Which witnesses or experts testified about how election equipment data was copied or transferred?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Court filings and reporting identify a small set of actors—county election officials, partisan operatives, and hired computer forensics teams—who have been described as copying or transferring election equipment data in high‑profile incidents; one detailed account says a local Republican official instructed a forensics team to copy “virtually every component of the voting system” in Coffee County, Ga. [1], while election‑administration guides and practitioners describe standard, secure transfers using isolated systems and sealed USB drives [2] [3].
1. A documented incident: Coffee County, Ga. — who testified and what they said
Reporting on the Coffee County matter recounts video and court filings showing that Cathy Latham, then the county Republican Party chair, greeted a computer forensics team and directed what to copy from election systems; that interior camera footage contradicted her deposition in the case and the filings say the team copied “virtually every component of the voting system” [1]. The AP account names Latham as a central witness whose on‑camera behavior and the forensics team’s activity are the basis for claims about how equipment was accessed and data copied [1].
2. Who else typically testifies in post‑election access disputes
Available sources show that disputes about access and copying frequently involve testimony from local election officials, forensic contractors, and partisan operatives or committee staff — the kinds of actors named in oversight subpoenas and case filings described by watchdogs and the Brennan Center [4]. The Brennan Center frames the broader pattern: requests for equipment and data come from private actors, legislative committees and law enforcement and often compel testimony or documents that reveal how data transfers occurred [4].
3. Standard election practice vs. ad hoc copying: evidence from manuals and reporting
Election‑management guidance and neutral reporting describe standard, risk‑mitigating transfer methods: isolating critical systems from the internet, restricting physical access, sealing equipment, maintaining chain‑of‑custody logs, and using secured USB drives to move data between isolated systems [2] [3]. Those best‑practice sources show that routine, authorized transfers are controlled, logged and physically secured — a contrast to the ad hoc copying described in litigation such as the Coffee County case [2] [3].
4. Experts and forensics teams — roles shown in the record
The only explicit, named role in the provided reporting is “computer forensics team” whose members performed the copying in Coffee County and whose activity is scrutinized in court filings and video [1]. Other sources indicate that court proceedings and oversight hearings tend to elicit testimony from technical experts (election IT staff, vendors, or independent forensics contractors) about exactly how data were copied or transferred, but specific witness lists for additional cases are not in the supplied materials [4] [5]. Available sources do not mention a comprehensive roster of expert witnesses across cases.
5. Conflicts between testimony, video, and documentary evidence
The AP story highlights a direct contradiction: deposition testimony by a partisan official versus interior security footage showing that same person directing and facilitating a forensic copy operation — an example of how physical logs and video can displace or corroborate witness statements in litigation over equipment access [1]. The Brennan Center warns that such discrepancies raise legal and operational risks for election administrators when outside parties seek access [4].
6. Why the identities and accounts of witnesses matter
Who testifies shapes legal outcomes and public trust: testimony from trained election officials and vendors that describes controlled, logged transfers supports claims of routine security [2] [3]. Testimony or footage indicating partisan direction of a forensic copy, as in Coffee County, feeds allegations of improper access and fuels litigation over preservation and chain of custody [1] [4].
7. Competing perspectives and open questions
Sources present two competing frames: practitioners and guides emphasize secure, documented transfers via isolated workflows and sealed media [2] [3]; litigation reporting shows instances where outside actors directed broad copying of systems, prompting disputes over propriety and accuracy of witness statements [1] [4]. Available sources do not provide full witness lists or transcripts that would let readers judge the technical detail of every testimony; court records beyond the AP summary are not in the supplied material [1].
Limitations and next steps: the supplied reporting details the Coffee County episode and general best practices and legal context, but does not catalogue every case, expert witness roster, or technical chain‑of‑custody exhibits. For deeper verification, readers should consult the underlying court filings, deposition transcripts and EAC or state election guidance and test reports referenced in the clearinghouse materials [1] [4] [6].