Election Day

• Election Night Reporting: 21,474
• Cast Vote Records: 21,474
• Ballot Images: 21,374

Recount

• Election Night Reporting: 21,407
• Cast Vote Records: 21,407
• Ballot Images: (not available)

Aberrations

• Ballots in original count, but missing from the recount: 68
• New ballots appearing in the recount: 9
• Ballots in Cast Vote Record, but images missing 100
• Overwritten ballots in cast vote record: 7

General Observations

In the initial count, there were 68 ballots that are not present in the recount. Of these, 58 featured a write-in candidate for president. As the recount was specifically for the presidential election and these ballots did not include votes for the primary candidates, they seem to have been either discarded or lost. Consequently, they are absent from the recount ballots.

The remaining 10 of the initially missing ballots were found to be valid votes for presidential candidates, but they required additional adjudication due to poor entry. These ballots, although valid, were also not included in the recount data.

Recount Analysis

It appears probable that the original ballots with poor entries were replaced with duplicates. Evidence of this is found in the presence of 9 new ballot images, which only have the presidential choices marked, leaving other contest sections blank. Unfortunately, without access to the recount ballot images, it's not possible to confirm if this duplication process was correctly followed.

If these were indeed true duplicates and not just filler records, then the precinct should match the original ballot. Unfortunately, these do not and someone chose ‘RH Rec Complex’ for all of these new ballot records.

Critical Issue: Overwriting of Votes

The primary concern is with the batch of ballots preceding the ones previously mentioned. In this batch, the official cast vote records for 7 votes do not match the received ballot images. However, the rest of the ballots in this batch had no discrepancies and aligned with the original images. A similar issue was observed in Appling County, where the official record was altered in the same manner. Notably, these irregularities occurred at the very top of the cast vote records. The fact that the first records in these records were the ones altered suggests a pattern that could indicate how these ballots are being replaced.

Upon examining the ballot images and comparing them to the cast vote records, the replacement is evident. The images show votes for Biden/Ossoff/Warnock, but the records incorrectly state Trump/Perdue/Loeffler. Additionally, there is an inconsistency in precinct information. The ballot images indicate ‘307-Ways Station’, while the cast vote records erroneously list ‘315-Public Safety Complex’.

7 Ballot Images - Original votes

Comparing the Cast Vote Record vs. the Ballot Images

The following batch encountered similar problems. In this case, 100 absentee ballots from the Danielsiding precinct are missing from the set of ballot images. Despite their absence, the official vote total indicates that these ballots were included in the original count. Interestingly, the folder designated for these ballots was included in the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request, but the actual ballot images were missing from this folder.

This situation raises concerns that the overwriting of ballots, as observed in the previous instance, might also explain why this second batch lacks ballot images. The fact that these two issues are only a batch apart suggests more than just a coincidence, pointing towards a potentially systemic issue in the ballot handling or recording process.