Breitbart: Read Chris McDaniel Official Election Challenge, Alleged Voter Fraud Evidence

Read Chris McDaniel Official Election Challenge, Alleged Voter Fraud Evidence

By Matthew Boyle, Breitbart News, August 4, 2014


Breitbart News has obtained the first digital copy of State Sen. Chris McDaniel’s official challenge of Mississippi’s election results, filled with hundreds of pages of signed affidavits naming people alleged to have ineligibly voted in the June 24 GOP primary runoff.

At a press conference earlier Monday, McDaniel provided print copies of this evidence to local media.

Chris McDaniel Official Election Challenge And Evidence Of Alleged Voter Fraud



  1. frank gordon says:

    Hundreds of names of private citizens are associated with criminal wrongdoing in this document. Nearly all of these are Republican voters. Ironically, many of them voted for McDaniel.

    Do you think they will be upset when they find out about this violation of their privacy and smearing of their reputation?

  2. says who? And you believe it was “hundreds of Republicans” who voted in the Democratic primary first, then in the GOP Run-Off? Come on Henry, time to fess up.

  3. frank gordon says:

    Catty: >”says who?”

    Says Chris McDaniel, that’s who. Did you read the document? Pages 90 through 93 of the PDF are a virtual “Who’s Who” of well known republican supporters, including McDaniel supporters who are listed as criminal crossover voters. Elsewhere, how about Alan Lange? He is obviously no Democrat, but he is on the list. So are the attorney’s from the Brunini and Watkins and Eager law firm.

    Did you vote in the runoff? Have you checked to see that your name is not listed as a criminal?

    • Frank, just because a name is found in the document from McDaniel’s lawyers, does not mean an accusation of criminal conduct has been made. Being named in the PDF, just means that your name was found to be recorded in the pollbooks by pollworkers in a fashion that indicates the vote *MIGHT* be invalid … always assuming the pollworkers were accurate! And of course, that the volunteer-reviewers who signed affidavits were themselves accurate. Mistakes in a large statewide election are unavoidable. Plus of course, the SREC is not a court of law; they are just an intra-party committee, that will review the material with care. If and when the case goes to the judicial review phase, then the evidence will be submitted there, and a legal judgment made. But at the moment, McDaniel lawyers are expecting that the affidavits they have in hand, will convince enough of the 42-or-52-or-something-like-that SREC members to overturn certification without going to court. (Illegal-double-voting is a misdemeanor in any case… and only likely to be prosecuted if there is evidence of intent-to-subvert.)

      The particular evidence you refer to, on pages 90-to-93 of the PDF, covers portions of two different affidavits from two different volunteer-reviewers… did you really mean those to be electronic-PDF-page-numbers, or are you talking about printed page-numbers, or something? Assuming you meant the electronic-PDF-page-numbers, the names in question are in one of the following categories:

      type#1 == “individuals were marked as voted in 6/3 Democrat Primary and in the 6/24 Republican primary runoff” which were at some point struck through by hand and thus became “possible”. In other words, a pollworker marked these names down as illegal-double-voters, and then a pollworker (same person on same day? or maybe different person on different day?) manually used a pen to cross out some information, thereby “legalizing” the behavior of the individual. But which is true, the original marking by the first pollworker, or the cross-out? The volunteers working for McDaniel do not know, but if the second pollworker WAS wrong, then those folks voted in both the d-prime and the r-runoff, which would make those 19 votes from those eleven Hinds county precincts invalid. Whether in that case anything illegal happened, or not, depends heavily on the intent of the voters in question, and on the intent of the pollworker(s) in question… was this just a clerical error, or does it show a pattern of premeditated desire to unfairly influence an election? Intent is a key part of the election-statutes in MS. These votes, if they are verified to be double-voters, should absolutely positively be invalidated, no matter who is at fault; the question is, why were they crossed out, and who did it? You can see a one-page example of this, as exhibit B on from July ~18th at the MS supreme court. There are three people who were marked as having voted in the 6/3 d-prime, and also in the (non-existent!) 6/24 d-runoff. At some point, somebody unknown crossed out the fact that those three people voted in the 6/3 d-prime, without saying why, and without correcting the record for 6/24 which shows them voting in the “d-runoff”. Having researched one of the names on the internet, I can tell you that campaign finance reporting indicates they were a donor to a republican campaign in the past, and that they work for a Trustmark Bank subsidiary, and live in the same zipcode as Austin Barbour. Therefore, if the person *did* vote in the 6/3 d-prime, they were a republican-crossover-voter (which is ‘technically’ not illegal … as long as the person was intending to vote for the dem-nominee come November). But they were crossed out. So what does that mean? Without getting the voter in question, and the pollworkers involved, to all testify under oath about what exactly happened, we do not know for sure. But it does not look very kosher, and should absolutely be marked down as “possible crossover” … which it was.

      type#2 == ‘absentee votes, marked as accepted (by pollworkers), but lacking valid absentee-voter-documentation (as researched by volunteer-reviewer)’. 17 voters which cast an absentee ballot, but for which no matching absentee-ballot-application was found to exist. 2 voters which cast an absentee ballot, but for which no matching envelope (with dated postmark and sender-zipcode) was found to exist. 2 voters whose signature on the application did not match the signature from their vote. 1 voter who didn’t secure their ballot by signing across the seal. 1 voter who is not currently a Mississippi resident. 1 voter who did not get their mail-in ballot witnessed by anyone. 6 voters who were rejected as invalid by precinct-pollworkers (for reasons unknown) but then later were override-accepted by county-wide officials (again for reasons unknown). Generally, these types of things MIGHT indicate illegality… the signatures not matching for instance … but could also be just honest mistakes, such as pollworkers accidentally losing paperwork that was supposed to be kept. Losing the absentee ballot application, though? That’s a pretty severe failure.

      type#3 == “individuals were marked as voted in 6/3 Democrat Primary and in the 6/24 Republican primary runoff” which were NOT struck-through by any pollworker at any point. Going on to page 92 of the PDF, we have the affidavit by another volunteer-reviewer (H.W.), working in the same Hinds cty courthouse as the volunteer above (B.B.), and looking over the same pollbooks. The names listed on page 92 are illegal-double-voters, aka illegal-crossover-voters, ACCORDING TO THE POLLBOOKS, as testified to by this volunteer-reviewer (H.W.). For corroboration, another volunteer-reviewer (B.B.) listed most of the same information in the earlier affidavit, on PDF pages 85 and up. Both volunteer-reviewers checked the pollbooks for precinct #1, and both of them found three illegal-double-voters, according to the information in the pollbooks. Does that mean the people in question actually did something illegal? Yes, probably, but it could also mean the pollworkers who created the notations in the pollbooks made a mistake (some number of mistakes are simply unavoidable in a large statewide election).

      Human error was found to have caused about 3 million mistakes, during the 2000 presidential election, in a post-election study done by Caltech and MIT researchers published in 2001. That’s over 2% of all votes cast. Since then, Mississippi has implemented voter-ID (except for absentee ballots), and at in some precincts electronic voting, so probably the percentage of mistakes is lower; plus, a statewide election is easier than a nationwide one. Still, there were 382k votes in the r-runoff, and that means there would have been about 10k mistakes made, using circa-2000 mechanical technology. Probably the number is lower nowadays, but thousands of mistakes *will* have been made. Similarly, it is possible that the volunteer-reviewers have made mistakes; careful as they were, they are only human, and as the type#1 category should make crystal clear, they are dealing with pollbooks created by pollworkers, who are also only humans, and thus prone to mistakes. In a nutshell: don’t fly off the handle please. Be dispassionate, and review the facts.

  4. frank gordon says:

    Thank you for showing me the draft of your brief.

    I suspect that it is an argument not solely meant for the courtroom and certainly not for me, but rather as a brief against the remnants of your better nature.

    You have already been thinking of the anguish, fear and anxiety visited upon the hundreds of elderly absentee voters, conservatives for decades, Republicans for years, whose privacy is violated, whose reputation is impugned, who are named and exposed nationwide in such an irresponsible document.

    • Frank, you seem confused here. If there is a person, who votes in the d-primary on 6/3 in the state of MS, the name and address and voter-number and other details to into a pollbook, which is part of the public record. ANYBODY can go down to a courthouse, and look at the info, 21 days after the election is certified. That is what public record means.

      If that same person, votes in the r-runoff on 6/24, the same details go into another pollbook, which just like before, is public record. ANYBODY can see this information, who asks for it.

      The evidence that McDaniel is presenting has 3500 names, of people who voted d-prime on 6/3, and then voted r-runoff on 6/24, which is illegal-double-voting whether they knew it or not, ACCORDING TO THE POLLBOOKS which are public record. You either do not understand that the McDaniel evidence is just a reformatting of information already in the public record, or you are pretending to not understand it.

      In any case, the argument is not my argument; it is the argument that McDaniel and his lawyers made, on the pages you gave. And yes, it is not yet an argument ready for a courtroom — it is an argument meant to be reviewed by the SREC members, the ~50 repubs who internally review election-challenges. If and when that group refuses to overturn the r-runoff, McDaniel may decide to file a lawsuit, at which point the evidence from the pollbooks will be reformatted for reading by a judge (not by the SREC folks). Nothing is happening in court, yet, that is an election-challenge. That will happen sometime after mid-August, if needed.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: