PIME Analyst Report

by Louis Avallone

April 9, 2022

–Names and personal information redacted

Why Am I Involved?

I think my motivation is similar most others in attendance.

I am a ‘former’ automotive (engine) control system engineer.

I am unable to watch network news for fear that my eye-rolling will latch and become a permanent condition.

I will ‘stop’ when I am comfortable that emphasis on truth and rule of law are restored as normal behavior.

It might be a while…

Recent Areas of Focus

My efforts of late are primarily:

Citizen canvass related state-wide QVF analysis 

Scrutiny of election manuals; identification of errors / conflict with statute text

Review of statutes and proposed legislation to identify flaws and suggest corrections

Canvass Related QVF Analysis

My piece is a very small piece of the overall efforts and findings.

I learned cursory ‘linux’ command line and script processing tools to identify and analyze ‘patterns’ and ‘errors’ in current and historical QVF datasets – at times comparing and processing tens of millions of records.

In past work assignments I interacted with others that were much more skilled with tools to do similar text and data analysis with other tools/ languages (i.e., perl, python…). I now wish I had spent a little more time paying attention to their ‘trade.’

Similar strategies seem to be used by other organized election integrity organizations (i.“e., PILF, Public Interest Legal Foundation).

Example #1

The first ‘easy’ step was identification of duplicate ballots clearly documented in the QVF (i.e., clerical errors, or possible felonies– but no indication of who actually cast the ‘extra’ ballots).

If you take the (unsorted) raw FOIA QVF voter history file, and sort it by voter ID number and election date, you will find duplicate ballot cast in “the official record.”

(Y=Absentee Ballot, N=In-person ballot)

Example #2

The next step was to identify voters issued duplicate voter ID numbers – same address / birth year / first name / last name.

So many identical attributes is indicative of a nearly 100% certainty that a unique voter has been issued duplicate voter IDs.

NOTE – chart contains publicly available records with redaction to avoid ‘random’ personal information
disclosure beyond that which is necessary to demonstrate the presence of duplicate voter ID numbers.

Example #3

Current analysis includes identification of voters issued duplicate voter ID numbers – same address, but with clerical entry errors or unrecognized variations in birth year / first name / last name

These are ‘mostly’ certain instances where a voter has been issued duplicate voter IDs. Some may be instances of two different people (i.e., twins or father/son with birth year errors…), but most are worthy of reporting to clerks for verification and resolution.

NOTE – chart contains publicly available records with redaction to avoid ‘random’ personal information
disclosure beyond that which is necessary to demonstrate the presence of duplicate voter ID numbers.

Example #4

Also identifying less obvious duplicate voter ID numbers – different current address, but common address in the past, and with the different variations previously described.These are ‘mostly’ certain instances where a voter has been issued duplicate voter IDs, especially when the other identifying criteria are identical.

NOTE – chart contains publicly available records with redaction to avoid ‘random’ personal information
disclosure beyond that which is necessary to demonstrate the presence of duplicate voter ID numbers.

Example Summary

In some (but relatively few) cases, the QVF documents ballots cast for each of the duplicate assigned voter IDs (i.e., possible felony).

NOTE – chart contains publicly available records with redaction to avoid ‘random’ personal information
disclosure beyond that which is necessary to demonstrate the presence of duplicate voter ID numbers.

At this point, it seems likely 10-30 thousand duplicate voter ID number assignments exist in the QVF. Roughly 1-2 hundred of these duplicate voter ID pairs are credited with ballots cast at the same election.

These estimates are independent of and additive to other ‘anomalies’ identified through traditional canvassing. Duplicate voter IDs put voters (or others) at risk of ‘unlawfully’ (unintentionally or otherwise) submitting multiple AV applications / ballots, especially following unsolicited mass mailings.

QVF ‘Errors’ (1)

Starting in late 2019 or early 2020, voting history records started being suppressed in QVF FOIA data. The ‘error’ seems to have been mostly corrected, but I do not remember a public disclosure

QVF ‘Errors’ (2)

I have sent (email) notice to the secretary of state and state BOE director informing them of:

–The ‘unlawfully’ deleted voting history records (which have since been recognized as ‘restored’ in early 2021).

–Evidence in the QVF of felony double-voting, some of which appeared after the ‘unlawfully’ deleted records ‘reappeared.’

No response yet; starting to inform local clerks of the errors. Will soon send notice to the secretary of state and BOE director of another (much smaller) persistent error whereby voting history records are still being unlawfully deleted – when a person is issued a new voter ID during a normal ‘transaction,’ instead of simply updating the existing info.

Scrutiny of Election Manuals

‘Apparent’ election manual discrepancies/conflicts with statute text

AV application signatures are allowed to verify return envelope signatures; all statutes mandate QVF as the signature source

mproper acceptance of absentee ballots with missing or incorrect stubs; but (proper) rejection of similar in-person ballots

Overlooked / Ignored requirements for precincts subject to receiving boards canvassing – equal numbers of partisan election inspectors are required. Note – receiving board canvasses have been required since 2012.

More to come in future reports…

Other Concerns

Budding research / investigation

ERIC’s inability to recognize/report duplicate voter ID numbers even with access to all ‘protected’ QVF data available to clerks.

Statutes seem to prohibit election officials from copying / disclosing the ‘protected’ data provided to ERIC.

Use of ‘targeted’ voter registration information from ERIC seems to violate statute. Clerks are allowed to initiate canvassing to ‘clean’ rolls and to register new voters, but only “in a uniform manner to the entire township or city.”  

More to come in future reports…

Published by pureintegrityformichiganelections

Dedicated to restoring election integrity in Michigan.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: