Am I missing something here?
They said that Maricopa County used only 1 type of paper stock, but the audit found numerous types of paper. I think this is a big deal, in that it would indicate fake ballots returned with the different stocks.
However, nobody seems to be talking about that. They seem to be talking about the bleed through as a result of different types (lesser quality) paper, but not the fact there different paper would seem to strongly indicate fake ballots.
Maye I’m off base here?
You are not off-base at all.
Ballots are supposed to be printed to a certain standard—ie, weight, thickness, content, etc.
And only certain vendors are certified to print these ballots.
My impressions was that there were watermarks as well, to show a ballot was printed on approved, to spec paper.
I believe this is still an issue which has not been clarified.
And this goes for all the states.
Not just any piece of paper can be an official ballot.
I think there is still a story here.
That’s a good point. They mentioned the different paper and then veered off onto a tangent about bleed through. I don’t know.
About the ballot printers that were being destroyed, I’m sure there’s a lot of evidence destroyed so that the actual people using them won’t be caught and sent to prison. But I’m thinking it really doesn’t affect the audit. Luckily with each vote there’s a lot of things that need to be traced to ensure it is legal. And valid. Serial numbers, evidence that it was mailed out, evidence of voter registration, The look of the ballot itself etc. And now if they are actually going to go out and canvas, they can find out from the voter themselves.
I noted that too, gub. They seemed mystified by the different paper rather than pointing to it as concrete evidence.