Dominion + KNOWiNK = Disaster
Threats to Ballot Secrecy, Transparency, and Security
What Could Possibly Go Wrong?
The press headlines exclaimed: “Dominion Voting—Trump and Fox’s Target After 2020—Gets a MAGA Makeover” and “Dominion, Center of 2020 Conspiracies, Bought by Ex-GOP Elections Chief.” These stories remark on the acquisition of Dominion by Liberty Vote, whose owner—Scott Leiendecker—is also the founder of KNOWiNK, one of the largest electronic poll book vendors in the country. (https://thehill.com/business/5547784-dominion-voting-systems-liberty-vote/)
Election integrity and voting rights advocates have not been quick to celebrate the new owners. In fact, in an October 16, 2025, WIRED article, Philip Stark, professor of statistics at UC Berkeley and a longtime election-integrity advocate, called Liberty’s assurance about domestic-only workers a red herring. “If the claim is that this is somehow a security measure, it is not,” Stark said. “Because programmers based in the US also … may be interested in undermining or altering election integrity.” (One Republican Now Controls a Huge Chunk of US Election Infrastructure | WIRED)
As a member of the Fulton County, Georgia, Board of Registrations and Elections, Julie Adams has raised similar alarms, given that Georgia elections use Dominion systems. Adams has rightly challenged the risks of integrating—or consolidating—voter check-in and vote tabulation under a single vendor.
Dominion Acquisition by KNOWiNK’s Owner: What It Means for Election Security
The recent acquisition of Dominion Voting Systems by the founder of KNOWiNK represents a major consolidation in the election technology industry. Dominion, a leading provider of voting machines and tabulators, and KNOWiNK, the dominant supplier of electronic poll books, now fall under the same ownership. This merger creates a single point of control over two critical components of the voting process: voter check-in and vote counting.
With common ownership of both systems, it could be easy to develop a list of every single voter in the state, with every voting choice made! That data is currency to elections.
“Separation of operations and duties is a best practice standard in elections. Georgia has outsourced its control of the poll book, the check in process, the casting of electronic ballots, the tabulation of votes, and the election results to a single vendor. Centralized election processes and lack of an auditable paper trail under the control of an outside vendor is not acceptable. HAVA clearly states that the use of electronic voting systems (including ePoll books) must have an auditable paper trail.” Dr. Janice Johnston, Vice Chair of the Georgia State Elections Board says. “Georgia legislators must address this issue and ensure that the county election supervisors and the public have a real time posting of the poll book, the daily numbered voter list at each voting location, and the results produced at each polling place. Who is eligible to vote and who votes is not a secret but how a person votes should be absolutely secret. The General Assembly must reassure the people of Georgia that their secret ballot is really secret.”
Why This Matters
Vendor consolidation in election technology raises serious concerns about transparency, security, and resilience. When one company controls multiple stages of the voting process, the risk of systemic failure or exploitation increases dramatically. Public confidence in elections depends on clear separation of duties and robust oversight—both of which are threatened by this acquisition.
The integration of Dominion voting systems, maker of ballot scanners and tabulation software used in dozens of states, with KNOWiNK, a leading provider of electronic pollbooks (e-pollbooks), has triggered alarm among election integrity advocates like those in Georgia. When the same corporate ecosystem controls both voter check-in and vote tabulation, the result is a near total loss of independent oversight.
What Electronic Pollbooks Do
These systems replace paper voter rolls at polling location, instantly verifying eligibility and marking voters as having cast ballots. If those same devices feed data into Dominion tabulators-or share networked infrastructure-the chain of custody becomes opaque. A single software vulnerability, misconfiguration, or insider breach could theoretically alter voter records and corresponding ballots without detection.
In 2021 a mismatched software configuration did lead to the decertification of Dominion in Tennessee and has been dubbed “The Williamson Error”. Since 2020 grassroots activists have called for a return to the plain language in the State Constitution requiring citizens to vote in person, in precincts where they reside. This would reduce the need for additional, vulnerable technology, such as the e-poll book. Instead, since decertifying Dominion, Williamson Co now employs ES&S’ and its ExpresssLink system. This creates one vendor, exactly the set up for KNOWiNK and Dominion to control the closed loop of elections. We have learned from other states what could go wrong, and the concerns are not insignificant.
Risks of Vertical Integration: Alarms
Scalability Beyond Dominion: ES&S ExpressLink and the Texas Problem
Another major vendor, ES&S, has faced scrutiny for its ExpressLink system, which generates ballot activation codes. Security experts warn that vulnerabilities in ExpressLink could allow unauthorized ballot creation or manipulation if exploited.
Texas provides a stark example of how these risks manifest. In recent elections, officials discovered discrepancies linked to electronic poll book and ballot activation processes, raising alarms about insufficient safeguards and vendor accountability. These incidents underscore the systemic danger of relying on proprietary technology without independent verification.
These concerns in Texas generated some harsh criticism from Election officials, Christina Adkins, Texas Director of Elections, “The ES&S e-pollbook system failed seven technical and three functional standards… ES&S did not provide written notice within two hours of its first knowledge of an incident. Our office first learned of the failures from impacted counties.”
Advancing Integrity Director Christine Welborn, an advocate for accurate and accountable elections stated, “The only real fix for this is we have to go back to precinct-based voting.” (https://texasscorecard.com/state/texas-decertifies-ess-e-pollbooks-after-election-day-failures/)
A Broader Pattern of Consolidation
These are not isolated cases. Four companies—Dominion, ES&S, Hart InterCivic, and Unisyn—control over 90% of U.S. voting systems. When paired with e-pollbook providers like KNOWiNK, ExpressLink, or Votem, the result is oligopolistic control over democratic infrastructure.
Election security experts, warn that such concentration: stifles innovation, weakens bargaining power for jurisdictions, and amplifies the impact of any single breach or error.
Calls for Reform
Advocates are pushing for open-source election technology, mandatory paper ballots with robust audits, human-readable voter verification (instead of opaque barcodes), and separation of voter check-in and tabulation systems across different vendors.
As the 2026 midterms approach, pressure is mounting on state legislatures to ban integrated vendor ecosystems and require full public disclosure of all election system interfaces—including barcode logic and data flows. This report is based on technical audits, public procurement records, Texas Secretary of State decertification orders, and analyses from election security watchdogs, including Verified Voting and the National Election Defense Coalition.
Policy and Oversight Challenges
State and local election officials must now evaluate whether existing procurement rules and security standards are sufficient to address this new reality.
Key questions include:
The Path Forward
This acquisition should serve as a wake-up call for policymakers. Stronger vendor separation requirements, transparent contracting, and independent verification processes are essential to maintain election integrity. Without these measures, consolidation could erode public trust and create vulnerabilities that are difficult to detect until it’s too late.