KARI LAKE AND MARK FINCHEM v.
ADRIAN FONTES, ARIZONA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
In a landmark legal battle for electoral integrity, candidates Kari Lake and Mark Finchem challenged Arizona's use of electronic voting machines in the governor and secretary of state races. Citing concerns over the machines' ability to ensure a fair and accurate vote, the petitioners brought forth evidence of potential electronic vote tampering in prior elections.
Despite expert testimony highlighting vulnerabilities in the voting system, their claims were initially deemed too speculative for standing. However, new evidence suggesting false assurances about voting safeguards has emerged, prompting a reevaluation of the case's standing and the potential for recurring future harms.
New evidence of misconduct in prior elections
SECOND DECLARATION OF BENJAMIN R. COTTON
March 20th, 2024The Second Declaration of Benjamin R. Cotton, submitted as part of the ongoing legal case Kari Lake et al. v. Katie Hobbs et al., presents an update to Cotton's initial findings regarding the Dominion Voting Systems used in Maricopa County for the 2020 and 2022 elections. Cotton, a founder of CyFIR LLC with extensive experience in computer forensics and digital systems analysis, outlines significant concerns over the security and integrity of the voting systems.
These findings suggest that the integrity of the election system in Maricopa County has been compromised, calling into question the trustworthiness of the results generated by these machines. Cotton's declaration points to a breach of security protocols and a failure by EAC authorized auditors to detect these significant issues, underscoring the need for immediate action to address these vulnerabilities.
- Non-Certified Machine Behavior Settings (MBS) and Database Versions: The MBS and database versions in the tabulators for both the 2020 and 2022 elections did not match those approved by the EAC, indicating unauthorized alterations.
- Significant Software Alterations: Evidence suggests the EMS system contained alterations or deviations from the configurations approved by the EAC, compromising the integrity and security of the system.
- Unprotected Encryption Keys: The encryption keys used for securing results and operations were stored in plain text, accessible via simple SQL queries, severely compromising system security.
- Compiler Installed on EMS: A compiler found on the Maricopa EMS could modify and create executable files and drivers, potentially altering election results undetected.
DECLARATION OF CLAY U. PARIKH
March 20th, 2024The Declaration of Clay U. Parikh a former Voting System Test Laboratories (VSTL) expert - provides a comprehensive analysis and critique of the electronic voting systems used in Maricopa County for the 2020 and 2022 general elections. Parikh, an experienced cybersecurity professional, highlights significant concerns regarding the security, certification, and reliability of the voting systems.
Parikh's declaration underscores serious concerns regarding the security, certification, and execution of the electronic voting systems in Maricopa County, calling into question the reliability of the election results in 2020 and 2022.
- Uncertified Software Use: Parikh identifies that Maricopa County employed uncertified versions of Democracy Suite software, combining components from versions 5.5B and 5.10, the latter not approved by the Secretary of State or the EAC. This use of uncertified software, according to Parikh, undermines the integrity of the elections.
- Security Violations and Risks: The declaration points out severe security violations, such as the plaintext storage of encryption keys within the election database, a practice that violates basic cybersecurity principles and standards.
- Logic and Accuracy (L&A) Testing Concerns: Parikh asserts that Maricopa County failed to conduct required L&A testing on all voting equipment as mandated by Arizona law, thereby compromising the reliability of the election outcomes.
- Audit and Verification Issues: The declaration criticizes the audits conducted by Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, suggesting that they failed to verify the integrity of the election software accurately. Parikh contends that these audits did not examine the actual software configurations used in the elections.
- Conclusion on Election Integrity: Based on his analysis, Parikh concludes that voters in Maricopa County cannot have confidence in the accuracy or integrity of the election results due to the use of uncertified software, significant security vulnerabilities, and the lack of proper L&A testing.
SECOND DECLARATION OF WALTER C. DAUGHERITY
March 20th, 2024The Second Declaration of Walter C. Daugherity provides a detailed analysis and critique of electronic voting systems, specifically focusing on vulnerabilities within the Dominion Voting System used in Maricopa County, Arizona.
These findings suggest that the integrity of the election system in Maricopa County has been compromised, calling into question the trustworthiness of the results generated by these machines. Cotton's declaration points to a breach of security protocols and a failure by EAC authorized auditors to detect these significant issues, underscoring the need for immediate action to address these vulnerabilities.
- Vulnerabilities in Dominion Voting System: Daugherity highlights significant vulnerabilities in the Dominion Voting System that allow unauthorized access and control over election results, including the ability to insert, modify, or delete files and logs, potentially undetectably.
- Cryptographic Bypasses and Insider Threats: The declaration details how cryptographic keys and passwords were stored in plaintext within the election management system, allowing anyone with access to bypass all cryptographic safeguards easily.
- Implications of Security Failures: Daugherity discusses the implications of these security failures for the control of election results, including the use of a Proportional-Integral-Derivative (PID) controller for potential manipulation of election outcomes.
- Analysis of Rejected Ballots: The declaration examines the massive number of rejected ballots in the Maricopa County 2022 midterm election, suggesting that security vulnerabilities could have contributed to the issue.
- Conclusion on Election System Security: Daugherity concludes that electronic voting systems, due to their vulnerability to unauthorized manipulation, should not be considered for use in future elections unless they are made completely open to the public and subjected to independent, objective, and scientific analysis to ensure their security against manipulation.
Reference Documents
EAC Certificate of Conformance
Dominion Voting Systems - Democarcy Suite 5.5-B
This document describes the scope of the validation and certification of the system defined
above. Any use, configuration changes, revision changes, additions or subtractions from the
described system are not included in this evaluation.
EAC Certifcation Page Link
SLI Compliance Foresnic Audit Report
SLI Compliance is submitting this report as a summary of forensic auditing efforts, solicited by Maricopa County Elections Department. The forensic audit conducted consisted of an analysis and review of the voting system equipment used in the November 3rd, 2020 presidential election and records from that election, to extract facts about the use of the Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5B voting system.
PRO V&V Audit Report
The purpose of this report is to document the procedures that Pro V&V, Inc. followed to perform a PostElection Field Audit of the Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite (D-Suite) 5.5-B Voting System Maricopa County Board Elections. The Post Election Field Audit was conducted in Maricopa County, Arizona, from February 2, 2021 through February 5, 2021.
Maricopa County Forensic 2020 Election Audit Reports
Arizona Senate/Cyber Ninjas
Volume I: Executive Summary & Recommendations
This document includes the Executive Summary of the Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit, a listing of findings
within the Findings Summary, as well as Recommendations based on our work in the audit.
Volume II: Operations & Methodology
This volume of the report serves to outline details of the audit operations and the conduct of the audit in general; as well as cover the audit methodologies behind various actions performed during the audit.
Volume III: Result Detials
This volume of the report serves to outline details of the results from the audit; including all the data and evidence to support the conclusions of this report.