Staff Reports
A new Rasmussen poll dumped cold water on the comfortable myth that Americans blindly trust how we count votes. The survey asked voters about electronic voting systems and then put sworn testimony from a Venezuelan whistleblower into the question. The result: people who know about the testimony get a lot more worried — and you can bet the national press didn’t scream about that shift from the rooftops.
Rasmussen poll: trust falls when voters hear about the Venezuelan whistleblower
The Rasmussen poll (fieldwork May 5–7, 2026) found that a majority of voters say they at least somewhat trust current electronic voting systems — until they’re reminded of the sworn testimony filed in federal court. When respondents were told that a Venezuelan engineer had filed sworn testimony alleging he once altered Smartmatic systems and described similar vulnerabilities in Mesa County Dominion images, concern shot up. Large shares across the political spectrum said they were at least somewhat concerned — including majorities of Republicans and Democrats. In short: trust exists on paper, but it evaporates fast when voters learn the claims on the table.
What the sworn testimony actually alleges — and why it’s contested
The testimony was attached to a court filing in the Tina Peters litigation and says a former Venezuelan engineer described methods used to rig elections and claimed technical similarities between Smartmatic-style exploits and forensic images from Mesa County’s Dominion system. That’s a serious allegation, and Peters’ legal team has circulated the filing widely. But it’s also just that — an allegation filed in a lawsuit. Parts of the public docket were later modified or struck, vendors deny the companies are the same, and independent fact-checkers stress that Smartmatic and Dominion are separate firms. Neutral experts say these technical claims need transparent, peer‑reviewed forensic confirmation before anyone panics or overrules basic facts.
Media silence, political posturing, and the courtroom circus
If you like a weird political double standard, here’s one: the party that spent years alleging foreign interference now mostly trusts digital systems — and the press treats an attached sworn testimony as something beneath its attention. Meanwhile, state officials did act where they saw problems: Colorado election authorities ordered remediation after the Mesa work, and the Department of Justice has reviewed parts of the Peters matter. That’s how a free country should operate — not with blind faith, and not with hush-money silence. Yet too many in the national media prefer the latter, because controversy is messy and inconvenient for their narrative maps.
What voters and officials should demand next
Voters aren’t wrong to be nervous. Whether the Venezuelan whistleblower’s claims are fully proven or not, the solution isn’t tribal denial. The fix is simple, boring, and effective: transparent, independent audits, robust paper ballots, risk‑limiting audits where they’re missing, and public forensic review by credentialed labs when claims arise. Vendors and state officials should be pushed to show the work, not file lawsuits to silence questions. If the system is as secure as some insist, let light into every corner until every reasonable skeptic is satisfied — that’s how you rebuild trust in electronic voting systems.
Call it common sense, not conspiracy. The Rasmussen poll shows people want answers. Give them answers — and maybe the next election will feel less like a mystery show and more like democracy.
