‘Turn votes’ is a term that has unfortunately become too familiar in recent years. In the 2020 presidential election, Antrim County, MI, infamously flipped votes to award the county to Joe Biden. It was caught and the follow-up count “flipped” the county back to President Trump. However, three more counts took place and in the end all five counts all had different results (the last two counts were different in the battle for the US Senate).
In 2022, there was the infamous DeKalb County “flip,” where a Democratic County Commission went from worst to first place after seeing “0” votes for her in the district in which she voted for herself. This flip looked eerily similar to Antrim County and used the same voting machine manufacturer.
Another “flip” occurred in 2022. This issue occurred in Cherokee County, KS, where they use ES&S DS200 and ExpressVote machines with KnowInk polling pads, according to Verified Voting. During this primary there was a County Commission race happy the race in one province was pulled for an audit. Otherwise the wrong winner would have been certified.
And now, 2023:
Tuesday’s election in Northampton County, Pennsylvania, ran into trouble for the second time in four years. According to ABC News, the county had a formatting problem in 2019 that required the use of paper ballots.
This time, the ES&S ExpressVoteXL flipped the votes on a PA Superior Court retention question before two judges: Judge Jack Panella and Victor P. Stabile. According to an election judge in one of the counties, the third retention race for Judge Jennifer R. Sletvold was not affected by the “glitch.” If a voter voted all three “yes” or all three “no,” the printed ballot accurately reflected what was on the selection screen. However, if a voter were to vote “yes” and “no” in either combination for the two judges, they would be reversed on the ballot when it was printed.
The problem was originally reported by ABC27 as a “coding error.” However, the Vice President of Customer Operations for ES&S reported it as a “human error based on someone from our team who programmed the election and they made a mistake by placing the printed text on the card compared to the voting screen.”
VP of Customer Operations of a voting machine company that ‘flipped’ votes says: “It was human error, someone on our team programmed the election”
Thanks to an X Space hosted by Jeannette Garcia of the AZ People’s Alliance and Michigan attorney Stefanie Lambert, we got some insight from a local election judge (the lead investigator) in Northampton. Through Lambert she joined the conversation to tell her story and field questions.
She started by saying that the problem persisted all day. Throughout the day, different opinions were given to pollsters from three different judges. The advisories were sent via provincially distributed mobile phones located in each district. The precinct where this woman worked had begun distributing provisional/emergency ballots to voters, despite not having the secrecy envelopes for each of them.
“If you watch our district administrators’ press conferences, they have such a calming and calming effect. But that is not actually the reality that was happening at the polling stations,” she said. “It was completely the opposite.”
At approximately 8:04 a.m., the first advisory text message was sent to provincial telephones by the Deputy Director of the Administration and Public Information Department (all subsequent text messages are from the same person):
“There is a problem with the statewide judicial retention races being recorded on the paper ballot. Do not use machinesuse emergency voting and then provisional voting until further notice.”
This would become a problem for poll workers’ precincts as emergency and provisional ballots were already starting to run out.
Luckily she texted at 9:12 am:
“Return to using machines. Inform voters that their votes to retain the Supreme Court are questionable will appear inverted but is counted correctly.“
At 11:14 a.m., a text message was sent that read:
“Judge Abraham P. Kassis has ordered that you must instruct voters before the voter enters the polling booth that there is a problem with the registration of their vote for the candidates for retention in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, for which the paper receipt records their selection lien in the Pennsylvania Superior Court one candidate to another candidate.“
That message is incredibly difficult to fully understand.
At 12:10, another text read:
“Based on a suggestion from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, we advise you to make it clear that voters must vote how they want to appear on screen.”
At 4:40 p.m., an order from Judge Murray (presumably Judge Samuel P. Murray) was issued:
“Under Judge Murray’s order, poll workers are instructed to advise voters of the following:
‘Voters are advised to do so check the paper receipts to ensure they accurately reflect the intended vote. If this is not the case, the voter should seek the help of a poll worker. In such cases, in areas with one voting machine, the voter will immediately be presented with an emergency paper ballot at the polling location and their electronic vote will be cancelled.
In areas with multiple voting machines, the voter is offered to vote on another machine and their original vote is cancelled.
If a problem arises, the voter will be immediately presented with an emergency paper ballot on the spot and any electronic voting will be canceled.
Another order was shipped at 6:29 PM:
“By order of Judge Koury (presumably Judge Michael J. Koury), it is required to say the following to every voter under penalty of contempt:
“For the retention election for the court of common pleas, you will need to check your paper ballot to make sure it matches your vote on the machine. If not, ask for help.’
Follow the advance instructions on how to provide a paper ballot [sic] they need help in common pleas court.
So to summarize:
- Survey workers were first told not to use machines (8:04 a.m.)
- Then use machines, but their vote will appear “in reverse order, but counted correctly” (counted correctly from the screen or the paper ballot?)
- Judge Kassis’ order states “that the paper receipt will record their selection” (11:14)
- But at 12.10pm the State Department advised that “voters should vote as they intended on screen.” (12:10)
- In another vein, Judge Murray’s Order states: “Voters are advised to do so check the paper receipt to be sure accurately reflects their intended voice.” (4:40 p.m.)
- It has not been reported that the latest order before the Court of Common Pleas was affected by this “human error.”
Assuming that the resolution to the crisis improved during the day, the initial advice given at 11.14am “that the paper receipt will record their selection” varied from the subsequent advice issued an hour later which ranged from order that came out four hours after the last one.
- Which advice was correct and how many voters were robbed by incorrect advice?
- How many voters were turned away because the precincts no longer had emergency/provisional ballots? Why didn’t the districts have secrecy envelopes?
- How can this debacle ever be verified as accurate and yet audited in post-election audits?
- How did this “human error” get past ballot quality checks during Safe Harbor?
- How did this error pass the “Logic and Accuracy” tests?
- Why are the elections programmed by a private company, apparently not thoroughly monitored by county and state officials, and then voted through that same company’s black box voting machines?
As if getting conflicting advice from officials about “flipping” votes wasn’t bad enough, it gets worse:
Voters are already reluctant to use black box machines that are so intensely monitored that if you investigate them, even with permission from local election officials, you will be sued and face hundreds of thousands in legal fees.
And now voters are being asked to vote on a machine that prints a ballot that reads a bar code, according to Director of Administration Charles Dertinger. Because people cannot read barcodes, they not only trust that the barcode will reflect their intended voice, but they trust that the barcode contains the vote they cast on the machine which is opposite to the mark on the paper the barcode is printed on.
If you had to think about that last sentence a few times, don’t worry, I did too.