Keri Lake files law suit, demands election redo

I don't know what happened to her after Barack Obama did not offer her a position in his administration in 2008, but she literally cracked and has subsequently gone so far beyond nuts that I am not even sure a mental institution could do much for her.

 

The possibility real scares me. While there is no way that Kari Lake could win a one-on-one election against either Rubén Gallego or Kyrsten Sinema for that matter she could very well be victorious in a 3-way with Gallego and Sinema splitting the vote.

 

I'm not sure if Sinema runs. There doesn't seem to be a pathway where she can win, unless the R's don't field a candidate. All the Ds have cleared the way for Gallego, and he'll get the left leaning vote. If the Rs put up someone like Lake, she'll get the right leaning vote, and there just isn't enough in the center to elect Sinema. She may decide not to run, instead of losing. Time will tell.

As for Lake, she is most definitely following in the footsteps of her orange deity. Next up, possible legal troubles! Lake posted voter signatures on Twitter, which is a legal no-no in Arizona. Could face fines and a prison sentence of 4 months to over 5 years. The case has been handed to the Arizona AG to determine whether or not to file charges. Only reason not to is the new AG is a D, and Lake, of course, is an R, and the AG may not want this to look political.

 

This is both my shocked and sad face.

Kari Lake could land in hot water over tweet of voters' signatures

 

This was probably dumb from a legal point for her to have posted them, but if you look at the signatures, they definitely do not match the sigs that were on file. I'm not sure if these came from this election or not but your signature doesn't change that much over time. It may all be a card show by her, but if these are legit, taking the legal risk may have been the only way to get people to ask the question.
I don't know and I'm not claiming fraud, so I don't need all the responses about the "orange God". I only know what I see, and those sigs definitely do not match!!

 

Arizona Driver's Licenses don't expire until you are 65 years old. I got my DL in 2010, and it doesn't expire until 2038! And this was after I returned to the state after living out-of-state for three years. Had I not moved, I would have a DL issued at least a decade earlier.

And yes, your signature does change over time. I was diagnosed with carpal tunnel a few years ago in my dominant hand. As a result, my signature is a little lazier than it was a dozen years ago. It's close, but there are obvious differences. But being diligent and knowing there are sleazes like Lake out there, every time I sign my official vote, I pull out my DL, and do my best to match my signature.

There is also a reconciliation process when the signatures don't match. Here's the voter signature guide that Arizona put out for the last election. First time I've actually looked at it, and I think they used my "Daniel", which is my first name, as to what a dozen years of carpal tunnel will do to a signature! And again, if the sig is that far off, then there is process to check it.

Lake should have not broken the law putting these signatures on Twitter. And she's full of crap to believe these 40k votes should not be counted.

 

Maybe sightly off-topic, one of the reasons I still prefer to vote in person rather than by mail is the fear that my mail-in vote may be thrown out because my signatures do not match. I originally registered to vote in Fairfax County, VA in 1984 and I'm sure that my current signature does not match the one on file in the County Registrar's office.

 

Ok, I know your sig can change slightly over time and obviously if carpel tunnel or any other kind of injury, surgery, etc. could change your sig, but I googled her to see if they published any of the sigs, and of course they did, and either a lot of folks have changed dramatically over the past 4 years or something fishy going on.
Again, not saying she was right by publishing these sigs, not claiming that there actually was fraud but when you look, if it doesn't at least make you pause a little then you are way too partisan and looking with blinders.
May be a plausible explanation, maybe not. IDK

 

Again, there are steps to take when the initial signature doesn't match what is on file with your ID. This includes checking the signature against other known signature values the state also has access to. If there is still no match, the county can contact the person to verify the person who signed the ballot is the person who voted.

I know there are those who scrutinize every letter and loop in my signature, and again, I take out my ID and attempt to match my signature from now 13 years ago. But if I used my everyday signature I use today, it wouldn't match.

 

Fair enough. Like I said I wasn't claiming she was right, I was just commenting on the fact that the ones she put on twitter didn't match the files.
And yes, I know there is a procedure to get these verified but when you think no one is listening or trying to verify you may do desperate things. I have never been a big fan of mail in votes because it does make it easier for the vote to be compromised or mined. Not saying that happens all the time, but if there is a way to break the rules, you can count on the fact that there are people from both parties willing to break them.

 

There were several studies done looking at voter fraud rates. All agreed that the fraud vote is between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000 votes, on average. Arizona votes, especially Maricopa County where 80% of the state lives, have been counted, re-counted, audited, and audited again. And the fraud vote rate? Between 1 in 50,000 and 1 in 100,000 votes, on average. There simply is no evidence to say it happens all the time. Or that mail-in votes are more susceptible to fraud.

Arizona has a law that there is an automatic recount triggered if an election is within .5%. Two, state-wide 2022 elections triggered this recount, and again fraud rates were consistent with historical norms.

 

First, I specifically said I don't think it happens all the time, but I think it makes it easier. I would ask this; did you look at any of the twitter post she put out with the voter's sigs and the differences? May be legitimate, maybe not.

 

Reread post #50

 

I've seen them. Not legitimate, and already explained. Most people sign the same way every time, with some variance over time. Others, change their signature more frequently. And still others sign their ballot on the car dashboard just before they mail it in, which is much different than signing a document on a counter, like you do for your ID. Per the CNN article, when election officials do check on the most questionable, rarely is there any issue found.

Considering the state of Arizona took in over 1 million mail in ballots, including 300,000 on election day alone, there are going to be some where the signatures, at first glance, don't match up.

 

Re read post 51

 

Agreed but what she is claiming is like 40,000 ballots, more than enough to change the outcome. I get the sigs change, but to see how much the examples she posted changed causes me concern. It may not be concerning to you and that is your right. At this point the outcome is what it and I accept it for what it is. Doesn't mean that I won't remain skeptical though. That is all.
I don't think some of you all can accept the fact that people like me will accept the outcome but remain skeptical and want a more guard rails to ensure accuracy.

 

89% of the 2020 Arizona vote was done using "mail-in" packets. If we use just 75% for 2022, that's 1,875,000 out of the 2.5 million votes cast used the mail-in ballot. 40,000 represents about 2% of this total. Can I believe 2% of the people who used mail-in ballots have either changed their signature, or did something that would alter their signature significantly like sign the envelope on the car dashboard right before mailing the ballot? Absolutely.

Again the counts, recounts, and audits tell a story. And that story is fraud isn't happening in Arizona at any larger scale than anywhere else. Until this data tells a different story, I'm not worried at all. After all, what are we supposed to do? Count and audit again and again...and again...and again...?

 

Is the elections office contacting people and asking them to identify their ballot not enough? What would satisfy you that the votes were valid?

 

I think we all know that answer. Republicans wins - legitimate, Republican loses - illegitimate.