It's The Cover up (part 4)
___________________________________________________
For those old enough to remember, the 2000 election will forever be known as the hanging chad election. It is called that because of the controversy in Broward County Florida. At the time Broward County had "punch card" voting tabulation. When you voted you were given a punch card and you punched out the candidate's oval of your choice. Due to the closeness of the Bush vs. Gore race, any votes that were questionable as to the "voters intent" were reviewed many because of what were known as "hanging chads." This was caused when the punch out was...well hanging. There were also hanging doors chads, swinging door chads, dimpled chads, pregnant chads. Yes it was fun.
What the man in the picture from that famous 2000 Florida recount is doing, along with others, was adjudicating the ballot. In other words He was trying to determine the voters intent because the ballot counting machine could not "read" the ballot.
Because of the 2000 election nobody uses punch card voting anymore, but if I had the power and the authority to audit questionable counties or even state outcomes in the 2020 election I would begin with adjudicated ballots. Let me begin in Arizona.
On November 30th the Arizona legislature held a hearing in Maricopa County, perhaps the most informative and professional hearing of those done by state legislatures. One of the witnesses was an elder gentleman named Lesley Nepus (not sure if this is the correct spelling). You can find his entire testimony beginning at 7:21 of this video. One item that he brought out which is a recurring theme in all states and all these hearings was the hostility and lack of access given to Republican poll watchers. Since Nepus was a veteran poll watcher, having done two previous elections, he was in a position to note the difference from previous elections. He also pointed out the stark difference between the actual regulations and how he and others were treated as far as access. In this particular hearing others GOP poll watchers make the same claims.
Mr. Nepus performed various duties over the course of the election, he was by the way a volunteer, but the one I want to focus on was as a poll watcher at the precinct level. Contrary to guidelines and common sense the poll supervisor required him to to sit in a designated seat and was not allowed to observe every aspect of the voting process unless accompanied by a poll worker. The one advantage of this totally illegal restriction was that the seat he was "assigned" to was up front where he could observe the tabulating machine, the machine that actually receives your ballot. What Mr. Nepus observed was that a large portion of the votes that went into the machine caused a "green light switch to be activated." He later explained that in order for the ballot to be accepted either the voter would be instructed to push the green button or the poll worker would push the button. Further on under questioning he said that this happened so often that it seemed to be almost a feature of the process.
What was the green button? The green button controversy was in part, brought forward due to "sharpiegate" which may or may not be relevant or even real, but resulted in a lawsuit. In the lawsuit we learned some details.
The heart of the lawsuit comes down to what happened when a voter would attempt to feed their ballot into the machine. “After marking their ballots, voters deposit them into the tabulation device. If the tabulator detects an apparent defect or irregularity on the face of the ballot, it will display an alert and eject the ballot.”
The complaint explains the proper procedure when this happens is “the voter may obtain and cast a new ballot, and the original ballot is deemed ‘spoiled.’ Alternatively, if the voter chooses to cast the original ballot notwithstanding the apparent defect or irregularity, the ballot must be physically deposited in a drawer within the tabulation device. Those ballots are then later subjected to further review and adjudication at the counting center.”
To be clear, if the ballot is not processed the voter is supposed to be given an option of either discarding the ballot and getting a new one by pushing the "red button" or casting the defective one by pushing the "green button." This will result in the ballot being adjudicated at a voting center later to determine the problem with the ballot and to determine the voters "intent." But once pushed, the green button will not count the vote.
A couple of points to make here. Given the choice at the polling place, knowing exactly those options, which would you choose? Would you voluntarily and knowingly allow your vote be determined later by others, or would you just fill out a new ballot? Knowing those are the options why would the button that cast a defective ballot be colored green and be labeled "cast", while the ballot that ensures a "redo" is red and is labeled "return?" If this option was not clearly explained, or explained at all, it would be easy to misinterpret what the green button meant, after all why would you not believe that a green button labeled "cast" did not mean your ballot was actually being cast/counted?
the poll workers would instruct the pressing of the green button without knowing or realizing it would result in the ballot being physically accepted but the contents of the ballot would not.
There is more to the Maricopa County story, but I wish to stay focused on the adjudication process generally.
Adjudication can occur anytime that any ballot cannot be read by the tabulation machine. When it happens at the polling place as described above, there is a process in place, whether followed or not, to correct the problem while the voter is present. As we all know though, 2020 was unique due to the tremendous amount of absentee and mail in ballots. These ballots too are run through tabulating machines and are subject to rejection. Unlike in person voting there is no opportunity for a voter to correct a problem which keeps the tabulation machine from reading the ballot, which means they will automatically have to be adjudicated.
Much of what follows comes from a Twitter thread and comments. It is simply amazing the investigative work that is done on social media! There is a video of this but the reporting is easier to follow and understand. We will begin with Georgia, the following is a report given to the media on election night.
Consider that, it is staggering! Of the 113,000 absentee ballots processed, 106,000 were rejected and had to be "adjudicated." That means that 93.8% were not counted by the tabulators and had to be reviewed and the voter's intent had to be determined. Fulton County was not alone in Georgia.
This was due to "technical difficulties" with the Dominion tabulating machines:
Interesting that both these "issues" were announced as the in person, election day vote, was becoming clear. But this is not the only place where mass adjudication of votes took place and my brief descriptions do not do justice to the problems with adjudication in this election.
For one, you must also understand that the machines can be adjusted in a manner which will make them more sensitive or less sensitive. The more sensitive they are the more adjudicated ballots. That however is just the beginning, Dominion has adjudicating machines which "help" the poll personnel and observers determine the voters intent. More on this in part 2.
コメント