I wasn't referring to the network issue when I said "unsupported accusations". Substitute whatever neutral terminology you prefer for "as of yet unproven claims", I'm not going to waste my time on semantics.
Perhaps there was malice here, but I think there's a pretty reasonable explanation based on the following facts: in Georgia poll workers must be residents or employees in the county they serve as poll workers, ballots are printed by the county, not all conservative leaning counties were heavily adjudicated, and counties that vote blue are generally more populous and have greater municipal budgets as a consequence. It's more likely then that the county poll workers in a Republican favored county would also be Republicans/conservatives and the ballots put together were also handled, approved, and printed by Republican/conservative leaning municipal employees and elected officials.
So what do you think the odds are that in all of those heavily adjudicated areas that leaned R, that there was intent to disrupt votes for the benefit of Democratic candidates? Possible? Sure. Likely? Doubtful.
I'd suspect one or two things at play, assuming this is even a real issue: blue voting counties are more populous and have bigger budgets and can probably afford better ballot printers. This might also mean more funding for a better ballot review process. But since it's not every red county in Georgia with this issue, I would probably lean more towards the particular ones in question having poor ballot printers and/or ballot review processes.
I support, at a minimum, all 5 of the points in the second paragraph of this bill. Whether state elections can be legislated by federal law is another matter. If you were to have a network connection on any device though, I would imagine a poll pad is the lowest risk when handled responsibly and would hasten the check in process in large districts where splitting voters up in lines by last name initial would lead to much slower voting times. Would it be an acceptable risk? I don't know. The worst case scenario of one being breached seems pretty short reaching to the extent that resources would be more fruitful used elsewhere, like compromising the voter rolls themselves.
But really the thing I find funniest about the shadow cast over Dominion and their election suite is how unmentioned the biggest election suite vendor, ES&S, has been. Even though they provided the election suites for places in other states that the race was tight in and where fraud was also alleged to have happened. Even though all their poll pads come standard with wireless communication too. Even though they have a long history of controversy, including distributing some number of scanners with cell modems and tabulators with remote access software installed in the past, and as recently as this election cycle had this report completed in September (but not released until December) for Texas that raises issues about the firmware hash verification process for voting machines. If I were conspiracy minded, I might think that was intentional to benefit ES&S, who once held 70% of the market share after acquiring Diebold, until the DoJ forced them to sell off some assets in 2010. Oh well.