reSee.it - 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.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the absentee ballots. The ballot numbers were in sequence, which is unusual for mailed-in ballots. The speaker also discovered that the envelopes lacked a date and the ballots were all from the same area. The signatures were similar, and there were no date stamps. Additionally, the ballots were not showing up in the system and had to be entered manually. When the speaker questioned these issues, they were met with resistance from the supervisor. Despite wanting to stay in the room, the speaker chose not to challenge further.

The speakers discuss the redaction process for absentee ballot envelopes and the use of the BlueCrest sorting and signature verification machine. It is revealed that the machine was not operational and the envelopes were not scanned for signature verification. The request for scanned images of the envelopes is denied as they were never scanned to begin with. The speakers express concern about the lack of verification and the potential impact on the case. The subpoena requests are left unresolved.

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.

The transcript discusses several election-related issues in California. First, it highlights a controversy with the voting envelopes: in some counties, how a ballot is inserted into the envelope can reveal the voter's choice. Specifically, if a voter selects no, the hole aligns with the “no” vote, making the vote visible through a window in the envelope. The speakers suggest this could be used to see how someone voted, and question whether it could affect the outcome if a small percentage of ballots are read differently. Speaker 1 notes that voters wonder whether, after submission, someone might handle the ballot on the processing side, calling it a legitimate question to ask. Speaker 0 explains that the state says it does not know how many ballots are affected because counties print the envelopes, and acknowledges that Shasta, Tulare, and Sacramento have already admitted the mistake and told voters how to fix it. Speaker 2 proposes a solution: fold the envelope in the opposite direction to create a blank page so nothing on the ballot envelope is visible. The state GOP has released a video showing voters how to avoid the problem. The conversation then broadens to mention additional election issues. It is stated that the state spent nearly $300,000,000 mailing out the wrong redistricting map, which required a corrected mailer to be sent. There is also a warning that even ballots mailed on election day may not be counted due to slow mail service. Regarding the holes in the envelope, the explanation given is that the holes exist so blind voters can know where to sign the envelope by touching two areas and signing there, though the speakers question how blind voters would know which exact box to fill in on the document. The overall discussion centers on concerns about transparency and reliability in the voting process, including envelope design, the handling of ballots after submission, and the impact of mailing errors on the election.

A poll worker noticed that absentee ballot numbers were in sequence, which should not occur with mailed ballots. The worker noticed ballot numbers like 2232 next to 2233. The worker asked a supervisor about the envelopes lacking a specific date, showing only "November 0-2020," but was rebuked. The poll worker stated the sequential ballot numbers were all from the same area, Guarded Street in downtown Detroit, and the signatures looked alike. The envelopes had no date stamp and were missing the day of the month. The ballots were not in the system and were being entered manually, even though the details were not in the poll book.

There are concerns about duplicate ballots in the audit. The speaker mentions that there should be a lower count due to duplicates, but they are not seeing any reference to duplicates in the forms. Speaker 1 explains that duplicate ballots are created when the original ballot is damaged and cannot be processed. These duplicates should have a matching 6-digit serial number with the original damaged ballot, but they cannot find the matching originals. Speaker 2 confirms this, stating that they are finding duplicate ballots without corresponding serial numbers on the damaged originals. They are struggling to match the duplicated ballots with the missing originals.

There are two batches of votes being examined. The speaker points out that there are identical markings on different ballots, suggesting duplication. They show examples of the same markings and even a dot in the same spot. The speaker mentions having a total of 62 images, but didn't go through all of them. The numbers of the batches are not remembered, but it is clear that duplicate ballots were scanned multiple times.

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.

In early 2020, concerns arose about voter rolls in Fulton County, Georgia having more voters than the population. Chain of custody documents were requested but not provided, leading to doubts about election certification. Issues included drop boxes, surveillance tapes, and absentee ballot processing with a failed electronic signature verification system costing over $1 million. Certification votes were split 2-3, with 147,000 absentee ballots counted in the November 2020 election. Translation: Concerns about voter rolls in Fulton County, Georgia led to doubts about election certification due to missing chain of custody documents and issues with drop boxes, surveillance tapes, and absentee ballot processing. The failed electronic signature verification system cost over $1 million. Certification votes were split 2-3, with 147,000 absentee ballots counted in the November 2020 election.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks if there is an explanation for why certain votes were not counted. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they do not know why the votes were not scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a memory card issue, but Speaker 1 and Speaker 0 both say they don't think so. Speaker 0 suggests it could be human error, but they don't have evidence to confirm it. Speaker 2 questions if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 avoids speculation. They admit they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 acknowledges this and thanks them.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned more than once, and the speaker confirms that they have done it. They explain that they kept scanning the same batches of ballots. The speaker mentions that they have set the system to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but it should also handle blank ballots. They scan a blank ballot and accept it into the system, noting that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

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.

Trucks from a company called Runbeck were continuously delivering ballots for several days. The speaker is unsure of the exact duration but mentions that they were still coming in on their last day, which was the 10th. Runbeck is a high-speed scanning company that handles the scanning and printing of duplications, possibly including military ballots. The speaker is uncertain about the purpose of scanning the ballots off-site and whether they were printed or scanned. They mention that the high-speed scanning happens at Runbeck and that there were no observers present. The speaker also raises questions about the origin of the ballots and suggests asking county employees for clarification.

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.

The speaker expresses frustration about a blank ballot that was not voted on. They mention being able to stop adjudication and scan and adjudicate all ballots, including the blank one. Misty asks if a ballot can be scanned multiple times, and the speaker confirms they have done so. They mention not receiving any more ballots until about 1. The speaker explains that the system is set to handle ambiguous marks and overvotes, but they want to see if it can handle blank ballots as well. They scan the blank ballot, accept it into the system, and mention that the system does not know who touched the ballots during adjudication.

The speaker noticed irregularities with the ballot numbers and names on absentee and mailing ballots. The numbers were almost consecutive, and some envelopes lacked a date. When the speaker questioned this, they were met with resistance. The ballot numbers were all from the same area, with similar signatures and no date stamp. None of these details were entered into the system, and they were being manually entered. The speaker suspected something was amiss but didn't challenge further to avoid being kicked out.

During the election, there were damaged mail-in ballots that couldn't be read by scanners. The board decided to duplicate these ballots using pink highlighters. However, the highlighter couldn't be read by the scanners either, so all the duplicated ballots had to be fixed. The solution was to give workers stacks of blank mail-in ballots to individually fill in the correct ovals with a dark pen. This process went on for hours without observation until the observers confronted the deputy commissioner. Eventually, thousands of mail-in ballots were counted this way. This raises concerns about the integrity of the process.

The speakers discuss the flow of ballots and the involvement of a company called Runback. Trucks delivering ballots arrived on the third, then the fourth, and the fifth, continuing for days. The last day of the speaker’s involvement was the tenth, and trucks were still coming in. The ballots were coming from Runback, a company that does high‑speed scanning and printing of duplications, and the speaker mentions military ballots being produced or processed by Runback, though there is uncertainty about exactly what Runback was doing. When asked whether the ballots were printed or scanned off-site, the speaker is unsure. It is stated that all the high‑speed scanning occurs at Runback, and that those ballots go to Runback. There were no observers at Runback, and the speaker had not been called to work there. The question is raised about whether the scanning was done on-site at the Maricopa County structure, but the response indicates that scanning was not on-site and occurred at Runback where there are very high‑speed scanners. The question of whether Dominion equipment was involved is addressed: the ballots being scanned were not related to Dominion. The purpose of scanning the ballots in advance of tabulation on Dominion equipment is then explained: they were duplications of ballots that would not read through the tabulation machines, specifically ballots that came in from military and overseas. However, the speaker notes there were more ballots than just those, with trays of ballots being brought in, and uncertainty remains about where the rest were coming from. The speaker suggests that the remaining questions about the sources of these ballots should be answered by the county employees. In summary, the discussion centers on: a sequence of ballot deliveries over several days; Runback handling high‑speed scanning and duplications off-site; uncertainty about whether ballots were printed or scanned and by whom; the absence of observers at Runback; scanners used were not Dominion; the purpose of off-site scanning was to duplicate ballots that wouldn’t read through the tabulation machines, including military and overseas ballots; and unresolved questions about the origin of additional ballots, which require explanation from county staff. The exchange ends with a note that the remaining questions about the ballots’ origins are for the county employees to explain.

Speaker 0 mentions the possibility of printing out something. Speaker 1 asks about the reason for the uncounted votes. Speaker 2 clarifies that there is no concrete explanation for why those votes were not counted by the machine. Speaker 1 confirms that they don't know why the votes didn't get scanned. Speaker 2 asks if the Dominion Tech guys have figured out the reason, but Speaker 0 says they are not allowed to comment. Speaker 2 points out that it hasn't been confirmed if it was a memory card issue. Speaker 1 agrees and suggests it could be human error. Speaker 0 says the ballots didn't transfer over correctly, but they don't have a definite answer yet. Speaker 2 asks if it could be a software issue, but Speaker 0 refuses to speculate. They conclude that they don't have a pinpointed answer at the moment.

The speaker asks if the person is aware that the outer envelope of a ballot must have the date, time, and signature of the town clerk. The person admits they were not aware. The speaker then asks if the person instructed their absentee ballot moderator about this rule, to which the person responds that they went over the manual but did not specifically mention the signature requirement. The speaker shows an example of an envelope without a signature and asks if it should have been counted. The person objects, but the speaker clarifies that they were in charge of counting the ballots. The person admits they did not discuss the signature requirement with the moderator. The speaker asks if the person's office ever checked for the clerk's signature on the envelopes, to which the person says it never came up in their training.

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.

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.