VoterGA Supporters,

On Tuesday June 15, U.S. Senate candidate, Vic Rawl, a former judge and four term state representative filed an election protest concerning the controversial June 9 South Carolina Democratic primary. That primary and all South Carolina elections are conducted on statewide unverifiable electronic voting equipment manufactured by Election Systems & Software (ES&S). Mr. Rawl’s claims were heard by the Democratic Party of South Carolina today, Thursday June 17. As you already know this is the primary race where Alvin Greene, an unemployed former military veteran, won a 59%-41% victory and will challenge Republican Senator Jim DeMint in November.  Greene who paid a $10,000 qualifying fee, held no fundraisers, ran no paid advertisements, made no campaign speeches, had no established platform, hired no campaign manager, conducted no state wide tours, attended no Democratic Party events, printed no yard signs and did not even establish a web site.  This BradBlog link shows his interview with MSNBC’s Keith Olberman: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7890 . Brad Friedman describes it as one of the most bizarre interviews ever seen on television.  

But Mr. Greene’s campaign really had nothing to do with election protest and neither he nor his attorney were present at the hearing. Mathematicians, technology professionals and witnesses who experienced irregularities testified or submitted documents on behalf of the Vic Rawl’s protest. The protest focused particularly on the huge discrepancy in the verifiable absentee ballot voting percentages when compared to the statewide unverifiable electronic voting percentages. A spreadsheet illustrating the differences that you can review and use to make your own decision is on the home page of www.voterga.org web site. I submitted this spreadsheet and cover letter to the state party officials a day before the hearing. After all was said and done, the chairs of the South Carolina Democratic Party voted to deny the protest. To understand the magnitude of this decision, here are some specific examples of the astounding, inexplicable discrepancies between the unverifiable total vote count and the mostly verifiable absentee vote count:

· In Aiken County, Alvin Greene won the total vote  58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%;

· In Barnwell County, Alvin Greene won the total vote  62% to 38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 66% to 33%;

· In Beaufort County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 63% to 37%;

· In Berkeley County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 54% to 46%;

· In Dorchester County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 59% to 41% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 62% to 38%;

· In Florence County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 67% to 33% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%;

· In Greenwood County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 74% to 26% but won the absentee balloting by only 51% to 49%;

· In Lancaster County, Vic Rawl won the total vote 52% to 48% but won the absentee balloting by 86% to 14%;

· In Newberry County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 53% to 47% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 69% to 41%;

· In Lee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 62% to38% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 56% to 44%;

· In Marion County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 65% to35% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 51% to 49%;

· In Oconee County, Alvin Greene won the total vote 58% to 42% but Vic Rawl won the absentee balloting by 59% to 41%;

That is probably enough already to convince most anyone that something was wrong with the election results but there is more:

· In 42 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes while in only 4 counties did Vic Rawl’s absentee percentage of votes exceed his total percentage of votes;

· In 20 of 46 counties, Alvin Greene’s percentage of total votes exceeded his percentage of absentee votes by a total of 20+ candidate percentage points or more while Vic Rawl’s percentage decreased by the same amount;

· In not one county did Alvin Greene win the absentee vote count and lose the total vote count and in not one county did Vic Rawl lose the absentee vote count and win the total vote count;

· In all, there is an average of a 17.7% total difference in the Election Day unverifiable electronic vote count and the absentee vote count, nearly the exact margin of Alvin Greene’s 59-41% victory:

· In addition, the statewide undervote in the race was also extraordinarily high, stretching from a minimum of just under 7% to a maximum of nearly 35% for the U.S. Senate race;

For those still not convinced there is even more. About half of the absentee votes were in-person votes that are recorded on the electronic voting machines. The other half were actual  physical ballots that were mailed into the elections offices. Therefore, the total percentage difference between mail in absentee votes and all other electronic votes must be about twice as great to compensate for the in-person absentee electronic votes embedded within the absentee vote totals. If the actual mail in ballots were counted, South Carolinians would likely find that the total difference between the verifiable and unverifiable votes would increase by another 18% or so, meaning that Vic Rawl may have actually won the verifiable vote count by about the same 59-41% margin that Alvin Greene allegedly won the election.

Now here is the kicker. South Carolina does not report mail-in absentee ballot votes separately from in-person electronic absentee votes even though those votes are recorded and counted separately before being totaled together and reported.  So there is no way for the public to know at this time exactly how many votes of each kind were recorded for the two candidates. The decision by the South Carolina Democratic Party chairs will likely prevent those votes from ever being reported individually. Therefore, the people of South Carolina may never get to see all of the evidence that could indicate election rigging or major calibration errors were present.

State Senator Phil Leventis petitioned the State Election Commission to impound voting machines used in the statewide election but the State Elections Commission and counties are resisting. The State Elections Commission issued a statement claiming that the  voting machines have always performed accurately and reliably, a claim that is technically impossible to establish since there is no way to independently audit the voting recording mechanism of the machine. www.scvotes.org. The Charleston Channel 2 news media outlet, “counton2.com”  even went so far as to show precinct reports produced internally by the machines and claim their audience that the reports are “independent” audit trails.

Ironically, South Carolina Democratic Party chairwoman, Carol Fowler, began attacking her own candidate, Alvin Greene, immediately after his victory. She claimed he may be charged for a crime in the future and asked him to withdraw. That would have conveniently gotten around the question of whether or not the machines counted correctly. Naturally, most of the local and national  media picked up her personal attack on Alvin Greene and ignored the evidence of vote fraud and errors. Greene rightfully won the contest according to the procedures that South Carolina has used for the last six years and the Rawl campaign has made it clear that they do not condone any such personal attacks. Vic Rawl rightfully contends that the election discrepancies warrant a new election in which he may or may not participate. But the biggest losers in this debacle are the people of South Carolina. Their elections, their public officials and some of their news media have been shown to lack credibility. The South Carolina “Democratic” Party, and I use that term loosely, has done as much as they could in this situation to help their Republican teammates and saddle South Carolinians with a one party, elitist political system. The people of South Carolina now face a tremendous uphill battle if they ever hope to have their vote protected through the use of voter verifiable, auditable voting equipment.

Garland

404 664-4044 CL

www.voterga.org

County	Ballots	Undervote	Total lVotes		Election Day Votes		Absentee Votes		Total Vote %		Election Day Vote %		Absentee Vote %		Election Day
	Cast		Greene	Rawl	Greene	Rawl	Greene	Rawl	Greene	Rawl	Greene	Rawl	Greene	Rawl	vs. Absentee%
Abbeville	1321	11.66%	777	390	720	365	57	25	66.58%	33.42%	66.36%	33.64%	69.51%	30.49%	-6.31%
Aiken	3194	8.39%	1711	1215	1678	1160	33	55	58.48%	41.52%	59.13%	40.87%	37.50%	62.50%	43.25%
Allendale	1409	34.63%	623	298	560	274	63	24	67.64%	32.36%	67.15%	32.85%	72.41%	27.59%	-10.54%
Anderson	3663	10.48%	2122	1157	2064	1104	58	53	64.71%	35.29%	65.15%	34.85%	52.25%	47.75%	25.80%
Bamberg	1691	15.49%	1007	422	925	385	82	37	70.47%	29.53%	70.61%	29.39%	68.91%	31.09%	3.41%
Barnwell	1080	16.11%	566	340	558	324	8	16	62.47%	37.53%	63.27%	36.73%	33.33%	66.67%	59.86%
Beaufort	3670	9.48%	1952	1370	1876	1239	76	131	58.76%	41.24%	60.22%	39.78%	36.71%	63.29%	47.02%
Berkeley	4489	11.18%	2658	1329	2590	1249	68	80	66.67%	33.33%	67.47%	32.53%	45.95%	54.05%	43.04%
Calhoun	1082	13.77%	642	291	598	259	44	32	68.81%	31.19%	69.78%	30.22%	57.89%	42.11%	23.77%
Charleston	13,500	11.90%	5477	6416	5249	5922	228	494	46.05%	53.95%	46.99%	53.01%	31.58%	68.42%	30.82%
Cherokee	689	6.68%	465	178	447	167	18	11	72.32%	27.68%	72.80%	27.20%	62.07%	37.93%	21.46%
Chester	2832	16.17%	1437	937	1326	848	111	89	60.53%	39.47%	60.99%	39.01%	55.50%	44.50%	10.99%
Chesterfield	2878	13.03%	1525	978	1423	909	102	69	60.93%	39.07%	61.02%	38.98%	59.65%	40.35%	2.74%
Clarendon	3541	12.34%	2108	996	1809	758	299	238	67.91%	32.09%	70.47%	29.53%	55.68%	44.32%	29.58%
Coleton	2361	16.26%	1220	757	1148	696	72	61	61.71%	38.29%	62.26%	37.74%	54.14%	45.86%	16.24%
Darlington	2927	10.80%	1753	858	1648	797	105	61	67.14%	32.86%	67.40%	32.60%	63.25%	36.75%	8.30%
Dillon	6475	23.35%	3112	1851	2649	1518	463	333	62.70%	37.30%	63.57%	36.43%	58.17%	41.83%	10.81%
Dorchester	3594	9.96%	1907	1329	1852	1240	55	89	58.93%	41.07%	59.90%	40.10%	38.19%	61.81%	43.40%
Edgefield	1288	15.99%	750	332	643	291	107	41	69.32%	30.68%	68.84%	31.16%	72.30%	27.70%	-6.91%
Fairfield	3275	16.98%	1495	1224	1431	1156	64	68	54.98%	45.02%	55.32%	44.68%	48.48%	51.52%	13.66%
Florence	6876	12.61%	4050	1959	3849	1708	201	251	67.40%	32.60%	69.26%	30.74%	44.47%	55.53%	49.59%
Georgetown	3546	14.16%	1980	1064	1860	977	120	87	65.05%	34.95%	65.56%	34.44%	57.97%	42.03%	15.18%
Greenville	10,856	10.76%	5849	3839	5636	3614	213	225	60.37%	39.63%	60.93%	39.07%	48.63%	51.37%	24.60%
Greenwood	1987	11.07%	1312	455	1245	390	67	65	74.25%	25.75%	76.15%	23.85%	50.76%	49.24%	50.78%
Hampton	4550	33.32%	1855	1179	1579	1000	276	179	61.14%	38.86%	61.23%	38.77%	60.66%	39.34%	1.13%
Horry	4274	8.52%	2435	1475	2351	1382	84	93	62.28%	37.72%	62.98%	37.02%	47.46%	52.54%	31.04%
Jasper	3744	22.09%	1375	1542	1182	1302	193	240	47.14%	52.86%	47.58%	52.42%	44.57%	55.43%	6.02%
Kershaw	5337	17.82%	2466	1920	2256	1723	210	197	56.22%	43.78%	56.70%	43.30%	51.60%	48.40%	10.20%
Lancaster	2278	13.52%	944	1026	863	602	81	424	47.92%	52.08%	58.91%	41.09%	16.04%	83.96%	85.74%
Laurens	1695	7.61%	928	638	898	611	30	27	59.26%	40.74%	59.51%	40.49%	52.63%	47.37%	13.76%
Lee	4665	18.07%	2387	1435	2200	1193	187	242	62.45%	37.55%	64.84%	35.16%	43.59%	56.41%	42.50%
Lexington	5510	11.02%	2339	2564	2253	2404	86	160	47.71%	52.29%	48.38%	51.62%	34.96%	65.04%	26.84%
Marion	2638	13.65%	1471	807	1408	741	63	66	64.57%	35.43%	65.52%	34.48%	48.84%	51.16%	33.36%
Marlboro	3264	9.34%	1769	1190	1339	826	430	364	59.78%	40.22%	61.85%	38.15%	54.16%	45.84%	15.38%
McCormick	870	14.94%	482	258	415	219	67	39	65.14%	34.86%	65.46%	34.54%	63.21%	36.79%	4.50%
Newberry	1313	10.81%	626	545	603	493	23	52	53.46%	46.54%	55.02%	44.98%	30.67%	69.33%	48.70%
Oconee	1578	11.91%	805	585	744	497	61	88	57.91%	42.09%	59.95%	40.05%	40.94%	59.06%	38.02%
Orangeburg	8542	8.23%	4115	3724	3969	3633	146	91	52.49%	47.51%	52.21%	47.79%	61.60%	38.40%	-18.79%
Pickens	1761	12.27%	877	668	856	645	21	23	56.76%	43.24%	57.03%	42.97%	47.73%	52.27%	18.60%
Richland	29,270	13.27%	13787	11598	13075	10842	712	756	54.31%	45.69%	54.67%	45.33%	48.50%	51.50%	12.33%
Saluda	665	10.23%	394	203	380	193	14	10	66.00%	34.00%	66.32%	33.68%	58.33%	41.67%	15.97%
Spartanburg	5148	9.91%	2843	1795	2726	1714	117	81	61.30%	38.70%	61.40%	38.60%	59.09%	40.91%	4.61%
Sumter	6933	11.99%	4328	1774	3599	1464	729	310	70.93%	29.07%	71.08%	28.92%	70.16%	29.84%	1.84%
Union	4570	18.29%	2338	1396	2156	1263	182	133	62.61%	37.39%	63.06%	36.94%	57.78%	42.22%	10.56%
Williamsburg	6515	19.92%	3368	1849	3138	1651	230	198	64.56%	35.44%	65.53%	34.47%	53.74%	46.26%	23.57%
York	4036	10.08%	1932	1697	1824	1555	108	142	53.24%	46.76%	53.98%	46.02%	43.20%	56.80%	21.56%
TOTAL	197380	13.76%	100362	69853	93598	63303	6764	6550	58.96%	41.04%	59.65%	40.35%	50.80%	49.20%	17.70%