Fancy that: enough of the Gascon recall signatures have been invalidated to end the effort for now
Not a surprise. I repeat: not a surprise.
I am always nervous about signature-gathering on important questions. For example, I learned long ago that in Obama’s very first political race, a Democratic primary, he managed the feat of disqualifying every single one of his opponents through signature challenges. It was one of the first things I noticed about his political modus operandi. It’s certainly legal, and particularly in Chicago I don’t think it’s that unusual, but the scope of what Obama did to his primary opponents (Democrats all) seemed larger and more organized. It also seemed at odds with his carefully cultivated nice-guy image. And of course one of the four people his legal efforts kicked off the ballot was his former mentor Alice Palmer. If you haven’t read the article at that link, please do.
Recently the same thing was done in Michigan to kick many of the Republican governor primary contestants off the ballot. As far as I know, it was not the left that initiated that one; it was some of the candidates on the right. However – and I keep meaning to write a “Part II” about this, but more pressing things have intervened – one of the reasons so many signatures were supposedly invalid is that the company hired to collect them was crooked. In addition, the method the state had of authenticating or de-authenticating the signatures involved taking a very small sample on each petition and then extrapolating the percentage of bad signatures on that sample to the whole. Although that’s an obvious time-and-effort saver, it seems to me it’s ripe for abuse or for error.
There has never been any allegation that the GOP candidates who had the fraudulent signatures knew about it, much less ordered it. But they are considered responsible anyway, even though everyone knows they’re not going to personally verify the signatures. Who in the campaign was in charge of doing that intermediate work and checking the names against the voter rolls? Whoever it was, that person or people slipped up.
But we don’t know how many fraudulent signatures there were, because no one ever went through that process. What actually happened (and the description is a bit murky, but I’m pretty sure this is correct) is that the Board of State Canvassers in Michigan checked some sheets of petitions and discovered a high rate of fraudulent signatures, and then extrapolated that number to the entire batch and to the other candidate who had used the same company and the same workers.
It was on the basis of that (which of course is nothing like the way fraud cases in the 2020 election were handled or every would be handled) that five of the GOP gubernatorial candidates were disqualified. And the process by which that occurred is interesting, as well. The Board of State Canvassers consists of two Republicans and two Democrats, and the vote on this was split along party lines, 2-2. But with a tie, the decision goes towards disqualification (which seems very odd indeed to me) because the rule is that the candidates must prove the signatures to be valid, and neither the Board nor the challengers need prove the requisite number of them to be invalid.
I find that rather stunning. But again, unsurprising.
Which brings us to the leftist Los Angeles Country DA George Gascon. Here’s what just happened with him:
Recall organizers needed to gather nearly 570,000 valid petition signatures to schedule an election. But county officials found only about 520,000 were valid, well below the threshold, after disqualifying nearly 200,000 signatures turned in.
That’s between a fifth and a quarter of the signatures. Interesting, no? And who were the “county officials” doing the checking? Why, look at this [emphasis mine]:
In July, the Los Angeles County registrar notified the Recall DA George Gascón campaign that a random sampling of signatures revealed a 22 percent rejection rate, 60 times more than the rejection rate for mail-in-ballots during the 2020 presidential election. In response, the recall campaign pushed the registrar to explain what they believed was a “shockingly large rejection rate.”
The campaign obtained public records that show the registrar’s office was training staff to review votes using outdated signature standards, which allow the disqualification of any signature for minor variations compared with the one provided on a person’s voter registration form. In a letter to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, lawyers for the campaign expressed concerns that these outdated standards were leading to an improperly high rejection rate.
Again, not a surprise. That’s the way power is wielded, and that’s the way the powerful stay in power if they’re willing to do whatever it takes.
More:
…Marian Thompson, the attorney who wrote the letter, told the Washington Free Beacon the county clerk has not been forthcoming about the reasons for the rejection rate and refuses to share the precise number of invalid signatures.
“If they didn’t follow the law and apply the same legal standards used for signature verification for vote-by-mail ballots, then we have a legal team assembled to resolve this matter in a court of law,” Thompson said.
No surprise here either. In fact, I’d be surprised were it otherwise:
The Washington Examiner reported the county has denied the Gascón recall campaign observation rights for the election’s signature count, further obfuscating the verification process.
I haven’t read anything that specifically addresses who the people supervising the counting are by party, but I think it’s a pretty safe guess that they are Democrats and not the least bit neutral in this matter.
[NOTE: This is only tangentially related, but it’s about the Lisa Murkowski campaign’s effort to change Alaska’s voting to rank-choice to help keep Murkowski in office.]
Dean Logan, that kept counting in Wa till enough votes were found to get a Dem Gov. Win, resigned after that fiasco, and is in charge of LA voting.
Amazing how in the general election only 2% of votes were disallowed, but the Gascon recall is 25%…
https://www.lavote.gov/about-us/about-dean-c-logan
No rational and numerate person could possibly accept as legitimate, at the same time, the extremely high percentage of signatures rejected in the worthy effort to replace the ghastly Gascon and the extremely low percentage of mail-in ballots rejected in the election two years ago. Amongst the many reasons to suspect that Biden’s election was stolen (it was undeniably “rigged”, but proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it was stolen is hardly a simple matter) is that there were so many statistical anomalies, many of the “accepted” figures making no sense whatsoever. Whether Republicans have done much of anything to ensure that the election in just three months will be “free and fair” is another matter entirely; what matters, unfortunately, is less who votes than who collects and counts and certifies the votes.
Now, we’ll see if LA will find a way to elect Karen Bass as mayor.
The pasture is overgrown with weeds, out-competing the grasses and clovers. Prudent pasture management avers it’s time to mow the whole; the weeds laid low, the grasses will recover, the clovers will blossom.
About those Hanging Chads
he managed the feat of disqualifying every single one of his opponents through signature challenges.
1. If the process wasn’t corrupted, it’s a reasonable wager that he was able to do this because the petition template was incorrectly formatted and was missing a substantive line of text. That would make every page of the petition invalid.
2. Another possibility is that the statements of witness were invalid, because the signatories were not the actual witnesses. An invalid statement of witness will invalidate all the signatures on a page. For all of them to be invalid, the person signing them had to be different than the person who collected the signatures and so in every case. I’ve seen cases where the wrong person signed, but not on every page.
3. Another possibility is that his opponent collected a petition with a blank line in the candidate roster, then had her staff type in her name later, and that Obama’s canvassers figured this out.
4. Another is that it’s routine in Chicago for people to sign for family members. One forged signature on a page will invalidate a statement of witness which invalidates the whole page of signatures. If they make a habit of using templates which allow twenty signatures to a page, a contextually small number of forgeries can blow away most of a petition (though it would be odd for there to be a forgery on every page).
5. Another is that her canvassers were dropping off petition sheets at people’s homes and picking them up later, not actually witnessing the signatures collected. Again, one on a page can invalidate the statement of witness.
My guess (assuming the examining authorities were straight up) would be a defective template or a blank line filled in later. Those are the shortest routes to invalidating the whole petition and not just the bulk of it.
No rational and numerate person could possibly accept as legitimate, at the same time, the extremely high percentage of signatures rejected in the worthy effort to replace the ghastly Gascon
Not saying the rejections are legit, but I can think of reasons large numbers of signatures would be invalid and the sum of invalid signatures might cause the petition to fall.
And the inmates remain in control of the asylum.
[NOTE: This is only tangentially related, but it’s about the Lisa Murkowski campaign’s effort to change Alaska’s voting to rank-choice to help keep Murkowski in office.]
Ranked choice is sensible in constituencies where you have vigorous 3d parties, as you do in Alaska. The way it works for Murkowski is if she can claim 2d place in the penultimate tabulation, nosing out the Democratic candidate. Presumably, Democratic voters put their own candidate as their 1st choice and then put Sleaza, the Libertarian candidate, the Alaska Independence candidate, or a nonpartisan candidate before they put a reliable Republican on their ranked list. People whose 1st choice is Sleaza might put a reliable Republican next or might put someone else next.
The trouble with Sleaza is that she has enough of a constituency in the Republican Party to place 1st or 2d in a three-way tally, as she did in 2010 and 2016. If I’m any judge, what appears to have happened in 2010 is that a critical mass of Democrats gave up on their candidate and voted for Sleaza. Less likely in a ranked-choice system as they could just put down Sleaza as their 2d choice rather than enter her as their only choice in a first-past-the-post contest.
lets reverse it, has any good come from ranked choice voting, I don’t see it, who pushed for it, they want to destroy cities like San Angeles, like they want to destroy this country, this is why they arranged for obama to be the senator from illinois, and then made sure that only a pathetic old man, would be his opposition, and they went after the one that thought there was anything at stake in 2008, the foundations of the Republic, it must be illegal to inflict such pain on citizens of an already teetering city, as they are doing to this Country,
Art Deco:
“Sleaza” is a fabulous name for a politician
Amongst the many reasons to suspect that Biden’s election was stolen (it was undeniably “rigged”, but proving, beyond all reasonable doubt, that it was stolen is hardly a simple matter) is . . .
Where should the burden of proof be in an election? Of course, before someone can be jailed for election fraud, the fraud must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, for the results of an election to be accepted, the burden should be on the people running the election to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the votes were fairly counted. Just my lay opinion, I’m not a lawyer.
(How come the Preview button doesn’t work? Is that ever going to be fixed?)
This is how Democrats operate. How they have ALWAYS operated.
We need to teach the long, sordid history of Democrat election fraud. I have family members who have served on election commissions in different counties. The Democrat members always rubber stamped every dirty trick every time. And it was dirty tricks every election. They will flat out do things that are prohibited by law and smile while they vote to ignore the violations.
Am I painting with a broad brush. Yes, but the evidence is overwhelming.
I assume everyone is familiar with the Dems long tradition of “walking around cash”. Of the dirty tricks that are standard in big cities all over the country. How they put non-functioning election machines in GOP precincts. And more machines in Dem precincts than in GOP precincts. How GOP precincts always end up with lines stretching out the door and down the block while Dem precincts make sure voters can get in and out in a few minutes. Every election.
They cheat. They’ve always cheated. Every election. All over the country. They don’t see it as immoral. The end justifies the means. Just like their judges and justices view the law and the constitution. Whatever it takes to win. They embrace the sleaze. They celebrate it. They laugh about it. They don’t understand why GOP folks insist on being such wimps. Why we don’t bother to fight. Why we insist on being amateurs while they demand professional attitudes of their political machines where winning is the only thing that matters.
In the honest election year of 2020, FOUR different Dem election judges in Philly were named in federal indictments for fraud. It’s standard.