Fraudifornia

Given the results of the primary election just concluded…maybe, in California a strong case can be made for changing the name of the state to Fraudiforonia given the accuracy and veracity of the suspicious vote count. But the legacy media asserts that any voter fraud claims are “baseless”. Huh? A reporter for ABC World News Tonight reported that President Trump was making “baseless” claims of voter fraud. Now how in the world would a reporter know that?  Was there an investigation by them or any other media outlet?

It would be impossible to investigate the results in six or seven days and conclude that allegations of fraud were baseless. But the entire legacy media is in lockstep with the folks at ABC, agreeing that the claims of fraud are baseless. That’s their new mantra, “baseless, baseless, baseless”.  Nothing to see here. Nevertheless, it is somewhat amazing that an unknown Councilwoman, Nithya “Noodles” Raman was able to close a massive gap and take over second place from Spencer Pratt in the Los Angeles Mayor’s race. It was a “last minute surge”. Right. FYI, she didn’t even win her own district (CD-4).

California allows first-time voters to register using forms of identification many Americans might not expect, including gym membership cards, employer ID cards, credit cards, and insurance cards. Bill Essayli, the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, has been seeking access to California’s voter registration rolls since last August to test the legitimacy of these voters. He believes the rolls are inaccurate and have many examples of people voting who should not have been eligible to vote.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) is relying on HAVA (Help America Vote Act) passed in 2002 to enforce minimum election standards, statewide voter registration databases, and provisional ballots and the federal authority of the Attorney General to request these records. California has refused, claiming that providing the data to the federal government would violate state privacy laws. That argument is “baseless”, the state argues that even sharing Social Security numbers would violate state law, even though those numbers are issued by the federal government. Lower court judges have agreed with the state, but the case is on appeal before the Ninth Circuit Court. 

In California a completed ballot can be collected and returned by a family member, neighbor, campaign worker, union volunteer, or political activist. So how does the chain of custody work in places like senior centers or homeless shelters?  The short answer is that there is no real chain of custody. If a state wanted to maximize public confidence in election integrity, it would do the opposite of what California does.

First, California fails to maintain accurate voter rolls. Second, it does not require voter ID in the way many other states do. Third, it uses universal vote-by-mail, sending ballots to everyone whether they requested one or not. That creates millions of ballots in circulation. On top of that, California permits ballot harvesting, which is illegal in most states and allows virtually anyone to collect, handle, and submit ballots. There is no requirement for these individuals to identify themselves or report how many ballots they collected.

As a result, there is little transparency about who received, completed, or returned a given ballot. In the end, the Registrar simply receives millions of ballots through the mail, and the public is left to trust the process without a clear record of what happened.  Still, numbers alone do not prove a fraudulent outcome. Some people point to the fact that one candidate received a much larger share of mail-in ballots counted after Election Day than other candidates, but that by itself does not establish fraud. Fraud must be demonstrated with clear evidence.

The DOJ does not bring cases based on broad statistical claims alone. They prosecute individuals or entities when they have specific, articulable evidence of unlawful conduct. That is why DOJ created a tip line for people who have witnessed concrete instances of fraud. Last month an individual was charged who was caught in Los Angeles, on video,  paying homeless people to register under false addresses, a federal crime. She pleaded guilty. Voter fraud does occur. The harder question is how widespread is it? That is difficult to answer unless every case is thoroughly investigated. This is why there should be an audit.

An audit of the voter rolls would be the fastest and most efficient way to restore trust, transparency, and confidence in California’s election system.  It is a serious problem when a large share of the public lacks confidence in the process. Whether someone is on the left, right, or center, that level of distrust is unhealthy for a Republic.

This Republic cannot endure if people lose faith in the system and in the legitimacy of election outcomes, regardless of who wins.

Let’s make Fraudifornia California again.