Posted on 05/20/2023 8:42:28 AM PDT by CFW
The trial brought by Kari Lake over questionable ballot counting and verification in her unsuccessful 2022 Arizona gubernatorial campaign concluded Friday with her lead attorney saying audit data on the processes shows “this election should be set aside.”
The trial lasted three days, with closing arguments on both sides focusing on whether there was mathematical evidence proving that Lake had actually won the election.
Lake fell about 17,000 votes short in the official count in her race against then-Secretary of State Hobbs.
She is suing Hobbs, the current Democratic governor, in addition to current Secretary of State Adrian Fontes (D) and Maricopa County election officials, requesting last year's election results be invalidated or that she be declared the winner.
(Excerpt) Read more at justthenews.com ...
That is why this and all efforts by Lake will lose.
Stick a fork in it; it’s done.
It’s time to accept that the capture is complete.
Lake’s attorney missed the golden opportunity of setting up a trial of real poll persons processing a test file of signatures for accuracy. The persons making the data up know how many were truly ‘false’. If the demonstrators, who should include ‘speedy’ in the video, get it right, Lake loses. If they get it wrong, Lake wins. Then the test file can be expanded and used at every election to test newbies, train, and audit future elections.
The Election Theft of 2020 has yet to be resolved. Why think that this shall be any different?
Face it, America. Our Vote no longer matters even a little bit. Same thing applies to our Constitution and our Bill of Rights.
The Ballot Box is not the solution.
Worth repeating
“Just checking that there is an actual signature of some kind is not a signature match check as required by Arizona “
“I think I read somewhere that there were over 90 signature verification peep (in addition to the one shown skimming through the ballots on video) working from home or remotly, with no watchers or camera surveillance.”
Who thinks it is a good idea for election workers to have access to these ballots at home with no watchers or surveillance?
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
AZ SOS Hobbs?
Consider that the judge's impossible standard is arguably obstruction of the "hair triggers" (imo) of Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, that section a penalty for a state where vote-counting fraud has occurred.
[...], is denied to any [...]
[...] or in any way abridged, [...]
"14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced [emphases added] in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State." [Apportionment of Representatives]
In fact, the feds and media should be publicly reminding the states for every election to be careful not to do anything that would justify the feds having to audit an election to determine if Section 2 has been compromised imo.
What is really disturbing about the apportionment aspect of Section 2 is the following imo.
Consider that the post-Civil War congressional Republicans who drafted that section made it to discourage Southern Democrats (my words) from rigging the ballot boxes that Democrats are now alleged to have done for 2020, 2022 and possibly earlier elections!
"Because slavery (except as punishment for crime) had been abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment, the freed slaves would henceforth be given full weight for purposes of apportionment. This situation was a concern to the Republican leadership of Congress, who worried that it would increase the political power of the former slave states, even as such states continued to deny freed slaves the right to vote." —Apportionment of Representatives
In other words, the political party corruption that we are now being oppressed with is arguably evidence of a cold war of the Civil War.
This judge is trying as hard as possible to make it impossible for Lake to meet his arbitrary and incorrect interpretation of Az law and Lake's filings.
He is part of the Mormon Mafia that opposes Lake with all it's might and he going to rule against Lake no matter what.
Lake will appeal both his ruling and his dismissal of other motion's for re consideration.
The dude even refused to take up the matter that Maricopa County fraudulently certified the elections equipment when the config logs showed that they did nothing to test.They then tested the equipment in secret, in violation of multiple Az election laws and discovered that 60+% of the machines failed.
That tells you exactly where this corruptocrat is coming from.
The real game is the Az. Supreme Court.
The longer this debacle runs, the more publicity the more justified anger and alarm at the corruption of Az elections.
The ultimate play here is either a court ordered redo of the election or a recall election of Katie Hobbs if the Arizona legal system fails to act.
IMHO, a recall election will give Lake the most mojo and public sympathy going forward, but a recall in Az is an open election with the ability to stack the deck with as many ringers throwing their hat in the ring as can be dug up.
The Az Republican party will run multiple ringers to bleed votes from Lake to give Hobbs the win.
If Lake loses, appeal again. She loses at AZ Supreme, take to cherry picked friendly Federal Court for an equal protection violation. Don’t stop. Keep up the heat.
all you have to do is take his files and see how many he evaluated correctly. It should be in the 95% plus range.
How long do you think it takes to look at two side by side images??
Since signature verification can be done at home why didn’t they bring in one of the computers with one of the employees and have them demonstrate a batch of real ballots with known errors run in real time.
If the test of 100 ballots was done in 5 minutes with no errors then Lake is wrong but if it took longer say 7 minutes then Lake is right. That would be proof!
Also, does the computer screen show the ballot and the three comps at the same time or does the operator have to scroll down look at the 3 comps and scroll back up? If the former is true then 3 seconds is possible but if the latter is correct then more like 5-7 seconds. Plus we have to consider what type of input were they using, was it a mouse with a scroll wheel or did the operator have to mouse over the screen to arrows on the side? The scroll wheel would make 5-7 possible but the latter method would increase that time to 7-9 seconds.
IMHO, Lake’s team could have done a better job by putting on a technical presentation that gave undisputable in your face proof.
( I wonder if Ronna will call Lake “a failed candidate”…again)
If course she will.
“he didn’t have to...they’re on the same page.”
They’re technically on the same “web” page, but the signatures can’t appear on the same screen at the same time. The verifier on the right side is actually doing the work, scrolling to compare. It’s clear to see and to and compare methods as to correct and incorrect (lazy and/or cheating).
So l guess the fact that thieving bitch Hobbs sabotaged the voting machines in the Republican precincts is just to be ignored. Thousand voters can be disenfranchised as long as they aren’t rats.
Arizona actually has a precedent. Some election for Governor at the beginning of the 20th century was overturned and awarded to the previously declared loser. Arizona does indeed allow elections to be overturned for fraud.
Lake isn’t going to have the government of AZ turned over to her. Not next week. Not ever.
This is probably true, but it shouldn't be true.
I highly doubt she can do that and certainly not in less than 3 seconds for scores and scores of them. This guy looked away and was just clicking as fast as he could. This was not a signature match check. You know you can't instantly see that its a match between two signatures.
“My daughter was the only one in the entire state who got 100% on a reading comprehension test.”
Interesting. But not relevant. You actually have to READ in order to comprehend. If you don’t READ the original signature to see it, you can’t comprehend it. If you don’t scroll to see the original signature, unless you have ESP, you’re a cheater.
So ... apples and oranges.
(I also scored 100% in school on the SQ3R tests. I still would have to follow the a state’s signature verification code. They have nothing to do with each other.)
Just read an interesting bit from the trial. Not all signatures matched the original signature on file....but the forensic expert could not find a single forgery among them.
It's important to note that a voter's identity is confirmed before their ballot is counted, whether it's an early ballot or a ballot cast at the polls. The Help America Vote Act requires first time voters who vote by mail to prove their identity before they can receive a ballot. Identification is verified by one of the following:Verification of a registrant’s Arizona driver's license, or Arizona state identification number, or last four digits of social security number
Presentation of a registrant’s current and valid photo identification
Presentation of a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the registrant.
- - -
Arizona Revised Statutes, Title 16 - Elections and Electors
https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16
Article 8, Section 16-550; Version 2
Receipt of voter's ballot; cure period; tracking system
[I separated some of the following, in order to make paragraph "A." easier to read.]
A. On receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector's registration record.
If the signature is inconsistent with the elector's signature on the elector's registration record, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the voter, advise the voter of the inconsistent signature and allow the voter to correct or the county to confirm the inconsistent signature.
The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall allow signatures to be corrected not later than the fifth business day after a primary, general or special election that includes a federal office or the third business day after any other election.
If the signature is missing, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall make reasonable efforts to contact the elector, advise the elector of the missing signature and allow the elector to add the elector's signature not later than 7:00 p.m. on election day.
If satisfied that the signatures correspond, the recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall hold the envelope containing the early ballot and the completed affidavit unopened in accordance with the rules of the secretary of state.
B. The recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall thereafter safely keep the affidavits and early ballots in the recorder's or other officer's office and may deliver them for tallying pursuant to section 16-551. Tallying of ballots may begin immediately after the envelope and completed affidavit are processed pursuant to this section and delivered to the early election board.
C. The county recorder shall send a list of all voters who were issued early ballots to the election board of the precinct in which the voter is registered.
D. For a county that uses early ballots, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall provide an early ballot tracking system that indicates whether the voter's early ballot has been received and whether the early ballot has been verified and sent to be tabulated or rejected. The county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall provide voters with access to the early ballot tracking system on the county's website.
A. INTRODUCTION
“Signature verification” is the process of comparing the signature on a voter’s affidavit envelope or ballot affidavit with the voter’s signature in the voter registration database. Signature verification plays an important role in our elections because it helps ensure that only those individuals eligible to vote have their vote counted. By serving as the method of identity verification for mailed ballots, it allows Arizona voters the convenience of voting by mail. This Guide will help those reviewing ballot affidavit signatures determine whether the ballot affidavit signature and the voter’s signature in the voter registration database were authored by the same person.
This Guide is provided to assist County Recorders’ Offices and their staff in conducting signature verification and is intended to be used as a reference in combination with the County Recorder’s specific procedures for early ballot processing. The Arizona Secretary of State’s Office thanks the Colorado Secretary of State’s Office and Yavapai County Recorder’s Office for sharing their excellent guides, from which this Guide is adapted.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.