EXCLUSIVE: Voting Machine Systems Should Be Banned from US Elections Until the Highly Suspect “Adjudication Process” Is Defined and Corrected

Since the 2020 election the American public learned that voting machines and the systems surrounding the machines have the ability to send ballots to adjudication. 

So what is ballot adjudication?

According to Pursue Democracy.

So when an excess number of ballots are sent to adjudication, ballots can then be altered. 

So when do ballots go to adjudication, who decides when the ballots go to adjudication and who then gets to “adjudicate” that ballot?

It is clear that controls need to be implemented to prevent fraud from occurring in these processes.

There has been much talk about voting machines used in the 2020 Election.  Many individuals (maybe rightly so) blamed the machines for the observed issues in the election.  But was it the machines or the systems surrounding the machines that were the cause of material issues in the 2020 Election?  It may be the systems that need to be addressed more than the machines, or it may be both.  If issues are not addressed, the controls within the voting machines can become weapons for fraud.


In Antrim County Michigan, Attorney Mathew Deperno noted that a setting in the voting machines in that county caused an excessive number of ballots to be forced to be reviewed through ‘adjudication’.   What this means, is these ballots were sent somewhere to someone to review and determine the results of the election for these ballots.

We first noted this in this audit of Antrim County performed by Deperno.   We reported after the forensic examination of 16 Dominion Voting machines by a group brought in by attorney Deperno, that the Dominion Voting machines there were assigned a 68.05% error rate.  DePerno explained that when ballots are put through the machine, a whopping 68.05% error rate means that 68.05% of the ballots are sent for bulk adjudication, which means they collect the ballots in a folder, and, “The ballots are sent somewhere where people in another location can change the vote,” DePerno explained.  The number of votes going to adjudication should be a fraction of this.



We next found voting machines that were set at around a 70% adjudication rate in Clark County, Nevada.  The election officials there just happened to report that the county had a near 70% adjudication rate in that county.  These ballots in this county, which encompasses Las Vegas, were also sent somewhere for ‘adjudication’ where someone determines the votes for these ballots.  Again, this setting was way too high and God only knows who was ‘adjudicating’ these results.



In Georgia, we noticed that an individual can ‘adjudicate’ a ballot by him or herself and can even push through blank ballots into the system and record them as voting for whomever they want. Also, the adjudication system in Dominion provides no data (or audit trail) to show who did the adjudication on a ballot.  This weakness needs to be addressed in the voting machine systems.

Controls need to be built to prevent adjudication settings greater than a fraction of a percent allowed in the machines.  Also, controls need to be built to record the date and time and person who adjudicates ballots.  In addition, the system should mandate that two people perform the adjudication and these individuals should be from different parties.


In Fulton County Georgia, however, they announced after the election that they needed to address over 100,000 ballots for adjudication.  Jovan Pulitzer pointed out how this was 93.67% of the ballots there.

In front of the Georgia Senate, Jovan Pulitizer pointed out how the ‘bullseye’ in the ballots in Georgia was off for certain ballots in certain areas and when it is off, the ballots are identified as needing adjudication (see picture above and post below).  The voting systems are programmed to send all ballots where the bullet or bullseye is off, to adjudication.  So it may be the machines are doing what they are programmed to do, but the ballots were intentionally flawed to send certain ballots in certain districts to adjudication.


Going Forward:

Rudy Giuliani recognized the importance of this issue after the Antrim Country results were released.  He called for immediate investigations of the machines used in the swing states across the country.  Rudy was right again:

Republicans and concerned citizens in every state should demand a review of their results from the 2020 Election to determine the adjudication rates of their results and to determine whether the ballots that were adjudicated were adjudicated properly.  A full forensic audit should be performed to determine the validity of all the ballots recorded in the state’s election. 

In addition, controls need to be implemented to prevent excess adjudication from occurring in US elections.

Until then, voting machines should not be used in elections in the US. 

The good news is that some Americans are learning from the 2020 election.  Antrim County has refused to use the Dominion voting machines in their upcoming May election:


This issue is very serious.  If we don’t have free and fair elections in this country, we have nothing.

Photo of author
Joe Hoft is a Radio Host at TNTRadio.live, Author, Former International Corporate Executive in Hong Kong for a Decade, and a Contributor at TGP since 2016. Joe is the author of five books, including his new bestseller, "The Steal: Volume II - The Impossible Occurs" which addresses the stolen 2020 Election and provides an inventory of issues that prove that the 2020 Election was uncertifiable and never should have been certified for Joe Biden.

You can email Joe Hoft here, and read more of Joe Hoft's articles here.


Thanks for sharing!