Dirty Voter Rolls and Dirty Elections--Together Like Ham and Eggs

I am most familiar with California's rolls since I have been investigating them for years, but every other state has similar contents. In addition to the names and addresses of people qualified to vote, most rolls also contain birth dates, mailing addresses, voting history, party preference, date of registration, birth state or country, and even phone numbers and email addresses if available.

If that weren't enough, this information is maintained in the rolls not only for active voters who can vote, but also for "cancelled" voters who have moved away, who have died, who haven't voted for many years, people who became ineligible by committing a major felony, ones who have been declared incompetent, and ones who requested removal. Registrations that are cancelled are not to receive election mailings, and votes are not to be counted for them.

There is another category of registration in the rolls for "inactive" voters. These are registrations that can still vote, but will not receive election mailings, including mailed ballots. Yet a fourth category is that of "provisional". These are typically registrations that for some reason are incomplete, such as missing a signature sample, or are a preregistration for someone not yet old enough to vote.

Once entered in the rolls, it is almost impossible to remove a registration It is, however, very easy to convert one to another as the change of a single letter in the database is sufficient. A change from "C" to "A" can make a cancelled registration an active one whose vote will be counted. This creates lots of opportunities for both honest errors and dishonest manipulations.

While local county officials are charged with maintaining their voter rolls, the reality is that they have little or no control over the contents. In California, as in most states, there is a master voter roll database. In order to handle such things as DMV registrations, moves between counties, and other changes, the state maintains master rolls. Updated copies are periodically returned to the county.

Counties don't actually own their own voter rolls, they just borrow them

In other words, the counties don't actually own their own voter rolls, they just borrow them. No county actually runs its own elections when the voter rolls are state controlled. Interesting things can happen when this situation exists. Let me introduce you to just a few.

I've examined copies of California rolls regularly about once a month over several years. One thing that I noticed early on was something I called "churn". From one month to the next, large numbers of active voters were added to the rolls, and large numbers removed. The numbers were too large to be due to people moving in or out of the county, or new registrations. Sometimes the ones removed were marked as cancelled, while many simply disappeared.

The difference between the number added and the number removed was usually small, so the change was attributed to normal voter turnover and any other explanation was dismissed. In one month a year or so ago, half the active voters in the rolls disappeared! Many were restored in the next month, but many new ones were added as well.

I spoke with other investigators regarding what I had found, and their investigations showed that similar churn was happening in every other state. They also observed a phenomenon where the number of active voters in the rolls would grow in the months before a major election, and then fall back to lower levels after the election.

The evidence is there and is real, although our media and many officials deny it exists and brand anyone who says otherwise as "conspiracy theorists" and "election deniers". Trump's disclosures July 16 on the 2020 election investigations has done much to raise awareness, but much more remains. He only exposed the tip of the iceberg. The huge remainder still lies hidden below the surface.

In my own investigations in California, there are likely well over two million non-citizens in the rolls

There has been much discussion recently about non-citizens in the voter rolls, some of whom have votes recorded for them. Numerous, media outlets, as well as various officials, including US Senators and Representatives, have gone on record saying that those don't exist and they never voted anyway so nothing to see here. The discovery and confirmation of thousands of non-citizens in the rolls in New Jersey and elsewhere have put the lie to such arrogant assertions.

Keep in mind, though, that the numbers reported are only those confirmed as non-citizens. The actual numbers are likely several times larger. In my own investigations in California, there are likely well over two million non-citizens in the rolls, even though only a bit over 200,000 have been reported.

How did I find them? California records the birthplace of registrants, so I started with eliminating all those who were born in a US state or territory. Many who remain will be potential non-citizens. I then looked at naturalization records. Normally, the number of new registrations for OUS (Outside US born) tracks the number of naturalizations until about 2008. By 2016, the number of OUS registrations was four to five times the number of naturalizations. The only way someone born outside the US to non-citizens can vote is if they become naturalized citizens.

I also looked at how these registrations were made. The great majority of them used the convenient online voter registration system. There are few effective checks for the validity of an online registration. Social Security numbers, a driver license number, or a photo ID are not required. A registration address can simply be an intersection of two roads.

So why does it matter if there are lots of non-citizens in the rolls? How many will try to vote? In California, as a sanctuary state, not even law enforcement agents are allowed to ask if someone is a non-citizen. Is some lowly poll worker going to ask?

Having names in the rolls to soak up manufactured ballots is important

Actually, though, non-citizens in the rolls is a problem for a different reason. These registrations serve as placeholders to absorb fraudulent votes introduced into the system. In states like California and Washington where ballots are mailed to all active voters, they will be mailed to non-citizens listed as active as well. The ballots will be mailed to addresses where they can be collected and voted by someone else. The individual non-citizen may never even know that their name is being used illegally. They may have even been deported and no longer in the country. So long as their registration is in the rolls, it is useful.

Having names in the rolls to soak up manufactured ballots is important because one of the simplest tests for election fraud is to compare the number of ballots counted to the number of voters recorded. Meddlesome investigators like myself might actually know how to add and could perform a check. If the totals don't match, there is a problem. If the mismatch is large, there is a big problem. Having placeholder registrants in the rolls to soak up manufactured ballots bypasses this check.

A clever way of creating useful placeholders exploits the history data in voter rolls. When a voter moves out of the jurisdiction, say to another state, their registration is cancelled, but the record is still in the database. Some time later, that registration can be re-activated using all the old data. This has the virtue of creating a registration that will pass all the usual tests of Social Security number, driver license number, valid address, and other checks, so even a deeper check will not flag them. One of my fellow investigators coined the term "homing pigeons" to describe these registrations since they are often registered at the same address they left years earlier.

The Save Act is the bow, and evidence is the arrow. Clean elections is the target

In my investigations I found a significant percentage of the voter rolls were these homing pigeons. On deeper checking, I even found that a number of them had voted in their new location, but also had votes recorded in their name at their old location for the same election. The official explanation is that these are people who were committing the crime of double voting. I think it more likely that their registrations were being used to absorb manufactured ballots and that they had no knowledge they were being used.

I could go on much longer with this presentation, but I have already stretched the patience of my gracious hosts at Canada Free Press. If you want more, leave comments.

I have presented this material and more to various officials and organizations in an attempt to point out how vulnerable our elections are. Election officials, county supervisors, district attorneys, and others have shown remarkable lack of interest in pursuing investigations.

In some respects, I can understand why, since what I present is evidence that they have not been doing their jobs. In some cases, it may even be that they are the perpetrators, or the beneficiaries of fraud, so why should they open that can of worms. It may be too much to ask the fox for an accurate inventory of the henhouse.

After years of investigating and working to bring these issues to light, I have come to realize that exposure alone will not bring about the change needed to secure our elections. Trump's press to pass the SAVE Act is the right course, and absolutely essential before the November midterms.

The Save Act is the bow, and evidence is the arrow. Clean elections is the target. Election fraud is the charging enemy that seeks to destroy our Nation. Now is the time to fire.

The price of liberty is the courage to act.