Mr. Adam Bitter
General Counsel
Office of the Secretary State
P.O. Box 12060
Austin, TX 78711
Dear Mr. Bitter:
I am writing to express grave concerns about the continued certification of Election Systems & Software (ES&S) voting systems in Texas, which I believe poses a significant threat to State and National Security due to reported issues with their software, including the potential manipulation of protective counters. Additionally, I am alarmed by reports that the Secretary of State’s office is monitoring and/or restricting critical speech about these systems, including my own, through tools like Alethea. I demand that you cease any actions that infringe upon my First Amendment rights and take immediate steps to address the vulnerabilities in ES&S systems that undermine our constitutional republican form of local self government through certification and protection of systems grossly vulnerable to undetectable fraudlent access and manipulation.
Examiner reports and the recent SOS Inspection Report of Dallas County Voting Systems (October 16, 2024) reveal serious flaws in ES&S’s hash validation processes and protective counter mechanisms. For example, the Dallas County report documented that hardware upgrades from EVS 6.1.1.0 to EVS 6.3.0.0 reset protective counters, a technical issue that could obscure evidence of tampering or fraud. Examiner Brandon Hurley emphasized that “the hash validation process is critically important to the security and confidence each voting system needs,” yet ES&S has downplayed these issues as “Texas-specific” rather than acknowledging systemic vulnerabilities. Such flaws in ES&S systems jeopardize the integrity of elections across Texas and beyond, threatening the public’s trust in our democratic processes (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)).
As a Texas citizen, I have a vested interest in ensuring that voting systems uphold the principles of transparency and reliability required for a republican form of government, as guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution. The certification of systems with known vulnerabilities undermines local self-governance and destabilizes our constitutional framework. I urge you to decertify ES&S systems until these issues are fully resolved, pursuant to your authority under Texas Election Code § 122.001 et seq.
I have learned through the records you have provided that the Secretary of State’s office is using tools like Alethea to monitor social media criticism of its voting system certification decisions. If my speech—or that of other concerned citizens—is being targeted, suppressed, or censored, this constitutes a direct violation of my First Amendment rights to free expression and to petition the government for redress of grievances (New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964); McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479 (1985)). My public criticism of ES&S systems and their certification is protected speech on a matter of utmost public concern—election integrity and security.
I demand that you immediately cease and desist any actions that monitor, restrict, or penalize my lawful speech. The real threat to national and physical security is not my advocacy for transparent elections but the deployment of flawed voting systems that erode public confidence and compromise our political power and will. If the Secretary of State’s office is coordinating with vendors like ES&S to shield their systems from scrutiny, as suggested by communications withheld under Public Information Request #25-0202, this only heightens the need for public oversight, not censorship.
To restore trust in Texas elections, I respectfully request that you:
Please immediately Decertify all ES&S voting systems until their hash validation and protective counter issues are fully addressed and independently verified. (We have clear convincing evidence that 9 out of 10 of the required standards in 122.001 are grossly violated with ESS EVS when used with the early voting in person and election day vote anywhere rackett. (--you have the same knowledge and are under Oath)
Please Cease any monitoring or censorship of my protected speech or that of other citizens criticizing voting system certifications.
Please Release all records related to ES&S certification decisions, as requested in Public Information Request #25-0202, without excessive delays or overly broad exemptions, in compliance with the Texas Public Information Act (Texas Government Code § 552.221).
I will continue to exercise my First Amendment rights to speak out against policies and systems that harm our elections until meaningful action is taken. Transparency and accountability in voting system certification are essential to preserving our constitutional republic.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this critical matter. I look forward to your response and immediate action to address these concerns.
Sincerely,
Lori Gallagher
Response to your requests:
Office of the Attorney General
Open Records Division
P.O. Box 12548
Austin, Texas 78711-2548
Re: Public Information Request #25-0202 (Lori Gallagher)
Dear Attorney General Paxton:
I am writing regarding the Secretary of State's request for a ruling on withholding information responsive to Public Information Request #25-0202. After reviewing the communications between the SOS office and your office, I have serious concerns about both the overly broad application of exemptions and the unreasonable timeline for document production that appears designed to delay public access to critical information.
The SOS is attempting to shield communications regarding ES&S voting system certification decisions using multiple exemptions under the Texas Government Code:
- Section 552.107 (attorney-client privilege)
- Section 552.111 (deliberative process privilege)
- Section 552.101 (information confidential by law)
**Public Interest in Voting System Certification and Hash Validation**
The examiner reports for ECO 1167 reveal legitimate concerns regarding ES&S's documentation of their hash validation process. Examiner Brandon Hurley specifically noted that "the hash validation process is one that is critically important to the security and confidence each voting system needs" and that "more emphasis should be placed on the review and certification of the hash validation process."
Technical examiner Brian Mechler documented that ES&S initially framed documentation corrections as "Texas specific" rather than acknowledging a broader issue affecting all jurisdictions using their systems, which appears to be an attempt to minimize the significance of the documentation error.
Examiner Tom Watson pointedly stated: "A straight-forward, transparent validation process is essential to the integrity of an election voting system. Due to the public's heightened scrutiny of the election/voting process, this is more important than ever."
The recent SOS Inspection Report of Dallas County Voting Systems (October 16, 2024) further demonstrates why public access to certification information is critical. This report details an incident where hash validation issues and protective counter discrepancies on ES&S DS200 precinct scanners required intervention by the SOS and Attorney General's offices. The report confirms that hardware changes during system upgrades from EVS 6.1.1.0 to EVS 6.3.0.0 reset protective counters - precisely the kind of technical detail that's essential for proper public oversight.
The inspection report notes: "Due to the nature of the sampling process used to select the scanners, the participants speculated that the county's proposed theory that the original scanners had not been used in prior elections was an unlikely explanation." Only through direct inspection and vendor documentation review could officials determine that a hardware change during the upgrade reset the protective counters.
This incident illustrates why the public needs timely access to the records sought in Ms. Gallagher's request. The examiner reports already reveal multiple concerns with ES&S's hash validation processes that were initially minimized as "Texas specific" rather than acknowledged as systemic issues. The public has a right to understand the full context of these certification decisions, especially when:
1. These exact same systems are currently deployed in counties across Texas
2. The Dallas County incident shows how critical the hash validation process is to election integrity
3. The examiners explicitly noted that "more emphasis should be placed on the review and certification of the hash validation process"
I find it particularly troubling that:
1. The SOS office is monitoring social media criticism of their certification decisions (via Alethea) while simultaneously attempting to withhold information about those same decisions.
2. The SOS appears to be coordinating with ES&S on which exemptions to claim rather than allowing for a neutral assessment of what information truly warrants protection.
3. The SOS is using a "rolling basis" document production extending to June 12, 2025, which appears designed to delay public access to critical information about certification decisions.
4. The SOS is claiming deliberative process privilege for technical certification decisions that should follow established standards and criteria rather than subjective policymaking.
5. Technical examiners have repeatedly emphasized the importance of transparent hash validation processes, yet the SOS seeks to shield the very communications about these processes from public view.
The SOS's letter states they intend to provide documents on a "rolling basis" extending to June 12, 2025. This timeline is unreasonable and appears designed to delay access to information of significant public interest. Section 552.221(a) of the Texas Government Code requires that governmental bodies "promptly produce public information." While Section 552.221(d) allows for reasonable extensions beyond the initial 10-day period when information cannot be produced promptly, a three-month delay for document production extends far beyond what can be considered "reasonable" under the law.
The unreasonable timeline is particularly concerning given:
1. The request specifically concerns voting system certification, which is of immediate public interest
2. The documents already appear to have been identified and reviewed sufficiently to claim exemptions
3. The SOS is actively monitoring social media criticism about these very certification decisions
While specific technical security details may legitimately require protection, the SOS's claimed exemptions appear excessive and designed to shield the certification decision-making process from legitimate public scrutiny.
I respectfully request that your office:
1. Carefully scrutinize the SOS's claimed exemptions, particularly the deliberative process privilege which should not apply to technical certification decisions that follow established standards.
2. Recognize that the public's right to understand how voting systems are certified outweighs the agency's desire to shield its communications from scrutiny.
3. Consider that transparency in this matter is essential for maintaining public confidence in our electoral systems.
4. Reject the SOS's proposed timeline for document production and require a more reasonable schedule that aligns with the "promptly produce" standard in the Public Information Act.
Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.
Sincerely,
Lori Gallagher
201 Seward Junction Loop
Liberty Hill, Yx 78642
Comments
Nothing yet. Say the first thing.
Sign in to join the conversation.