Search Results

https://americanpolicy.org/2022/02/25/eric-the-electronic-registration-information-center-a-dream-database-for-voter-fraud/ "We MUST get off the couch and out the door. We have a country to save, and time is running very short." The Electronic Registration Information Center (ERIC) is a nation-wide voter data-gathering system, funded by the Pew Center and an “anonymous” donor, the Soros Open Society. Designed by activists in 2014, it is a membership organization established to maintain states’ voter rolls. Please don’t misunderstand. Legitimate maintenance of voter rolls, although required of every state by law, was not the intent of ERIC. Eleven blue states joined the first year, 2014. Membership was up to 22 states by 2017, which was the last year that it published an annual report. By 2022, 31 states – some red and some blue! – were a part of the Center. ERIC’s advertised purpose at its outset was to provide states a system of voter roll management. Provision of this data to the public is something that the Democrat Party has fought against for decades, since the NVRA (“motor voter” act) became federal law in 1993. That Act allows public inspection of “voter list maintenance records” – which has, of course, become hugely contentious since the blatant election fraud took place in 2020. The Public Interest Legal Foundation has recently sued the District of Columbia for its records rather than attempting FOIA requests, which are so often stalled or ignored by this regime. More on this later, however. Just know that ERIC is not forthcoming with the vast amount of voter data it has in its possession, and this IS against the law. ERIC is a voluntary membership organization which charges each member $25,000 annual membership fee – for its services. Each member state is mandated by the ERIC bylaws, to submit ALL details on every voter, both active and inactive, to ERIC every 60 days. Along with this, states must give over all data from their motor vehicle registration divisions. This provides ERIC the information on everyone with a drivers license or even a learner’s permit PLUS all ID recipients which include illegals, elderly shut-ins, etc. For this, ERIC then gives each member state a targeted list of all those NOT registered to vote, and requires that the state contact a minimum of 95% of these people within 90 days, soliciting them to register. Where updates in individual profiles are garnered, those voters must be contacted within 90 days as well. The one thing that is NOT mandated is that voter rolls be purged – the ostensible reason behind the organization. Member states are encouraged but not required to “update” their lists once every year. ERIC sends their data updates approximately every 425 days, whether or not it is requested. Let me highlight this provision of ERIC membership, from its own bylaws: “Under no circumstances shall the members transmit any record indicating an individual is a non-citizen of the U.S.” This, lest you be confused about the intent of the organization. In reality, ERIC creates a left-wing voter registration drive, using an incredibly complete list of potential voters it obtains from member states – at the taxpayers’ expense, which expenditure climbs to millions of dollars per state after all the ERIC mandates are fulfilled. In other words, the residents of ERIC member states are paying for the destruction of their own voter integrity, and this hurts both parties. Data collection does not stop with DMV and voter records. ERIC requires submission from each state of totals of provisional ballots counted, totals of those uncounted, and why. ERIC demands to know how many voters changed or updated their registrations on the day of voting; how many paper ballots were cast, and how many electronic votes were tabulated. ERIC even requires names of all individuals who participate in the act of registeriing voters, including public library staff, DHS, Depts. of Health and Public Safety, and volunteer organizations. Artificial intelligence from Senzing (an IBM spinout company) links this data with USPS records and Social Security information (death records). This company bills themselves as having the “most advanced data matching and relationship discovery capabilities, discovering “who is related to whom, including networks and households.” In the words of The Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, ERIC’s data collection is “comprehensive and would be one of the most coveted by bad actors looking to influence an election.” To quote J. Christian Adams of the Public Interest Legal Foundation, “From there is it unclear as to how else this data is massaged and utilized. Because a top election official from each state is on the ERIC Board, it might be assumed that the states know everything and anything about this organization, but they don’t. With what system or systems does ERIC interface after the massive collections? How is this data utilized?” In a Breitbart podcast, J. Christian Adams says, “ Even Secretaries of States who are on ERIC’s Board do not know the answers. State officials have seemingly lost track of a lot of what is happening. For lack of the initiative to build and maintain their own voter roll management systems, states have sacrificed all data on their citizens to the professional fraudsters. Some red states joined after leftist courts took out the Kansas Cross Check System of voter roll cleansing, which was being utilized by several states, apparently successfully. This left many red states without a system of their own, so they joined ERIC. (Yes, stop and ask yourself, “red states joining a Soros organization?? Must be time to elect better smarter people.) This is when ERIC got comprehensive powers. Thirty one states had no ability to deal with their own voter rolls but through the nationalized roll manipulation center. I know you’re curious, so here is the membership list of states who have thrown away their sovereignty: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. Is your state among them?? If so, your first call after reading this should be to your local board of elections. Ask them to verify. Remember, they may be as clueless as to the electronic mole in their midst, ERIC, as the secretaries of states who are on its board, but it will be entertaining to find out. Make sure they know that YOU know, and forward them a copy of this article. Assemble a community to attend the next meeting, and bring the matter to the floor. Should be fun to watch reactions of your public officials. In the next piece, I will tell more of this Leftists’ dream data base, and how it is related to and developed from decades of dishonesty at the ballot box. I will also lay out an action plan for you to begin to reclaim your rights and secure your ballots. We MUST get off the couch and out the door. We have a country to save, and time is running very short.

Please watch Cleta Mitchell’svideo on WhosCounting.us : Biden’s Executive Order to Federal Agencies To Use Tax Dollars for Democratic Political Campaign: (The Left’s plan to bloat the voter rolls by exploiting vulnerable voters) https://whoscounting.us/2022/08/biden-executive-order-federal-agencies-to-use-tax-dollars-for-democratic-political-campaign-plans-in-2022-election/

Like North Carolina Election Integrity Team (NCEIT), , Michigan has a grassroots organization trying, like us, to clean up the voter rolls making it Easy to Vote and Hard to Cheat. Their Secretary of State refused to take 25,975 dead voters off the voter rolls. This is what happens when we fight back! https://www.theepochtimes.com/benson-loses-round-in-fight-over-dead-people-on-michigan-voter-rolls_4692255.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-08-29-1&utm_medium=email&est=8tZUZMMLBgwRYclNigc4ZvIRilwWx4JLbTG2lr5WKn3jj4q805hJ91tej8xpJNUnb1U%3D Michigan Secretary of State Loses Round in Fight Over Dead People on Voter Rolls Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has failed to convince a judge to dismiss a case that could force the state to remove 25,975 deceased people from its voter rolls. Benson moved for dismissal of a case brought against her in November 2021 by the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) for her failure to clean up the state’s voter registration rolls—in an alleged violation of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. On Aug. 25, Benson’s motion to dismiss the case was denied by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The court also denied the motions to intervene filed by the Detroit/Downriver Chapter of the A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Michigan Alliance for Retired Americans, and Rise Inc. Additionally, PILF’s suit seeks to force Benson to provide documentation of her efforts to remove deceased registrants from the voter rolls, something she has thus far also failed to do. Names of 25,975 Deceased Voters PILF notified Benson of the problem in September 2020 and again in November 2020, a year before it filed its lawsuit. The foundation provided Benson with the names of 25,975 voters who had died but were still on Michigan’s voter rolls, as were discovered by its research. Of these, 23,663 registrants had been dead for five years or more, and 17,449 had been dead for at least a decade. The study found that 3,956 registrants had been dead for at least 20 years. That time span encompasses the terms of Democratic and Republican secretaries of state, an indication that neither party has been serious about a voter roll cleanup. J. Christian Adams, president of Public Interest Legal Foundation. (File photo) PILF president J. Christian Adams said in a statement about the 2021 case: “For over a year, we shared specific data with the Michigan Secretary of State’s Office about the alarming problem of deceased registrants on Michigan’s voter rolls. “Secretary Benson has done nothing to resolve the problem and is even refusing to hand over public documents related to these failures. “The failure to remove deceased registrants creates an opportunity for fraud and makes Michigan’s elections less secure. “This case is about ensuring that deceased registrants are not receiving ballots.” Commenting on the current legal victory, Adams said in an Aug. 25 statement, “This initial win is the first step.” “It’s astonishing that Secretary Benson is so vigorously opposing effective list maintenance,” he added. Adams called it “remarkable” that, after PILF shared its data with Benson in 2020, dead people remain on Michigan’s voter rolls. The Michigan secretary of state’s office said it doesn’t comment on ongoing or pending litigation. PILF won a complete victory in 2021 when Pennsylvania agreed to remove more than 20,000 deceased voters from its rolls. According to a statement, PILF will continue to assist states in the cause of election integrity and to fight against lawlessness in the conducting of American elections wherever found. Steven Kovac REPORTER Follow Steven Kovac reports for the National Team from Michigan. He is a former small businessman, local elected official, and conservative political activist. Steven is an ordained minister of the Gospel. He and his wife of 33 years have two grown children. He can be reached at steven.kovac@epochtimes.us

In case you're looking for numbered memos, click here https://www.ncsbe.gov/search/ncsbe?keys=2022-05 Please click on the blue links for the numbered memos dealing with Voter Challenges. North Carolina State Board of Elections Numbered Memo 2018-06. Voter Challenges May 12, 2022 https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/numbermemo/2022/Numbered%20Memo%202022-05_Absentee%20Voter%20Challenges%20by%20County%20Board.pdf North Carolina State Board of Elections Numbered Memo 2018-07 Voter Challenges. August 8, 2018 https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/sboe/numbermemo/2022/Numbered%20Memo%202022-07_Absentee%20Envelope%20Supply.pdf NUMBERED MEMO 2018-07 TO: County Boards of Elections FROM: Kim Strach, Executive Director RE: Court Order Affecting Voter Challenges DATE: August 8, 2018 (revised November 5, 2018) On August 7, a federal judge ruled that North Carolina’s voter challenge statute violates federal law when a challenge is based on the voter’s change of residency. In granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs in NC. Conf. of NAACP v. State Board, 1:16-CV-01274, Judge Biggs of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina held that G.S. §§ 163A-911 et seq. violate the National Voter Registration Act’s (NVRA) prohibition on removal of a voter from the rolls based on change of residency absent a written request by a voter or providing notice and waiting two federal election cycles with no contact from the voter. As the chief state elections official, it is my duty to ensure statewide compliance with the NVRA and applicable court orders. Accordingly, all county boards of elections are hereby instructed as follows: 1. No voter challenges based on change of residency. Do not remove a voter from the rolls when a voter challenge is brought based on change of residency. Do not hold a hearing or take any other action to consider a voter challenge based on a voter’s change of residency.1 2. No voter challenges based on other qualifications without individualized knowledge within the 90 days before an election. Do not remove a voter from the rolls within the 90 days preceding a federal election based on a voter challenge brought without an “individualized inquiry as to the circumstances of each voter.” Do not hold a hearing or take any other action to consider a voter challenge that is brought without an individualized inquiry by the challenger. Today, August 8, marks the start of the 90-day period prior to 1 Exception: A voter may be removed only if (1) the county board has received written confirmation from the voter of a change of residency outside the county, or (2) the county board has already complied with the NVRA’s notice requirement and the voter has had no subsequent contact with the county board for two federal election cycles. 2 the general election. The judge explained in her order that, a county board’s removal of voters based on “generic evidence [that] conveyed no information about each challenged voter’s specific circumstance” violated the NVRA’s prohibition on systematic removal. The judge contrasted generic evidence with “reliable first-hand evidence specific to the voters challenged.” Order at 14.2 The order applies to voter challenges, whether filed before the election or on Election Day. This means you must ensure all precinct judges receive training that they are not permitted to entertain voter challenges brought based on change of residency or based on non-individualized evidence. Please note that this order does not affect statutes governing candidate challenges. County boards should continue to hear candidate challenge brought on the basis that the candidate does not meet the required residency period or does not reside in the jurisdiction. Additionally, the Order provides that challenges based on criminal conviction, death, and mental incapacity may continue. 2 Exception: A county board may remove a voter if requested by the voter or required by state law due to felony conviction, mental incapacity, or death of the voter. See G.S. § 163A-877 for regular list maintenance procedures

Listen to July 20, 2022 Podcast with Mollie Hemingway — Federalist Senior Editor and author of the new book Rigged reveals how big tech, a propaganda-driven liberal media, and Democrat strategy corrupted the 2020 elections. Mollie joins Cleta Mitchell to reflect on lessons learned and where the integrity of US elections is headed as they both draw on experience to identify problems and suggest solutions. Will we ever have fair elections again? Will mail-in ballots remain the Democrat’s strategic plan for vote manipulation? Listen to this episode of Who’s Counting with Cleta Mitchell and Mollie Hemingway: A Deadly Trend: Liberal Bias Transformed Into Election Corruption to find out. Mollie’s must-read book Rigged is available on Amazon. A Deadly Trend: Liberal Bias Transformed Into Election CorruptionSubscribe and listen on: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify

Pennsylvania is one of the eight battleground states, like North Carolina, that has formed a coalition for election integrity as NC has. It's good to see the GOP is getting involved with the grassroots there to assure that 2020 never happens again and that we return to secure elections. Absentee ballots are a major vulnerability in our elections. Epoch Times: July 22, 2022 Pennsylvania Republicans are arguing a 2019 law that largely expanded mail-in voting in the Commonwealth has been made invalid by a court ruling. A group of 14 GOP lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the state’s Acting Secretary Leigh Chapman in the Commonwealth Court on July 20, seeking again to throw out Pennsylvania’s universal mail-in ballot law, Act 77. It comes two months before the midterm elections this fall featuring high-profile races across the Keystone State. The lawsuit claims that the mail-in voting law should be nullified under a federal appeals court’s May decision that had allowed election officials to count undated mail-in ballots. The panel said throwing out mail ballots in that election for lacking a handwritten date would violate voters’ civil rights. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has quietly dismissed Republicans’ request to overturn the court’s order. Yet provisions of Sections 6 and 8 of Act 77 both require voters to “fill out, date and sign the declaration printed on such envelope,” which goes against the Federal Law based on the court’s judgment. A non-severability clause written into Act 77 says “the remaining provisions or applications of this act are void” if any of its requirements are struck down. Plaintiffs, therefore, requested the court in the Wednesday lawsuit to declare all remaining provisions of Act 77 invalid and quash the law. State Rep. Seth Grove, chair of the House State Government Committee, also said last week in a letter that “the entire bill should now be void.” Acting Secretary of the Commonwealth Leigh Chapman, a Democrat, disagreed in a July 20 letter, saying Act 77 still remains in place, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. “Your specious legal theory perpetuates disinformation,” Chapman wrote. Gov. Tom Wolf’s administration wrote in a response to a state lawmaker’s query Wednesday that the federal appeals court decision did not trigger the non-severability provision. That’s because the lawsuit had targeted Lehigh County’s decision not to count the ballots, not the validity of the date requirement, it said. No-Excuse Mail Voting Law Act 77 was passed in the Pennsylvania Legislature and signed into law in 2019 by Democrat Wolf. In any case, courts have not always chosen to enforce non-severability provisions in the past. According to the state’s election agency, more than 4.2 million people voted in person in Pennsylvania during the 2020 election, compared to the 2.6 million who voted by mail—which includes both absentee voting and no-excuse mail-in voting. Republicans have been questioning the practice, following former President Donald Trump’s claims about election fraud. Last August, the same 14 Republican lawmakers filed a lawsuit against the mail-in voting law, saying it was unconstitutional. Bradford County Commissioner Doug McLinko in September 2021 filed a similar legal challenge before the two suits were consolidated into one. A Pennsylvania trial court then struck down Act 77 in a 3–2 decision in late January. This decision, however, was immediately appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. The case is still pending, yet under state law, Act 77 was automatically reinstated upon appeal. The state’s 2019 mail-in voting law has become a hot topic for frontrunners on the 2022 campaign trail, with Republican gubernatorial nominee Doug Mastriano vowing to repeal it if he gets elected, while his Democratic rival, state Attorney General Josh Shapiro, has vowed to defend the law. On July 12, the state sued officials from three counties to force their local governments to count undated mail-in ballots from a recent primary election; Republican Senate candidate David McCormick filed a lawsuit on May 23 to ensure all mail-in ballots submitted without a handwritten date are qualified in the tightly contested GOP primary election for the U.S. Senate in Pennsylvania. The Associated Press contributed to this report. https://www.theepochtimes.com/gop-says-pennsylvania-mail-in-voting-law-is-invalid_4615065.html?utm_source=News&utm_campaign=breaking-2022-07-22-3&utm_medium=email&est=p5QygBkHYD0CBxISJ9BdMIeZp65X6RdMv%2FIk98oJKmZaxcnaf0I%2FmB1QMbnW%2BzJZvk4%3D

NC VALUES: Urgent: Ask Senators Burr & Tillis to oppose the "Pathway to Polygamy" Bill We want to urgently request you contact Senators Burr and Tillis, and ask them to vote against the so-called "Respect for Marriage Act" (HR 8404), or, as we're calling it, "The Pathway to Polygamy Bill." Under the bill, the federal government must acknowledge the legitimacy of ANY marriage validated by a state. The potential passage of a marriage law recognizing polygamy as valid in a liberal state like New York or California would have disastrous implications for North Carolina, and more importantly the institution of marriage as a whole. The impact on tax and welfare provisions alone could be significant, and this says nothing of the threats to our religious liberty. The bill has already passed the House, and now only needs 10 Republican Senators to vote for it to override a filibuster. Sadly, Thom Tillis has announced he plans to be one of them. For these reasons, we are URGENTLY asking you to join us today in using our quick and easy click-to-contact campaign to contact Senator Burr and Tillis, and ask them to truly respect the foundational institution of marriage by voting against HR8404 and its pathway for polygamy. READ MORE https://www.ncvalues.org/pathway_to_polygamy_bill?utm_campaign=20220722_ff_officials&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ncvalues

Florida, Georgia, Arizona, North Caroliina, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania are all of the battleground states that have formed election integrity coalitions to return security to our elections. NC formed the North Carolina Integrity Coalition, your Coalition, to train, to certify, and geographically certify you to establish a statewide infrastructure comprised of regional and county Election Integrity Task Forces for 2022 and 2024 and beyond.. WE are fighting back. Pennsylvania and Georgia are with us. Absentee ballot security is #3 on our list of Eight Systems of Election Integrity. Join US! https://www.npr.org/2021/03/25/981357583/georgia-legislature-approves-election-overhaul-including-changes-to-absentee-vot https://www.wabe.org/georgia-senate-passes-measure-to-eliminate-no-excuse-absentee-voting/

https://www.theepochtimes.com/the-real-story-of-jan-6-documentary_4596670.html?utm_source=Morningbrief&utm_campaign=mb-2022-07-23&utm_medium=email

IT IS IMPERATIVE that you submit your own original comments so the State Board of Elections has to address each one. Focus on Poll Observer Rule Changes below in paragraph: 20.0101. CC your comments to your NC legislators. The NC State Board of Elections (NCSBE)) has way overstepped their authority. The General Assembly makes rule changes, not the NCSBE. The proposed rule changes for observers are designed to restrict observers and address non-issues because they are already addressed in the state statutes. The NCSBE is also attempting to circumvent the normal time for public comment. All the NCSBE is succeeding in doing is making the public even more suspicious of them. It looks like they obviously don't want transparency or accountability, heightening the public's mistrust for election integrity. They need to shut this down now immediately. (Also see paragraph below on NCEIT's position on the Temporary Rule Making.) There are four ways to submit your comments: On-line, email, snail mail, or phone See below. You can also join the Public Meeting at the portal listed below. SUBJECT: NCEIT Response to NCSBE Proposed Temporary Rulemaking – July 2022 Background: During the NCSBE’s July 14, 2022 monthly meeting Attorney Katelyn Love announced agency plans to pursue temporary rulemaking under the provisions of “NCGS § 150B-21.1 Procedures for adopting a temporary rule.” The recorded meeting is at the link below and the discussion pertaining to temporary rulemaking begins at 1:03:00 of the meeting: https://s3.amazonaws.com/dl.ncsbe.gov/State_Board_Meeting_Docs/2022-07-14/State%20Board%20of%20Elections%20Meeting-20220714%201332-1.mp4 Ms. Love explained that temporary rulemaking was necessary because the process for following the more traditional, formal rulemaking procedures under the Administrative Procedures Act were “too lengthy” to be in place in time for the November 2022 election cycle. She advised the state board that the NCSBE has authority to exercise temporary rulemaking, inferring authority under paragraph (a)(11), wherein the NCSBE has been granted authority to implement provisions of federal or state law where it has been granted statutory authority to adopt such rules. NCSBE’s proposed temporary rules pertain to two specific areas of election law: (a) 08 NCAC 10B .0101, TASKS AND DUTIES OF PRECINCT OFFICIALS AT VOTING PLACES; and (b) 08 NCAC 20 .0101, ELECTION OBSERVERS. Public Hearing & Opportunity for Public Comment: NCSBE has announced it will accept public comments now through August 8, 2022 at its portal, by email or by mail. Online: https://www.ncsbe.gov/2022-public-comment-period-duties-precinct-officials Email: rulemaking.sboe@ncsbe.gov Mail: Attn: Rulemaking Coordinator, 6400 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27603-1362 Public hearing: A virtual public hearing will be held at 10 a.m. Thursday, July 28, 2022. How to join: Online: https://ncgov.webex.com/mw3300/mywebex/default.do?nomenu=true&siteurl=ncgov&service=6&rnd=0.7040517500148347&main_url=https%3A%2F%2Fncgov.webex.com%2Fec3300%2Feventcenter%2Fevent%2FeventAction.do%3FtheAction%3Ddetail%26%26%26EMK%3D4832534b00000005c0df80fa97c6c38db4d335706d8dd0726320a1f81b0e44a1caf2f43b0123f6a6%26siteurl%3Dncgov%26confViewID%3D232976246337711366%26encryptTicket%3DSDJTSwAAAAVUwGjMvgvJAv-Hk1wFKIPSaD-IXCOp-D8Mva45plWxDw2%26 Phone: 1-415-655-0003, Enter Code: 2422 789 8391# NCEIT Position on NCSBE Proposed Temporary Rulemaking: The NCEIT team objects to the NCSBE’s proposed temporary rulemaking to implement modified rules at 08 NCAC 10B .0101 and 08 NCAC 20 .0101. NCEIT recommends the Rules Review Commission reject this attempt to circumvent formal rulemaking, reasonable opportunity for public comment, and due consideration of those comments, followed by NCGA adoption of rules. Formal rulemaking is necessary to avoid negatively impacting the transparency and integrity of the November 2022 general election. As admitted by NCSBE counsel during the meeting, many of the proposed new rules are “…already addressed in other provisions of law….” Moreover, several of the newly proposed rules are contortions of existing administrative code and state statutes that were intended to make our elections more transparent, yielding stronger voter confidence in our elections. The proposed modifications induce ambiguity and reduce the broad accessibility by poll observers and election officials, conferred by statute, that were to be applied to all phases of the voting process. The changes represent controversial and unnecessary deviations that will generate confusion among poll observers and election officials given such short notice prior to the fall election cycle. Facts: (Note- NCEIT Members are welcome to use the following facts as the basis of their commentary or inputs to the NCSBE. Please paraphrase any use of these comments so your inputs will be given deliberate consideration and equal treatment as substantive input for them to consider. Verbatim duplicate comments are typically lumped together for easy addressment by the agency.) 1. The NCSBE does not have clear statutory justification for temporary rulemaking, as proposed. a. NCGS § 150B-21.1 addresses the context and applicability for temporary rulemaking. Only the most contorted logic could justify the use of the provision for temporary rulemaking merely to avoid the more onerous task of formal rulemaking. Yet, this was the suggested justification by NCSBE Counsel between 1:03:36 and 1:04:11 of the recorded meeting. This chapter of the NCGS clearly states, under (a) Adoption, that “…an agency may adopt a temporary rule when it finds that adherence to the notice and hearing requirements of G.S. 150-B-21.2 would be contrary to the public interest and that immediate adoption of the rule is required.…” (my emphasis added to show context). Frankly, none of the NCSBE proposed rule modifications are urgent or necessary to conduct a free and fair election this November. The public has a definite interest in formally digesting, debating and deliberating the proposed rule modifications prior to their adoption in whole or in part. That can only be accomplished through formal rulemaking procedures. b. When advocating for these temporary rule changes before the NCSBE on July 14, 2022 (1:06:44 of the recorded meeting) NCSBE Attorney Love admitted that “by and large, most of what is listed as prohibited is already addressed in other provisions of law….” In other words, the NCSBE acknowledges many of the proposed rule changes are already codified; therefore, not urgent or even necessary to conduct a free and fair election in November. c. Under (a)(11) of NCGS § 150B-21.1, there are generally three allowances for NCSBE temporary rulemaking- (1) IAW G.S. 163-22.2, to respond to declaration of unconstitutionality or the invalidation of any portion of Chapter 163; (2) to implement state or federal law where authorized by the NCGA; and/or (3) a compelling need for the rule to become effective immediately to preserve the integrity of an upcoming election. None of these three provisions apply to the present situation. There is no current constitutional challenge to our election laws, nor is there a recent invalidation of Chapter 163. NCSBE has already undergone codification of procedures to implement rules for Poll Observers and Election Officials. No new statutory provisions require immediate NCSBE rulemaking. And finally, the proposed new rules are not compelling—some are simple clarifications, others are redundant with existing provisions of law, and still others are more restrictive than requirements enumerated in the general statutes, making them inconsistent with legislative intent. 2. Statutory guidelines in NCGS § 163 and historical rulemaking to implement the statute (Title 08 NCAC) unambiguously reflect legislative intent for the presence of Poll Observers and their generally unrestricted access within all polling locations for the purpose of monitoring registration desk operations, observing all ballot handling operations, challenging ineligible or unauthorized voters, and ensuring election officials are performing their duties in accordance with state law and relevant administrative code. Legislative intent is that Poll Observers should be free to move about the voting enclosure in the performance of their duties so long as they do not obstruct voting or become a distraction to those who are voting there. The three consistent statutory constraints imposed on Poll Observers are: (a) that they must not view confidential voter information (such as SSN or date of birth); (b) they must not observe the actual markings on voter ballots; and (c) they must not interfere with the voting process. These proposed temporary rules clearly and more severely restrict Poll Observers from performing their duties as prescribed under NCGS § 163. a. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (c) is modified to limit access and egress of Poll Observers at the voting enclosure. This runs counter to legislative intent for Poll Observers to observe both inside and outside the voting enclosure. Implementation of this rule would subject the observer to the idiosyncrasies of the Site Administrator or Chief Judge in determining whether movement in and out of the voting enclosure is a “disruption.” Clearly, Poll Observers must be able to depart the voting enclosure to monitor curbside voting when applicable and to make or take important phone calls without disrupting voting operations. Chief Judges and site administrators must not be in a position of imposing arbitrary and capricious standards for movement by poll observers in the execution of their tasks and functions, or for having discretionary authority to remove a Poll Observer from the voting enclosure if the only “disruption” is the frequency of Poll Observer movement in and out of the voting enclosure. b. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (d)(3) exacerbates an already ambiguous rule for “interfering with the privacy of a voter…” The proper positioning of an observer to adequately monitor voting activities within the voting enclosure is constrained by numerous factors including space available in the enclosure, sound (and acoustic) constraints in the enclosure, and configuration of the tables and equipment in the enclosure. Moreover, observers cannot communicate with or compel election staff not to expose confidential voter information from view. The prohibition in this rule ought to be clearly defined by specific distance (no closer than 6 feet, for example) or simply to say Poll Observers are prohibited from viewing confidential voter data. Arbitrary, discretionary, and ambiguous terminology like the language in (d)(3) lead to Poll Observer confusion and unnecessary challenges within the voting enclosure, which could potentially lead to disruption of voting activity. c. 08 NCAC 20 .0101 (d)(9) is clearly inconsistent with Chapter 163 of the NCGS in that it imposes non-statutory restrictions on movement and methods for Poll Observers. Observers must be able to make expeditious entry and exit from the voting enclosure as their duties require. They must have the same latitude for movement that precinct and site officials have to adequately monitor election operations. Restricting Poll Observers to use of the same doorways that voters are limited to could cause “disruption” in the voting lines and prevent timely Poll Observer monitoring of voting activity. d. 08 NCAC 20 .0101(d)(10) incorrectly presumes that Site Administrators or Precinct Chief Judges are authorized to designate an area for Poll Observers to operate from. Chapter 163 of the NCGS does not authorize precinct or site officials to designate areas for poll observers to operate from. Instead, the statutes clearly and specifically delineate what Poll Observers are not permitted to observe- essentially, confidential voter information and the markings on a ballot. This proposed rule has no basis in statute and is ambiguous at best. It serves only to grant precinct or site officials authority not envisioned in the general statutes to arbitrarily restrict the positioning and range of operations for Poll Observers. e. 08 NCAC 20 .0101(d)(11) is vague and ambiguous. It does not meaningfully contribute to the good order and discipline in the voting enclosure. The words “Distributing or posting any written material in the voting enclosure” can be wildly interpreted to include carrying a clipboard with printed materials on it, or wearing a badge informing all persons present that the person is a Poll Observer, or wearing a shirt with the U.S. Constitution printed on it. There is no need for such a rule when Poll Observers are already prohibited from making contact with voters and staff and because they are prohibited from wearing or distributing campaign materials or electioneering in (d)(1). f. No where in Chapter 08 of NCAC is there an adequate or complete list of terms and definitions for voting and election-related rules. This omission is a serious NCSBE deficiency that mitigates against temporary rulemaking. Proposed new temporary rules in 08 NCAC 20 .0101 use undefined and ambiguous terms like “disruption,” “posting written materials,” and “positioning themselves so close…” NCSBE is in serious need for formal rulemaking to replace the now-expired lists of terms and definitions used throughout their rules in Chapter 08 of the NCAC. 3. Statutory guidelines in NCGS § 163 and the existing rules under 08 NCAC 10B .0101 were adequate for managing the upcoming election cycle, without clarification. Subparagraphs (a) through (g) are substantially unchanged. However, the NCSBE proposal to add Subparagraph (h) “Prohibited acts by precinct officials” is fatally flawed- likely to generate more confusion and disruption to the voting process than it eliminates. All twelve proposed “prohibited acts” have serious flaws in construction, definition, scope, or practicality. Most of these rules were already addressed through “other provisions of law” as Attorney Love so astutely pointed out in her presentation before the board on July 14, 2022. a. 08 NCAC 10B .0101 (h)(1) introduces a new, undefined term “tampering,” as in “tampering with voting equipment.” It must be recognized that precinct officials have a duty to configure, operate, and manage the operations of election equipment. Any mistake in performing those duties could be construed to mean “tampering.” If the NCSBE perceives there to be a risk from criminal manipulation of a voting machine, then perhaps the term “tampering” should be clearly defined in the NCAC and uniformly applied to anyone who might have access to a voting machine, including voters, election staff, the company producing the machine, Poll Observers, and anyone coming in contact with a voting machine. b. 08 NCAC 10B .0101 (h)(2) introduces the newly prohibited concept of “permitting unauthorized access to voting facilities or equipment.” There is no accompanying definition for the meaning of “unauthorized access” to frame this rule. The language could be interpreted to mean unauthorized access to the voting facility by voters, unauthorized contractor access to equipment, unauthorized staff contact with machines, and myriad other improper activities. This rule is not needed to enumerate duties and responsibilities for precinct officials as they already are outlined in (a) through (g) of this ruleset. c. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(3) introduces the notion of “intent” into the rules for prohibited activity. Intent presumes a knowledge of the state of mind of a precinct official, which is problematic short a declaratory statement from the precinct official about his or her intent. Precinct officials are expected to facilitate legal and permissible voting as defined in (a) through (g) of the tasks and duties of precinct officials. Ambiguous statements about willful or intentional behavior serve only to confuse officials and voters. Note- it should be prohibited activity for any precinct official to improperly or impermissibly interfere with, delay or prevent any voter from casting a ballot, regardless of intent. As such, this rule is a solution in search of a problem. d. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(4) seeks to outlaw precinct official oral and written communications that might be interpreted to be “political” in nature. “Political views” run the gamut of values, beliefs, policies, governmental preferences, and cultural predispositions. Attempts to regulate the broad category of “political views,” and specifically prohibiting speech about political views, are dangerously close to infringement on one’s First Amendment right to free speech. Best this rule be eliminated to avoid confusion or constitutional challenge. While not recommended as a substitute, expressions of “partisanship” or “political party preference” are far superior standards for prejudicial speech to be discouraged among election officials in the voting enclosure. e. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(5) prohibits precinct officials from missing training, creating an unnecessary, redundant rule. Precinct officials are already required to attend training by their respective county boards of elections as expressed in 08 NCAC 13 .0103 Training and Certification of Team Members and in NCAC 04 .0305 Instruction of Precinct Officials and Voters in the Use of Voting Systems. f. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(6) disallows some precinct officials from following the instructions of others. The rule misapplies the term “lawful instructions” in attempting to establish a standard of performance for election officials. While instructions from some officials may be “lawful,” neglecting to follow those instructions or ignoring those instructions is not necessarily a violation within NCGS § 163. For example, the Chief Judge is statutorily responsible for managing his or her precinct on election day. Lawful instructions from a local Board of Elections member for the Chief Judge to perform one or more tasks at that facility – tasks that might also prevent the Chief Judge from adequately administering the election at the site – may have to be ignored or challenged by that judge. The Chief Judge is sovereign at that precinct and should be responsible for executing the duties and responsibilities of the Chief Judge, even if it means lack of conformity with some “lawful” instructions from the local BOE. g. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(7) again invokes the concept of “intent” into the rules. As stated above, “intent” is not a reasonable standard for these rules. Moreover, the notion of intent generates confusion about the issue of “providing inaccurate information.” Is it impermissible for a precinct official to unintentionally provide inaccurate information about election administration; or is it only impermissible to provide inaccurate information intentionally? This rule is unnecessary in that NCGS § 163 and 08 NCAC 10B (b) through (g) already establish duties and responsibilities for precinct officials, including the imperative for providing accurate information and reports. h. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(8) essentially states precinct officials are prohibited from breaking any rules. It is an unnecessary statement of the obvious. Moreover, this rule causes confusion by including the amorphous term “policies” among the specified items precinct officials must follow or adhere to. This rule does not clarify what the precinct official is to do when local election or voting “policy” interferes with requirements in NCGS § 163. i. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(9) again invokes the concept of “intent” with respect to reporting incidents. As stated earlier, “intent” ought not be applied to these rules as the standard of “intent” cannot easily or reliably be determined. Moreover, a precinct officer may choose not to report minor incidents, with little or no consequence for election administration, to higher authority. NCGS § 163 is silent on many aspects of election reporting requirements and standards and does not suggest rulemaking to apply “intent” as a standard for precinct officer behavior. j. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(10) introduces unclear terms and conditions in the regulation of prohibited information sharing. “Confidential voter information” is not defined in NCGS § 163 or 08 NCAC. “Confidential information on security features of voting equipment or voting facilities” is not clearly understandable. The term “non-elections officials” in this context is presumed to be everyone not classified as an election official by statute; but this too isn’t defined or clear. k. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(11) prohibits voter discrimination among a host of categories. This rule is unnecessary because state and federal laws already prohibit voter discrimination in all these enumerated areas. Rulemaking is not necessary. l. 08 NCAC 10B (h)(12) cross references to NCGS § 163-41(e) in prohibiting engagement in otherwise certain “political activities” on the part of precinct officials from the start of early voting until the end of election day. NCGS § 163-41(e). This prohibition is not needed because the statute already requires administration of the oath acknowledging the precinct official will not engage in those specified “political activities.” The rule is unnecessary because it is redundant with the statute. m. As stated in paragraph 2.f. above, the absence of a comprehensive set of terms and definitions by NCSBE causes the proposed rules in 08 NCAC 10B (h) to be vague and ambiguous. Before developing any new rules for voting and elections, NCSBE ought to be compelled to perform formal rulemaking for the expressed purpose of developing terms and definitions that can be used to properly interpret and apply its rules across all of 08 NCAC. James K. Womack President, North Carolina Election Integrity Team www.NCEIT.org Tel. (919) 770-4783

One of the lefty publications in Washington, POLITICO, published an attempted hit piece attacking Cleta Mitchell this week for her presentation at the Arizona Election Integrity Summit in March 2022 – during which Cleta talked about how the left intends to manipulate the 2022 elections using our tax dollars. Because POLITICO falsified its description of the presentation, we are publishing the entire audio so you can learn what the Biden Administration is doing with your money. In March 2021, Biden issued Executive Order 14091, which requires all 600 federal government agencies to develop a “voter registration plan” using federal dollars to target what the left calls the “New American Majority” (their words, not ours): young people, people of color, unmarried women, and low- income people. The Executive Order targets those who are most vulnerable in our society, who come to the federal government agencies for assistance and benefits, and then uses their vulnerability for the Democrats’ political purposes. A major part of the plan is to provide tax dollars to left wing groups to “educate” voters…not all voters, though. Just the ones who comprise what the left calls the New American Majority. And none of the agencies are coughing up their plans, despite demands under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) for copies of the agency plans. Mollie Hemingway wrote in June 2022 about the secrecy of the Biden Executive Order and the White House plans. Yes, Biden Is Hiding His Plan To Rig The 2022 Midterm Elections (thefederalist.com). The Biden Administration is using our tax dollars to churn out Democrat votes in November 2022. Listen to the entire audio presentation and help us fight back to stop this misappropriation by Democrats of our tax dollars for their political purposes. Biden Executive Order Using Tax-dollars for Democratic GOTV https://rumble.com/v1eo22j-biden-executive-order-using-tax-dollars-for-democratic-gotv.html Subscribe and listen on: Apple Podcasts | Google Podcasts | Spotify Please support the Election Integrity Network by making a tax-deductible donation today. Your gift will help us build a coalition of conservative activists, leaders, public officials, and organizations to advance election integrity reforms nationwide. DONATE

More Training: Here's your chance to get a better insight on Cleta Mitchell's Guide we use to secure election integrity. Ned Jones will be having a Zoom meet on Thursday, August 25th at 7PM. Please consider joining the call. Here's the link for Thursday.8/25/22. Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI's Zoom Meeting Time: Aug 25, 2022 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81451848283?pwd=U1A2SDd0NE9qUHVoa3AvRFpWSXJzQT09 Meeting ID: 814 5184 8283 Passcode: 036912 One tap mobile +13126266799,,81451848283#,,,,*036912# US (Chicago) +16469313860,,81451848283#,,,,*036912# US Dial by your location +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 309 205 3325 US +1 719 359 4580 US +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 386 347 5053 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) Meeting ID: 814 5184 8283 Passcode: 036912 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbcGNhncMM ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ned Jones11:21 AM (4 hours ago) to me, hoffmanm679, karenvasquez1234 The Zoom trainings are Tuesday, 8/23/2022 Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting. Topic: Ned Jones - Election Integrity Network/CPI's Zoom Meeting Time: Aug 23, 2022 07:00 PM Eastern Time (US and Canada) Join Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87124729209?pwd=eW9IbWtJRUlkdkI3eVhxSEI0cFhkQT09 Meeting ID: 871 2472 9209 Passcode: 301023 One tap mobile +13092053325,,87124729209#,,,,*301023# US +13126266799,,87124729209#,,,,*301023# US (Chicago) Dial by your location +1 309 205 3325 US +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago) +1 646 931 3860 US +1 929 205 6099 US (New York) +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC) +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma) +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston) +1 386 347 5053 US +1 564 217 2000 US +1 669 444 9171 US +1 669 900 6833 US (San Jose) +1 719 359 4580 US Meeting ID: 871 2472 9209 Passcode: 301023 Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kCien7cze Ned Jones Deputy Director, Election Integrity Network Conservative Partnership Institute 804-337-9966 www.whoscounting.us Thanks, I'll be there. Got it, thanks! Thank you! ReplyReply allForward Ned JonesDeputy Director, Election Integrity Network Conservative Partnership Institute 804-337-9966 www.whoscounting.us