Kari Lake’s attorney: Evidence of rushed ballot verification warrants overturning 2022 election

Just the News ^ | 5/19/23 | Natalia Mittelstadt

[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.

[linMcHlp]

Arizona Secretary of State - Signature Verification Guide
https://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/AZSOS_Signature_Verification_Guide.pdf

B. ANALYSIS

When conducting signature verification, it is important to keep in mind that everyone writes differently, and no one signs their name exactly the same way twice. A ballot affidavit signature should not be rejected because it does not look exactly the same as the signature in the voter’s registration record.

The following two-step analysis will allow you to confidently decide whether signatures are consistent with each other:

Step One: Evaluate the signature’s broad characteristics.

Broad characteristics include:

1. The type of writing (e.g., cursive vs. print)
2. The speed of writing (e.g., harmonious vs. slow and deliberate)
3. Overall spacing
4. Overall size and proportions
5. Position of the signature (e.g., slanted vs. straight)
6. Spelling and punctuation

If the broad characteristics of the signature on the ballot affidavit are clearly consistent with the broad characteristics of the voter’s signature in the voter registration database, you may accept the signature and move on. c
If not, proceed to Step Two.

Step Two: Evaluate the signature’s local characteristics.

If you find a combination of dissimilarities between the two signatures’ broad characteristics, then evaluate local characteristics, which include:

1. Internal spacing
2. The size or proportions of a letter or letter combination
3. Curves, loops, and cross-points
4. The presence or absence of pen lifts
5. Beginning and ending strokes

After evaluating the signatures’ local characteristics, you must decide whether to accept the ballot affidavit envelope signature as genuine, or flag it for a second check. Only a combination of characteristic differences between signatures should trigger a flag for a second check because no one signs their name the same way twice.

If, after going through the above analysis, you find a combination of differences between the signature on the ballot affidavit and the signature(s) in the voter registration database, consider whether the differences can be reasonably explained.

If you can reasonably explain the differences, then you may accept the signature. However, you should not waste time trying to “explain away” the differences that you see. If you find yourself laboring to do so, you should flag the signature for a second check.

Looking at more than one voter registration database signature, if available, may help with your analysis because people develop certain signature habits over time. Identify these habitual marks and determine whether they exist in the ballot affidavit’s signature.

[linMcHlp]

From the article:

On Thursday, Speckin testified based upon his examination of data provided from the county about how quickly it appeared that signature reviewers made determinations regarding whether signatures were consistent.

Regarding the speed at which signatures appeared to be reviewed, Speckin said, “There were about 70,000 instances … that were lightning quick.”

He added that there were seven users, or signature reviewers, who "had over 1,000 instances" of reviewing signatures in less than two seconds that “had 100%” approval rates, meaning that the signatures matched.

When asked by Olsen whether comparing signatures in less than three seconds is physically possible, Speckin replied, "I don't believe it can be done."

After reviewing the Arizona State statute information and signature verification guidance (my replies 59, 60, and 61), the plaintiff’s expert witness, Erich Speckin, seems to be correct.

[rolling_stone]

thank you !

[linMcHlp]

Thank you.