Senate Presentation Arizona #1

Arizona We The People voting integrity organization gave sworn testimony to the state senate on ballot fraud. Links to their presented evidence are here.

One claim they made is that you physically cannot verify the signatures of that many voters with he resources given.

This is a poorly written slide, however – the 449 per workstation per hour means that nobody is validating the voter. It simply isn’t being done. You can stuff whatever you like into that system and it will not be checked. This lack of actual identification is a huge theme in vote fraud and in the presentation to the Arizona senate.

From the independent review, just about half of the signatures don’t match. Exhibit 3 is the result of a second review of only 380,000 ballots confirming that 181,000 were not matched — just under half of the ballots were not identifiable as the voter. This is not unexpected when we have images of individual people placing stacks of ballots in to drop boxes.

There is so much obvious fraud revealed in these sworn reports, had I not seen the statistical results years ago, I would be very upset.

20 thoughts on “Senate Presentation Arizona #1

  1. “There is so much obvious fraud revealed in these sworn reports, had I not seen the statistical results years ago, I would be very upset.”
    NEVER stop being upset when clear and obvious systemic Democrat Party voter fraud is exposed.

  2. I hate being the pedantic “terminology” nit-picker here, BUT: We’re talking about validating signatures on — exactly what, here?

    Correctly or otherwise, I’m envisioning a ballot which is anonymous — no name printed, no serial number, no ‘signature’ — inside some kind of envelope which is very much NOT anyonymous — names, serial numbers AND signatures.

    The envelope does all the conceptual work of the tasks done at the polling station — a person is checked against voter-registration lists, gets the correct ballot for his address, gets one and only one ballot for his name and address, etc. The badly done envelope is “turned away” just like an in-person voter at the polling site would be turned away if, say, a young woman showed up claiming to be an old man and wanting to vote at the old man’s address. Even with good intent — the young woman is voting “on behalf” of her infirm grandpa — the process turns her away. She can’t sign his name to the poll book. She shouldn’t sign the absentee, mail, proxy envelope containing his ballot.

    Where do signatures show up other than on envelopes?

    If we’re looking at the poll books at in-person polling sites, and we got this after-the-fact problem with awfully mismatched signatures, then there is a whole ‘nother problem. If the signatures are on initial REQUESTS for mail ballots (with blank envelopes) , it’s a different problem. And if AZ has voters sign the actual ballot, then we might have constitutional process violations…

    1. At least where I live, when you “mail in” a ballot, you have your signature on it.
      There is a record on file at the county voting center that workers are supposed to check to match the signatures.
      Just that simple.

    2. They sign only the envelope which is matched to the registration. After approval the ballot is removed and traceability is broken.

      Signature validation is not actually being used, which is the testimony to the senate, so there is no validation of the voter whatsoever. This allows someone with lists of voters to make a ballot, scribble on the envelope and turn it in.

  3. Lurching toward Armageddon…

    Reminder: Early voting in PA ran for… well, a long time before the first Senate candidate’s debate. Early voting can be said to deprive voters of a fully informed choice. Why do (or allow) it?

    1. > Why do (or allow) it?

      Much better for an authoritarian government to restrict voting procedures than to allow people to determine for themselves what the conditions should be.

      After all, things were just fine with a poll tax, right? And things have gone downhill since they allowed women the vote.

      1. Enfranchising Women and Abolishing the Poll Tax were accomplished by Constitutional Amendments (19th and 24th, respectively)

        Remind me, o wise one. When did the “early voting” amendment pass? Or when was it proposed, and how many states so far have ratified it?

        1. If a majority of people don’t want early voting, they can vote in people who will abolish it. That’s the way the system works. Sometimes the people you cited for pass legislation YOU don’t like. Anyone have a violin?

          There are plenty of countries with easier voting, where it’s not a problem. You’re focused on symptom not the underlying problem.

          1. People VERY much like the idea that once legislatures — who have been voted in to hammer out compromises, however imperfect — publish statutes about how those goals are to be accomplished, the candidates, parties, and appointed county officials tasked to implement the procedures will actually follow the law.

          1. Then vote them out if they don’t “follow the law.”

            Please don’t pretend to be ignorant or stupid. Or lazy. Assuming all the prior discussions on this site have slipped your mind, a half-minutes web-searching would give you this:


            ” Arizona has 15 counties, and each county has a Board of Supervisors (elected positions), a County Recorder (elected position) and an Elections Director (appointed by the BOS or Recorder). … The County Election Director is responsible for the conduct of elections on Election Day and ballot tabulation. The Election Director oversees the securing of polling places, hires and trains poll workers, conducts logic and accuracy testing on the equipment and tabulates the votes. ”

            The “Director” is a person who cannot be “voted out.” As we’ve discussed. As anyone might learn from a moment’s diligence.

            The position is somewhat analogous to the superintendent of a school district nominally reporting to a board of trustees. Or a city manager hired by the city council.

            Another interesting fact: In Maricopa County AZ there are five “Supervisors” representing single-member districts and serving four-year terms. At present, FOUR of the five were first seated by appointment by the other members of the board after predecessors vacated seats, then later ran as incumbents. In the county as in the legislature, incumbency is tantamount to tenure.

          2. > The “Director” is a person who cannot be “voted out.”

            Please. If Arizona citizens want to end early voting they can elect a state legislature to do so. But most likely they won’t do so. Because they don’t want to end early voting.

            If you think your preferences or those of a minority) should determine voting laws, you’re in the wrong country.

            Maybe you should work on organizing voters

  4. The linked reading claims that the AZ (county) process for “Early, In-Person”) voting collected both site-issued ballots and “mail” balloted; forwards all ballots uncounted to a central count site, and though required to do so by state law, neglected to match/reconcile the count of ballots collected on-site to the numbers of VOTES tallied for and attributed to that site by the MCTEC central site.

    My Texas mind and experience with election processes is just croggled. A scanner to count ballots issued and collected during “on site early in-person” voting is cheap. Reconciling ballots issued to votes tallied is fundamental. The “drop box” thing degrades the process but not making any effort at all to count and reconcile on site at the time is just — I lack language. (This is rare for me…)

    I approximate:

    It’s just VILE.

    None of the various scenarios I’ve envisioned incorporate this abject and apparently deliberate breakdown in transparent and accountable processes.

    I dimly begin to appreciate why Jeff Id is talking “manufactured” votes.

    1. ‘None of the various scenarios I’ve envisioned incorporate this abject and apparently deliberate breakdown in transparent and accountable processes.”
      That’s the Democrat plan

      1. Four of five elected supervisors of Maricopa County are — nominally — Republican. Not that they had to campaign. Last election for these officers was 2020. One GOP incumbent had a “qualified write-in” challenger self-identified as a Republican. The lone Democrat ran unopposed.

        “Recall petitions” were circulated in 2021 after the Supervisors refused GOP legislators’ subpoenas seeking an audit of Maricopa County’s election software. Instead of compliance with subpoenas, the 4 GOP supervisors filed lawsuit with the County Superior Court asking whether or not they had to respond to the subpoenas. That court ruled the subpoenas were moot when the legislative session ended. Delay resulted in denial.

        It’s not only Democrats in the county who seem to be obstructing election reform.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s