In the past few years, a pattern has emerged. When bureaucracies have their actions examined, they first declare themselves to be the experts. They then are deeply offended that anyone would question their authority. Then they proceed to marginalize anyone who continues to question them. The corporate media and Big Tech aid them in a smear and indignation offensive.
Prime examples include the intelligence and federal law enforcement communities circling the wagons on phony Russia collusion and the public health bureaucracies regarding the Wuhan origins of the pandemic. Now we are finding the same pattern when it comes to election integrity.
Every general election in the United States is a complex undertaking. In a short period of time, a large amount of data is collected from people — the voters — who are almost entirely untrained in the procedure. Anyone in the private sector who conducts a similar operation can tell you this almost always leads to a certain amount of error.
It must be acknowledged that the 2020 election in the United States was unique.
A larger number of votes were cast than ever before. Election rules and laws were changing on the fly, procedures were fluctuating from day to day. Precincts where voters had voted for years were transformed into consolidated voting centers. Millions who had always voted in person voted by mail for the very first time.
It seems like common sense that we would want to go back and examine how things went. But when the idea of a forensic audit is brought up, the pattern described above goes into overdrive.
Elections in our nation are run by bureaucracies. When bureaucracies are questioned, they immediately assume a defensive posture.
They say nothing is wrong and that no one else understands what they do but them. If it turns out that the bureaucracies made mistakes, they always have the same answer: “It’s because you didn’t provide us with enough resources to do it right.” In other words, they want more money.
In education, the know-it-alls who tell parents to “butt out” while they decide how to educate our children have been dubbed “educrats.” Perhaps we should call those heading up our elections “electioncrats.”
There is a tiny number of companies that even submit bids on election equipment to the various government election agencies. There is also a very small group considered “certified” to certify machines or conduct simple recounts, which are called audits. It is a tight cozy circle that receives many millions of dollars from taxpayer-funded contracts.
In 2020, one of the most complex elections in our nation’s history was conducted. It left many voters with questions. Double-checking the results seems prudent. The indignation was immediate and intense.
It became a “conspiracy theory” or even an “assault on democracy” to even want to look into the results, let alone bring in people from outside the “sacred circle” to conduct a full forensic audit – which had never been done before. The full forensic audit of the Maricopa County 2020 general election, commissioned by the Arizona state Senate, has had a bullseye on its back from the start.
A decision was made to not cooperate with the audit. In the private sector, it is fairly standard for the audited entity to be available to answer simple questions. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors decided to shut all doors of communication.
Newly elected Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, who did not even conduct the 2020 election, did the same. It is amazing that Richer insists on saying he knows what happened when he did not conduct the 2020 election. He is relying on the word of bureaucrats with every incentive to tell him all was well.
According to the audit’s Senate liaison, Ken Bennett, the audit has already shown that there were thousands of duplicated ballots without the required serial numbers stamped on them. These duplicated ballots are made when an original ballot is damaged in some way — so that they can be run through the election machines. It is only by having matching serial numbers on originals and duplicates that one can verify that duplicates accurately reflect the voters’ wishes.
Not having the serial numbers is a violation of Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S. Title 16-621) and even the Arizona Elections Procedures Manual (page 202). The Procedures Manual was published by current Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, one of the harshest critics of the audit. She seems unconcerned that state law and her own manual were violated. True to form, the media does not ask her about it.
Elections are too important to leave up to the electioncrats. We should all welcome a third-party review.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.