MORE ARIZONA FRAUD: Maricopa County Whistleblowers Reveal Tens If Not HUNDREDS Of Thousands Of Ballots With Mismatched Signatures Were Illegally Counted In Violation Of Arizona Law – Election Decided By 17,177 Votes

Male business executive giving a speech at conference center
0 35

Kari Lake’s historic lawsuit is packed full of evidence that the 2022 Midterm Election in Arizona was rigged and stolen from her and other Trump-Endorsed candidates.

Never in US history has there been so much evidence compiled of a fraudulent election taking place.

The Gateway Pundit has written numerous reports on Kari Lake’s historic lawsuit to nullify and overturn the stolen Midterm Election or hold a new election free from conflicts of interest.

The corrupt anti-Kari Lake officials who ran this election are responsible for potentially criminal actions.

Corrupt Katie Hobbs ran her own election as Secretary of State and colluded with Twitter to censor Kari Lake supporters.

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer started a dark money PAC against Kari Lake and also colluded with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Agency to censor election critics.

The Gateway Pundit reported that a Runbeck whistleblower revealed in Lake’s filing that HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of ballots had no chain of custody documentation. This is a shocking and massive violation of the law.

Additionally, twenty-five thousand ballots were also added to Maricopa County’s totals after election day with no explanation of why the number of remaining ballots could increase. The county also intentionally planned an in-person voting disaster on Election Day.

MASSIVE Machine Failures And Voter Disenfranchisement In Red Districts Of Maricopa County “Could Not Arise Absent INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT” Says IT and Elections Expert

Read the full lawsuit here.

From Kari Lake’s lawsuit:

Maricopa County officials also permitted the counting of tens of thousands of mail-in and drop box ballots that did not satisfy signature verification requirements. Signature verification, whereby the signature on the ballot envelope is compared to the voter’s signature on file to help confirm that the person who completed the ballot is actually the voter, is one of the most important methods of preventing mail-in ballot fraud. If the signature associated with the ballot does not match the signature on file with the government, the ballot cannot be counted unless the signature mismatch is properly cured.

Below is an example of a 2020 ballot envelope submitted in Maricopa County with the ballot signature shown on the left and official file signature of the voter shown on the right.

The fact that these two signatures do not match is clear even from cursory glance.  Maricopa County election officials allowed tens of thousands of ballots with signature mismatches like this one to be counted in 2020. They did the same thing in the 2022 general election.

The official election results certified by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs in the marquee race at the top of the ballot, a contest for the governorship between Hobbs herself and Kari Lake, showed a difference in votes between the two candidates of approximately 0.67% (17,117 votes out of about 2,559,485 cast). The separation of votes between Hobbs and Lake is far narrower than the number of presumptively illegal and illegally cast ballots in Arizona.

The fact that 72% of voters don’t believe this election can be trusted is a wakeup call. The Election Day debacle, together with other illegal and improper procedures through which the election was administered, preclude the Defendants in this action from certifying Hobbs as the winner of the election.

As The Gateway Pundit reported, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich released a report in April 2022 where he agreed, “the early ballot affidavit signature verification system in Arizona, and particularly when applied to Maricopa County, may be insufficient to guard against abuse.” The Attorney General also stated that “[r]equiring a match between the signature on the ballot affidavit and the signature on file with the State is currently the most important election integrity measure when it comes to early ballots.”

RINO Mark Brnovich failed to prosecute these crimes. He cannot be trusted.

The Gateway Pundit reported on a presentation by We The People AZ Alliance (referenced below) and State Legislators where they reviewed voter registration forms and compared them with signatures on over 100,000 ballot envelopes. They identified a staggering 20% error rate in signature verification.

Some of their findings included:

609 voters that cast a ballot in the 2020 election that used voter IDs issued AFTER the 2020 election.
Nine voters whose voter ID was canceled between 2017 and 2020 and were still able to vote in the 2020 election (not provisional).
128 who have two voter IDs assigned to them. Both ballots were cast in the 2020 election, resulting in potentially 128 illegal votes.
The signature on the Registration does not belong to the voter
Multiple Voters that Do Not Match Signature on Registrations Prior to 2020 AND Had New Registrations Inserted That Are Different or a Match On 02/03/2021
Ballots Marked “Voter Unable to Sign Due to Covid Restrictions.”

Ballots Marked “Voter Unable to Sign Due to Covid Restrictions.”

Envelopes left blank with no signature
Ballots Were Signed By Other Household Members and accepted as-is
Over 1,200 Dead voters
Ballots Received by the Wrong officer in charge of elections on Election Day
56 ballots were received on election day in other counties and states.
17,822 Accepted Ballots with mismatched signatures

Accepted 2020 Ballots With Mismatched Signatures

We The People AZ Alliance continued their investigation and found even more of these signature discrepancies on ballot affidavits in a small sample of 230,339 of the 1.9 million ballot envelopes (12.12% of the total). They also discovered nearly 10,000 of the same voter names associated with mismatched signatures and bad signatures from the 2020 election.

Whistleblowers from the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC) also came forward with damning testimony under penalty of perjury about the fraudulent signature verification.

Two witnesses testified that “level 2 managers” were approving rejected signatures without curing the ballots and pushing rejected ballots back through, “hoping that someone would approve those same signatures.”

One testified that Maricopa permitted any signature reviewer to un-reject ballots without accountability using curing stickers, and workers were able to obtain massive amounts of these stickers and use them to cure ballots without oversight.

Another testified that an off-site, third-party contractor, Star Center, was part of the process of curing ballots that were previously rejected by all levels of signature review, and they were not accountable to observers.

More from Kari Lake’s filing:

Tens of Thousands of Ballots with Mismatched Signatures Were Illegally Counted In Violation Of Arizona Law

A Maricopa County voter who chooses to cast an early ballot must enclose the ballot in an envelope containing a sworn affidavit, signed by the voter, that certifies the voter’s qualifications and personal signature affixation, and affirms his or her understanding of the criminal prohibition against casting multiple ballots in the same election. SeeR.S. § 16-547(A).

Upon receipt of a returned early ballot envelope, the County Recorder or the Recorder’s designee must “compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector’s registration record.” A.R.S. § 16-550(A). If “the signatures correspond,” the early ballot is processed and tabulated. Id. If “the signature is inconsistent with the elector’s signature on the elector’s registration record,” then the early ballot is invalid and cannot be tabulated, unless the putative voter cures the signature discrepancy within five business days of an election for federal office (or the third business day after any other election). Id.[1]

After a lengthy investigation into “election failures and potential misconduct that occurred in 2020,” Attorney General Brnovich issued a report on April 6, 2022 making numerous findings including that “the early ballot affidavit signature verification system in Arizona, and particularly when applied to Maricopa County, may be insufficient to guard against abuse.” The Attorney General stated that “[r]equiring a match between the signature on the ballot affidavit and the signature on file with the State is currently the most important election integrity measure when it comes to early ballots.[2]

Steve Robinson and Shelby Busch co-founded We the People AZ Alliance (“WPAA”), an organization whose purpose is to provide oversight of and transparency for government to the public.[3] WPAA employs a robust public records department and a highly skilled staff of data analysts, cybersecurity experts and an investigative team. Id. at ¶¶ 4-5.

On April 15, 2021, WPAA was appointed by Former Secretary of State and Senate Liaison, Ken Bennett, as Deputy Senate Liaisons to the 2020 Senate Election Audit. ¶ 6. After the close of that audit, WPAA continued investigating election related issues in Arizona.

Subsequently, WPAA’s data analysts confirmed multiple instances of voters reporting that their voter record had been changed or that for some unknown reason to them they were registered to vote, unsolicited. WPAA then contacted Senator Fann on June 20, 2022 and presented those findings. Senator Fann provided WPAA access to the Maricopa County external drive that the Arizona Senate had previously received from Maricopa County under subpoena and court order in connection with the 2020 Senate Election Audit to allow WPAA to evaluate issues regarding the validity of voters, their corresponding signatures and any potential voter registrations contained on this external drive.

Upon examining the hard drive, WPAA’s Data Director located multiple hidden files and a cross-reference between ballot envelopes and registration forms that was provided by the county. WPAA discovered multiple irregularities in the voter registration data contained on the hard drive. A group of Senators then approved a full-scale investigation of the voter signatures on the ballot envelopes from the 2020 general election using actual control signatures found on the hard drive for comparison, which were also apparently used by Maricopa County for signature verification. Id. at ¶¶ 10-12

A signature review of 230,339 of the 1.9 million ballot envelopes (12.12% of the total) using the same control signatures available to Maricopa County revealed the following stunning discrepancies:

18,022 signatures had egregious mismatches to the reference signatures meaning the mismatch was plainly seen at first glance. This equates to 8.5% of the ballot envelopes reviewed – meaning that of the 1.9 million 2020 ballot envelopes, approximately 156,000 ballot envelopes were likely to have egregious signature mismatches.

19,631 signatures failed the Arizona Secretary of State standards which means that of the 1.9 million 2020 ballot envelopes, approximately 9.1% or 165,600 ballots are likely to fail the Arizona Secretary of State standards.

By comparison, in the 2020 election, Maricopa rejected just 587 ballots for mismatched signatures. Brnovich Report at 5.

WPAA then compared names associated with the signatures of the mismatched voters from 2020 against the record of voters who cast ballots in the 2022 election less the later early ballots for which data was not available. Even though the full 2022 voter file was not available:

4,328 of the same names associated with 18,022 egregious signature mismatches from 2020 voted again in 2022 general election.

5,289 of the same names associated with 19,631 failed Arizona signature standards mismatches from 2020 voted again in the 2022 general election.

For the 2022 general election, there were approximately 32 workers involved in Maricopa County’s signature verification and signature curing process. Three signature verification workers have signed sworn declarations concerning their experience at Maricopa County during the 2022 general election.[4] These three witnesses testified that their and their co-workers’ rejection rates while verifying signatures ranged from 35-40% (Onigkeit Decl. ¶¶ 19-22), 15%-30% (Myers Decl. at ¶¶ 18, 21), to 35%-40% (Nystrom Decl. ¶ 13). These figures are consistent with the rejection rate of WPAA discussed above equating to tens of thousands of illegal ballots being counted.

Each of these witnesses testified to deep flaws in the ballot signature verification and/or curing process employed by Maricopa County.

Jacqueline Onigkeit reviewed approximately 42,500 ballots and rejected about 13,000 to 15,000 of them, with rejection rates in the 25% – 40% range. Her co-workers complained of similar rejection rates. Onigkeit Decl. ¶¶ 23, 25.

Andy Myers described Maricopa’s process for signature verification and curing:

In my room we had a white board that Michelle would update with the number of ballots to be verified that day. Throughout the day Michelle would update the progress the people were making in verifying signatures. The math never added up. Typically, we were processing about 60,000 signatures a day. I would hear that people were rejecting 20-30% which means I would expect to see 12,000 to 15,000 ballots in my pile for curing the next day. However, I would consistently see every morning only about 1000 envelopes to be cured. We typically saw about one tenth of the rejected ballots we were told we would see.

Andrew, one of the signature reviewers, would tell me every day that I was going to get crushed the next day because he was excepting (rejecting) a “ton” of bad signatures. However, we never saw a correlation.

The most likely explanation for this discrepancy is that the level 2 managers who re-reviewed the rejections of the level 1 workers were reversing and approving signatures that the level 1 workers excepted and rejected. This seems to me to be the more likely explanation. If this is the case, then the level 2 managers were changing about 90% of the rejected signatures to accepted.

Myers Decl. ¶¶ 21-23 (emphasis added).

Most of the work of these level 2 managers was not subject to the accountability of observers, but their reversal of rejected ballots should be properly recorded in the computer records of the EVRT program. Nystrom ¶ 16.

Maricopa’s signature verification managers had a practice of sending already rejected ballots back through the process with the implication that they wanted those ballots approved:

On the last day of work, November 15, we were asked by manager Celia to go through perhaps 5,000 to 7,000 ballots, that had already been rejected at levels 1, 2 and 3. We were asked to go to the SHELL program and to only find one signature that matched the green envelope, even if all other signatures in the program did not match the green envelope. The implication from Celia is that was desperate to get the work complete and that she wanted the ballots approved. These 5,000 to 7,000 ballots had already been through the full level 1, 2, and 3 process and been rejected. Therefore, I do not know why [we were] going through them again, and that is why it seemed that Celia wanted them approved.”

Nystrom Decl. ¶ 21.

This practice of pushing rejected ballots back through the system with the hope that they would be un-rejected was also attested by Andy Myers:

When the excepted numbers grew the managers would resend those excepted signatures back out into the general pool, hoping that someone would approve those same signatures, which would thereby reduce the excepted signature load.

Myers Decl. ¶ 11.

Maricopa permitted any signature reviewer to un-reject ballots without accountability using curing stickers. Workers were able to obtain massive amounts of these stickers and use them to cure ballots without oversight. Onigkeit explained:

In order to perform the curing process, we were given a batch of stickers to place on a ballot, which included stickers with abbreviations. Some, but not all, of the ballot stickers and abbreviations were as follows: “VER” meant that we verified the voter’s information, and their ballot was approved to be counted, “WV” meant that a voter did not want to verify their ballot over the phone, and “LM” meant that we called the voter and left a message.

One of the problems with the stickers was that nothing prevented a level 1, 2 or 3 worked from requesting a massive amount of “approved” stickers and placing them on ballots. Again, observers did not watch any level 3 work and did not watch most of level 2 work. Once stickers were placed on ballots, there was no record on the ballot or elsewhere to determine who placed the sticker there. We were told to not sign or initial the sticker, but to only date it. Accordingly, there was no way to know who placed “verified” stickers on ballots. The system was wide open to abuse and allowed for potential false placement of “verified” stickers without accountability.

Onigkeit Decl. ¶¶ 17-18.

From the available information, an off-site, third-party contractor, Star Center, was part of the process of curing ballots that were previously rejected by all levels of signature review. This off-site group was not accountable to observers. Nystrom explained,

Star Center, which was a third-party contractor that worked completely off-site but had the same access to the voter’s file information as we did on the computers at MCTEC, to cure their affidavit signature. My understanding of the Star Center’s curing process was to verify information from the voter’s file, i.e., the last 4 of their SS #, driver’s license #, street address, full name and any other identifying information in their file. It is my understanding that the Star Center was able to cure and did cure ballots, but were not able to see the actual ballot with the signature on it. It is my understanding that the Star Center work was not monitored with observers, whereas my work was required to be monitored by observers. Since they had the ability to cure and reverse the rejection of signatures, I do not know why their work was not monitored by observers.

Nystrom Decl. ¶ 17.

This election was decided by only 17,177 votes or roughly .67%!

In one count against Katie Hobbs and Maricopa County for illegal ballots with invalid signatures and misconduct, Lake states, “the invalid-signature ballot envelopes established in the [Shelby] Busch and [Clay] Parikh declarations demonstrate that Maricopa County’s elections suffered from outcome-determinative number of illegal votes from mail-in ballots in 2020 and 2022. The illegal votes require the Court to act to set aside the 2022 general election.”

This finding cites a case, Miller v. Picacho Elementary School Dist. in 1994, where an election for a school budget override was set aside due to misconduct involving mail-in ballots.

COUNT III.

Mail-In Ballots with Invalid Signatures
A.R.S. § 16-550(A)

Misconduct, A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1)

Lake incorporates the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

To be lawful and eligible for tabulation, the signature on the affidavit accompanying an early ballot must match the signature featured on the elector’s “registration record.” A.R.S. § 16-550(A).

Upon information and belief, a material number of early ballots cast in the November 8, 2022 general election were transmitted in envelopes containing an affidavit signature that the Maricopa County Recorder or his designee determined did not match the signature in the putative voter’s “registration record.” The Maricopa County Recorder nevertheless accepted a material number of these early ballots for processing and tabulation.

Specifically, the invalid-signature ballot envelopes established in the Busch and Parikh declarations demonstrate that Maricopa County’s elections suffered from outcome-determinative number of illegal votes from mail-in ballots in 2020 and 2022. The illegal votes require the Court to act to set aside the 2022 general election:

This is not a case of mere technical violation or one of dotting one’s “i’s” and crossing one’s “t’s.” At first blush, mailing versus hand delivery may seem unimportant. But in the context of absentee voting, it is very important. Under the Arizona Constitution, voting is to be by secret ballot. Ariz. Const. art VII, § 1. Section 16-542(B) advances this constitutional goal by setting forth procedural safeguards to prevent undue influence, fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation. [… A] showing of fraud is not a necessary condition to invalidate absentee balloting. It is sufficient that an express non-technical statute was violated, and ballots cast in violation of the statute affected the election. We therefore vacate the opinion of the court of appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court setting aside the election.
Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180, 877 P.2d at 279.

To the extent the Elections Procedures Manual purports to authorize the validation of early ballot affidavit signatures by reference to a signature specimen that is not found in the voter’s “registration record,” the Manual is contrary to the plain language of A.R.S. § I 6-550(A), and hence unenforceable.

The remedy for illegal absentee ballots is either to set aside the election under Miller, 179 Ariz. at 180, or proportionately to reduce each candidate’s share of mail-in ballots under Grounds, 67 Ariz. at 183-85.

Accordingly, Lake is entitled both to an order requiring the Maricopa Defendants to revisit all or a representative sample of the EV ballot envelopes to check for valid signatures and to an order either setting aside the election or proportionately reducing the tabulated returns of early ballots.

Lake’s lawsuit also demands “An opportunity to inspect Maricopa County ballots from the 2022 general election, including ballot signature envelopes and the corresponding signatures on file with Maricopa County, prior to trial.”

The Court must overturn this election and allow a full examination of ballot signatures and voting machine failures.

The post MORE ARIZONA FRAUD: Maricopa County Whistleblowers Reveal Tens If Not HUNDREDS Of Thousands Of Ballots With Mismatched Signatures Were Illegally Counted In Violation Of Arizona Law – Election Decided By 17,177 Votes appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published.