Home / Georgia / Garland Favorito on the Curling v Raffensperger Case History and Update

Garland Favorito on the Curling v Raffensperger Case History and Update

  • Gar­land Favorito on the Curl­ing v Raf­fensperg­er. The his­to­ry of the fed­er­al case.
  • The elec­tion serv­er at Ken­ne­saw State is con­nect­ed to the inter­net and it is the hub for our elec­tions in GA. The data was wiped and is in the pos­ses­sion of KSU. Michael Barnes was respon­si­ble for the breach and is still on the Elec­tion Board.
  • The courts find that the SOS office is not cred­i­ble back in 2019.
  • Since 2001 the tech­nol­o­gy has not been updat­ed to address known vul­ner­a­bil­i­ties. The Sec of US dept of Home­land Secu­ri­ty declared vot­ing sys­tems to be a nation­al secu­ri­ty con­cern. In 2019, Judge Toten­berg found that SOS office Diebold DRE vot­ing sys­tem was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al and banned it for future elec­tions. In 2020, found to replace QR cod­ed domin­ion BMD sys­tem vio­lates 2 GA statutes for ver­i­fi­a­bil­i­ty of bal­lot.
  • Toten­berg was frus­trat­ed that there was nev­er a cyber­se­cu­ri­ty eval­u­a­tion on the secu­ri­ty issues in the SOS elec­tion divi­sion. And that they nev­er men­tioned that the secu­ri­ty issues exist­ed.
  • HB316 man­dates unse­cure Bal­lot Mark­ing Devices. It pass­es with­out the required fis­cal note. Cost­ing GA tax­pay­ers $150 mil­lion plus $100 mil­lion over 10 years, plus $35 mil­lion inter­est on a 20 year bond for a sys­tem with a 10 year shelf life.
  • The prob­lem with the SOS inves­ti­ga­tion bill will have the SOS inves­ti­ga­tors will con­duct the inves­ti­ga­tion and not the State Elec­tion Board inves­ti­ga­tors. The Elec­tion Board is not fund­ed prop­er­ly. Every elec­tion inves­ti­ga­tor needs to be moved to the Elec­tion Board and not in the Sec­re­tary of State’s office.

You May Also Like

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This div height required for enabling the sticky sidebar