The questions that are rarely asked by most publications are the most relevant.

(1)  Shouldn’t the responsibility to demonstrate the integrity of an election and the correctness of its tallies lie with those government officials who managed the election?

(2)  If a third-party audit would demonstrate the integrity of an election, that an election was run honestly and efficiently, allowing, of course, for minor localized glitches encountered in any large undertaking, why do we find that the government officials who ran the election resisting any audit attempts where they do not fully and completely control the audit?

(3)  What is the appropriate method to handle legitimate “evidence” advanced as allegations by citizen-voters who have provided sworn, under penalty of perjury, declarations, and affidavits detailing their direct observations?

(4)  Shouldn’t the duty of election officials include acceptably answering credible allegations advanced as declarations and affidavits in a transparent manner?

(5)  If election equipment is required to be examined, documented, and certified before an election, why are election officials refusing to use election equipment that has been examined by third parties using documented forensic methods that do not alter or modify the hardware or software in any manner? They need to recertify and recalibrate the equipment before the next election anyway. 

Coverage from a publication aimed at those governing states and localities…


Search for Election Fraud Persists, Despite No Evidence

[OCS: The headline is both false and misleading given the number of sworn statements, declarations, and affidavits that can be presented in courts of competent jurisdiction. To say there is “no evidence” is manifestly wrong.]

Ongoing efforts to find election irregularities might serve the ambitions of some in politics, but they aren’t viewed favorably by many Americans. A new report documents the spread of unconventional “audits” to new states.

[OCS: Almost everyone, on one side or the other, seems to be politically motivated when it comes to the conduct of elections and their outcome.

As expected, the results are almost always challenged by those affected by an unfavorable outcome.

It is precisely this tension between the contestants that is supposed to serve as checks and balances on the electoral process.

Every American has a vested and personal interest in transparent and honest elections that serve as the underpinning of their exceptional country.

It is no surprise that most of the surveys taken break along partisan lines and are conditioned by media narratives and election results.

What constitutes an “unconventional audit?” In this instance, it appears to be the disparaging characterization of an audit executed by someone other than the government who was in charge of the election.

Government officials who would have a massive conflict of interest in directing an audit. Protecting themselves from an audit result that could embarrass key election officials or suggest criminal wrongdoing.]

If the unconventional “audit” of election results in Maricopa County, Ariz., is truly intended to bolster public confidence in elections, the experiment does not seem to be working. Most Arizonans disapprove of the effort and almost half would be inclined to vote against a candidate who supported it.

[OCS: The word “unconventional” is used in a pejorative manner as there is nothing “unconventional” about a well-planned, well-documented, well-executed audit using open, transparent, and observable methods.

To claim that most Arizonans disprove of the audit -- and some would be inclined to vote against any candidate supporting it -- is an example of political intimidation.

Without knowing the results and the counter-responses, one could not possibly have an informed opinion. This is the type of meaningless opinion poll that produces sensational headlines and furthers a political narrative.

And, if one would look behind the poll conducted by Bendixen & Amandi International, one would find a firm that specializes in Hispanic media and with strong ties to the Democrat Party. Performing both polling and targeted communications on behalf of their clients.

Reading the 40-page poll results did not provide any information on who commissioned the poll, which appeared in a progressive partisan publication.

The audit is intended to restore integrity to the electoral process, and to suggest otherwise is to falsely impugn the auditors and their motives.

Another example of a B&A poll result – “The GOP has a Latino voter problem, and its name is @realDonaldTrump. Bendixen & Amandi International is proud to present our latest survey conducted in partnership with The Tarrance Group on behalf of Univision Communications and The Washington Post.]

Sean Lowe, a prominent Republican political consultant in the state, described the audit as a “joke” and a “failure.” Secretary of State Katie Hobbs dismisses it as a partisan “fraudit” with no purpose beyond keeping election falsehoods on life support.

[OCS: One can always find a disaffected party member, mostly establishment RINOs (Republicans In Name Only), to produce a negative comment.

Likewise, a comment from a hyper-partisan election official – who should know how to keep quiet and answer any audit’s findings with demonstrable truths and facts.

Why an elected official should find it necessary to disparage an audit attempt before reviewing its results is indicative of a suspect party.

Note the mischaracterization of the audit as being a “Trump” affair rather than to reassure Arizonans that their election was fair and free of taint.]

A recent Monmouth University poll found that voters elsewhere in the country are also distrustful of the motives behind continuing calls to look for election fraud, with nearly 6 in 10 seeing them as attempts to undermine valid results. Overall, 40 percent believe they could weaken American democracy.

[OCS: Another worthless poll that breaks along party lines and is conditioned by a false and misleading narrative by the mainstream media which appears to function as the propaganda arm of the Democrat Party.

Perhaps one should consider that how poll questions are framed is a precursor to a predetermined poll outcome?] 

Conservatives have a different perspective on these investigations, however. Recent surveys have found that three out of four Republican voters support them, and expect them to change the outcome of an election. Three in 10 have told pollsters that they expect the former president to be reinstated, though there is no real-world cause of action to support this.

[OCS: Again, there should be no surprise that opinions break by political affiliation.

As for the former president being reinstated to office, this is speculative conjecture because there is absolutely no controlling legal authority to adjudicate this matter as it is an unprecedented historical occurrence.]

To read the rest of the article, in full and in context, one can find it here.

About the author…

Carl Smith is a senior staff writer for Governing and covers a broad range of issues affecting states and localities. He can be reached at or on

About Governing

Governing provides news, analysis and insights for the professionals leading America’s states and localities.

Published since 1987, Governing is a trusted source of record for elected, appointed and other public leaders looking to manage the present and anticipate the future of state and local government.

Our Mission & Vision:

Today’s state and local leaders govern during a period of dramatic shifts in technology, demography and the economy that are driving societal transformation. Governing: The Future of States and Localities takes on the question of what state and local government looks like in this world of rapid change.

[OCS: Who is really behind Governing?]

e.Republic, Inc. is a Folsom, California-based research and media company. Nearly all of e.Republic's owners and upper management, and many other employees, are Scientologists.

In March 2021, The Daily Beast published an article in which current and former employees "reveal how the media firm e.Republic was not only run Scientologist execs but that they employed ruthless Scientology management principles." How Scientologist Execs at Media Company e.Republic Made Workers’ Lives a Living Hell 

Paradox or paradiddle...

How can the Democrats claim that the 2020 election was the “most secure ever” and that any allegations of voter fraud are “baseless” while doing everything possible to prevent a forensic audit that would prove their point?

Explain how such an audit would constitute a “threat to democracy” and diminish election integrity?

If recent the recent history of the Democrat Party and their propagandists in the mainstream media reveals anything, it is that, whatever the Democrats claim, the opposite is closer to the truth.

And, as an example of the duplicity of the Democrats, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors keeps babbling on and on about the auditors performing the audit as being "uncertified." Full well knowing that there are no certified election auditors, and the two companies hired to certify the hardware are only authorized to certify the machines. 

Bottom line…

Why? Why I ask you, are they fighting so hard to destroy the audit that can prove their point that elections were transparent, free, and honest?

Unless, of course, there is something to hide.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell