A judge in Michigan has vindicated President Trump by ruling that Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat, broke state law when she unilaterally changed election rules concerning absentee balloting in the 2020 election. This ruling legitimizes a key claim made by the Trump legal team in its challenges to the 2020 election.
A major change imposed by Benson was loosening the signature verification requirement for absentee ballots. Michigan Court of Claims Chief Judge Christopher Murray ruled that this change violated Michigan Administrative Procedures Act.
…nowhere in this state’s election law has the Legislature indicated that signatures are to be presumed valid, nor did the Legislature require that signatures are to be accepted so long as there are any redeeming qualities in the application or return envelope as compared with the signature on file. Policy determinations like the one at issue — which places the thumb on the scale in favor of a signature’s validity — should be made pursuant to properly promulgated rules under the APA or by the Legislature.
Over 3.1 million Michiganders voted by absentee ballot in November. Biden “won” the state by just over 154,000 votes, according to the state-certified results.
Michigan was not the only state where Democrat state officials unilaterally changed election laws, so this ruling certainly raises legitimate doubts whether Biden truly won the election without invalid votes.
A Rasmussen survey last month found that 61 percent of Republicans say Joe Biden did not win the election fairly. That number hasn’t changed much since early January, when 69 percent of GOP voters voiced the same concern. That 34 percent of all voters and 36 percent of independents agree with them is a strong signal that something went terribly amiss in the maelstrom of election cases.
The election is over. There has been an inauguration. So why did ABC’s George Stephanopoulos feel the need to berate a U.S. senator and his audience with the demand, “Can’t you just say the words: This election was not stolen?” Why must he shout, “There were 86 challenges filed by President Trump and his allies in court. All were dismissed!”
Perhaps, the answer lies in the details of those cases, as much in how they were adjudicated as in the final rulings.
Let’s start with some clarity: The list of more than 80 cases includes both the same cases that were appealed through various courts and many that had no direct tie to the president’s legal team or the Republican Party. In reality, there were 28 unique cases filed across the six contested states by President Trump or others on his behalf.
Twelve were filed in Pennsylvania, six in Georgia, and two or three in each of the other states. Of course, there was also the lawsuit filed by the state of Texas against the state of Pennsylvania that had the potential to change the outcome. So let’s call it 29.
To be sure, that is still a lot of cases. Yet to understand why there is still widespread unease with the election, would it not be better to stop demanding conformity and instead dig deeper to see what the courts told us in those cases, and what they did not? A review of them shows that, contrary to a common narrative, few were ever considered on the merits.
Death by Technicalities
First of all, we can recognize that many of the cases produced no useful information relative to election integrity. We learned nothing from a lawsuit dismissed by a state judge in Georgia (Boland v. Raffensperger) on the basis that the plaintiff had sued an “improper party” rather than hearing the merits of why the ballot rejection rate allegedly dropped from 1.53 percent in 2018 to 0.15 percent in the 2020 general election.
HR 1 would cement all of the worst changes in election law made in blue states in 2020 and nationalize them. Federal control of elections would be the norm. States would be relegated to colonial outposts that carry out Washington DC’s mandates. ‘Democracies die when one party seizes control of the elections process, eliminates the safeguards that have protected the integrity of the ballot, places restrictions on free speech, and seizes the earnings of individual citizens to promote candidates they may abhor,’ says Rep. Tom McClintock, a California Republican. ‘Democracies die by suicide, and we are now face to face with such an instrument.’
Does HR 1 justify such apocalyptic rhetoric? Sadly, yes. Hans von Spakovsky, a former member of the Federal Election Commission, says that while the Constitution does allow Congress to override the power of states to decide ‘the time, manner and place’ of federal elections nothing on the massive scale of HR 1 has ever been attempted.
He consulted other former members and assembled a short summary of the worst provisions of HR 1:
• H.R. 1 would make fraud easier by forcing states to implement early voting, automatic voter registration, same-day registration, online voter registration and no-fault absentee balloting
• Degrade the accuracy of registration lists by requiring states to automatically register all individuals on state and federal databases. This would include many ineligible voters, including aliens
• It would require states to allow 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds to register. Combined with a ban on voter ID, this would allow underage individuals to vote
• Require states to count ballots cast by voters outside of their assigned precincts, a recipe for election fraud
• Mandate no-fault absentee ballots, which are the tool of choice for vote thieves, force states to accept absentee ballots received up to 10 days after Election Day and force states allow ‘ballot harvesting’
• Prevent election officials from checking the eligibility and qualifications of voters and removing ineligible voters
• Ban state-voter ID laws by forcing states to allow individuals to vote without an ID and merely signing a statement in which they claim they are who they say they are
• Create vague and broad language that could be used to criminally charge someone who questions the eligibility of a voter
• Destroy the bipartisan composition of the Federal Election Commission and places a partisan majority in control of every aspect of our federal elections
• Require states to restore the ability of felons to vote the moment they are out of prison
• Force disclosure of names of Americans who donate to nonprofit organizations — thus subjecting them to political harassment
• Declare statehood for Washington DC to be ‘constitutional’ despite evidence it is not
• And finally, HR 1 would effectively ban nonprofits from contacting a member of Congress or their staff about pending legislation — a direct assault on the right of Americans to petition their government
Should the power grab masquerading as HR 1 become law it will represent only the latest distortion of democracy. It will undermine confidence in the system far more than anything Donald Trump attempted.
That recent Time article I’ve already discussed ( in this post ) is the gift that keeps on giving. The more you think about the article, the more it seems to reveal and/or suggest. For example, take this excerpt [emphasis added mine; additions in brackets mine]: Election night began with many Democrats despairing.
… Luntz’s focus group found that more than 91% of Trump’s supporters would vote for him again (we think that number is much higher). In addition, Luntz said that 78% of Trump voters believe that the election was stolen (as they should).
“91% of those who voted for Donald Trump on Election Day would vote for him again. This is a poll that was done on Monday, just 48 hours ago,” Luntz began with a depressed look on his face.
“And it’s astounding. And only 5% would switch their votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden. And I’ve got two more numbers for you. 67% believe that if the votes were counted accurately and fairly, Donald Trump would have won. And the most staggering of all, 78% believed that the election was rigged and stolen. So you’ve got a large segment of the American people who do not trust our electoral process,” he concluded.
The attempt to “persuade” Trump voters that the election was on the up and up has totally failed. The “Shut up” chorus is not working.
Democrats are making extraordinary efforts to suppress all discussion of whether Joe Biden actually won the 2020 presidential election. In fact, they go even farther: they want to suppress all discussion of the extent to which voter fraud occurred. That naturally makes me want to write about voter fraud, and who really won the election.
First, this question: why are the Democrats so hysterical in their insistence that fraud not be mentioned? One reason is obvious. Joe Biden will take office under a cloud, since close to half of all Americans doubt that he really won the election. The Democrats want to stamp out such doubts to preserve Biden’s authority as president.
But there is a second reason that may be more important. The Democrats want the lax voting procedures that prevailed in 2020 to continue in the future. They know that efforts will be made in many states to improve ballot integrity, and they want those efforts to fail. By rendering all discussion of voter fraud out of bounds, they hope to forestall reforms that would make it harder for them to cheat, or enable cheating, in the future.
My house has a ghost, a former resident that moved out in 2009 but still receives mail from unions, political campaigns and the government. On a sneaking suspicion, I contacted my state representative about my ghost. Voting records are not freely shared in Illinois, but sure enough, my ghost has been voting. My state representative won by 34 votes in 2018, now by 35 votes. Spurred on growing numbers of confirmed reports, he will present a bill to the Illinois General Assembly to clean up the voter rolls, but would such a cleanup be enough?
Are 1%, 10% or 50% of registered voters actually stale registrations? Most anyone telling you a number based on data analysis is certainly wrong, probably on the low end. Every year about 10% of people move, and about 16% of those move to another state, so playing the averages, about 3.2% of last elections’ voters will have moved to another state and are likely still registered, and it accumulates.
I usually door knock for the Republican Party, for the purpose of getting out the base. My walk sheets contained people who voted in three or four of the last four Republican primaries. On rare occasion, the voter I was to contact had moved out, but I never encountered stale voters because they didn’t vote Republican primaries and so had been filtered off the list.
This changed in 2014, when I knocked doors for Bruce Rauner. His data analysis team incorporated other resources to identify Democratic and routine and infrequent non-partisan voters (general elections only) who might be sympathetic to his message. The stale registrations were numerous, and so were the stale voters. I visited one home that had three different family names listed on the walk sheet, all with recent voting records. From the ages and sexes, it was clear that these were different middle-aged couples. The current residents had lived there for a year and had not yet registered to vote, but one of their ghosts voted in the Democratic primary that Spring. At one strong Republican house, which I had knocked many times before, their daughter appeared on the sheet as a strong and routine Democratic voter. She moved out-of-state 10 years prior.
From the number of similar experiences at other houses, I estimated that 2.0% of the voters in my precincts were stale, with 7/8 of it going Democratic, meaning that Democrats received +1.5% from stale voters in my 75% Republican precincts. Many races are won and lost by less. If these statistics hold, that 0.33% of Republican votes and 7% of Democratic votes are from stale voters, then stale voters make up about 3.67% of the total vote in swing states, giving Democrats a 3.33% margin of fraud. In most “blue” states, Democrats would gain a 4.5% margin of fraud from stale voters.
Source: American Thinker
From my friend Larry Correia, who, among other things, is a former accountant and auditor and knows something about “red flags” and audits: I’m seeing lots of outrage this morning because Trump called the GA SoS and told him to do his job and find fraudulent votes. So there’s a great deal of pearl clutching […]No Vote Fraud? In a Pig’s Eye. — The Writer in Black
(Scott Johnson) Following up on my the adjacent post , I want to add a few comments to draw out facets of the phone call that have been shortchanged — i.e., suppressed — by the mainstream media.
• The fact that the call was secretly recorded is scurrilous. As is apparent at a couple of points, the call was for the purposes of settlement of the pending Trump lawsuit. Who secretly records settlement discussions?
• The Trump team contends that there were more illegal votes included in the Georgia certified election results than the number of voters separating Biden from Trump. Secretary Raffensperger et al. failed to respond to specific questions and to provide information or reports or records demonstrating that the numbers of illegal votes identified by the Trump team are incorrect. They just say it. They offer no evidence.
• At the end of the call Trump local counsel Kurt Hilbert stated: “We would like to sit down with your office, and we can do it through purposes of compromise and just like this phone call, just to deal with that limited category of votes….” Hilbert reiterated the request, seeking Raffensperger et al. “to sit down with us in a compromise and settlements proceeding and actually go through the registered voter IDs and the registrations.”
• Although Secretary of State general counsel Ryan Germany agreed to set up such a meeting, there has been no further response other than the release of the recording of the conversation by Raffensperger or someone acting on his behalf. It is reasonable to infer that Raffensperger doesn’t want the meeting to happen.
• Cleta Mitchell, by the way, is a volunteer lending President Trump a hand by acting essentially as a liaison in the litigation. She is not not an attorney of record. The left media crowd on Twitter is now conducting a vile campaign against Cleta and her firm. These people are ignorant thugs.
Source: Raffensperger on line 2