2026 ELECTION INVESTIGATION: MISSING VOTE REPORTS, HAND-COUNT AUDITS, AND OFFICIAL RECORDS REQUESTS
MIND BEND THEORY | NATIONAL ELECTION FORENSICS UPDATE
November 12, 2026
Thousands of votes omitted from election-night reports. Previously unreported ballots changing a race's lead. Unusual differences between statewide candidates. And now, a direct response to our election-records investigation from Bee County, Texas.
Across the country, questions surrounding the 2026 midterm elections are moving beyond social media allegations and into the examination of election records, reporting systems, recounts, and physical ballots.
Mind Bend Theory (MBT) is conducting an independent forensic investigation to determine whether reported election results can be reconciled with the underlying evidence.
Our objective is straightforward: follow the records, identify discrepancies, independently reproduce the numbers, and determine what the evidence actually establishes.
We are not declaring widespread election fraud. We are investigating documented irregularities and testing claims that deserve examination.
1. TEXAS: BEE COUNTY RESPONDS TO MBT'S OFFICIAL RECORDS REQUEST
Mind Bend Theory previously submitted formal public-information requests seeking election data necessary to independently examine the November 2026 results.
We have now received a direct response from Laura Warnix, Elections Administrator for Bee County, Texas.
Her office confirmed:
Bee County has received our open-records request.
Final election information is still being processed.
The county canvass has not yet occurred.
A cost estimate will be prepared after the canvass is completed.
Payment will be required before the records request is processed.
The county's hand-count audit will occur after the November 19–20 risk-limiting audit.
This is an important development.
Our request has been acknowledged, and Bee County has identified the administrative steps that must occur before the requested election records can be processed.
The county has not rejected our request or provided the underlying election data yet.
Once the canvass is completed and the cost estimate is issued, MBT can determine the next step in obtaining the records.
We will not interpret the delay as evidence of wrongdoing. The county has explained that it is still completing its election procedures.
However, we intend to follow the request through to a documented outcome.
2. TEXAS: OUR COUNTY-LEVEL INVESTIGATION CONTINUES
Our earlier independent analysis compared Texas voter-registration records across all 254 counties with historical Census citizen-voting-age population estimates.
That examination identified:
97 counties where total registered voters exceeded the historical population estimate.
36 counties where registrations excluding suspense records exceeded that estimate.
22 counties where the difference also exceeded the published Census margin of error.
Additional population-growth sensitivity testing reduced the number of counties flagged under updated assumptions.
These findings do not establish illegal registrations or fraudulent ballots. The Census estimates and registration records measure different populations and time periods.
They do, however, identify specific counties where updated citizenship-population data and registration records are needed to resolve the comparisons.
Our investigation is focused on obtaining the original records necessary to distinguish statistical differences from actual administrative errors.
3. IDAHO: 2,343 BALLOTS OMITTED FROM UNOFFICIAL REPORTING
In Latah County, Idaho, officials identified 2,343 early-voting ballots that had been counted by tabulation equipment but were omitted from the unofficial results transmitted to the state's reporting system.
A recount followed, and officials reported that no election outcomes changed.
The distinction matters.
The problem involved the reporting of votes, not a demonstrated disappearance of physical ballots.
Nevertheless, the case illustrates why election-night uploads, tabulator records, canvass totals, and recount evidence must be independently reconcilable.
The public should be able to trace every correction from its original source to the final reported result.
4. GEORGIA: 388 PREVIOUSLY UNREPORTED VOTES
In Seminole County, Georgia, 388 previously unreported votes changed the reported leader in a state House contest.
Officials acknowledged a reporting problem, while differing explanations emerged concerning the technical cause.
One account involved a memory-card upload issue. Another described an incomplete election-management-system verification process.
Those explanations require examination of the underlying system records.
MBT's investigative questions include:
Were the original tabulator totals preserved?
Were all memory cards accounted for?
What caused the original reporting omission?
Can the corrected totals be independently reconciled with the physical ballots?
A reporting discrepancy is not automatically evidence of fraud. But an acknowledged discrepancy should have a documented explanation.
5. ARIZONA, NORTH CAROLINA, PENNSYLVANIA, AND TEXAS: THE PAPER-BALLOT AUDITS
Several states are conducting or publishing post-election hand counts and risk-limiting audits.
Arizona has published county-level hand-count findings, including some discrepancies reported within permitted tolerances.
North Carolina is conducting sample hand-count procedures and voter-participation reconciliation.
Pennsylvania is preparing its statewide paper-ballot risk-limiting audit.
Texas has scheduled its statewide risk-limiting audit for November 19, with county hand-count procedures following the applicable audit requirements.
Bee County's response independently confirms its own planned audit sequence.
These procedures are particularly important because they offer a way to compare electronic reporting against physical evidence.
The critical question is not whether an election produces an unusual statistical pattern.
It is whether the official result agrees with the underlying ballots and election records.
6. TEXAS AND SOUTH CAROLINA: THE STATEWIDE CANDIDATE VOTE GAPS
Separate allegations have emerged involving substantial differences between Republican Senate candidates and other Republican candidates on the same statewide ballots.
In Texas, Ken Paxton received fewer votes than several other Republican statewide candidates.
In South Carolina, Republican Senate candidate Darline Graham received roughly 99,000 fewer votes than the Republican governor candidate in the reported results.
These differences are measurable.
However, they cannot automatically be described as missing votes.
Voters can split their tickets, select different parties for different offices, vote for write-in candidates, or leave individual contests blank.
MBT is treating these cases as candidate-level vote-gap investigations.
The objective is to determine whether county-level patterns, undervotes, and ballot reconciliation fully explain the differences.
7. THE NATIONAL 85/15 ALGORITHM CLAIM
We have also begun testing the widely circulated allegation that Republican candidates received approximately 85% of Donald Trump's 2024 two-party vote share across the 2026 midterms.
Our preliminary Python analysis found that the proposed fixed multiplier does not reproduce every race exactly.
The two Texas statewide races examined produced different implied multipliers.
This does not prove manipulation, nor does it eliminate every possible hypothesis about election irregularities.
It establishes that the proposed formula must be tested against complete nationwide results, historical elections, turnout differences, and competing statistical models before conclusions can be drawn.
A mathematical pattern is not the same thing as evidence that an algorithm altered ballots.
8. WHAT MBT IS INVESTIGATING NEXT
Our investigation is moving toward the original evidence:
Official county canvasses and corrected election reports.
Physical-ballot hand-count and risk-limiting audit results.
Tabulator records, reporting-system corrections, and memory-card inventories where lawfully available.
Voter check-in totals, ballot accounting, and documented undervotes.
County-level statistical comparisons across the 2024 and 2026 elections.
Responses to our outstanding Texas public-information requests.
Each case will be evaluated independently before we consider whether any common technical or administrative pattern exists.
THE CENTRAL QUESTION
If the reported election results are accurate, can the underlying records independently demonstrate that accuracy?
That is the standard Mind Bend Theory is applying.
We have documented election-reporting errors in multiple jurisdictions. We have identified statistical questions requiring additional data. And we have received confirmation that Bee County, Texas, is processing our formal request while completing its canvass and audit procedures.
What we have not established is a coordinated nationwide scheme to manipulate votes.
The investigation continues because reliable conclusions require more than viral charts, unusual numbers, or accusations.
They require original records, reproducible calculations, documented corrections, and independent verification.
MIND BEND THEORY
Independent Research. Election Forensics. Evidence Before Conclusions.
NO ASSUMPTIONS. NO UNVERIFIED CLAIMS. FOLLOW THE EVIDENCE.
mindbendtheory.com