This web page is the repository for documents and information regarding the petition to CONTEST the 2016 Primary regarding the presidential race in San Diego County.
Our goal in this project is to look for criminal election fraud which may unravel the entire election process and reset it to start over.
CPRA request was denied by Registrar. Ballot Access Lawsuit filed, answered with demurrer, claiming that the law is clear that as the ballots are sealed, they cannot be inspected using the mechanism of the CPRA request. Under appeal so that the discrepancy in the law can be reviewed.
Affidavit of Contest has been Amended and filed, with proper service performed.
Second Amended Affidavit of Contest resolves some of the complaints of County, but still they refuse to do anything.
Finally got a good plan to submit format discovery request "Request for Production" and if they don't cooperate, then the court can compel them to comply and pay sanctions for requiring the motion to be submitted.
The California Public Records Act (CPRA, Cal 6250 et al) embraces the concept that the documents created and used by the government are owned by the public, and therefore should be accessible by the public. The CPRA law was passed in the 1960s and it was later supported by the California Constitutional amendment in 2004 which states that if any laws existed in the past, they should be interpreted to allow maximal access to the public. The problem is that the election code is very old indeed, with much of it dating back to the 1800s and is structured around the "the public has no right to the ballots" concept. So we believe the election code is out of date. At this stage, the County will not allow us to access the ballots using only the CPRA act as a basis for access.
This lawsuit was stopped with demurrer action due to statute that says ballots must be sealed and no one can inspect them, even though they must be kept for 22 months.
As of October, 2017, appealed to request whether the CPRA act dominates and allows access of ballots despite being sealed.
Continuation of CONTEST action
So, because the CPRA tactic did not work, we turned back to the CONTEST action, which should allow access of the ballots.
The Second Amended Affidavit of Contest is the best document to read to understand the logic of the action:
If the document does not display above, click here
Ray, I'm the one who mentioned that Robert (Robert A. Pennisi, Chief Deputy Voter Services) made a point of limiting the number of signature challenges on the VBM ballots as the clerks were processing them. Some of our volunteers had noticed signatures that VERY CLEARLY were not matches to the signatures on the voter reg cards. When Robert noticed the commotion, he came running over saying, "that's not what we're doing here," and then told the clerks that they could have no more than a certain number of signature challenges (10 per batch?). He then turned to us and said that he doesn't want to reject the ballots and that he had the final say on which ballots were going to go through, and that most of them (VBMs) were going to be accepted as valid by him. He also said that many people had voted twice (VBM and provisional), but that only the VBM ballots would be counted. He also said that they could pursue legal action against those who voted twice, but probably wouldn't push it (implying that he was being nice).
He told me on at least two separate occasions that he was the final arbiter and that most of these signature challenges would not prevent the ballot from being counted.
I also overheard some people talking about inactive voters, but did not hear all the details of the conversation.
I heard that some volunteers noticed ballots that ONLY had HRC's bubble marked, and no other votes on the ballots (please confirm).
I've mentioned this before, but I strongly believe that they were retaining ballots from inactive voters (possibly others, too), and then using them to vote for HRC, assuming that most of these voters wouldn't follow up or vote. When these voters showed up at the polls claiming that they never received their ballots in the mail, they would be handed a provisional ballot that would not be counted since the VBM ballots are the only ones counted if someone voted twice (VBM and provisional).
I believe the codes for these types of situations were categorized as "300s" (per my notes). Perhaps there is a way to see if there were an unusual number of ballots coded this way?
What we do know is that there were an unusually high number of people who did not receive their ballots in the mail -- they were forced to vote on provisional ballots at their polling locations. We also know that there were an unusually high number (unprecedented, I believe) of provisional ballots used in the primary election.
IMHO, they were retaining these VBM ballots and using them to vote for HRC. When the voters showed up at the polls, they were given provisional ballots that were never counted.
We should try to find out:
Were there an unusually high number of people who voted twice (code 300)?
Were there an unusually high number of VBM ballots that were never received in the mail by the voters (anecdotal evidence, recorded on video at various polling locations, says this is the case)?
Were there an unusually high number of voters who had to use provisional ballots in this election?
If the answer to these questions is yes, then we need to dig deeper into what happened, as I firmly believe that there was a major ballot-stuffing program going on behind the scenes. Let's not forget that Alex Padilla was actively campaigning and fundraising for HRC during the primaries. We have no reason to trust that he ran a clean a fair election.