Eric Coomer’s court admissions reignite unresolved questions in Colorado’s Mesa County election case

By A.L. Goodwin | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice

Recent court filings in Coomer v. Byrne et al., Case No. 8:24-cv-00008-TPB-SPF (M.D. Fla.), contain sworn admissions by Dr. Eric Coomer, the former Director of Product Strategy and Security for Dominion Voting Systems, that materially alter the public understanding of foreign interaction with U.S. election system technology.

Filed on January 23, 2026, Coomer’s responses acknowledge that he worked directly with foreign individuals and foreign-based employees on Dominion voting equipment, adjudication software, election system code, and programming. 

The sworn responses themselves are contained in the court filing below.

He further admitted that Serbian employees had the ability to connect to Dominion equipment located in the company’s Denver headquarters for troubleshooting purposes. 

These admissions come after years of categorical public statements by Dominion and its executives denying foreign involvement in the company’s voting systems.

Byrne’s legal team summarized the relevance of these admissions in a court-filed addendum, embedded below.

As Patrick Byrne explained in an interview last week with Emerald Robinson, the significance of the filing is not merely what was admitted—but that it contradicts five years of prior denials.

Emerald Robinson and Patrick Byrne discuss new court admissions by former Dominion executive Eric Coomer on The Absolute Truth. The segment begins at 48:04.

“For five years, Dominion’s been saying, ‘we’re an American company… no foreign this, no foreign that.’ Now that we finally have painted them into a corner, they were forced to finally answer some questions last night—and they filed this acknowledging: ‘I’ve had contact with foreigners about Dominion, software code base, source code programming.’” 

Byrne characterized the admissions as a turning point: “He’s acknowledged what has been denied for five years. It’s finally been acknowledged under oath and in a legal response by Eric Coomer.” 

Foreign Interaction with Adjudication Software and Election Code

In sworn responses, Coomer admitted that he discussed vote adjudication software, election system code, and programming “at a code-based level” with Dominion employees he understood to be from foreign countries. 

Byrne emphasized why this matters from a legal and security standpoint: “Everybody who touches this kind of code is supposed to be treated like its nuclear weapons… There’s not supposed to be a bunch of Serbians and Venezuelans inside the code that runs our democracy by law.” 

While Coomer denies that foreign employees had remote access to voting machines deployed in customer jurisdictions, he did acknowledge that Serbian employees could connect to Dominion equipment housed in Denver.

“They admit right here that Serbian employees had the ability to connect to Dominion equipment in Dominion’s Denver office to troubleshoot technical issues.” 

This distinction—between corporate systems and fielded election equipment—has been central to Dominion’s public defense. However, from a cybersecurity and certification perspective, upstream access to system architecture, source code, and testing environments remains a critical vulnerability point.

The Adjudication Patent and Network-Capable Architecture

Coomer also admitted he was one of the individuals responsible for the conception of the high-level architecture and functionality of Dominion’s adjudication system. 

That system is described in U.S. Patent No. 9,202,113, on which Coomer is a named inventor. The patent outlines network-based adjudication workflows, including centralized review and processing of ballot images. While a patent does not prove how a system was used in a specific election, it establishes what the system was designed to be capable of: “with adjudication of the votes performed with an adjudication system that is located either locally or remotely.”

This architectural reality stands in tension with repeated assurances given to state and county officials—particularly in Colorado—that voting systems were not networked and were incapable of remote interaction.

Dominion’s own patent filings describe an adjudication system architecture that differs from assurances given to election officials. The patent is embedded below.

Why This Matters to Colorado and the Tina Peters Case

The Mesa County forensic images, created in May 2021 before Colorado changed its election rules, documented anomalies including duplicate databases, wireless networking components, and unexplained configuration changes following a “trusted build.” 

Those findings were never rebutted with a full forensic audit.

Instead, the State decertified the equipment, prosecuted the preservation of election records, and later changed statutory and regulatory definitions to exclude certain digital logs from the definition of “election records.”

Against that backdrop, Coomer’s admissions validate that concerns raised in Mesa County were not speculative.

Byrne underscored that Coomer is still attempting to limit inquiry into specific countries despite these admissions: “As of today, he’s still demanding that the judge exclude that we can’t ask him about Venezuela, Serbia or China.” 

Allegations of Intelligence-Linked Election Interference

During the interview, Byrne went further, alleging that U.S. intelligence agencies were aware of—and involved in—the global spread of election technology originating in Venezuela. These statements represent Byrne’s allegations, not adjudicated findings.

“The CIA became aware of what the Venezuelans were doing… and they’ve been in cahoots since at least July 2009.” 

“In July 2009 they set up an NGO in Alexandria, staffed by George Soros, funded by the CIA slash USAID, whose sole mission was to propagate this Venezuelan junk throughout the world.” 

Byrne asserted that these activities extended internationally, and echo sworn testimony made years earlier by Tore (Terpsehore P.) Maras, a former intelligence contractor.

In a declaration filed under penalty of perjury in Sidney Powell’s 2020 election litigation, Maras stated that she worked as a private contractor on election-related operations both overseas and domestically, including identifying networking, connectivity, and subcontractors used to deploy election systems. 

The full declaration, containing Maras’s claims and technical assertions, is embedded below.

Maras alleged that U.S. intelligence agencies and government-funded contractors supported the deployment of election technology abroad under “democracy assistance” programs—claims that align with Byrne’s assertion last week that U.S. intelligence agencies became aware of, and later facilitated, the global spread of foreign-origin election technology.

In a September 2020 radio interview, Maras publicly stated: “I’ve rigged elections in over 45 countries outside the U.S. … I was a private contractor and that was my job.”

Maras’s claims were never tested in a full evidentiary hearing. However, her sworn testimony anticipated key elements now confirmed by Eric Coomer’s admissions—namely, foreign involvement in election system code and centralized, software-driven adjudication architecture.

Taken together, Byrne’s current statements, Coomer’s sworn admissions, and Maras’s prior testimony point to the same operational model—one Colorado officials declined to examine before prosecuting those who sought to preserve election records.

Conclusion

The newly filed admissions in Coomer v. Byrne do not establish that any specific election outcome was altered. They do, however, establish something more foundational: that foreign interaction with U.S. election system technology occurred at levels previously denied, and that the concerns raised by Mesa County were legitimate subjects for forensic examination.

Colorado did not disprove those concerns. It criminalized them.

With sworn admissions now confirming foreign involvement in discussions of adjudication software, election system code, and programming—and acknowledged technical access to Dominion equipment in Denver—the question facing policymakers and courts is no longer hypothetical:

Why was transparency punished instead of investigated?

Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.