Share Button

San Diego Primary Contest 2016

Citizens Oversight (2017-02-02) Ray Lutz

This Page:
Remote Link:
More Info: Ballot Access Lawsuit


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.

Latest Update

  • 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.

Video Updates

Attempt to access ballots using CPRA mechanism:

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 So we believe the election code is out of date.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.

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:
Object tag not supported. Click here to view the document.
If the document does not display above, click here

Date Description Filed by ( * if rejected) Document as filed
2016-07-11 Contest2016-Lutz-001-Affidavit of Contest William Simpich (Attorney) PDF
2017-10-26 Contest2016-Lutz-002-Substitution of Attorney to Pro Per Lutz (resubmitted & accepted) PDF
2017-10-26 Contest2016-Lutz-003-First Amended Affidavit Lutz (resubmitted & accepted) PDF
2017-10-26 Contest2016-Lutz-002-POS-Subst of Attorney & First Amended Affidavit Lutz (resubmitted & accepted) PDF
2017-11-02 Contest2016-COSD-001-Answer to First Amended Affidavit County of San Diego PDF
2017-11-09 Contest2016-Lutz-004-Reply to Answer, to resolve Affidavit deficiencies Lutz* PDF
2017-11-30 Contest2016-COSD-002-Objection to Related Case County of San Diego PDF
2017-12-05 Contest2016-Lutz-005-Notice of Related Case Lutz* PDF (combined)
2017-12-05 Contest2016-Lutz-006-Motions on standing, venue, unsealing, to strike. Lutz* ($60 Check) Rejected and not resubmitted
2017-12-05 Contest2016-Lutz-007-Stip and Order to reassign Lutz* ($20 Check) Not Accepted.
2017-12-05 Contest2016-Lutz-005-POS for Dec 5 filings Lutz* see above
2017-12-14 Contest2016-Lutz-008-Notice of Ex parte, Dec 18, 1:30pm Lutz PDF
2017-12-14 Contest2016-Lutz-008-POS for Notice of Ex parte, Dec 18, 1:30pm Lutz PDF
2017-12-18 Ex parte hearing Lutz No progress
2017-12-27 Contest2016-Lutz-009-Second Amended Affidavit Lutz PDF
2018-03-07 Request for Production, Set 1 - formal discovery request (not filed, just served) PDF
2018-04-09 County Response to RFP set 1 (received on 4/11/2018) PDF
2018-04-12 Motion to Compel RFP set 1, Item 2 Filed 4/12/2018 ($72) PDF
2018-05-04 Ex Parte Application - Other and supporting Documents; 05-07 re Contest_Lutz Filed 5/04/2018 ($72) PDF
2018-05-07 Ex Parte Hearing -- Judge denied request for expedited motion date.    
2018-05-09 Ntce of Mtn Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings
Memo Ps As ISO Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings
County PDF
Filed 5/18/2018 PDF

Summary of articles submitted (Add | All):

Number of topics: 6

Other Issues

One observer notes:
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:

  1. Were there an unusually high number of people who voted twice (code 300)?
  2. 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)?
  3. 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.


Media Form edit

Title San Diego Primary Contest 2016
Publisher Citizens Oversight
Author Ray Lutz
Pub Date 2017-02-02
Media Link
Remote Link
Embed HTML
Forum Link
Note Originally filed by attorney Bill Simpich
Keywords Ballot Access Lawsuit
Related Keywords Easy Voting, Election Integrity, Election Team, Snapshot Protocol, Election Audit Lawsuit, Snapshot Protocol
Media Type Article, Video, Dataset
Media Group News, News Release, Legal Doc
Curator Rating Plain
Author Name Sortable
Thumbnail Link
Topic attachments
I Attachment Action Size Date Who Comment
2017-02-03_Bernie_vs._Hillary_Recount_in_San_Diego.pdfpdf 2017-02-03_Bernie_vs._Hillary_Recount_in_San_Diego.pdf manage 145 K 03 Feb 2017 - 20:47 Raymond Lutz Press Release -- Bernie vs. Hillary Recount in San Diego
2017-02-07_VuRespondsToEmail.pdfpdf 2017-02-07_VuRespondsToEmail.pdf manage 886 K 02 Mar 2017 - 21:03 Raymond Lutz Vu's initial response to the email.
2017-02-17_--_2nd_EmailToVu_requesting_access_to_ballots_in_primary.pdfpdf 2017-02-17_--_2nd_EmailToVu_requesting_access_to_ballots_in_primary.pdf manage 74 K 02 Mar 2017 - 21:04 Raymond Lutz Second email to Vu requesting access to ballots from primary
2017-03-07_-_Vu_Responds_to_2nd_email_requesting_ballots_in_primary_(1).pdfpdf 2017-03-07_-_Vu_Responds_to_2nd_email_requesting_ballots_in_primary_(1).pdf manage 106 K 08 Mar 2017 - 19:27 Raymond Lutz Vu's response to 2nd email request
2017-10-26_Substitution_of_Attorney_--_Lutz_Contest_(scanned).pdfpdf 2017-10-26_Substitution_of_Attorney_--_Lutz_Contest_(scanned).pdf manage 917 K 16 Dec 2017 - 03:19 Raymond Lutz 2017-10-26 Substitution of Attorney as submitted (scanned)
2017-12-14_Notice_of_Exparte_on_12-18_re_Contest_Lutz_v1.pdfpdf 2017-12-14_Notice_of_Exparte_on_12-18_re_Contest_Lutz_v1.pdf manage 89 K 16 Dec 2017 - 03:55 Raymond Lutz  
2018-03-06 RFP SET 1 to County.pdfpdf 2018-03-06 RFP SET 1 to County.pdf manage 160 K 12 Mar 2018 - 00:49 Raymond Lutz Request for Production Set 1 -- Formal discovery request
2018-04-12 Motion for order to compel for discovery (with exhibits).pdfpdf 2018-04-12 Motion for order to compel for discovery (with exhibits).pdf manage 9 MB 13 Apr 2018 - 17:06 Raymond Lutz Motion to Compel Production for RFP set 1, Item 2 (complete with exhibits)
2018-05-04 Ex Parte Application - Other and supporting Documents; 05-07 re Contest_Lutz..pdfpdf 2018-05-04 Ex Parte Application - Other and supporting Documents; 05-07 re Contest_Lutz..pdf manage 122 K 09 May 2018 - 18:40 Raymond Lutz Notice and application for ex parte to expedite the hearing on motion to compel
20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - Item 1_20180412.pdfpdf 20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - Item 1_20180412.pdf manage 5 MB 13 Apr 2018 - 17:05 Raymond Lutz San Diego County response to RFP set 1 (Item 1)
20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - brief portion_20180412.pdfpdf 20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - brief portion_20180412.pdf manage 331 K 13 Apr 2018 - 17:04 Raymond Lutz San Diego County response to RFP set 1 (brief portion)
37-2016-00023347-CU-PT-CTL_2017-02-02_ROA_1486062055989.pdfpdf 37-2016-00023347-CU-PT-CTL_2017-02-02_ROA_1486062055989.pdf manage 11 K 03 Feb 2017 - 20:50 Raymond Lutz The Petition for CONTEST of the Primary
Amended_Affidavit_of_Contest_--_Lutz_with_exhibits.pdfpdf Amended_Affidavit_of_Contest_--_Lutz_with_exhibits.pdf manage 460 K 27 Oct 2017 - 04:18 Raymond Lutz Amended Affidavit of Contest of 2016 Primary Election
Answer_-_1st_Amended_Affidavit_of_Contest.pdfpdf Answer_-_1st_Amended_Affidavit_of_Contest.pdf manage 488 K 14 Nov 2017 - 16:59 Raymond Lutz Answer by County Filed in response to the Amended Affidavit of Contest
ContestService_20171026_164758.pdfpdf ContestService_20171026_164758.pdf manage 642 K 27 Oct 2017 - 04:19 Raymond Lutz Contest Service by Registered Mail
Contest_Filing_on_Dec_5_complete12082017.pdfpdf Contest_Filing_on_Dec_5_complete12082017.pdf manage 2 MB 16 Dec 2017 - 03:45 Raymond Lutz  
ElectionContest-RaymondLutz-SanDiego.pdfpdf ElectionContest-RaymondLutz-SanDiego.pdf manage 2 MB 04 Feb 2017 - 00:49 Raymond Lutz Case as originally filed on July 11, 2016
Infographic-PrimaryRecount.pngpng Infographic-PrimaryRecount.png manage 83 K 03 Feb 2017 - 21:05 Raymond Lutz Infographic showing issues in the 2016 Primary in San Diego
Memo Ps As ISO Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings.pdfpdf Memo Ps As ISO Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings.pdf manage 215 K 09 May 2018 - 18:42 Raymond Lutz County's Memo of Points and Authorities for Motion on the Pleadings
Motions_on_County_Standing_and_Venue_re_Contest__Lutz.pdfpdf Motions_on_County_Standing_and_Venue_re_Contest__Lutz.pdf manage 75 K 16 Dec 2017 - 03:41 Raymond Lutz  
Ntce of Mtn  Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings.pdfpdf Ntce of Mtn Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings.pdf manage 129 K 09 May 2018 - 18:41 Raymond Lutz County's Notice of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings
Objection_to_Notice_of_Related_Case.pdfpdf Objection_to_Notice_of_Related_Case.pdf manage 175 K 16 Dec 2017 - 03:23 Raymond Lutz County Objection to Related Case
Opposition to Motion for Judgment on Pleadings and dismissal v3 w Exhibit.pdfpdf Opposition to Motion for Judgment on Pleadings and dismissal v3 w Exhibit.pdf manage 9 MB 18 May 2018 - 21:51 Raymond Lutz OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DISMISSAL OF SECOND AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTESTANT
Reply_to_Countys_Answer_to_Affidavit_of_Contest_--_Lutz_COMPLETE.pdfpdf Reply_to_Countys_Answer_to_Affidavit_of_Contest_--_Lutz_COMPLETE.pdf manage 272 K 14 Nov 2017 - 17:00 Raymond Lutz Reply by Lutz to the Answer by COUNTY on Affidavit of Contest for 2016 Primary
Request_for_recount_of_certain_ballots_in_2016_Primary_access_to_manual_tally_sheets_and_other_records.pdfpdf Request_for_recount_of_certain_ballots_in_2016_Primary_access_to_manual_tally_sheets_and_other_records.pdf manage 76 K 03 Feb 2017 - 20:51 Raymond Lutz Email to Michael Vu requesting access to ballots
pos040-2017-12-14_Notice_of_Exparte_printed.pdfpdf pos040-2017-12-14_Notice_of_Exparte_printed.pdf manage 201 K 16 Dec 2017 - 04:35 Raymond Lutz  
pos040_Dec_5_filings.pdfpdf pos040_Dec_5_filings.pdf manage 154 K 16 Dec 2017 - 03:42 Raymond Lutz  
second_amended_affidavit_-_Contest_of_2016_Primary_by_Lutz_-_complete12272017.pdfpdf second_amended_affidavit_-_Contest_of_2016_Primary_by_Lutz_-_complete12272017.pdf manage 8 MB 28 Dec 2017 - 00:48 Raymond Lutz Second Amended Complaint
Topic revision: r28 - 23 May 2018, RaymondLutz
This site is powered by FoswikiCopyright © by the contributing authors. All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
Ideas, requests, problems regarding Cops? Send feedback