September 12, 2024
The recent article by the Sunflower State Journal, published on August 28, 2024, has gravely misrepresented me and my legal challenge on Kansas’s election integrity.
Chairman of the House Elections Committee, Pat Proctor, also circulated that article in his campaign update on September 1, 2024.
This editorial serves to correct the record and expose the broader issues with media coverage and judicial handling of election-related disputes.
The inaccuracies in the reporting, and the misleading claims about my legal case must be addressed.
Proctor’s assertion that my concerns are mere “wild theories” debunked by “cold hard facts” is misleading.
The court did not provide substantive rebuttals to my specific claims.
Furthermore, Pat Proctor’s assertion that voting machines are immune to internet connectivity is simply incorrect.
Devices with ethernet or USB ports can indeed connect to the internet, exposing potential vulnerabilities in election systems.
For instance, printers and other devices at election offices are often networked, amplifying security concerns.
In his newsletter featuring these comments, Pat Proctor tells his subscribers that he worked with the Secretary of State on HB 2486 in 2022, which he did “sponsor and pass” imposing serious criminal penalties for purchasing or using voting machines that can connect to the internet.
After conducting a search, it seems as though that bill did not pass but died on the calendar.
Representative Proctor needs to address his very clear statements and clarify where the public can properly reference the specifics about this alleged criminal penalty, if it does exist.
Additionally, the Journal’s claim that I am affiliated with an organization called the Liberty Lions is entirely false.
This misrepresentation underscores a troubling pattern of inaccuracies whenever stories about me are published.
The Sunflower State Journal did not reach out prior to publishing, so I contacted the journalist, Brad Cooper, to offer additional context.
Instead of properly representing me in his article, he replied, “No”, and threatened me with copyright violations for unauthorized access and reposting of the article as a non-paying subscriber, reflecting a clear disregard for factual reporting. Ironically, Pat Proctor’s newsletter freely shared the article for all non-paying subscribers, defaming me, and not giving me the opportunity to clear my name.
The Sunflower State Journal and Representative Proctor have glossed over the facts of my case, to provide the ever-present narrative, that everything in our election process is totally fine and that there is no merit to what I have filed.
I filed a Writ of Mandamus in my county for the violation of very specific laws, requesting the Judiciary to compel a lawful election process. There are no criminal penalties, no damages to be paid, just simply a request for adherence to the statutes provided.
Contrary to the Journal’s narrative, I presented substantial evidence in court briefs, including expert affidavits of the use of uncertified components and network interface cards, email correspondence, and system testing documents.
Instead, they laid out a narrative that implies I had “no evidence” in my case, but in fact many items were provided to the court in briefs.
I believe the Judge’s dismissive comments about my evidence during the status hearing were unjustified. Specifically the fact that it was a status hearing to give updates regarding the case and not a hearing for oral arguments; yet, the judge led me into oral arguments, while refusing my evidence.
The Judge said I was asking the court to investigate the machines, which is also false. The machines have already been investigated by experts. Discovery was already done by me, and I was merely asking the court to accept the evidence and enforce the Kansas statutes.
The refusal and violation of my statutory privileges under K.S.A. 25-4409(c) to allow further inspection of election systems or to address my evidence, highlights systemic issues in the handling of election integrity.
The Judge verbally suggested during the status hearing that I just printed stuff off the internet, again what I believe is an unfair assessment; as expert affidavits, KORA request email conversations, and federally available system testing documents are hardly a lack of evidence.
In fact, I would have even more evidence if I was allowed my rights as a candidate and poll agent to inspect for internet, which I will exhibit better later.
My legal filings are public, and I encourage scrutiny. Yet, the media and officials avoid discussing critical issues such as the Thomas County election system’s networking components, uncertified equipment, or the failure of the Secretary of State to meet legal security standards for Poll Pads.
They don’t report how I was unlawfully prevented from witnessing the results of my election as an authorized poll agent or the criminal complaint I filed after the polls closed.
They don’t report that I was told in legal filings from the defense counsel to sue the woman who was the volunteer election judge at the August primary.
The lack of transparency and accountability in these matters undermines public trust, that will not be restored by merely sweeping it under the rug.
As shown in a recent Facebook post, transparency and clarity of laws are something Representative Pat Proctor and I agree on.
In that post, he is referencing vague election campaign finance laws. In my case, election machine requirements and the right of candidates and authorized poll agents to inspect machines for internet connectivity is anything but vague.
The Kansas Constitution, specifically Article 4, Section 1, mandates adherence to election laws.
When laws are violated, and legal rights are disregarded, it raises fundamental concerns about the integrity of our electoral process.
The legislature’s intent is clear: elections must comply with statutory provisions. When these laws are ignored, it is not just a legal issue but a constitutional breach.
So, is this being addressed effectively?
The State Constitution is supposed to be the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND, right?
I recognize that the Kansas Elections are unlawfully being conducted right down to the statutory privileges for poll agents and candidates to inspect for internet connectivity as provided in K.S.A. 25- 4409 (c).
If a law itself is constitutional, but an action taken under the constitution violates a law, the action, not the law, is considered unconstitutional. Ergo, anything repugnant of the Constitution is void, including our elections, and restricting my statutory privileges is harmful and unconstitutional.
Kansas citizens seem to be unaware of the laws that are being broken. Credit for this can be directed towards media bias and campaign tactics, and the lack of research someone is willing to do.
Recent testimony from state election officials found here, reveals a troubling lack of enforcement and verification of election system security.
In his testimony, October 2023, to the Joint Committee on Information Technology, Bryan Caskey, the state election director, provides some very telling details about the Kansas elections.
For example, his testimony highlighted a lack of on-site inspections and enforcement of network security standards.
Despite claims of strict scrutiny, the reality is that enforcement is inadequate, and lawmakers were alarmed, and rightly so.
However, they continue to beat the drum that the systems aren’t connected to the Internet, when in fact, the mere capability that it exists, is illegal.
The lack of accountability and enforcement mechanisms for violations of election laws undermines their effectiveness, therefore supporting the facts in my lawsuit.
This situation is exacerbated by the absence of clear penalties for non compliance, leading to a system where laws are easily disregarded.
The dismissal of my case is a complete disservice of justice, and only supports further erosion of actual and lawful legislative intent.
The committee members had many questions regarding enforcement that still seem to have no good response, other than to elude the fact that local law enforcement agencies are the ones bearing the legal burden.
With respect to the concerns of the committee, they must refer to the actual election laws.
The Kansas legislature has written 3 very specific, almost identical laws to keep cyber threats away from our election systems.
K.S.A. 25-4406(n) shall not have the capability nor shall any component of an electronic or electromechanical voting system have the capability to be connected to the internet or to any other communications or computer network, including, but not limited to, a local area network, wireless network, cellular network or satellite network, or to use bluetooth or any other wireless communications technology.
Not only has the Kansas legislature provided mandatory directions for network connectivity features in election systems in KSA 25-4406(n) as shown above, but they also granted citizen poll agents and candidates the opportunity to inspect for any internet connectivity.
This is outlined in K.S.A. 25-4409(c): Before, during and after the operation of the polling place, the election judges shall make all electronic or electromechanical voting systems and vote tabulating equipment available to any candidate or any authorized poll agent for review to ensure there is no connectivity to the internet or to any other communications or computer network, including, but not limited to, a local area network, wireless network, cellular network or satellite network, or using bluetooth or any other wireless communications technology.
When we combine the statutory privileges in 25-4409(c) with the intent of the legislature, we understand that transparency and checks and balances were important regarding the known vulnerability of networked systems and the consideration of granting the public the ability to VERIFY that laws are being followed.
So, when I am a candidate and I am not allowed to inspect the many types of networks, how can this possibly be considered legal and harmless action towards me, as implied by the Judge in my case? (See full transcript here.)
How can anyone claim that there is no connection since those authorized agents with specific statutory privilege to inspect will be denied?
Sheriffs and District Attorneys should take law enforcement referrals regarding elections seriously.
Until a specific criminal penalty is imposed – as Representative Proctor agreed is vital – lawyers and judges will continue to avoid giving relevance to election laws.
In testimony to the Kansas Supreme Court during the most recent major election case, the Attorney General’s counsel specifically tells the Justices that even if a District Attorney won’t prosecute a violation from a statute that might be too vague, the AG’s office will ensure all election statutes are followed.
Kansans have been protected by Attorney General Kris Kobach in numerous federal cases, such as League of Women Voters of Kansas v. Scott Schwab and Kris Kobach, where he addresses “acting like an election official.”
Our Legislature needs to apply civil and criminal penalties to properly protect our process in elections. The election laws have been addressed over the past few years; yet, what is the point if they can be disregarded so easily with no penalty?
Maybe politicians are unaware that checks and balances are not in place, or they are just giving lip service to legitimate concerns during election cycle campaigning.
Trusting without verifying is unwise in our society.
I remain committed to truth, transparency, and the protection of all my rights under the Constitution.
In conclusion, I submit an open request to the Sunflower State Journal and House Election Chairman, Pat Proctor, to specifically and publicly address the failure to properly represent me and the facts of my lawsuit.
I believe more journalists and politicians need to engage with the public honestly and completely, correcting any lies or misrepresentations.
