With the November 2026 election approaching, Potter County Republican Party Chairman Dan Rogers is taking his concerns about election security to court, arguing that electronic voting systems and emerging artificial intelligence threats warrant additional safeguards before election results are certified.
Rogers has filed a class action complaint against the Potter County Elections Administrator and election office, alleging that existing procedures are inadequate to protect elections from potential foreign interference and electronic manipulation.
The lawsuit seeks to require election officials to manually count all paper voting records and ballots in Texas before certifying the results of the Nov. 3, 2026, federal elections.
The case raises a familiar debate in Potter County: whether electronic voting systems provide sufficient security and accuracy or whether returning to hand-counted ballots would strengthen public confidence in election results.
A Longstanding Push for Changes to Local Elections
Rogers' lawsuit is the latest development in a yearslong effort to change how elections are conducted in Potter County.
In 2021, the Potter County Republican Party adopted hand-marked and hand-counted ballots for its own elections. That same year, Rogers presented a resolution calling for the elimination of countywide voting centers, discouraging electronic voting devices and proposing that election responsibilities return to the County Clerk.
The issue resurfaced in 2023 when the Potter County Commissioners Court rejected a resolution that would have eliminated voting centers and voting machines in favor of hand-marked paper ballots.
Despite those setbacks, Rogers has continued advocating for changes to election procedures.
His latest legal challenge goes beyond local voting practices, seeking manual verification of election results across Texas.
Foreign Interference and AI Raise Concerns
At the center of the lawsuit are concerns about vulnerabilities in electronic voting equipment, particularly systems that use barcodes or QR codes to record voter selections.
According to court documents, the lawsuit questions whether Texas officials can certify federal election results generated by electronic voting systems without first comparing those results against human-readable paper ballots.
Rogers argues that voters cannot independently verify information encoded in barcodes or QR codes, making a manual comparison necessary to identify potential errors or manipulation.
The complaint also points to concerns about foreign-manufactured voting equipment components.
According to the lawsuit, representatives of voting system vendors have acknowledged using components manufactured in China and relying on foreign-made parts.
Rogers argues that these supply-chain issues, combined with warnings about foreign election interference, create additional risks.
The lawsuit also cites alleged threats involving artificial intelligence programs capable of infiltrating voting systems, concealing their activity and potentially destroying evidence of interference.
However, **the existence of potential vulnerabilities does not establish that Potter County's voting equipment has been compromised or that election results have been manipulated.** The allegations presented in the lawsuit should be distinguished from documented evidence of wrongdoing.
Are Existing Election Audits Enough?
Texas already requires post-election manual audits when electronic voting systems are used.
Those audits are designed to provide an additional check on electronically tabulated election results.
Rogers acknowledges that Potter County publishes post-election hand-count audit materials but argues that the existing process is insufficient.
The lawsuit contends that limited sampling cannot provide the same level of assurance as a complete manual count of every paper voting record.
Rather than relying on a sample of ballots, Rogers wants election officials to compare all paper records against electronically reported results before certification.
He also seeks public disclosure of the counting procedures and findings.
That proposal raises practical questions about the time, staffing and resources required to manually count ballots across Texas before statutory certification deadlines.
Supporters of expanded manual verification may view those additional requirements as worthwhile safeguards. Others may question whether a complete hand count would meaningfully improve accuracy compared with existing procedures, particularly without evidence of compromised voting systems.
What Voting Equipment Does Potter County Use?
According to the Texas Secretary of State's office, Potter County uses equipment supplied by Hart InterCivic, one of two voting system vendors certified by the state.
The county uses the Verity Duo system, which electronically marks a paper voting record that is subsequently scanned by a separate machine for tabulation.
The presence of a paper record is significant because it provides a physical record that can be examined independently of the electronic tally.
The central disagreement is not simply whether paper records exist, but how extensively election officials should examine them before results become official.
What Happens Next?
Rogers is asking the court to prevent election officials from completing certification and related election reporting duties until a full manual verification process has been conducted.
The lawsuit also seeks public reporting of the methodology and results of those counts.
Whether the court will grant those requests remains unresolved.
With Election Day approaching, the lawsuit places renewed attention on the balance between election security, administrative feasibility and public trust.
Ensuring accurate election results is a responsibility shared by election officials and voters alike. At the same time, concerns about possible interference must be evaluated against evidence, existing safeguards and the practical consequences of proposed changes.
For Potter County, the lawsuit represents another chapter in an ongoing disagreement over how elections should be conducted.
