Officials in States with Cryptographic Algorithms in Voter Rolls Are Not Taking the Problem Seriously

If a single county refuses to certify the 2024 election due to these concerns, it could trigger civil or criminal investigations

By Jerome R. Corsi, Andrew Paquette

Article appears on American Thinker

Research published on GodsFiveStones.com has uncovered secret cryptographic algorithms in the official voter registration databases of New York, Ohio, and Wisconsin. Unreported findings indicate similar algorithms exist in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Despite this, Secretaries of State across these jurisdictions are reluctant to acknowledge or address the issue. While Ohio’s Secretary of State agreed to investigate our claims, no official corrective action has been announced.

Our investigation into New York’s voter registration database revealed well-hidden algorithms potentially violating several state and federal laws. This cryptographic scheme is a dual-use technology: while it might have legitimate applications, it can also be used to satisfy malicious objectives. We believe one such nefarious use could be to facilitate mail-in ballot election fraud. In disclosing the existence of the algorithm in the New York State Board of Elections voter registration database, we stressed the following:

The algorithmic sort order creates the appearance of compliance with public disclosure laws while concealing attribute information. The attribute information is uniquely available to keyholders, much as a card cheat has unique access to a straight flush. Concealing information in plain sight, as was done in New York’s voter rolls, is called ‘steganography’ (Kaur & Rani 2016). In combination with known fraudulent registration records, The Spiral algorithm presents the possibility that it has been inserted into voter roll software, or used to alter the NYSBOE voter roll database, for nefarious reasons. The Spiral can be used to identify fraudulent records quickly and covertly by repositioning records into key positions. Records of interest can then be extracted by software designed to recognize the algorithmically modified data structure.

Image by AI.

Our evidence of cryptographic algorithms in voter rolls raises serious concerns about the inaction we’re seeing from state election officials. This could constitute negligence—potentially criminal negligence if officials were involved in creating these algorithms or if their inaction deliberately preserves them for election fraud. We distinguish this “election fraud”—a systematic effort to embed voting rolls with sophisticated ciphers to facilitate election theft—from “voter fraud,” which refers to individual voters attempting to cheat.

---

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose has suggested focusing only on identifying specific voters who committed fraud, a particularly troubling idea because it mischaracterizes systemic “election fraud” as individual “voter fraud,” allowing Ohio to ignore the undisputed presence of a cryptographic algorithm in Ohio’s voter registration file that can (and has) methodically altered data. The algorithm’s presence is analogous to the Pythagorean theorem in Euclidean geometry—a fundamental principle that serious students can neither ignore nor dismiss once it’s been postulated.

---

Our analysis of New York state voter rolls revealed nearly 2 million “clone” (duplicate) records and thousands of excess votes assigned to individuals with multiple ID numbers. We also identified a list of suspected “ghost” (likely fabricated) voters, each with ten or more registrations. Through canvassing, we confirmed three cases of “ghost” voters, accounting for 57 ID numbers. Importantly, we uncovered the presence of cryptographic algorithms within the voter rolls. It’s impossible to imagine a legitimate purpose for these products of the implanted algorithm.

---

However, voter rolls alone cannot prove fraud in mail-in or absentee voting. To identify fraudulent mail-in ballots would require additional steps beyond voter roll analysis. These include forensically investigating individual ballot cover sheets to authenticate voter signatures and field canvassing to verify the existence and eligibility of voters at addresses associated with mail-in ballots. State authorities typically don’t take these steps, creating a gap between what voter rolls reveal and what’s needed to prove fraud conclusively in mail-in voting.

We object to the Ohio Secretary of State’s inaction regarding the algorithms discovered in their official voter registration databases for the following reasons:

• Misunderstanding of Preventative Measures: The Secretary’s stance demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the importance of preventative measures in maintaining election integrity. Waiting for evidence of voter fraud before investigating system vulnerabilities is akin to waiting for a security breach before fixing known weaknesses in a computer system.

• Circular Logic: There’s a circular logic problem here. If the algorithms could potentially be used for covertly manipulating voter data, any fraud resulting from such manipulation might be undetectable through normal means. Requiring proof of fraud before investigating the very system that could be hiding such fraud is paradoxical.

• Ignoring Systemic Risks: The presence of unexplained, complex algorithms in a critical system like voter registration databases is itself a significant concern, regardless of whether fraud has been detected. These algorithms introduce unnecessary complexity and opacity into a system that should be transparent and straightforward.

• Legal and Ethical Obligations: Election officials have a responsibility to ensure the integrity and transparency of all aspects of the election process, including voter registration systems. The presence of potentially manipulable algorithms should be enough to trigger an investigation, as it relates directly to the security and integrity of the voting system.

• Public Trust: The existence of these unexplained algorithms, once known, could erode public trust in the election system. Refusing to investigate without proof of fraud could further damage this trust.

• Proactive vs. Reactive Approach: The Secretary’s stance is reactive rather than proactive. In matters of election integrity, a proactive approach to identifying and addressing potential vulnerabilities is crucial.

The U.S. District Court decision in American Encore v. Adrian Fontes established that a secretary of state cannot certify an election if even one county refuses certification. This ruling heightens the responsibility of election officials in states where algorithms have been found in official voter registration databases. If a single county refuses to certify the 2024 election due to these concerns, it could trigger civil or criminal investigations, potentially exposing various state officials to serious legal liabilities.

Please check GodsFiveStones.com for a more comprehensive listing of up-to-date reports on the investigations of Drs. Paquette and Corsi into the algorithms embedded in state official voter registration databases.