Yesterday Breitbart reported that some Republicans showing up to vote in the California recall election are being told that they already voted.
The article reports:
The Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder’s office said equipment was “replaced” at the polling center and that provisional ballots are a “failsafe option” for these kinds of glitches.”
“The voters who experienced this issue were offered and provided provisional ballots – the failsafe option to ensure no one has turned away from voting,” the statement said.
“Provisional ballots are regular ballots and once the eligibility of the voter is verified, they are processed and counted. After troubleshooting the issue, the equipment at the locations was replaced and voting continued.”
The provisional ballot does nothing to alter the fact that an illegal ballot has already been cast in the voter’s name. At best you have cancelled out the illegal vote, but you have not counted the vote of the legal voter.
I refer you back to an article I posted in August where I reported the following:
Yesterday KTLA Los Angeles reported that 300 election recall ballots were found in a vehicle where a felon was found passed out with drugs, a loaded firearm and multiple driver’s licenses one week ago, authorities said Monday. How did 300 election recall ballots wind up in the same car? Obviously 300 ballots alone will not change the outcome of the recall election, but how many other questionable ballots are floating around the state?
There is no way I believe that the California recall election will be an honest election.
Yesterday The Gateway Pundit reported:
Avis Employee Finds Provisional Ballot Box and Election Signs in Back of Returned Broward County Car
An Avis employee at Ft. Lauderdale airport found a box labeled with the SOE (Supervisor of Elections) and the word “Provisional” in the back of the returned car on Sunday night. According to the Avis employee the last person to drive the car was a Broward County employee.
There is a protocol called “chain of custody” regarding moving election ballots. Obviously that protocol was not followed.
Today The Gateway Pundit posted an article with the following headline:
WTH?… Brenda Snipes Reveals Broward Elections Official Was Driving Around with Blank Provisional Ballots in Rental Car
…Brenda Snipes said she notified the Broward County police after finding out about the boxes; the officer who investigated, wrote a report concerning the contents of the box.
…“He [police officer] identified that there were..there’s a grey storage box that was labeled ‘provisional ballot box’ containing elections supplies and blank provisional ballots,” Snipes said.
Another orange box contained campaign signs and orange cones used for parking, according to the police report.
In a stunning display of arrogance, Snipes also rejected the notion that her elections office failed too act in accordance with the law; she even snubbed President Trump.
No one with any experience in election procedures would tolerate this behavior under any circumstances. There is no way that I believe there is not an attempt to steal an election in Florida. I will be amazed if the Republicans who had the majority of the votes on election night are still winners when the shenanigans are over.
On Friday Breitbart.com posted a fact-check on an Associated Press story that ran in various newspapers on July 10. The story gave examples of how voter identification requirements disenfranchise people.
Baker started off with what seemed like a frustrating story about two elderly Indiana voters approaching 90 years old, Edward and Mary Weidenbener, who were unable to vote in Indiana’s May primary. Why? Supposedly because “they didn’t realize that state law required them to bring government photo IDs such as a driver’s license or passport.”
Then the reporter at Breitbart begins to look into the story. The Indiana law requiring identification had been in effect since 2006. Had they voted since then? It was also determined that both Weidenbeners had valid driver’s licenses and passports–either of which would have served as identification. The Weidenbeners also live within walking distance of their polling place–which means they could easily have gone home to get their identification.
For whatever reason, the Weidenbeners wound up casting a provisional ballot. They then claimed they weren’t told that they needed to show an ID to officials after the election in order for their provisional ballot to be counted.
The article further reports:
But the Indiana state form that is given to all provisional voters specifically informs them that they must appear before county election officials no later than noon on the second Friday after election day either with an ID or to sign an affidavit that they are exempt from the ID requirement because they are “indigent and unable to obtain proof of identification without the payment of a fee, or that you have a religious objection to being photographed.” The AP also neglected to mention that since the Weidenbeners are over 65, they could vote by absentee ballot without an ID.
It seems as if the Associated Press reporter either did not do his homework or chose to ignore the facts. Voter identification laws insure that every person’s vote counts once and that no person’s vote is cancelled out by an illegal vote. Voter identification laws do not prevent honest voters from voting–they prevent dishonest voters from voting.