>>22908324 (me?)

2/3

II. Technical Breakdown: How Voter Data is Embedded into Ballots

A. The Role of E-Poll Books and Ballot Printers

In Dallas County, ES&S epoll books were found to have glitched during a recent general election, failing to complete voter check-ins and printing ballots with repetitive barcodes used to create the "ballot style" for the voter. This malfunction in the ES&S epoll book equipment resulted in an untold number of voters receiving the wrong ballot style— meaning multiple voters received the same ballot tied to a single incomplete check-in.

These ballot identifiers, printed from epoll books directly, or using a peripheral machine to transcribe epoll book barcodes created for each voter, included human-readable and machine-readable codes (barcodes or hexadecimal-like identifiers) that were transferred from the epoll book to the ballot marking device, and then on to the ballot which is then scanned into a thumb drive. In many cases it is known that these incorrect ballots were printed and then unknowingly voted and cast, without these voters even being formally checked in, as the epoll books were stuck on the initial voter scanned in, and kept printing ballots for that original voter only, without anyone noticing. Election judges had no idea the voters they were scanning were not being checked in, and that they were all getting the same ballot style. This lack of understanding of how to conduct computerized elections and detect serious issues has created opportunities for multiple votes to be cast by or on behalf of a single registration without detection.

These system malfunctions were later patched mid-election through a firmware update, raising serious concerns about the legal chain of custody, the auditability of ballots, and the security of the voting process.

B. QR Codes and Access Codes as Data Carriers

In systems like HART InterCivic’s Verity Voting, a barcode generated at check-in is translated via a peripheral controller, typically into a six-digit access code that must be manually entered by the voter into the ballot marking device to create that voter's unique ballot. After voter selections are made, a QR code, and often an additional mysterious number which has gone unexplained by even this author's friend, Heider Garcia, is printed onto the ballot along with the voter selections. The structure of this data pathway suggests a multi-step digital fingerprinting process by which a single code, tied to the voter’s check-in, survives through every step of the voting process—from check-in to ballot generation to casting and potentially beyond.

Election officials claim that these codes contain no voter-identifiable information. However, without full transparency and vendor cooperation—and under threat of legal consequences for inspecting proprietary software—we cannot verify these assurances. The very structure of these systems, as demonstrated by technical audits and whistleblower reports, indicates the presence of relational logic: one piece of data triggering another, across multiple devices, creating a traceable chain.

—

III. Legislative and Procedural Failures

A. The SOS Redaction Order and its Implications

The Texas Secretary of State (SOS) issued a directive after the 2024 primary election requiring the redaction of “personally identifiable” information from cast ballot images and election records. This move followed reports—initiated by grassroots investigator Barry Wernick—revealing that ballots across multiple counties could be matched to individual voters using publicly available election data.

Rather than admit to a systemic issue, the SOS sought to cover it up through redactions, thus acknowledging the problem while simultaneously hiding its scale. This redaction policy placed local election officials in the position of determining what data was "personally identifiable," leading to inconsistent application and further violations of transparency statutes.

This undermines the statutory mandate that all ballots must be anonymous at the time of creation and violates public access rights under both state and federal law.

>>22908332 (could be me)

>>22908324 (dunno)

3/3

IV. Ballot Fraud by Design: A Workflow for Undetectable Manipulation

TBTR Strategies has compiled all the available evidence from our own investigations, and from thorough examination of work completed by other dedicated American Patriots, that when compiled logically, seem to document a full chain of election manipulation, using both technical and procedural vulnerabilities:

1. Inflation of Voter Rolls: Pre-election increases in active voter registrations, including reactivation of inactive voters.

1. Ballot Generation Loopholes: Unlimited ballots can be created under one check-in, with systems not designed to flag duplicate ballots.

1. Non-Sequential Ballot Numbering: Vendors have advised counties to eliminate sequential numbering, making insertion of fraudulent ballots undetectable.

1. Excess Ballot Stock: Thousands of additional blank ballots were allocated to polling locations with historically low turnout. TBTX and TBTR Strategies trained poll watchers observed that election judges were trained only to count ballot stock on the log forms as they opened a packet, leaving thousands unaccounted for. We are only aware of these excessive ballot stock allocations because of properly trained poll watchers.

1. Ballot Swapping and Mishandling: Election judges observed opening and sorting of cast ballots from ballot boxes after the close of polls, in violation of chain of custody.

1. Broken, Missing or Incomplete Chain of Custody: The removal of lawful ballots and insertion of fraudulently created ballots could be occurring countywide with the severe Chain of Custody violations documented by TBTX and TBTR Strategies trained poll watchers. This is the only evidence the county and state has to prove that a lawful, trustworthy and accurate election was conducted.

1. Vote Collapsing and Registration Removal: Post-election, fake registrations are returned to inactive or suspended status, obscuring voter history and eliminating traces of fake votes, while county and state vote totals and voter turnout records fail to reconcile.

In short:

We believe that before an election, inactive voters or suspended voters are somehow activated, polling places are equipped with epoll books to track voter turnout countywide and assign some kind of data to a ballot upon voter check-in, are overstocked with ballots not being tracked, and after an election is conducted that fake voters are removed, fake ballots are created and inserted without detection along with thumb drives of data, and lawfull ballots are removed from ballot boxes after being counted and sorted, with those ballots deemed "undesirable" being swapped prior to delivery to the central election office on election night, or throughout the early voting period.

V. Data Pattern Analysis: The Findings of Dr. Andrew Paquette

Dr. Andrew Paquette’s research in Nassau County and across other jurisdictions provides critical technical validation of TBTR’s findings. His forensic audits uncovered algorithmic patterns within voter registration files that indicate:

• Cloning of voter files through dual IDs linked to a hidden third.

• Predictable numerical patterns occurring every tenth entry—indicating algorithmic assignment.

• Removal of voters after elections, with corresponding changes in status from active to inactive or suspended.

These anomalies match the patterns uncovered by Susan Valiant, Barry Wernick, and others in multiple Texas counties, and add technical weight to claims of a relational database underpinning the voter rolls, which we have already shown have data linked directly to the ballot from the epoll books (voter rolls), what is supposed to be a separate database.

VI. The Legal and Constitutional Framework

The Texas Constitution demands that elections be conducted in a manner that preserves the purity of the ballot box, through ballot secrecy, auditability and strong election laws preventing undue influence and improper practice. The United States Constitution and federal law similarly require the protection of voter privacy, access to meaningful audits, and free and fair elections.

Every breakdown outlined in this report—whether in the form of broken chain of custody, insertion of machine-generated identifiers, or unlawful redactions—represents a violation of these core principles. A system which inherently houses a secret database facilitating what we appear to have detected would be wholly illegal and unlawful, should such a system be in existence and in use in US elections.

moar here

Taking Back Texas takingbacktexas.org