San Diego Primary Contest 2016

Citizens Oversight (2017-02-02) Ray Lutz

This Page: https://copswiki.org/Common/SanDiegoPrimaryContest2016
Remote Link: https://www.facebook.com/citizensoversight/videos/1265980750163273%20type%3d%22html%22
More Info: Ballot Access Lawsuit

This web page is the repository for documents and information regarding the petition to CONTEST the 2016 Primary regarding the presidential race in San Diego County. Our goal in this project is to look for criminal election fraud which may unravel the entire election process and reset it to start over.

Latest Update

• CPRA request was denied by Registrar. Ballot Access Lawsuit filed, answered with demurrer, claiming that the law is clear that as the ballots are sealed, they cannot be inspected using the mechanism of the CPRA request. Under appeal so that the discrepancy in the law can be reviewed.
• Affidavit of Contest has been Amended and filed, with proper service performed.
• Second Amended Affidavit of Contest resolves some of the complaints of County, but still they refuse to do anything.
• Finally got a good plan to submit format discovery request "Request for Production" and if they don't cooperate, then the court can compel them to comply and pay sanctions for requiring the motion to be submitted.

Video Updates

• Facebook Live video presentation of the situation here in San Diego on Feb 3, 2017
• Facebook Live Video update on Dec 15, 2017

Attempt to access ballots using CPRA mechanism:

The California Public Records Act (CPRA, Cal 6250 et al) embraces the concept that the documents created and used by the government are owned by the public, and therefore should be accessible by the public. The CPRA law was passed in the 1960s and it was later supported by the California Constitutional amendment in 2004 which states that if any laws existed in the past, they should be interpreted to allow maximal access to the public. The problem is that the election code is very old indeed, with much of it dating back to the 1800s and is structured around the "the public has no right to the ballots" concept. So we believe the election code is out of date. At this stage, the County will not allow us to access the ballots using only the CPRA act as a basis for access.

• Email to Michael Vu requesting access to ballots -- Request for recount of certain ballots in 2016 Primary, access to manual tally sheets and other records.pdf
• 2017-02-07 -- Vu's initial response to the email.
• 2017-02-17 -- 2nd Email To Vu requesting access to ballots in primary
• 2017-03-07 -- Vu's Response to 2nd email requesting ballots in primary
• 2017-02-03 Press Release -- Bernie vs. Hillary Recount in San Diego -- This press release was circulated among supporters only and we have not yet opened this up to the press in a concerted manner.
• See more about this case here: Ballot Access Lawsuit
  • This lawsuit was stopped with demurrer action due to statute that says ballots must be sealed and no one can inspect them, even though they must be kept for 22 months.
  • As of October, 2017, appealed to request whether the CPRA act dominates and allows access of ballots despite being sealed.

Continuation of CONTEST action

So, because the CPRA tactic did not work, we turned back to the CONTEST action, which should allow access of the ballots.

The Second Amended Affidavit of Contest is the best document to read to understand the logic of the action:

If the document does not display above, click here

• 20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - brief portion_20180412.pdf: San Diego County response to RFP set 1 (brief portion)
• 20180409 - County response to RFP 1 - Item 1_20180412.pdf: San Diego County response to RFP set 1 (Item 1)
• 2018-04-12 Motion for order to compel for discovery (with exhibits).pdf: Motion to Compel Production for RFP set 1, Item 2 (complete with exhibits)

Filings related to the case

Date	Description	Filed by ( * if rejected)	Document as filed
2016-07-11	Contest2016-Lutz-001-Affidavit of Contest	William Simpich (Attorney)	PDF
2017-10-26	Contest2016-Lutz-002-Substitution of Attorney to Pro Per	Lutz (resubmitted & accepted)	PDF
2017-10-26	Contest2016-Lutz-003-First Amended Affidavit	Lutz (resubmitted & accepted)	PDF
2017-10-26	Contest2016-Lutz-002-POS-Subst of Attorney & First Amended Affidavit	Lutz (resubmitted & accepted)	PDF
2017-11-02	Contest2016-COSD-001-Answer to First Amended Affidavit	County of San Diego	PDF
2017-11-09	Contest2016-Lutz-004-Reply to Answer, to resolve Affidavit deficiencies	Lutz*	PDF
2017-11-30	Contest2016-COSD-002-Objection to Related Case	County of San Diego	PDF
2017-12-05	Contest2016-Lutz-005-Notice of Related Case	Lutz*	PDF (combined)
2017-12-05	Contest2016-Lutz-006-Motions on standing, venue, unsealing, to strike.	Lutz* ($60 Check)	Rejected and not resubmitted
2017-12-05	Contest2016-Lutz-007-Stip and Order to reassign	Lutz* ($20 Check)	Not Accepted.
2017-12-05	Contest2016-Lutz-005-POS for Dec 5 filings	Lutz*	see above
2017-12-14	Contest2016-Lutz-008-Notice of Ex parte, Dec 18, 1:30pm	Lutz	PDF
2017-12-14	Contest2016-Lutz-008-POS for Notice of Ex parte, Dec 18, 1:30pm	Lutz	PDF
2017-12-18	Ex parte hearing	Lutz	No progress
2017-12-27	Contest2016-Lutz-009-Second Amended Affidavit	Lutz	PDF
2018-03-07	Request for Production, Set 1 - formal discovery request	(not filed, just served)	PDF
2018-04-09	County Response to RFP set 1	(received on 4/11/2018)	PDF
2018-04-12	Motion to Compel RFP set 1, Item 2	Filed 4/12/2018 ($72)	PDF
2018-05-04	Ex Parte Application - Other and supporting Documents; 05-07 re Contest_Lutz	Filed 5/04/2018 ($72)	PDF
2018-05-07	Ex Parte Hearing -- Judge denied request for expedited motion date.
2018-05-09	Ntce of Mtn Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings Memo Ps As ISO Mtn for Jdgmnt on the Pleadings	County	PDF PDF
2018-05-18	OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DISMISSAL OF SECOND AMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF CONTESTANT	Filed 5/18/2018	PDF
2018-06-03	Reply Memorandum of Points and Authorities in response to Contestant's Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings and Dismissal of Second Amended Affidavit of Contest	County	PDF
2018-06-04	Objection to new points Raised in Reply Memorandum	Lutz	PDF

Summary of articles submitted (Add | All):

• (CitizensOversightStatusUpdate2019) 2020-04-13 Citizens Oversight Status Update 2019 -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (CitizensOversightStatusUpdate2018) 2019-02-09 Citizens Oversight Status Update 2018 -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1868) 2018-08-01 Election Audit Fraud Supreme Court Petition - Conf / Livestream -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1860) 2018-06-22 Formal Complaint Submitted to CA Secy of State to Investigate Malconduct by Michael Vu, San Diego County Registrar of Voters -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1843) 2018-06-07 Court Hearing on 2016 Primary Contest - Motion to dismiss by County -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1850) 2018-06-02 2018-06-02 Election Team Orientation -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1840) 2018-05-07 Letter to Michael Vu regarding 2018 election season and oversight -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1835) 2018-03-20 Ray Lutz appears on Real Progressives Roundtable -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight,
• (M1830) 2018-03-07 Election Integrity Update -- Ray Lutz on Facebook live -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight, Includes updates on Election Audit Lawsuit, San Diego Primary Contest 2016, Ballot Access Lawsuit
• (M1806) 2017-12-18 Ex Parte Meeting on Contest -- Ray Lutz, Citizens Oversight, San Diego Primary Contest 2016
• (M1847) 2017-10-16 AB-840 Elections: vote by mail and provisional ballots.(2017-2018) -- Assemblymember Bill Quirk, California Legislature, AB-840 (Passed)
• (M1658) 2016-06-16 Lutz vs. Vu -- Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief -- Ray Lutz, Alan Geraci, Citizens Oversight, 37-2016-00020273-CL-MC-CTL All legal documents related to the case.

Other Issues

One observer notes:

Ray, I'm the one who mentioned that Robert (Robert A. Pennisi, Chief Deputy Voter Services) made a point of limiting the number of signature challenges on the VBM ballots as the clerks were processing them. Some of our volunteers had noticed signatures that VERY CLEARLY were not matches to the signatures on the voter reg cards. When Robert noticed the commotion, he came running over saying, "that's not what we're doing here," and then told the clerks that they could have no more than a certain number of signature challenges (10 per batch?). He then turned to us and said that he doesn't want to reject the ballots and that he had the final say on which ballots were going to go through, and that most of them (VBMs) were going to be accepted as valid by him. He also said that many people had voted twice (VBM and provisional), but that only the VBM ballots would be counted. He also said that they could pursue legal action against those who voted twice, but probably wouldn't push it (implying that he was being nice).

He told me on at least two separate occasions that he was the final arbiter and that most of these signature challenges would not prevent the ballot from being counted. I also overheard some people talking about inactive voters, but did not hear all the details of the conversation.

I heard that some volunteers noticed ballots that ONLY had HRC's bubble marked, and no other votes on the ballots (please confirm).

I've mentioned this before, but I strongly believe that they were retaining ballots from inactive voters (possibly others, too), and then using them to vote for HRC, assuming that most of these voters wouldn't follow up or vote. When these voters showed up at the polls claiming that they never received their ballots in the mail, they would be handed a provisional ballot that would not be counted since the VBM ballots are the only ones counted if someone voted twice (VBM and provisional).

I believe the codes for these types of situations were categorized as "300s" (per my notes). Perhaps there is a way to see if there were an unusual number of ballots coded this way?

What we do know is that there were an unusually high number of people who did not receive their ballots in the mail -- they were forced to vote on provisional ballots at their polling locations. We also know that there were an unusually high number (unprecedented, I believe) of provisional ballots used in the primary election.

IMHO, they were retaining these VBM ballots and using them to vote for HRC. When the voters showed up at the polls, they were given provisional ballots that were never counted.

We should try to find out:

1. Were there an unusually high number of people who voted twice (code 300)?
2. Were there an unusually high number of VBM ballots that were never received in the mail by the voters (anecdotal evidence, recorded on video at various polling locations, says this is the case)?
3. Were there an unusually high number of voters who had to use provisional ballots in this election?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then we need to dig deeper into what happened, as I firmly believe that there was a major ballot-stuffing program going on behind the scenes. Let's not forget that Alex Padilla was actively campaigning and fundraising for HRC during the primaries. We have no reason to trust that he ran a clean a fair election.

Comments