what is election fraud

What is election fraud? Maricopa County is the tipping point

Many people are still asking “What is election fraud” and “What is voter fraud,” thinking they are the same thing. They’re not.

I thought it would be helpful to distinguish between the two and use Maricopa County, Arizona, as a case study. It’s a hotbed of activity now and could answer a lot of questions around Election 2020.


Let’s be clear on one thing.

I believe there was both voter fraud and election fraud. Again, those are two separate things. They are connected, but separate. In the case of Election 2020, the “election fraud” far outweighed voter fraud and swung the election to Biden, illegally in my opinion.

What’s “voter fraud”?

This kind of fraud is committed through the actions of individuals, such as:

what is election fraud
  • Voting twice (or more!): There’s an old saying in Boston, that you should “Vote early and often.” Another way of voting more than once would be to impersonate another voter and vote for them, even if you have been asked by a relative or friend to vote as a proxy. That is voter fraud.
  • Selling your vote: If I tell a candidate or her campaign I’ll vote for them for cash or equivalent value, I am committing fraud.
  • Non-citizen voting: Only U.S. citizens may vote.
  • Felons: Felons have certain restrictions placed on their voting.
  • Voting away from one’s district. If I live in Texas and fly to New York City to vote, that is voter fraud.

What is “election fraud”?

This kind of fraud is illegal interference with the process of an election from the side of a campaign or election site (rather than from the voter side).

This can look like:

what is election fraud
Steering voters to the polls and convincing how to vote is election fraud
  • Discarding voter registration cards by campaign workers.
  • A voter selling his vote, when a campaign or candidate buys a vote, that is election fraud.
  • Workers or volunteers forging signatures on a petition for the purposes of getting a candidate or initiative on the ballot.
  • Ballot harvesting.” We heard a lot about this last fall. It is when campaign or election workers collect batches of mail-in of absentee ballots. That activity leaves these ballots susceptible to be changed, fraudulently.
  • Campaigns in which a candidate’s or party workers use robocalls or other means to spread misinformation about the election process. One example of this in Election 2020 was a group of 100 or so younger users of Twitter who tried to sway other Twitter users to vote on November 10, rather than on the 3rd. This group was all banned.
  • Counting and certification of election results illegally, as when voting machines are changing votes, or claiming that they do.
  • Violations of campaign finance laws.

Maricopa County

I was surprised to hear The Epoch Times use this lede in its story yesterday about Maricopa County:

Maricopa County in Arizona will carry out a comprehensive forensic audit of its voting systems to allay concerns raised by some constituents about the integrity of the November 2020 election

the epoch times

The Epoch Times is known to be Trump-leaning. So you’d think that they’d describe the audit not as designed to “allay concerns” but rather to “find the truth” or some similar language. To “allay concerns” implies that the concerns aren’t valid.

What happened in Maricopa County on November 3?

Maricopa County has been strongly Republican since 2008.

  • In 2008, Obama crushed McCain nationally with 365 to 173 electoral college votes. Yet — and even though he was a senator there — McCain beat Obama in Arizona and easily won Maricopa County 53% to 43% (4% went to other candidates).
  • In 2012 Romney beat Obama in that county by 12 points in an election Romney lost.
  • Trump beat Clinton by 3 points in an election Trump was supposed to lose bigly.
  • But we are to believe that Biden — in a Republican stronghold — beat Trump by 2 points?

Two points doesn’t sound like a lot, but when you consider the history, it seems inconceivable.

Is this result true?

Maricopa County officials believe so.

In fact, the chairman of the County Board of Supervisors, a Republican, has maintained all along the integrity of the results. So he, and the Board, have a lot to lose for the results to be shown to have irregularities, or voter or election fraud.

The Board chair claimed that “multiple audits” have been conducted and have uncovered no fraud. Yet the state legislature has said that the county audit will not put the issue to bed; the state will still need to conduct is own.

The most recent listing of Audit Reports from the Maricopa County website shows the last election-related report to be October 30. It was an “election readiness” report. Yet, the author of the report, Mike McGee, County Auditor, clarifies at the end:

This is not an audit and may not detect all deficiencies, errors, and irreguliarites that may exist.

Mike McGee, County Auditor, in his memo, October 30, 2020, to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

“Multiple audits”?

Is the Board chairman’s claim of post-election multiple audits true?

  • A hand count on November 4 concurred with tabulation results. (We know that hand counts merely count what machines already have counted, whether good or bad results. This is not an “audit;” it’s a recount.
  • On November 17, a letter was sent to Maricopa County voters as a “Fact Page” addressing some of the misinformation that was being spread. Once again, this was not an audit; it was a PR piece.
  • On November 18, the Elections Department and the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office performed “a post-election logic and accuracy test on the equipment to ensure it was not changed or tampered with during the election.”
    • There are a number of possible post-election audits, detailed HERE, but a “post-election logic and accuracy test” is conducted using a test deck of ballots and running them through the tabulators and checking the result with what was found on Election Day.
  • On November 20 there was a public forum, and on December 14 officials testified before a Senate subcommittee. Again, not audits.

The only real “audit,” arguably, was on November 18 when the tabulators were tested.

In comes Jovan

Jovan Pulitzer (website HERE) was featured prominently during post-election state legislature hearings.

Jovan was not exactly a hit with media.

At the Georgia State Legislature hearing, Jovan, a self-proclaimed tech expert — though the media would take issue — described the intricacies and problematic differences with the paper ballots.

It’s important to note that if you Google Jovan, you’ll read that his main invention, the CueCat, was roundly decried as one of the worst inventions ever. That’s actually ok. What’s important is not the hardware around his tech, it’s the tech itself and the thinking behind it. The CueCat’s true inventiveness was to create a quick way for a user to get into deep content from the web, easily and quickly. This tech is not on millions, if not billions, of devices, such as airport scanners used on mobile boarding passes.

The man knows his shit.

You will see mostly disparaging articles on Jovan when you Google him or his testimony. He’s quirky and self-importnat.

That doesn’t mean he’s wrong.

HERE’S A POSITIVE ARTICLE with much more depth on the audit he would advocate:

Don’t be fooled by the source; read the text and the author’s outline of details.

What Jovan recommends is a true audit.


I am not sanguine about the outcome in Maricopa County.

The County Board of Supervisors chairman is so vested in an outcome that agrees with their previous findings — to have otherwise would destroy his credibility and that of the Board, if not Arizona’s election process — that any audit by these two “independent companies” that were hired are sure to be superficial and biased.

This is one of those moments I must trust God that the Truth will come out.

Related Posts

Leave a Reply