The Clint Curtis Allegations: A Florida Election-Fraud Story That Fell Apart

In December 2004, Florida computer programmer Clint Curtis publicly stated that then-U.S. Representative and former Florida House Speaker Tom Feeney asked him in 2000 to design software capable of manipulating electronic voting machines. These assertions drew significant media attention, and Curtis filed an affidavit outlining the scenario he described. However, no official investigation or court has substantiated the claims, and no charges or findings have emerged based on them. Available public records show that the allegations remain unverified nearly two decades later (Zetter, 2004; Morgan, 2005; House Committee on Administration, 2007).

Curtis reported that the discussion occurred while he worked at Yang Enterprises Inc. (YEI) in Oviedo, Florida, and that Feeney—then YEI’s corporate counsel—allegedly requested a prototype program to covertly alter touch-screen vote totals (Curtis, 2004). Curtis stated he declined to pursue the project due to ethical concerns.

Others identified in his account stated that the meeting did not take place. YEI’s attorney publicly rejected the claims, calling them unfounded, and Feeney described the allegations as false (Zetter, 2004). At the time, Palm Beach County officials also confirmed that touch-screen voting systems were not used in the county in 2000, a detail inconsistent with part of Curtis’s narrative (Zetter, 2004).

Curtis later connected his statements to the death of a former colleague, Raymond Lemme, an investigator for the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Curtis suggested that Lemme had uncovered information related to the voting-software claims. Lemme was found deceased in a Valdosta, Georgia motel room in 2003. Law-enforcement records and autopsy findings classified the death as a suicide (Valdosta Police Department, 2003; Morgan, 2005). No official inquiry or independent review has produced evidence linking Lemme’s death to election-related matters, and public documents and reporting support the conclusion that the case was unrelated to Curtis’s statements.

Multiple media outlets examined the claims. Wired confirmed Curtis’s employment at YEI and Feeney’s role as counsel but did not identify evidence to corroborate the software-rigging scenario and noted internal inconsistencies raised by subject-matter specialists and officials (Zetter, 2004).

A Tampa Bay Times report noted that Curtis completed a privately arranged polygraph test; however, experts cited in coverage emphasized that polygraph results are not considered definitive proof and are not accepted in court as conclusive evidence (Morgan, 2005). No state or federal law-enforcement agency opened a criminal case based on the allegations.

Congressional staff reviewed Curtis’s submission as part of routine intake during the period, and the U.S. House Committee on Administration later concluded that the record did not contain supporting evidence (House Committee on Administration, 2007).

Curtis subsequently ran for Congress against Feeney in 2006 and discussed these allegations in the campaign context. Feeney’s campaign stated that the claims were unfounded, and Curtis did not prevail in the election, receiving approximately 42 percent of the vote (Florida Department of State, 2006).

To date, no official investigation, media consortium, or independent audit has produced documentation demonstrating altered vote totals, illicit code, or improper election manipulation associated with Curtis’s account.

Feeney later faced unrelated ethics scrutiny over a 2003 trip funded by lobbyist Jack Abramoff, but even then, he repaid the costs and was not charged with any crime (Brubaker, 2007; Associated Press, 2007). None of those issues lent credibility to Curtis’s election-rigging story, which remains unsupported by any verifiable evidence. 

Nearly twenty years later, the Curtis–Feeney scandal stands as an example of an extraordinary accusation that collapsed under factual scrutiny.

• No corroborating witnesses ever confirmed Curtis’s narrative.
   
• No technical evidence—no source code, hardware logs, or documentation—was produced.
   
• No investigative body substantiated election manipulation.
   
• No one was charged with, or even formally accused of, vote tampering.
   

In sum, none of Clint Curtis’s claims have ever been proven true or validated by any competent authority (Zetter, 2004; Morgan, 2005; House Committee on Administration, 2007).