Unite4Freedom

10/09/2026

https://www.foxbusiness.com/retail/hershey-changes-reeses-pumpkins-packaging-after-lawsuit-over-design

SERIOUSLY??

It’s really unbelievable that lawsuits like this make it to the courts and mainstream news outlets, especially when American citizens present evidence of problems with our elections, only to be told by the courts that they don’t have standing to challenge them. That effectively means the courts aren't hearing the merits of their claims.

Standing is a legal doctrine that limits which disputes courts can hear, in part to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Doesn't it seem that candy packaging is a bit more frivolous than the sanctity of the process that awards power to those who control the finances and direction of legislation and policies for our towns, cities, states, and country?

What would happen if our courts and news media were as invested in our elections as they are in candy packaging?

They might learn that over the past four years, Unite4Freedom has been measuring states' official election records against federal and state law for the 2020, 2022, and 2024 elections across 35 states.

And that our 2024 aggregate Scorecard identifies 20.3 million votes nationwide, certified as accurate by election officials, associated with registrations that appear to violate state and federal election law. Additionally, our analysis identified a 3.5 million discrepancy between the number of votes counted and the number of voters recorded as having voted.

Or that U4F's Vote Tampering Reports identify post-certification changes to voter-participation records. These analyses compare voter-history data from multiple timestamped snapshots of states' official voter databases and document instances in which voters' participation histories—and sometimes the voter records themselves—were added or deleted AFTER the election was certified.

Learn more at Unite4Freedom.com.

Sign up to stay informed and see what actions we're taking.

Unite4Freedom is dedicated to protecting our life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness by assuring trustworthy elections

10/08/2026

ILLINOIS HAVA HEARING PUTS UNITE4FREEDOM DATA ANALYSIS INTO THE OFFICIAL RECORD
Six-hour evidentiary hearing examines discrepancies in Illinois voter-registration records and questions about HAVA compliance

An Illinois citizen received a formal administrative hearing last week on the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) complaint she filed in July, bringing years of data analysis, legal research, system testing and documentation into a formal Illinois administrative proceeding.

The complaint invokes the administrative process established under HAVA §402 (52 U.S.C. §21112) and centers on a straightforward question:

Does the Illinois statewide voter-registration system satisfy HAVA’s requirements for a single, uniform, official, centralized and interactive statewide system when state-produced records contain material discrepancies that remain unexplained and unreconciled?

During the approximately six-hour hearing, witnesses testified, exhibits were entered into the administrative record, state representatives had the opportunity to challenge the evidence and testimony, and the Hearing Officer heard evidence concerning the operation of Illinois’s statewide voter-registration system.

A VOTER'S OWN RECORD RAISES A FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION

Representing herself against attorneys for the State of Illinois, the Complainant presented evidence concerning a discrepancy between information contained in her county voter-registration record and information maintained at the state level.

Testimony and evidence presented at the hearing indicated that:
• the county and state reflected different information concerning the same voter on their registration record;
• the Illinois State Board of Elections (ILSBE) acknowledged in writing that the State-level redaction was erroneous;
• ILSBE stated that it had no record of any request for redaction;
• the local election authority could not explain why the discrepancy existed;
• the record did not establish that the erroneous redaction had been independently detected before the Complainant brought it to officials’ attention;
• no audit trail explaining how or why the erroneous State-level redaction occurred, or who authorized it, was produced in the record; and
• the record did not establish whether the erroneous condition was isolated to this voter or existed elsewhere.

Those facts matter because HAVA requires states to maintain a single, uniform, official, centralized and interactive computerized statewide voter-registration list. Local election officials must have access to that system, and voter-registration information obtained locally must be entered electronically into the statewide list on an expedited basis.

The question presented by the Complainant is therefore not simply whether Illinois has a database officially designated as its statewide voter-registration system. The question is whether the system, as actually operated and maintained, satisfies the requirements Congress imposed upon it.

UNITE4FREEDOM'S DATA ANALYSIS ENTERS THE RECORD

Alongside the Complainant’s individual voter record, Unite4Freedom witnesses presented testimony concerning preserved state-source data, chain of custody, analytical methodology and the importance of reconciliation and auditability.

Unite4Freedom Data Team Lead and Illinois Analyst Ken Zitko testified extensively regarding the source, preservation, integrity and analysis of the State-produced voter data. Drawing on more than 30 years of professional experience with enterprise databases, SQL, large-scale systems, data architecture and data-integrity controls, Zitko explained the methodology used to preserve and analyze the records. Through his testimony and the supporting exhibits, a substantial body of Unite4Freedom’s analytical work in Illinois was placed into the official administrative record, with Zitko explaining the read-only, reproducible methodology, validation, verification, deduplication and peer-review procedures underlying the findings.

Evidence presented during the hearing also addressed the provenance of the voter-registration data. Testimony from John Oldfield, Director of the Illinois State Board of Elections’ Division of Voting and Registration Systems, confirmed that ILSBE received requests for statewide voter-registration data in a normalized multi-table format with history, produced those records, and provided them to the Complainant’s witness, whose role established the acquisition and chain of custody of the data ultimately analyzed by Unite4Freedom.

That evidence is important to a central question raised throughout the proceeding: What exactly is Unite4Freedom analyzing? U4F’s position is that its analysis is not based on a voter database created by the organization. Rather, it analyzes voter-registration data produced through Illinois’s own election-administration processes.

HAVA, ACCURACY AND RECONCILIATION

Unite4Freedom Chairman Harry Haury also testified, providing broader context concerning election systems, cybersecurity, systems architecture, relational databases and HAVA requirements.

Haury explained a basic systems principle underlying U4F’s analysis: when records that are expected to represent the same underlying information do not agree, a controlled system should provide a means to identify the discrepancy, determine its cause, correct errors when necessary and establish whether the same condition exists elsewhere.

That principle is central to U4F’s work nationwide. The existence of a discrepancy does not, by itself, establish misconduct, but neither does the mere possibility of an innocent administrative explanation reconcile the discrepancy. The records should provide the answer.

THE STATE RESPONDS

In its written closing argument, the State challenged aspects of the foundation for the Complainant’s evidence, emphasized that voter-registration and voter-history files are not ballot or canvass records, raised ordinary administrative activity as a potential explanation for changes in the data, and argued that the Complainant had not established the internal cause of the discrepancies identified.

The Complainant’s written closing directly addressed those foundation arguments, pointing to the documented provenance and chain of custody of the State-produced data, preservation of the original files, read-only and reproducible analytical methods, and testimony from the State’s own Division Director confirming ILSBE’s production of the records provided to the Complainant’s witness.

Those arguments highlight an important distinction. The Complainant’s position is not that every unexplained discrepancy proves misconduct. It is that an unexplained discrepancy remains unexplained until evidence demonstrates what caused it and whether the applicable legal requirements were satisfied.

The complaint also does not contend that Illinois lacks a database officially designated as its statewide voter-registration system, that voter-history records constitute ballots, or that the Complainant was prevented from voting. The question before the administrative process is whether the conditions documented in the state and local records are consistent with the requirements of HAVA alleged in the complaint.

“HOW DO YOU FIX IT?”

During the hearing, the Hearing Officer asked Haury an important practical question about resolving these problems. Haury’s response focused on reconciliation, synchronization and auditability:

1. He testified that when records change, an audit log should show how they changed, why they changed and who had authority to make the changes.

2. He testified that State and county records are supposed to be synchronized and accurate, explaining that “they can’t be different and both be accurate.”

3. He emphasized that correcting an individual record does not resolve the underlying systems-control problem when the cause of the discrepancy remains unidentified. Asked whether simply correcting the Complainant’s record resolved that issue, he answered, “Not at all.”

Haury shared that unexplained discrepancies should be investigated and reconciled rather than assumed to be either misconduct or harmless administrative activity.

NOW THE RECORD SPEAKS
The proceeding now awaits the Hearing Officer’s recommendation and the State Board of Elections’ ultimate determination.
Whatever that determination may be, the hearing represents an important development: evidence, data provenance, analytical methodology, testimony, state responses and unresolved questions concerning reconciliation are now part of a formal Illinois administrative record.

That is what the HAVA administrative process is designed to permit—a citizen alleging a Title III violation can put evidence before the state and obtain a determination through the process established by law.

For Unite4Freedom, the larger principle is straightforward: Questions about election systems should be answered with evidence. Citizens should not assume that every discrepancy proves wrongdoing, nor should they be asked to assume that every discrepancy is harmless.

Preserve the records. Examine the evidence. Explain the discrepancies. Correct confirmed problems. Public confidence is earned through verification.

★★★

Unite4Freedom reports are available at Unite4Freedom.com/reports.
For more information or to sign up to stay informed, visit Unite4Freedom.com.

10/07/2026

OKLAHOMA IS THE LATEST STATE TO HAVE SUSPECTED VOTE TAMPERING EXPOSED BY UNITE4FREEDOM

Unite4Freedom’s Vote Tampering Report for Oklahoma’s 2020, 2022 and 2024 general elections, highlights post-certification record changes similar to those identified in at least ten other states. These reports compare multiple snapshots of voter participation data from certified election results AFTER certification and show the following:
• Vote histories deleted after election
• Vote histories added after election
• Voter and their history deleted after initially being recorded
• Voter and participation added after the election

Each time-stamped snapshot of government election records analyzed Oklahoma’s official record of who voted and when they voted—not how they voted. These records are required to be preserved and maintained as part of the official election record.

Across two comparisons of Oklahoma’s official records, there were:
• 24,112 total changes in 2024
• 19,960 total changes in 2022
• 28,168 total changes in 2020

WHY DO THESE CHANGES MATTER?

Election certification is a legal attestation that the outcome of an election is accurate and true. How were
the elections certified as accurate if the records used to certify them were later altered? If changes to voters’ participation histories are being made after the election was certified, how do we know which record of the election is the true outcome? Where are the records that explain why the changes were made and under what authority? And why are records continuing to change so long after election certification? U4F has discovered that this pattern is repeating across the country.

FEDERAL ELECTIONS MUST FOLLOW FEDERAL LAW

In the administration of federal elections, every state is required to adhere to the requirements enacted by Congress in the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), and the Voting Rights Act. While U4F does not claim that every suspected record change identified in these reports establishes a violation of federal law, these matters do require investigation, explanation, and documentation sufficient
to determine what happened in an election and whether applicable legal requirements were followed.

The records should show when voter registrations were created, changed, transferred, or cancelled; when voter-history information changed and why; who or what system was authorized to make changes; and whether required list-maintenance procedures were followed.

RESTORING TRUST IN THE SYSTEM AWARDING POWER

Our constitutional system asks Americans with profoundly different beliefs to resolve their differences peacefully through the ballot box. Yet, only 34% of U.S. adults trust government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”* For our system to endure and prosper, Americans must have confidence that our votes matter and that the certified outcome and records accurately demonstrate the will of the people. Americans are not required to trust the outcome without transparency and provable results.

Questions about elections are often treated as partisan accusations. Instead, election questions should be seen as a desire to see the proof from records, evidence, and the law—that is the transparency the American people deserve. America must change the trajectory of election trust or risk deeper animosity, greater division, and declining confidence in our representative government.

“Valid elections are guaranteed in the Constitution and are the foundation of our Republic,“ says U4F Chairman Harry Haury. “Citizens have a right to demand accuracy. If elections are not accurate, then
who is ultimately selecting our representatives?”

BEYOND OKLAHOMA

Vote Tampering Reports are part of a Unite4Freedom national effort to examine election records maintained
by state election officials across the country. Ours analysis of official records in 35 states identifying apparent violations of election law are summarized in our State Election Validity Scorecards. In addition to apparent violations in registration and voting, these reports demonstrate that there is not one state where the certified election tally (ballots counted) matches the number of voters recorded as having voted in the election.

Our research has been used in multiple federal lawsuits, NVRA Notices, HAVA Complaints, and additional legal actions. U4F will continue to pursue transparency and legitimacy in elections.

★★★

Additional state reports are available at https://unite4freedom.com/reports/vote-tampering-reports/.

SIGN UP TO STAY INFORMED https://unite4freedom.com/stay-informed/.
Consider supporting our legal actions to restore valid election https://unite4freedom.com/donate/

09/30/2026

SUSPECTED VOTE TAMPERING IN NORTH CAROLINA EXPOSED BY UNITE4FREEDOM

Unite4Freedom (U4F) recently released its medium resolution Vote Tampering Reports for North Carolina, demonstrating the number of changes made to individual voter history records after certification of the 2020, 2022 and 2024 general elections.

WHAT DOES THE DATA SHOW?

North Carolina’s 2020 election was certified on November 24, 2020. However, in a comparison of snapshots of voter participation history records from November 28, 2020 and December 26, 2020, over 1.2 million changes were noted to a certified election result. A majority of voters with history changes existed in both data sets, but, in the first data set they were recorded as not having voted. In the subsequent data set, those voters were assigned a vote.

Just as alarming is data snapshot comparisons from the 2024 general election post certification showing the same—changes to the data after certification. That election was certified on November 26, 2024, yet comparisons of data sets from December 1, 2024 and December 29, 2024, reveal 403,113 changes to participation histories from the earlier data set to the later data set. Again, a majority of those changes were voters whose participation history initially recorded no vote, but subsequently are recorded as having voted.

Each of U4F’s three Vote Tampering Reports for North Carolina, analyze over a dozen time-stamped comparisons for each election and demonstrate the following record level changes to individual voter participation:
• Vote histories deleted after election
• Vote histories added after election
• Voter and their history deleted after initially being recorded
• Voter and participation added after the election

Across all comparisons in North Carolina there were:
• 411,254 total changes in 2024
• 13,483 total changes in 2022
• 1,260,557 total changes in 2020

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

Election certification is a legal attestation that an election is accurate and true at the time of certification.
How were the elections certified as accurate if the records used to certify needed to be altered so significantly? If changes to voters’ participation histories are being made after the election was certified, was the accurate result certified? Did election officials have a crystal ball? Did they certify a guesstimate? Where are the records demonstrating why those changes needed to be made and who authorized the changes? And why are records continuing to change so long after election certification? This is a concerning pattern.

ADHERENCE TO THE LAW

States are required to adhere to the requirements enacted by Congress in the National Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, and the Voting Rights Act. While U4F does not claim that every suspected record change establishes a violation of federal law, these matters do require investigation, explanation, and documentation sufficient to determine whether the states have adhered to the law.

Election records and transparent election administration practices are the evidence needed to determine what happened in an election and whether applicable legal requirements were followed. The records should show when voter registrations were created, changed, transferred, or cancelled; when voter-history information changed and why; who or what system was authorized to make changes; and whether required list-maintenance procedures were followed.

RESTORING TRUST IN THE PROCESS AWARDING POWER

Our constitutional system asks Americans with profoundly different beliefs to resolve their differences peacefully through the ballot box. Yet, only 34% of U.S. adults trust government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit.”* For our system to endure and prosper, Americans must have confidence that our votes matter and that the certified outcome and records accurately demonstrate the will of the people.

“Valid elections are guaranteed in the Constitution and are the foundation of our Republic,“ says U4F Chairman Harry Haury. “Citizens have a right to demand accuracy. If elections are not accurate, then who is ultimately selecting our representatives?”

Americans deserve their government’s best efforts to restore trust in our elections by supporting transparency and accuracy in the process that awards power to make the laws under which we must live. Unite4Freedom believes provably accurate elections is how we heal the divide among citizens and truly solve our nation’s biggest problems.

Unite4Freedom’s broader election analysis in 35 states identifying apparent violations of election law is being used in multiple federal lawsuits and other legal actions to pursue transparency and legitimacy and restore trust in our electoral process.

★★★
*www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2026-09-09/mistrust-of-u-s-government-information-is-rising-across-major-issues-new-poll-shows

All Unite4Freedom reports are available at Unite4Freedom.com/reports.

Please consider supporting our work: www.Unite4Freedom.com/donate.

09/16/2026

Unite4Freedom Sends 35 States a Notice of Evidence Preservation Obligations

Unite4Freedom has sent a Notice of Evidence Preservation Obligations to 35 state Governors, Attorneys General, and Secretaries of State. These letters were sent out between September 2 and 3, in advance of the expiration of the 22-month record retention requirement for 2024 general election records, and are connected to the Notice of Violations regarding compliance with the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), 52 U.S.C. § 20501, that have been transmitted to 30 states.

The letters sent by Unite4Freedom are a formal demand that the states immediately take all steps necessary to identify, preserve, and protect from destruction, alteration, or loss any and all records, documents, communications, and data that relate in any way to the subject matter of the Notice of Violations and their compliance with the National Voter Registration Act (52 U.S.C. § 20501), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA) (52 U.S.C. § 20901), and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) (52 U.S.C. § 10101).

The letters also serve as formal notice that Unite4Freedom intends to commence civil action against the states if the violations identified in the Notices are not fully remedied within the time period outlined in NVRA—90 days after a State receives written notice of the violation, or within 20 days after receipt of such notice if the violation occurred within 120 days before the date of an election for Federal office. (52 U.S.C. § 20510(b)(2)).

RECORDS TO BE PRESERVED
The preservation obligation described in the letters applies to all records—paper or electronic—necessary to validate the State’s compliance with the VRA, the NVRA, and HAVA, including:
— The statewide voter registration list and all historical snapshots, exports, and version histories of that list;
— All records used to ensure the accuracy and currency of official lists of eligible voters, including list-maintenance mailings, notices, and responses;
— Records of registrations, cancellations, transfers, rejections, and purges, including the basis and source data for each such action;
— Records reflecting coordination between the statewide voter registration database and other State agency records, including motor vehicle, public assistance, corrections, vital records (death), and felony-status data;
— Policies, procedures, protocols, training materials, and internal guidance concerning voter list maintenance, registration processing, and NVRA, HAVA, and VRA compliance;
— Correspondence, memoranda, and communications among or between State officials, county or local
election officials, vendors, contractors, and any other person concerning the subject matter of the Notice of Violations;
— Contracts, statements of work, and communications with any third-party vendor or contractor that performs list-maintenance, data-matching, or registration-processing services on the State’s behalf, along with that vendor’s or contractor’s own underlying records;
— Audit logs, metadata, database change logs, and system-access records reflecting who made changes to voter records, when, and why;
— Backup tapes, archived files, and legacy-system data that would otherwise be subject to a routine retention or deletion schedule; and
— Any other document or data compilation that would be responsive to, or that was created in response to, the Notice of Violations.

WHY DO THESE RECORDS MATTER?
Election records are the evidence needed to determine what happened in an election and whether applicable legal requirements were followed. The records should show when voter registrations were created, changed, transferred, or cancelled; when voter-history information changed; what information was used to make those changes; who or what system made them; and whether required list-maintenance procedures were followed.

Without complete and preserved records, discrepancies cannot be fully investigated, timelines cannot be
reconstructed, and election officials cannot demonstrate how and why changes to voter records occurred.

U4F’s question is straightforward: Can the states produce the records necessary to explain the discrepancies and demonstrate compliance with federal law?

WHY DOES THIS QUESTION MATTER?
Between 2024 and 2026, the 35 states analyzed by Unite4Freedom elected 370 members of Congress—
approximately 85 percent of the House of Representatives. Those analyses have identified millions of records that warrant investigation for potential violations of federal election law across multiple election cycles.

Unite4Freedom is not asking the public to assume that discrepancies prove fraud, nor should the government expect the public to assume that every discrepancy is harmless. The evidence should determine the answer, and states are obliged to prove it.

When significant discrepancies are identified in official election records, the appropriate response is not simply to assure the public that the system worked. The underlying records should be preserved, examined, and used to establish what actually occurred.

The preservation notices are intended to ensure that the evidence necessary to answer those questions remains available.

Unite4Freedom will continue its non-partisan efforts to restore lawful, accurate, and transparent elections
by using official records, administrative remedies, and lawful judicial processes to seek answers and, where warranted, corrective action. Visit unite4freedom.com/litigation for our latest updates.

09/15/2026

UPDATE:
NOTICES OF SUSPECTED VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL LAW FILED WITH 24 ADDITIONAL STATES

In addition to six previous Notices, Unite4Freedom (U4F) and additional aggrieved persons have filed a Notice of Violations and Demand for Corrective Action concerning the fulfillment of legal requirements under the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) in 24 more states. The Notices are based on U4F analyses of the state’s official election records measured against federal and state law in Arizona, Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont, and Washington identifying 7,378,932 suspected violations that require investigation, explanation, correction, preservation, or disclosure under NVRA.

Each Notice identifies the statutory duties at issue, the categories of alleged violations, the supporting factual bases, all the individual records that appear to be in violation of legal requirements, and the corrective actions requested. The Election Validity Scorecard for each state is provided as a summary of the violations, but each one of the over 7.3 million total records provided for those 24 states must be resolved and explained.

FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS AT ISSUE
Congress enacted NVRA to establish uniform national standards governing voter-registration administration, voter-list maintenance, and public inspection of records for them. Under federal law 52 USC § 20507(i), these records are supposed to be available for public inspection, and federal law has clarified that these records must be auditable, yet the states continue to obfuscate their records and hide the apparent non-compliance.

Section 20510(b) of NVRA authorizes an aggrieved person to provide written notice of violations to the chief state election official and affords the state an opportunity to investigate, correct, explain, or otherwise resolve those violations before civil litigation is initiated. A non-profit organization acting for the benefit of the American people, such as U4F, qualifies as a federally-defined aggrieved person. Under the law, the state has 20 days to investigate, prove the data is ok, or correct it.

If the errors are not corrected and procedures are not put in place to prevent a recurrence in 2026, U4F will seek to force the states to change their systems under the personal cause of action enshrined in NVRA. U4F will also continue supporting DOJ and the Administration’s efforts to clean up our broken election system nationwide.

ALLEGED VIOLATIONS AND FACTUAL BASIS OF NOTICES
U4F has analyzed official voter-registration, voter-history, and related election records obtained from the State and its election officials. Those analyses resulted in state-specific Election Validity Scorecards and supporting machine-readable datasets identifying apparent violations. Both the Scorecards and datasets are included in the Notices as evidence of concern regarding the following statutory duties imposed by NVRA:

1. The duty to conduct a reasonable and uniform list-maintenance program consistent with 52 USC § 20507(a)(4). The following categories of record-level conditions in U4F’s analyses are areas of concern:
• duplicate or conflicting voter registrations;
• unexplained changes in voter registration status;
• registrations containing internally inconsistent or illogical data;
• apparent irregular registration changes;
• registration conditions requiring documented explanation under established list-maintenance procedures; and other record level conditions.

A total of 7,378,932 unique votes were impacted by these conditions in the 24 states in the 2024 General Election.

U4F is not claiming that every documented concern establishes a violation of federal law, but rather that they require investigation, explanation, and documentation sufficient to determine whether the states have adhered to the requirements enacted by Congress.

2. The duty to maintain, preserve, and make available records concerning list-maintenance programs in 52 USC § 20507(i). Implementation records, implementation documentation, or explanatory materials for those record-level conditions are necessary to determine:
• the basis for recorded changes;
• the authority under which those changes occurred;
• the implementation of voter-list maintenance procedures;
• the preservation of required records; and
• the completeness of the state’s public-inspection obligations under NVRA.

This Notice requests the production or inspection of those implementation records as part of the corrective actions described above. If the records do not exist, this Notice requests written confirmation identifying the specific records unavailable and the reasons for their absence.

RELIEF REQUESTED
According to 52 USC § 20510(b), U4F and the additional aggrieved persons respectfully request that the states:
• Investigate each documented record-level condition identified in the U4F Reports.
• Produce, or make available for inspection, all records concerning the implementation of their state’s
voter-list maintenance programs that are required to be maintained.
• Provide a written explanation describing the procedures, policies, and implementation practices responsible for the documented record-level conditions identified.
• Preserve all records relevant to the potential violations until the issues presented have been resolved.
• Provide a written response addressing each record-level violation identified.

The purpose of this Notice is to provide the opportunity for voluntary compliance contemplated by Congress.

A CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO LAWFUL, ACCURATE AND TRANSPARENT ELECTIONS
Unite4Freedom has examined official records in 35 states. In addition to identifying the apparent registration and voting violations in each state, U4F’s Election Validity Scorecards also demonstrate that in the 35 states studied, there is not one state where the certified election tally (ballots counted) matches the number of voters recorded as having voted in the election.

Additional analyses of these official records have resulted in U4F’s Vote Tampering Reports, which identify changes made to official records AFTER an election has been certified. These includes changes to voter-history and voter-registration records occurring across successive, official, statewide, voter-file snapshots without documentation to substantiate those revisions.

In Texas, U4F measured apparent vote tampering DURING the 2024 General Election and the 2026 Democratic and Republican Primary Elections. These reports expose problems that happen too frequently and follow patterns that don’t occur by chance or simple mistakes. The way the data changes over time suggests intentional or automated manipulation, not normal reporting errors.
All U4F analyses have identified significant issues within the election records that must be formally investigated and reviewed under state and federal election laws including record by record reconciliation and correction if necessary.

U4F will continue its non-partisan efforts to restore lawful, accurate, and transparent elections through whatever legal and legislative means necessary to fulfill this mission.

Valid elections are guaranteed in the Constitution and are the foundation of our Republic.
Citizens have a right to demand accuracy. If elections are not lawful or accurate, then who
is ultimately selecting our representatives?

★★★

All U4F reports are available at Unite4Freedom.com/reports.

Please consider supporting our efforts to advance the actions Unite4freedom.com/donate