Election Day

• Election Night Reporting: 85,713
• Cast Vote Records: 85,713
• Ballot Images: 85,713

Recount

• Election Night Reporting: 85,709
• Cast Vote Records: 85,709
• Ballot Images: (not available)

Aberrations

• Double counted ballots in original count: 20
• Double counted ballots in recount: 3
• Ballots not appearing in recount: 31
• New Ballots not appearing in original: 44

General Observations

The main issue during the original count was the discovery of 20 duplicated ballots in the original count. It seems these duplicates occurred because earlier ballots in the stack got stuck and were rescanned. All these duplicated ballots were hand-marked paper ballots. It appears that the duplication may have happened because the person rescanning the ballots might have mistakenly not reinserted them properly.

Additionally, 26 ballots present in the original count were missing in the recount. Most of these were from Ballot Marking Devices (BMD), along with a few hand-marked paper ballots (HMPB). There was no clear pattern to explain these missing ballots.

Recount Observations

The recount in Paulding County repeated the original count's issue of double counting, but on a smaller scale, with only 3 ballots affected.

Notably, the recount included 36 new ballots in the ballot images. Approximately half of these newly counted ballots had a significant number of races left blank, indicating a trend of partial voting or possibly a problem with how the ballots were processed.

I want to focus on a particular group of 22 ballots that are in the recount. It appears these were potentially added to align the recount numbers with the original count. During the original count, we had identified 20 double counted ballots. To address this discrepancy, it seems that someone could have added 22 new padding ballots to make the recount numbers match

Notice the pattern of ballot voting fingerprints above in the first three groups (orange/purple/green)

• They're all in the same batch of ballots.
• Each block of ballots in same precinct
• 1st set - Vote all blank choices (BLA = Blank)
• 2nd set - All blank votes, but one senatorial 'test' choice of 'John'
• 3rd set - Vote for Jo Jorgensen
• 4th set - Vote for Joe Biden - All constitutional votes were 'No'.
• 5th set - Vote for Donald Trump - All constitutional votes were 'Yes'

Notice in the fourth group (blue), this is using the standard 'senatorial testing pattern' that is employed by the testers during the setup of the machines. These testing patterns can also be seen in Muscogee, DeKalb and Fulton Counties for reference.

Voting Pattern Continued to show obvious write-in pattern

Voting Pattern Continued to show obvious write-in pattern

Notably, all these ballots had identical signatures, including one that was completely blank. It seems each presidential candidate was selected across these ballots, likely as a strategy to avoid impacting the final vote comparison. Each of these sets of added ballots was found within the same batch. Their sequence was highly unusual and seemed highly improbable and is likely a result of the sorting method employed during the hand RLA, where ballots were organized first by Jorgensen, then Biden, and finally Trump. This sorting process points to the conclusion that these 'filler' ballots were introduced during the hand audit.

Comparing Cast Vote Records vs. Ballot Images

There are 76 ballots in the cast vote record are improperly marked as absentee in the original cast vote record.