What specific forensic findings were reported from the election machines in the Tina Peters case?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Tina Peters and allies circulated multiple forensic reports that alleged a range of technical irregularities on Mesa County election machines, including deleted or overwritten records, the use of uncertified software, wireless connectivity to systems, and the unauthorized creation of new election databases — claims derived from images Peters preserved and from a small set of private analyses [1] [2] [3]. State and local prosecutors and investigators who reviewed portions of those claims concluded the anomalies did not produce evidence of criminal conduct affecting election outcomes, and several of the more dramatic technical assertions were disputed or remain unverified in public records [4] [2].
1. The headline findings reported by Peters’ forensic reports
Peters delivered an 83–85 page set of materials and a sequence of private forensic reports that, according to reporting and documents released by her camp, concluded there were nearly 30,000 deleted or overwritten election records, use of uncertified or noncompliant voting software, and indications that systems had cellular and Wi‑Fi access — findings Peters’ supporters presented as proof of systemic vulnerability in Mesa County’s vote infrastructure [1] [3]. One of the published report summaries and later coverage also described a finding of “unauthorized creation of new election databases” during the 2020 and 2022 cycles, and asserted that thousands of ballot digital images were not migrated into those new databases [2] [5].
2. Who authored the technical analyses and how they were sourced
The forensic materials associated with Peters included images created from county election systems that were later shared outside official channels and at least one report prepared by a named private cyber‑forensic expert, Doug Gould, which Peters presented to county commissioners [6] [2]. External figures — including political allies and online commentators — amplified analyses based on those images, and at least some third‑party observers claimed to have found parallels to known vulnerabilities in other voting‑system software, though those claims were circulated primarily on partisan platforms rather than in peer‑reviewed technical venues [7].
3. What state and local investigators concluded after reviewing the evidence
Mesa County’s elected district attorney and other official investigators reviewed available video, logs and portions of forensic data and reported they did not find probable cause of criminal conduct that altered election outcomes; a random sampling reviewed as part of the probe did not show an effect on vote tallies, and one investigator closed an inquiry without criminal findings based on the materials they examined [4]. Prosecutors nonetheless charged Peters for allegedly facilitating unauthorized access to voting equipment and for conduct surrounding the copying and publication of machine images and passwords, even as the technical assertions about systemic rigging remained contested [8] [9].
4. Conflicts, refutations and partisan amplification around the findings
Several groups and analysts publicly refuted aspects of Peters’ reports: a forensic analysis cited in reporting disputed the “third” report’s claims about missing ballot images and unauthorized databases, and commentators noted that some dramatic claims circulated chiefly in partisan or conspiratorial outlets, including that an outside “Venezuelan whistleblower” found the same fourteen vulnerabilities as Smartmatic systems — a linkage presented on political platforms but not substantiated in neutral technical literature provided in these sources [2] [7]. Media coverage and official filings also show that some of the forensic images Peters preserved were published online by others, complicating chain‑of‑custody and independent verification [6] [8].
5. What is documented, and what remains disputed or unverified
The public record supports that forensic images and other files from Mesa County systems were taken and that copies circulated online, and that private reports claimed specific anomalies — deleted records, uncertified software usage, wireless access traces, and database creation discrepancies — based on those images [6] [1] [2]. What remains contested in the sources provided is whether those anomalies reflect malicious tampering that changed election results, as official investigators reported no criminal evidence that affected outcomes and several technical claims have been disputed or not independently corroborated in neutral forensic publications [4] [2]. Reporting that frames the findings as definitive proof of large‑scale fraud relies on partisan reportage or advocacy analysis rather than court‑admitted, peer‑reviewed forensic consensus [7] [10].