TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

Who determined the number 420,987,987 regarding failed signatures from the 2020 election? That figure comes from analyzing a quarter of the 1,900,000 mail-in ballots in Maricopa County. We had 150 trained workers review the envelopes based on the secretary of state's guidelines, examining each voter record individually. After analyzing 25% of the ballots, we extrapolated the data to arrive at the final number. It's important to note that this analysis only pertains to Maricopa County, which had over 2 million ballots in total, with around 1.9 million being mail-in votes. Yes, that is correct. Thank you. Proceed.

These are examples of approved and failed ballots. The Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from examining ballots to verify signatures. Many of the reviewed ballots have two different patterns of the letter "S" in the signature, even though some owners' names don't contain an "S." In total, 104,820 ballots were reviewed, with 20,232 having mismatched signatures.

The speaker discusses the issue of inspecting ballots for signatures. They mention that the Voter Privacy Act prohibits inspectors from looking through a ballot to verify a signature. They also point out that many ballots have two different patterns of the letter "s" written for the signature, even though some of them don't even have an "s" in the voter's name. They state that out of the 104,820 ballots reviewed, 20,232 had mismatched signatures, which accounts for 20% of the total.

Expert testifies that the signature verification process in Maricopa County is flawed. The workers are unable to properly review signatures due to technical limitations. The log data reveals that a large number of ballots were approved in less than 3 seconds each, with one worker approving all signatures at this speed. Eleven workers approved 170,000 signatures in less than 3 seconds with a high approval rate. This process does not constitute a thorough signature review. Maricopa County was aware of these issues and could monitor their workers.

The speaker discusses the process of verifying signatures on ballots and the issue of mismatched signatures. Under the previous administration, the curing process for signatures ended at 7 PM on election day, which caused problems in the recent election due to a large number of early ballots dropped off on election day. The language in the procedures manual regarding contacting voters about signature discrepancies is ambiguous and has been interpreted differently by various recorders' offices. The speaker also mentions concerns about partisanship and provides examples of comments and lawsuits related to the issue.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election using 150 trained workers. They followed the guidelines in the secretary of state manual and analyzed each voter record individually. The statistics from the first 25% of the ballots were extrapolated to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 acknowledges that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, with about 1.9 million of them being mail-in ballots. Speaker 1 confirms this and the conversation continues.

During the Arizona audit, Maricopa County made it clear that signature verification was off-limits. However, it's easy to understand why they didn't want us to examine the signatures because, in reality, they don't match.

The number of 420,987 failed signatures in the 2020 election was determined by reviewing a quarter of the 1,900,000 envelopes in Maricopa County. Trained workers followed guidelines to analyze each voter record individually, leading to the extrapolation of the final number. This analysis focused solely on Maricopa County's ballots.

Signature verification has been a controversial topic in Maricopa County, often avoided in discussions. This was evident during the Arizona audit, where the county firmly opposed any scrutiny of signatures. The reluctance to examine these signatures suggests that there are discrepancies, as they do not match.

Signature verification is a process used to determine the legitimacy of a vote by comparing the voter's ballot envelope to the affidavit. In the 2020 election, 420,987 ballot envelopes failed signature verification, and the system was never fixed. As a result, the same issues persisted in the 2022 election, leaving the system vulnerable.

In this video, the speaker refers to declarations from signature verification workers in 2022. One worker named Andrew mentions that the numbers on the whiteboard for the ballots to be verified didn't add up. They were processing around 60,000 signatures a day, but only receiving about 1,000 envelopes for review the next day, instead of the expected 12,000 to 15,000. The rejection rates were consistent at 20% to 30%, but the math didn't seem to match the actual numbers.

In this video, the speaker presents an example comparing two signatures. On the left is the signature on a valid envelope, while on the right is the signature on a voter registration card. The speaker points out that the signature on the envelope was accepted without being verified. Then, the speaker asks the audience to determine whether the signatures pass or fail.

In the video, the speaker describes their observations during a ballot verification process. They noticed a yellow banner indicating "low confidence" on some ballots, but the signatures being compared were illegible and didn't match. The speaker asked about it, but was told not to worry as it was a new program being tested. Later, there was a server outage, but the lights were still on. When the computers came back up, a person who previously had a yellow banner now had a green one indicating "high confidence." The speaker observed conversations among the screeners and heard one person say they were now working on high confidence instead of low confidence.

The speaker believes that the rejected ballots were placed in a separate box to be later counted at the headquarters. The rejection happened at the voting center due to invalid ballots that wouldn't match any tabulator's program. The question arises if Maricopa County was contacted to clarify their processes. It is mentioned that the rejected ballots would be sent to central tabulation to be duplicated onto readable ballots and inserted into the system. However, there is no way for voters to confirm if this process was actually carried out, which raises concerns.

The discussion centers on moving forward with a ballot audit to obtain a count, despite concerns about a particular precinct. Speaker 0 emphasizes that without counts, progress is impossible and asserts that this moment is not the time for an investigation into the precinct. The goal is to complete the audit to determine how many ballots are present. Speaker 1 asks for clarification about whether there is additional focus or findings beyond the current audit. Speaker 0 reiterates the need to proceed with the audit and produce a tally of ballots, indicating that delaying is not an option at this point. A key point arises about how to handle multiple ballots that show the same signature. Speaker 0 and Speaker 2 acknowledge the concern and discuss that while the primary process is to complete the audit, there will be a method to account for these potentially problematic ballots. Speaker 2 suggests that an asterisk can be added to indicate that certain ballots share the same signature, and that those ballots will be separated out and counted in the work. Speaker 0 continues to stress that the precinct’s concerns are understood, but the immediate instruction is to finish the audit portion, not to conduct an investigation or to engage in counting beyond the audit. The immediate task is to produce a number for how many ballots were present at the start of counting and then proceed from there. Speaker 2 confirms that a number will be produced, though there is an acknowledgment that there may be questions about the validity of some ballots. Speaker 0 clarifies that the current process requires ballots to be put into the correct files and that presidential votes must be counted, while not engaging in separate, non-audit counting at this stage. Throughout, Speaker 0 reiterates the need to complete the audit portion first, to obtain the count, and then address any subsequent concerns or issues, including potential validity questions. The conversation closes with an acknowledgment that there may be issues with the precinct and that, once the audit is completed, they can move forward with the results while addressing the concerns that have been raised.

Approximately 1,400,000 ballot packets have been sent out, with around 27,000 currently undergoing the curing process. Curing involves contacting voters when their signatures do not match. So far, about 15,000 of these have been successfully cured. There is a deadline of five calendar days after election day to cure as many ballots as possible.

Kari Lake has been fighting to have the Arizona election case reviewed on its merits. The Supreme Court sent the case back to the trial court to investigate the issue of signature matching. Maricopa County officials, who have been accused of being biased against Lake and other MAGA candidates, are refusing to cooperate. The bigger issue is that on election day, the tabulators broke down during crucial voting hours, potentially disrupting the Republican vote. An expert witness suggests that intentional changes were made to the printers, affecting the ballots. Lake is confident that she will prevail if there is an honest accounting of the signatures. She is determined to fight for the governor's office, believing she was denied the position through fraud. Maricopa County delegates signature verification to a third-party company with low standards. Lake demands a proper legal remedy.

The speaker asks who determined the number of failed signatures in the 2020 election. Speaker 1 explains that their organization reviewed 25% of the 1,900,000 envelopes from the election and analyzed each voter record individually. They extrapolated the statistics from the first 25% to determine the final number, which is specific to Maricopa County. Speaker 0 points out that Maricopa County alone had over 2 million ballots, and their group analyzed 25% of the mail-in ballots to arrive at the 420,987 failed signature verification number. Speaker 1 confirms this.

The speaker describes observing absentee/mail-in ballots and recording details from the ballots. They wrote down the ballot numbers and the last names of the person named on each ballot. The ballots appeared to be in sequence, which, according to the speaker, should not happen with mail-in ballots, since mail-in ballots come in at different times and numbers. The speaker recalls that when they noticed the numbers were almost next to each other—one in the middle, then another—they became suspicious. The speaker asked the supervisor about this, noting there was not even a date on the envelopes. The envelopes were marked November 2020, but there was no second number or other identifying date visible. When the speaker inquired about the date on a specific envelope, the response was hostile: the supervisors became angry and told them they were not letting them do their job and that the speaker was disturbing them. To avoid being kicked out, the speaker and the others in the room chose not to challenge the process further, since they did not want to be removed and there were only a few people present. The speaker also observed that the sequence of ballot numbers all originated from the same area—Guarded Street in Downtown Detroit. The ballots’ signatures looked alike, and none of the envelopes had dates stamped on them. The envelopes appeared to be missing a second or third date, or any date, and none of the ballots were appearing in the voting system. Additionally, the speaker notes that these ballots were being entered manually, and they asserted that none of these details would be present in the poll book or the system. The overall implication is that there was irregularity in the handling of these absentee ballots, with sequential numbers, indistinct dates, signatures resembling each other, and manual entry outside the expected process, raising concerns about whether the ballots were being processed consistent with standard procedures.

Exhibit 2, the declaration of Jacqueline Onekeit, reveals that level 1 reviewers were sometimes asked to re-review their own work due to high workload. The review process lacked consistent observation, with only Andrew's work being observed occasionally. Level 1 workers were also instructed to override decisions made by more skilled level 2 and 3 workers who rejected ballots. Instead of following the usual curing process for rejected ballots, they were sent back to less trained employees to attempt to pass them.

I was surprised to learn that there was no signature verification done for the ballots. I questioned how ballots without signatures were handled, and the response was they were just sent back out. This made me uncomfortable certifying the results.

In this video, the speaker discusses the analysis of ballot curing in Maricopa County. They compare the conservative case, where 11.29% of ballots should have been cured, to the county's curing rate of 1.31%. The speaker highlights that the number of ballots that should have been cured is far greater than what the county actually cured. They also mention that based on the extended study, a minimum of 4,965 ballots should have been thrown out due to signature mismatches, compared to the county's 587. The conclusion is that the county's signature verification process is flawed, contradicting their claim of having a rigorous process.

The speaker acknowledges the chairman's hard work and thanks him. Another speaker mentions an interesting incident during the 99% audit on signatures. They explain that many signatures did not have the required red initials, indicating approval. Once the ballot is separated from the outer envelope, it must be counted regardless. This poses a problem as dozens of ballots on Saturday had not been properly reviewed. The speaker concludes by expressing concern about the audit. Miss Fisher is thanked for her input.

The first speaker describes a scenario in which a person can obtain a driver’s license again because licenses are issued broadly to those who register to vote. If the individual’s Social Security number does not match, they are flagged, but as long as they present an ID (the driver’s license) and sign that they are eligible to vote, they can vote and are no longer flagged, remaining in the system. Mister Lanell then responds by clarifying the process. He says that for anyone presenting documentation to register to vote, that documentation serves as affirmation of their identity. He notes that the driver’s license has not been used as proof of citizenship for the purposes of registering to vote; rather, it affirms that the person is who they say they are. He adds that in any case where someone were to cast a ballot, if they were ineligible to vote, there are reports generated post-election for voters who are challenged. Counties run these reports to show the status of voters that had been updated due to having cast a ballot, and these reports can be reviewed and referred to the county attorney. The first speaker concludes by restating the original question and provides a direct answer: the answer is yes to their question.

Speaker 1, an expert in handwriting and signatures, believes that it is impossible to compare signatures for consistency in less than 3 seconds. They have extensive experience in this field and consider themselves to be at the top of their profession. Speaker 1 also explains that comparing signatures means carefully examining the similarities and differences between two items, in this case, signatures. They mention that Arizona statute 16,550 states that signatures should be compared for consistencies or inconsistencies. Speaker 1 emphasizes that the word "compare" is commonly used in their industry and has a clear meaning.