THE ELECTION SOLUTION: Mandate SOX-Like Control Reviews to Force Elections to be Performed Like in Italy.
Synopsis:
To fix US elections, President Trump should issue an Executive Order that mandates elections adhere to a Sarbanes-Oxley like mandate that ensure processes are well controlled. This will force elections to be more secure through the elimination of election systems, which are not well controlled. The end result will be elections performed like they are in Italy.
Missing Process Controls Make US Elections Uncertifiable
Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX)
Around the turn of the millennium, several publicly traded companies, including Enron and WorldCom, used accounting trickery, shell corporations, and other fraudulent techniques to hide business losses from the public and keep stock prices artificially high. These corporate failures led to the passing of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX).
The provisions of SOX apply primarily to companies whose shares are traded on public stock exchanges. These companies are legally required to establish a financial accounting framework that is transparent, timely reported on, vouched for by executives, effective in preventing fraudulent results, regularly reviewed by registered independent experts, with severe penalties for anyone who alters documents, impedes investigations, or certifies fraudulent financial results.
SOX caused major changes in the financial reporting of all US corporations. Up until this point in time, corporations would provide support for their balances and entries made in the financials, but SOX took the credibility of financials a step further.
Going forward, support for financial entries was not enough. The processes involved in financial reporting also had to be well designed, put in place, audited, and signed off on along with the financials on a periodic basis.
After its passing, many companies didn’t know where to start to comply with SOX. They soon figured out that to comply with SOX, they would have to identify all the processes involved in financial reporting. This included all the systems and all the entities involved in financial reporting. Next, key controls within those processes that were necessary to ensure accurate financial reporting had to be identified, in place, designed properly, and audited on an annual basis. The results of these process and control reviews were then signed off on, not just by corporate management, but by external auditors as well.
For some multi-national companies, the implementation of SOX meant that over 1,000 key controls had to be tested each year. Testing is performed by internal and external auditors all year long. If a control is not in place, not working, or designed poorly, the control issues are addressed, and the control is retested at year-end. ALL KEY CONTROLS must be in place and working properly before the external auditor signs off on a company’s financials reported to the public.
Although this was a lot of work, this wholesale change in attitude towards processes and controls eventually became part of the business of financial reporting. Today this work is completed and signed off on annually.
The Result of US Elections Not Adhering to SOX or a SOX-like mandate.
Compliance with SOX is not a requirement in US elections and as a result elections are not transparent, timely reported, effective in preventing fraudulent results, and regularly reviewed by registered independent experts. Severe penalties for anyone who alters documents, impedes investigations, or certifies fraudulent financial results are seldom identified or prosecuted.
Election systems are off limits and not rigorously or adequately audited. Processes ensuring adequate controls like chain of custody are not rigorously audited or signed off on.
As a result, in US elections there is evidence that the systems used in the election process are not secure and that the bad actors can hack into the systems and potentially adjust results (See CISA Report).
Systems with security issues in the corporate world are immediately shut down and not used until they are safe for use again. Corporations cannot afford to have their data tampered with, stolen or contaminated by bad actors outside the entity.
As noted above, for US Corporations all controls have to be designed properly, implemented, working, audited and signed off on annually. In contrast, in the US election process, according to one study, only one-third of all controls are even in place. The US election process is a disaster.
A group of election experts and professionals from various fields performed an analysis of the controls necessary to be in place to ensure accurate and secure elections. This group (FATE2024) performed its work at year-end 2023.
Multiple (14 election processes) were defined consisting of 100 subprocesses. In total, over 500 detailed controls were identified in these subprocesses. Per the analysis of these controls, only 36% of the controls identified were even in place!
As noted above, all controls related to financial reporting in a corporation are tested annually to determine they are working as intended. External auditors rely on the results of this work in their annual audits of financial statements. ALL key controls must be in place.
Things are much, much different with US elections. Examples of four controls identified that are necessary to be in place in the voter registration process are: verification of citizenship; verification of residency; verification of identity; and verification of eligibility. If these controls are not in place, individuals can vote in an election yet not be eligible to vote. Unfortunately, in the US hundreds of controls are absent throughout the election process and non-citizens are voting
The absence of SOX or SOX-like mandates result in elections where the majority of key controls are not even in place let alone tested and signed off on annually by experts.
Chain of Custody Controls Are Key to Safe, Secure and Accurate Elections
Important controls in financial reporting and in the US election process are chain of custody controls. Chain of custody is the full process of acquisition, transfer, handling and disposition of physical or electronic materials.
A general rule is that the shorter the amount of time between events, and the fewer the number of hands that are involved in a process, and the smaller or more manageable the space where activities are performed, the stronger the chain of custody controls are.
With the implementation of electronic systems being used in elections, chain of custody controls have been stretched to the point of non-existence. California’s elections are an example.
California’s Noncertifiable Elections
Bloated voter rolls
Estimates are that up to one-fifth of the voters on California’s voter rolls are non-citizens. Sampling from the Election in 2024 indicated this was the case .
California allows ballot harvesting and drop boxes.
Since California went to ballot harvesting the results have been devastating for the GOP across the state. In Orange County, Heritage reported in 2019:
Vote harvesting is the collection of absentee ballots from voters by a third party who then delivers them to election officials. The term “vote harvesting” was essentially unknown to the general public until the North Carolina State Board of Elections overturned the results of the 2018 election for the Ninth Congressional District due to illegal vote harvesting, what the board called a “coordinated, unlawful and substantially resourced absentee ballot scheme.”
It was also raised as a concern in California after the unexpected losses of Republican-held congressional seats, including in Orange County, a traditional Republican stronghold, where the registrar of voters said that individuals were “dropping off maybe 100 or 200 ballots” at a time.
Ballot harvesting is still in place and all registered voters receive a ballot for the election in the mail. The chain of custody surrounding ballots harvested in the state is not adequate or is non-existent. Who knows where or who the completed ballots come from.
California prevents the verification of voters and requirements for VoterIDs
Local governments in the state can’t ask for ID’s from voters. California Governor Gavin Newsom signed legislation that prevents local governments from requiring voters to present identification at the polls. Because of this, Californians literally have no idea who voted at the polls in the 2024 Election.
California election observer challenges are ignored or denied.
Election observers were prevented from the reasonable ability to observe the 2024 Election. If they identified anything, they lacked the ability to do anything about it.
Weeks of counting
In the 2024 Election counting went on for weeks after the election. One of the worst scenarios was the loss by GOP Representative candidate Michelle Steel. She was ahead for at least 10 days after the election before her race was called for her Democrat opponent.
Add to this non-citizens being allowed to work in elections and count votes
The California legislature has now codified this and allowed non-citizens to work in elections and count the votes.
California’s elections due to their design, are not certifiable.
ITALY – An Example of Accurate, Secure and Transparent Elections
Italian Guya Mariani provided the following description of the Italian voting process:
In Italy, national elections involve a straightforward process for citizens voting at polling stations.
Italians must bring their “tessera elettorale,” a voter card issued by their municipality, along with a valid ID to their designated polling station, typically a local school closed for the occasion. Voting usually spans two days—Saturday afternoon and all day Sunday—to accommodate schedules. At the polling station, voters enter a classroom where booths are set up for privacy.
Before voting, poll workers verify the voter’s identity, record their participation by marking the tessera elettorale and a ledger by hand, and retain the ID temporarily. Voters then use a special indelible pencil to mark their choice on a pre-printed, watermarked “scheda elettorale” (ballot paper), fold it to conceal the vote, and deposit it into a centrally placed cardboard ballot box visible to all.
The voting process is designed for transparency and security. After marking their ballot in the booth, voters exit and place the folded ballot into the box themselves, ensuring no interference.
Once voting concludes (typically Sunday at 11 p.m.), the poll workers—comprising a president, a secretary, and scrutineers, often with party representatives present as witnesses—begin counting the votes immediately in the same classroom.
The ballot box is opened publicly, and each ballot is unfolded, inspected, and tallied by hand. This open process allows witnesses, including candidate or party representatives, to observe and ensure accuracy, with invalid votes (e.g., those with extra markings) set aside after scrutiny.
After the count, the results are meticulously recorded and communicated to the central national registry. The polling station president compiles an official summary of the vote totals, signed by the poll workers and stamped with the station’s unique seal. One copy of this summary, along with all ballots (valid, invalid, and unused), is sent to the local courthouse for safekeeping and potential recounts, while another is delivered to the municipal electoral office. From there, the municipality aggregates the data from all its polling stations and transmits it to the Ministry of the Interior’s Central Directorate for Electoral Services, which oversees the national tally.
(When the vote totals are announced to the public, they also include the number of “white ballots”—those left blank—which are considered a form of protest vote).
This hierarchical reporting ensures that results are verified at multiple levels before being finalized and announced, maintaining a transparent chain of custody from the classroom to the national level.
(In 2022 nearly 30 million Italians voted in that election. By comparison, 16 million votes were counted in the 2024 election in California.)
The election process in Italy is accurate, secure, transparent, accessible, efficient, relatively inexpensive, and an example the US could follow in part or in whole.
This process is simple and duplicated throughout the country. Italian elections take place in a small room, where they are counted in an evening. This is the least amount of space, handling and time possible. Italian elections don’t have most of the concerns with the current uncontrolled and uncertifiable election process in the US and their results are produced on election night.
By mandating elections adhere to the same control mandates as financial reporting, poorly designed election systems will become uncertifiable, and elections will end up being similar to the elections performed in Italy today.
The post THE ELECTION SOLUTION: Mandate SOX-Like Control Reviews to Force Elections to Be Performed Like in Italy first appeared on Joe Hoft.