by Dr. Brooke Trey, Gallatin County
Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter
Along with many other concerned citizens across Montana, I have been deep-diving into the election process. I want to bring three areas of concern to your attention:
1. Laws related to the required accuracy of the voter rolls
2. The percentage error rate allowed in any given election
3. Vulnerabilities of all voting machines
ELECTION LAW & ALLOWABLE ERROR RATE
Amendments 14, 15, 9, and 26 to the U.S. Constitution give all US natural-born and naturalized citizens the right to vote. The one act in which each citizen’s equality is demonstrable is at the ballot box. No matter your sex, religion, race, education, income, or standing in society…each citizen gets only ONE vote. This is to be a level playing field. Any denial of this right or a person’s eligibility to vote–or any dilution of an individual’s vote by allowing ineligible votes–is strongly guarded by our nation’s laws. Anyone who believes in the inherent equality of each human being should support accurate elections where each eligible citizen only gets ONE vote.
The Help America Vote Act of 2002 was implemented in detail by the FEC’s (Federal Elections Commission) Voting Systems Standards 3.2.1, which addresses accuracy standards for an election. It states:
“Required accuracy is defined in terms of an error rate that, for testing purposes, represents the maximum number of errors allowed while processing a specified volume of data. This rate is set at a sufficiently stringent level such that the likelihood of voting system errors affecting the outcome of an election is exceptionally remote even in the closest of elections.”
“For testing purposes, the acceptable error rate is defined using two parameters: the desired error rate to be achieved and the maximum error rate the test process should accept. For each processing function indicated above, the system shall achieve a target error rate of no more than one in 10,000,000 ballot positions, with a maximum acceptable error rate in the test process of one in 500,000”.
As you can see, there is hardly any room for error in counting the ballots. The reason for such stringent parameters is to ensure that there is an exceptionally remote chance that the results of an election will be in error. This allowable maximum error is a .0002% allowable error. Or, looking at it another way, a 99.9998% accuracy rate is required for an election to be deemed accurate and certifiable. A ballot position is the term for each oval on the ballot. Those you fill out & those you don’t. If you have ten ballot positions on each ballot, you can be wrong on one ballot out of 50,000 to comply with the law. Depending on the total number of ballots, if a ballot signature is deemed authentic when it is, in fact, a forgery, and that ballot is counted, you have reached the maximum error rate allowed in a county where you only have 50,000 ballots (as in Gallatin County). If this happens to 2 fraudulent ballots, you have violated the law. To be clear, this is not only a violation of the law but also a direct violation of all citizens' civil rights as you have diluted their vote & have deprived them of the equality that their one vote provides.
TABULATOR MACHINES
I won’t spend much time on the voting machines as I don’t think that anyone today would doubt for a minute that any machine with computerized parts could be hacked in multiple ways, including using modems, cell phones, and flash drives. The list is long, and cybersecurity computer experts only know and comprehend the many ways this is possible. If they can hack into the Pentagon, everything else is fair game! But putting aside the vulnerabilities of these election machines, let’s pretend for a moment that they were “hack-proof.” Let’s say that every count and recount is precisely accurate. Wouldn’t this fulfill the error rate as listed in the FEC document? Yes, but there is something else I think you would agree that must be considered. Let’s say that I’m handed ten 100-dollar bills. I could count them indefinitely and produce ten bills or $1,000 each time. However, if 3 of those bills turn out to be counterfeit, it wouldn’t change the fact that instead of $1,000, I only have $700.
My point is that before running any ballot through an election machine, we must first be 100% sure each ballot is from an eligible voter. This brings me to my main topic: Signature Verification.
PROBLEMS WITH SIGNATURE VERIFICATION OF ABSENTEE BALLOTS
I conducted a deeper dive into all the details of the Signature Verification process, and I discovered some highly troubling answers to inquiries asked of our County Clerk and Recorder’s office, which I will list below:
1. Who does the signature verification for an election, and what does their training entail? Answer: The Clerk and recorder and/or the Election Administrator give their office staff a few hours of training. Neither the C&R nor the EA is required to be a Board-Certified Forensic Document Examiner Or Handwriting Expert. This would require a bachelor's degree in forensic science or a related field and two years of full-time training.
2. Is a competency test given after the training to determine if the student’s accuracy rate is acceptable for signature verification? Answer: No competency test is given.
3. What percentage does a student have to get on the test to prove they are competent to verify signatures? Answer: There is no test, so we have no idea if the signature verification staff are competent. I do not know if they can accurately identify which signatures are those of the actual voters and which are fraudulent.
4. What percentage accuracy do you achieve per election, and how do you quantify it? Answer: They have no idea the percentage accuracy of signature verification and stated that it is impossible to measure. There is no attempt to measure it. Note: According to the accuracy rate listed above, signature verification needs to be essentially 100% to meet the requirements of the law for a certifiable election.
5. Does the percentage accuracy in question 4 meet the federal election accuracy standards prescribed for voting systems? Answer: They have no idea and no way of finding out.
6. How do you know if the person who signed the envelope is the same person who filled out the ballot? Answer: There is no way to know.
7. How do the signature verifiers distinguish between an authentic signature and a computerized duplicate/photocopy of a signature? Answer: They had no answer.
8. How can you certify an election as accurate when there is no way of knowing the percentage accuracy of the signature verification, and hence, there is no way of knowing if you are counting fraudulent ballots? Answer: It’s impossible to see the accuracy rate of the signature verification process and, therefore, impossible to certify any election that relies primarily on mail-in ballots.
I also spoke to several individuals who are signature experts and analyzed documents to see if they were forged or not. They also routinely testify in court. They told me they never guarantee their analysis is 100% accurate. So, how is it that we are trusting our precious vote to a handful of minimally trained individuals who do not need to prove their competency in signature verification to decide which votes are to be counted and which are not? And, might I add, where no attempt is made to determine the percentage accuracy in this task, as this value is impossible to measure?
Once a signature is “verified” as authentic, the envelope is opened in the election process. The ballot (remaining in the secrecy envelope) is taken out, and the two are separated. After this step, the ballot is forever separated from the signature envelope. If a signature is deemed authentic and turns out to be fraudulent later, there is no way of knowing how the voter voted; therefore, there is no way of knowing what the vote totals should have been. This means this is an uncertifiable situation. In addition, signature verification can be done on a ballot as soon as it is received in the election office in the weeks leading up to an election. There is no oversight of this activity. Even with cameras on them 24/7, a poll watcher could only catch the most blatant forgeries, as most would not be handwriting experts either.
ACCURACY THAT CAN’T BE CALCULATED CAN’T BE CERTIFIED
I would assume and hope that guarding the civil rights of all Americans is a goal we should strive for in every election. Guaranteeing 100% accuracy is how that happens. The voting system that Montana has in place allows all people to vote by absentee ballot. Over 60% of all ballots are cast by absentee vote across the state. In Gallatin County, that number is 85%. This system is sloppy and treats our civil right to vote with little value. We may have honest election office staff who try to do an excellent job at signature verification. But, if there is a classroom full of students sitting for their final exam who all studied hard and are trying to get a good grade, more likely than not, I’m still going to have students who get an A, B, C, D, and F. At least, in my example, I have a way of measuring their percentage of accuracy. We are forced to assume a 100% accuracy rate with signature verifiers. It makes our elections a total farce. Imagine the errors-intentional or accidental-that can be made if there are nefarious or lazy people on staff!
When the designated officials certify an election, their signature attests that the results are 100% accurate (or at least within the percentage error rate federal law allows to deem an election certifiable). Now, I ask, “How can any election in Montana made up of mostly mail-in ballots ever be officially certified if their accuracy is not measurable?” It seems that individuals certifying this type of election would make themselves a party to fraud.
INACCURATE VOTER ROLLS
We also have been looking closely at the voter rolls in counties across the state.
The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 states in section 1(b)(4) PURPOSES. — The purposes of this Act are— (4) to ensure that accurate and current voter registration rolls are maintained.
We have found that, for the most part, this is an almost impossible task, and the voter rolls are far from accurate and current and violate this act. For example, at the local university, I gave the housing department lists of all the registered voters in 11 dorms and asked them to highlight all the students who no longer reside there. The results then showed that out of 1,572 registered voters at these addresses, only 89 currently reside there. A 94.4% INACCURACY RATE!!! This is only the beginning. It also adds up to a massive waste of taxpayer dollars mailing ballots to no longer valid addresses. Add to that the cost of postage, the costs of paper, of printing ballots & envelopes, the salaries of the staff that prepare them to mail. Also, the costs associated with those who process them when they are returned. In addition to the cost of all those returned undeliverable, 1-2 notices must be mailed to them as a follow-up.
ABSENTEE BALLOTS LACK CHAIN-OF-CUSTODY
There is also a lack of chain of custody concerning mail-in ballots. Mail in Bozeman first goes to a local post office, then to Billings to be sorted, then to the post office according to zip code. Ballots are then mailed to individuals who sit in unprotected inboxes on the street and in dorm post offices. At all these points, there is potential for a bad actor to intercept these ballots and vote them. If they are mailed to an address that is no longer valid, it is even more susceptible to being stolen and voted by someone who is not an eligible voter or who will use it to vote more than once. I know many people who received more than one ballot in the past two elections. None of these ballots are guarded under lock and seal in a box only to be opened by two witnesses. It is foolish to think that this type of theft does not happen. The American election is a prize that many will go to any dishonest length to win.
Let’s contrast all this with in-person voting on election day. A person walks in, shows their photo ID, and then signs the poll book. There is an arm attached to the pen doing the signing, which is attached to a body that has the same face as that on the photo ID. This same person receives a ballot from a locked box with two election judges verifying that the seals were not broken. Then, this same voter carries the ballot to the polling booth, votes the ballot & returns it to the ballot judge to put into a locked and sealed receiving box. In this case, there is little chance of an ineligible voter being allowed to vote. There is no chance of someone other than the signer voting the ballot given to them. There is not much chance that someone who moved from Montana to Georgia would travel to vote in Montana on election day.
All the ballots are then counted, compared with the ballot sheet totals, and placed in a container where two judges lock and verify the seals placed on the box. There is no need for provisional ballots to muddy the water. You decrease the cost of postage and printing tremendously. And you exponentially decrease the potential for fraud and a high error rate. Simply hand count at the precinct level to take out the possibility of machines being hacked or having preinstalled algorithms. This is how it was done in the past. You will be able to get the results late on election night versus using machines to count that “make things easier,” yet it takes days, weeks, and even months to get the counting done. In an in-person-only election with hand counting at the precinct level, those who certify it could have great confidence that the results were accurate. They would not have to risk committing fraud.
FOR ACCURATE ELECTIONS, MUST ELIMINATE UNIVERSAL ABSENTEE BALLOTS
We should do everything possible to ensure an accurate election where only those eligible citizens' votes are counted. To achieve this, we must eliminate all avenues of potential fraud. There is, therefore, no place in accurate, certifiable elections for mass mail-in ballots. If citizens knew the information in this document, they would choose accuracy over “convenience” any day. We cannot continue to use this system as it plays fast and loose with our vote. Our one vote is each citizen’s civil right, putting us on equal footing. We need to go back to restricting absentee ballots to only the sick, feeble, or those who live overseas and/or in the military. It is unreasonable and illogical to continue to allow the liberal use of mail-in ballots if the goal is accurate elections. Those who would say otherwise do not respect the equality of each citizen that our one vote ensures.
In summary, if we cannot calculate how accurate the signature verification is on these ballots, we cannot guarantee that all the votes being counted are from eligible voters, and we, therefore, CANNOT certify an election as accurate.
Election Integrity Goals:
1 Clean Voter Rolls
2. Ban the Machines
3. Voter photo ID and Paper Ballots
4. Severely Restrict Absentee Voting
5. Election Day, In-person Voting
6. Drastically Reduce Precinct Sizes
7. Ban Ballot Harvesting
8. Election Day as a Holiday
9. Total Transparency
10. Prison Sentences for Election Fraud
