West Campaign Plans Recount, Cites Voting “Irregularities”

We’ve gotten word straight from the source as Andrew Lajeunesse, the political consultant running Steve West’s campaign, sent me a message saying the campaign will be requesting a recount as soon as the results are certified.

That part alone isn’t terribly surprising. Close elections in Georgia almost always invite recounts. But the campaign is also pointing to alleged “issues” with the voter file, based on the work of Mark Davis. Davis is a self-described election expert who has a long history of digging into voter rolls and pointing out supposed irregularities. In my experience, Davis is just as likely to be right as he is to be wrong, which is why I’m treating this claim with some skepticism.

The campaign appears to be setting up for a longer fight over the results, not just a recount. That puts us on a familiar track in Georgia politics: when the votes don’t go your way, claim the system is broken. Maybe they’ll turn up something real. Maybe it’ll be smoke and mirrors. Either way, the story is developing.

We’ll keep you posted.

8/31/2025 12:30 PM EDT: Y’all can see the text I received from Andrew Lajunesse, right? The part where he refers to the voter file and uses the word “issues” while referencing it?

Great, now that we have that out of the way we can proceed with the update. Mark Davis wants you to know that he is an expert. The fact that I used the words “self-described” in front of expert seems to have really bruised Mark’s ego. He let me know in a very long Facebook exchange he sees that as a low blow all the while referring to himself as an expert. The irony seems lost on Mark, but not on me.

Mark also demanded that I offer a full accounting of him being wrong. It was college football kickoff weekend and Labor Day Weekend, maybe I will do this, but now is not that time. For now I will clarify a thing or two though: my experience with Mark is far greater than his courtroom related work. When I referenced my experience I should have added the context that my experience is far wider than just data analysis. For now I will simply say that I have seen him cherry pick data points to not tell the whole story, misattribute who is at fault for significant policy concerns, or misinterpret events in a way that fits his preferred narrative. I can point to examples of each, and if he really wants me to expound, I will do so in a future post. But that is my experience with Mark Davis.

And before anyone tries it, yes, I am guilty of all of that at times, but I run a blog, I do not present my self as an expert witness in election law cases. You should absolutely be fact checking everything you hear from me. And I am also upfront. I play for team red. Let’s go limited government and free market conservatism! Am I still doing that right?

I digress.

But listen to me very clearly, it does not mean he is always wrong. I thought I made that clear in the original post, but Mark reacted to that in a way that led me to believe that he sees any criticism as fighting words. There have been many times he has been irrefutably correct. It is just that now before I accept his work as true, I feel obligated to treat it with skepticism. He earned that.

I will also point out that after the post published on 8/30, Andrew Lajunesse texted me and expounded that they are investigating and pursuing. Andrew wrote, “This is a close election and it’s totally reasonable and fair to see if simple (and common) mapping or registration issues may have changed the outcome. I would say it’s totally reasonable to investigate and pursue.” Emphasis mine.

So that is what they are doing. They are investigating and pursuing. Straight from the campaign.

Mark has objected to me letting y’all now about the pursuing part… Seems to have pulled a Corso… “Not so fast!” You know… because 8/30 was Corso’s last pick. anywho…

Mark adds this: “I am reviewing the data, and as far as I am aware no final decision on filing any contest will be made until and unless that investigation shows there are grounds to do so. Yes I do see issues, but that is not at all uncommon, and as you are no doubt well aware, a court’s discrete inquiry into those issues needs to show that they occurred in sufficient numbers to place the outcome of the election in doubt.”

So that is where it is today. They are not ready to contest because Mark is still working on it, but they seemingly want to really bad.

Mark added one last bit of context, deadlines campaigns face after the results are certified in order to contest in court are tight. So a concerned campaign may file a case only to later withdraw it if the data doesn’t support the claim. The initial filing gives them time to complete the investigation and if there is nothing there they can dismiss their claim later.