To combat Trump’s motions to battle the election fraud taking place in Pennsylvania, various different leftist organizations have filed a motion to intervene in the case. As part of this motion, they included several affidavits from various community members. In some of those affidavits, citizens swear that they were contacted by people at the elections office and/or by the democrat party and were informed that there was a problem with their ballot, and they needed to come down to the elections office and cure the problem.
This is in direct defiance of the orders previously given by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which specifically stated that voters are not to be contacted to cure a ballot.
Furthermore, why are voters being contacted by partisan party officials, when it should be elections officials contacting them?
Still another concern is that this is contrary to what the “fact checkers” have told us regarding proper policy and procedure.
In a stunning filing on Tuesday, November 10, potential intervenors in the Trump campaign’s lawsuit against the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, proved one of the allegations of illegality the Trump campaign brought forth in their initial complaint against the Secretary and several boards of elections.
The Trump Campaign alleges that in contravention of election law, certain precincts reached out to mail-in and absentee voters to “cure” their ballots before election day, or fix errors that would have otherwise made their votes invalid. On page 35 of the complaint, found in full here, the Trump campaign spells out election law that was recently affirmed this year in the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, as it pertains to mail-in ballots.
A large part of the case filed by the Trump campaign explains in detail how the Secretary of State in Pennsylvania sent out guidance to election boards, instructing them to ignore the law. According to the lawsuit, there was no even adherence to the law; some counties followed it, while others, namely in Democrat strongholds, did not.
On November 10, a number of organizations filed a joint motion to intervene in the case, and along with their filing, which suggests that these ballots should remain or risk disenfranchisement, were several affidavits from voters who swear under penalty of perjury that they were, in fact, contacted by County Board of Elections officials before the election, in order to cure their ballots of errors. This is in direct violation of Pennsylvania law and is one of the arguments the Trump campaign makes in its complaint against the state.
In one affidavit, Natalie Zaslow Price swore, in part:
8. Between Sunday and Monday, November 1 and 2, I received three calls from the Democratic Party notifying me that my ballot had been rejected. I asked why and they told me they didn’t know. They instructed me to visit the voting center in Norristown to cure it.
9. I never received a call from any election official to inform me that my ballot had been rejected.
10. The first site I visited in Norristown was a drop-off only site. They told me that I had to go to another site to see and cure my actual ballot. At that second site, I learned that my ballot had been marked as defective because I did not write my name and address in non-cursive print.
11. I was not aware that I was supposed to hand-write my name and address in non-cursive print, next to where the information was preprinted on the envelope. Because that exact information was already there, I understood it would have been redundant to write it out again.
12. My ballot was signed, dated, and otherwise complied with all other ballot instructions.
13. To cure my ballot I showed the county employee my ID, added my information next to where it was pre-printed, and left. I told the employee that I would not leave the building until I was certain my vote was counted.
14. I did not think to use a provisional ballot because I was not aware that I could. As far as I knew, curing my ballot in Norristown was the only way I could ensure that my vote counted in this election.
Another affidavit, from Joseph Ayeni, states, in part:
6. In the November 2020 general election, I originally completed and returned to election officials in my county a mail-in ballot in mid-October.
7. This ballot was rejected because I failed to include the secrecy envelope to seal my ballot.
8. I learned that this ballot was rejected because elections officials called me the day before Election Day to let me know that the ballot would not count.
9. After learning that my first ballot was not accepted, I went to the elections office so I could understand what was going on. The elections officials showed me an example of the required secrecy envelope, but this envelope was not included with my mail-in ballot.
10. The officials told me to vote in person. Therefore, on Election Day, I cast a provisional ballot at my local polling place.
Yet another affidavit, from Meril Lara, includes:
6. In the November 2020 general election, I originally completed and mailed to election officials in my county a mail ballot on approximately October 22 or 23, 2020.
7. This ballot was cancelled or rejected because I failed to place it inside the secrecy envelope.
8. I learned that this ballot was rejected because I received an email from elections officials stating that my ballot was missing a second envelope. I tried calling the number provided int he email a few times but didn’t get through to anyone.
9. Worried that my vote would not be counted, on Election Day, I went to my local polling place at Solis Cohen School at 7001 Horrocks Street, Philadelphia, PA 19149. I completed a provisional ballot there.
Yet the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued an opinion on September 17th that read, in part: “… a mail-in ballot that is not enclosed in the statutorily-mandated secrecy envelope must be disqualified“ and Act 77, passed into law last year, specifies “The county board of elections shall meet no earlier than seven o’clock A.M. on election day to pre-canvass all ballots received prior to the meeting.“
Moreover, the Trump motion alleges “The Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that “ballots that voters have filled out incompletely or incorrectly” shall be set aside and declared void, and election boards are not permitted to afford these voters a “notice and opportunity to cure””
So how were these individuals contacted before that specified time? Or even contacted at all? Which is it?
This presents another problem for these elections officials.
The self anointed “fact checkers” were quick to defend the acts, claiming that the workers were transcribing the votes from spoiled/damaged ballots that couldn’t be read by the machines to fresh ballots, saying “Because the county received some ballots that were damaged, they couldn’t be scanned, Marofsky said. The scanner manufacturer has advised that the best solution for damaged ballots that can’t be scanned is to transcribe the votes onto a clean ballot and scan that ballot instead.”
Except there doesn’t seem to be anything in the law that grants them authority to do such, and, in fact, is contrary to their own directives. Additionally, the ones they are allegedly discarding do not appear to be physically damaged, so perhaps there were too many marks on the ballot or for some reason the machine wasn’t reading the marks correctly.
Their own “Election Day Workers Guide” for Delaware County, dated October 30th, 2020, specifies that in the case of a spoiled ballot:
If the voter marked too many choices, the scanner will reject the ballot and allow the voter to remove it.
When this happens, instruct the voter to remove the ballot from the scanner, fold the ballot in half, and take it to the board to be placed in the Spoiled Ballots envelope.
The board will issue a new blank ballot to the voter and direct them back to the voting booth to make their choices
If the voter makes a mistake on their ballot and wishes to mark a new one, instruct the voter to fold the mismarked ballot in half and take it to the board to be placed in the Spoiled Ballots envelope
Several different scenarios will result in a spoiled ballot:
Voter makes too many selections, and the scanner rejects the overvoted ballot
Voter makes a mistake when marking selections and requests a new ballot
Voter surrenders (remits) a mail-in ballot they chose not to fill out
Voter surrenders (remits) an absentee ballot they chose not to fill out
When a voter brings a mismarked or overvoted ballot to the board to be spoiled, complete the following steps:
- Ask voter to fold their ballot in half (if they have not already done so), place it in an envelope, and seal the envelope
- File the sealed ballot envelope in the Spoiled Ballots Envelope
- Fill in the requested information on the Spoiled Ballot Log
- Give the voter a blank ballot and direct them back to the voting booth
Delaware County, from where the videos were originated, uses the Hart Verity 2.3.4 voting machines. Hart says they do not give user manuals out to the public, so us peasants aren’t privy to what they actually say.
View original Post