Judge's Ruling Raises Concerns Over Georgia Voting Integrity
Submitted by MAGA
Posted 1 day ago
A shocking ruling from U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg has raised alarms about the integrity of Georgia's voting system, even as she dodged the substantive issues presented in the case.
In a recent decision, Totenberg acknowledged "substantial concerns" regarding the security and administration of Georgia’s electronic voting system.
Despite this admission, she dismissed a case seeking to replace the current system with hand-marked paper ballots, citing a lack of standing from the plaintiffs involved.
The case, Curling v. Raffensperger, has been in the courts since 2017 and primarily revolves around the plaintiffs' claims that the state’s electronic voting devices put the accuracy of voters' choices in jeopardy.
Voters have expressed concerns about the use of QR codes on ballots, arguing that the codes prevent them from verifying that their votes are accurately counted.
Though Totenberg did recognize the "substantial concerns" raised about the Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs), which involve scanning codes printed on paper ballots, she ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a legally cognizable injury, thus dismissing the case.
Critics argue that this ruling reflects a troubling trend of the judiciary overlooking serious allegations of voting system vulnerabilities, especially as concerns about election integrity remain prominent in national conversations.
Notably, during the trial, expert testimony from University of Michigan professor Dr. J. Alex Halderman revealed multiple avenues through which the BMD system could be manipulated, raising further questions about its reliability.
Despite acknowledging these vulnerabilities, Totenberg's refusal to address them head-on has drawn ire from election integrity advocates, who argue that denying standing to concerned voters sets a dangerous precedent for future electoral processes.
Cleta Mitchell, an election attorney, criticized the ruling as further evidence of how the justice system seemingly shifts to accommodate political narratives rather than uphold the integrity of elections.
The blatant inconsistencies in judicial treatment of voting concerns based on party affiliation have become increasingly apparent, with critics noting that prior to the 2020 election, it was primarily Democrats who raised alarms about voting machine security.
Mitchell pointed out the ironic twist where the same concerns that were previously deemed valid by left-leaning groups now face dismissal under the current political climate.
As Georgia continues to navigate its electoral processes, the calls for reform and transparency are more urgent than ever.
With a keen eye on election integrity, Conservatives remain steadfast in demanding accountability from those in charge of safeguarding one of our most sacred rights—the right to vote.
Sources:
cnbc.com
thefederalist.com
dailysignal.com
In a recent decision, Totenberg acknowledged "substantial concerns" regarding the security and administration of Georgia’s electronic voting system.
Despite this admission, she dismissed a case seeking to replace the current system with hand-marked paper ballots, citing a lack of standing from the plaintiffs involved.
The case, Curling v. Raffensperger, has been in the courts since 2017 and primarily revolves around the plaintiffs' claims that the state’s electronic voting devices put the accuracy of voters' choices in jeopardy.
Voters have expressed concerns about the use of QR codes on ballots, arguing that the codes prevent them from verifying that their votes are accurately counted.
Though Totenberg did recognize the "substantial concerns" raised about the Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs), which involve scanning codes printed on paper ballots, she ruled that the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a legally cognizable injury, thus dismissing the case.
Critics argue that this ruling reflects a troubling trend of the judiciary overlooking serious allegations of voting system vulnerabilities, especially as concerns about election integrity remain prominent in national conversations.
Notably, during the trial, expert testimony from University of Michigan professor Dr. J. Alex Halderman revealed multiple avenues through which the BMD system could be manipulated, raising further questions about its reliability.
Despite acknowledging these vulnerabilities, Totenberg's refusal to address them head-on has drawn ire from election integrity advocates, who argue that denying standing to concerned voters sets a dangerous precedent for future electoral processes.
Cleta Mitchell, an election attorney, criticized the ruling as further evidence of how the justice system seemingly shifts to accommodate political narratives rather than uphold the integrity of elections.
The blatant inconsistencies in judicial treatment of voting concerns based on party affiliation have become increasingly apparent, with critics noting that prior to the 2020 election, it was primarily Democrats who raised alarms about voting machine security.
Mitchell pointed out the ironic twist where the same concerns that were previously deemed valid by left-leaning groups now face dismissal under the current political climate.
As Georgia continues to navigate its electoral processes, the calls for reform and transparency are more urgent than ever.
With a keen eye on election integrity, Conservatives remain steadfast in demanding accountability from those in charge of safeguarding one of our most sacred rights—the right to vote.
Sources:
cnbc.com
thefederalist.com
dailysignal.com
Latest News