What Does it Mean to Certify an Election, and Can This One Be Certified?

For many of us, certification meant that the results of an election were true, correct, and an accurate reflection of the will of the people. Forty years and more ago, that was likely true. Is it true today?

As part of the certification process, the authorities making the certification have to sign a statement saying that to the best of their knowledge the official results they are presenting are accurate counts of the ballots cast and of the selections made on those ballots, and that the votes counted reflect the number of voters who cast ballots within a margin of error, as of the date of the signature.

After reading several of these statements, I started to notice what was not present. I even went and looked up state requirements for certification, just to be sure I hadn't missed something.

In California, for example, in order to certify the results of an election, several conditions must be met:

• All the leftover election materials including unused blank ballots, ballot paper, etc. must be turned in from the precincts and accounted;
• Any ballot totals and tallies from precincts must be delivered to the county election offices;
• All ballots, including vote by mail, in-person, UOCAVA, adjudicated, duplicated, etc. must be properly counted, tabulated and counts totaled;
• The number of voters who cast ballots must be determined;
• The number of ballots counted should match the number of voters who cast ballots. Any discrepancies should be noted, and reasonable efforts made to resolve them;
• The statement of certification is prepared and signed.

Two things I didn't see. First, there is no requirement that the number of ballots counted actually match the number of voters. A difference between the number of voters and the number of ballots counted is permitted. Full reconciliation of ballots and voters is not required. Second, all ballots are counted - there is no provision to try to identify fraudulent ballots or other aspects of election manipulation such as machine errors that would affect totals.

In other words, in order to certify an election, there are only three requirements:

• there must be an election
• ballots must be received and counted
• an official statement pronouncing the results must be issued.

According to our officials, in the interest of maintaining a peaceful and orderly society, no challenges to the election results can be permitted for any reason, including evidence of massive fraud. Better to have definite and accepted results than to have election challenges go on for some indefinite period with the corresponding uncertainty around elected offices. In other words, stability is more important than fairness, honesty, or the actual will of the people.

It is better to have someone in an office, they claim, even if it is the wrong person put there by fraud, than to have the office remain unfilled for some potentially extended period while questions are resolved.

That, at least, is the position that has been taken recently in elections across the globe, as well as within this country. We saw it here in 2020, and more recently in Brazil, in Venezuela, in Germany, in the UK and numerous other places.

How convenient! People who would commit election fraud no longer have to worry about getting caught. They just have to make sure that when the election is certified, their candidates have the most votes. After that, they are home free and the system will protect them from challenges. In fact, anyone attempting to challenge the results will likely be those prosecuted, and not the ones who committed fraud.

That means that if we are going to ensure fair and honest elections, we need to act before the election is certified. If necessary, we must be prepared to get a court to delay certification until fraud investigations are complete.

We can't let the election be certified until we are either sure the fraud has been removed, or until we can present a case that the election cannot be certified. 

That is an option. There would be a lot of pressure to certify the election from a number of sources, many within the current government. We cannot let ourselves be bullied.

What if there is widespread belief that there was massive cheating and fraud in this election. Numerous reports have already surfaced of machine "malfunctions", unqualified voters in massive numbers, and many other manipulations intended to put an unqualified candidate into office. If there is no trust in the outcome, there will likely be great chaos, unrest and even extended violence as a result. This is high risk.

What if we didn't certify this election, though? What if there is enough evidence that the results clearly cannot be trusted? There are already numerous groups organizing across the country to stop certification, at least until investigations can be completed.

One option, perhaps the only option, would be a do-over. There would be objections raised because of delay and expense. As for delay, that would depend on how it was done and on our determination to get honest results. If Congress were to act quickly and pass necessary legislation, we could still have good results in time for the January Inauguration Day of 2025.

Many might feel that it would be too disruptive to re-do the full election. Donald Trump is the clear winner of the Presidential contest, and only the President is required to take office on January 20. A do-over might be restricted to those down-ballot races where there was sufficient uncertainty or taint of fraud to warrant a new election. Unfortunately, many offices of Senators and Congress members would qualify, especially in states such as Arizona, Michigan, California, and too many others.

Regarding expense, we have seen the cost of installing the wrong President in these last four years. Justified by haste and unwillingness to investigate the clear issues of fraud, the election of 2020 was certified and the results accepted. Look where that got us. So far, the direct cost is over $4T and counting. This doesn't even count all the destructive effects of bad policy and regulations, the threat of another global war, not to mention the loss of faith in our government and its legitimacy.

Even if it cost a few Billion dollars to have the election redone properly, what is our country worth? We sent hundreds of Billions of dollars to Ukraine and Afghanistan to no good end. We spend over $150B each year feeding and housing a population of illegal aliens that the Biden-Harris regime invited across the border. How does the cost of an honest election compare to those expenses?

If we did do it over, we would have to do it right. Congress would have to pass legislation to eliminate mail-in voting except in cases of clear need, single day voting with photo ID required, and no machines.

True, the Constitution says the states have the power to conduct elections as they see fit, but various Federal laws, including the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, and the Help America Vote Act have already set conditions on elections that states must follow. Indeed, the Constitution says that Congress may pass laws to direct the conduct of States in performing their elections.

Single day, in-person, with ID voting would be a reasonable addition. Congress could pass emergency legislation and even override a Presidential veto in time to make an election happen in early January. Citizen participation in counting and other activities would greatly simplify the election as well as ensure essential transparency of the process and results. Wouldn't it be nice to have elections we can actually trust again?

Would the results of such an election match the ones from this current one? Would the citizens trust the results more? Would there be less conflict and controversy and accusations of cheating and fraud? Could we accept the results of such an election, drop the talk of Civil War, and get back to making America a great country again?

Wouldn't it be interesting to find out? If fraud is clear, the option is here.