By Field Searcy
The phrase “something is rotten in the state of Denmark” from Shakespeare’s Hamlet perfectly captures the troubling state of election integrity in Georgia, as revealed by the long-running Curling v. Raffensperger case. What began in 2018 as a challenge to Georgia’s outdated Diebold voting machines has evolved into a damning exposé of the state’s current Dominion voting system, raising serious concerns about transparency, security, and accountability. Yet, after years of litigation, federal Judge Amy Totenberg dismissed the case on March 31, 2025, citing “standing” as the reason—despite the glaring contradictions and troubling circumstances surrounding her decision. The case’s dismissal leaves Georgians with more questions than answers and a growing sense of distrust in the system meant to safeguard their democracy.
A Dismissal That Defies Logic
Judge Totenberg’s decision to dismiss the case on “standing” is as baffling as it is infuriating. “Standing” is typically a threshold issue determined at the beginning of a trial, not after 17 days of court testimony, a 14-month delay before issuing a final order, and 33 pages of detailed findings that highlight substantial concerns with Georgia’s voting technology. In her original 135 page order to conduct the trial in the first place, Totenberg declared the Dominion system to be in violation of Georgia law (O.C.G.A. 21-2-300), which requires a human-verifiable ballot. Yet, despite these findings, she dismissed the case on a technicality, effectively sidestepping her duty to provide justice to the people of Georgia. This decision is not just a legal failure—it is a betrayal of public trust.
Suspicious Timing and Public Comments
The timing of Totenberg’s order raises even more red flags. It was released during the final week of the Georgia General Assembly session, during which the Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger was requesting a $66 million budget to comply with SB189, a bill aimed at removing the controversial QR code from ballots. The timing seems far from coincidental. Adding to the suspicion, Totenberg made public comments after her decision, stating, “If these legislative measures are ultimately funded and implemented, they are the type of timely legislative action that can bolster public confidence in the management and security of Georgia’s voting system.” These remarks sound less like impartial judicial commentary and more like an endorsement of spending $66 million on a system upgrade for a contract that will be up for renewal in just 2-3 years. Why invest such a significant sum in a system that has already been declared noncompliant with state law and riddled with security vulnerabilities?
Alarming Trial Revelations The four-week bench trial, which concluded in February 2024, revealed shocking vulnerabilities in Georgia’s election system. Dr. Alex J. Halderman, a cybersecurity expert, demonstrated in court how votes could be flipped on a ballot-marking device (BMD) using nothing more than a ballpoint pen. This was not the first time such a demonstration had occurred; Halderman performed a similar hack three years earlier, yet Raffensperger failed to implement any of the four Election Assistance Commission (EAC)-approved software updates that could have addressed these vulnerabilities. Even more troubling, testimony from the Secretary of State’s office revealed that no one in the office is responsible for overseeing the cybersecurity of Georgia’s election system. Instead, this critical responsibility has been outsourced to Dominion itself—a glaring conflict of interest.
Judge Totenberg’s Abdication of Duty
Judge Totenberg’s handling of this case should be condemned by all who value justice and accountability. Her delays, which stretched the case over 14 months after the trial concluded, wasted time and resources for all involved. Her ultimate dismissal on “standing” after extensive testimony and findings of legal violations is a basic abdication of her duty to provide justice to the people of Georgia. The people deserved a ruling on the merits of the case, not a procedural cop-out that leaves the state’s election system in limbo.
The People Must Act
If this case has taught us anything, it is that we cannot rely on the courts to protect our elections. It is up to We the People to demand change. The Georgia General Assembly must act to restore confidence in our elections by passing HB397, which removes Georgia from the controversial ERIC voter registration system, and SB214, which replaces BMDs with hand-marked paper ballots. Additionally, counties must follow existing law (O.C.G.A. 21-2-437) to conduct full hand counts and certification at the precinct level. These measures are essential for transparency to ensuring that every vote is secure, verifiable, and counted accurately.
A Call to Action
The Curling v. Raffensperger case has exposed deep flaws in Georgia’s election system, but it has also highlighted the resilience and determination of those fighting for transparency and accountability. Now, it is up to the citizens of Georgia to take up the mantle. Contact your state senators and representatives and demand action. The integrity of our elections—and the future of our republic—depends on it.
Field Searcy is co-founder of GeorgiansForTruth.org, a grassroots volunteer effort to bring election integrity to Georgia.
