Update:
Summary of State & County
Responses to the Open Letter
To date, not one response we have received addresses the fundamental design concerns which include the vulnerabilities of the source code programming which is an inherent feature of all voting systems, including tabulation equipment. Moreover, not one response directly addressed the failure to comply with current VVSG requirements as required under Ohio Revised Code. We also note that not one person fighting for law reform under H.B. 472 or S.B. 274 has highlighted these issues, instead suggesting that an additional layer of “experts” will solve any problem with technical and certification compliance.
Attorney General Yost received multiple copies of the Open Letter, including circulated signatures in support of the Open Letter, in late February and early March 2024.
The Miami Board of Elections confirmed that it sent Secretary of State Frank LaRose a copy of the Open Letter subsequent to the Miami Board of Elections meeting on
March 19, 2024.
We have received no acknowledgment from Secretary LaRose and received no substantive response from Attorney General Yost. Despite the matter being addressed to his attention, Attorney General Yost has asserted that this matter should be brought to the attention of Secretary LaRose.
Of the counties which commented on the Open Letter,
a summary of their positions is as follows:
- Miami County Board of Elections forwarded the Open Letter to the Secretary of State and the County Prosecutor (by verbal/written confirmation after the 3/19/24 meeting).
- Washington County Commissioners denied on 3/18/24 that it has any responsibility or authority for election processes. The Board of Elections responded on 3/19/24 that after consulting with the County Prosecutor the letter would be acknowledged but not responded to as it was not directly addressed to the Board.
- Morgan County Board of Elections via email dated 3/27/24 stated that it has used paper ballots since 2019, and they asserted after consulting with their County Prosecutor that no further action is required.
- Tuscarawas County Commissioners acknowledged receipt on 4/1/24 and advised that it forwarded the Open Letter to the Board of Elections and the County Prosecutor. The Board of Elections did not respond.
- Mercer County Commissioners denied on 4/3/24 that it has any responsibility or authority for election processes. It advised it would forward the Open Letter to the Board of Elections. The Board of Elections did not respond.
- Cuyahoga County denied on 4/16/24 that the concerns raised in the Open Letter pertain to its machines, asserting that they do not use Dominion machines. They also assert that they perform risk-limiting audits.
- Jackson County Board of Elections denied on 4/23/24 using touch-screen voting and stated it uses paper ballots (though they do not comment on whether the ballots are scanned).
- Mahoning County Commissioners refused to acknowledge receipt of the Open Letter on 5/13/24 and denied being a repository for documents of this nature.
- Pickaway County Board of Elections advised on 5/15/24 that it was awaiting instruction from the Secretary of State or Attorney General’s Office.
- Hocking County Board of Elections acknowledged on 5/15/24 that it uses Clear Ballot which scans and takes a digital image of ballots but denies that it is connected to the internet. Results are transmitted by USB drive. Cyber requirements are said to meet and even exceed what is required by the Secretary of State. There is a 5% hand count for every election.
- Huron County Board of Elections advised on 5/16/24 that it forwarded the Open Letter to the County Prosecutor for review.
- Crawford County Board of Elections advised on 5/19/24 that it forwarded the Open Letter to the County Prosecutor for review.
- Richland County Commissioners stated on 5/20/24 that it does not accept concerns raised by non-residents, and further asserts that the Secretary of State should be contacted. In addition, the County asserts that the Board of Elections has oversight of the process. The Board of Elections commented that they agreed transparency is important in government.
- Morrow County Board of Elections responded on 5/22/24 that it does not set policies to address the statewide issues raised.
- Stark County Commissioners commented on 5/23/24 that they were mandated to purchase the machines by the Ohio Supreme Court and that the Board of Elections regulates election rules set forth by the Secretary of State.
- Union County Board of Elections responded on 5/24/24 that it is confident in its election equipment and in their cybersecurity and implementation.
- Athens County Board of Elections stated on 5/24/24 that on advice of legal counsel they would not respond as the concerns were addressed to the Attorney General. They further denied that they had any control over these issues other than complying with the laws put into place by the General Assembly and the Secretary of State.
- Jefferson County Board of Elections responded on 5/24/24 that it follows all laws of Ohio Revised Code and directives set forth by Secretary of State and that all equipment is tested for logic and accuracy and audited before and after elections. In addition, they stated that every vendor is approved by the Secretary of State and in accordance with the Ohio Revised Code.
- Wayne County Board of Elections declined to comment on 5/24/24 apart from referring to the position taken by the Ohio Association of Election Officials.
- Muskingum County consulted with the County Prosecutor and on 5/28/24 stated that the Secretary of State is responsible for conduct of elections and concerns should be sent to him. It further asserts that County Commissioners have no authority under Ohio law to investigate or act on concerns regarding certifications and cybersecurity compliance.
- Franklin County Board of Elections responded on 6/18/24 that they were in compliance with security requirements set forth by Ohio Revised Code and all security directives given by the Ohio Secretary of State.
- Seneca County Board of Elections produced ad hominem attacks against whistleblowers named in the Open Letter and denied any connection with Dominion, Scytl, or GEMS. However, it did admit that its ballots are still electronically scanned and tabulated. It denies that tabulators are connected to the internet.
The following counties acknowledged receipt
but failed to comment or advise that any initiative was being taken to look into the concerns:
Ashtabula, Auglaize, Butler, Champaign, Clermont, Darke, Erie, Geauga, Highland, Holmes, Madison, Marion, Ottawa, Portage, Sandusky, Summit, Wyandot
The following counties denied or failed to acknowledge receipt despite being sent the Open Letter via certified mail or UPS:
Adams, Belmont, Brown, Clark, Clinton, Columbiana, Delaware, Fairfield, Fayette, Gallia, Greene, Guernsey, Hamilton, Knox, Lake, Licking, Lorain, Medina, Monroe, Montgomery, Noble, Perry, Preble, Ross, Trumbull, Warren
The following counties have not acknowledged receipt of the Open Letter sent via email or regular mail:
Ashland, Carroll, Coshocton, Harrison, Lawrence, Logan, Meigs, Pike, Scioto, Shelby, Vinton
Follow Up Correspondence Addressed to Attorney General Yost and Secretary of State LaRose:
If the PDF does not display, please click here.
Follow Up Correspondence Addressed to Federal Investigators/Regulators:
If the PDF does not display, please click here.
Letters in Opposition to Proposed Election Law Reforms Retaining Electronic Voting Systems:
If the PDF does not display, please click here.