What if you were playing cards in a casino and the rules were you not only had to show the dealer your hand, but allow the dealer to fish through multiple decks to create his winning hand?

Elections have deadlines and force states to certify Electors, even when serious questions are being asked, and ignored by the courts.

Wouldn’t it be more prudent to have rules that prevented suspicion of ballot fraud, than have to challenge an election later?

UPDATE February 13, 2022 — In 2020, it was reported that an unusually high number of mail ballots were rejected by the Dominion scanners. In previous elections, only a small fraction of a percent were kicked out for extraneous marks, or bleeding of ink through the ballot paper. However, in the 2020 election, audits discovered the rejected ballots reached 68%.

One article stated that the Dominion scanners had their ‘gamma’ adjusted so the extra ‘contrast’ created digital artifacts just by amplifying any small flaws in the paper. However they did it, 68% of the ballots were collected and sent to the Adjudication Desk. That was a special table of election workers who took the rejected ballots, filed them as ‘Spoiled,’ and a new ballot (or preprinted ones) was filled out and scanned as a vote.

This means that the odds are an Absentee Ballot had a 68% chance of being re-voted by an election worker, the voter’s ballot filed away uncounted.

The Absentee Mail Ballot has huge chain-of-custody issues, and just because the signed envelope is separated from the anonymous ballot, this practice is not only a violation of the ‘secret ballot,’ but opens a door, wide, to fraud.

“Here’s how: “The system intentionally generates an enormously high number of ballot errors. The electronic ballots are then transferred for adjudication. The intentional errors lead to bulk adjudication of ballots with no oversight, no transparency, and no audit trail. This leads to voter or election fraud,” the report stated.” https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/14/forensic-auditors-find-shocking-68-error-rate-one-/

SUMMARY OF ARIZONA AUDIT:

The Arizona Audit was conducted by several serious engineering specialists. The result? The handling of ballots was so careless that the election results were unreliable at best; at worst, fraudulent. 17,000 EVB ballot envelope images were duplicates. A suspiciously large percentage of the duplicates occurred in the days after Election Night. Were the envelopes duplicated just so the ballot count would match? 20,344 votes came from voters who had moved out of Arizona prior to the election, and should not have been able to receive ballots at all . . . 10,342 voters voted in multiple counties. 9,041 voted more than once. 3,282 were voters from outside Maricopa County . . . Maricopa County’s Board of Supervisors resisted subpoenas, which are still under court and now Attorneys General Order to produce . . . the voting machine and the ballot paper contractor also refused to cooperate.

In addition, over 10,000 envelopes had signatures that were impossible to verify with voter registration records (57,000 mail ballots had serious legal issues). This, plus the unconstitutional unequal ID standards and ‘special laws’[1] for mailed absentee ballot applications, is cause for an immediate Injunction against mailed ballot applications; which should only be processed through the Secretary of State Internet Portal, or in person, with state legislated required ID’s.

May I remind you that late counting of Arizona mail ballots resulted in Trump’s 66% in-person votes to Biden’s 32% flipped by 0.4%, less than 10,500 votes.

Recommendation:  1) The 2018 Absent Ballot statute be repealed. 2) All absentee ballot applications made through the Secretary of State Portal, or in person, so there isn’t two separate and unequal ID requirements. 3) Mail Ballot counts must be made as they arrive, and completed 24 hours after Election Night.

As I mentioned in my previous email, the new absent ballot rules are unconstitutional. The identification of non-citizens voting is a serious constitutional disenfranchisement issue, but Sanctuary City mandates complicate addressing it.

Michigan’s Gov. Whitmer vetoed attempts to correct the election rules abused in the 2020 election. However, if legislated revisions focus on clear constitutional issues, and a second attack is engaged in the NM Supreme Court, the legislation could succeed.

*   *   *

On Sunday, Fox News Chris Wallace grilled Rep. Steve Scalise about Donald Trump saying the election was stolen. It was embarrassing, almost biblical, Wallace trying to get Scalise to ‘deny Trump three times.’[2]

Rep. Scalise pointed out that fraud issues were not present when states counted mail absentee ballots as they arrived; the reports of fraud were rampant, however, in states that delayed counting until after the Election Night in-person and early votes were reported. This is an important issue, as it opens the door wide open for fraud.

Similarly, the Arizona Audit “discovered 263,139 ballot images on the election system that are corrupt and unreadable TIFF format images,” or missing entirely.

21,273 ballot images are entirely missing from the forensics images of the election equipment. This means that there are electronic votes recorded, but no actual ballot images that correspond to the votes. This makes it impossible to fully validate the results or confirm that the Election Management System (EMS) was not tampered with.[3]

So, compared to very few issues with early and in-person voting, and multi-ID Internet and in-person requests for absentee ballots, the continuation of the 2018 Absent Voter mail ballot system is untenable.

Thank you for your attention in this matter,

Leonard A. Daneman

Paralegal, Retired

---

[1] NM Const Art IV, Sec. 24. Local and special laws. “The legislature shall not pass local or special laws in any of the following cases: . . . the opening or conducting of any election or designating the place of voting;

[2] Chris Wallace for the third and “last time” probes Rep. Scalise at 4:10  https://crooksandliars.com/2021/10/chris-wallace-repeatedly-grills-steve

[3] Maricopa County Forensic Election Audit, Ch III, pgs 70, 73