Home Nonmilitary action Even small red states have election integrity issues

Even small red states have election integrity issues

0

Comment

Election integrity remains a key issue for voters heading into 2022. A Rasmussen report a July national survey found that 52% of likely US voters think it is at least somewhat likely that cheating affected the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, while 50% think it is at least somewhat unlikely that there will be widespread cheating that will affect the outcome of the midterm elections.

These sentiments were reinforced by ongoing reports of electoral integrity issues in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsincolorado and Pennsylvaniaas well as the documentary2000 slipperswhich was produced by True The Vote, a national organization whose mission is “to train citizens to protect the integrity of elections at the ballot box and to help protect the rights of all voters”.

Much of the recent reporting on election integrity is the result of volunteer citizen groups in the various states conducting their own surveys, as well as soliciting voters in their counties and states to check voter registration lists. and that the votes were counted during the primary, general elections. , and special elections were made by authorized voters. One such organization in South Dakota recently completed and compiled election integrity statistics from the November 2020 general election.

A volunteer citizen organization, the South Dakota Canvassing Group, presented its analysis of the 2020 election to the South Dakota Secretary of State (SoS) and county auditors in an effort to spur action to update the lists elections ahead of November’s midterm elections by suppressing voters. who died, moved or were inactive during two general elections.

Here are some of the results of his analysis.

While the election was certified on November 10, 2020, the official SoS website showed that the total number of votes cast moved up and down at periodic points until December 29, 2021. , the official table released on April 2, 2021, showed a particular discrepancy: 427,529 ballots were cast statewide while 422,609 ballots were reportedly cast per county.

US Congressman for South Dakota Dusty Johnson and Governor Kristi Noem place street signs in a neighborhood in Sioux Falls on June 4, 2022. (Jann Falkenstern/The Epoch Times)

A total of 4,379 ballots cast in 2020 could not be linked to a registered voter.

While voter registration closed on October 19, 2020, which is 15 days before the election per South Dakota law, the registration analysis identified the following discrepancies:

  • 163 voters registered to vote after November 3.
  • 552 voters registered on November 3, of whom 49 voted in the election.
  • 260 voters registered between October 20 and November 3.
  • 11 voters voted twice.
  • 256 voters were over 120 years old.

An analysis of the official voters lists for the election, which were revised and updated on December 28, 2021, identified the following discrepancies:

  • 146 new voters who voted on November 3 but were not previously registered.
  • 601 voter registers deleted.
  • 36 new voters registered between September 22 and December 21, 2021, who voted in the November 3, 2020 election.
  • 18 blank registers of voters who voted on November 3.

South Dakota law allows people who live in RVs year-round to register and vote in South Dakota through mail forwarding companies operating in the state. Their registered mailing address in South Dakota would be that of the state’s mail forwarding company, which would forward their mail to their designated out-of-state addresses.

The following statistics have been collected and indicate potential issues. Of the 10,388 votes cast by five different mail forwarding companies:

  • 1,113 voters had non-military overseas addresses in Poland, South Korea, Thailand, France, Ireland, etc.
  • 1,893 votes were cast from campground, hotel and motel addresses.
  • 328 votes were cast from invalid addresses with no street address listed.
  • 150 votes were cast from addresses of police stations, non-profit organizations, government buildings and Walmart.

Were all these people at these different out-of-state addresses really eligible voters?

The South Dakota canvass also conducted door-to-door canvassing in the three largest counties by population in the state — Minnehaha, Lincoln and Pennington — on Feb. 5 and March 15. The following deviations were noted:

  • A total of 361 homes were reached across the three counties.
  • 96% of people contacted on February 5 presented discrepancies on the electoral lists.
  • 92% of voters contacted on March 15 presented discrepancies on the electoral lists.
  • 4 units were vacant.

Finally, the following information was provided regarding South Dakota’s use of mail-in ballot boxes in the 2020 general election:

  • 38 of South Dakota’s 66 counties used ballot boxes to collect ballots during the election.
  • 29 counties monitored drop boxes with video footage.
  • While the drop box video is election material and, like all other election material, must be retained for 22 months by federal law, no county in South Dakota has retained the video footage.

South Dakota is a relatively small state with just over 901,000 people. Its relatively small size makes managing elections much easier than in large states like California, New York, and Florida. Even so, it’s clear that South Dakota has work to do on election integrity.

What might a citizen canvassing group find in your state?

The opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Epoch Times.

Stu Cvrk

Follow

Stu Cvrk retired as a Captain after serving 30 years in the United States Navy in a variety of active and reserve capacities, with considerable operational experience in the Middle East and Western Pacific. With his training and experience as an oceanographer and systems analyst, Cvrk graduated from the US Naval Academy, where he received a classic liberal upbringing that serves as the essential foundation for his political commentary.