The Georgia Record reported in early October that analysts David Cross and Kevin Moncla filed a complaint with the Georgia State Election Board demanding an emergency review of the use of election machines in the state.
The complaint began as follows:
Kevin Moncla and David Cross, hereinafter “complainants”, are submitting this Official
Notice and Demand for Emergency Review regarding deficiencies discovered with
Georgia’s Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5A(GA) election equipment. These problems are
consistent with that found last year in Williamson County, TN, and confirmed by the
Election Assistance Commission (EAC) as further explained below. Following this
incident, Williamson County immediately suspended use of Dominion voting systems and
replaced the machines with those of another manufacturer.
Those same anomalies, among others, have been witnessed in several separate incidents and
the same errors have been documented in 65 of the 67 counties, some 97%, across the state
of Georgia. We have evidenced these specific problems having occurred during the 2020
general election and again during the recent 2022 primaries. Without intervention, the
material effect on mid-term election contests and the risk of disenfranchisement of hundreds
of thousands of Georgia voters is imminent.
Therefore, we are seeking Immediate Emergency Review by the Georgia State Election
Board, and for cause state as follows:
Now the two analysts are resubmitting their complaint and the first few paragraphs can be seen below as well.
Dear Sirs and Madams:
We are forced to re-submit this complaint as a final effort to urge the State Election Board
(the “Board”) to address the issues we have previously raised, and to refute the unsupported
assertions of an anonymous “technician” in response to our original complaint (Exhibit A,
hereinafter referred to as the “Initial Submission”). The Initial Submission sets forth the
background in greater detail, but we have been communicating with Chairman Duffey since early
September to forestall the occurrence of machine anomalies that is certain to call into question the
legitimacy of the upcoming election.
Our Initial Submission was summarily disposed of by what we must characterize as an
uninformed “technical consultant” (response as Exhibit B) (“Response”). It is possible that the
State’s Technical Consultant (hereinafter referred to as the “STC”) simply misunderstood what
was being asked. Allow us to be charitable and not assume that he or she was either incompetent
or willfully attempting to mislead Chairman Duffey and the Board. But we raised serious
concerns and did not receive a serious response.
The entire complaint can be found in the PDF tab below.