Right Wing Granny

News behind the news. This picture is me (white spot) standing on the bridge connecting European and North American tectonic plates. It is located in the Reykjanes area of Iceland. By-the-way, this is a color picture.

Right Wing Granny

Tag Archives: absentee ballots

Keeping Elections Honest

Posted on by

On Wednesday, The Connecticut Examiner posted an article about the results of a Bridgeport, Connecticut, primary election being overturned by a judge due to voter fraud.

The article reports:

A judge ruled on Wednesday to overturn the city’s Democratic primary election, initially won by incumbent Mayor Joe Ganim, following claims of absentee ballot fraud by his opponent, John Gomes.

After two weeks of evidentiary hearings for Gomes’s absentee ballot fraud lawsuit, Judge William Clark ordered a new Democratic primary based on 180 pieces of evidence presented by Gomes’s legal counsel.

In the 37-page ruling, Clark said the video footage presented by Bill Bloss – Gomes’s attorney – was particularly alarming.

“Mr. Ganim was also correct to be ‘shocked’ at what he saw on the video clips in evidence that were shown to him while he was on the witness stand,” Clark wrote. “The videos are shocking to the court and should be shocking to all the parties.

Ganim was one the many city officials called to the Fairfield Judicial District Superior Courthouse for questioning, along with Wanda Geter-Pataky, vice chair of the Bridgeport Democratic Town Committee and operations specialist for the city, and Eneida Martinez, a former City Council member accused by Gomes of stuffing ballot dropboxes.

At the witness stand, Ganim told the court he was “shocked” by an 18-minute video – subpoenaed by Gomes from Bridgeport police – that appeared to show 12 instances of Geter-Pataky either depositing stacks of ballots herself or handing ballots to others from behind her reception desk, and four instances of Martinez dropping off ballots.

Asked about the footage during the hearings, both Geter-Pataky and Martinez asserted their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination . Ganim, who appeared to win the primary by 250 votes after a count of absentee ballots, denied any involvement in the alleged fraud.

There needs to be serious consequences for voter fraud. That is the only way that it will be stopped. This was a primary election where the Democrat party wanted to make sure their candidate won. Is there any doubt that they would do this is a major election?

This Isn’t Surprising If You Have Been Paying Attention

Posted on by

The only reason we are still talking about the 2020 election is that the evidence of tampering has never actually been presented in a courtroom and the evidence is overwhelming. In key states there were mysterious vote drops of large numbers of votes that were 95 percent for Biden which made the difference. Now that some of the ballots in these vote drops have been examined, it is becoming very obvious that there was foul play. Unfortunately, there is not Constitutional formula for correction (other than to make sure it doesn’t happen again). Our Founding Fathers were wise, but they had no idea of the level of corruption we have seen in Washington in recent years.

On Monday, The Gateway Pundit posted an article detailing the latest evidence of voter fraud. Please follow the link to read the entire article–it includes graphs of the evidence.

The article reports:

A national expert in criminal forensics completed a report into the 2020 election in Michigan and has found further evidence of chronic, systemic, voter fraud especially among absentee ballots in that challenged election.

The firm is Speckin Forensics and they have wide national experience testifying in criminal trials. Through their investigation where they were allowed limited access to the 2020 ballots in Wayne County which covers Detroit, they found:

    • A significant number of absentees in different precincts illegally had no signed ballot application. Many absentee ballots had no request whatsoever, in the two primary precincts examined the rates of illegal ballots were 12% and 20%.
    • Absentee ballots often had a lighter tone and shade to the printing. The Detroit clerks even commented to the Speckin team that the type of paper felt different.

If the numbers of absentees missing a ballot request are extrapolated out to the rest of Wayne County, Speckin reports, “with approximately 170,000 AV ballots, the range at 8%-20% would be 13,600 to 34,000 ballots with no application requesting the ballot.”

An article posted at The Daily Signal on November 5, 2020, included a screenshot of this tweet:

There were excuses given of course, but in fact, blocking the observers is not acceptable.

The 2020 election was stolen. Because of that, I will be voting for Donald Trump, even if he is sitting in a jail cell. Even in a jail cell, he is the only hope for actually draining the swamp.

Moving Toward The Goal Of Honest Elections

Posted on by

On Sunday, PJ Media posted an article about a recent judicial ruling in Wisconsin.

The article reports:

A judge in the state of Wisconsin ruled on Thursday that the use of ballot boxes in the 2020 election was, in fact, illegal. Joe Biden was declared the winner over Donald Trump in the state by 20,682 votes.

Waukesha County Circuit Court Judge Michael Bohren issued the decision in a lawsuit that had been filed on behalf of two voters by the Wisconsin Institute of Law & Liberty (WILL). WILL argued that the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC) had unilaterally issued guidance to election clerks, authorizing the use of ballot collection boxes, in contradiction of state law.

“The guidance from the Wisconsin Elections Commission on absentee ballot drop boxes was unlawful. There are just two legal methods to cast an absentee ballot in Wisconsin: through the mail or in-person at a clerk’s office. And voters must return their own ballots,” commented WILL Deputy Counsel Luke Berg. “We are pleased the court made this clear, providing Wisconsin voters with certainty for forthcoming elections.”

In a memo issued to state election officials months before the 2020 general election, the WEC gave its blessing to install an unlimited number of drop boxes of numerous descriptions: indoors or outdoors, staffed or unstaffed, in a box or with a fox. Officials could even use COVID-19 as an excuse to repurpose existing local “infrastructure” for ballot collection, such as mail slots set up for taxes, mail and public utilities, book and media drop slots at the local library, even “businesses or locations that have already implemented social distancing practices, such as grocery stores and banks.”

During arguments, Berg noted that, because these recommendations were made outside the rule making process they should have gone through, there were no real legal standards regulating what could qualify as a drop box. “A shoebox on a bench in a park would be legal for collecting ballots,” argued Berg. “Now, that’s absurd, of course. But that’s the logical consequence of the position that the commission is taking.”

Please follow the link to read the entire article. Chain-of-custody rules were ignored, and only one municipality recorded the number of ballots in the drop boxes.

The article concludes:

By an odd coincidence, Wisconsin is one of a handful of swing states where “midnight magic” occurred on election night. These were the states where, at some point in the wee hours, massive vote dumps produced huge jumps in Biden’s, and only Biden’s, vote tallies.

The Healthy Elections Project reports that, during the 2020 election, “only eight states explicitly permit[ed] or require[d] ballot drop boxes by statute or regulatory guidance,” but that drop boxes were nonetheless available to voters in at least 19 states. In other words, under the umbrella excuse of COVID!, at least 11 states used drop boxes without legislative authorization to do so. As the WILL report shows, there is seldom a clean chain of custody and even more seldom an accurate count of the number of ballots collected from these ad hoc receptacles. The opportunity to dump thousands of ballots into the boxes in each state cannot be discounted.

Election integrity is important. I suspect that it was severely lacking in the 2020 election. That lack needs to be fixed.

This Is A Problem

Posted on by

Just the News is reporting today that there were major chain of custody violations in the handling of mail-in ballots in DeKalb County, Georgia, in the 2020 election.

The article reports:

More than 70% of the 61,731 absentee ballots put in drop boxes in the November 2020 presidential election in DeKalb County, Georgia, were counted and certified by officials, despite violating chain of custody requirements.

The exact number of ballots was 43,907, according to the Georgia State News. The ballots were counted and certified by county and state officials, the news outlet says.

The chain of custody requirements are set forth in Georgia Emergency Rule 183-1-14-1.8-.14, put into effect by the Georgia State Election Board in July 2020.

The rule states absentee ballots placed in drop boxes “shall be immediately transported to the county registrar” by the two-person collection team. The team is required to sign a ballot-transfer form indicating the number of ballots picked up, the time the ballots were picked up and the location of the drop box.

The rule also states the county registrar or a designee “thereof shall sign the ballot transfer form upon receipt of the ballots from the collection team.”

It is interesting that the greatest concerns about election fraud in the 2020 election are centered in Arizona, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin. These states represent 73 electoral college votes. There are also a number of anomalies in the election–bellwether counties that voted 18 to 1 for President Trump, states that have voted for the same candidate for eighty years suddenly voting differently, and other usually bellwether counties that supported President Trump.

Some states are already adding laws that will help protect election integrity. That’s a good thing. The place fraud is easiest is mail-in ballots. However, the electronic age also opens the door for electronic tampering of election results. Even though the machines that scan the votes are generally not hooked up to the internet, as soon as the election head puts the election results on a thumb drive to report them, those results have entered the cloud. We need to find a way to secure the electronic reporting of our elections. We also need to keep all electronic tallying in the United States. Having overseas servers tabulating American voting is not a good idea.

 

Is Public Opinion Shifting? What Is The Evidence Of Fraud?

Posted on by

The first part of this article is based on an article in Red State Observer that was posted today. The article reports that a Rasmussem poll released on Thursday showed that 47 percent of voters surveyed believe that the Democrats engaged in election fraud in several states to ensure a Joe Biden victory. Please follow the link above to the article to see other related statistics.

On Thursday Just the News posted an article about a sworn statement by Williams College Professor Steven Miller, a Yale and Princeton trained math expert, who analyzed the Pennsylvania ballot data.

The article reports:

Williams College Professor Steven Miller, a Yale and Princeton trained math expert, said he analyzed Pennsylvania ballot data collected by former Trump campaign data chief Matt Braynard as well as 2,684 voter interviews conducted by a phone bank and found two concerning patterns. One involved possible votes that were not counted, the other ballots that appeared to be requested by someone other than a registered voter.

“I estimate that the number of ballots that were either requested by someone other than the registered Republican or requested and returned but not counted range from 89,397 to 98,801,” Miller said in the sworn statement provided to Just the News.

According to Pennsylvania state data for early and absentee ballot requests, there are roughly 165,000 ballots requested in the names of registered GOP voters that had not been counted as of Nov. 16.

Federal Election Commission Chairman Trey Trainor told Just the News that Miller’s analysis provides fresh evidence of potential voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election. 

“This data, which is provided by an expert witness, who would be qualified in almost any court in the country, adds to the conclusions that some level of voter fraud took place in this year’s election,” Trainor said.

The article at Just the News also reports:

In addition to his two base estimates, Miller also offered two estimates with broader ranges and higher confidence intervals. “Almost surely, the number of ballots requested by someone other than the registered Republican is between 37,001 and 58,914,” Miller writes. “Almost surely the number of ballots requested by registered Republicans and returned but not counted is in the range from 38,910 to 56,483.” 

Slowly, the indications of election fraud are becoming visible.

.

 

 

Have The Democrats Invented A Time Machine?

Posted on by

The Epoch Times reported yesterday that many of the absentee ballots sent out in Pennsylvania were returned with postmarks earlier than the date they were sent out. Wow.

The article reports:

More than 20,000 absentee ballots in Pennsylvania have impossible return dates and another more than 80,000 have return dates that raise questions, according to a researcher’s analysis of the state’s voter database.

Over 51,000 ballots were marked as returned just a day after they were sent out—an extraordinary speed, given U.S. Postal Service (USPS) delivery times, while nearly 35,000 were returned on the same day they were mailed out. Another more than 23,000 have a return date earlier than the sent date. More than 9,000 have no sent date.

The state’s voter records are being scrutinized as President Donald Trump is challenging the results of the presidential election in Pennsylvania and other states where his opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, holds a tight lead. The Trump campaign is alleging that invalid ballots have been counted for Democrats and valid ballots for Republicans were thrown away.

The analysis of the publicly available data was conducted by a data researcher who submitted it first to the Chinese-language edition of The Epoch Times. The researcher, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he consulted about the matter with several USPS field engineers, who said the return dates shown in the database are “impossible.”

Please follow the link above to the article as it includes a number of screenshots illustrating the problem.

The article also notes:

According to the data analyzed by the researcher, at least 31 people who appear to be older than the oldest known person in the state returned ballots. They were all born between 1900 and 1907, based on the state’s data. The oldest known person in the state is 113-year-old Ardith Grose.

About 20 of the voters shared the birth date of Jan. 1, 1900. The date corresponds to an allegation in Michigan, where a poll watcher said he saw operators adding people to the poll book while they were counting their mail-in ballots, raising concern that these voters weren’t properly registered and thus were ineligible to vote. The operators input the names with fabricated birth dates, such as Jan. 1, 1900, according to a sworn affidavit by the poll watcher.

Another analysis of the Pennsylvania data showed that the extremely old voters were mostly registered Democrats.

Stay tuned.

Avoiding Changing The Rules In The Middle Of The Election

Posted on by

Early voting began in North Carolina yesterday. Recently the Democrat-controlled State Board of Elections attempted to change the rules regarding absentee ballots just before voting began. The Epoch Times reported yesterday that the effort has failed.

The article reports:

A federal judge on Oct. 14 ruled that absentee ballots in the crucial battleground state of North Carolina must include a witness signature.

District Judge William Osteen in Greensboro on Oct. 14 issued an injunction essentially prohibiting voters in the state from be able to “fix” an absentee ballot they had already sent in if it didn’t have a witness signature.

Osteen was reversing a Sept. 22 directive by North Carolina officials that had made it possible for state voters to return an affidavit verifying that the absentee ballot without a witness signature had been signed by them, and not somebody else.

The judge said the September directive conflicts with a ruling he issued in August upholding the overall witness requirement in state law, but requiring that voters be given due process to fix, or cure, minor ballot errors.

…Last week, Osteen raised concerns that eliminating the witness requirement for absentee ballots could open the door to ballot fraud. He suggested that someone could skip having a witness entirely, but then have their vote counted anyway by sending an affidavit to county officials.

“Judge Osteen was right to stop the … elimination of the absentee ballot witness requirement,” Sen. Phil Berger (R-N.C.) said in a statement in response to the ruling.

Republicans are fighting similar legal battles related to mail-in voting across the United States with the goal of preventing voter fraud. Democrats argue that voter fraud is virtually nonexistent and are fighting against various requirements they say make it hard to cast votes by mail. Democrats’ efforts involve at least 600 lawyers, and dwarf those of Republicans.

Absentee and mail-in ballots are the place where there seems to be the most voter fraud. There are also incidents of ballots not being delivered in a timely manner and also occasional instances where ballots are found in trash bins or discarded on the side of the road. This judge has made a decision that will help ensure the integrity of the election.

Shenanigans In North Carolina

Posted on by

North Carolina Senate Leader Phil Berger posted an article on Friday detailing the recent illegal actions of the North Carolina Board of Elections.

The article reports:

Meeting minutes from the Sept. 15 closed session of the State Board of Elections reveal a bombshell. The collusive settlement “negotiated” between the Democratic attorneys with the Board of Elections, the N.C. Department of Justice and national Democrats went way beyond the bounds of what the state Board of Elections had originally authorized.

At the very beginning of the meeting, Democratic attorneys falsely told Republican Board members that “privilege” forbade them from speaking to anybody about the collusive settlement. This apparent effort to muzzle the Republican members further supports the fact that Democrats went to great lengths to conceal their secret negotiations with Marc Elias.

Minutes clearly show that Board of Elections members authorized settlement terms that included keeping the witness requirement on absentee ballots and prohibiting unmanned ballot drop boxes.

But that’s not what the conclusive statement reported:

But the collusive settlement announced this week does the exact OPPOSITE of what the Board authorized. If accepted by a judge, the settlement would violate state law by allowing absentee ballots with no witness information. All the “voter” would have to do is sign a form, which also does not require a witness. That effectively eliminates the witness requirement.

The article lists the things that collusive statement would approve:

1. Permit anonymous outdoor absentee ballot drop boxes. The law forbids anybody other than a voter or a voter’s near relative from delivering an absentee ballot and requires the Board of Elections to record who returns every ballot. But the collusive consent order filed today allows outdoor “absentee ballot drop-off stations” and says, “a county board may not disapprove a ballot solely because it is placed in a drop box.” The Democratic-controlled Board was kind enough to require signs on the drop boxes that tell ballot harvesters they’re not really supposed to use them.

2. Eliminate witness requirements for absentee ballots. State law requires one witness to sign an absentee ballot and legibly include his or her name and address. But the collusive consent order submitted today effectively eliminates that requirement. If an absentee ballot is submitted without the required witness information, the Democratic-controlled Board of Elections will just mail a form to the address to which the ballot was sent, and the form can be returned with no witness information. The form can be returned nine days after the election.

3. Extend the time period in which an absentee ballot can be received by the Board to nine days after the election. State law requires absentee ballots to be received no later than three days after Election Day. This is to allow for a timely vote count and eliminate the possibility of “finding” enough “new” absentee ballots to sway the outcome of the election. But the collusive consent order unilaterally rewrites state law to provide nine full days of uncertainty and opportunity for gamesmanship after Election Day.

This is an invitation to election fraud and needs to be stopped in its tracks.

The Push Toward Mail-In Voting

Posted on by

As has been said multiple times before, mail-in voting is different from absentee voting. Mail-in voting generally does not have the controls that absentee voting has to prevent voter fraud. There are court cases in various states right now to push for mail-in voting. One of those states is Texas.

On Friday, Hot Air reported the following:

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a lower court’s preliminary ruling that would have required the State of Texas to expand mail-in voting to all eligible registered voters. The Texas Democrat Party claimed that denying universal mail-in voting in Texas is age discrimination.

Texas allows mail-in voting for voters who are age 65 or older, voters who will be out of the county during the voting period, disabled or ill voters, and people incarcerated but eligible to vote. Absentee voting is allowed, as in other states. For absentee voting, a voter has to request a ballot. Democrats want to move to universal voting by mail, with registered voters receiving a ballot by mail automatically, without the step of requesting one.

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court didn’t agree with the Democrats:

The 5th Circuit’s majority said the state’s law did not violate the U.S. Constitution’s prohibition on age discrimination because it merely conferred an extra benefit on older residents, rather than limiting the right to vote for younger Texans.

“A law that makes it easier for others to vote does not abridge any person’s right to vote,” the majority wrote.

The article concludes:

The age discrimination part of this lawsuit is clearly malarkey. Democrats are just throwing everything against the wall in hopes that something will stick so that universal mail-in voting will come into play in Texas. The court rightly points out that no such argument can be made. If people can go shop at Walmart or a grocery store, they can go vote in person.

The lawsuit now goes back to the court of U.S. District Judge Fred Biery. In May, he ruled that all Texans can vote by mail because of the coronavirus pandemic. In June, however, the 5th Circuit blasted his ruling and blocked it. Biery is a Clinton appointee. It will fall upon Biery now to rule on the remaining issues in the lawsuit, including whether or not the Texas restrictions on mail-in voting violate equal protection guarantees.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton released a brief statement – “I am pleased that the 5th Circuit correctly upheld Texas’s vote-by-mail laws, and I commend the court for concluding that Texas’s decision to allow elderly voters to vote by mail does not violate the 26th Amendment.”

Stay tuned. This fight is ongoing in many states.

One Small Step Toward Election Integrity In North Carolina

Posted on by

On September 4, 2020, The Carolina Journal reported the following:

A three-judge panel has rejected a plea to block absentee ballot witness requirements for North Carolina’s fall election. The decision in N.C. Superior Court generated praise from the state Senate’s leader on election issues.

“The judges were right to reject this dangerous attempt to eliminate basic protections against fraudulent activity that took place in the most recent federal election, and I hope they do the same with the multiple other lawsuits filed by Washington Democrats this year,” said Sen. Ralph Hise, R-Mitchell, in a news release. Hise co-chairs the General Assembly’s Joint Legislative Elections Oversight Committee. He also leads a Senate committee on election and redistricting issues.

The judges agreed not to grant a preliminary injunction in the case of Chambers v. State of North Carolina. Filed July 10 by four individual plaintiffs working with the American Civil Liberties Union, the case challenges an absentee ballot witness requirement in state law. The law requires one adult to witness an absentee ballot. It places limits on who can serve as a ballot witness.

The lawsuit alleges violations of four sections of the N.C. Constitution. But Judges Alma Hinton, Robert Bell, and Thomas Lock disagreed with the plaintiffs’ arguments. The judges found that “there is not a substantial likelihood” that the plaintiffs would win the case.

The article concludes:

“Washington Democrats sued to overturn an election security law passed with bipartisan support in the wake of widespread absentee ballot fraud uncovered in the 2018 Congressional election for North Carolina’s Ninth Congressional District,” according to Hise’s news release.

“Witness signatures on absentee ballots helped uncover the fraudulent activity that took place in the 2018 Congressional election and is suspected to have taken place for many other elections before 2018,” the release continued.

“The court upheld the election integrity law that passed with broad bipartisan support after the NC-9 absentee ballot fraud,” Hise said.

Both state and federal courts have upheld the witness requirement, according to Hise’s release.

On September 1, I posted an article detailing some of the methods of voter fraud. Two of the targets of those who engage in voter fraud are absentee ballots and mail-in ballots. We do not need to do anything to make those ballots less secure, in fact, we need to do anything we can to make them more secure.

This Is Not The Path To An Honest Election

Posted on by

On Friday, Civitas Institute posted an article about some recent changes in the North Carolina voting laws.

The article reports:

I wrote last week about how NC State Board of Elections (SBE) Executive Director Karen Brinson Bell had ordered county election officials to accept absentee ballots that they know were transmitted illegally.

In that same memo, Brinson Bell struck another blow against absentee ballot security when she told county election officials to not verify that the signature on the absentee ballot envelope was that of the voter:

1.No Signature Verification

County boards shall accept the voter’s signature on the container-return envelope if it appears to be made by the voter, meaning the signature on the envelope appears to be the name of the voter and not some other person. Absent clear evidence to the contrary, the county board shall presume that the voter’s signature is that of the voter, even if the signature is illegible. A voter may sign their signature or make their mark.

The law does not require that the voter’s signature on the envelope be compared with the voter’s signature in their registration record. Verification of the voter’s identity is completed through the witness requirement. See also Numbered Memo 2020-15, which explains that signature comparison is not permissible for absentee request forms.

Brinson Bell offers no example of what might constitute “clear evidence” that a signature is not that of the voter and she does not want election officials to use is the one thing they have on hand that to confirm that the signature on the ballot envelope is that of the voter: the signature on the registration record.

Brinson Bell justifies stripping away signature verification by stating that “voter’s identity is completed through the witness requirement.” While the witness requirement is an important tool in helping to prevent or investigate absentee ballot fraud, recent legislation reducing the witness requirement to one for the 2020 general election means that a single political operative who gains possession of a ballot is free to complete the ballot container envelope, complete the witness section, and forge the voter’s signature. Thanks to Brinson Bell’s order, the forged signature does not even have to be a reasonable approximation of that of the voter.

This is not a move toward an honest election.

About That Voter Integrity Thing…

Posted on by

Yesterday The Daily Signal posted an article reporting that in North Carolina, 16,700 duplicate votes were cast in the 2016 and 2018 elections, according to the Public Interest Legal Foundation.

The article reports:

Public Interest Legal Foundation made the court filing in the case of Democracy NC et. al. v. North Carolina State Board of Elections, which seeks to suspend North Carolina’s protections for mail-in voters during the presidential election in November in light of the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Specifically, the state’s public voter rolls show that even with election integrity mechanisms in place, voters registered in more than one precinct are credited for voting a second ballot. 

This could be an individual voting twice or someone voting while using someone else’s identity. Such cases largely have resulted from poor maintenance of voter rolls at the local level—for example, not updating the rolls when voters move. 

The audit found that in the 2016 presidential election in North Carolina, about 9,700 voters were credited with voting twice. Of these cases, about half—or 5,000—were mail-in ballots.

Two years later, during the 2018 midterm election, about 7,000 voters were credited with voting twice. Of those, 2,900 were mail-in votes, the audit says.     

It is not clear how many of the same voters voted twice in both elections. 

In one of the most high-profile voter fraud cases in recent years, the North Carolina State Board of Elections decertified the outcome of the 2018 race in the 9th Congressional District and ordered a new election after evidence of absentee ballot fraud emerged. 

The article concludes:

“This is a widespread concern in North Carolina,” J. Christian Adams, president and general counsel of Public Interest Legal Foundation, said in a written statement. “We should be talking about how to strengthen our systems against misdeeds done out of the sight of election officials in 2020 instead of defending an imperfect system from total ruin.”

Those suing, Adams said,  “are only raising the threat of worsening the settled fact that voter fraud is most common in the mail.”

The lawsuit in North Carolina by Democracy NC, the League of Women Voters, and others calls for waiving requirements that voter registration forms be submitted 25 days before an election,  eliminating the witness signature on absentee ballots, allowing ballots to be received in ways other than mail, such as contactless dropboxes, and increasing early voting. 

Voter fraud should be a concern to every voter. Every fraudulent vote cast cancels out the vote of a legitimate voter.

Is Voter Fraud Real?

Posted on by

One of the objections to voting by mail is the possibility of increased voter fraud. There are some politicians and media people that claim that voter fraud does not exist and that voting by mail would not be a problem. I would like to share a few articles that call that idea into question.

The first article was posted today at The Gateway Pundit.

The article reports:

In a Gateway Pundit exclusive a non-citizen in Oregon recently came forward and explained how the Oregon government automatically registered her to vote.

“I just want to highlight to American citizens this does happen. I don’t know why there’s this blind belief that it cannot happen. It does happen, it happened to me,” says a woman who has come forward to tell the story about how she, as a non citizen, ended up getting registered to vote without even knowing it, and had ballots sent to her.

Ever since the advent of vote-by-mail, elections integrity activists have pointed out all the different ways that such a system could be compromised.

While rumors have circulated for years that illegal aliens and non citizens were voting, most of the evidence pointing to such has been circumstantial, with few traces of actual hard evidence.

…Ballots started arriving in her mailbox in 2016, and continued through 2018, for a total of five elections. She says she likely would have received a sixth ballot had she not taken the steps to cancel her voter registration.

Thank God for her honesty.

The next article comes from WHSV Channel 3 in West Virginia.

The article reports:

West Virginia’s secretary of state says they’re investigating an absentee ballot fraud scheme in the state that was connected to the state’s mass effort for absentee voting amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

In the start of April, West Virginia county clerk’s offices began an effort to mail absentee ballots to every registered voter in the state.

West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner announced the plan at the end of March.

Essentially, every voter registered in the state was sent ab absentee ballot application to their registered address.

State leaders encouraged all voters to fill out the applications and submit them to their county clerk in order to receive an absentee ballot for the election, and then mark the ballot according to state instructions by election day. And voters responded, with about 18% of West Virginia’s registered voters requesting absentee ballots for the June 9 primary election.

Now, on May 21, Secretary of State Mac Warner announced that his office had investigated a ballot fraud scheme and referred their findings to the United States Attorney for prosecution.

According to Warner, allegations of the scheme were referred to and investigated by the WV Election Fraud Task Force, which is a multi-agency law enforcement effort that was formed in April as a way to deter potential voter and election fraud with upcoming elections. Investigators responded to a complaint quickly, and Warner said the absentee ballot fraud scheme was uncovered early and will have no impact on the outcomes of any elections.

However, West Virginia law prevents Warner from disclosing any facts or details of the investigation.

The third article was posted at Front Page Magazine on Friday.

The article reports:

A former Judge of Elections has been convicted for his role in accepting bribes to cast fraudulent ballots and certifying false voting results during the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primary elections in Philadelphia. 

“Demuro fraudulently stuffed the ballot box by literally standing in a voting booth and voting over and over, as fast as he could, while he thought the coast was clear. This is utterly reprehensible conduct. The charges announced today do not erase what he did, but they do ensure that he is held to account for those actions,” said U.S. Attorney William M. McSwain of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

…Domenick J. Demuro pled guilty in March to the charges in a filing that was unsealed Thursday, the DOJ said. He admitted to being directed by an unnamed political consultant to inflate votes for “clients and preferred candidates” in the 2014, 2015, and 2016 primaries in exchange for “money and other things of value.” While he only cast 27 fraudulent ballots in the 2014 election, 40 votes in May 2015, and 46 in 2016, election results showed that the numbers accounted for over 22 percent of the total votes cast from Demuro’s voting location in 2014, over 15 percent in 2015, and over 17 percent in 2016.

You get the picture. Voter fraud does exist. If voting by mail is put in place, we will have voter fraud on steroids. If you value the republic and honest elections, you will not support voting by mail.

Protecting Election Integrity

Posted on by

Red State Observer is reporting today that the Texas Supreme Court has temporarily put on hold an expansion of voting by mail during the coronavirus pandemic.

The article reports:

Siding with Attorney General Ken Paxton, the Supreme Court blocked a state appeals court decision that allowed voters who lack immunity to the virus to qualify for absentee ballots by citing a disability. That appellate decision upheld a lower court’s order that would have allowed more people to qualify to vote by mail. The state’s Supreme Court has not weighed the merits of the case.

It’s the latest in an ongoing legal squabble that in the last three days has resulted in daily changes to who can qualify for a ballot they can fill out at home and mail in.

The problem with voting by mail is that there are very few controls on it and it is the area when voter fraud is most prevalent. If it is safe to go to WalMart and social distance, then it is safe to vote while respecting social distancing. This is nothing more than an attempt to stuff ballot boxes legally.

Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste

Posted on by

Yesterday The Washington Examiner posted an article about some recent comments by former Attorney General Eric Holder.

The article reports:

Former President Barack Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder acknowledged that he sees the coronavirus as “an opportunity” to change the way U.S. citizens vote forever.

“Coronavirus gives us an opportunity to revamp our electoral system so that it permanently becomes more inclusive and becomes easier for the American people to access,” Holder told Time magazine.

Holder went on to say that he supports shifting toward a system with more mail-in ballots.

“There has to be a sea change in our thinking there,” he said when asked how important he thinks mail-in ballots will be going forward. “Allow people to access their primary American right by voting at home. It’s not as if this is an untried concept. Oregon has been doing this for years. But we have to make sure that we’re being sensitive to the needs of poor communities and communities of color by doing things like having prepaid postage on envelopes. Construct a system so that you’ve got expanded in-person voting, you’ve got expanded at-home voting and expanded no-excuse absentee vote-at-home measures.”

Holder said he believes that these changes during the coronavirus crisis will help “enhance our democracy.”

Democrats across the country have been pushing for increased mail-in voting during the coronavirus crisis despite reports over the past week suggesting over 28 million mail-in ballots have been lost in the past 10 years and that thousands of ineligible voters could possibly receive mail-in ballots, including many dead people.

Fox News host Tucker Carlson said on his show this week he believes these efforts to push mail-in voting are part of a broader effort on behalf of Democrats to “encourage” voter fraud to win elections.

Meanwhile, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a sentiment similar to Holder’s claim that increased mail-in voting is a positive step forward for democracy.

This is the voice of desperation. The only way to push Joe Biden across the finish line in the 2020 election is with voter fraud. The greatest amount of voter fraud in America occurs with mail-in absentee ballots. We have all heard the stories from people who have gone to the polls to vote and were told they had already voted. There are also stories from people who requested absentee ballots and had them stolen and cast by other people. This is not a step forward for the voting process–it is an open door for voter fraud.

Why Mail-In Voting Is A Really Bad Idea

Posted on by

In December 2018 The Federalist posted an article with the following title, “How Ballot-Harvesting Became The New Way To Steal An Election.” The article is still relevant today. So what is ballot-harvesting? Ballot-harvesting is the practice of party operatives collecting absentee or mail-in ballots and turning bunches of them in at a time. So why is this risky? A person can go into a nursing home with a handful of ballots, sit down with each resident (regardless of their mental capacity), fill out a ballot for them, have the resident sign it, and turn it in as the resident’s vote. There is no way of knowing if the ballot reflected the resident’s wishes.

The article notes:

With ballot-harvesting, paper votes are collected by intermediaries who deliver them to polling officials, presumably increasing voter turnout but also creating opportunities for mischief.

The latter is suspected in North Carolina, where uncharacteristic Democratic charges of vote fraud prompted an investigation into whether Republican-paid political operatives illegally collected and possibly stole absentee ballots in a still-undecided congressional race. A national spotlight was shone by The New York Times, which, like Democrats, often minimizes vote fraud; it flooded the zone in this case, assigning five reporters to a single story.

In California, by contrast, Democrats exulted as they credited a quietly passed 2016 law legalizing ballot-harvesting with their recent sweep of House seats in the former Republican stronghold of Orange County, thereby helping them win control of the House. In that case, it was Republican eyebrows that were arched. House Speaker Paul Ryan said what happened in California “defies logic.”

The article continues:

Only 16 states regulate ballot-harvesting at all, and their rules vary. In Colorado, one of three states to conduct all elections entirely by mail-in ballots, third-party volunteers are allowed to collect up to 10 ballots, though critics have long alleged that the practice is ripe for exploitation.

In November, Montana voters passed a state referendum banning the collection of ballots by third parties. Arizona’s 2016 ban against the practice, which had previously been linked to voter fraud in the state, was recently upheld by a federal appeals court, despite claims that it would disproportionately impact Latino voters who relied on third parties to help navigate the voting process.

Please follow the link to read the entire article. This is an activity that has successfully stolen elections in the past, and there is no reason to believe that it would not be used if voter laws were altered to allow voting by mail.

Calling His Bluff

Posted on by

Jim Acosta has been very vocal during the President’s briefings on the coronavirus. At one point when President Trump stated that he thought that voting by mail is an invitation to fraud, Jim Acosta demanded evidence. Well, the President obliged.

Breitbart posted an article yesterday with some examples.

The article reports:

Trump replied, “I think there’s a lot of evidence, but we’ll provide you with some, okay?”

The president’s re-election campaign responded quickly to Acosta’s request, noting there were nine people charged in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas with “vote harvesting” and mail ballots, a political operative in New York stealing and submitting absentee ballots, and a resident in Pennsylvania receiving seven separate ballots in the mail.

The campaign also shared a Heritage Foundation document of over 1,000 proven cases of vote fraud.

“Democrats and the mainstream media always scoff at claims of voter fraud, but then completely ignore evidence from across the country,” Trump 2020 campaign manager Brad Parscale said in a statement. “The obvious reason is that Democrats are just fine with the possibility of voter fraud. And many in the media just see the world their way.”

The Trump campaign also quoted an election expert in the New York Times who said although election fraud was rare, “the most common type of such fraud in the United States involves absentee ballots” through the mail.

President Trump cited ongoing legal action from Judicial Watch forcing states to clear millions of ineligible voter registrations within 90 days as proof of voter fraud.

The White House also shared details of 2005 commission led by President Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush’s secretary of state James A. Baker III that concluded mail-in ballots “remain the largest source of potential voter fraud.”

“Outside those in the establishment media who are more interested in attacking the President than the facts, there’s a clear consensus that universal mail-in voting would be vulnerable to fraud,” a White House source told Breitbart News in a statement.

Every fraudulent vote cancels the vote of an American citizen who has the right to vote. The examples above are only one of many reasons why instead of voting by mail, we need voter id laws that require photo identification to vote. That will not entirely solve the voter fraud problem, but it will go a long way in that direction.

Election Fraud Is An Issue

Posted on by

Yesterday Fox News posted an article about Sherikia Hawkins, city clerk for the city of Southfield, Michigan.

The article reports:

A Michigan official who earlier this year received an award from the state’s Democratic Party is now facing six felony charges for allegedly forging records and falsely marking absentee ballots as invalid during the 2018 election.

Sherikia Hawkins, 38, city clerk for the city of Southfield, was arrested Monday after the Oakland County Clerk’s office noticed discrepancies in voter counts while certifying absentee ballots from Southfield. State police investigated and found that records had been altered so that nearly 200 voter files were improperly listed as invalid.

…According to court documents, Michigan police found that 193 absentee voter files were changed in the city’s computer system to say they either had no signature or no return date, when they had both valid signatures and return dates. Police stated that after Oakland County Election Director Joseph Rozell found that Hawkins had submitted altered reports, his staff found the original ones in a trash can at the election division office.

The article notes that the ballots were found and tallied, so the actions of Ms. Hawkins did not have an impact on the outcome of the election.

The article concludes:

Hawkins was charged with falsifying records in violation of state election law, forgery of a public record, misconduct in office and three counts of using a computer to commit a crime. The top count carries a maximum penalty of 14 years in prison.

She was arraigned on Monday and released on $15,000 bond, according to a state press release. Hawkins has a probable cause conference set for Sept. 30, and another hearing scheduled for Oct. 15.

Unfortunately this is a problem that voter identification will not solve, but the situation here reminds us that there are people willing to cheat to win elections. Any procedures we can put in place to limit opportunities for election fraud need to be put in place.

H R 1

Posted on by

The Democrats in the House of Representatives are planning to start the new year off with a bang. Hopefully it will turn out to be more of a whimper. H.R. 1 is called the “For the People Act of 2019.” It is actually only for some people who want to make sure that the Democrats win all future elections. It was introduced into the House on January 3rd.

Breitbart posted an article about the bill today. In their article is a link to the Conservative Action Project which is opposing the bill.

The Conservative Action Project lists some problems with the bill:

H.R. 1 undermines the First Amendment. H.R. 1 undoes key Supreme Court cases that protect elections as fundamental to free speech. It would allow the Federal Election Commission to track and catalogue more of what Americans are saying, register even very small political donations, and make public those who donate to different charitable and nonprofit organizations. The legislation will subject private citizens to intimidation and harassment for their private and political beliefs, far broader than what was done in the IRS targeting scandal in 2013.

H.R. 1 yanks election authority away from the states. H.R. 1 reasserts the ability of the federal government to micromanage state elections through a process known as “preclearance.” Preclearance, which was previously overturned by the Supreme Court, requires states to get permission from the federal government for changes as small as modifying the hours of an election office, or moving a voting location from a school gym to the library. Critically, none of these practices would undo any fraud or corruption. Rather, these same practices result in incorrect registrations and inaccurate voter data, while failing to address actual corrupt practices like ballot harvesting. Moreover, they are all designed to eliminate the federalism that keeps elections transparent, local, and fair.

H.R. 1 attacks individual voter integrity. America was founded on the principle of “one person, one vote.” H.R. 1 turns this on its head by weaponizing every aspect of the political regulatory system. The Federal Election Commission, which is currently a neutral body, would be given a 3-2 makeup, guaranteeing a partisan outcome with little accountability toward the actual votes which are cast. H.R. 1 also includes a 600 percent government match for political donations, and authorizes even more public dollars to campaigns. The bill also wants to make Election Day a new paid holiday for government workers, with additional paid vacation given to bureaucrats to oversee the polls. All of these changes are designed to distance the outcome of the election from those casting their votes.

H.R. 1 would also implement the following changes:

• Forces states to implement mandatory voter registration, removing civic participation as a voluntary choice, and increasing chances for error.
• Mandates that states allow all felons to vote.
• Forces states to extend periods of early voting, which has shown to have no effect on turnout.
• Mandates same-day voter registration, which encourages voter fraud.
• Limits the ability of states to cooperate to see who is registered in multiple states at the same time.
• Prohibits election observers from cooperating with election officials to file formal challenges to suspicious voter registrations.
• Criminalizes protected political speech by making it a crime to “discourage” someone from voting
• Bars states from making their own laws about voting by mail.
• Prohibits chief election officials in each state from participating in federal election campaigns.
• Mandates free mailing of absentee ballots.
• Mandates that states adopt new redistricting commissions.

H.R. 1 would cause sweeping and irrevocable damage to the free speech, privacy, and integrity that are central components to free and fair elections in America. We oppose H.R.

Our new House of Representatives has obviously decided to throw out our Constitution wherever possible. This bill is representative of that. It opens the door to massive voter fraud and nationalizes state elections, which is unconstitutional. Nationalizing all elections also greatly increases the vulnerability to hacking. The bill needs to fail miserably or we will be in serious danger of losing our representative republic.

Voting Problems In Texas

Posted on by

Yesterday The Star-Telegram in Fort Worth reported the following:

A Fort Worth woman recently indicted on voter fraud charges paid others involved in the scheme with funds provided by a former Tarrant County Democratic Party leader, court documents filed this week say.

After learning about a state investigation, Leticia Sanchez — one of four women arrested and indicted on voter fraud charges — allegedly directed her daughter to send a text message to others in the scheme, urging them not to cooperate with investigators, state officials say.

The allegations are made in the state’s notice of intent to introduce evidence in Sanchez’s criminal case, where state officials say she was among those who collaborated to vote for certain down-ballot candidates with a number of north side residents’ mail-in ballots.

The notice, filed Tuesday, states that Sanchez engaged in organized criminal activity in collaboration with her three co-defendants; Stuart Clegg, a former executive director for the Tarrant County Democratic Party; and others.

The article reports that the voter fraud included illegally obtained mail-in ballots Forged signatures were also used on absentee ballots and mail in ballots.

The article continues:

Earlier this month, four women were arrested — Sanchez, her daughter, Leticia Sanchez Tepichin, and Rosa Solis and Laura Parra — after being indicted on more than two dozen felony counts of voter fraud.

Officials allege the women were paid to target older voters on the city’s north side “in a scheme to generate a large number of mail ballots and then harvest those ballots for specific candidates in 2016.”

The notice did not specify which candidates the suspects were allegedly paid to support, but it noted that Sanchez and others marked down-ballot candidates “without the voter’s knowledge or consent.”

AG officials have said these charges “are in connection with the 2016 Democratic primary, but the case has connections with the 2015 city council election.”

AG spokesman Jeff Hillery declined to comment when asked if any other charges would be filed.

This development comes as early voting for the Nov. 6 midterm election is underway. Voters may vote early through Nov. 2. Election Day is Nov. 6.

The article suggests that the arrest and indictment of Ms. Sanchez may be a political move because it occurred right before the election, but it seems to me that the time to find and deal with voter fraud issues is before the election. People need to know that there are consequences for committing voter fraud.

A report from The Star-Telegram today warns voters to check the voting machines carefully before recording their votes.

The article reports:

Texas voters: Take your time when casting ballots.

This advice comes as state election officials receive complaints across the state from early voters casting straight tickets on Hart eSlate machines who believe the machines changed their votes.

Two complaints, reported through a third party, have been made in Tarrant County, said Heider Garcia, elections administrator.

“We have … tested everything,” he said. “We don’t have any indication that there’s a technical issue.”

The Texas Secretary of State’s Office has issued a statement about the issue.

The article cites one example:

Evelyn Brown, a 63-year-old longtime Fort Worth voter, said she had a problem voting this week.

She had gone to the Southwest Community Center on Welch Avenue and had cast a straight party ticket.

When she reviewed the summary, she saw that her choice in the U.S. Senate race — which pits Republican U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz against Democratic challenger U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke — had flipped to the candidate in the other party.

She spent seven or eight minutes trying to move back to change the candidate in that race, but wasn’t successful.

“I’m accustomed to using the booth,” she said. “I used the keys that let you move forward and back. It didn’t move at all. It was stuck.”

So she called the election judge over who ended up calling the Tarrant County Elections Office.

In the end, the election judge had to at least temporarily put that machine out of service. He moved Brown to a different machine, where she said she was able to cast a vote for all the candidates of her choice.

Vote carefully, Your country depends on it.