Prescott, AZ: On Thursday, October 17, the Election Fairness Institute joined forces with political science researcher Dr. Jerome Corsi, Ph.D. and Dr. Andrew Paquette, a subject matter expert in the field of cryptographic algorithms, to examine the most recent Arizona Voter Rolls for potential defects.
A defect could be in the form of a fictitious voter registration that may have been sent a ballot or may just be in the system ready for electronic deployment.
Already, Mr. Paquette has found cryptographic algorithms in key counties in Wisconsin, New York, New Jersey, and Ohio. Currently under study are Texas and Arizona. These are extremely sophisticated cryptographic algorithms that represent the highest level of statecraft in both their creation and deployment.
Not all counties will have these cryptographic algorithms; they are mainly found in key population centers. Such a sophisticated program has long been suspected but now has been identified in several states that are often referred to as swing states.
The key actions to ruling out interference by cryptographic algorithms embedded into the voter registration rolls are early detection before election day and early paper ballot comparison with ballot tabulation machine count as soon after the polls close as possible. This should not be conflated with an audit that would count votes on the ballots, while it certainly is one step in a fraud prevention audit schema. In the U.S. District Court decision, American Encore, et al. v. Adrian Fontes, et al. Case 2:24-cv-01673-MTL, Judge Michael Laburdi specifically states a remedy to delay of canvass is the “appointing an auditor.”
Pg. 29 ¶ 1 “[P]laintiffs also assert that the rule is not narrowly tailored to support any state interest because there are several less burdensome alternatives, such as (1) appointing an auditor, (2) initiating a mandamus action, or (3) using the unofficial results.”
Additionally, Judge Laburdi has noted that under the 2024 version of the Arizona Elections Procedure Manual (EPM) the attempt of the Secretary of State to eliminate from the State Canvass (certification) because a county did not certify in what is defined in law as a timely manner, perhaps because the election is irredeemably compromised or tainted, is found to be
Pg. 34 ¶ 2 The Canvass Provision is utterly without precedent. If the right to vote “is the right of qualified voters within a state to cast their ballots and have them counted,” United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 315 (1941) (emphasis added), then the Canvass Provision imposes the most severe burden: state-sanctioned disenfranchisement.
The problem with suspected fictitous voters is that of a casino caught using a marked deck. It cannot be proven by the casino that any one player won or lost, thus no plyer can be determined to be a winner in a hand of cards.
Pg. 34 ¶ 3 “League of Women Voters of N.C. v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 244 (4th Cir. 2014) (commenting that it is a “basic truth that even one disenfranchised voter—let alone several thousand—is too many”).”
Judge Laburdi has now set the stage for counties to appoint an auditor when an election contest result is suspected by the county elections officers responsible for certification that an election is complete and accurate, lest they face criminal charges for false certification. This is not the same as a candidate suing a county under Contest Law, such as that under A.R.S. Title § 16.
The Election Fairness Institute, Inc. (EFI) is an IRS-approved 501(c)(3), engaged in the analysis of election procedure, process, and system components that demonstrate potential defects impacting election security, transparency, and ultimately integrity. Such defects cut across all political lines and get to the heart of the “Equal Protection” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment for every American citizen.