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:
-
Patrick Finnie -
I totally agree with your comments about this issue. The farms would not be able to function without the immigrant…
-
This is exactly the message Republicans must repeat – repeatedly. Explain the damage ACT181 will bring to the economic future…
-
And still no tax breaks for retirees, those that have been here their entire life. Thanks for nothing.
-
Arrest me once, shame on you, arrest me twice, shame on me, arrest me three times, welcome to Vermont.
- Dems praise House bills passed, GOP slams 7% property tax increase
- VT Headlines: Police searching for missing 14-y.o. girl
- Former VT town official dies of suicide
- Letters: Manley on being politically punch-drunk, and election integrity fundamentals
- Soulia: VT farms, migrant workers, and the visa problem
78+61=139 and there are a total of 150 Representatives, so there were 11 chicken s— that did not vote ?…