As President of the Washington State Association of County Auditors, I have been nominated to respond on behalf of our 39 county members. \u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nThank you for introducing us to Freedom Washington. Election administrators are always happy to hear of citizens passionate about education in civics, Washington State history, and the Washington State Constitution.<\/p>\n
We read The Miller Plan with great interest. Like Freedom Washington, we are committed to practical procedures that increase the transparency, integrity, and trust of our elections process.<\/p>\n
While we appreciate the intention, county election officials are unable to endorse The Miller Plan.\u00a0 Auditors will continue to follow state law and administrative code.\u00a0 We strongly believe that existing practices \u2013 set in law \u2013 are transparent and rigorous. And these practices validate the accuracy of ballot tabulation.<\/p>\n
We\u2019ve referenced several key state laws below.\u00a0 Please contact specific counties to learn more about the physical security surrounding tabulation equipment and ballots (each county has different facilities, thus there is a bit of variation buildings, cameras, etc).<\/p>\n
RCW 29A.12.130<\/strong><\/p>\nAt least three days before each state primary or general election, we test the programming for each tabulation system.<\/p>\n
The test verifies that the system will correctly count votes.<\/p>\n
The test is observed by at least one representative from each major political party and is open to candidates, the press, and the public.<\/p>\n
A Secretary of State representative is present at all state election L&A tests.<\/p>\n
RCW 29A.60.185\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\nPrior to certification of the election every county auditor shall conduct an audit.<\/p>\n
This is mandated, not optional. All 39 counties conduct this audit.<\/p>\n
The audit compares the tabulated (digital) ballot with the original paper ballot.<\/p>\n
This audit procedure is open to observation by political party representatives. The political parties randomly select the sample. This procedure is also open to observation by the public.<\/p>\n
The secretary of state determines when and how an audit should be expanded to include additional ballots when an audit results in a discrepancy.<\/p>\n
RCW 29A.60.110<\/strong><\/p>\nImmediately after their tabulation, all ballots counted must be sealed in containers.<\/p>\n
The containers may only be opened by the canvassing board as part of the canvass, to conduct recounts, to conduct a random check under RCW 29A.60.170, to conduct an audit under RCW 29A.60.185, or by order of the superior court in a contest or election dispute.<\/p>\n
We also note that each time a mandatory manual recount occurs, 100% of the original paper ballots are hand counted and compared with the tabulated count.\u00a0 These hand recounts of publicly elected offices have not revealed any discrepancies.\u00a0 This is particularly true since counties have gradually adopted digital systems and moved away from less-sensitive optical readers.<\/p>\n
And finally, we understand that you have concerns about the USB drive used to upload local results to the state\u2019s reporting system. In addition to these USB drives being inspected, certified, and sealed by the OSOS Security Operations Center, local results are posted on each county\u2019s website, independent of the state\u2019s results reporting.\u00a0 Even if someone in the state office were able to tamper with the aggregated state report, it would not alter the published local results.\u00a0 I can assure you that the discrepancy would be quickly spotted by each and every county, as well as media.<\/p>\n
Thank you for reaching out to us.<\/p>\n
In an effort to reduce cybersecurity risks, all counties avoid opening attachments and clicking on links from outside sources.\u00a0 If you need to respond, we\u2019d appreciate text in the body an email.<\/p>\n
Julie Anderson<\/strong><\/p>\nPierce County Auditor<\/strong><\/p>\nP: (253) 798-3188<\/p>\n
.<\/p>\n
JIM Summarizes the situation with a response that he has been giving on radio and YT interviews:<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\nIt is evident that you have mis-perceived the crux the shortcomings I have discovered in the WA election process specifically the tally verification process for both local and state totals. Since they are derived from the same media, one can only assume that they are the same report, which logically will \u2018ALWAYS\u2019 be the same. Without verification by a multi-partisan citizen panel to audit the \u2018ballots, \u2018 anything is possible with a software program; including read write options that change after logic tests of any number, responding to another set of instructions at will\u2026including erasure of the program itself.<\/p>\n
Software is \u2018hidden and secret\u2019 and by its nature breaks the multi-partisan chain of custody of the ballots in total, and the tally final that determines the election outcome. This is \u2018self-evident\u2019, \u2018crystal clear\u2019, and intuitively obvious, that the software cannot be \u2018observed\u2019 when being executed on the computer; and that only the \u2018resultant\u2019 of the instructions can be observed, thus no amount of citizen observation can change this fact. Observing the \u2018sun rising in the East and setting in the West\u2019 does in no way change the outcome of the Sun\u2019s orbit. Citizen\u2019s observations without comparative analysis by \u2018human counting\u2019 of the same ballot sets is the only acceptable method by which confidence in the election process can be made and \u2018observed\u2019.<\/p>\n
Nothing in your response addresses the shortcomings of the breach of multi-party chain of custody; either in a criminal or civil sense of its definition. Multi-party chain of custody of the evidence (ballots and tally totals) require the auditors to confirm that the election process is secure. Your process fails.<\/p>\n
I have clearly identified a breach and failure mode in the process. I would like to know how you are going to guard the vote going forward for this 2020 election?<\/p>\n
Know that the \u2018processes\u2019 that the citizens are being asked to observe, are irrelevant in securing or even identifying the broken multi-party chain of custody (ballots and tally totals) because \u2018humans\u2019 cannot observe the digital representations in the silicon on the chip being manipulated by software programming to read\/write data. Is is self-evident, crystal clear, and intuitively obvious that this is true\u2026it is the \u2018essence\u2019 of computer programming. This \u2018type of control\u2019 behind the scene on the chip is what makes computers \u2018useful\u2019. A program can be written to \u2018ERASE\u2019 itself after execution\u2026leaving no trace of its \u2018deception\u2019. The auditors in WA state are participating in this multi-partisan breaking of the chain of custody in the right to suffrage, and per the WA state constitution; Article 1; SEC 19 are breaking the law.<\/p>\n
Please NOTE: https:\/\/www.justice.gov\/archives\/jm\/criminal-resource-manual-910-knowingly-and-willfully<\/a><\/p>\n\u201cThe false statement need not be made with an intent to defraud if there is an intent to mislead or to induce belief in its falsity. Reckless disregard of whether a statement is true, or a conscious effort to avoid learning the truth, can be construed as acting \u201cknowingly.\u201d United States v. Evans<\/em>, 559 F.2d 244, 246 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied<\/em>, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978).<\/p>\nA defendant is not relieved of the consequences of a material misrepresentation by lack of knowledge when the means of ascertaining truthfulness are available. In appropriate circumstances, the government may establish the defendant\u2019s knowledge of falsity by proving that the defendant either knew the statement was false or acted with a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth. See<\/em>United States v. West<\/em>, 666 F.2d 16, 19 (2d Cir. 1981); Lange<\/em>, 528 F.2d at 1288; United States v. Clearfield<\/em>, 358 F. Supp. 564, 574 (E.D. Pa. 1973). Proof that the defendant acted with reckless disregard or reckless indifference may therefore satisfy the knowledge requirement, when the defendant makes a false material statement and consciously avoids learning the facts or intends to deceive the government. See<\/em> United States v. Schaffer<\/em>, 600 F.2d 1120, 1122 (5th Cir. 1979).\u201d<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/citizens-prevent-election-fraud.jpg\")
<\/p>\n