Warning: Table './wwwrevo_revolutiondb_beta/dp1b_cache_page' is marked as crashed and should be repaired query: SELECT data, created, headers, expire, serialized FROM dp1b_cache_page WHERE cid = 'https://revolutionnow.us/node/3404' in /home/wwwrevo/public_html/includes/database.mysqli.inc on line 134
Election judge believes machines were programmed to reject ballots on election day | Revolution Now!

Election judge believes machines were programmed to reject ballots on election day

Submitted by Freedomman on Thu, 11/17/2022 - 13:41

SCOTTSDALE, Arizona (PNN) - November 13, 2022 - Election Judge Michele Swinick has come forward to report what she experienced in Maricopa County on Election Day. She worked Election Day as a judge at the Islamic Voting Center in Scottsdale, Arizona. She reports that the center is heavily Republican, with ‘no party’ designated voters as the second most
populous demographic, followed by very few Democrat voters, evidenced by the fact that she checked in very few of them on Election Day. She reports she spent the entire day checking in voters.

Judge Swinick says that the tabulators all worked perfectly during the test the night before the election. The problem with scanning began immediately with the first ballots. Voters scanned their ballots between 4 and 12 times with very minimal success. Poll workers estimated about 1 in 10 ballots were being read for the first three hours of voting.

Voters were given options to either spoil their ballots and try again or drop them into a different section called “Door 3”. As per Swinick, their inspector had to empty the ballots from “Door 3” three times throughout the early afternoon because of the volume of ballots. Typically, ballots aren’t supposed to be removed from that box until polls close, but they made an exception because the box was jamming and became too full.

Swinick reports that the technician came to the center between 3:30 pm and 4:00 pm MT and rebooted the machines. After this, there were no further issues with ballots being run through tabulators. She reported that one of the poll workers told her, “Everything is now going smoothly with the tabulators.”

Per Swinick’s inspector, an offsite supervisor had advised “Because of the situation” to put all “Door 3” ballots that had not been scanned through a tabulator into a separate black bag and to label them “misreads”. As a judge, Michele said that she personally signed the sticker placed over the bag’s zipper, and then these bags were sent to the tabulation center to be counted. Michele informed us that the normal process for a ballot that is “unread” is
for poll workers to run the ballots through the tabulators one more time before sending them to the center. Swinick said this was not done.

The County had set up a website to give voters the ability to check that their votes were counted. However, Judge Swinick proved that the website wasn’t correct and seemed to be using a voter’s “check in” as evidence that his or her vote had been tabulated rather than the actual tabulation of the vote. Judge Swinick offered her first-hand proof of this.

“My roommate ran his ballot through the tabulators 15 times as one of the first voters at the Islamic Center. It did not read the ballot. He was forced to drop it in Door 3.”

“About an hour after I arrived home at 9:00 pm MT, my roommate checked the website to see if his vote had been counted. The website reported that it was. It is mathematically impossible for his vote to have been counted by then since only an hour before, I left the center, and the ballots had not been taken from the center to the meeting point where the ballots are hand exchanged to another transport team, which takes them to the tabulation center. For his ballot to have been counted, it would have also needed to be sorted and hand-counted by a team at that center and reported into the website - all within that hour.”