By Peter Navarro
Contestable process fouls represent the third dimension of election irregularities in the 2020 presidential election. The various forms such process fouls can take are illustrated in Table 5 across the six battleground states.
Abuses of Poll Watchers and Observers
Central to the fairness and integrity of any election is the processes by which observers monitor the receipt, opening, and counting of the ballots. You can see in the Table 5 that poll watcher and observer abuses were present across all six battleground states. In Georgia,(66) Michigan,(67) and Pennsylvania,(68) poll watchers and observers were denied entry to ballot counting centers by Judges of Elections and other poll workers. This was despite presenting proper certification and identification.
In Georgia,(69) Michigan,(70) Nevada,(71) and Pennsylvania,(72) Republican poll watchers were also forced inside confined areas, thereby limiting their view. In some cases, this confinement was enforced by local law enforcement.
Across these four battleground states, Republican poll watchers were also directed to stand at unreasonably lengthy distances from ballot counters. In Michigan – arguably the “first among equals” when it comes to observer abuses – poll workers put up poster boards on the windows of the room where ballots were being processed and counted so as to block the view.73 In Pennsylvania, tens of thousands of ballots were processed in back rooms where poll observers were prohibited from being able to observe at all.74
This is an extremely serious matter because it is these poll watchers and observers who represent the frontline defenders of a fair election process. Their job is to make sure all ballots are handled properly and tabulated accordingly. They seek to answer questions like: Is there a signature match process being conducted? Does each ballot have an outer envelope or is it a naked ballot? Are ballots being run more than once through the tabulation machines?
When poll watchers or observers are barred from viewing or forced to view from unacceptably large distances, these watchdogs cannot accurately answer these questions. They, therefore, cannot fulfill their critical watchdog function.
Mail-In Ballot and Absentee Ballot Rules Violated Contrary to State Law
In Georgia, more than 300,000 individuals were permitted to vote who had applied for an absentee ballot more than 180 days prior to the Election Day. This is a clear violation of state law.(75)
In both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, Democrat election officials acted unilaterally to accept both mail-in and absentee ballots after Election Day. State Republicans have argued this is contrary to state law.
In Pennsylvania, absentee and mail-in ballots were accepted up to three days after Election Day.76 On November 7th, in anticipation of a legal challenge, the United States Supreme Court ordered that the approximately 10,000 absentee and mail-in ballots that had arrived past November 3rd be separated from ballots that had arrived on Election Day.(77) This direction notwithstanding, a poll watcher reported on November 7th that, in Delaware County, ballots received the previous night were not being separated from ballots received on Election Day, contrary to state law.(78)
Wisconsin state law does not permit early voting. Nonetheless, city officials in the Democrat stronghold of Madison, Wisconsin assisted in the creation of more than 200 “Democracy in the Park” illegal polling places.
These faux polling places were promoted and supported by the Biden campaign. They provided witnesses for absentee ballots and acted in every way like legal polling places. Moreover, they received ballots outside of the limited 14-day period preceding an election that is authorized by statute for in-person or absentee balloting. These were clear violations of state law.(79)
Voters Not Properly Registered Allowed to Vote
One of the jobs of poll workers is to ensure that in-person voters are legally registered and are who they say they are. Across at least three of the six battleground states – Georgia, Nevada, and Wisconsin – this job may not have been effectively done.
In Wisconsin, for example, officials refused to allow poll watchers to challenge the qualifications of people applying to vote or require proof of such persons’ qualifications.80 In Georgia, more than 2,000 individuals appear to have voted who were not listed in the State’s records as having been registered to vote.(81)
In Pennsylvania, a poll watcher observed poll workers taking individuals whose names did not appear in voter registration books back into a separate area that was unobserved by any poll watchers. There, these apparently unregistered voters met with a Judge of Elections who allegedly told them: “you go back in, tell them this is your name, and you can vote.”(82)
Illegal Campaigning at Poll Locations
Poll workers are supposed to remain politically neutral. When a poll worker displays bias for one political candidate over another at a polling location, this is contrary to state law. Unfortunately, this law appears to have been repeatedly violated in Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
For example, in Pennsylvania, poll workers were wearing paraphernalia from a group called “Voter Protection.” This is a 100% Democrat-funded Political Action Committee dedicated to Democrat redistricting in Pennsylvania; and the wearing of its paraphernalia constitutes illegal campaigning at the polls.(83)
In a similar type of illegal campaigning in Michigan, poll workers were allowed to wear Black Lives Matter shirts and were seen carrying tote bags of President Obama paraphernalia.84 In addition, poll workers with Biden and Obama campaign shirts on were allowed on the ballot counting floor.(85)
In Wisconsin, representatives from the Biden campaign were outside with clipboards talking to voters on their way in to vote. They were clearly inside the prohibited perimeter for electioneering. Poll workers did nothing to address this illegal campaigning despite the objections of observers.(86)
Ballots Cured by Poll Workers or Voters Contrary to Law
Under prescribed circumstances, both poll workers and voters may fix ballots with mistakes or discrepancies. This process is known as “ballot curing.”
In nineteen states, poll workers must notify voters if there are errors or discrepancies on their ballots and allow them to “cure” or correct any errors so their votes will count.87 However, in states that do not allow curing, ballots with discrepancies such as missing or mismatched signatures must be discarded.(88)
In Pennsylvania, and contrary to state law, poll workers were trained to allow voters to cure or “correct” their ballots.(89) According to one court filing, Democrat-controlled counties in Pennsylvania participated in pre-canvass activities prior to Election Day “by reviewing received mail-in ballots for deficiencies.”90 Such discrepancies included “lacking the inner secrecy envelope or lacking a signature of the elector on the outer declaration envelope.” Voters were then notified so that they could cure their ballots – a clear violation of state law.(91)
Numerous other examples of illegally cured ballots abound. For example, in Wisconsin, tens of thousands of ballots were observed to be corrected or cured despite election observer objections.(92)
In Pennsylvania, poll workers sorted approximately 4,500 ballots with various errors into bins. Poll workers then re-filled out the 4,500 ballots so that they could be read by tabulation machines, an action contrary to state law.(93)
In Michigan, poll workers altered the dates on the outer envelopes of the ballots so that they would be able to count them.94 Michigan poll workers also filled out blank ballots to “correct” mail-in and absentee ballots according to what they believed the “voter had intended.”(95)
66 Declaration of John Doe, Cobb County, Georgia, November 5, 2020.
67 Affidavit John Doe, Eagle County, Colorado November 12, 2020.
68 The Declaration of John McBlain, Esquire. See, The Supreme Court of the United States, State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, December 7, 2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf
69 Affidavit of Jane Doe, Gwinnett County, Georgia, November 12, 2020.
70 Affidavit John Doe, Waukesha County, Wisconsin, November 10, 2020.
71 Affidavit of Jane Doe, Clark County, Nevada, November 10, 2020.
72The Declaration of John McBlain, Esquire. See, The Supreme Court of the United States, State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, December 7, 2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf
73 Affidavit of John Doe, November 10, 2020, Waukesha County, Wisconsin.
74 The Declaration of John McBlain, Esquire. See, The Supreme Court of the United States, State of Texas v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State of Georgia, State of Michigan, and State of Wisconsin, December 7, 2020. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22O155/163048/20201208132827887_TX-v-State-ExpedMot%202020-12-07%20FINAL.pdf
75 The Superior Court Of Fulton County State Of Georgia, Trump v. Raffensperger, December 4, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger.pdf
76 Liptak, Adam, “Supreme Court Allows Longer Deadline for Absentee Ballots in Pennsylvania and North Carolina,” New York Times, October 28, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/supreme-court-pennsylvania-north-carolina-absentee-ballots.html
77 Southwick, Ron, “Pa. received 10,000 ballots after polls closed on Election Day,” PennLive, Nov10, 2020. https://www.pennlive.com/elections/2020/11/pa-received-10000-late-ballots-that-arrived-after-polls-closed-on-election-day.html
78 Declaration of Jane Doe, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, November 7, 2020.
79 The Supreme Court of Wisconsin, “Donald J. Trump et al v. Anthony Evers et al” December 1, 2020. https://cdn.donaldjtrump.com/public-files/press_assets/wisconsin-filing-12-1-20_compressed.pdf
80 Declaration of Jane Doe, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, November 11, 2020.
81 The Superior Court Of Fulton County State Of Georgia, Trump v. Raffensperger, December 4, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/12/Trump-v.-Raffensperger.pdf
82 Declaration of John Doe, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, November 7, 2020.
83 Declaration of John Doe, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, November 9, 2020.
84 Declaration of John Doe, Ingham County, Michigan, November 11, 2020.
85 Declaration of Jane Doe, Ingham County, Michigan, November 11, 2020.
86 Declaration of Jane Doe, Wheaton, Illinois, November 9, 2020.
87 “Cure period of absentee and mail-in ballots,” Ballotpedia, Accessed on December 14, 20. https://ballotpedia.org/Cure_period_for_absentee_and_mail-in_ballots
88 “Cure period of absentee and mail-in ballots,” Ballotpedia, Accessed on December 14, 20. https://ballotpedia.org/Cure_period_for_absentee_and_mail-in_ballots
89 Declaration of Jane Doe, Centre County, Pennsylvania, November 11, 2020.
90 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump for President et al v. Kathy Boockvar et al, November 18, 2020. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.169.0.pdf
91 The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Donald J. Trump for President et al v. Kathy Boockvar et al, November 18, 2020. https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057/gov.uscourts.pamd.127057.169.0.pdf
92 Declaration of Bartholomew W. and Jean B. W., Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, November 16, 2020. See Also https://www.jsonline.com/story/news/2020/11/11/fact-check-republicans-claim-wisconsin-clerks-illegally-altered-ballots/6234023002/
93 Declaration of John Doe, Delaware County Pennsylvania, November 9, 2020.
94 State of Michigan Court of Appeals, “Donald J. Trump for President et. al v. Jocelyn Benson,” November 30, 2020. https://www.democracydocket.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/45/2020/11/Trump-brief-FINAL.pdf
95 Affidavit of Jane Doe, Washtenaw County, Michigan, November 9, 2020.