As the American Intelligence Media and Americans for Innovation teams continue to provide you with research on the corrupt electronic election system, you may wonder what YOU can do about it.

Below is an email conversation a few of our team members had about best questions to ask state election officials regarding election integrity.  You will find seven great questions (below) that you can ask in a letter, a FOIA request, or schedule a face-to-face meeting with officials.

After you watch the short video below, we hope you are willing to help citizens around the country to become more involved in election and voting transparency.

Make America British Again

These are questions that our researchers asked the state of Washington. You could ask your state the same questions.

I have not received satisfactory or conclusive evidence that bipartisan chain of custody is possible using the Smartmatic election machines or electronic devices of any kind in WA state’s voting process. It is the ‘people’s’ responsibility to ensure unbroken bipartisan chain of custody, and each ‘voting citizen’ has the right under the Federal and the WA state constitution to know that this is true.

We are not stating that there is ‘voter fraud’, we are asking simply for proof that bipartisan chain of custody is in reality–not broken beyond a ‘shadow of doubt’.

Any action taken, whereby the ‘tally’ or ‘counts’ of any voting procedure are ‘hidden’ from observation, which is ‘impossible’ when it is performed and transmitted by ‘electrons’ in a ‘digital form’ fails the test of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody observation as empirical evidence’.

At no time, can bipartisan chain of custody be subject to ‘FAITH’ , ‘law’, ‘vendor certification’, testing’ or any process’ that is ‘hidden from empirical observation’…when this is the basis for ‘certification’, it by logic, and physical law fails the test.

The will of the people cannot be subject ‘FAITH’ from government, the tally count must be ‘totally observable’ at all times, without failure.

Electronic devices depend upon ‘failure modes’ or ‘statistical outcomes’ that depend upon ‘software programs’, ’embedded circuitry’, and ‘clean sine wave electricity’, which are ‘hidden from observation, and thus fail the test by default of logic of ‘unbroken bipartisan chain of custody’.

Thus, the WA state election process fails by default to pass the test for certification. It is open to ‘man in the middle attacks’, and corruption. As such, the ‘will of the people’ can be circumvented by sophistication, technology, and conspiracy through electronic means. This is the underlying logic of my FOIA requests.

FOIA request questions:

1. specifically name the 3^rd party tester (and the actually testers themselves) and how that company and those people  are certified by a bipartisan chain of custody committee in WA?

2. When the memory stick is delivered to the county auditor by the vendor what ‘proof exists’, other than a ‘certification piece of paper’ that the ‘correct’ part number has been delivered?

3. Is the ‘memory stick, on which the tally at each county is entered and sent to the state, tested against an encrypted part number sent to the STATE and the AUDITOR by another communication channel such as certified mail to ensure that the proper ‘memory stick’ has been delivered to the auditor by comparison(a phone call recorded)?

4. What programs exist on the memory stick?

5. What circuits exist on the memory stick, and what circuits are ‘blue printed’ as the baseline as the ‘official circuits’, and how is this tested and reported as ‘clean’?

6. Are the ‘memory sticks’ impounded after the election, and are they available for inspection after the election and for how long, or is the evidence ‘erased’?

7. Is there a ‘micro-voltage’ activation ‘count’ embedded in the memory stick’s program, so that when it is received at the county auditor’s site, when ‘plugged in’ the count is visible to attest that it has not been reprogrammed during ‘transport’, by a ‘man in the middle’? (this would make the whole voting procedure a magic act as it exists)

8. Is each county auditor required to create a ‘bipartisan human hand tally’ as well as a PCOS/Smartmatic machine tally to audit each ‘tally count’ against each other, while preserving both tally counts as unbroken bipartisan chain of custody tallies?

Please provide the public records for these questions as a continuance of the original FOIA request as noted by your statement prior to closure. Thank you

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

These were the answers we received. The answer is highlighted in red. The note marked Note:## in blue is a side note from us.

First, thank you for reaching out to our office with you questions. I just want to make it clear that not Smartmatic voting system or equipment is not in use or certified for use in the State of Washington.

1. specifically name the 3^rd party tester (and the actually testers themselves) and how that company and those people  are certified by a bipartisan chain of custody committee in WA?

  a. Independent testing authorities (or commonly known as Voting System Testing Laboratories (VSTL)) are designated by the United States Election Assistance Commission (EAC).

Note:## As stated, FAITH does not translate into ‘bipartisan chain of custody’. There is a total ‘cognitive dissonance’ working in the state’s collective mind; such that they refuse to answer this question with each round. 

2. When the memory stick is delivered to the county auditor by the vendor what ‘proof exists’, other than a ‘certification piece of paper’ that the ‘correct’ part number has been delivered?

     a. County Auditors are required to do acceptance testing of their voting system prior to use as well as Logic and Accuracy Testing of the voting system prior to each election to ensure that the voting system, including hardware and software, is the certified voting system. Each voting system can produce a hash value that would correspond to the hash value provided by the Voting System Testing Laboratory. This hash value would show that the software in use has not been changed. (WAC 434-335-240 & RCW 29A.12.130). Logic and Accuracy tests are open to the public and election observers.

3. Is the ‘memory stick, on which the tally at each county is entered and sent to the state, tested against an encrypted part number sent to the STATE and the AUDITOR by another communication channel such as certified mail to ensure that the proper ‘memory stick’ has been delivered to the auditor by comparison(a phone call recorded)?

  a. If the ‘memory stick’ is part of the voting system, then yes that can be done. However, not all voting systems have ‘memory sticks’ as part of the voting system. Each County Auditor can choose the method they’d like to transfer election results from the tabulation system. For example, some counties use one-write media like CDs or DVDs and some use election specific USB drives that are formatted prior to use. In either case, they are secured before and after the election.

4. What programs exist on the memory stick?

       a. None. They are only used to transfer files in some counties depending on the voting system and procedures in place for that county.

5. What circuits exist on the memory stick, and what circuits are ‘blue printed’ as the baseline as the ‘official circuits’, and how is this tested and reported as ‘clean’?

Note:## The county auditor lied to me. She specifically stated that the ‘state’ sends the memory stick and it is not up to them to choose the media on which they transfer information to the state! 

       a. This would be county specific based on the ‘memory sticks’  in use for the voting system and procedures in place for that county.

6. Are the ‘memory sticks’ impounded after the election, and are they available for inspection after the election and for how long, or is the evidence ‘erased’?

      a. This is county specific depending on the voting system and procedures in place for that county because not all counties use the same voting system and not all use ‘memory sticks’. All documents related to the election have a retention and must be retained for their entire retention period. (https://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/archives/county-auditor-rrs-ver-5.0.pdf)

7. Is there a ‘micro-voltage’ activation ‘count’ embedded in the memory stick’s program, so that when it is received at the county auditor’s site, when ‘plugged in’ the count is visible to attest that it has not been reprogrammed during ‘transport’, by a ‘man in the middle’? (This would make the whole voting procedure a magic act as it exists.)

              a. Election Results are verified using a paper copy of the results. When results are transported from the tabulation equipment to be uploaded to the state, a paper copy of the results is used to verify the results are appearing accurately. Additionally, that same paper copy is provided to the state to ensure that after the results were uploaded they match the physical copy of the results. There are several methods and opportunities, as stated in our previous response, for auditing during the election canvassing to ensure the tabulation equipment is accurate. 

NOTE##: Here is the problem: the count is still hidden. It does not matter how many tests are run prior to the ballots being entered, if the media is not ‘tested’. Also, if the media is sent by any method other than a bipartisan group of humans, bipartisan chain of custody is lost. There is no mention of a standard method. I guess each Auditor can choose!!!

8. Is each county auditor required to create a ‘bipartisan human hand tally’ as well as a PCOS/Smartmatic machine tally to audit each ‘tally count’ against each other, while preserving both tally counts as unbroken bipartisan chain of custody tallies?

a. Smartmatic voting systems are not certified or used in the State of Washington.

NOTE##: He didn’t answer the question. He simply stated that Smartmatic is not used. However, another machine is used, but they do not volunteer that information.

Answers in red given by

Stuart Holmes| Voting Information Systems Manager

Office of the Secretary of State

(360) 725-5794 | www.vote.wa.gov

.

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

Four questions we asked from Washington State Records/Public Disclosure Officer as a FOIA request and her answers back to us.

Below is information provided by Washington State Elections Division.

1. How do you ensure bi-partisan ‘chain of custody’ on any electronic device that sits between the voter and the ‘county/city/special district’ for local elections, and the ‘state’ for state elections, and the ‘federal election’ for federal positions?

To answer your question, I’m interpreting “electronic device” as an in-person ballot marking system that retains an electronic voting record of each vote cast, direct-recording electronic (DRE) voting machine, and the county’s voting system that tabulates returned ballots.

Before any voting system can be used in the State of Washington it first must be tested and certified by an independent testing authority designated by the United States election assistance commission as well as inspected and tested by the Secretary of State’s Office (RCW 29A.12.080). During the Secretary of State’s inspection of the voting system we ensure it meets our requirements for all voting systems (WAC 434-335-040) which include “Secures to the voter secrecy in the act of voting” and “Be capable of being secured with lock and seal when not in use”.

The Secretary of State’s Office requires the use of secure storage which must employ the use of numbered seals and logs, or other security measures which will detect any inappropriate or unauthorized access to the secured ballot materials and must be accompanied by at least two county auditor staff at all times. (WAC 434-261-045, WAC 434-250-110 & RCW 29A.40.110). The seal logs or other measures used by every county document the chain of custody for who accessed the secured ballots which includes electronic voting devices that retain electronic voting records. However, part of our state certification requirements of any voting system is that the voting device must produce a voter verifiable paper ballot.

Additionally, observers may be present during the processing of ballots because the entire process is open to the public.

2. How do you ensure that the ‘electronic devices’ are monitored by ‘bipartisan’ citizens, trained to monitor the ballot tally totals?

Prior to each election, the County Auditor must request observers be appointed by the major political parties to be present during the processing of ballots. Campaigns or organizations may also be requested to appoint observers. The County Auditor can train observers with respect to ballot processing procedures and the vote tallying system (RCW 29A.40.100 & WAC 434-261-020)

3. do you ensure the bipartisan election monitors/judges can affirmatively verify that each vote is entered, reported, and tallied without intervention by unseen software modules whose operations do not appear to be empirically observable?

Prior to certification of the election the County Auditor must audit of results of votes cast on any direct recording electronic voting devices used in the county, if applicable, a random check of the ballot counting equipment, and an audit of duplicated ballots.

In 2019, Risk Limiting Audits will become an option for counties to use to audit their voting equipment. Rules for conducting a Risk Limiting Audit will be in place no later than January 1, 2019. Risk Limiting Audits provide statistical evidence and confidence that the count was accurate while keeping the resources needed by the county to as little as possible.

4. I request the ‘public records’ that prove the above questions regarding the usage of all ‘electronic devices’ used in the voting process…all stages where ‘datum’ is processing in any manner by non-humans, as part of the voting procedure that results in a ‘summation’, ‘addition’, ‘subtraction’, ‘tally’, ‘vote count’ as an ‘official’ record of the voting process. 

If you’re interested in the chain of custody logs, observer procedures, audit procedures, or specific documents about the use of the voting system you’d need to request those documents from the County Auditor because the Secretary of State’s Office does not process any ballots, conduct tabulation, or operate a voting system.

If you’re interested in the Election Assistance Commission testing and certification of the voting systems, those test reports and certifications are available here: https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/system-certification-process-s/

We also have information about the system in use in Washington on our website here: https://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/research/voting-system-testing-and-certification.aspx

I trust you will find this information useful.  If you have any further questions, please let me know.  Otherwise, I am closing this request today.

Regards,

Brenda Galarza

Records/Public Disclosure Officer

PO Box 40224 | Olympia, WA  98504-0224

360-704-5220 Phone | 360-704-7830 Fax

brenda.galarza@sos.wa.gov

 .

∞∞∞∞∞∞∞

.

Notes from our research team as we were analyzing these comments from Washington State officials in the above correspondences:

This only assumes that the hash value created didn’t change. That doesn’t address the integrity of the underlying software program. If the embedded backdoor program is burned on the firmware, hardware or operating system, then this hash value is not useful. This does not address the problems of lack of VISUAL verification.

These procedures do not address bipartisan chain of custody. They force the chain of custody to accept all this integrity testing in faith.

In fact, this process forces the election judges to LIE when they certify the vote (since they CANNOT know if the underlying software is counting properly). It forces them to break the law.