San Diego Primary Contest 2016

CitizensOversight (2017-02-02) RayLutz

This Page: https://https://copswiki.org/Common/SanDiegoPrimaryContest2016

Remote Link: https://www.facebook.com/citizensoversight/videos/1265980750163273

More Info: BallotAccessLawsuit

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. BallotAccessLawsuit 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 So we believe the election code is out of date.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: BallotAccessLawsuit
• 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:

• 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.pdf): Motion to Compel Production for RFP set 1, Item 2 (complete with exhibits)

Filings related to the case

%TABLE{columnwidths="100"}%

Summary of articles submitted ([[Common.NewsMedia][All]]):

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

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.