FW: Discussion for resolution on Election Integrity

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 11:34:02 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Discussion for resolution on Election Integrity

Good afternoon, all.

As with the anti-war resolution, I'd like to have some pre-meeting discussion on the resolution regarding election integrity.

I believe the anti-war resolution could be good, however, I do not personally intend to support this one unless otherwise directed by my region.

Here is Mr. Martin's resolution along with my commentary: 

------

I agree that voting systems should be secure and auditable. However, I have many issues with the text of this resolution.

In the Libertarian National Committee A Resolution Against the Systemic Subversion of Election Integrity and Judicial Refusal to Enforce Transparency

The title of the resolution assumes that there is systemic subversion and judicial refusal to enforce transparency, which I do not believe is necessarily borne out by the data.

 

WHEREAS, the Libertarian Party affirms that government legitimacy derives solely from the verifiable consent of the governed, which requires elections that are transparent, auditable, and resistant to undetectable manipulation; and

I take small issue with “verifiable,” but I generally agree with this. My objection to “verifiable” is that, libertarianism supports all negative liberties – “verifiable” vote or not. But I do agree that we support elections that are honest, fair, and represent the will of the electorate (but limited to actions that do not violate the rights of others.)

WHEREAS, numerous state and county election systems across the United States have been deployed and operated in flagrant violation of basic security and transparency, and auditability standards, including but not limited to:

❖ Use of proprietary, closed-source software that prevents independent verification of vote tabulation

I do not think proprietary code, in and of itself, prevents independent verification. This can be done regardless of the underlying software, and there are good arguments both for using open source and closed-source code.

❖ Storage of cast-vote records and audit logs in unencrypted, easily alterable formats

Having audit logs that are unencrypted can actually aid in verification. Maybe what we mean to say is that we want log files to be saved to immutable storage?  

❖ Documented presence of remote-access software and modem connections on tabulation systems in direct violation of state law and federal guidelines

As far as I know, modems are legally permitted in many states and do not, by their mere presence, represent a security concern. Having the voting machines be able to pull a security update, for instance, is good for security – and machines can have connectivity disabled during voting and tabulation.  

❖ Routine failure to produce or preserve ballot images, chain-of-custody documentation, and digital cast-vote records required by statute

While it seems some areas do require such a measure, this is not universal. Further, most areas can check against paper or alternative ballots to verify totals.

 

WHEREAS, election technology vendors including Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), and Hart InterCivic have supplied equipment repeatedly demonstrated deficient systems, as shown in:

This seems to include a typo or grammatical error. Further, I would strongly suggest we not entangle ourselves with the issues innate with referencing Dominion by name.

❖ The 2021–2024 Halderman/Curling expert reports in Georgia documenting that Dominion BMP and ICC systems can be fully compromised in minutes with only brief physical access and no trace left in logs

A controlled lab demonstration is not the same as evidence of real-world fraud. A primary means of security is in both physical access restriction and having backup methods of tabulation against which to verify the totals.

❖ Multiple forensic examinations (e.g., Antrim County, Michigan 2020; Mesa County, Colorado, 2021; Coffee County, Georgia, 2021–2023) seem to show vendor cover-ups amidst unauthorized software installations, deleted logs, and altered election databases

“Seem to show” is not evidentiary. The Antrim County inconsistencies cited, for example, were human mistakes which were corrected – this was a check and balance working correctly.

❖ The continued use of unverifiable private systems in numerous jurisdictions despite the vendor-cartel’s well-documented untrustworthiness — issues credibly alleged to include missing or altered audit logs and failure to reconcile paper ballots with electronic totals

I am concerned that this gets off in the weeds of “the big steal” conspiracy theory and not clear, verifiable fact.

 

WHEREAS, particularly egregious state-level offenders include, but are not limited to:

❖ The Hawaii Office of Elections’ ongoing refusal to release statewide voter lists, chain-of-custody records, ballot images, and cast-vote records required by law, rendering independent verification all but impossible. According to a detailed investigation and petition filed by retired Army Col. Doug Pasnik in August 2024 (supported by over 17,000 pages of evidence, including court filings and commission minutes), Josh Green was sworn in on December 5, 2022, but the Elections Commission chair stated on December 12, 2022, that "the election has not yet been certified." In April 2024, Green signed a sworn affidavit admitting that his signed oath was lost or destroyed, and could not be produced for the court.

In the case of Josh Green, it appears a formal election challenge was submitted at the last minute, leading to a case where he was sworn in but the challenge halted certification. That is a screwy situation, but not necessarily indicative of fraud.

❖ The Colorado Secretary of State’s office handling of Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ 2021 efforts to preserve election data before a Dominion Voting Systems "trusted build" software update, which she alleged would overwrite critical logs and databases from the 2020 election; during this process, “unauthorized” imaging revealed vulnerabilities such as manipulable audit logs, remote access capabilities, and unencrypted passwords; Peters, acting as a whistleblower to expose these risks, faced criminal prosecution — widely viewed as gaslighting and projection by vendors and officials to deflect from evidence showing potentially widespread election fraud — resulting in her 2024 conviction (currently under appeal), a 9-year sentence, and equipment decertification due to the public disclosure of sensitive data. We maintain she is a political prisoner.

The LNC should absolutely NOT consider her a “political prisoner.”

She illegally accessed voter data, went to a “stop the steal” convention, and then intentionally or negligently leaked the data, including voting machine access codes and voter data. This wasn’t the action of a whistleblower, it was a violation of voter integrity.  

❖ Georgia Secretary of State’s office continued deployment of Dominion systems after federal court filings proved the systems contain critical vulnerabilities that cannot be mitigated with existing procedures

 

❖ Michigan Secretary of State’s office certification and continued use of Dominion systems in 48 counties following the 2020 Antrim County forensic examination, which revealed widespread tabulation errors due to human and software deficiencies, unencrypted databases, and easily bypassed password protections

❖ Arizona Secretary of State’s office oversight of Maricopa County’s 2020 and 2022 elections, where tabulation machine failures affected up to 20% of polling locations, including printer malfunctions rendering ballots unreadable and unauthorized wireless connectivity on equipment, despite prior warnings of vulnerabilities

❖ Pennsylvania Department of State’s administration of the 2020 election, marked by inconsistent enforcement of mail-in ballot deadlines, improper pre-canvassing delays, and failure to reconcile thousands of undated ballots in violation of state law, as documented in multiple state Supreme Court rulings

There were some issues brought up, however, these were caught by the normal audit process vs paper logs. This isn’t a case of massive fraud so much as it’s a demonstration that audit policies worked. Again, using Dominion isn’t necessarily evidence of fraud, and I would caution the LNC to stay away from that particular argument.

 

WHEREAS, state and federal courts have systematically refused to examine evidence of these violations on the merits, instead dismissing cases on procedural grounds such as “lack of standing,” or improper presumptions of “mootness,” thereby granting effective immunity to officials and vendors who subvert statutory safeguards.

Many courts have taken up election fraud claims. There are instances where they have not, but that’s something we may do better to handle on a case-by-case basis. I'd need to see a distinct resolution where it was clear a court was denying a reasonable case with proper standing.

 

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Libertarian National Committee:

1. Declares that the deliberate absence or circumvention of basic election safeguards — verifiable paper trails, mandatory robust audits, public release of digital records, and exclusion of secret proprietary code — constitutes a systemic subversion of election integrity that makes the true outcome of affected elections unknowable.
In the vast majority of cases, there is a verifiable paper trail.

 

2. Condemns the continued reliance on closed-source election systems from Dominion Voting Systems, Election Systems & Software, Hart InterCivic, and similar vendors whose equipment has been forensically demonstrated to be insecure and unauditable.

This is addressed in prior comments.

3. Demands an end to universal mail-in voting.

Would this mean the LP is opposed to absentee ballots? Or would “universal” mail-in voting only refer specifically to that? I’d be okay with calling for some safeguards, but that may be better for a stand-alone resolution with a LOT of unbiased research.

4. Demands a national return to paper ballots and single-day, in-person voting, precinct by precinct, ending the domination of our elections by unaccountable machines, and fully returning our elections to human hands.

What about deployed troops? Out of state students? The disabled?

This would, in my opinion, be a violation of our platform.

We call for electoral systems more representative of the electorate. While I agree that we should oppose fraud, I believe restricting voting to only same-day, in-person voting would violate far more people than the existing system.

a. Wherever electronic voting systems continue to exist, the Libertarian Party demands the immediate prohibition of any internet or modem connectivity in vote-tabulation systems, the mandatory public release of all ballot images and cast-vote records in open formats after every election, and the requirement that all vote-tabulation software be open-source and subject to continuous public inspection.

5. Condemns the pattern of judicial refusal to adjudicate documented violations of election-transparency statutes and declares that such refusal amounts to complicity in the erosion of republican government.

I feel this would need to be handled on a case-by-case basis.

6. Directs the LNC Chair and all state affiliates to prioritize support for legislation and litigation that enforces:

We cannot direct a state affiliate, and the LNC has higher legal action priorities.

a. Strict ballot chain-of-custody

b. Mandatory hand-counted audits of a statistically significant sample in every election

c. Severe criminal penalties for any official who destroys, withholds, or alters required election records

I agree that we should oppose the destruction or alteration of pertinent election records. However, what’s often considered “destroyed records” in the conspiracy circles is “a software update ran and then cleared temp files.”

When it comes to “withholding” records, I believe it very much depends on the context. Is the request reasonable? Does the requester have standing?

But yes, when it comes to actual voting records themselves, we should oppose their alteration or destruction.

 

7. Affirms that the Libertarian Party will not presume to recognize as legitimate any officeholder seated through an election in which these minimum safeguards were demonstrably absent or violated.

While I would find it a hoot to say we don’t recognize President Trump, I think that may be getting a bit off in the weeds.

-----

Whew,

Keith Thompson

Region 3 South Rep

[lnc-public_forward]

 

---

From: Austin Martin <austin...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 11:42:28 PM (UTC+00:00) Monrovia, Reykjavik
To: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>; Entire LNC <entir...@lp.org>; lnc-public_forward <lnc-publi...@lp.org>
Subject: Re: Discussion for resolution on Election Integrity

Aloha Keith! 

Mahalo for your thoughtful feedback on this. While there are some points where we may disagree, there are other points I find helpful and interesting. Thanks again for your kokua! 

Austin 

Ua may ke ea o ka ʻāina i ka pono

---

From: Keith Thompson <keith.t...@lp.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 1, 2026 1:34:02 PM