The Georgia Secretary of State Office recently reported that a signature audit affirmed the original outcome of the November 2020 presidential race in Georgia. This is the third attempt to prove that no voter fraud took place in Georgia after the Trump campaign requested a hand recount and a subsequent machine recount.
“The Secretary of State’s office has always been focused on calling balls and strikes in elections and, in this case, three strikes against the voter fraud claims and they’re out,” said Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
“We conducted a statewide hand recount that reaffirmed the initial tally, and a machine recount at the request of the Trump campaign that also reaffirmed the original tally. This audit disproves the only credible allegations the Trump campaign had against the strength of Georgia’s signature match processes.”
Raffensperger announced a signature match audit in Cobb County, on Dec. 14., following credible allegations that the process was not followed in the June primaries.
The Secretary of State’s Office partnered with the Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) to conduct the audit.
Of the 150,431 absentee ballots received by Cobb County elections officials during the November elections, the audit “reviewed 15,118 ABM ballot oath envelopes from randomly selected boxes,” or around 10 percent of the total. The sample size was originally chosen to meet the 99 percent confidence threshold.
The audit in Cobb County found “no fraudulent absentee ballots” and found that the Cobb County Elections Department had “a 99.99 percent accuracy rate in performing correct signature verification procedures.”
The absentee ballot envelopes for the audit were “pulled from 30 randomly selected boxes of the accepted ABM ballots and one box identified as accepted Electronic Ballot Delivery ABM ballots.”
Each of the boxes that held the ballots was previously “secured in boxes by the Cobb County Elections Department” and was selected by a random number generator.
To conduct the audit, Law Enforcement Officers (LEOs), from GBI and SOS were instructed to “analyze and compare the known signatures, markings, and identifying information of the elector as stored in databases with the signature, markings, and identifying information on the elector’s ABM ballot oath envelope.”
They looked for “distinctive characteristics and unique qualities … individual attributes of the signature, mark, or other identifying information” to “make a judgment of the validity of the signature on each envelope based on the totality of the documents.”
The LEOs conducting the audit were split “into 18 two-member teams identified as ‘inspection teams’ and two three-member teams identified as ‘investigation teams.’”
If the two members of the inspection team were split on whether a ballot signature was valid, a third impartial “referee” was brought in to break the tie. This only happened on six occasions.
In cases where additional review was necessary, if no signature was on the ballot, or if additional identification documents were not available, the absentee ballots were given to the investigation teams to track down more information.