Mail-in Ballots in Pennsylvania Were Rejected for Technical Errors at a Suspiciously Low Rate in Some Key Counties

AP Photo/Julio Cortez

I have long suspected that this is the data that the Democrats wanted to keep buried long enough for some of the early lawsuits filed in Pennsylvania to burn themselves out over a lack of available evidence.  That is often a problem with “election fraud” claims — most/all the evidence needed to prove the claim rests in the hands of the state officials who you are suing.  Their refusal to provide data and evidence leads to the formation of conclusion that the allegations of fraud are untrue when the actual problem is that the state is keeping the evidence of fraud under wraps to protect the outcome.

This is some of the data that the Trump campaign asked for in the misguided suit brought two weeks ago in the Middle District of Pennsylvania against the Secretary of the Commonwealth and seven heavy Democrat Counties.  The campaign sent interrogatories asking the following four questions and seeking a Court order that the Defendants be compelled to provide answers to the questions on an expedited basis:

  1. County Defendants: How many mail-in ballots and absentee ballots were
    counted and how many were invalidated? How many secrecy ballots were
    received?
  2. County Defendants: How many mail-in and absentee ballots lacking a signature,
    lacking an inner secrecy envelope, or otherwise defective were “cured” by a
    provisional ballot after you or your agents contacted a voter to inform them of the
    defect in their ballot?
  3. Secretary: When did the Secretary of State’s office become aware that the
    County Election Board defendants were, prior to the election, engaged in
    inspection of mail-in and/or absentee ballots and communicating to voters where
    such ballots were deemed defective?
  4. Secretary: Describe how you became aware that the County Election Board
    defendants were, prior to the election, engaged in inspection of mail-in and/or
    absentee ballots and communicating to voters where such ballots were deemed
    defective and all steps you took to ensure that uniform procedures were being
    followed throughout the State.

The spreadsheet linked is on John Solomon’s website JustTheNews.  It does not state where the source data came from, and some of the numbers do not coincide with the information I’ve seen elsewhere — but I have no reason to believe one set of numbers over another.

Today, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court may have answered some of these questions, as it upheld the decision of many County Boards of Election to count mail-in ballots that had technical errors in the manner in which the voter completed the information called for on the outside of the mailing envelope. So, for example, the Trump campaign was challenging the decision of the Philadephia County Board of Elections to count 8,329 ballots with such errors, rather than reject them and not include them in the vote tally. According to Solomon’s spreadsheet, Philadelphia County rejected only 228 ballots TOTAL, while counting over 8,300 ballots with some defect.  In its ruling, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said it was acceptable for the County Boards of Election to interpret the requirements in a fashion that favored counting the votes of lawfully registered voters even if their mail-in ballots had minor deficiencies.

But these minor deficiencies are different from the failure to include the inner security sleeve, which the Supreme Court has previously ruled were required for a vote to be validly counted.

Since Philadephia County received 346,196 mailed-in ballots, and only 288 were rejected, Philadelphia County should be able to show that it has 345,968 inner sleeve security sleeves, since every valid mail-in ballot must have arrived inside an inner security sleeve.

For some reason, I suspect that Philadephia County won’t be able to do that.

Further, if I still had grand jury subpoena power, I suspect I would be able to find communications among officials of the various County Boards indicating that they agreed as a group to count all but the most egregiously defective ballots — which is how you count 8,328 and reject only 228 — and bet on the fact that the five Democrat Judges on the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would not find that the votes had to be subtracted from the vote totals.

So, what were the final numbers of mail-in ballots and rejected ballots in each of the six heaviest Biden counties?

Allegheny:  340,719 mailed-in ballots received — 54 rejected.

Bucks: 153,016  mailed-in ballots received — 0 rejected.

Chester: 138,813 mailed-in ballots received — 87 rejected.

Delaware:  111,321 mailed-in ballots received — 71 rejected.

Montgomery:  231,415 mailed-in ballots received — 0 rejected.

Philadelphia :  346,196 mailed-in ballots received — 228 rejected.

A total of 450 were rejected ballots out of about 1.3 million mailed-in ballots received in those counties.  That is a rejection rate of .0003%.

Such numbers are simply ludicrous and defy belief.