Flawed Voter Tracking Software Falsely Claims Living Citizens Are Deceased in Georgia

2026-11-12 politics

Cumming, Wednesday, 11 November 2026.
A partisan data tool triggered erroneous ballot challenges in Forsyth County, Georgia, this November after falsely labeling living voters as deceased, highlighting growing administrative and legal risks for election infrastructure.

A Controversial Tool Enters the Fray Ahead of Midterms

In the lead-up to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, conservative activists and members of the Election Integrity Network (EIN)—led by attorney Cleta Mitchell—planned to deploy a new data tool called ELLY’s Election Monitor (ELLY) to identify allegedly suspicious voters and contest ballots in Georgia and beyond [1][2]. Developed by Rick Richards, ELLY was promoted as a means to ‘prove the fraud’ in elections and provide data to Republican candidates and activists for challenging results [1][2]. On 2026-09-30, Richards discussed ELLY’s national potential on a podcast, and by October 2026, he promised to distribute voter data from over 3,000 counties to citizen monitors and GOP operatives [1][2].

Forsyth County Becomes a Testing Ground

The tool’s first significant test occurred in Forsyth County, Georgia, where local Republican election board member Max Clavijo—also affiliated with the EIN—used ELLY data to challenge the eligibility of dozens of voters immediately after the midterm elections concluded [1][2][5]. Clavijo’s challenges, filed between 2026-11-03 and 2026-11-09, falsely alleged that four voters—Alexis Ramirez, Saramma George, an unnamed voter, and Chris Strickland—were deceased, alongside 65 other disputed voters [1][2]. However, an investigation by ProPublica confirmed that all four individuals were alive, and the Forsyth County election board ultimately rejected Clavijo’s challenges [1][5]. Clavijo himself admitted to not verifying the accuracy of the data, stating, ‘I did not make any explicit accusation that the information was 100% correct’ [1].

Systemic Flaws and Legal Fallout

The errors in ELLY’s data were not isolated to Forsyth County. In July 2026, the Cherokee County election director had previously complained to the Georgia State Election Board after ELLY falsely flagged a county board member’s spouse as deceased [1]. Richards, the tool’s creator, dismissed concerns about the data’s accuracy, asserting that verifying the information was the responsibility of county election workers [1]. This stance was echoed by Joel Natt, a Republican board member in Forsyth County, who argued that challengers must provide ‘solid evidence through proper channels’ before their accusations could be considered valid [1]. The flawed tool highlights broader risks to election integrity, including administrative instability, compliance risks, and heightened legal friction across swing-state voting infrastructures [1][2].

Victims of the Data Tool Speak Out

The four voters falsely flagged as deceased by ELLY described the ordeal as deeply unsettling. Alexis Ramirez stated, ‘It’s kind of crazy that they attempted to do that without trying to prove it first’ [1]. Chris Strickland, one of the falsely accused, emphasized the absurdity of the claim, saying, ‘I don’t know where they’re getting their information from, but it’s false. I’m alive. I’m here’ [1]. Alexander Knight and A. Joseph Guntherberg, two other affected voters, similarly refuted the allegations, with Guntherberg noting, ‘My candidate didn’t win’ in a possible reference to the political motivations behind the challenges [1]. The incident underscores the potential for partisan data tools to exacerbate political divisions and erode public trust in election systems.

Broader Implications for Election Integrity

The misuse of ELLY in Forsyth County reflects a growing trend among conservative activists and election deniers to leverage unvetted data tools in post-election challenges. While Richards and his allies argue that such tools are necessary to combat alleged fraud, critics warn that they pose significant risks to the legitimacy of electoral processes [1][2][5]. The episode also coincides with broader political shifts in Georgia, where Democrats swept statewide offices amidst ongoing efforts by conservatives to contest Republican losses in the midterms [2]. As legal observers and corporate leaders grapple with the fallout, the incident serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of prioritizing partisan narratives over factual accuracy in election administration.

Sources

election integrity voter verification