Apart from an increase in grassroots activism, not much has changed for the better in the area of election integrity in the Great Lakes State since 2020.
Thousands of names of dead people remain on the state’s voter registration rolls, and the public, through ballot initiatives, has embraced mail-in voting, ballot drop boxes, extended early voting, election audit restrictions, and a weakened photo ID requirement.
The organization has been actively recruiting and training poll workers and watchers in order to put more eyes on the election process.
EIF is also asking citizens to file criminal complaints against the Michigan Secretary of State’s office and the Michigan Bureau of Elections for allegedly altering voter registration and voter history records in violation of the law.
A little-publicized partial recount by EIF of the results of two 2022 statewide ballot proposals, Proposal 2 and Proposal 3, surfaced recently, showing that serious irregularities continue to bedevil election administration in Michigan.
Problems Ignored
Recount participant Braden Giacobazzi told The Epoch Times in a May 31 interview: “We are not about trying to change the outcome of an election. The purpose of the recount was to verify the accuracy of the original vote count and to verify that all procedures and processes were conducted lawfully. As it turned out, we could do neither, and nothing has been done to fix it.”
The group discovered that 59 percent of the precincts where it looked at the results of Proposal 3 were either uncountable or the recounted totals did not match the original official vote totals.
According to state law, during a recount, an entire precinct is declared uncountable if it is discovered that the seal of a ballot bag has been broken or there are holes or rips in the bag.
“Eighty-six percent of the 43 counties had at least one precinct which was either uncountable or had recount totals that did not match the original official totals,” said Giacobazzi.
During the recount of the results of Proposal 2—a proposition to require absentee ballot drop boxes in every community and allow affidavits in lieu of photo ID—in 47 precincts spanning four counties, EIF recount challengers found that 70 percent of those precincts were either uncountable or had recounted vote totals that did not match the original official totals.
“We went in expecting things to be bad, but not this bad. Not this widespread,” Giacobazzi said.
Negligence or Malpractice?
“What we found was sloppy administration amounting to gross negligence at best or systematic malpractice at worst.
“Regardless of how it happened, it is illegal to have holes in ballot bags and have broken seals.
“When we asked for an investigation, our multiple requests were denied.”
Giacobazzi told The Epoch Times that state election officials add insult to injury when not content to just do nothing, they actively work against election integrity activists.
He cited as an example where the state, being legally required to furnish people with an estimated cost of a recount, gave EIF an initial price of $76,000.
The price soon escalated to nearly half a million dollars.
“The prohibitive price was used as a deterrent. They never thought we could raise that much money. When we did, the bureaucracy really had to scramble,” Giacobazzi said.
“And, even if we had the money, there is a lack of attorneys willing to represent us because of fear of retribution.
“Local officials tell us to take our complaints to the Attorney General. The irony is the Attorney General [Democrat Dana Nessel] is the lawyer for the Secretary of State’s office and the Bureau of Elections,” said Giacobazzi.
Is Local Law Enforcement the Answer?
Activist Scott Aughney spoke to a crowd of about 120 concerned citizens gathered at a church in St. Clair, Michigan, on May 22, explaining the legal strategy of using local law enforcement, county prosecutors, and citizen grand juries to go after state election officials for violating the law.
Aughney encouraged the audience to go to their local municipal or county clerk and ask for their own personal voting history and personal change history records.
When the local voting records are cross-checked with the state’s voter registration list, many voters will be amazed to learn the two databases don’t match up, he said.
