To the editor:

As courts across the country grapple with allegations of electoral fraud, there are irregularities during ballot processing right here in our small hometown in Vermont. It may be a nothing burger to the throngs of Bernie worshippers I’m surrounded by, but further evidence nonetheless that election “fraud” is a very real problem. So how much is too much? That’s the question we should all ask ourselves.

“Fraud” is the intentional misrepresentation of material facts. It comes in many shapes and sizes, and can be an act of commission or omission.

“No one is above the law” is an oft-cited refrain from the virtue-signaling crowd on the left; however, do they practice what they preach?

Not so much. No better example of this is there than the slip-shod way this election cycle’s state-wide mail-in votes were handled, under Secretary of State guidance.

Here’s what I mean: There are four items of information voters are required {by Vermont statutory law, and/or the administrative rules that flow therefrom} to include on the “Certificate” portion of the envelope containing the voted ballot: 1. Town of voter’s residency, 2. Voter’s printed name, 3. Voter’s signature, and 4. Date.

In theory, the absence of this information, in whole or in part, can render a ballot “Defective” and, as such, not counted. After all, we must follow the law, right? Especially here in Vermont where we don’t have voter ID, nor any method to verify a “signature” – whatever that may look like – is that of the registered voter.

But, alas, not according to SOS! As we encountered these problems during early processing of mail-in ballots, our Town Clerk was told by SOS office staff that the only thing required on the “Certificate” was the “signature,” and even that didn’t have to be legible! Exceptions to a rule often becomes the rule is a lesson I learned a long time ago. As an election official (JP), I objected strongly to such blatant disregard for the law, to no avail. So, dear reader, was there “fraud” in this election? Tip of an iceberg, perhaps? You decide.

R. Lee Walther

Barre Town

(Editor’s note: Vermont Daily has asked the Vermont Secretary of State’s office to provide more information on proper practices regarding the issue raised by Mr. Walther.)

LATEST COMMENTS ON VERMONT DAILY NEWS & OPINION:

1. 

   Are they kidding? It would take a 100% subsidy for folks who live paycheck to paycheck because giving up other…

2. 

   Ms. Stebbins, like most of our current legislators need to “lighten up” on their arrogance. You are not God and…

3. 

   Equity = Mediocrity Simple.

4. 

   Any social policy that focuses on or rewards merit is out of line with leftist thinking. We must concentrate on…

5. 

   Democrat Policies —- Ideas so great they have to be mandated!

• Roper: Rep. scolds equity official for showing how S.5 will “force/pressure” low-income Vermonters into spending money they don’t have.
• This week in committee: March 27-31
• Vermont Guard soldiers inserted into Arctic on ski-equipped C-130
• VT Headlines: State bill could ban Catholics’ sealed confessions
• BREAKING NEWS: Private school tuition House vote postponed until Wednesday, sources say