Newly Discovered Algorithm in Wisconsin Voter File is Indisputable Evidence of Election Fr

quote:

---

he realized that every voter ID record ending in zero had two different Wisconsin voters assigned the same voter ID number.

---

quote:

---

quote:
he realized that every voter ID record ending in zero had two different Wisconsin voters assigned the same voter ID number.



No evidence—- SFP

---

quote:

---

Not a smidgen

---

quote:

---

If this is done in Wisconsin, I suspect that it is being done in other states as well.

---

quote:

---

Isn’t all of the code used in voting systems required to be audited?

---

quote:

---

In the United States, the checking of voting machine algorithms and source code is governed by a combination of federal guidelines and state-specific regulations, but there is no universal federal mandate requiring a comprehensive review of voting machine source code or algorithms. Here's a detailed breakdown:
Federal Level
Voluntary Voting System Guidelines (VVSG): The U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) provides the VVSG, a set of voluntary specifications and requirements for voting systems. These guidelines outline standards for functionality, accessibility, and security, including software integrity. While the VVSG encourages testing and certification of voting systems, it does not explicitly mandate source code reviews for all systems. The VVSG 2.0 (adopted in 2021) emphasizes cybersecurity and auditability but leaves implementation details to states and vendors.

EAC Certification Program: The EAC oversees a voluntary federal certification process where voting systems are tested by accredited laboratories to ensure compliance with VVSG standards. This process includes some software verification, but the depth of source code review varies. Vendors often claim proprietary protections, limiting full public or independent scrutiny of the code.

Help America Vote Act (HAVA): Passed in 2002, HAVA requires states to adopt voting systems that meet certain standards, including accuracy and auditability. However, it does not explicitly require source code or algorithm checks, leaving much of the oversight to state discretion.

State Level
State Certification Requirements: Each state has its own certification process for voting systems, often requiring compliance with federal VVSG standards or state-specific criteria. Some states mandate logic and accuracy (L&A) testing before elections to verify that machines function correctly, but these tests typically focus on output (e.g., vote tallies) rather than a deep dive into source code or algorithms. For example:
Texas: The Texas Election Code requires L&A testing and verification of voting system software/firmware versions but does not explicitly mandate source code review.

Pennsylvania: All voting systems must be certified by the Department of State and produce voter-verifiable paper records, with pre-election L&A testing required. Source code review is not explicitly mandated.

Arizona: A 2023 statement from the Arizona Association of Counties indicated that logic and accuracy tests do not typically include source code review, meaning malicious software could go undetected unless specifically examined.

Variation in Oversight: States like California previously allowed source code reviews for some voting systems, but newer vendors like Dominion have resisted such reviews, citing proprietary concerns. This has raised concerns about transparency.

Challenges and Criticisms
Proprietary Code: Voting machine vendors, such as Dominion and ES&S, often claim their source code is proprietary, making it difficult for independent researchers or election officials to conduct thorough reviews. This has been a point of contention, as noted in posts on X and by security researchers.

Limited Scope of Testing: L&A tests are standard but often superficial, checking for correct vote tabulation in simulated elections rather than verifying the underlying code for vulnerabilities or deliberate manipulation. Security experts, like Emily Gorcenski, have highlighted that stylistic code checks (e.g., formatting) are often prioritized over functional security analysis.

Security Vulnerabilities: Studies, such as those on Dominion’s ImageCast X, have identified vulnerabilities (e.g., CVE-2022-1742, CVE-2022-1743) that could allow malicious code execution, underscoring the need for deeper code audits. These vulnerabilities often require physical access or specific conditions, but the lack of mandatory code review exacerbates risks.

Calls for Transparency: Researchers and activists argue for open-source voting systems or mandatory, independent source code audits to ensure integrity. For example, MIT researchers found flaws in the Voatz app partly because its code was not fully transparent, highlighting the need for verifiable systems.

---