I understand what you propose (and agree), but it has bothered me for years that the word “sanction” has two diametrically opposed definitions and usages, and if a sentence is not phrased correctly, it can be ambiguous about which one is intended.

The Democrats, for instance, would have opted for the “permitted” use rather than the “proscribed” one had they written that sentence.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sanction
1: to make valid or binding usually by a formal procedure (such as ratification)
2: to give effective or authoritative approval or consent to
3a: to attach a sanction or penalty to the violation of (a right, obligation, or command)
b: to impose a sanction or penalty upon

Of course they did and 99% will be for the incumbent [D].

The truck driver says $153 is the amount he spent on the primary. He spent a whopping $5K on the election. He says he pounded the pavement and went door to door talking to people.

John Smith
1234 Main Street
Somewhere, Wisconsin

When you are filling out tons of ballots for other people, your imagination on filling out the witness material is going to be limited.

If no prosecution, dox the responsible individuals. Then apply extra-legal consequences. Absent the rule of law, the only antidote to corruption and tyranny is grave physical consequence.

He had a small pencil (the small kind that you use at Ikea) that he held in the palm of his hand while counting ballots. With practice it really wasn’t that hard to do so that others didn’t even know that you were holding a small pencil. If you noticed that the opposing candidate was getting too many votes you would simply “swipe” the pencil across the paper ballot. This then made that ballot invalid because any ballot that had markings that made it so that it wasn’t clear who the voter intended the ballot was not counted.

Of course, paper ballots aren’t used any more – but, the cheating has not gone away, it has simply become more complex.