Federal law addresses the determination of controversies as to the appointment of
presidential electors. 3 U.S.C. §
5. The so-called safe harbor provision states:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any
controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and
such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
3 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added).
This section states that if a state has in place before an election is held a law that
prescribes procedures to resolve any controversy about the election, the resolution made 3 pursuant to these procedures will govern in the counting of electoral votes if the
resolution is made at least six days before the presidential electors meet. While this
section is not exclusive, it clearly expresses the congressional preference for
controversies to be determined through processes established by law. The legislature has enacted procedures to contest elections in A.R.S. title 16, chapter 4, article 13.
An elector may contest a statewide election for a variety of reasons, including misconduct by election officials, counting illegal votes and erroneous counting of votes.
A.R.S. section 16-672. A contest is made by filing an action in superior court. Id. A person contesting a statewide election must file a statement that identifies the parties and the reasons for the contest with the court within five days after completion of the canvass of the election.
A.R.S. section 16-673.
So, in Arizona, an elector may contest the election of presidential electors according to the law in effect at the time of the election. Under the current law, a contest must be filed within five days after the completion of the canvas of the election at which presidential electors are selected. If the determination of the court concerning the challenge is made at least six days before the meeting of the presidential electors, the determination of the court is conclusive.
Federal law does provide that members of Congress may object to a state's
submission of presidential electors at the time of counting electoral votes. 3 U.S.C. §
15. Each objection must be signed by at least one member of the House of
Representatives and one member of the Senate. Id. The House and the Senate
separately consider the objections to a state's submission of presidential electors. Id.
The determination of each house is limited because:
[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified
to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the
vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
Id.
This section allows Congress to reject votes submitted by presidential electors from a state based on irregularities in the selection of the presidential
electors or in the voting by the electors. However, in making this determination,
Congress is bound by any decision made in an election challenge that complies
with 3 U.S.C. § 5.
We have not found any other provision of the United States Constitution or
presidential electors. 3 U.S.C. §
5. The so-called safe harbor provision states:
If any State shall have provided, by laws enacted prior to the day
fixed for the appointment of the electors, for its final determination of any
controversy or contest concerning the appointment of all or any of the electors of such State, by judicial or other methods or procedures, and
such determination shall have been made at least six days before the time fixed for the meeting of the electors, such determination made pursuant to
such law so existing on said day, and made at least six days prior to said time of meeting of the electors, shall be conclusive, and shall govern in the counting of the electoral votes as provided in the Constitution, and as hereinafter regulated, so far as the ascertainment of the electors appointed by such State is concerned.
3 U.S.C. § 5 (emphasis added).
This section states that if a state has in place before an election is held a law that
prescribes procedures to resolve any controversy about the election, the resolution made 3 pursuant to these procedures will govern in the counting of electoral votes if the
resolution is made at least six days before the presidential electors meet. While this
section is not exclusive, it clearly expresses the congressional preference for
controversies to be determined through processes established by law. The legislature has enacted procedures to contest elections in A.R.S. title 16, chapter 4, article 13.
An elector may contest a statewide election for a variety of reasons, including misconduct by election officials, counting illegal votes and erroneous counting of votes.
A.R.S. section 16-672. A contest is made by filing an action in superior court. Id. A person contesting a statewide election must file a statement that identifies the parties and the reasons for the contest with the court within five days after completion of the canvass of the election.
A.R.S. section 16-673.
So, in Arizona, an elector may contest the election of presidential electors according to the law in effect at the time of the election. Under the current law, a contest must be filed within five days after the completion of the canvas of the election at which presidential electors are selected. If the determination of the court concerning the challenge is made at least six days before the meeting of the presidential electors, the determination of the court is conclusive.
Federal law does provide that members of Congress may object to a state's
submission of presidential electors at the time of counting electoral votes. 3 U.S.C. §
15. Each objection must be signed by at least one member of the House of
Representatives and one member of the Senate. Id. The House and the Senate
separately consider the objections to a state's submission of presidential electors. Id.
The determination of each house is limited because:
[N]o electoral vote or votes from any State which shall have been
regularly given by electors whose appointment has been lawfully certified
to according to section 6 of this title from which but one return has been received shall be rejected, but the two Houses concurrently may reject the
vote or votes when they agree that such vote or votes have not been so regularly given by electors whose appointment has been so certified.
Id.
This section allows Congress to reject votes submitted by presidential electors from a state based on irregularities in the selection of the presidential
electors or in the voting by the electors. However, in making this determination,
Congress is bound by any decision made in an election challenge that complies
with 3 U.S.C. § 5.
We have not found any other provision of the United States Constitution or
federal law that would allow for a challenge to or decertification of a presidential
election. The only court case that we found addressing this issue agrees with this
conclusion. The federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia held: Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court decertifying the November
3, 2020, election results. . . . 3 U.S.C. § 15 provides the only process by
which the electoral votes are to be counted and potentially challenged. . .
. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statute or case that provides for any mode
of challenging electoral votes already certified and counted by the
Electoral College outside the congressional method outlined in 3 U.S.C. §
15. Thus, this Court finds no grounds upon which to independently order
the decertification of Georgia's election results.
Trump v. Kemp, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1335–36 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (emphasis added and
footnote omitted).
Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this issue.
cc: Michael Hans
election. The only court case that we found addressing this issue agrees with this
conclusion. The federal district court for the Northern District of Georgia held: Plaintiff seeks an order from this Court decertifying the November
3, 2020, election results. . . . 3 U.S.C. § 15 provides the only process by
which the electoral votes are to be counted and potentially challenged. . .
. Plaintiff has failed to cite any statute or case that provides for any mode
of challenging electoral votes already certified and counted by the
Electoral College outside the congressional method outlined in 3 U.S.C. §
15. Thus, this Court finds no grounds upon which to independently order
the decertification of Georgia's election results.
Trump v. Kemp, 511 F. Supp. 3d 1325, 1335–36 (N.D. Ga. 2021) (emphasis added and
footnote omitted).
Please let me know if you have any additional questions on this issue.
cc: Michael Hans
I want to reassure you that throughout this morning we have received even more insight on whether or not the legislature is able to do certify a fraudulent election. The news is promising and I will not stop looking for answers, despite a couple of opinions from our legislative Council. We are preparing to make sure we are able to do the right thing. Please do not just assume that I have rolled over because that's the furthest from the truth. I am looking forward to tomorrow's report and will be communicating with you after.
Here is the official link for tomorrow's broadcast of the report of the audit in Arizona.
https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2021091005
https://www.azleg.gov/videoplayer/?clientID=6361162879&eventID=2021091005
I suspect there will be fraud found, so no, Biden didn't win.
https://twitter.com/AZKellyT/status/1441404966132858885?s=19
https://twitter.com/AZKellyT/status/1441404966132858885?s=19
Twitter
Senator Kelly Townsend
I'm hearing someone leaked that the number of tabulated ballots in the #ArizonaElectionAudit are similar to the outcome of the official canvas. If there was no mail in ballot fraud, dead voters, fake ballots & all federal only voters were legit, then fair…
You guys should know me well enough by now. Don't freak out about my last post.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Senator Kelly Townsend reacts to the Arizona Election Audit Report
Phoenix, AZ
September 24, 2021
I am thoroughly shocked, yet not surprised, at the product that was delivered to the people of Arizona by the hands of Adrian Fontes regarding the 2020 General election. Although the raw numbers of votes show a similar outcome to the official canvass. The important outcome is that the votes that were counted could be trusted as actual and true voter submissions, according to Arizona State law.
However, what we learned today that there was a myriad of issues with the counting process that undermine the confidence in the true and accurate count of this election. The election system simply does not balance. Some of the issues that jump out immediately to me are as follows:
• Deleted / purged files - The timing and deletion of files the day before the 2/2/21 audit. Maricopa county purged the machine records the day before the audit started. Many .exe and .dll files (approximately 1500) were either deleted or modified.
• No security or credential management. There were shared accounts and passwords which made the identification of those deleting or purging files difficult, but not impossible.
• Duplicates ballots were grossly mismanaged, and our laws were broken regarding this important part of our election process.
• Chain of custody was not accurately kept, making it impossible who touched what and when.
• Envelopes without signatures, images of ballot envelopes with an apparent approval stamp behind the basic graphics of the envelop, suggesting tampering.
• Connectivity to the internet has been established, in violation of Arizona law and contrary to what we have been told about the system.
• Sloppy caretaking of ballots, missing batches in boxes, batches in boxes not listed on the box or county list.
These are just a few of the many issues brought up today and necessitate a dramatic change in the way we oversee our elections, and how we hold those accountable who have broken our laws. Most importantly, whenever there is malfeasance and skullduggery, we must both nullify that election and repeat it with one more securely conducted, and we must move forward with indictments of hose who perpetrated this fraud against us.
Senator Kelly Townsend reacts to the Arizona Election Audit Report
Phoenix, AZ
September 24, 2021
I am thoroughly shocked, yet not surprised, at the product that was delivered to the people of Arizona by the hands of Adrian Fontes regarding the 2020 General election. Although the raw numbers of votes show a similar outcome to the official canvass. The important outcome is that the votes that were counted could be trusted as actual and true voter submissions, according to Arizona State law.
However, what we learned today that there was a myriad of issues with the counting process that undermine the confidence in the true and accurate count of this election. The election system simply does not balance. Some of the issues that jump out immediately to me are as follows:
• Deleted / purged files - The timing and deletion of files the day before the 2/2/21 audit. Maricopa county purged the machine records the day before the audit started. Many .exe and .dll files (approximately 1500) were either deleted or modified.
• No security or credential management. There were shared accounts and passwords which made the identification of those deleting or purging files difficult, but not impossible.
• Duplicates ballots were grossly mismanaged, and our laws were broken regarding this important part of our election process.
• Chain of custody was not accurately kept, making it impossible who touched what and when.
• Envelopes without signatures, images of ballot envelopes with an apparent approval stamp behind the basic graphics of the envelop, suggesting tampering.
• Connectivity to the internet has been established, in violation of Arizona law and contrary to what we have been told about the system.
• Sloppy caretaking of ballots, missing batches in boxes, batches in boxes not listed on the box or county list.
These are just a few of the many issues brought up today and necessitate a dramatic change in the way we oversee our elections, and how we hold those accountable who have broken our laws. Most importantly, whenever there is malfeasance and skullduggery, we must both nullify that election and repeat it with one more securely conducted, and we must move forward with indictments of hose who perpetrated this fraud against us.
I am proud to have my name listed as one of the state senators signing the letter demanding decertification. I agreed to that earlier once I heard the details of the report. I am now on my way home and I will have time in a little while to further comment. I wish to thank those of you who are not piranhas looking to attack somebody. For those of you who are, I am telling you now get off my page.
https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1441562317687181314?s=19
https://twitter.com/NationalFile/status/1441562317687181314?s=19
Twitter
National File
BREAKING: Sen. Wendy Rogers unveils letter signed by 41 state legislators from across the country calling for forensic audits in each state, and urging their states to decertify the 2020 election if their audit results mirror those in Arizona.
A little reminder by the way, this is not the complete audit report. We still have the routers, the Splunk logs, and the paper issues too.
Forwarded from Wendy Rogers
UncoverDC
Maricopa County Audit Report: Over 57k Votes In Question
Arizona’s Maricopa County forensic audit report presentation began at 4:00 EST Friday in the State Senate showing over 57,000 votes are in question. The Maricopa audit is just one county in Arizona but it is the fourth largest county in terms of population…