How did nearly 10,000 dead Michiganders receive mail-in ballots?
It could only have happen with the complicity of county clerks.
It is undeniable those who knowingly requested mail-in ballots for the dead engaged in voter fraud as well as mail fraud, yet county clerks may be even more culpable. (Read: Mail-in Ballot Voter Fraud—is in Fact Mail Fraud)
After all, county clerks fulfilled those requests, and they have the voter registry at their fingertips.
How is this possible?
More troubling, if something as fundamental as checking the voter registry against the Social Security Death Index (SSDI) wasn’t part of the process to verify the legitimacy of mail-in ballot requests—what other checks and balances went by the wayside by county clerks across the U.S. in 2020?
Given the new paradigm of mail-in ballots, which carry fewer safeguards than traditional absentee ballots, why weren’t rudimentary safeguards taken to prevent voter fraud?
It is clear, voter registries were not purged of the dead prior to the election.
This is on county clerks—there is no excuse for the dead to remain on registries prior to Presidential elections, especially given the ease of using the SSDI for verification.
Furthermore, if an error had taken place due to county clerk’s office inadvertently removing someone from the official voter rolls, those citizens affected have the recourse of filing a provisional ballot, then challenging the clerk’s office after the election.
The point being, county clerks should have erred on the side of caution—instead, they erred on the side of irresponsible.
The question immediately arises: What other precautions were omitted in the 2020 election?
The dead had to have a physical address.
Did the requests for mail-in ballots designate them to be mailed to individual addresses—or did they designate just a few shipping addresses?
If it is the latter—shouldn’t this condition have been foreseen by election officials?
Shouldn’t they have had a plan in place to prevent mass mailings to clearing house sites?
To successfully run an operation of the scale the Michigan operation appears to be, it is unreasonable to think ballots were mailed to individual residences, then collected by conspirators to be filled out and returned to the separate counties.
There has to be an economy of scale.
More important, there needs to be a level of secrecy.
(Note: The Texas social worker who fraudulently submitted applications for 67 mail-in ballots for the residents of the nursing facility she worked at is a case in point for the need of secrecy. It was the residents who called the malfeasance to the attention of authorities. Ms. Brunner now faces 134 charges of voter fraud as well as U.S. mail fraud.)
Mailing to 10,000 individual residences flies in the face of both efficiency and secrecy. (Read: Successful Ballot Harvesting Requires Economies of Scale)
Again, county clerks should have put in protections to prevent mass mailing to clearing houses.
It is obvious, county election officials were ill prepared for the paradigm of mail-in ballots. (Read: Mail-in Ballots Represent New Paradigm)
Still, the lack of preparedness is on them.
Election officials should have installed safeguards to prevent voter fraud.
Instead, it appears they may have facilitated the very malfeasance they’re supposed to stop—that makes them culpable of the same voter fraud as those who committed the actual crime.