"Ghost Votes" in Arizona

I've recently been discussing election matters with a friend of mine who has doubts about the outcome of the 2020 presidential race. I asked for his evidence (as is my wont), and he took the time to send me a number of bits of evidence. For this reason, I'm taking each claim seriously and one at a time.

The first example was from The New American, who claimed:

A Grassroots Canvass Report of the 2020 election proves what we have been saying all along. The election was stolen and Biden is illegitimate. This is massive evidence of voter fraud.

They also claim:

TNA is not responsible for, and does not verify the accuracy of, any information presented.

This disclaimer makes sense since Dominion, the much maligned outfit that provided voting systems for the election, is suing large corporations for billions in damages and seems to have a good chance at winning. Smartmatic already has made Lou Dobbs grovel like a little bitch. 

I looked up “96,389 GHOST VOTES” and found a number of references to a report that was generated by what was described as a “grassroots” organization, the Voter Integrity Project. This group was founded by Liz Harris, a realtor who says she conducted a house to house survey. I can’t find a webpage for them. I found her realtor page, which she uses to promote her survey. So, yeah, it’s her. And I found the original report she submitted.

The expert commentary on the report uniformly says that her methodology is poor. She talked to 964 registered voters who did not cast ballots in the 2020 election. When asked if they voted, 330 claimed they did. So on the basis of that, she takes the number of registered voters who did not cast ballots and claims that ⅓ of all of their ballots were lost.

Some problems pointed out by election officials and outside experts:

• The sample was not a random sample of the population (notice it focuses on a subgroup).
• The study does not acknowledge that the fraction of people who are willing to talk to a canvasser is likely different from the fraction of people who aren’t.
• Lastly, some areas are oversampled. To get a sense of what this meant, I went to find a map of the Maricopa County precincts.

All of those little tiny subdivisions are voting precincts. After a frustrating game of Where’s Waldo, I found all 4 that were canvassed: Waggoner, Rittenhouse, Dunbar, Warner. The canvassers visited every house in Warner. Then there is a category called “Countywide,” which I guess is distributed throughout the district (in the words of the study: “A partial canvass was also conducted in precincts throughout the county”). Suddenly, what “oversampled” means is much clearer. Assuming (a big assumption) that “County Wide” represents a random sample of the whole district, these 4 districts hold their thumb on the scale. Not stating criteria for why you decide to survey certain districts is not the same as having a random sample. Different parts of town may be different or unique among the city. Are these affluent areas? Are these more walkable for some reason? Are there more houses? Who knows? That sort of thing would be in a professional report, but there is no guidance in the 11-page document Harris authored.

One other huge problem is that there is no accounting for the perceived social pressure placed on registered voters to affirm that they voted when they are asked about their voting habits. Polling is fricken hard.

Harris repeatedly says, “The canvass team can make sworn affidavits supporting these findings readily available.” Ok. Affidavits are nice, I guess. So I reached out to Harris to look at them. I have not yet heard back but will update this post if I hear back from her.

Those who would investigate any allegations of fraud have apparently asked Harris for this promised evidence, but she has not provided it. According to AZ Central:

AFP also reported this:

The Maricopa County Recorder's Office and the Maricopa County Assessor's Office also took aim at the report. The offices "have repeatedly asked Ms Harris to provide details that support the findings of her report. While we investigate any and all allegations of wrongdoing made, we cannot do so without credible evidence being provided," they said in a joint statement.

What are these two specific pieces of evidence? Two examples that showed up in the report itself were reported by AZ Central. The first was an address of a vacant lot that appeared on the cover of the original report, where supposedly unexplainable two votes had come from:

But an aerial map of the property, available online at the Maricopa County Assessor’s website, shows a house with a pool on the 4.3-acre property. Looks like a pretty nice house, too. According to realtor.com, it has five bedrooms, 3.5 bathrooms and upgraded maple cabinets in the kitchen. It was last sold in 2010. 

It also has two registered voters, according to county records.

Yikes! So, Harris updated the image to another vacant lot. This also did not go well:

But that property was a mobile home park in December 2019 and a person was properly registered to vote at that address. The voter requested that his ballot be sent to a temporary address within the county, which can be done legally for a year, according to Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and Assessor Eddie Cook.

Those are the only two actual examples of “fraud” offered in the report.

On the basis of this truly shoddy data, the guy currently running for the office responsible for Arizona state elections called for the slate of Arizona’s electors to be recalled and the election to be invalidated. Because of a skewed, nonrepresentative map of those little specks on the electoral map of a single county in the State of Arizona. I genuinely have questions about these people’s judgment. In the absence of proportionately extraordinary evidence, or really any evidence, to substantiate Harris’ extraordinary claim, I must conclude that this report is unproved and should be dismissed until better evidence appears.

What about the litigation over Maricopa County’s election results? Well, the Office of Elections has a list of the legal cases that were filed disputing the election. It’s devastating:

• Aguilera v. Fontes: voluntarily dismissed (7 Nov 2020)

• Donald J. Trump v. Hobbs: dismissed with prejudice following an evidentiary hearing (13 Nov 2020)

• Arizona Republican Party v. Fontes: dismissed with prejudice, and the Secretary of State was given permission to file for fees on the basis it being a frivolous lawsuit (18 Nov 2020)

• Aguilera v. Fontes II: dismissed with prejudice after an evidentiary hearing “for failing to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or alternatively, denying the relief sought by Plaintiffs given their failure to produce evidence demonstrating entitlement to same.” (29 Nov 2020)

• Kelli Ward v. Jackson: dismissed with prejudice following an evidentiary hearing, in which the judge found “the evidence did not show fraud, misconduct, illegal votes, or an erroneous vote count.” The appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed this decision, “conclude[ing], unanimously, that . . . . the challenge fails to present any evidence of ‘misconduct,’ ‘illegal votes’ or that the Biden Electors ‘did not in fact receive the highest number of votes for office.’” (9 Dec 2020)

• Bowyer, et al., v. Ducey, et al.: This sought to decertify the election and to give Arizona’s votes to Trump. After hearing the case the Court ruled to “dismiss this matter in its entirety”, because “[p]laintiffs failed to provide the Court with factual support for their extraordinary claims[.]” Additionally, the court noted that “[a]llegations that find favor in the public sphere of gossip and innuendo cannot be a substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure in federal court[,]” and, “cannot be the basis for upending Arizona’s 2020 General Election.” SCOTUS denied cert and the matter was closed. (13 April 2021)

• Burk v. Ducey: Made the same case as Bowyer, et al., v. Ducey, et al., which made dismissing it very easy. Also, the plaintiff didn’t have standing, it seems. (15 Dec 2020)

The person who denies the outcome of the election not only needs to make their own argument, but also needs to explain how all of these cases were roundly rejected. They are setting a very high bar for themselves.

Just for Shits and Giggles:

As one does, I was browsing the Liz Harris' campaign website, you know, just to see. And if you will indulge me, I came across the following nugget:

As someone who teaches a seminar on the history of alternative medicine at a Middle States accredited university, I found the Doctorate of Integrative Medicine fascinating. Washington, D.C. is in the Middle States region too. So I went to the Middle States website, if you’ll indulge me, and I looked up “Capital”. There are 2 results: 

Capital University of Integrative Medicine (or CUIM--teehee) is a former candidate for accreditation. Not formerly accredited, mind you. Former candidate. And gave up. It closed in 2006, after 10 years of … whatever the hell they did there. It says it was a “licensed graduate professional university,” but a google search of that phrase suggests that it is the only site in the history of the internet to have ever used it and that it is not a legally protected or especially meaningful term. But what about the campus of this august and storied institution of higher learning? Google Maps is revealing: 

It reminds me of the used book store in Philly that was the first place I visited after I was fully vaccinated. And I’m willing to bet that any degree granted by the bookstore is as meaningful as the one from CUIM. It now houses a handwriting camp, which is at least a useful skill. 

B