Riverside County Election Administration Plan and Election Vendors Do Not Instill Voter Confidence.

Fair Elections are Essential

The Riverside County (RivCo) Election Administration Plan (EAP) is on the wrong path, and the RivCo Registrar of Voters (RoV) and the Board of Supervisors may need to step out of their bubble if they think the citizens of Riverside County are generally happy with mass mail-in voting, voting machines, remote access voting, membership in the EI-ISAC, and ballot boxes— We. Are. Not.

RivCo may be abiding by the California Voters Choice Act, but it is the duty of representative to resist bad laws. The RivCo EAP, and the choices of vendors made by the RivCo RoV and Board of Supervisors, is fraught with questionable integrity, dubious motives, and other conditions that are ripe for election and/or voter fraud. Including, but not limited to:

1. Mass mail-in voting

2. Ballot boxes / ballot harvesting

3. Democracy Live

4. Dominion

5. Runbeck

6. Membership in the EI-ISAC

First, please view this 10 minute video of true election deniers and conspiracy theorists, including those that believe there are serious problems with voting machines. As you watch the video, keep in mind that the Federal Election Commission has fined Hillary Clinton for—and the trial of Michael Sussman by Special Counsel John Durham has further proven— that the 2016 Russian election interference narrative was a hoax, bought and paid for by Clinton herself, in collusion with Russian operatives.

Steve Guest @SteveGuest

Oh look at this— here’s 10 minutes of Democrats denying election results:

The 2005 bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission Report on Federal Election Reform, made 87 recommendations for securing our Nation’s elections, but these four are most relevant to the RivCo EAP.

1) Be leery of mail-in and absentee voting risks and halt ballot harvesting.

2) Avoid duplicate registration across state lines and maintain voter lists.

3) Allow election observers to monitor ballot processing for integrity.

4) Use reliable voting machines and be sure they are working properly.

In regard to mail-in voting the report states, “…it raises concerns about privacy, as citizens voting at home may come under pressure to vote for certain candidates, and it increases the risk of fraud.” The report continued to state that mail-in voting “…is popular but not a panacea for declining participation… has been one of the major sources of fraud.”

An observational example can be found close to home, in Los Angeles, where signature verifications rejections were less than 1% (this was the statewide average) in the 2020 election for mail-in ballots, yet about 30% of petition signatures for the Gascon recall were rejected. It is a valid comparison and the very appearance that rules can be applied on a sliding scale, depending on the desired outcome of those that count the vote, is enough reason to abandon mail-in voting altogether. As Joe Biden said, “It’s about who gets to count the vote….”

The “fact-checkers” to the above comparison only strengthen the argument to abandon mail-in voting—and ballot harvesting/ballot boxes along with it. Politifact, for instance, stated that comparing the signature verification of the Gascon petition to the 2020 election was invalid because the common causes for rejection were not the same. While the most common causes for rejections from 2020 were missing or not matching signatures, the causes from the recall were not registered to vote or wrong addresses (meaning they never got to signature comparisons). Yet Politifacts very reasoning causes voters to beg the question: How many ballots are sent to the wrong address and what becomes of them? If signees of the petition gave different addresses than on record how would they ever receive their ballot in the mail—wouldn’t it be mailed to the address on record?

This graphic from the 2018 and 2020 elections in swing states may help to illustrate how rules could be selectively enforced.

The Heritage Foundation, which maintains a database of election fraud, concluded in a July 2020 report that mail-in ballots are “destroying the transparency that is a vital hallmark of the democratic process,” since they “are completed and voted outside the supervision and control of election officials and outside the purview of election observers.”

The key takeaways of the report:

“Universal absentee or mail-in voting leaves America’s electoral system vulnerable to fraud, forgery, coercion, and voter intimidation.

Uncovering instances of voter fraud is difficult, and those who commit fraud are often able to get away without repercussions.

Preventing voter fraud is crucial for protecting election integrity, ensuring public confidence in the election system, and maintaining a stable democratic republic.”

Consider too, that of the hundreds of voter fraud cases from the 2020 election, most were not heard by the courts, thus the courts have not actually decided much of anything— the evidence was never presented. Of the 21 cases that were actually decided on merit, 14 judgments went in favor of those claiming voter fraud. There are also many cases still winding their way through the system.

The RivCo RoV’s membership in the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing & Analysis Center, or EI-ISAC, is well documented in a previous article. Suffice it to say, that the original involvement (in the control of our elections through CISA) of entities that were the center of so much election integrity controversies from the 2020 election, the connections to the Solar Winds hack and other security issues, the extreme left-wing bias of the EI-ISAC (the Center for Internet Security), and the incestuous relationship the board has with government and international agencies, should be enough for the RivCo RoV to divest entirely from its EI-ISAC membership and to cancel all contracts with said entities.

Entities such as Dominion voting systems, Democracy Live, and Runbeck were on the original EI-ISAC commission and continue to be at the center of controversy from the 2020 election and/or have serious security issues. Yet all have current contracts with the RoV, as indicated in the RivBo budget here and here.

Entities such as Democracy Live, that RivCo contracts with to handle Remote Access Vote By Mail (internet voting) had serious issues with security, according to MIT/University of Michigan study (worth a read):

“We find that OmniBallot uses a simplistic approach to Internet voting that is vulnerable to vote manipulation by malware on the voter’s device,” wrote the researchers. “In addition, Democracy Live, which appears to have no privacy policy, receives sensitive personally identifiable information — including the voter’s identity, ballot selections, and browser fingerprint — that could be used to target political ads or disinformation campaigns.”

Runbeck, who will receive over $1.8 million from the RoV this year, has also received some press in regard to ballot printing and due to at least one employee—the manager of ballot production, Brian Runbeck—having very close ties to the democrat party. An unacceptable appearance of political bias by a private vendor that handles election ballots, to say the least.

The Arizona Senate Audit revealed issues with Dominion, as well as with mail-in ballots, signature verifications, duplicated ballots, voter-fraud, and third-party interference. Films like “Rigged”, “Selection Code”, and “2,000 Mules” document how ballot harvesting and outside money can influence elections.

To be clear, Riverside County does not stand, nor is it accused of standing at the center of any voting irregularity controversies. On the other hand, RivCo has never undergone a full forensic audit. Although the Civil Grand Jury did investigate the 2020 election, they did not have the time, money, or expertise to fully address the concerns that many voters have. Only a full forensic audit would be able to do that. Nor does the EAP address the following recommendations of that Grand Jury:

“• expanding the number of videos illustrating the election process, especially ballot security, ballot signature confirmation, and use of technology

• “live streaming” ballot processing

• confirming that technology functions as expected

• drop-off box monitoring

The very fact that the aforementioned entities are involved in any controversy involving our sacred right to vote, anywhere, should be enough to question the legitimacy of utilizing them in RivCo elections.

Furthermore, practices that are illegal elsewhere, and rightfully so, are legal here in California. Legality and legitimacy are not mutually inclusive however, and if the RivCo RoV and Board of Supervisors truly wish to restore confidence in the County elections, they need to scrap the EAP and return to in-person, single day, voter ID regulated paper ballots.

A large portion of the over 1 million registered Riversiders, every single one of which will have ballots at the mercy of the postal service—a postal service that cannot even prevent it’s workers or the public’s mailboxes from being robbed— do not agree with the election path that the EAP leads Riverside County down.