Rocci Stucci Media

Maricopa County Lawyer Admits Their Signature Verification Sucks

Now, tell us something we didn’t know. Legal teams for Katie Hobbs and Kari Lake appeared in court over signature verification standards. To say the system is faulty is like Noah, saying it looks like rain. The examples already shown by Lake’s legal team are the election equivalent of common core math. You don’t have to get it right and you will still win. The machines were set to accept a 10% match. That is ludicrous.

During the hearing, attorney Tim La Rue admitted that Maricopa County’s signature verification standards are not an exact “science” to ensure the ballots are not fraudulent. What he did claim was that signature verification is “subjective” and is open for interpretation by Democrats in the counting room. How much interpretation depends on how badly the Democrat is losing. LaRue shrugged off the fact that the signatures don’t even have to be remotely close. So, what is he saying? That it is okay to cheat? You betcha.

We The People AZ Alliance tweeted:

“They just admitted signature verification is a fake science that should NEVER determine outcome.”

A presentation by We The People AZ Alliance (referenced below) and State Legislators, where reviewed voter registration forms and compared them with signatures on over 100,000 ballot envelopes. They identified a staggering 20% error rate in signature verification. Some of their findings included:

  • 609 voters that cast a ballot in the 2020 election that used voter IDs issued AFTER the 2020 election.
  • Nine voters whose voter ID was canceled between 2017 and 2020 and were still able to vote in the 2020 election (not provisional).
  • 128 who have two voter IDs assigned to them. Both ballots were cast in the 2020 election, resulting in potentially 128 illegal votes.
  • The signature on the Registration does not belong to the voter
  • Multiple Voters that Do Not Match Signature on Registrations Prior to 2020 AND Had New Registrations Inserted That Are Different or a Match On 02/03/2021
  • Ballots Marked “Voter Unable to Sign Due to Covid Restrictions.”
  • Envelopes left blank with no signature
  • Ballots Were Signed By Other Household Members and accepted as-is
  • Over 1,200 Dead voters
  • Ballots Received by the Wrong officer in charge of elections on Election Day
  • 56 ballots were received on election day in other counties and states.
  • 17,822 Accepted Ballots with mismatched signatures

From The Gateway Pundit

La Rue: I think it’s important to remember that the declarants, in their declarations, said things like “I think I rejected this many or my memory is…” and I don’t have the declarations in front of me. I don’t remember the exact words. Your Honor can see that though. In other words, it’s not clear how many signatures these declarants rejected. They’re going off their memory, and I’m not questioning whether they’re trying to state the truth. It’s just, they themselves acknowledge, you know, it had been a while since they had done this, and they weren’t keeping notes of how many signatures they rejected, and they think they rejected so many. That doesn’t mean that they did. Second thing that I want to say just very quickly, is that as explained in the papers, there are multiple levels to signature review and the voter gets an opportunity to cure signatures, which means that even if, at the initial level, an initial one reviewer reject signatures, that doesn’t mean that those signatures are actually not going to be found to be consistent, or that they’re going to be cured.

The Level One reviewer has no way to know what the final outcome will be. And I believe the declarants actually say that in their declarations. I think they’ve attempted to be honest in these declarations. They don’t know. Counsel for Lake said that the analysis from 2020 showed that signatures did not match in 2020. And that’s the type of challenge that they’re bringing here. That again, Your Honor, means they’re shifting back to they’re making changes to signature determinations. And as we said, in our papers, that’s a very subjective process. Two people might look at a signature and one might say, “I think that’s consistent,” and another might say, “no, that’s inconsistent.” And there’s no line rule in the law that says when a signature is or is not consistent. This is something of an art in election verification work. It’s not really a hard and fast science. And that’s why the level two reviewers and the level three reviewers have more experience and are able to look at these, they have additional training, they have access to more signatures than the level one reviewers. And they can look at these and make their own determinations. If we would bring signatures in here, Your Honor, you might think some are consistent and I might think they were inconsistent or vice versa. But the law entrusts this to the recorder unless something happens like happened in the Reyes case, which did not happen here.

Author

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
Pinterest
LinkedIn

2 Responses

  1. Im Pima County we used electonic signature verification. I couldn’t even recognize my own signature. In my opinion, it should not be used. It is too easy to defeat the system with programs that produce close approximations of a signature. Therefore making it prone to fraud.

  • Decide Right

  • On Key

    Related Posts