June 28th Primary and August 23rd Runoff Absentee Ballot Analysis

Updated with new on-the-record information!

A few interesting anomalies show up when the Absentee and Early Vote totals are compared to the Total Vote in both the Primary races this past June and the Runoff races in August. This is a simple ratio calculation that can be easily repeated using the data available from these races on the State Election Board website. Doing so leads to some eyebrow raising numbers. Numbers have been rounded up or down based on basic mathematical principles.

June 28th

Let’s begin with the June 28th Primary.

In 6 out of 15 races, the leading candidate at the end of the night had exactly 11% of their vote total in Absentee and Early Votes. In 2 others, the number would round to 11%.

In 2 of those races the losing candidate had exactly 9% of their vote total in Absentee and Early Votes. In one race the losing candidate had 8%, in 2 it was 8.5%, and in one it was exactly 10%.

In 4 races, candidates received exactly 8.5% of their vote total in Absentee and Early Votes. In 2 other races the number would round to 8.5%.

In one race, State Senator 2, three candidates received exactly 16% of their votes through Absentee and Early Votes. The other candidate in that race received over 14% of their vote in Absentee and Early Votes.

In the two District Judges races, each winning candidate has just over 13% of their total vote in Absentee and Early Votes.

The sheer repetition of the exact same numbers showing up in different races, which are supposed to be random elections, casts doubt on the presumption that these are, indeed, random elections. The exact same numbers show up whether the race has 2, 3, or 4 candidates in the field.

Next, let’s consider the race to replace Senator Jim Inhofe:

From the lowest percentage point, Tompkins, to the midpoint there are multiple consecutive 0.1% intervals. The difference between Tompkins and Garrison is almost exactly 1.0%. From Garrison to Holland is 2.0%, broken up in intervals of 0.3%, 0.4%, 0.6%. The midpoint is at exactly 9.0%. How does this uniformity in the variance of the data occur? This is impossible in a random world where the turnout is unknown ahead of time.

August 23

Now the Runoff on August 23.

In a runoff race, which historically sees a drop off in voter participation, there are a few races where candidates received MORE of their total vote from Absentee Ballots and Early Voting. In the US Senate runoff, both candidates received almost exactly the same percentage of their totals from Absentee Ballots and Early Voting as they did from the Primary race. For the Labor Commissioner race both candidates increased the percentage of their totals from Absentee and Early Voting. Ryan Walters also increased his Absentee and Early Voting by nearly 1.0%, while his opponent lost 0.5% of her total over the Primary just two months before. In the State Senate race for District 2, Jackson lost a full 1.5% from the Primary, while his opponent lost only 1.0%.

For both of these elections, there are many numbers that repeat over many races, and that requires explanation given the random nature of elections themselves. The numbers imply that all of the voters in these races voted identically in all races. That is impossible.

There is a candidate that was told by his election consultant that he could expect a total of 4500 votes to be cast by voters in his runoff race-for the entire race. There were exactly 4500 votes cast- for his opponent.

More concerns

Other concerns from these elections:

• The governor’s race in the Primary saw a drop off of 25% in total votes over 2018 in an election with far more interest on the GOP side.
• There is a judge in Mayes County that made legal decisions in a recount in a county election board meeting without a court reporter there to record testimony from sworn in witnesses including a sheriff’s deputy. There was a box of ballots that was unsealed when brought into the room for the recount, and it was ruled that there was nothing improper about that set of circumstances, which has no valid explanation, and the recount proceeded routinely. The detailed testimony is not recorded in the election board meeting minutes that were taken. This report was given to the GOP chair from the candidate who requested the recount and affirmed by an election board member who was present.
• Also in Mayes County, it was reported to OKLIG from a poll worker that their machines on June 28th were not working properly and were rebooted at 9 am. After the reboot the software version on the machine had been updated. The same worker reported that there were nine wifi connections available from a polling location in a city building that has only two wifi connections on a normal day of business. The source of six of these wifi networks is unknown. Two were official law enforcement networks.
• There were approximately 25,000 more absentee ballots sent out than returned statewide. H/T Oklahoma Liberty Watch.
• Fully 40% of the absentee and early ballot total was not reported at the beginning of the night in the first reports released to the public. The numbers reported at the end of the night for those two voting categories were fully 40% greater than the numbers in the first report just after 7pm.
• Update: Representative Sean ‘The Patriot’ Roberts has reported to OKLIG directly that he has video of his vote totals on the night of the June 28th, 2022 Primary being depleted, erased, instead of accruing as a normal aggregate process as the precinct reports came in for the Labor Commissioner Race. This is evidence of manipulation in that race. In the runoff race for Labor Commissioner, the absentee+early vote/total vote ratios are nearly identical for both candidates, though there is one less candidate in the race. Did all of those voters for the third candidate simply decide not to vote in the runoff? Are they part of some secret society where they got together and voted lockstep as a block? Of course not. So where did those absentee ballot voters go for the runoff? Did all of them, after voting absentee, show up on election day, or not show up on election day, as a block?
• The race for State Senator District 22, Jake Merrick’s race, and a judge’s race in the same area, are the only races we followed statewide that have the same absentee and early vote totals at the beginning of the night than at the end of the night. Why did these Oklahoma County precincts get their ballots all counted properly and completely for those races, but other races in other precincts were not counted until the end of the evening? Jake Merrick’s race was stopped for approximately 30 minutes on election night while other races continued to be reported. Why did this occur?
• Have our machines been certified as required by law before every election?Citizens can’t get answers to that open records request, either.
• Only partial CVR data and then zero CVR data, perfectly legal for us to have, was refused to OKLIG by all counties that have responded to our request all over the state. A new Oklahoma state law citing national security concerns regarding our already questionable machines was cited as the reason for the refusal. CISA has stated that all machines used throughout the US are vulnerable to hacking in a report from June of 2022.

These anomalies seem to mirror the ones we have found over the past several election cycles, and, along with our other analyses, warrant an investigation into our elections here in Oklahoma.

We the People are going to have to demand such an investigation. To date, any questions that we have earnestly asked of our elected and appointed officials has been met with silence, unanswered open records requests, or refusals to provide what should be publicly available information, citing national security concerns. The question for We the People is this: if ANY part of our election process is hidden from the people for ANY reason, are those elections constitutional? We have simple ways to cast and count ballots that do not require any dependence on non transparent black box machines or that call into question the validity of ballots. WHY AREN’T WE USING THEM? At this point it is clear that it is up to our elected and appointed officials to PROVE TO US that our elections are free and fair, and not the other way around, with ordinary citizens without subpoena power being put into an impossible situation and asked to supply absolute evidence of fraud that we cannot possibly legally collect on our own. No amount of data and anomalies reported to date in Oklahoma to proper authorities seems to satisfy the high probable cause standard to open a grand jury investigation into our elections, a subjective viewpoint.

Several counties across the country are voting to hand count their ballots for the November 8th general elections. We strongly urge all counties in Oklahoma, out of an abundance of caution and new information from CISA regarding the security of machines, and the admittance that Hart Intercivic machines do indeed have modems (though the machines in Oklahoma are NOT supposed to have them). Has anyone verified that they DO NOT or that any modems in our machines are NON FUNCTIONAL? We have yet to see a report released publicly where that has been confirmed for the citizens of Oklahoma despite repeated requests by citizens across the state to various officials for formal written and certified proof that the machines across the state have each been inspected since concerns have been raised from various official channels, including CISA and Congress.

It’s simple to address these questions and prove the assertions made that the elections are indeed safe, secure, free, and fair and unmanipulated. Release the requested PUBLIC information regarding our election processes, data, and machines in full to the public for inspection and analysis or conduct a grand jury investigation into our elections beginning with November 3, 2020 instead of releasing statements with no detailed reports attached for public inspection.