The Coalition of Concerned Voters of Ohio (CCVO)
Delete voting machines & adopt hand-marked, hand-counted ballots!
Introduction
​
What’s the problem with voting machines and why would we want to get rid of them? Ohio’s Secretary of State assures voters that we can trust the machines, but recent reports by cyber experts tell us that these machines are riddled with security flaws and they can be exploited to manipulate elections. What is the truth? The Coalition of Concerned Voters of Ohio (CCVO) was formed to get to the bottom of this question concerning the voting machines in Ohio. This website exists to educate both the public and election officials on the dangers of the machines and their associated networks and the need to replace them with hand-marked and hand-counted paper ballots.
​
​
Ohio officials react to warnings about voting machine security flaws
(Click to activate video)
Over the past year, CCVO has raised the alarm over voting machine security issues to Ohio officials, surprisingly, they don't
seem to be concerned.
​
-
Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners (BVME)
-
24 County Board of Elections (BOE) Directors & Deputy Directors
-
48 County Board of Elections (BOE) Board Members
-
36 County Commissioners
-
48 Ohio State Representatives & Senators
Questions about Ohio's
Voting Machines
-
Why are the machines overly complex?
A typical electronic calculator requires approximately 5,000 lines of code to perform multifunction calculations, The primary avionics system for NASA's space shuttle required 500,000 lines of code.
Why then does it take over 300,000 source lines of code (enough to fill about 6,000 pages of text) for the typical electronic voting machine to basically perform a single function of adding votes?
-
Why are the inner workings of the machines kept secret?
Neither the federal government, the Ohio Secretary of State, the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners, Ohio Board of Election staff, nor Ohio voters have access to view the software inside the machines since it is considered proprietary. A nefarious actor who is able to alter the software so that it manipulates elections, can also program the software to keep the manipulation from being discovered during the post-election audit by election officials
-
Why is the software (source code) not tested for malicious code?
The federally-accredited testing laboratory that certifies all of Ohio's voting machines do not test for malicious code that may be embedded in the software and they are tested to meet standards that are nearly 20 years old. In addition, one of the primary test labs that have certified many of the machines currently in use in Ohio also certify slot machines for use in casinos. It is commonly known that slot machines are programmed to favor the house.
-
Do Ohio voting machines have wireless modems?
One voting machine vendor that supplies 40% of Ohio's machines, advertizes that it can provide voting machines with wireless modems which would allow for connectivity to the internet through mobile cellular networks. Although Ohio law prohibits voting machines to be connected to the internet and the Ohio Board of Voting Machine Examiners are supposed to test the machines to be sure that they do not contain wireless modems, the Secretary of State's office has not provided CCVO with proof that the testing has been done. Until such proof is provided, we can not say that the voting machines currently in use in Ohio are safe and secure for use in elections.
Is Ohio truly a gold
standard for elections?
If Ohio's election system is the "Gold Standard" that we've been told, then why does the Secretary of State's office refuse to provide proof that voting machines are safe and secure? We are simply told we need to "trust" them!
In a recent interview, Ohio Secretary of State LaRose said that if one pulled back the curtain, they would see how well-run elections are in Ohio. On the SOS website, one can find a colorful poster that shows why Ohio voters can trust their elections. The poster highlights the safeguards that are in place such as machine certification and testing, audits that are 99.9% accurate, and bi-partisan control of the process that supposedly ensures that our elections are safe and secure. Furthermore, we have been told repeatedly that the machines "are never connected to the internet" and by Ohio law, cannot be. In addition, the machines are to be certified at the state level that they do not contain wireless modems which would allow them to be connected to the internet. CCVO has found most of the safeguards currently in place do not guarantee safe and secure elections. In addition, CCVO has repeatedly requested the SOS office to provide proof that Ohio's voting machines do not contain wireless modems, but they have so far refused to provide proof. Without this proof, how can Ohio's voting machines be certified for elections? Click below to read more.
​
​​
Ohio Politicians are against
pro choice when it comes to
alternatives to voting machines!
CCVO drafted language for legislation to change Ohio law (ORC 3506.02) that would allow counties the option to transition from vulnerable voting machines to the cyber-secure alternative system of hand-counting ballots as was previously used in Ohio for over 130 years. Many voters probably don't know that the Ohio Supreme Court actually ruled that voting machines were unconstitutional until the 1930s.
In May 2024, House Bill (HB) 472 Ohio Vote Count Act was introduced to the Ohio House Homeland Security Committee to address a wide variety of election integrity initiatives. Under current Ohio law, counties may choose to adopt voting machines, but are not given the option to abandon them if they so choose. It's like being in a bad marriage with no option to file for divorce. A portion of HB 472 will allow Ohio counties the right to choose for themselves whether they want to abandon voting machines and adopt hand counted ballots. This common sense bill however is being opposed by the powerful voting machine lobbyists and their political allies.
Why is the federal government so involved
with running county elections? A case study
of federal overreach and how Ohio gave
away its birthright to run elections
-
In an unconstitutional act of overreach, the federal government has steadily taken actions to gain control over state-run elections. Beginning with the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) passed in 2002, the federal government subsidized the state's purchase of electronic voting machines. In 2019, they gave Ohio $114M to upgrade its aging machines.
2. In 2017, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
declared state-run election systems as critical infrastructure. In addition to the software of the voting machines being kept secret from election officials and voters, anything related to election system networks now falls under national security. and is also cloaked in secrecy. Question: if the machines are not connected to the internet, why do we need a federal agency to protect the networks?
3. The Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) within DHS is charged with protecting our election systems, but itself was the victim of a cyber attack in 2021 that went undetected for over 12 months and the perpetrators gained access to droves of classified material. More about the Solarwinds attack:
​
​ As the 2023 Twitter file dump revealed, the Federal government lied about not censoring Americans on social media. CISA was exposed colluding with Big Tech and other intermediaries to censor certain viewpoints of citizens who questioned anything related to elections that clearly undermined First Amend- ment principles.
3. If the Federal government lied about their censorship, what other election initiatives are they lying about?
In 2022, Ohio Secretary of State LaRose allowed the Federal government to install Albert network detection and monitoring systems in all 88 Ohio Board of Elections (BOEs). Under the auspices of protecting the county election system networks from malicious cyber attacks, it allows a third-party non-governmental organization under contract to the federal government to monitor (and potentially control) all incoming and outgoing election data from the BOE.
Breaking News: Is there a plan to delay
2024 election results?
On July 31, 2024, as part of a public service announcement series for the 2024 election cycle, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) jointly released the statement:
​
"Just So You Know: DDoS Attacks Could Hinder Access to Election Information, Would Not Prevent Voting."
This public service announcement was made to raise awareness that Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks on election infrastructure, or adjacent infrastructure that supports election operations, could hinder public access to election information, but would not impact the security or integrity of election processes. The PSA is part of the agencies’ ongoing commitment to provide the public with information and the election infrastructure community with the support they need to run safe and secure elections.
Sounds like this could be a plan to delay election results but still claim that the integrity of the election would be intact. Anyone remember Arizona in 2020 taking a month to finalize its election?
​
Disclaimer:
CCVO presentation materials and posted information is designed for
educational, research and fact-finding purposes. CCVO materials come
from published sources. We encourage everyone to do their own
investigation as to the validity and background in the enclosed materials.