Who Can Decertify?

One of the issues that is beginning to make the rounds on the election fraud issue is what happens if fraud is proven?  What steps are available to be taken and who can take them?  Is there a process for dealing with a finding that in essence invalidates an election?  In other words, where does one go from here since fraud is being exposed in multiple states?

Specifically one needs to look to Arizona first.  The issues here are multiple and, as of this writing, the audit is actually incomplete.

Highlights from AZ Audit Senate Hearing 7/15 (Hat tip…Red State)

Hand Count

• Ballot duplication nightmare. Serial numbers are required to match the original and duplicated ballot. “Thousands” of ballots are either missing serial numbers or have unreadable serial numbers printed over a dark black ballot identification box. Ken Bennett stated that it’s impossible to determine whether a ballot was duplicated more than once.

Machine Analysis

• Inferior equipment verification process. Senator Peterson noted that if the EAC equipment verification process cannot handle evaluation by an audit, then we need a new certification procedure.
• Cyber security vulnerabilities, missing security event data, and suspicious logins. Ben Cotton of CyFIR emphasized the critical need for router and Splunk log data. He gave 4 reasons:

1. a) The November election system breach reported by Maricopa County and the SoS.
2. b) Extreme cyber security vulnerabilities: the last malware and operating system/ security patch update was in August 2019 when the Dominion software was originally installed. “It would take less than 10 min to gain system-level access.”
3. c) Security event data only goes back to 2/5/21. By design, the security log only holds 20 MB of data. Strangely, on 3/11/21, there were 37,646 queries for a blank password that had had the effect of overwriting the data prior to 2/5/21.
4. d) Suspicious anonymous logons. CyFIR has found anonymous logons at the system level that do not follow the pattern of normal Windows behavior.

• Maricopa County is unable to validate the security of the election system. The evidence provided suggests that only Dominion is able to verify the ICP configuration. Cotton explains that it’s impossible to validate the security of an election system if you cannot independently validate the configuration. CyFIR needs the authentication fobs held by Dominion to check ICP configuration.

Paper Analysis

• Ballot calibration was off by an average of 1000% in some batches leading to bleed-through, which can cause over-votes or inaccurate vote attribution. The County has stated that they use thick VoteSecure paper, which should limit bleed-through in the event of mis-calibration

However, the Cyber Ninjas team found a large number of ballots on very thin paper stock. The ballots printed on-demand at the voting centers on Election Day have the worst calibration issues. More than 168K ballots were affected.

Voter Rolls

• Voter roll anomalies affect more than 107K ballots. Doug Logan “highly recommends canvassing” based on the data his team has reviewed. For example:

1. a) There are 74,243 mail-in ballots with no clear record of being sent out
2. b) 11,326 people who voted do not show up on the 11/7 voter rolls, but are listed in the 12/4 database
3. c) 3,981 people who voted on Election Day were registered after 10/15, which is a violation of state law
4. d) Approximately 18k people voted on Election Day but were subsequently removed from the rolls

Envelopes

• Maricopa County did not turn over images of the envelopes as requested in the January subpoena

Closing Remarks

The hearing concluded with a review of the 17 missing items needed to complete the audit, many of them already subpoenaed, including router data, Splunk logs, hardware tokens, envelope images, chain of custody documentation, and all portable media. Senator Fann stated that the Senate will likely have to go back to court to enforce the subpoena and retrieve the remaining items.

The Constitution does not deal directly with the issue of fraud.  However, the Constitution does give the states “plenary power” over electors for a presidential election.  Specifically, state legislatures have the authority by themselves to set the standards for choosing electors.  There is no involvement by the executive or judicial branches of state governments.

The Constitution Article Two, Section One

“Each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct a number of electors equal to the whole number of senators and representatives to which the state may be entitled in Congress.”

Recently Arizona Senate President Karen Fann made a comment in response to some questions about the power of the Arizona Senate to reverse the outcome of the presidential election in that state.  Fann stated that the Arizona Senate does not have the power to overturn the certified results of the election.

This statement has delighted some on the left and has drawn fire from others with differing political outlooks.  To some it seems like the old Potomac two step whereby nothing gets done.  Some are falling into the trap of despair that nothing will ever be done to correct the most massive fraud in the history of our country.

Fann is correct.  The Arizona Senate cannot, by themselves, decertify the election.  However, the Arizona legislature (that’s both houses) can issue a joint resolution doing so.  State legislatures have absolute authority to recall electors under the Constitution.

Arizona is first and will set the precedent for the whole country.  Fann deserves credit for the leading the charge for election integrity and for not overstepping the limits of her authority in leading the Arizona Senate.