I hate this point because it is so damn convoluted. Which makes it difficult to carry heavy weight with the judge unless he damn sure understands what is being said. Here is the best way to put it:
Ballot paper for this election is 20". What was attested to by the expert is that the printers were printing an image that was scaled to 19" paper but it was still printed on 20" paper. This would cause the scanner to reject it when doing its security marker checks because they'd all be in the wrong place.
These ballots are not fraudulent. These ballots are sabotaged. In order to count these (if they ever did) they would all need to be duplicated and printed to the correct scale for the scanners to read. Which, with that sample size, if extrapolated would be 10s of thousands or perhaps even 100s of thousands of sabotaged ballots requiring duplication. Which happens at Runbeck.
The witness stated that it is not possible to inadvertently do this. That the EMS program that executes the printing on a laptop that acts as a print spooler would have to be configured this way. In other words, this could not happen unless it was intentional.
We went through all this in 2020 with the fractionally off-centre ballot delineators in Georgia, which were then redirected for 'adjudication' (ie the staffer goes to the inbox and drags to D or R). One of them showed it being done that simply on video.
I understand that they are talking about scaling it down, and they were crafty to pick a 5% reduction over all--someone who hadn't seen a lot of ballots, or seen them lately, would think nothing of it, because who knows where the calibration marks should go? Five percent on this unusual size paper would not seem small to most people who are looking at the words,, not the layout. I think mine is scaled down. I have another unspoiled ballot from Nov. 2021, a small local election, that I will check later.
I hate this point because it is so damn convoluted. Which makes it difficult to carry heavy weight with the judge unless he damn sure understands what is being said. Here is the best way to put it:
Ballot paper for this election is 20". What was attested to by the expert is that the printers were printing an image that was scaled to 19" paper but it was still printed on 20" paper. This would cause the scanner to reject it when doing its security marker checks because they'd all be in the wrong place.
These ballots are not fraudulent. These ballots are sabotaged. In order to count these (if they ever did) they would all need to be duplicated and printed to the correct scale for the scanners to read. Which, with that sample size, if extrapolated would be 10s of thousands or perhaps even 100s of thousands of sabotaged ballots requiring duplication. Which happens at Runbeck.
The witness stated that it is not possible to inadvertently do this. That the EMS program that executes the printing on a laptop that acts as a print spooler would have to be configured this way. In other words, this could not happen unless it was intentional.
We went through all this in 2020 with the fractionally off-centre ballot delineators in Georgia, which were then redirected for 'adjudication' (ie the staffer goes to the inbox and drags to D or R). One of them showed it being done that simply on video.
I understand that they are talking about scaling it down, and they were crafty to pick a 5% reduction over all--someone who hadn't seen a lot of ballots, or seen them lately, would think nothing of it, because who knows where the calibration marks should go? Five percent on this unusual size paper would not seem small to most people who are looking at the words,, not the layout. I think mine is scaled down. I have another unspoiled ballot from Nov. 2021, a small local election, that I will check later.