About - Election Fairness Institute

The Election Fairness Institute, Inc. [EFI] is an Internal Revenue Service [IRS] approved Sec. 501(c)(3) entity engaged in election process research and publication of such research for the public interest of advancing transparent, secure and fair elections, free of special interest influence over the suffrage of U.S. Citizens.

Currently there is no firm, legal or accountancy, that specializes in election audits —forensic audits of elections— critical to solving the lack of transparency necessary for trustworthy elections. Moreover, organization that should provide oversight have themselves been captured by an interest in the outcome. “‘Given the vital role elections play in this country, it is clear that certain systems and assets of election infrastructure meet the definition of critical infrastructure, in fact and in law,’ Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson said in a statement.”¹ Building such a firm grounded with SixSigma rigor at its foundation, provides State and County governmental units, as well as citizen’s groups with the missing component in the elections oversight space.

To comply with Internal Revenue Service regulations concerning 501(c)(3) status, we do not support nor do we advocate for any party, candidate or ballot proposal, no electioneering whatsoever. Our focus is on election process and compliance with statutes and regulations regarding election contests; the mission can be summed up with our slogan, “Let’s Be Fair.” Regardless of party affiliation, office or position, the system that appoints representation of the People’s will must indeed, compete in an ecosystem that is transparent and open to inspection of tools and processes.

Executive Summary

The Election Fairness Institute, Inc. is currently engaged in pro bono evidence-based research to match evidence with law, and validate election law all across America as it pertains to election challenges and ‘contests’ between major party candidates. The Election Fairness Institute does not provide research services to any candidate or party, which would invalidate the 501(c)(3) charter of the organization. The work product of the various content contributors to EFI is available to all who request it.

A critical project in the planning stage is to examine ‘vote-by-mail’ systems all across the United States. For perspective, vote-by-mail is a relatively new archetype for elections that arrived on the scene after the election of 2000. In a report made by a ‘bipartisan commission’, chaired by former President Jimmy Carter (Democrat) and former White House Chief of Staff James Baker (Republican), the Commission took aim at ‘vote-by-mail’ as the most effective means to corrupt elections at every level.

Elections are held at the county government level, but are certified—directed/managed/overseen—at the state level. The most significant number of votes cast in 2022 were by mail. A key feature in most states that have a ‘vote-by-mail’ system, is that they require a signature on the return envelope, which is in form and function an affidavit. The counties and courts have blocked most attempts to examine critical records to verify that all legal votes are counted and votes outside of the law are not. Votes—ballots—outside of the law are those which do not confirm to Title 16, Arizona Revised Statutes.

Under the Help America Vote Act [HAVA] Tile III, all legal U.S. Citizens have standing to redress their grievances in the Federal Courts regardless of party affiliation, but they do not have the resources to conduct research of pure fact. That is the mission of the EFI.

U.S.C. 52 § 20701 is explicit on the subject of records retention: “[E]very officer of election shall retain and preserve, for a period of twenty-two months from the date of any general, special, or primary election of which candidates for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives,” yet many political subdivisions of states like Arizona mishandle election documents. Preservation of documents has no maximum time line, only a minimum period specified by law. Inspection of original documentation has been the source of ever-increasing controversy since 2000 and the case of Bush v. Gove, 531 U.S. 98 (2000). EFI will act in the public interest to verify that the public record does indeed support the election outcome.

Action

It is the mission of EFI to support strict compliance with the law, for if anything else stands, then the Body Politic becomes a sloppy society reliant on opinion and feelings instead of the black letter of the law. There are three areas of process focus:

Strict Compliance: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals put down the notion of “substantial compliance” with the law in Halo v. Yale Health Plan, No. 14-4055 (2d Cir. 2016) Jurisprudence is replete with arguments between “strict compliance” and “substantial compliance” with the law. Ultimately, the standard is strict compliance.

Also at issue is the application of due process and “one man, one vote.”

Chain of Custody: Every ballot cast must have a demonstrable chain of custody, otherwise it is outside of the law. This affects positive identification of the in-person voter as well as the absentee voter who signs an affidavit. Without proper signature matching, the ballot cannot be included in the count, nor should it be. Safeguards to ensure transparency, security and fairness are not difficult, nor are they costly, but those who seek to pervert the system by taking advantage of process defects will make all manner of excuses.

Due Process: In the Arizona election challenges Lake v. Hobbs and Finchem v. Fontes, the question was not about the candidates, but rather about the voters themselves and the guarantee of due process.

“The Constitution states only one command twice, the requirement for due process. The genesis of due process found in the United States Constitution is as follows: the Fifth Amendment stipulates that, according to the federal government, no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states, which includes California as well as the counties and municipalities incorporated therein. Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution states in the relevant part: ‘…[N]or shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law…’ These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law (“legality”) and provide fair procedures. The U.S. Supreme Court has published many opinions on this issue and has arrived at the conclusion that due process is essentially the right of a party to be provided ‘notice’ and ‘an opportunity to be heard’ on all issues in dispute.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/18/18-7893/87866/20190215103504829_00000008.pdf

To be heard is a guarantee, not an option of the Court. The imposition of sanctions upon ELECTION CONTESTS must never be permitted, least we sink into an oppression of the minority. In the U.S. Supreme Court case Grannis v. Ordean (1914), the Court stated, “The fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard. Petitioner contends that, if she had actually been “heard,” the merits of her case would have prevailed”. 234 U.S. 385, 34 S. Ct. 779, 58 L. Ed. 1363 [234 U.S. 385]. In the contests of Lake and Finchem, based on the evidence of ballots that were “outside of the law” were commingled with legal ballots -strict compliance— of course there was a belief that they would prevail.

The work product published by EFI will focus on post mortem evaluation of contests primarily at the state and federal level, and not the politics of contests, but rather that which is unseen. Hosting the work of such authors as Capt. Seth Keshel (U.S. Army Ret.), Tom Renz, Esq, Phil Evans, and many more qualified specialist auditors, the firm will provide a body of analysis that leads to a more transparent elections system.

EFI will not charge for access to content unless such content is the result of a contract with County, State or Federal governmental units, but will solicit for contributions to make the corporation sustainable. The expert work product of contributors will be open and transparent to all.

Top 5 Priorities

Conduct research and support litigation against cartel money-laundering in American elections.

Supply-chain approach to ballot handling process design to ensure audibility and chain of custody including paper ballots with currency-grade watermark technology.

Relentless examination of “black box ballot tabulation” machines, comparative analysis between tabulation record and paper ballots, and the improbability of accuracy.

Support for Election Day Voting, Hand Count and Count Where Cast (CWC) process.

Analysis showing why Rank Choice Voting (RCV) is a threat to every voters voice at the polls.

Other Areas of Focus

Shortening the early voting window as a fraud defense mechanism.

Advocating against mass mail-in ballot distribution, advocating for a return to Absentee Opt-in mail-in ballots.

Analysis of Voter ID enhancements and the impact to voter roll clean up.

Analysis of automatic recount requirements to improve election contest challenges when raised.

Promote restoration of power back to the precincts by adopting precinct level ballot tabulation CWC.

Refer bad actors and elections law violations to Attorneys Generals and Grand Juries to act decisively on claims of election fraud, and when necessary litigate in court on behalf of the People when elected officials will not take action.

Provide skilled support to counties and county equivalents that want to do forensic audits of their election process