«

»

SBE Panic (Part 1) — Leaked Memos

Oct 22 Oct 23, 2021

[Note: Due to several technical issues and pressing family needs for a State Fair excursion, this post had to be delayed by 24 hours.]

Panic at SBE (Part 1)

Acting more and more like a gang of cornered bank robbers, the NC State Board of Elections is showing signs of duress through two recently leaked policy memos secretly pushed to the state’s 100 county election Directors.

Fearing what an effective canvassing operation can reveal about the level of ballot theft occurring across the state, SBE Executive Director Karen Bell’s shell-shocked team is flailing over the organized efforts of a Telegram group, called North Carolina Audit Force (NCAF).

Today’s Yesterday’s video podcast (click this link or the image at bottom of post) elaborates, but here are the details.

[Note: Somebody got YouTube to remove the video linked below in this post, but we later found a way to upload it on Rumble… further below.]

The agency’s first leaked memo came from their Chief Propagandist, Patrick Gannon, who distributed a document to County Election Directors containing internal guidance that he or one of his moles lifted from the NC Audit Force’s internal communication channel. (Click here to see leaked SBE-NCAF memo).

The NCAF planning document laid out the group’s timeline for a highly focused canvass of a single county “within 75 miles of the Raleigh/Durham area” and set a goal of collecting 1,000 pieces of evidence.

[Secret message to Freedom Caucus: Gannon’s memo referenced something called a “huddle.” You might want to see what topics they cover during those meeting? His memo also was addressed to “All Directors.” You might want to see what other directives they’ve issued through this policy-setting process that’s hidden from public oversight.]

The agency’s second leaked memo is a little more complicated, but it sets the SBE’s doomed legal strategy that will eventually entangle counties in costly federal litigation if they follow her guidance. Their plan is to neutralize the “threat” posed by NCAF’s statewide grass-roots canvassing efforts

The NCAF planning document included one trigger word that probably drove Director Bell into repetitive cheetah flips: The word is “challenges” . . . as in voter challenges.

As a result of that single word, Director Bell used Gannon as a foil to order all 100 county election Directors not to allow any challenge hearings and used a highly questionable basis in case law, a poorly written and highly partisan decision by Federal District Court Judge Loretta Biggs.

Gannon’s email directive declared that County Boards of Election (CBEs) are “forbidden” from allowing any challenges based on  “purported change in residency.” The email failed to address what a CBE should do when confronted with solid evidence that a voter is unqualified to vote lawfully under NC’s Constitution, our state law, and a recent SCOTUS majority opinion that recognized the states’ legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud.

State laws like our state’s voter residency challenges are well within the mainstream of thought over that legitimate interest, but back to the memo . . .

Extracted from NCSBE guidance email sent Tuesday, October 19, 2021 at 4:18 PM

Gannon’s somewhat legal guidance to County Directors of Elections claims that voter challenges, as specified under NCGS §163-85(c) are “forbidden,” which is an inaccurate claim that cherry picks both a federal judge’s highly partisan ruling and the same Numbered Memo (2018-07) he referenced in the email.

In part, the Numbered Memo banned challenges based on “change of residency,” while not banning challenges that were based on “individualized knowledge” of a person’s eligibility to vote.

Click image to see Numbered Memo 2018-07 in its entirety.

Strach’s legal team produced the numbered memo in response to an expansive ruling by an Obama-appointed (Burr-nominated), activist judge named Loretta Biggs.

Fun Fact: Biggs’ competency recently came into question after the Appeals Court  ruled that she had “wrongly” set aside NC’s voter ID law.

Click this graphic to read the entire Biggs decision in this case.

In killing residential voter challenges, Biggs used her magic gavel to negate state law just in time for the 2016 elections. To do so, she twisted federal law and ignored state law, to order reinstatement of over 6,000 voters who had been lawfully removed from North Carolina’s voter rolls as a result of citizen challenges.

The only rational way we could interpret Biggs’ overreaching decree was that we could no longer file challenges without stronger evidence than a letter that’s returned by the Post Office (see subsection “e” under §163-85).

We reached that conclusion because Biggs sketchy ruling made no mention of other existing state laws regarding the eligibility of somebody to vote from a particular address.

For example, NCGS §163-55 requires to “have resided in the State of North Carolina and in the precinct in which the person offers to vote for 30 days next preceding an election.” While Same-Day Registration laws destroyed the 30-day rule, voters still has to at least pretend to live at a local address!

Biggs, Strach, and now Gannon also failed to mention NCGS §163-57, which defines a voter’s precinct as their “bedroom or unusual sleeping area . . . with respect to the boundary line,” even if the line cuts through their house.

There’s also that pesky state constitution. Under Suffrage and Eligibility, the residency of voters and candidates is a big deal.

Granted, there is the Byzantine process affirmed in Husted, but either citizens still have a role in the election integrity our residency laws no longer apply.

We’re reasonably sure NCAF’s leadership knows the importance of irrefutable evidence that a voter no longer lives at their claimed voting address, so, Biggs’ “individualized inquiry” burdenseems easily met.

The bottom line is that the SBE’s guidance to reject any and all residential challenges, regardless of the evidence, can and must trigger legal action because Biggs judicial fiat simply ignored too many overriding grounds for lawful challenges.

Bottom Line:

Domestic spying and issuing bad legal advice are just two signs the SBE leadership is starting to crack.

Additional resignations, one by investigations Director Joan Fleming and one by Associate Legal Counsel Kelly Turnow, suggests a pattern may be emerging.

There’s more evidence of SBE panic. . .  but this post already has nearly a thousand words!

Stay tuned!

~ jd

Click this image to see the Rumble version of yet another VIP video removed at YouTube.