Voting Machine Tampering Prosecutions
🔎 What Is Voting Machine Tampering?
Voting machine tampering refers to unauthorized access, modification, or interference with the software, hardware, or data associated with electronic voting machines — often with the intent to alter vote outcomes or undermine election integrity.
Common Charges in These Cases:
18 U.S.C. § 1030 – Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)
52 U.S.C. § 20511 – Election fraud statutes
Wire fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1343)
Obstruction of justice
Tampering with public records or official proceedings
⚖️ Key Cases (Detailed)
1. United States v. Harri Hursti (2006)
Note: Not a criminal case, but a pivotal event involving machine vulnerabilities.
Facts:
Hursti, an election security researcher, demonstrated that Diebold voting machines in Florida could be compromised with a memory card. Though this wasn’t a prosecution, the findings led to investigations and reform.
Significance:
Triggered national attention on vulnerabilities. No criminal charges were filed, but investigations followed.
2. United States v. Douglas Logan / Cyber Ninjas (2021)
Facts:
Cyber Ninjas, hired to conduct a partisan audit of 2020 election results in Arizona, were investigated for unauthorized access and tampering with Dominion voting machines.
Legal Issues:
Investigated under election interference and unauthorized computer access statutes. The court compelled disclosure of audit records.
Outcome:
No criminal conviction, but this set a precedent for how third-party election machine access can violate federal and state law.
3. United States v. Tina Peters (2022–Ongoing)
Facts:
Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters was indicted for allowing unauthorized individuals to copy hard drives of Dominion voting machines in Colorado before a software update.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation
Identity theft
Breach of duty
Official misconduct
Status:
Awaiting trial; Peters has pleaded not guilty.
Significance:
First major criminal case against a public official for compromising voting machine integrity.
4. State of Georgia v. Sidney Powell (2023)
Facts:
Part of a larger RICO case connected to the 2020 election. Powell was charged for coordinating unlawful access to Coffee County voting systems in Georgia.
Charges:
Conspiracy to commit election fraud
Computer theft and trespass
Racketeering (RICO)
Outcome:
Powell took a plea deal: 6 years probation, fines, apology, and agreement to testify against co-defendants.
Significance:
A clear criminal plea in a voting machine access conspiracy, showing real prosecutorial traction.
5. United States v. Laura Oglesby (2021)
Facts:
While not voting machine tampering per se, Oglesby stole another person’s identity to vote and apply for financial aid, exposing vulnerabilities in the system.
Charges:
Social security fraud
Aggravated identity theft
Outcome:
Sentenced to 6 years in prison.
Relevance:
Used by prosecutors and analysts to show identity-based threats to the integrity of elections, which could extend to machine tampering.
6. FBI Investigation of Stark County, Ohio (2022)
Facts:
Stark County Board of Elections faced pressure to cancel Dominion voting machine contracts due to disinformation. Allegations surfaced that unauthorized actors attempted access during audits.
Outcome:
Investigation launched; no charges filed yet.
Significance:
Shows growing federal scrutiny of interference attempts involving voting technology.
🧠 Quick Recap Table
| Case / Event | Type of Tampering | Legal Status | Key Takeaway |
|---|---|---|---|
| U.S. v. Tina Peters (2022) | Unauthorized machine access | Pending trial | Clerk indicted for granting illegal access |
| State v. Sidney Powell (2023) | Coordinated machine breach | Guilty plea | First major plea deal for voting machine case |
| U.S. v. Douglas Logan (2021) | Mishandling of audit/evidence | Investigated | Third-party audits must meet legal standards |
| U.S. v. Laura Oglesby (2021) | Identity theft (related) | Convicted | Related fraud risks tie into election integrity |
| FBI Stark County probe (2022) | Access attempt | Investigation ongoing | Feds monitor any attempts at system breaches |
| Hursti Hack (2006) | Vulnerability demonstration | No charges | Led to massive election security reforms |
✅ Final Notes
Federal prosecutions for voting machine tampering are rare but growing, especially since 2020. The key trends involve:
Public officials misusing access
Outside actors trying to breach systems under political cover
Prosecutions using existing computer crime statutes (like CFAA)
New scrutiny of third-party audits and chain-of-custody
RELATED Blog
0 comments