The foundation of our democracy is under threat, and as authoritarianism grows, our right to vote—and to have each vote accurately counted—becomes the last safeguard of democracy. Voting and tabulation machines present vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited and go undetected, even on Election Day. Malicious actors could manipulate these systems to alter results, falsely presenting authoritarians as having been elected. This risk is not theoretical but an imminent danger to the integrity of our elections.

To combat this threat, we propose a California Constitutional Amendment requiring all elections throughout the state to utilize hand-marked paper ballots, hand-counted in full public view through a nonpartisan process. By eliminating machine dependency, we can ensure transparency, accountability, and secure elections.

Under this amendment, no electronic voting machines would be employed, except one offline voting machine per polling station, designated solely for voters with disabilities. This machine will print a verifiable paper ballot that the voter can confirm, which will then be included in the hand-count process.

The integrity and security of our electoral process are paramount to maintaining our democratic institutions. A hand-counted paper ballot system in public view under a nonpartisan process eliminates electronic tampering risks and bolsters public confidence. Transparency ensures that every vote is seen, verified, and counted, preserving essential voter trust.

This petition is for Californians to sign to urge their state legislators to support this amendment. You can amplify your voice by calling your legislator directly. To find your representative, visit https://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov Every signature, every call, helps ensure that every vote in California is counted accurately and transparently, protecting the future of our democracy.

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

 

YouTube Video: Professor Halderman's Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing on Election Interference - June 21, 2017. Civic Lightworks, posted Aug 12, 2025.

 

 

Trump: Elon Musk knows 'those vote counting computers'. Politico, posted January 20, 2025.

Voting and Tabulation Machines: Vulnerabilities and Risks:

Modern elections depend heavily on electronic voting machines and tabulation systems. While these tools can speed up ballot processing, experts have repeatedly warned they are not immune to hacking or tampering. Professor J. Alex Halderman of the University of Michigan has spent years demonstrating how these systems could be compromised. In court-approved demonstrations, Halderman has shown that malware can be installed on ballot-marking devices, potentially altering votes without detection. He has also illustrated how attackers could exploit weak physical security or outdated software to gain unauthorized access, modify configuration files, or bypass safeguards. His testimony underscores a critical truth: if a system can be programmed, it can be reprogrammed.

These warnings are not hypothetical. Multiple independent reviews and security conferences—such as the DEF CON Voting Village—have confirmed that vulnerabilities exist across many models of voting equipment, including tabulators and voter access terminals. While election officials stress that safeguards like paper ballots and audits can detect anomalies, the fact remains: exploitable weaknesses exist in the hardware, firmware, and software that run U.S. elections.

The 2024 Battleground Sweep: A Statistical Anomaly:

Donald Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election was historic for one reason: he won all seven key battleground states—Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. This achievement is unprecedented in modern U.S. political history. No presidential candidate before him had managed to sweep every major swing state in a single election cycle.

While unusual outcomes are not proof of manipulation, such a uniform sweep has raised questions among election observers, statisticians, and political analysts. Battleground states are, by definition, closely contested. Winning all of them, especially when polls had projected narrower margins, warrants closer scrutiny. In the context of known system vulnerabilities, this outcome has fueled speculation about whether technological exploitation played a role.

Colorado Password Exposure: A Critical Security Gap:

In mid-2024, the Colorado Secretary of State’s website inadvertently exposed partial passwords for election machines in a hidden tab within a publicly available spreadsheet. This breach remained undiscovered from June to October 2024, a period spanning both the lead-up to and aftermath of the general election. Security experts warn that even partial credentials can be valuable to an attacker. With time and skill, they can be used to reconstruct full passwords or gain a foothold in sensitive systems.

Although state officials later stated that there was no evidence the breach had been exploited, the months-long exposure represents a critical lapse. Any attacker aware of the vulnerability could have used the information to access election systems, alter configurations, or introduce malicious code—potentially affecting tabulation accuracy.

Michigan’s “Split-Ticket” Voting Issue:

In October 2024, Michigan officials disclosed that certain Dominion voter access terminals had a programming flaw known as a “split-ticket voting issue.” This problem occurred when a voter selected a straight-party option and then individually chose candidates from another party in certain races. The machines could misinterpret these selections, leading to inaccurate ballot recordings.

While the state claimed the issue did not prevent voting or directly alter totals, it did introduce a risk of misrecorded votes—particularly in close races. In battleground states where margins can be razor-thin, even small-scale errors could influence the outcome. The timing of the disclosure, just weeks before Election Day, left limited time for public reassurance or comprehensive fixes.

 Coffee County, Georgia: Unauthorized Access to Voting Data:

One of the most troubling incidents linked to election system vulnerabilities occurred in Coffee County, Georgia. Surveillance footage and court records show that on January 7, 2021, former county Republican chair and 2020 “fake elector” Cathy Latham escorted outside computer technicians into the county elections office. These individuals accessed and copied sensitive data from voting and tabulation machines without public oversight or independent verification.

Although the breach predates the 2024 election, its implications are serious. Once system images or configuration files are extracted, they can be studied to identify weaknesses and develop exploits. If these materials circulated to unauthorized parties, they could have provided a blueprint for manipulating similar equipment in other jurisdictions during later elections. Election security specialists emphasize that physical access is often the hardest barrier for attackers to overcome—once inside, altering firmware or software becomes far easier.

Why These Incidents Matter:

Individually, each of these incidents—Halderman’s demonstrations, the Colorado password leak, Michigan’s split-ticket flaw, and the Coffee County breach—might be dismissed as isolated issues. Together, they paint a picture of a system where multiple avenues for interference exist. The combination of human error, weak cybersecurity practices, and insufficient physical safeguards creates an environment where determined actors could exploit vulnerabilities.

Conclusion:

The integrity of an election depends not only on whether fraud is detected, but also on whether the system is resilient enough to prevent it in the first place. Voting and tabulation machines are complex, network-connected in some configurations, and reliant on both physical and digital safeguards. As experts like Halderman have shown, weaknesses in these systems can be exploited—sometimes without leaving obvious traces.

Donald Trump’s unprecedented sweep of all battleground states in 2024, combined with specific security incidents in Colorado, Michigan, and Georgia, has fueled public debate about whether the election was as secure as officials claim. While definitive proof of hacking in 2024 has not been presented, the vulnerabilities are real—and so is the need for stronger, more transparent protections in future elections.