By David Robb ——Bio and Archives--January 5, 2024
American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
History was made in San Joaquin County today. Located in the heart of California, a former city councilman for the city of Lodi was convicted of multiple counts of election fraud. He had "won" his seat on the council by using methods that exploited many of the weaknesses of our modern elections. This is not speculation or conspiracy theory, but is supported by actual evidence from an official investigation. The case points out weaknesses that exist in nearly every state of our union.
Former Lodi city council member pleads no contest to election fraud, illegal gambling
The case began over two years ago when the local sheriff was investigating illegal gambling activities. During the investigation, a number of vote by mail ballots were found. About the same time, a small team of citizen volunteers were looking into election issues. One of the members noticed some interesting irregularities in the voter rolls, and brought these to the attention of the sheriff. They found that a large number of voters had the same phone number and email address.
With the voter roll information, some pieces began to fall into place, and the investigation into election fraud gained traction. As the investigation continued it became clear how this individual was able to manipulate election systems to secure enough votes to gain a seat on the city council. These manipulations went far beyond the traditional cemetery votes and double voting of the past. Some of the things he exploited included:
In all total, at least 15% of the ballots in his contest were likely fraudulent, either directly cast by him, or by those working with him.
At the heart of the election systems that enabled this fraud is vote-by-mail (VbM) balloting. Most states have some form of VbM, all of which are at risk of abuse, California mails out ballots to every address in its voter rolls. In most elections, fewer than half of these are voted and returned. The rest end up in dumpsters, or worse, provide clean ballots to be filled out and used to replace the ballots of legitimate voters. There is no check to see that the mailing address is that of the legitimate voter, and Mr. Khan, the ex-councilman, used this fact to obtain a large supply of ballots he could complete and return.
He used the online voter registration system that is also a feature of election systems across the US. Using information readily available from multiple sources, many of them legal, he was able to impersonate voters in his district and change phone numbers, email addresses, and mailing addresses to his own.
Aside from the effect of changing mailing addresses, a feature of California law allows a ballot to be "cured" if some irregularity is found. This can be done by a simple phone call or email to the voter using the information provided in the voter rolls. Essentially, the person is asked if they are the voter and if they can provide any missing information, such as a signature.
There is no guarantee that the person answering the phone or responding to the email is the legitimate voter. If a signature is required, the respondent can provide a signature sample that will be used in future validation of the voter. It is only assumed that the sample comes from the legitimate voter.
Support Canada Free Press
As a further concern, the online registration system allows simple creation of fictional voters not only locally, but from anywhere in the world. All that is needed is a name, a birth date, a local address, and a mailing address, all of which are easily created. Although not proven, it is likely that he created numerous fictional voters whose ballots were also mailed to him.
While the last four digits of a social security number or a driver's license number are requested, the application can be completed and submitted online with proof of identity provided at election time using one of thirty different approved forms, only a few of which require a picture. Confirmation of registration will be mailed to the mailing address, and a signature sample can be returned by mail. Proof of citizenship is not required. Some estimates suggest that as many as thirty percent of voter roll entries are fictional.
Investigators also found numerous people who had been visited by Mr. Khan who encouraged them to vote as he desired. A criticism of VbM is that when ballots are mailed to individual residences, an important protection is eliminated. It is difficult to intimidate voters at a polling location with other voters present. With VbM, on the other hand, a voter can be isolated and is vulnerable to pressure. Several body cam records of interviews showed this "encouragement" was used.
All VbM ballots in California are required to be signed by the voter and that signature inspected to ensure the legitimacy of the ballot. However, the California Secretary of State regulations require that any signature on a ballot must be presumed valid unless three inspectors agree otherwise. There is also extreme time pressure to move ballot inspection along, with typically three seconds or less available per ballot.
The result is that the vast majority of ballots, including fraudulent ballots, are passed on to be tabulated and included in the election results. Many states have eliminated signature checking as it is time consuming, expensive, and ineffective in intercepting fraudulent ballots.
While some will say that the case is just a small, local, aberration that doesn't have any broad effect and can be ignored, that is far from the truth. The methods used, along with several others, can be easily scaled up, expanded, and exploited even to a national scale.
The fact that these methods use features of our modern election systems makes them especially dangerous. Many of them do not require a local presence, but can be utilized even from locations outside the US. Two enabling systems - corrupt electronic voter rolls, and poorly designed and regulated vote-by-mail systems - make election fraud much simpler than was possible in previous traditional systems.
San Joaquin, California, is fortunate in that a number of critical elements came together at one time. A key element was the provision of critical information from the voter rolls by concerned citizens. Coupled with an ongoing investigation of other crimes and an alert sheriff, a case for election fraud could be built and prosecuted.
Most sheriffs are very reluctant to get involved in election fraud cases. These are generally politically very sensitive, are often difficult to investigate and prove, and can consume lots of resources without leading anywhere productive. Furthermore, the number of sheriffs who have been trained in election fraud investigation can probably be counted on the finger of one hand. The assistance of citizen investigators is a no-cost force multiplier for them, so long as certain basic requirements of investigation and evidence collection are followed.
Further, a case brought to court by a sheriff following a rigorous investigation is likely to get serious court attention. Too many election cases are presented without good evidence or case preparation, and end up rejected by courts who feel there are better uses of their time. Again, San Joaquin was fortunate in the combination of elements involved, but it is not unique.
There are several lessons to be drawn. First, is that large scale election fraud is not only possible, but is actually enabled by many of the changes to our election systems instituted in the last few years. Unprecedented levels of fraud, sufficient to determine the outcome of major elections, is not only possible, but has actually been demonstrated and now tested in court.
A second lesson is the value of citizen participation, and especially of citizens working with local law enforcement to identify and investigate such difficult to handle crimes. Even identification of relevant law is often a barrier for law enforcement officials. Canvassing, digging through voluminous voter roll databases, and many other essential activities can be done by citizens where no law enforcement organization could afford the time, effort, or expense of such investigations.
This case in a modest county in the center of deep blue California can serve as an example and inspiration to others throughout the country of how citizens and law enforcement can work together to root out fraud, identify weaknesses, effect change, and restore trust in our election systems.
I have been fortunate to be part of the small local team, one member of which provided the critical clues. As a result, I have had an insider view of many of these events. I cannot take credit but give credit to the team for more than a year of ongoing work investigating many aspects of election integrity that is leading to changes at the local and even state level.
For those who are discouraged and frustrated, I say, take heart. Even as individuals we can make a difference if our efforts are applied intelligently and effectively. We are not alone. We are not a conspiracy theory.
Election fraud is real.
Caveat elector.
View Comments
David Robb is a practicing scientist and CTO of a small firm developing new security technologies for detection of drugs and other contraband. Dave has published extensively in TheBlueStateConservative, and occasionally in American Thinker.