacking and manipulation, there is also an unfair financial burden that counties that have a small voter base must incur to purchase and maintain the machines. For example, Monroe County Ohio had less than 7,000 voters casting ballots in the 2024 presidential election. A cost comparison study of voting machines versus hand-counting ballots found that in the six- year period from 2019 thru 2024, the county spent $1.44 million on machines (including precinct election officer (PEO) labor) which equates to an average cost per ballot of $35.14. On the other hand, the total estimated cost of hand-counting ballots during the same time frame would have been $130,992, or $3.20 per ballot which includes the hand-counting team and PEO labor. Visit our website (listed below) for the in-depth cost analysis.
Solution: Ohio’s voting system must be transparent and one that can be easily verified. Electronic voting machines should be replaced by hand-counting paper ballots at the precinct level. In addition, mail-in ballots should be kept to an absolute minimum. Hand-counting ballots is more cost-effective and secure, as demonstrated by many European countries that have abandoned electronic voting machines. For more information, visit our website at deletevotingmachines.org .
