My name is Dr. Elizabeth Clarkson. I am a retired statistician and quality engineer and founder of the Show Me the Votes Foundation. To put it frankly, I do not trust the vote tabulations performed by automated machines. Looking at reported results across the U.S. since the year 2001, there are patterns in the data indicative of manipulated results. I found these patterns so pervasive and troubling that I ran an exit poll in 2016 and published the results . When compared to the Exit Poll data, the votes counted by the voting machines showed as much as a 2% difference from what was indicated - with a visible bias toward one party.

In addition, there have been reports that show the voting machines being susceptible to hackers. Hacking the Vote It’s Easier Than You Think.

Deliberate manipulations versus random errors: It is a basic fact of analysis that the signs of deliberate manipulation are different from the expectations for random inadvertent errors. Different types of manipulation will lead to different patterns in the data. To make that determination requires us to measure the size and direction of any differences between the counts reported by the tabulating machines and counts of the physical ballots or certified true copies of those ballots.

How to detect differences: The ballot images produced by the tabulator machine that counts the ballots cannot be trusted because if someone were to manipulate the count via hacking or any other access to the programming, they could easily hack those electronic ballot images to match the count. Photocopies and electronic images are acceptable, only if they are verifiably made from the sealed paper ballots independent of the machine that produced the counts.

How can the counts be verified? In Kansas, a judge’s order is required to obtain access to sealed ballots and/or verifiably produced photocopies. This means I must file a lawsuit asking for permission.

Why I need access to this data: I plan to write an academic paper detailing the performance of the election equipment by obtaining true copies of the physical ballots that were counted by the voting equipment in Sedgwick County and comparing a hand count of those results to the machine counts for all ballot questions on the 2024 general election and the 2026 special election in Sedgwick County. Similarly to my previous paper, this new paper would provide a baseline for establishing a) the expected size and direction of discrepancies between the two methods of counting votes and b) whether or not discrepancies point towards manipulation or inadvertent errors. Such a paper would be an important contribution towards the national conversation regarding the trustworthiness of results reported via machine counted ballots. Understandably, physical ballots must always have their chain of custody maintained.

This work is deeply important to me: I have been working on this cause for nearly 20 years; between gathering funds, researching, raising awareness, requesting recounts, observing a local election audit, and filing lawsuits, I have put countless hours of work into trying to assess the accuracy and quality of local and national vote count data. I am trying once again, this time focusing my efforts primarily on the 2024 Sedgwick County General Election and the March 3rd, 2026 Sedgwick County Tax Special Election.

Why now? Given the current political climate I think that now more than ever, it is crucial that we have verifiably accurate counts of the votes of our citizens. Given that the software within these machines is proprietary and only available to those that work for the companies that make them, (Not even election officials and staff have access to this software!) I believe that using these ballot counting machines opens up the potential for undetected interference by outside parties despite our hard working election staff and volunteers following all the policies and procedures.

Exactly what information is necessary? The information available from their current auditing practices are inadequate to assess the accuracy of the machine counted vote. While their reported audit results have been exemplary, they only convince me that inadvertent errors are small and rare. They do not rule out deliberate manipulation of the software. However, a larger audit of the physical ballots with all the candidate races and ballot questions included in the analysis can provide that.

Use of funds raised here: The Show Me The Votes Foundation will pay for legal fees including lawsuits and costs for conducting an audit, any applicable fees, and ensuring proper chain of custody and security for any and all data obtained.

Bio: I was certified as a Quality Engineer with the American Society for Quality (ASQ) from December of 1987 to December of 2023. I retired in Jan 2024. I earned my PhD in Statistics from Wichita State University in 2010. I have worked as a professional statistician since 1983, helping manufacturing and service industries through the use of quality improvement techniques, surveys, and statistical analysis of data.