Rep. Tom Tiffany Reveals Duplicate Absentee Ballots Have ‘No Barcode’

Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-WI) revealed that thousands of duplicate absentee ballots contained “no barcode” on them after officials in Madison City said the duplicate ballots had the barcode.

In a post on X, Tiffany wrote that officials in the Madison Clerk’s Office had stated that because the duplicate ballots had identical barcodes, they would not be allowed to be submitted. Tiffany’s post came a day after he called for an “investigation” after Madison officials revealed that 2,215 duplicate ballots had been sent out to roughly 10 wards.

“DEVELOPING,” Tiffany wrote. “Although the Madison Clerk’s Office claims, ‘The voting system does not allow a ballot with the same barcode to be submitted,’ my office has proof that there is no barcode on the actual ballots.”

Tiffany included a photo in his post that showed a ballot without a barcode.

🚨DEVELOPING: Although the Madison Clerk’s Office claims, “The voting system does not allow a ballot with the same barcode to be submitted,” my office has proof that there is no barcode on the actual ballots.

Here is a picture of the absentee ballots – NO BARCODE. pic.twitter.com/1ZepAFW5RK

— Rep. Tom Tiffany (@RepTiffany) September 25, 2024

In response to the news that more than 2,000 duplicate ballots had been sent out to several wards, Tiffany wrote a letter addressed to Maribeth Witzel-Behl, the clerk of Madison, stating that he was “alarmed” at the news.

“Like many Wisconsinites, I was alarmed by recent reports that ‘around 2,000’ duplicate ballots have been sent out by your office,” Tiffany wrote. “The Clerk’s Office has since issued a six-sentence statement claiming, without providing any significant details, that this ‘error’ affected ‘an isolated number of voters’ in a single ward and ‘was quickly caught and corrected.’”

Tiffany continued on to question how the “error” had been “discovered,” what the “exact number of duplicate ballots” sent out had been, and whether the Clerk’s Office had reached out to law enforcement officials “to investigate whether this ‘error’ was the result of simple incompetence or a deliberate nefarious act.”