Fact check: Which specific ballot-handling chain-of-custody incidents in Georgia and Michigan were investigated and what were their outcomes?

1. A shadowed allegation: Georgia’s Coffee County and the claim of withheld evidence that raised alarms

A February 2024 court filing alleges Coffee County election officials withheld emails and security camera footage tied to a 2021 voting machine breach, a claim framed as potentially indicating a serious compromise of equipment and chain-of-custody protocols. The filing amplifies a separate assertion by cybersecurity executive Benjamin Cotton that he “forensically examined” the county’s voting system, though his submission did not include verifiable details about methods, access, or data extraction. The core claim combines an allegation of official nondisclosure with an outside forensic assertion, creating a contested record rather than a completed prosecution; the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and federal authorities have not filed public charges or released a clearing finding, leaving the outcome unclear and the facts in dispute ^{[1] [2]}.

2. A recurring vulnerability: Michigan tabulator access incidents that triggered criminal probes

Michigan’s decentralized election administration produced multiple episodes in 2021 where unauthorized individuals gained access to tabulators at several local clerk offices, including Roscommon County, Richfield Township, Lake City Township, and Irving Township; these accesses occurred between March 11 and late June 2021 and prompted a joint criminal inquiry by the Michigan Department of Attorney General and Michigan State Police. The investigation documented how third parties obtained physical access to equipment or chain-of-custody processes, exposing a known operational weakness in local controls. The documented incidents led to law‑enforcement involvement and local administrative scrutiny rather than a wholesale invalidation of statewide results, reflecting a targeted response to breach points in specific offices ^{[3] [5]}.

3. Outcomes in Georgia: an unresolved public record and absence of formal charges

The available material about Coffee County centers on the court filing’s allegation that evidence was withheld and Cotton’s claimed forensic examination; beyond those filings, there is no public record of criminal indictments or conclusive agency findings communicated by state or federal investigators. Investigative agencies in Georgia did not publicly announce charges tied to the asserted 2021 breach as of the last available reporting, and the court filing itself stops short of presenting independently verifiable forensic artifacts. Consequently, the practical outcome is procedural ambiguity: the allegations prompted scrutiny and legal filings but did not culminate in public prosecutorial action or a published forensic report confirming a chain-of-custody compromise ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Outcomes in Michigan: criminal investigations, administrative accountability, and statewide audits

Michigan’s response combined criminal investigation of unauthorized tabulator access with administrative steps to hold uncooperative clerks accountable and statewide audit reporting to assess overall accuracy. The joint criminal probe documented specific local breaches and produced accountability actions against clerks who allowed unauthorized access; meanwhile, Michigan’s later post‑election recount and audit reports concluded that 2024 election results were secure and accurate, with audits showing minimal differences between machine and hand counts. The aggregate outcome for Michigan is layered: discrete local chain‑of‑custody failures prompted law enforcement and corrective measures, while statewide audit processes reaffirmed election integrity ^{[3] [5] [4]}.

5. The audit context and lessons from prior incidents, including Antrim County

Risk‑limiting audits, hand tallies, and after‑action reports provide context for both states: Georgia’s RLA/hand tally reviews emphasize transparency and public education to bolster confidence, while Michigan’s analyses of the 2020 and subsequent audits underscore how procedural or design errors — as detailed in the Antrim County review — can produce localized discrepancies that audits and corrective procedures can address. Audits do not substitute for secure chain‑of‑custody practices, but they can detect and quantify discrepancies and thereby inform remedial steps; the reports show that procedural fixes and audit transparency are central to restoring confidence after chain‑of‑custody incidents ^{[6] [7] [8]}.

6. Comparative judgement: what is settled, what remains contested, and why agendas matter

What is settled: Michigan documented specific unauthorized tabulator access events that led to criminal investigations and administrative responses, and later statewide audits found accurate results overall; Georgia has a high‑profile allegation and an asserted third‑party forensic claim but no publicly reported criminal findings. What remains contested: the factual completeness and validity of the Coffee County forensic claim, and whether withheld materials — if they exist as alleged — would materially change integrity conclusions. Stakeholders’ agendas affect emphasis: legal filings and advocacy groups foreground possible breaches, while official audits and prosecutors emphasize documented findings and corrective measures; readers should weigh advocacy claims against formal investigatory outcomes and audit reports ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.