Posted on 02/04/2024 2:37:47 PM PST by george76
In 2022, Congress changed the electoral count act, moving up the deadline by which one of the final steps in the election process must be completed – the transmission of the certificate of ascertainment of who won a state’s presidential electors to Congress.
Early that year, then-Senator Ugenti-Rita introduced a bill to expand the threshold to trigger a 100% machine recount to from one tenth of one percent to half a percent, a bill that would have applied to the 2020 presidential election had it then been the law.
Though legal experts say that it is questionable whether Congress itself is bound to follow the electoral count act since its power to accept and reject presidential electors comes from the U.S. Constitution, the confluence of these two bills, one state, one federal, opened up the very real possibility that, in the 2024 presidential election, the recount will not be completed by the federal deadline.
Rather than raising this issue with members of the Arizona Legislature’s House and Senate elections committees last year, the Counties waited until after the 2023 legislative session was concluded to begin sounding alarm bells about the crisis. Even then, neither the 9th floor nor the counties would consider the simple fix allowed by the electoral count act itself – transmission of the certificate of ascertainment itself by the federal deadline with a follow-up later on in the unlikely event that the results of the machine recount revealed that the first machine count had been in error. Instead the counties proposed shortening numerous election-related deadlines in order to allow a potential recount to be completed earlier. This worried several election-watchers, who speculated that if a simple printer change was enough to cause chaos in Maricopa County’s 2022 general election, a change to numerous election dates would be far beyond the capabilities of local elections officials.
Nevertheless, for months, the Legislature worked together with the counties on this, more complicated, fix and, sources say, by last Friday, a deal had been struck in which a variety of election dates would be reworked in order to shorten the election timeline. This deal also included, as a concession to conservatives, a signature election integrity priority of the Republican Majority – the codification, for the first time, of legally-binding signature verification rules into Arizona law to ensure that the process being made more rushed would not result in hasty review of signatures on ballot affidavit envelopes. As noted by the court in the Kari Lake trial, no legally binding rules for how signature verification must be performed currently exist in Arizona law.
But over the weekend the deal appears to have run off the rails, with the Governor’s office and Counties taking to social media and the press to call for the passage of either a “clean” election reform bill or the inclusion of liberal policy priorities which would cancel out the benefits of signature verification such as electronic curing. The Senate is reportedly now considering whether to accede to the Governor’s request that the signature verification rules, modeled on those Governor Hobbs herself wrote as Secretary of State, be removed from the bill and move forward with the rest of the county’s proposal, perhaps with a smaller, less meaningful concessions.
......whatever the RINO’s and Democrats in “ARIZONA” are up to is immediately suspicious.
Signature verification is weak.
Leftist referendum organizations have my signature. UPS has my signature. The court house has my signature.
Return envelopes should have signature, date of birth and phone number if the voter has one.
Signature checking should be done by FEC certified software. The envelopes with signatures or dates of birth that don’t match should be placed in the provisional pile.
My signature is unreliable it’s different all the time particularly since the sign electronically with your finger or this stupid pen BS
Thumb print spot on ballot request and thumb print on submitted ballot. You know....like security on smart phones.
I had a relative who had to deal with FBI handwriting experts. These were “experts” who literally wrote the book on handwriting analysis. All they would ever testify to in court was, “Yeah, it could be his handwriting.” And the court never accepted that as proof of anything. So, the idea some Joe Shmoe can identify whether someone’s signature from twenty years ago matches his current one is ridiculous.
Signature verification? Hand writing analysis is a little better than a pseudo science like polygraph testing. There would be no need for signature verification if people have the vote in person. Signature verification is just more sophistry to pretend they are actually looking at who is voting. One day voting, with identification. Anything else is bullshit.
When a story mentions legal experts, I would like names to go along with that.
Has your signature been rejected on the electronic signature match?
I'm an election inspector for my county, and I must say I find that the figure-sig tech we use (New York State) does a very good job of detecting signature matches accurately.
You sit there watching someone sign and then the screen is tilted toward the inspector. The signer can't tell what I'm comparing the sig to. I tell you, even if someone has signed in with a longer "Y" at the end of his name that the sample we have for comparison, a true match shows. The "style" and certain personality traits show through clearly when you compare the two signatures--or they don't. It's unmistakable.
The lesson I take away is that signatures are genuinely hard to fake. Somebody can some in with a stolen or "borrowed" ID through a fraud network, but if they have to sign, I can read easily whether the same person signed both.
I believe the national Democratic Party is very much against signature matches, which makes me trust it as a fraud detector.
>>This deal also included, as a concession to conservatives, a signature election integrity priority of the Republican Majority – the codification, for the first time, of legally-binding signature verification rules into Arizona law to ensure that the process being made more rushed would not result in hasty review of signatures on ballot affidavit envelopes.
So they are unilaterally backing out of the deal with conservatives.. do the conservatives get back what they gave up in the “compromise”?
The election is being stolen right in front of our eyes, and the Stupid Party is allowing it because of the naked corruption of so many in its hierarchy.
It may be weak and open to some interpretation by the checker, but the Democrats don’t even go to the trouble of trying to make the signatures they slap on fraudulent absentee/mail-in ballots look like registration signatures. There are too many examples of huge disparities between them to believe that ‘weakness’ is the fault here.
It’s a matter of numbers, with any kind of signature, a corrupted ‘checker’/ vote counter and a local government/legislature of leftist far too willing to overlook it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.