I am not an “election denier.”
My argument to our voters is that we almost always have the numbers to make it Too Big to Rig.
But I understand why our voters are suspicious. I am, too.
We have election laws, and those laws are easily violated and often impossible to detect. Even when detected, it’s too late.
We know illegal voting exists, because people are convicted of it every election, but we don’t know the actual scale of it because some ways of committing it is undetectable. In some ways it doesn’t even matter if the scale is small because some local elections are decided by 5, 10, or 20 votes.
For example, it is very easy to sidestep the signature verification process altogether, and CA passed a new law preventing observers from even challenging signature verification. Voter ID would close this loophole.
Delay and late acceptance exacerbates this perception, as well, putting pressure on an already not well-managed system, keeping the process opaque and confusing to an already distrustful public.
Indeed, the 14 states including California that count ballots received after Election Day are unconstitutionally extending the date of Election Day by one, two, or three weeks - and SCOTUS will hopefully put an end to that in the next 60 days.
When we point these things out, our colleagues across the aisle call us crazy conspiracy theorists, voter suppressionists, or even worse, racists. They do that obviously because this system is to their benefit.
We simply recognize reality that in order to have a functioning Republic (or Democracy whatever word you want to use), the public must have confidence in our elections and our current laws and system does not provide that.
Rather than call us names, address the issues.
🗳️ Many have been asking me describe the potential signature verification loophole for Los Angeles mail in ballots.
It says: “If a voter is unable to sign, the voter can make a mark witnessed by one person.”
Here, the person drew a happy face & “witnessed” it with a scribble. That scribble isn’t validated as being a real person. No name, nothing.
While a happy face may draw scrutiny, a plain line would not.
This could hypothetically enable mass harvesting where the voter never fills out, signs or even sees their own ballot.
We should be told how many ballots show up without the voter’s signature.