Those who want to diminish the importance of finding cryptographic algorithms embedded in state boards of election voter registration databases typically demand proof the algorithms have resulted in fraudulent votes or suggest that legitimate purposes can explain the algorithms.
Consider the following legal requirements that secretly embedded algorithms appear to violate: Image by AI. The 2002 Help America Vote Act requires states to implement a computerized statewide voter registration list that is uniform and nondiscriminatory.
The algorithmic structure would lack the required uniformity and may be discriminatory if used to treat certain voters differently.
Specifically, Section 303(a)(4) requires that voter registration records be maintained in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.
On September 16, 2024, attorney Thomas W. Connors of Mendenhall Law Group, Akron, reported to the Ohio SBOE about an algorithm found in the Ohio voter registration database: Dr. Paquette's initial review of the Ohio voter rolls, attached, shows that voter identification numbers in certain counties are assigned by an algorithm that permits a hidden means of tracking voter registrations.
His work, while preliminary and not comprehensive, is consistent with his extensive review of the New York voter rolls that showed an algorithm that also permitted such tracking, which his analysis showed was tied to false registrations.
The National Voter Registration Act mandates accurate maintenance of voter registration lists.
In New York, Voter ID numbers were apparently assigned to known purged records, contradicting the NVRA's core principle of maintaining accurate eligible voter lists.
The NVRA requires removing ineligible voters, not retaining them as 'purged' with new IDs.
While not explicitly prohibited, it potentially violates Section 8's spirit, which requires states to remove ineligible voters from official lists.
Section 5-614 outlines requirements for the statewide voter registration list.
' A hidden algorithm structuring voter IDs might not align with these standards, particularly regarding data format and content.
The state-level implementation of this algorithm may conflict with NY Codes, Rules and Regulations Title 9, Subtitle V, §6217.1, which gives County Boards of Elections 'sole responsibility for adding, changing, canceling, or removing' voter records.
The following considerations mitigate against the likelihood that cryptographic algorithms found in SBOE voter registration databases have legitimate explanations: Simplicity and Efficiency: The preferred approach is to keep the process simple and efficient when dealing with ID number assignments.
Transparency: Voter rolls are public records, and the process of assigning ID numbers should be transparent and easily understandable.
The following factors suggest that the placing and maintenance of complex cryptographic algorithms in SBOE voter registration databases may indicate serious irregularities or potential legal violations: Deviation from Best Practices: Using such a complex algorithm for mapping CID to SBOEID numbers in voter rolls significantly deviates from established best practices in election management and IT in general.
Lack of Justification: Given the context of public voter rolls and the requirements for transparency and accessibility, there seems to be no clear and justifiable reason for employing such complex and obscure algorithms.
The complexity appears unnecessary and counterproductive to the goals of maintaining accurate and transparent voter records.
These obfuscations are particularly concerning in the context of sensitive voter information.
Absence of Precedent: Using a highly complex algorithm in the context of voter rolls lacks precedent or justification in existing state and federal election laws.
Dr. Paquette continues to uncover complex algorithms in various state voter ID systems.
These intelligence-grade cryptographic methods share three key characteristics: 1) they segregate voter data, 2) they conceal their operational methods, and 3) they add hidden attributes to voter records.
No comments:
Post a Comment