What is Election Certification?

We are at a crossroads many did not see coming.  George Orwell's prescient novel, 1984, predicted the dystopian realities that face us today.  One of the famous quotes from 1984 refers to human society in general: "The choice for mankind lies between freedom and happiness and for the great bulk of mankind, happiness is better."  Today the question is, will we choose the dwindling illusion of happiness or secure our grandchildren's freedom?

The key that turns every lock bolted against freedom is elections.  We cannot simultaneously have representative government and compromised elections.  The king of America, the law, is tethered to the sovereign, the people, through the elective process.  The loyalty of those we temporarily assign the privilege of writing and enforcing law is checked only by the honesty of our elections.  Otherwise, the king goes rogue.  Sound familiar?

Before applying any expensive patches to the twigs of a broken voting system, let's examine it at the root.  Who is responsible for guaranteeing trustworthy elections?  Under current federal law, each state has a chief election official who swears to and attests that an election is both accurate and compliant.  This is the point of certification.  Each of these individuals is bound to a sacred duty of maintaining valid, lawfully conducted elections — an incredible honor upon which our liberty pivots.

With the complexity of our voting systems, this is no small feat, so there is significant federal support ensuring that election officials have everything needed to perform the appointed task.  Our voting systems are designated critical national security infrastructure.  Election conduct is therefore dictated by an interwoven tapestry of state and federal laws that protects and records every nexus where data cross into or out of the system.

On the federal level, three primary laws come in to play: the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), and the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2002, rev. 2014 (FISMA).  These laws define exact procedures, audit trails, and system controls from registration through certification.

The definition of certification is being officially attested or authoritatively confirmed as being genuine or true as represented, or complying with or meeting specified requirements or standards.  We have been force-fed the assertion that the 2020 election was the most secure election in history.  Many theories have attacked this idea, some compellingly so, but little has changed.  A simple question has been overlooked in the noise: when officials certified the federal elections in 2020 and 2022, did certification meet the standard of accuracy and compliance?

After two-plus years of volunteer analysis of the voter rolls and vote in New York and other states, we can definitively say that the certifications neither met the accuracy requirements nor complied with the law and its intent.  In fact, we can prove the gross inaccuracy of certified federal elections. 

Certification was an outright fraud under color of law, denying the U.S. electorate our civil right to a just and fair election and the domestic tranquility it provides.  Does this mean Donald Trump or other officials won their elections?  No — it means that no one knows who won.

Our findings are extensive and disturbing:

1. Massive vote-to-voter discrepancies.
2. Millions of legally deficient voter registrations.
3. Gross failure to determine if all votes were from unique individuals qualified to vote.
4. Peer-reviewed evidence of an algorithm creating fake and unlawful voter registrations embedded in the New York State voter rolls.
5. Pervasive failures of identity resolution prior to registration.
6. Failures of procedural process requirements.
7. Massive numbers of tallied votes that have no valid state identity information.

We are being continually hammered by pernicious media to deny the reality staring us in the face.

In other American eras, how would such rampant misconduct be addressed?  Way back in the olden days of 2017, the DOJ published an official guide on prosecuting election law violations that includes many powerful statements:

ELECTION FRAUD: Fraud usually involves corruption of one of three processes:  the obtaining and marking of ballots, the counting and certification of election results, or the registration of voters.

FEDERAL JURISDICTION: The federal government asserts jurisdiction over an election offense to ensure that basic rights of United States citizenship, and a fundamental process of representative democracy, remain uncorrupted.

In a recent article, Hornik cited In re Coy, 127 U.S. 731 as precedent for the principle that disobedience of the law constitutes intent by an election official.  The law says federal elections are a zero-trust operation, requiring zealous exactness on the part of administrators.  More language from the same DOJ document defends this assertion:

Federal interest in the integrity of the franchise was first manifested immediately after the Civil War.  Between 1868 and 1870, Congress passed the Enforcement Acts, which served as the basis for federal activism in prosecuting corruption of the franchise until most of them were repealed in the 1890s.  See In re Coy, 127 U.S.  731 (1888); Ex parte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884); Ex parte Siebold, 100 U.S. 371 (1880). Many of the Enforcement Acts had broad jurisdictional predicates that allowed them to be applied to a wide variety of corrupt election practices as long as a federal candidate was on the ballot.  In Coy, the Supreme Court held that Congress had authority under the Constitution's Necessary and Proper Clause to regulate any activity during a mixed federal/state election that exposed the federal election to potential harm, whether that harm materialized or not.  Coy is still good law.  United States v. Slone, 411 F.3d 643, 647 (6th Cir. 2005); United States v.  Mason, 673 F.2d 737, 739 (4th Cir. 1982); United States v.  Malmay, 671 F.2d 869, 874–75 (5th Cir. 1982).

Even if investigations were to reconcile all of the votes, and no decisions changed, the certifications were still perjury.  New York voting data are in a state of Total Loss of Control.  The inescapable conclusion is that election officials either botched or destroyed the validity of our elections, thereby destroying the trust Americans deserve to have in the election process.  The mainstream liars decry our evidence as damaging to our republic while denying the misconduct that lies in plain sight.  We are not about who won the 2020 and 2022 elections.  We demand that our election officials obey the law.

Through our organization, United Sovereign Americans, we intend:

1. To make sure 2024 is a lawfully conducted election, nationwide.
2. To expand our effort to train other states on how to do these investigations.  Many following our lead are already finding the same problems.
3. To hold the perjurers, who are destroying our democratic republic, accountable.
4. To make sure systems in use are free from manipulation and abuse.
5. To file legal challenges to misconduct of elections and sue those that broke the law.

Continuing with Orwell, "and if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed — if all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth."

At United Sovereign Americans, we insist upon the real truth, and we stand for freedom.

Marly Hornik is the executive director of NY Citizens Audit.  To volunteer for United Sovereign Americans, please email mh@AuditNY.com.  Harry Robert Haury is a cyber-security architect and subject matter expert for the Intelligence Community and Defense Department, contributor and consultant on the authoring of HAVA.

Image via Pixabay.

If you experience technical problems, please write to helpdesk@americanthinker.com