Ballots Altered in the Adjudication Process
In the 2020 presidential election, an unusually high number of mail-in ballots were reported to have been adjudicated when they were flagged for a possible error or there was a question about the voter’s choice of candidates. An adjudication panel then reviewed the ballot and determined the voter’s intent. For example, Fulton County Election Director Richard Barron told C-SPAN that, “We’ve scanned 113,130. We’ve adjudicated over 106,000. Ballots are adjudicated if there is some question… The vote review panel then determines voter intent.” This meant 94% of the ballots were adjudicated, which sounded very alarming. Also, according to the Washington Post, county spokesman Joe Sorenson stated that in Gwinnett County, located northeast of Atlanta, as many as 80,000 absentee ballots were flagged for an “adjudication” process.
AP News reported on Dec. 3, 2020 that “Arizona Republican Party chairwoman Kelli Ward, who filed a lawsuit contesting the election results, is looking for irregularities among the nearly 28,000 ballots in Maricopa County that were duplicated by elections officials because voters’ earlier ballots were damaged or couldn’t be tabulated.” A court-ordered inspection of 100 duplicated ballots found that one ballot changed from Trump to Biden and the other dropped Trump’s vote in the duplication process. County election officials then agreed to expand the inspection to 2,500 additional duplicate ballots after the three percent vote impact was discovered. Ward’s lawsuit claims some suburbs on the southeastern edge of Maricopa County had an unusually high number of duplicated ballots and that the election results in that area were “strongly inconsistent” with voter registration and historical voting data.
Back in February this year, AZ Mirror reported that Arizona Governor Doug Ducey “signed Senate Bill 1135, which allowed county elections officials to use a process called ‘electronic adjudication’ to identify ballots that can’t be read by standard vote-counting machines. The legislation was needed so that Maricopa County can use its new electronic adjudication machines.”
At the Michigan House Oversight Committee election fraud hearing, Andrew Sitto, a volunteer observing the ballot duplication process at TCF Center, testified that, “Poll workers change duplicate ballots to straight democrat ticket… I witnessed employees taking their pen and filling in the democrat straight ticket when it is not…. Based on my sampling of a dozen duplicate ballots from 6 a.m. to about 2 p.m. the next day, from these duplicate ballots, none of them were for Trump. Three other challengers around me told me the same thing from their sampling.” He said he and other poll challengers challenged ballots all night, but “every challenge was refused. There is no track, no remedy, no records.” Mr. Sitto also mentioned that the poll workers made duplicates of a duplicate ballot because the tabulator had stopped the ballot from processing for an unknown reason. Based on his observation, the original ballots that were duplicated looked normal and did not appear defective. The only reason they got duplicated was because the machine told them to duplicate the ballots without giving any reason. Mr. Sitto has provided a sworn affidavit to the Michigan Republican Party.
On Nov. 30, Maricopa County GOP chairwoman Linda Brickman testified before
members of the Arizona State Legislature what she personally observed in the duplication room, “I observed, with my Democratic partner, the preparation of a new ballot, since the original one was soiled, or wouldn’t go through the tabulators. I read her a Trump Republican ballot, and as soon as she entered it into the system, the ballot defaulted on the screen to a Biden Democratic ballot.” She remarked that when she reported the issue to election supervisors, others in the room also commented that they had “witnessed the same manipulation.”
“We were never told what, if any, corrective action was taken,” Brickman continued. “All I know is the next day, I was called outside the room that I was working in for signature verification by a supervisor who said, ‘I understand you caused some problems this week and you thought our machines were not working correctly.’”
Mrs. Brickman has submitted her testimony in a sworn affidavit under penalty of perjury.
Anna Orth, a Maricopa County poll observer, testified at a public hearing held by the Arizona State Legislature that she was denied the chance to observe the duplication process of the problematic ballots which were brought to another room to be “corrected.” She estimated there were about 2,000 duplicate ballots during the five hours when she was there. “I was specifically taken out of that room, ushered out, and brought into [another] room,” Orth told the state lawmakers.