Part 1: Georgia’s 2024 Election - Unpacking the $1.45M Audit and the "Censorship Czar" Controversy

Part 1: Georgia’s 2024 Election - Unpacking the $1.45M Audit and the "Censorship Czar" Controversy

Georgia’s electoral landscape has been a lightning rod for controversy since the contentious 2020 presidential election, and as the 2024 election cycle unfolds, new questions about transparency and integrity are emerging. A recent development has sparked intense scrutiny: the Georgia Secretary of State’s Office, led by Brad Raffensperger, allocated $1.45 million to Enhanced Voting, a company tasked with conducting an "audit" of the 2024 election using optical character recognition (OCR) technology. What has raised eyebrows is the involvement of Enhanced Voting’s president, A. A. Wilson, who has ties to the Center for Internet Security (CIS) and its role in what some critics call a "censorship apparatus" during the 2020 election. This article, the first in a series, explores the implications of this contract and the broader context of Georgia’s ongoing election integrity debates.

In August 2024, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger entered into an agreement with Enhanced Voting to perform an OCR-based audit of the November 2024 general election ballots. This move was mandated by House Bill 794, passed by the Georgia legislature in May 2024 and effective as of July, which required the Secretary of State’s Office to implement a pilot program for auditing paper ballots using OCR technology. The stated goal was to enhance the accuracy and transparency of Georgia’s election results, building on the state’s use of auditable paper ballots since 2020.

Enhanced Voting, a relatively obscure firm, was awarded a $1.45 million contract for this task. The company’s role involves scanning and analyzing Georgia’s paper ballots to verify vote totals, ostensibly providing a high-tech layer of assurance to the state’s election process. However, the decision to entrust this critical function to Enhanced Voting has drawn criticism, not for the technology itself, but for the company’s leadership and its historical associations.

At the center of the controversy is A. A. Wilson, president of Enhanced Voting. Wilson’s past involvement with the Center for Internet Security (CIS) has fueled accusations of a conflict of interest. During the 2020 election, CIS played a significant role in what some describe as a "censorship apparatus" coordinated with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other entities. CIS, through its Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), worked to monitor and flag online content deemed as misinformation about the election. Critics, including independent investigators and conservative commentators, argue that this effort suppressed legitimate concerns about electoral irregularities, particularly in swing states like Georgia.

Wilson’s specific contributions to CIS included helping develop its disinformation programs, which relied on federal funding from DHS. These programs were later criticized as unconstitutional overreaches into free speech, with some alleging they were designed to protect the official narrative of a secure 2020 election rather than foster open inquiry. The Gateway Pundit, in its reporting, dubbed Wilson the "2020 Censorship Czar," a moniker that has stuck as skeptics question why someone with this background was chosen to oversee a key audit in 2024.

To understand the significance of this controversy, one must revisit Georgia’s recent electoral history. The 2020 presidential election in Georgia was marked by chaos and conflicting claims. Joe Biden narrowly defeated Donald Trump by fewer than 12,000 votes, a result certified after multiple counts, including a full hand audit. Yet, allegations of irregularities—ranging from duplicate ballots in Fulton County to unauthorized access to election systems in Coffee County—persisted. Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger hailed the process as the "gold standard," but critics, including software engineer Phillip Davis, have challenged that narrative, pointing to unresolved discrepancies.

The 2022 midterms and subsequent audits further highlighted tensions, with ongoing lawsuits like Curling v. Raffensperger exposing vulnerabilities in Georgia’s Dominion Voting Systems. In that case, University of Michigan professor J. Alex Halderman demonstrated how the state’s voting machines could be hacked with minimal effort, intensifying calls for greater scrutiny. Against this backdrop, the decision to hire Enhanced Voting for 2024 has reignited debates about whether Georgia’s election officials are addressing these concerns or merely rebranding past issues.

The allocation of $1.45 million to Enhanced Voting raises several pressing questions:

Transparency and Accountability: Why was Enhanced Voting, a company with limited public profile, selected for such a significant contract? Were competitive bidding processes followed, and what criteria justified this choice?

Conflict of Interest: Given Wilson’s history with CIS and its controversial role in 2020, can Enhanced Voting be trusted to deliver an impartial audit? Critics argue that entrusting this task to someone linked to past censorship efforts undermines public confidence.

Election Integrity: With Georgia remaining a pivotal swing state in 2024, any perception of bias or incompetence in the audit process could amplify distrust, especially if results are close or contested.

Phillip Davis, whose investigations into Georgia’s 2020 and 2022 elections uncovered what he describes as systemic flaws, has called for a thorough investigation into the 2024 audit process, with his direct involvement. His work, alongside other independent researchers, suggests that Georgia’s elections have been plagued by issues that official audits have either missed or downplayed.

This $1.45 million contract is just the tip of the iceberg in what promises to be a contentious examination of Georgia’s 2024 election. As Brian Lupo of The Gateway Pundit noted in his reporting, "This gets so much worse," hinting at forthcoming revelations in subsequent parts of this series. Future installments are expected to delve deeper into the audit’s findings, compare them to past elections, and explore whether Enhanced Voting’s involvement represents a genuine step toward transparency or a continuation of questionable practices.

For now, the spotlight is on Raffensperger and his decision-making. Supporters argue that the OCR audit reflects a commitment to modernizing election verification, while detractors see it as a costly misstep that entrenches the same figures and systems under scrutiny since 2020. As Georgia navigates another high-stakes election year, the stakes couldn’t be higher—both for the state’s voters and the nation watching closely.

The call to action is clear: Georgians and concerned citizens nationwide are urged to demand answers, scrutinize the process, and ensure that the lessons of 2020 are not forgotten in 2024. What unfolds in the Peach State will set the tone for electoral trust—or distrust—for years to come.