LETTER: Barre Justice of Peace claims lax standards on absentee ballot envelope info

person dropping paper on box
Photo by Element5 Digital on Pexels.com

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.)


Categories: Opinion

Tagged as: , ,

2 replies »

  1. This scheme engineered by the democrats across our nation has resulted in the possible election of the weakest of all candidates. Our state of Vermont joined right in happily knowing there would be problems. We should go back to voting in person or requesting personally an absentee ballot well ahead of time so they can be checked and verified. If you mail or bring then in after a set deadline – too bad!! Look at the atrocious cheating and manipulating of machines by so many thieves in the battleground states. It’s hard to believe we are still in the United States where FREEDOM reigns.

  2. Election integrity is the cornerstone of a free society. Thank you for stepping up and stepping out. Please continue to share EXACTLY what the rules and process is to be for all voting mechanisms so we know. Next we then need to understand who, how and when the voting processes and mechanisms are audited and audited in timely manner to ensure all legal votes are counted. Lets ban all voting machines and go back to what has worked for 200 years….paper ballots. This includes the required information on the ballot and when not provided it is a ballot that does not count…….seems like we have to have all the information to get a drivers license and have the ability to drive so the same standard should apply to ability to vote. Then we need to know who and when will the publishing the audit results at the local, regional and state level. We need transparency.

Leave a Reply