As I write this, the House has just returned from August recess. The Senate is not scheduled to return until September 14. The House will hold occasional meetings before then. The SAVE act remains unpassed, There will only be 50 days between the time that the full Congress reconvenes and the midterm elections. That is somewhat misleading, as both houses will adjourn for almost forty days through October and early November so members can campaign.

This means the SAVE act is unlikely to be passed by Congress this year. A likely justification would be that it would be too disruptive to pass it with the elections only days away, so it will have to wait for some future time. Despite its high popularity among the general population, it is unpopular among legislators, especially Democrats. Were any to vote for it, their base would likely vote against any vulnerable candidates in the forthcoming election.

Election officials assure us that the Act is unnecessary since our elections are more secure and trustworthy than they have ever been, and there no evidence that there has been significant fraud in any of our previous elections. The SAVE Act would address a non problem, and all the systems and checks in place should eliminate any chance of major fraud. .

But is there cause for concern? Is there really no evidence of major fraud in our prior elections? There are really only three possibilities. First, of course, is that there really has been no fraud, so there is no evidence. Second, though, is there is no evidence because there has been no significant investigation conducted--no investigations = no evidence. A third possibility is that there has indeed been significant fraud, but the evidence is difficult to find, and hard to prove in any court willing to hear it. We can take a look at each of those possibilities to see if any stand up.

We can dismiss the first possibility quickly. Across the country in recent years, there have been many elections won by fraud, often by clever manipulation of the fraud enabling features of our modern election systems. The ones we know of have been confirmed by successful investigations and legal prosecution.

That leaves the other two possibilities. Many investigators across the country have worked diligently to investigate and call attention to evidence of fraud. Many of us have found substantial evidence of actual fraud. Despite that, there are still many officials who insist there is no evidence of significant fraud. There is an old rule in science that says "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". It might be that those officials just don't want to look.

Purpose of the SAVE Act

Even when a few officials are willing to look at the evidence, it is often dismissed because the investigators cannot demonstrate they have been personally harmed, so they lack standing in court. The court of public opinion, though, is taking notice, and public support for the SAVE Act is one result. Official claims that elections are honest and secure no longer hold water.

That brings us to the final possibility that fraud is simply so difficult to prove that officials don't even bother trying. There is some justification for this. Our current system of anonymous voting coupled with on-line registration, motor voter registration, near universal absentee voting, aka voting by mail, poor checking of voter registrations, widespread internet connectivity, and several other factors all conspire to make it very difficult to determine if a ballot was cast by a legal citizen voter, or by someone not legally entitled to vote, or even by a person at all.

Once a ballot enters the system, it cannot be traced back to an individual voter, so it becomes nearly impossible to determine if it is fraudulent or not. Only by intercepting fraud attempts at the source before the ballot is accepted is there any real hope of ensuring the election is fair, honest, and trustworthy. That, after all, is the purpose of the SAVE Act.

What, though, makes our elections so untrustworthy? Are the problems minor, or are there real exploitable flaws in our systems. The Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform was released in 2005. Former President Carter took the lead in commissioning investigations into election issues that could compromise the integrity of our elections.

Blueprint for implementation of fraud supporting elections

Among many vulnerabilities identified in the report were such things as widespread absentee voting, flawed voter registration systems, lack of communication between states, widespread use of provisional ballots, inadequate systems for voter identification, poorly maintained voter rolls, use of vulnerable voting machines, lack of reliable auditing, and numerous other problems. Note that the report was issued over twenty years ago.

The Commission report appears to have been used almost as a blueprint for implementation of fraud supporting elections. A total of 37 states plus DC allow no-excuse absentee voting or conduct elections entirely by mail. The rest allow it subject to an approved excuse. This was identified as one of the most dangerous practices for elections.

A total of 42 states plus DC allow voter registration online. Some allow registration without a valid driver's license or social security number. Nearly all states allow someone to print out a form online and mail in their registration, often with only the most superficial identification. No photo ID or personal appearance necessary.

Recent reports from multiple states of large numbers of non-citizens in the active voter rolls attest to the poor maintenance of voter lists. Since those numbers are only of verified non-citizens, the real numbers are likely much higher. In most states, a voter registration can specify a mailing address to which ballots will be sent, in addition to the required registration address. Even if a driver's license is required, many states have been issuing licenses to non-citizens with little or no checking. As for social security numbers, in several tests, fewer than 25% of social security numbers submitted for checking have been returned as valid, active numbers for real citizens.

How many such ballots have been accepted and counted? We literally have no way of knowing. The numbers could range from zero to 100%

There are many active registrations in voter rolls across the country that should not be there. Registrations at unqualified addresses such as vacant lots and businesses, registrations for people who have been deported, registrations for people who have moved to different states years prior, registrations for names where there is no other evidence of their existence, registrations for people who registered years earlier but who have never voted since, and many others. Anyone who knows of these registrations can use the mailing address information to collect, complete, and return ballots that will be counted as though they were legitimate.

It is easy to get the voter roll information. Every state has provisions for obtaining copies of voter rolls for various purposes, usually for only a modest fee. The publicly available information usually omits driver's license numbers, social security numbers, and other sensitive information, but includes first and last names, birth dates, registration and mailing addresses, and everything else needed to submit a new registration, change a mailing address, or reinstate a registration that has been cancelled.

Anyone who submits such registrations knows where ballots are to be sent and can collect them and return them. Ballots returned by mail can be accepted and counted with no real ability to exclude any invalid submissions. In many states, such ballots can even be deposited in poorly monitored drop boxes so the Federal crime of using the mail is avoided. How many such ballots have been accepted and counted? We literally have no way of knowing. The numbers could range from zero to 100%.

Our elections should be above reproach

The Carter-Baker commission report goes far beyond what I am able to describe here. Our elections have been unreliable for decades, and have become less reliable in recent years. Systems have been compromised, often with the best intentions to make voting more convenient, enable voting during a pandemic, make provisions for those who don't have official identification--all with the consequence of making fraud easier to commit and harder to prove. We are now in a situation where unless drastic measures are taken, industrial scale fraud can determine the outcomes of our elections.

If congress is unwilling to act, then it will be up to the President to secure our elections. Our Constitution gives congress the ability to set requirements for elections, and even to take over the conduct of elections. Our President can issue an Executive Order declaring a National Emergency and require certain measures be taken. No court can interfere with such an Order. Congress could repeal the order with a 2/3 vote of both houses. With such a vote only days before many members would be up for reelection, it is an open question of how many would vote in favor of fraudulent elections against the expressed will of the people. We may find out.

Is there fraud in our elections? Right now, that is an open question that has no good answer. Based on my investigations I have my own opinion. Others I know differ. The mere fact, though, that such questions can be seriously raised but cannot be answered is a huge flaw. Our elections should be above reproach.

They should be so open and transparent, with solid protections in place that no question about their integrity could be raised that could not be answered to full satisfaction. It is shameful, an embarrassment, or worse, that this greatest Nation should have such untrustworthy systems.

Our nation, our Republic deserves no less. Right now, those questions remain open--a disgrace to our country. We have the knowledge and the means to ensure the integrity of the elections upon which our Nation and its system of government relies. Do we lack the will? May God help us.

David Robb——Bio and Archives

David Robb is a practicing scientist and CTO of a small firm developing new security technologies for detection of drugs and other contraband.  Dave has published extensively in TheBlueStateConservative, and occasionally in American Thinker.