05/06/2026
MISSOURI CITIZEN ASKS SECRETARY OF STATE TO “SHOW ME” THE RECORDS BEHIND ELECTION CERTIFICATION
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — May 5, 2026— At a recent HAVA hearing, Missouri voter, Unite4Freedom leader, and HAVA complainant Connie Kramer is asking the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office a basic question: What election result did Missouri certify, and where are the records that prove it was legitimate?
The case, Kramer v. Hoskins, is not about overturning an election or revealing how any person voted, it is asking the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office to identify the exact statewide records that supported Missouri’s certification, voter history reporting, federal election reporting for the 2022 and 2024 federal general elections, and voter-history to vote count.
“Missouri is the Show-Me State,” Kramer said. “When a citizen asks what record supported certification, the answer should not be ‘trust us.’ It should be: here is the record, here is what it counts, here is how it reconciles, and here is the audit trail.”
THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK THAT MAKES THE RECORD-CHAIN QUESTION IMPORTANT
The Help America Vote Act, or HAVA, is the federal law requiring states to maintain a single, official, statewide voter registration list for federal elections. Missouri uses MCVR, the Missouri Centralized Voter Registration system, as its statewide voter registration database.
The Election Assistance Commission or EAC, is the federal agency authorized under HAVA to collect election administration data from states and make it publicly available. EAC canvass guidance says election officials should reconcile ballots cast with the number of people who voted and document chain of custody.
EAVS, the Election Administration and Voting Survey, is the EAC’s primary tool for collecting and reporting state’s voter data such as voter turnout, registration, ballots, and participation after federal elections.
Kramer’s complaint asks: Can Missouri’s certified election results, MCVR voter history records, and federal EAVS reporting be traced back to the same underlying records and reconciled? As importantly, was this reconciliation ever done, and was it done before certification?
THE DATA THAT PROMPTED THE QUESTION
The complaint, relying in part on analysis reported in Unite4Freedom scorecards, identifies multiple official or official source figures for the same elections.
For 2024, those figures include:
• SOS presidential contest results of 2,995,327
• MCVR voter history figure of 3,022,817
• EAVS turnout of 3,126,837
Across these numbers, there is an unreconciled spread of 131,510.
For 2022, the figures include
• SOS U.S. Senate results of 2,069,130
• MCVR voter history figure of 2,022,368
• EAVS turnout of 2,304,250
The unreconciled spread across these numbers is 281,882.
Spreads of 131,510 and 281,882 are too large to simply dismiss without definitions, source records, audit trails, and reconciliation.
Voter history entries in MCVR should be traceable to underlying participation records, upload/import records, audit logs, and reconciliation records which would prove what was certified.
RECONCILIATION AND CHAIN OF CUSTODY ARE AT THE CORE OF THE ISSUE
At the April 24, 2026, HAVA hearing, Missouri's very first HAVA hearing, Unite4Freedom volunteer data analyst known as “Dan” testified that, “The public records did not reconcile and did not provide the full proof chain.”
Dan also testified that proof would require “a reconciliation of the chain of custody of the source information from its originating point to its storage point and recording point.” He further testified that if errors are corrected, they should be annotated in audit logs with the reason and evidence for the correction.
Eric Fey, the Democratic Director of Elections for St. Louis County, made the record-chain issue more concrete. He testified that local participation in St. Louis County begins with local poll book / KNOWiNK / E-Pulse records, then is later exported or uploaded to MCVR and is not necessarily reconciled locally using MCVR voter credit lists.
“This is why the State needs to produce the records,” Kramer said. “If there are lawful explanations for differences, show them. If the numbers measure different things, define them. If voter history was uploaded later, show the upload record, the timestamp, the audit log, and the reconciliation.”
TWO YEARS ASKING AND STILL NO PROOF
Kramer says the April 24 hearing followed more than two years of record requests, Sunshine requests, complaint letters, scorecard submissions, and correspondence asking the same core question: what record did Missouri certify, and what statewide record supports it?
She says the State has produced public-facing results, blank canvass templates, redacted manuals, and other documents, but has not clearly produced the full record chain needed to answer that question.
AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAD WITH ELECTION INTEGRITY
Kramer is also asking why Missouri Secretary of State Denny Hoskins, who campaigned on election integrity, did not personally appear at the hearing.
“Secretary Hoskins did not certify the elections at issue, but this is now his office, his final determination, and his responsibility going forward,” Kramer said. “As a CPA, he understands ledgers, reconciliation, audit trails, and source records, so why did he not appear to answer the basic accountability question about what record supports what Missouri certified?”
“Banks do this every day,” Kramer said. “They do not just announce a balance and say the ledger changes every day. They reconcile the balance to the ledger. Elections deserve at least that level of record discipline.”
Kramer emphasized that her complaint is not an attack on Missouri election workers or local election authorities.
“This should be an opportunity, not a fight,” Kramer said. “Missouri can show the public the record chain, adopt simple audit controls, preserve authoritative ‘as of’ records, and become a model for transparent election administration. That is what election validity should mean.”
REQUESTED ACTION
Kramer is asking the Missouri Secretary of State’s Office to:
1. Identify the exact statewide record supporting certification for the 2022 and 2024 federal elections.
2. Produce source records, county upload/import records, audit logs, and reconciliation materials.
3. Identify the completed EAVS/statistical-breakout records used for federal reporting.
4. Explain how local participation becomes statewide MCVR voter history.
5. Preserve authoritative “as of” records and adopt immutable, user-attributed audit logging.
6. Issue a written determination addressing the record-chain question directly.
ABOUT THE HAVA COMPLAINT
Kramer filed a HAVA Title III complaint concerning Missouri’s statewide voter registration system and whether the State can identify one official, auditable statewide record supporting federal election administration. Her position is that valid elections require records sufficient to prove what was certified, without disclosing vote choice or compromising protected voter information. It is extremely disturbing that Missouri cannot seem to reconcile the records at all and has certainly been unwilling to “prove it” and supply certified accurate results!
CONTACT:
Constance “Connie” Kramer
www.Unite4Freedom.com
