A guest post by Rebecca Behrends, M.D., Vice President of Research Michigan Citizens for Election Integrity (MC4EI)
There was no end of ridicule from Democrats and mainstream media regarding the issue of republican hysteria over “dead people voting” in the 2020 election. Viral videos were allegedly spreading disinformation and the notion that 120-yr-people were “voting” courtesy of the fraudulent schemes cooked up by the Democrats. 1/1/1900 became a date in history to remember as the “temporary placeholder” for absentee ballots arriving just before election day.
As Detroit’s Director of Elections, George Azzouz, explained to CNN, “The placeholder information has to be inserted in order for the electronic poll book (EPB) to accept the entry.” Later in sworn testimony, senior Election Advisor Chris Thomas said that “this use of a “placeholder” birthdate is standard, acceptable procedure.”
Is this truly a “standard, acceptable” procedure? Let’s examine this.
First, ballots do not have birthdate information on them. Voter registration requires birthdate info. These supposedly “registered” voters were not listed in the EPB or on what is known as supplemental lists, which record those who registered late just prior to the election and after the bulk of absentee ballots had been delivered to the TCF center in Detroit. Who were these “phantom” voters? If they were not officially registered, why were their ballots sent to the tabulators, regardless, to be counted?
Secondly, why were thousands of ballots given placeholders of 1/1/1900?
Even with same-day registrations, these registrants should have had all this info already recorded prior to their ballots being received at the TCF center. Even if these represented legitimate same-day registrants, freedom of information requests from the state qualified voter file (i.e., QVF) showed the following:
City of Detroit Same-Day Registrations:
On November 3, 2020- 1471
On November 2, 2020- 455
It’s not as though there was a huge wave of registrations that would have required the absent voter counting boards (AVCB) at the TCF Center to divert their intended tasks to the completion of voter registrations. The job of the AVCBs was to count the ballots of citizens who were already registered.
Michigan Citizens for Election Integrity (MC4EI) interviewed a number of city and township clerks in the metro Detroit area with questionnaires.
They asked the following two questions:
1.“If a returned absentee voter (AV) ballot has no date of birth listed, do you use a default/placeholder date of birth, i.e., 1/1/1900?
2.“Is it common/routine practice to manually enter the voter’s name, address, ballot number, and birthdate (placeholder) into the EPB if a ballot does not appear in the EPB or supplemental list?”
Their responses were most enlightening on this subject.
The city of South Lyon clerk said, “We have never used a default/placeholder date of birth as a deputy clerk or city clerk. I have never heard of a default/placeholder date of birth. We did not receive any absentee ballots that didn’t have a proper birthdate in the QVF.”
City of Farmington clerk said, “No, there is no requirement of date of birth on ballots.
City of Southfield clerk, “AV ballots are not entered in the EPB; they are entered into the QVF at the clerk’s office. The only thing required on an AV ballot is signature.”
City of Birmingham clerk, “We did not use the EPB to check-in AV; we used the state QVF. A voter has to be registered in the system in order to issue a ballot. We only use actual birthdays.”
City of Pleasant Ridge clerk, “Ballots do not include birthdate.”
City of Oak Park clerk, “An AV ballot does not require a date of birth to be listed on the ballot. However, a voter registration application requires a date of birth or else the voter cannot be registered.”
Royal Oak Township clerk, “No.”
Southfield Township clerk, “No, AV ballots contain no personal info.”
In other words, this is not “standard” practice. Default dates in registration databases are not unknown. But the problem at the TCF center was that poll workers were instructed to put in these default dates. And for thousands of ballots! Again, their job should have been to count absent voter ballots for which registration had already been verified. Multiple affiants who worked as GOP poll challengers at the TCF center noted that “stacks and stacks” of ballots were scanned into the computer with the results on the monitors showing “0 matching vote”. That is to say; these ballots represented “voters” who were not registered in the system. For late registrants, the Detroit election officials basically “systematically processed and counted ballots from voters whose names failed to appear in either the QVF or in supplemental lists” for late registrants. One affiant noted that an election official ordered the poll workers to “Enter them! Make everything match, and get it done as soon as possible!”
The TCF center will forever be “ground zero” for election fraud in the 2020 election for Michigan citizens who value integrity and honesty. In fact, it should trigger a reading on any citizen’s Fraud-O-Meter as a “red hot flag.”
We no longer have honest investigative journalist reporting. Otherwise, they should have been all over the events in Detroit in the 2020 election. We have a cadre of mainstream media sycophants who receive their marching orders to adhere to the narrative du jour. Thus, it is left to grassroots organizations, such as MC4EI, to do the job they should be doing. Who fact checks the false fact-checkers? We do, the American public. Too much is at stake not to.