Jennifer Cohn ✍🏻+ Your Authors @jennycohn1 Election security advocate & writer; attorney; published work in @WhoWhatWhy @NYRDaily @Salon #HandMarkedPaperBallots #ProtectOurVotes 🆘 Jun. 05, 2019 4 min read + Your Authors

Wow. Compare the report from @ProPublica’s Jessica Huseman re: election 2016 in Durham, NC (long lines as “we expected”) with what @SEGreenhalgh, an actual election expert, reported (“It felt like tampering”).

Huseman at 3:22:  1/

2/ Here is the article reporting what election expert @SEGreenhalgh observed in Durham on Election Day 2016:

“The calls started flooding in from hundreds of irate NC voters just after 7 AM. Dozens were told they were ineligible to vote & turned away... 

..., even when they displayed current registration cards. Others were sent from one polling place to another, only to be rejected. Scores of voters were incorrectly told they had cast ballots days earlier. In one precinct, voting halted for two hours.” 3/

“Susan Greenhalgh, a troubleshooter at a nonpartisan election monitoring group, was alarmed. Most of the complaints came from Durham, a blue-leaning county in a swing state. The problems involved electronic poll books...” 4/

Electronic poll books are “tablets and laptops, loaded with check-in software, that have increasingly replaced the thick binders of paper used to verify voters’ identities and registration status.” 5/

Greenhalgh “knew that the company that provided Durham’s software, VR Systems, had been penetrated by Russian hackers months before.

‘It felt like tampering, or some kind of cyberattack,’ Greenhalgh said about the voting troubles in Durham.” 6/

“There are plenty of other reasons for such breakdowns — local officials blamed human error and software malfunctions — and no clear-cut evidence of digital sabotage has emerged, much less a Russian role in it.” 7/

“Despite the disruptions, a record number of votes were cast in Durham, following a pattern there of overwhelming support for Democratic presidential candidates, this time Hillary Clinton.” 8/

“But months later, for Greenhalgh, other election security experts and some state officials, questions still linger about what happened that day in Durham as well as other counties in North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia and Arizona.” 9/

“[L]ocal, state & federal agencies have conducted little of the type of digital forensic investigation required to assess the impact, if any, on voting in at least 21 states whose election systems were targeted by Russian hackers...” 10/

via @SEGreenhalgh in Feb. 2018: 11/

















Two-and-half-years after Election 2016, the feds are finally taking Greenhalgh’s concerns seriously and forensically investigating NC’s equipment from the 2016 election!! 28/


I want to make sure you saw this last sentence from post 29:

“Blanket assertions that voters or votes were not impacted cited no investigations or evidence...” - @SEGreenhalgh


And then there’s this bomb shell, also from today: 31/


Here is a transcript of Huseman’s Election Day report where she said nothing beyond-the-expected seemed to have occurred in Durham, NC on Election Day 2016. Again, this is in stark contrast to what @SEGreenhalgh observed. . 33/

34/ Guess which version of events was attacked by election officials in Durham? Hint: it wasn’t Huseman’s “everything went as expected” narrative. 

35/ I’ve been looking to see if @ProPublica or Huseman ever did a follow up on the concerns about VR Systems & North Carolina, but have been unable to find one. If you find one, please let me know.

36/ As noted by Greenhalgh, above, “We need to change the culture so that irregularities will be considered promptly in the lens of the possibility of interference and investigated.” cc: @propublica

37/ In my view, this means PUSHING BACK against reporters, election experts, & other election professionals who underplay signs that hacking may have occurred and/or use the “conspiracy theorist” label to mock those who express concern that hacking may have occurred.

38/ “Dear Media, It is irresponsible to continue pretending we have a system that allows us to know whether or not our ‘official’ election results are legitimate.” 

39/ In my experience, those who try to shame & silence people who express concern about their reporting or the potential that hacking may have occurred include @JessicaHuseman (@propublica), @PoliticsWolf (@DKElections), @MattBlaze (@Princeton), @RVAWonk, & @TheLoyalO.

40/ Those election “professionals” who encourage this behavior include @umbernhard and @ElectionBabe.

41/ Yes, it’s awkward to call these people out. Some of them have blue checks. And some of them may respond by harassing you from behind blocks or by falsely accusing YOU of harassing THEM for having questions & concerns about their approach (as some did to me).

42/ But the culture of denial, name calling, & shaming—which stymies questions, critical analysis, and related efforts to find the truth—will never change unless & until those responsible for it are identified and held to account.

43/ PS. Please be polite to the accounts I listed in this thread. They claim that I am the one harassing them when in my view it’s the reverse. I do not want to add further fuel to this fire. We can & should firmly but POLITELY confront the concerns discussed in this thread. TY.

You can follow @jennycohn1.


Tip: mention @threader_app on a Twitter thread with the keyword “compile” to get a link to it.

Enjoy Threader? Sign up.

Since you’re here...

... we’re asking visitors like you to make a contribution to support this independent project. In these uncertain times, access to information is vital. Threader gets 1,000,000+ visits a month and our iOS Twitter client was featured as an App of the Day by Apple. Your financial support will help two developers to keep working on this app. Everyone’s contribution, big or small, is so valuable. Support Threader by becoming premium or by donating on PayPal. Thank you.