"That's Not Signature Verification, Your Honor"

The Verdict Is In, and Judge Thompson Disagrees

Badlands Media will always put out our content for free, but you can support us by becoming a paid subscriber to this newsletter. Help our collective of citizen journalists take back the narrative from the MSM. We are the news now.

---

The November 8, 2022 gubernatorial contest between Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs and Arizona journalist Kari Lake was decided by 17,117 votes. Out of 2.59 million votes, that means the margin of victory in the contest was just 0.67 percent.

The establishment expected Americans to believe the legitimacy of this narrow margin even though the entire world watched Maricopa County disenfranchise election day voters. 

Arizonans waited hours in line to vote, only to discover that they couldn’t cast their ballots due to technology issues. They were assured that if they’d just slide their ballots into “Drawer Three,” they’d totally be counted. 

And that’s how the female Biden of Arizona allegedly became governor.

Once again, Americans watched the “victory” of an unlikable moron that refused to debate, didn’t campaign, and repeatedly insulted critical demographics, such as Latinos who comprise ~30% of the population and nearly 25% of the electorate.  

This was painful.

A Whole-of-Government Coverup 

The Arizona government investigated itself in the wake of the election disaster, and their report reveals that, “Runbeck and County technical workers traveled to approximately 70 vote centers — roughly 50% — to troubleshoot the reports of problems with the [Ballot on Demand] BOD printers.”

This statement was released on January 6, 2023, two weeks after the close of the trial. The report of findings was released in April. 

Despite months of denial from the county about 19- vs. 20-inch ballots, their own report confirmed that there was a change made prior to the election that the ballot image was, “increased in length from 19 inches to 20 inches to accommodate the number of contests.” 

While this may seem insignificant to those not paying attention, the change of this image size is the root cause of widespread tabulator issues on midterm election day — and the county was prepared for those issues as they had the whole “drawer three” solution ready to go. 

In their report, the county maintains that they don’t know how the change was made, so they cannot conclude whether or not it was intentional sabotage. 

Is it a coincidence these admissions came out four months after the original trial? 

Let’s do a quick recap of how we got to this point.

In the first trial of Lake v Hobbs et al, Maricopa County Elections Director Scott Jarrett perjured himself on the stand when, on day one, he testified that he did not hear of any reports of a 19-inch ballot image being placed on a 20-inch ballot paper. 

“He claimed to have ‘no knowledge’ of this occurring and stated, ‘I don’t believe that that occurred.’ He then changed his testimony the next day to state that he learned of a fit-to-paper issue ‘a few days after Election Day’ that printed ‘a slightly smaller image of a 20-inch image on a 20-inch paper ballot.’” — Jordan Condradson, The Gateway Pundit

Jarrett was never held accountable for lying under oath, on the stand, in one of the most pivotal trials in American history. Let’s be honest, he will probably get promoted. 

The original civil case brought seven counts against Katie Hobbs personally as contestee, Adrian Fontes in his official capacity as Secretary of State, and Stephen Richer in his official capacity as Maricopa County Recorder. 

The trial court’s ruling in favor of Hobbs was upheld by the appellate court, and the Arizona Supreme Court upheld all rulings except for Count III, which challenged whether Maricopa County had followed the law with regards to signature verification.

They returned Count III to the trial court to be heard. This count was originally dismissed, so no evidence was presented in the original trial. 

Count III Hits the Bench

The revival of Count III by the AZ Supreme Court put Lake back in front of Judge Thompson, and we covered every second of the saga on Badlands Media. 

During the scheduling hearing on May 8, 2023, the Plaintiffs focused most of their efforts on convincing Judge Peter Thompson to reopen Count II in light of new evidence.

Count II dealt with the tabulator issues discussed above, and Plaintiffs attempted to have the court consider new evidence of a secret logic and accuracy test completed by Maricopa County officials, in violation of Arizona law. They claimed the secret test resulted in the exact issues that occurred on election day, and that Maricopa County used the machines anyway – proving, they claimed, intent to sabotage the election. The county also hid this evidence from the court — and the people of Arizona.

The judge ultimately declined to revive Count II, and Count III was heard May 17-19, 2023.

---

---

The only matter under consideration in this trial was whether or not signature verification took place according to the Arizona statute.

Publicly, Lake and Hobbs put out very different definitions of what Lake had to prove. 

Team Hobbs claimed Lake’s burden was that NO signature verification took place during the November 8, 2022 midterms, and that Lake’s own witnesses demonstrated that they verified signatures with great precision. 

Team Lake defined the burden such that signature verification according to the statute did not take place for a sufficient enough number of ballot packets to have changed the outcome of the election. 

The Supreme Court ruling stated: 

“IT IS FURTHER ORDERED remanding to the trial court to determine whether the claim that Maricopa County failed to comply with A.R.S. § 16-550(A) fails to state a claim pursuant to Ariz. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for reasons other than laches, or, whether Petitioner can prove her claim as alleged pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 and establish that ‘votes [were] affected ‘in sufficient numbers to alter the outcome of the election’ based on a ‘competent mathematical basis to conclude that the outcome would plausibly have been different, not simply an untethered assertion of uncertainty.’” 

The day before the trial began, the Judge issued a Minute Entry that appeared to narrow the direction of the AZ Supreme Court and that, candidly, aligned to Hobbs’ interpretation of Lake’s burden:

“Read broadly, as the Court must, this states a claim that no signature verification was conducted as to level 1 in addition to allegations that level 2 and 3 verifications did not occur. The Court also recognizes the contradiction between this new theory and the other allegations in Count III of Plaintiff’s Complaint; specifically, that her own affiants declare that they conducted signature review at level 1. The Court will give such affidavits and the evidence presented at Trial the weight that each is due. Plaintiff is further bound by her concession that she ‘brings a Reyes claim, not a McEwen claim. She challenges Maricopa’s failure to act, not its action on any particular ballot.”

Did Kari Lake Make Her Case? 

Late last night, Judge Thompson’s ruling came down dismissing Lake’s claim’s, ruling that she did not meet her burden. As expected, Judge Thompson aligned to the Defendant’s interpretation of the standard.

Plaintiff’s evidence and arguments do not clear the bar. Plaintiff’s strategy shifted shortly thereafter to attempting to prove that time per signature verification per signature is deficient. Plaintiff argues that 274,000 signatures (or so) were compared in less than two seconds. Plaintiff then zeroes in on 70,000 – the number of ballots that she claims were given less than one second of comparison. Plaintiff argues that this is so deficient for signature comparison that it amounts to no process at all. Accepting that argument would require the Court to re-write not only the EPM but Arizona law to insert a minimum time for signature verification and specify the variables to be considered in the process.

Judge Peter Thompson, Minute Entry on May 22, 2023

What did the evidence show?

The judge has ruled, and Kari Lake is expected to appeal the ruling.

But is the judge right? Did they fail to clear the bar? Let’s look at the evidence.

During the trial, Team Lake demonstrated that, for at least 70,839 and possibly 274,319 ballot packets, Level 1 signature verification — as defined in the the law — did not take place. 

Signature verification at Level 1, according to the Arizona statute, means that a human reviews the signature on the ballot packet envelope and compares it against at least one exemplar signature in the county database.  

“... on receipt of the envelope containing the early ballot and the ballot affidavit, the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections shall compare the signatures thereon with the signature of the elector on the elector's registration record.”

A.R.S. § 16-550. Receipt of voter's ballot; cure period

“Shall compare” is important and, during the trial, Lake’s attorneys hammered the point home that the statute requires a comparison – it’s not “signature verification” to approve signatures without comparing them first to at least one exemplar. Defendants’ own witness testified to this as well.

The court first heard whistleblower testimony from two election workers at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC), who testified to the rigor of the county’s training and adherence to the process. These whistleblowers testified that they took great care to verify signatures according to the law, and they meticulously explained the process they followed based on the county’s training and documentation.

They further testified that Level 2 reviewers were overwhelmed and that “exceptioned signatures” – the new term the county is using to avoid saying “rejected signatures” – were repeatedly sent back down to Level 1. This is not a part of the process in which the workers were trained, and it created confusion among signature verifiers at MCTEC.

The whistleblowers also testified that they planned to work all weekend long, but when they showed up, hundreds of thousands of signatures were suddenly approved overnight – when those working signature verification had been sent home. 

That last bit gives me major Georgia-Suitcases-of-Ballots vibes. 

Also, Detroit at 3am.

Next, plaintiff’s expert witness in handwriting and signature verification Erich Speckin testified that the county’s own data shows “human” review that — in his opinion as a handwriting expert that has testified as such in 413 cases — were processed at rates that would be impossible for a human following the lawful process: 

• 731,835 instances of signature comparison in less than or equal to 5 seconds 

• 615,425 instances of signature comparison in less than or equal to 4 seconds 

• 465,259 instances of signature comparison in less than or equal to 3 seconds 

• 274,319 instances of signature comparison in less than or equal to 2 seconds 

• 70,839 instances of signature comparison in less than or equal to 1 second 

Additionally, according to the county's own data, Speckin testified that there is a correlation between faster speed and higher approval rates. He shared the example of User 79, who reviewed 54,298 signatures with a 98.9% approval rate. Within that total, 45,217 were compared in less than six seconds with a 99.91% approval; 37,524 signatures in less than four seconds with a 99.97% approval. User 79 compared 27,196 in less than three seconds and approved 100% of them. 

The faster User 79 reviewed, the higher the approval rate.

Seems legit. 

Finally, Speckin testified that more than 45,000 signatures were approved through a batch upload — which forced Maricopa County Director of Elections (Mail-in Voting & Election Services) Rey Valenzuela to correct his prior testimony that batch files weren’t used in Maricopa’s signature verification.

Note that if machines were conducting signature verification, then signature verification according to the Arizona law and statutes did not take place.

On cross, the defense attorneys attacked Speckin’s credentials, but didn’t present any evidence or witnesses to dispute his testimony.

“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”

~Socrates

This appeared to be a powerful moment in the trial for the plaintiffs.

That said, it’s important to note that, throughout trial, Judge Thompson forbade the plaintiffs from speaking about the specifics of the process — at all — while indulging the defense to celebrate the process with religious fervor. It was stunning in its asymmetry. It never made sense to me that plaintiffs were expected to prove that the process was not followed but were not allowed to talk about the process.

Rey Valenzuela was the defendants' star (and only) witness, but he was first called by the plaintiffs, and he performed worse on the stand than Scott Jarrett. That’s a pretty high hurdle, and Rey cleared it with ease. 

During his testimony on the first day, Rey testified that it was not at all uncommon to approve ballots in two to four seconds.

This testimony conflicted with Plaintiff whistleblowers’ testimony citing the training, which Rey dismissed by saying (1) the documented process as suggestive but not required, and (2) the whistleblowers just didn’t understand how signature verification was supposed to work — begging questions about the veracity of his training and, frankly, why he employed them if they were so unqualified.

In one of his more revealing moments, Rey affirmed that signatures were approved at two other locations without observers present, declaring indignantly that he wasn’t going to have someone standing over his shoulder while he approved signatures, alone, in the Clerk and Recorder’s office. 

Upon Plaintiffs resting their case, defendants immediately motioned for a summary judgment, or “Directed Verdict,” without bringing a defense. After an impassioned back and forth, the judge declined their motion. At the time, legal pundits speculated that Judge Thompson was trying to appear fair despite narrowing the standard as previously discussed.

It was a theme during the trial that the defense seemed unprepared to defend against Lake’s claims. In my opinion, they never thought they'd have to and, in light of the ruling, it appears that is correct.

After the judge denied the motion, the defense called their only witness, Rey Valenzuela, who had just been thoroughly discredited as a fact witness, but was now testifying as an expert witness.

Rey Valenzuela has worked in Maricopa County elections for over 30 years, verified signatures for more than 20, and helped design this process. He contradicted himself so many times on the stand during those three days — as the county’s expert — that Americans should have zero confidence that signature verification, as defined in the law, is taking place.

It’s not. It’s a farce. 

Where Do We Go, Now?

Kari Lake is expected to make an announcement today about what comes next in her fight:

This decision is expected, but still rough. At the end of the three-day trial – after covering every moment, reviewing all the pre-trial arguments and trial exhibits, and listening to countless pundits and legal analysts give their takes – I believe Judge Thompson’s decision is wrong.

The law should matter. Following the statute should matter.

“This election should be set aside … Your Honor, the election was unlawful…16-550 was not complied with. Defendants don’t dispute our expert. They don’t dispute the evidence.” — Kurt Olsen, Attorney for Kari Lake

The defendants didn’t present any evidence to dispute Lake’s allegations or the evidence that supports those allegations. Their only witness contradicted himself and even claimed at one point, without any supporting evidence, that he personally had reviewed “millions” of signatures. When pressed, he walked that statement back. 

There is no credibility. There is only narrative. There are only lies.

This ruling upholds the election establishment’s position that the presence of a signature on a ballot packet is enough for approval, and that rubber stamping tens of thousands of ballots in under one second is completely acceptable “signature verification” under the law. 

It’s not. 

Signature verification is the single control for mail-in ballots, and signature verification according to the statute — according to the law — did not take place.

Do you have eyes to see?

While this outcome is both expected and disappointing, take heart that the awakening is now unstoppable.

According to Rasmussen polling in April, 62% of Americans have lost trust in US elections, a number that has steadily increased since November 2020. 

During the trial, the defendants repeatedly decried that the public was watching the evidence presented. They really didn’t want The People to see Valenzuela describe and defend the process. 

They don’t want The People to see the process at all.

But they did. For the first time, millions of Americans witnessed the electoral negligence of mail-in balloting. 

Again, signature verification is the single control for mail-in ballots.

If signatures aren’t being compared as per the statute, then there are ZERO controls to ensure only lawful ballots are being cast in our elections. Americans were “sold” mail-in balloting with the promise that robust signature verification protocols are in place to prevent fraud. 

Not only did Arizona’s largest county’s Election Director diminish the importance of signature comparison during his testimony, but Valenzuela attempted to gaslight Americans into believing that you can conduct a meaningful comparison of signatures – to prevent fraud and protect the electoral franchise – in less than one or two seconds. 

In other words, this trial proved the promise of signature verification to be false.

As a result, many more Americans are now awake.

Badlands Media articles and features represent the opinions of the contributing authors and do not necessarily represent the views of Badlands Media itself.

---

Ashe in America hosts Culture of Change on Badlands Media, Sundays at 6PM ET. If you enjoyed this contribution to Badlands Media, please consider checking out more of her work for free at Ashe in America.