New Videos Capture Pennsylvania Officials Hiding Evidence Of Alleged Election Fraud

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

Pennsylvania county election officials were caught on tape plotting to hide alleged violations of state election law.

New whistleblower videos capture Delaware County, Pennsylvania officials plotting to recreate missing election data from the November 2020 contest, with one official later bragging that the local Democrat district attorney “owes him.” These recordings represent the latest evidence of the alleged fraud officials in the Pennsylvania county undertook to hide widespread violations of the state’s election laws, according to a source familiar with the recordings.

Whistleblower Regina Miller, who worked as a contract employee for Delaware County, secretly recorded the behind-the-scenes videos of election officials after witnessing concerning conduct, according to sources with knowledge of a fraud lawsuit filed last month against county election officials, based in part on the recordings. That lawsuit alleged county election officials destroyed election data in response to a May 21, 2021 Right to Know Request filed with Delaware County that requested the final certified return sheets from the Nov. 3, 2020 general election for all Delaware County precincts, as well as the tapes from the voting machines. 

While earlier videos captured Delaware County officials destroying election material or blocking out “derogatory” information in the copies made in response to the Right to Know Request, the latest video captures two election officials discussing putting in “blank” V-drives, which are the thumb drives that record the results from election machines, to recreate the election results reported by the county.

In one video, James Savage, who served as the chief custodian and voting machine warehouse supervisor for the Delaware County Voting Machine Department during the November 2020 election, is seen talking with another election official who is blocked from the camera’s view.

The duo are discussing the Right to Know Request, according to a source with knowledge on the matter, with Savage inquiring on “recreating data.” The individual off-camera chimes in with his suggested approach that would entail recreating results for “these jokers,” and “then create another set for the next set of jokers” — an apparent reference to the individuals who filed the Right-to-Know request — “but we cut it up and then we create a permanent record,” he explains.

“Here you go, here you go,” the election official is heard saying, mimicking what they could say as they provide the “jokers” the supposedly official election-data documentation. The unseen individual then continues, “We scan those cut, copied sheets in.”

“The first part has a lot of work, but it might save us work in the long run, if it’s gonna be a drip, drip, drip,” Savage is seen saying. The two then talk more about the process with Savage asking about whether they are talking about going to every machine and putting in a clean V-drive. The off-camera election worker appears to concur with that approach.

I sought comment from the attorney who represents Savage in a defamation action the Delaware County official filed against two local poll watchers, as well as Trump and his legal team. Savage, who had filed his lawsuit before news broke that a whistleblower had recorded closed-door conversations, did not answer whether he intended to continue with that defamation claim nor why was there a need to recreate election data.

Savage’s attorney did not respond to requests for comment.

Savage was previously seen on tape talking with an individual identified by people familiar with the litigation as James Allen, the director of election operations for Delaware County. In that video, Allen is heard telling Savage, “Then get rid of the pads and the second scanners.”

“We can’t talk about it anymore,” Savage replies, with Allen questioning, “Why?”

“It’s a felony,” Savage states.

The fraud complaint filed against the Delaware County officials added that, after declaring “it’s a felony,” Savage then allegedly “encouraged a private conversation to continue the conversation of the removal of the pads and scanners due to other Delaware County employees and [contract employee] Regina Miller,” who was present.

Savage stars in two additional short video clips I obtained, in which he brags that the local district attorney “owes” him because he had previously run elections from the other side.

“I was the vice-chair of the Democratic Party,” Savage is heard saying. “I was like Jack’s progressive shield, he held me up” — an apparent reference to Delaware County D.A. Jack Stollsteimer. Savage also explains he served as Jack’s “buffer.”

The videos featuring Savage are particularly concerning because the Delaware County Return Board, in transmitting its report to the Delaware County Board of Election, singled out Savage and his staff for “his guidance and help,” in the Return Board’s November 2020 reconciliation project. Also troubling was the Return Board’s inability to reconcile the election results for 79 precincts within Delaware County, including issues with some precincts that involved inconsistencies between the list of voters and the county return sheets, with the Return Board referring those precincts to Delaware County D.A. Stollsteimer.

Stollsteimer did not return a request for comment on Savage’s claim that Stollsteimer “owed” him. Also unanswered were The Federalist’s questions concerning whether the D.A.’s office has opened any investigation into the evidence seen on the whistleblower’s tapes.


This article is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.

Can the January 6 Investigation Serve Congress as an Institution?

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Traditionally it has never been questioned, either in doctrine or practice, that the legislature possesses the power, as it was put in early years, ‘to inquire into the honesty and efficiency of the executive branch.’ Under the American system it is this that is the heart of the investigatory power. … [I]f it lost the power to investigate the executive, Congress would retain only the name of legislature.

So wrote James Burnham in his great reflection on America’s constitutional system, Congress and the American Tradition. The National Review editor was aghast at the multiplying claims of executive privilege of his era, the late 1950s, and he hoped that conservatives might rally against them. When he wrote, he took it for granted that conservatives were generally defenders of the legislature’s constitutional prerogatives and standing, and liberals were generally its detractors. He conceded that these orientations might change in some future political environment then unforeseeable to him.

As it has turned out, ideologues of all stripes have generally forsaken Congress in favor of the executive branch in the years since Burnham wrote. With even greater consistency, both political parties have taken stands on behalf of broadening and deepening executive privilege.

Should those of us who think like Burnham circa 1959, then, look kindly upon the current efforts of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the U.S. Capitol? Recently, this committee (comprising seven Democrats and two anti-Trump Republicans) has been on the warpath against promiscuous claims of executive privilege. And it finds itself in the remarkable position of having the president and Department of Justice on its side, such that those members of the previous administration who defy its wishes now find themselves at serious risk of criminal prosecution. One such individual, Steve Bannon, who completely refused to cooperate with the committee, is already under indictment and will stand trial for contempt in July. Congress has a chance to demonstrate its Constitutional might and strike fear into the hearts of those who would defy its will to find the truth.

Of course, not everyone sees things that way. The executive branch’s omerta may indeed be showing cracks, but that just shows the ascendancy of partisan advantage seeking in this political moment. Critics of the Select Committee have dismissed its efforts as simple gamesmanship, a Democratic attempt to embarrass some Republicans ahead of the midterm elections in 2022.

There is little question that the Select Committee is a partisan endeavor—it was basically guaranteed to be from the outset, given that it was the body created by House Democrats after an attempt to agree to a bipartisan commission fell apart. And yet the accusation of partisanship is not the knock-down argument that some people think. Separation of powers conflicts are often fueled by one party’s desire for electoral advantage, but this can be one way in which “ambition counteracting ambition” keeps our Constitutional branches in balance. If the worst that the Select Committee’s critics can say about it is that it hopes to embarrass some Republicans, that would amount to praising it with faint damns.

The critics raise a more serious point when they take a different tack and ask: What is it that this Select Committee is actually trying to do? What is their investigation supposed to reveal about the January 6th attack on the Capitol that we do not already know from the Capitol Police Inspector General’s report, the joint report from the Senate Homeland Security and Rules Committees, the majority and minority reports from the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the voluminous coverage of the events of that day by investigative journalists?

Indeed, perhaps the most important question of all is what any of these investigations are going to be able to add to the most decisive record of all: the Twitter feed of @realDonaldTrump, now officially defunct but preserved for posterity for anyone who cares to look. More specifically, the eighth-to-last tweet issued from that account, at 2:24 PM on January 6, 2021, some 90 minutes after the first Capitol security guards gave way, and soon after Senators fled their chamber and the House interrupted its proceedings because of the mounting dangers from rioters in the building. It read: “Mike Pence didn’t have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our Country and our Constitution, giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts, not the fraudulent or inaccurate ones which they were asked to previously certify. USA demands the truth!”

That tweet, in the context of what was happening at that time (and what we are fairly certain Trump was observing on White House televisions), speaks volumes, and it is doubtful whether anything else uncovered by congressional investigators, or federal prosecutors, will ever match it.

Just because the Select Committee can press Congress’s institutional advantage does not mean that it would be wise to do so, or even that it would serve the immediate cause of helping frame the next election.

As the Select Committee decides just how many people it wants to refer for contempt, it would do well to consult Professor Josh Chafetz’s book, Congress’s Constitution (which I reviewed for Law & Liberty some years ago). Chafetz offers a magnificent history of Congress’s contempt power (building on an earlier law journal article), including a chronicle of the years in which the Capitol’s own jail was used to enforce the legislature’s will without any recourse to the executive branch or judiciary. There is no question that, as a matter of Constitutional powers, it is on good ground if it wants to steamroll any and all executive power claims. (The case is much less clear concerning members of Congress themselves, who assert their right to unobstructed speech and debate in the discharge of their duties, including confidential speech, as a reason to resist the committee’s entreaties.)

But the central message of Chafetz’s book is what the Select Committee needs to ponder. My review paraphrased, “A wise Congress seeks out interbranch conflict judiciously rather than indiscriminately.” There may be opportunities for the Select Committee and its allies in the Biden administration to win battles in court against Trump administration officials asserting executive privilege. And it may be possible to construe those as victories for Congress’s prerogatives. But the larger war is playing out in the court of public opinion. And it isn’t clear how the public—as opposed to just the Democrats’ core supporters—will take to seeing people thrown in jail simply because they failed to do everything the committee wished them to.

Particulars matter here. After the Select Committee recommended a criminal contempt citation for Bannon, the Biden Department of Justice delivered an indictment with remarkable speed. It has not done the same for Mark Meadows, Trump’s Chief of Staff at the time of the January 6th attack, who did offer the committee a considerable trove of documents before declining to fulfill some of their requests. Meadows’ claims of privilege are much more substantial than Bannon’s, and executive branch solidarity may yet win out.

What will the Select Committee gain by getting former Trump officials to sit in jail? For some, including Bannon, a jail sentence might well bolster their credibility with die-hard supporters of the former president. At the same time, the Committee risks coming off as simply intoxicated by its own powers.

If it is to avoid that fate as it seeks to get other witnesses to fully comply with its subpoenas, the Select Committee needs to make it very clear just what its investigation is supposed to be doing. There are hints that it may be hoping to frame a criminal indictment of Trump for “corruptly” obstructing or impeding an official proceeding. It is, frankly, rather difficult to imagine that coming off, in part because it is difficult to imagine what kind of smoking-gun evidence the committee could unearth that tells us something that the 2:24 PM tweet did not tell us already.

There is a very strong case to be made that an impeachment proceeding should have been brought against Trump on January 7 and tried in the Senate by January 8 or 9, such that actual removal of the president from office would have been a live possibility. The articles could have been written quite broadly, to emphasize that the primary “high crime” being considered was a violation of the president’s oath to uphold the Constitution and take care that its laws be faithfully executed; the question of whether Trump intentionally fomented the attack on the Capitol could have been treated as a side issue not requiring definitive resolution. That was, almost certainly, the best opportunity to join the causes of partisan advantage-seeking and institutional interest, and we might well have gotten a week or so of President Mike Pence. That would have left an indelible lesson about the Constitutional balance of power in our history books.

Having missed that opportunity, getting Trump officials thrown in jail for not cooperating with the Select Committee and seeing whether Trump himself can be subjected to the criminal justice system for his conduct smacks of sour grapes. Just because the Select Committee can press Congress’s institutional advantage does not mean that it would be wise to do so, or even that it would serve the immediate cause of helping frame the next election.

The best way to acknowledge the ignominious anniversary of January 6 would be to reopen the Capitol to the public. Ordinary Americans have been excluded, officially as a pandemic precaution, since March 2020. They need to come in again. Getting our representative legislature to embrace its connections to our citizenry is the ultimate retort to those who would subvert our democratic processes.


This article was published by Law and Liberty and is reprinted with permission.

Hillsdale College Imprimis: Is Ensuring Election Integrity Anti-Democratic?

Estimated Reading Time: 6 minutes

Editors’ Note: The following Hillsdale Imprimis article is presented in the context of tomorrow’s anniversary of the Capital riot one year ago triggered by the perception of a 2020 election that was stolen and defied the will of the American people. Illegal and fraudulent voting has always occurred to some degree but never on the scale of the pandemic related November 2020 election. Events at the Capital on January 6, 2021 are increasingly pointing to a possible false flag operation by elements of the Executive branch. Every citizen should be alarmed and resolved to strengthen our voting system at each state legislative level and ensure that We the People truly decide by consent who governs our nation.


The following is adapted from a talk delivered at Hillsdale College on September 20, 2021, during a Center for Constructive Alternatives conference on “Critical American Elections.”

Sixteen years ago, in 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform issued a report that proposed a uniform system of requiring a photo ID in order to vote in U.S. elections. The report also pointed out that widespread absentee voting makes vote fraud more likely. Voter files contain ineligible, duplicate, fictional, and deceased voters, a fact easily exploited using absentee ballots to commit fraud. Citizens who vote absentee are more susceptible to pressure and intimidation. And vote-buying schemes are far easier when citizens vote by mail.

Who was behind the Carter-Baker Commission? Donald Trump? No. The Commission’s two ranking members were former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, and former Secretary of State James Baker III, a Republican. Other Democrats on the Commission were former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and former Indiana Congressman Lee Hamilton. It was a truly bipartisan commission that made what seemed at the time to be common sense proposals.

How things have changed. Some of the Commission’s members, Jimmy Carter among them, came out last year to disavow the Commission’s work. And despite surveys showing that Americans overwhelmingly support measures to ensure election integrity—a recent Rasmussen survey found that 80 percent of Americans support a voter ID requirement—Democratic leaders across the board oppose such measures in the strongest terms.

Here, for instance, is President Biden speaking recently in Philadelphia, condemning the idea of voter IDs: “There is an unfolding assault taking place in America today—an attempt to suppress and subvert the right to vote in fair and free elections, an assault on democracy, an assault on liberty, an assault on who we are—who we are as Americans. For, make no mistake, bullies and merchants of fear and peddlers of lies are threatening the very foundation of our country.” Sadly but predicably, he went on to suggest that requiring voter IDs would mean returning people to slavery.

But the fact is that the U.S. is an outlier among the world’s democracies in not requiring voter ID. Of the 47 countries in Europe today, 46 of them currently require government-issued photo IDs to vote. The odd man out is the United Kingdom, in which Northern Ireland and many localities require voter IDs, but the requirement is not nationwide. The British Parliament, however, is considering a nationwide requirement, so very soon all 47 European countries will likely have adopted this common-sense policy.

When it comes to absentee voting, we Americans, accustomed as we are to very loose rules, are often shocked to learn that 35 of the 47 European countries—including France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden—don’t allow absentee voting for citizens living in country. Another ten European countries—including England, Ireland, Denmark, Portugal, and Spain—allow absentee voting, but require voters to show up in person and present a photo ID to pick up their ballots. It isn’t like in the U.S., where a person can say he’s going to be out of town and have a ballot mailed to him.

England used to have absentee voting rules similar to ours in the U.S. But in 2004, in the city of Birmingham, officials uncovered a massive vote fraud scheme in the city council races. The six winning Labor candidates had fraudulently acquired about 40,000 absentee votes, mainly from Muslim areas of the city. As a result, England ended the practice of mailing out absentee ballots and required voters to pick up their ballots in person with a photo ID.

Up until 1975, France also had loose absentee voting rules. But when massive vote fraud was discovered on the island of Corsica—where hundreds of thousands of dead people were found to be voting and even larger-scale vote-buying operations were occurring—France banned absentee voting altogether.

On the topic of buying votes, I should point out that we in the U.S. did not always have secret ballots. It wasn’t until 1880 that the first state adopted the secret ballot, and the last state to adopt it was South Carolina in 1950. Perhaps surprisingly, when secret ballots were adopted, the percentage of people voting fell by about twelve percent. Why was that? Prior to the adoption of the secret ballot, lots of people would get paid for voting. In those days, people voted by placing pieces of colored paper in the ballot box, with different colors representing different parties. Party officials would be present to observe what color paper each voter put into the box, and depending on the color, the voter would often get paid. Secret ballots put an end to this practice.

France learned in 1975 that the use of absentee ballots led to the same practice—it allowed third parties to know how people voted and pay them for voting a certain way. This same problem is now proliferating in the U.S. in the form of “ballot harvesting,” the increasingly common practice where party functionaries distribute and collect ballots.

Defenders of our current voting rules point out that in lieu of absentee voting, some European countries allow “proxy voting,” whereby one person can designate another to vote for him. And while it is true that eight of the 47 European countries allow proxy voting—meaning that 39 do not—there are strict requirements. In five of the eight countries—Belgium, England, Monaco, Poland, and Sweden—proxy voting is limited to those with a disability or an illness or who are out of the country. In Poland, it also requires the approval of the local mayor, and in Monaco the approval of the general secretariat. In France and the Netherlands, proxy voting has to be arranged through a notary public. Switzerland is the only country in Europe with a relatively liberal proxy voting policy, requiring only a signature match.

How about our neighbors, Canada and Mexico? Canada requires a photo ID to vote. If a voter shows up at the polls without an ID, he is allowed to vote only if he declares who he is in writing and if there is someone working at the polling station who can personally verify his identity.

Mexico has had a long history of election fraud. Partly because its leaders were concerned about a drop in foreign investment if it wasn’t perceived to be a legitimate democracy, Mexico recently instituted strict reforms. Voters must present a biometric ID—an ID with not only a photo, but also a thumb print. Voters also have indelible ink applied to their thumbs, preventing them from voting more than once. And absentee voting is prohibited, even for people living outside the country.

Those who oppose election integrity reform here in the U.S. often condemn it as a means of “voter suppression.” But in Mexico, the percent of people voting rose from 59 percent before the reforms to 68 percent after. It turned out that Mexicans were more, not less, likely to vote when they had confidence that their votes mattered.

H.R. 1, the radical bill Democratic Party leaders have been pushing to adopt this year, would prohibit states from requiring voter ID and require states to allow permanent mail-in voting. And mail-in voting, I hardly need to point out, is even worse, in terms of vote fraud, than absentee voting. With absentee voting, a person at least has to request a ballot. With mail-in voting—as we saw in too many places in the 2020 election—ballots are simply mailed out to everyone. With loose absentee voting rules, a country is making itself vulnerable to vote fraud. With mail-in voting, a country is almost begging for vote fraud.

If the rhetoric we hear from the Left today is correct—if voter ID requirements and restrictions on absentee (or even mail-in) voting are un-democratic—then so are the countries of Europe and the rest of the developed world. But this is utter nonsense.

Those opposing common sense measures to ensure integrity in U.S. elections—measures such as those recommended by the bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission in 2005—are not motivated by a concern for democracy, but by partisan interests.


John R. Lott, Jr., is founder and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. He received his B.A., M.A., and Ph.D. from UCLA and has held research or teaching positions at the University of Chicago, the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Stanford University, Yale University, and Rice University. He served in the Trump administration as Senior Advisor for Research and Statistics at the U.S. Department of Justice, where he studied vote fraud. He has written for numerous publications, including The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times, and is the author of ten books, including More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws.


The Wisconsin Purchase

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

How Mark Zuckerberg’s millions and the Center for Technology and Civic Life turned Wisconsin blue in 2020.

Democrats seem to know that they cannot win a national election without employing the same tactics that they used to win in 2020. As Nsé Ufot, CEO of the Stacey Abrams-founded New Georgia Project, said “If there isn’t a way for us to repeat what happened in November 2020, we’re f—ed.”

What happened in 2020 involved a highly coordinated and privately funded “shadow campaign” for Joe Biden that took place within the formal structure of the election system itself. Through the injection of over $419 million of Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s money, laundered through the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) and the Center for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR), the professional left presided over a targeted, historically unprecedented takeover of government election offices by nominally nonpartisan, but demonstrably ideological, nonprofit organizations and activists in key areas of swing states such as Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

Although CTCL and CEIR are chartered as non-partisan 501(c)(3) corporations, our research shows that the $419.5 million of CTCL and CEIR spending that took place in 2020 was highly partisan in its distribution, and highly partisan in its effects. Targeted CTCL and CEIR spending played a decisive role in building a “shadow” election system with a built-in structural bias that systematically favored Democratic votes over Republican votes.

Big CTCL and CEIR money had nothing to do with traditional campaign finance, media buys, lobbying, or other costs that are related to increasingly expensive modern elections. Rather, it had to do with financing the infiltration of election offices at the city and county level by Democrat activists and using those offices as a platform to implement preferred administrative practices, voting methods, ballot harvesting efforts, and data sharing agreements, as well as to launch intensive multi-media outreach campaigns and surgically targeted, concierge-level get-out-the-vote efforts in areas heavy with Democratic voters.

The injection of bias into select local election offices through CTCL infiltration introduced structural bias into Wisconsin’s entire 2020 election. This involved favoring certain voters and voting practices over others, and disfavoring other classes of voters and voting practices, giving CTCL’s preferred voters and voting methods an outsized impact on the final election results. The outcome of the 2020 election in Wisconsin is not the outcome that would have occurred if the election had been conducted on the basis of established election laws, equal treatment of voters, and administrative neutrality.

CTCL In Wisconsin: Ground Zero For CTCL’s Nationwide Effort

CTCL’s Safe Elections Project in Wisconsin was not the result of a grass roots clamor for greater election funding among money-starved municipalities desperately seeking additional election funding. It was entirely a top-down endeavor, initiated by CTCL operatives, and funded by a massive inflow of money from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, who cultivated connections among “Wisconsin Five” mayors and other city officials, incentivized the first grant applications, and provided funds and advice to aid in their completion.

CTCL involvement in Wisconsin’s election began in Racine. In late May, CTCL issued a $100,000 grant to the southeast Wisconsin city to “recruit other Wisconsin cities to join the ‘Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan.’” Racine Mayor Cory Mason spoke to his fellow liberal mayors in Madison, Milwaukee, Green Bay, and Kenosha about accepting CTCL’s grants—with the proviso that there would be strings attached.
CTCL authorized the City of Racine to distribute from its initial $100,000 grant, $10,000 to each of the four recruited cities (keeping $10,000 for itself), as an incentive for them to participate with Racine in applying for the larger CTCL conditional grants.

Emails obtained through public records requests show Mason’s office in May 2020 setting up numerous virtual meetings with the four other mayors three months before CTCL publicly announced the first round of grants to the “Wisconsin 5” on July 7, 2020. The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan, and CTCL involvement in Wisconsin’s election was the culmination of a collaborative effort between CTCL’s activist directors and election officials in Green Bay, Kenosha, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine. These cities would soon come to be referred to in CTCL inner circles as “The Wisconsin 5.”

At least 10 other cities in areas that were important to Democratic efforts to retake Wisconsin would eventually seek to become part of the plan by applying for and accepting significant CTCL grants considerably in excess of the minimum $5,000 offered to non-urban election offices throughout the state.

CTCL And “The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan” to Infiltrate Wisconsin’s Election System

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan—which would emerge out of a collaboration between high level CTCL Advisors, several representatives of the Pierre Omidyar funded National Vote at Home Institute, and Milwaukee’s City Clerk office during Summer, 2020—was the lynchpin of CTCL’s involvement in Wisconsin’s 2020 election. Fulfilling its major objectives was a condition for CTCL funding. City officials among The Wisconsin 5 signed off on “clawback provisions” that allowed CTCL to reclaim their grant money if it was not used to further the objectives contained in the plan.

For example, the CTCL contract that Green Bay approved warns that the grant was to be used “only for” safe and secure election administration, “and for no other purposes,” which means under the ambitious terms they set forth in their portion of the WSVP. The grant’s clawback provision stated that “CTCL may discontinue, modify, withhold part of, or ask for the return of all or part of the grant funds if it determines, in its sole judgment, that (a) any of the above conditions have not been met or (b) it must do so to comply with applicable laws or regulations.”

How The Wisconsin 5 Sought to Implement CTCL’s Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan: Bonfire of the Inanities

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan lists CTCL’s four major strategic objectives.

  • First, to “encourage and Increase Absentee Voting (By Mail and Early, In-Person),” mainly through providing “assistance” in absentee ballot completion and submission, and the installation of ballot drop boxes
  • Second, to “dramatically expand strategic voter education & outreach efforts, particularly to historically disenfranchised residents.”
  • Third, to recruit new election workers, mainly from among paid young activists who would replace the usual, older election day volunteers.
  • A distant fourth, both in emphasis and level of funding, was the funding of Covid-19 related safety measures.

CTCL funded election offices in Wisconsin seemed particularly intent on courting a demographic favored by the activists at CTCL—a loosely defined “New American Majority” coalition—to replace the working-class voters who had abandoned the party in droves in 2016, and who formerly made up a significant part of the old Democratic “Blue Wall” in the industrial upper Midwest.

This coalition encompasses people of color, single women, young people, and is often extended to include members of the LGBTQ community. Two of the non-profits most closely affiliated with CTCL, the Voter Participation Center and the Center for Voter Information, are at the forefront of proponents of this electoral strategy. According to Democracy Docket, “In the 2020 election, VPC and CVI overcame unprecedented challenges to help engage voters from the New American Majority.”

Addressing these challenges would involve a large commitment of financial and human resources in Wisconsin. There was therefore considerable anguish expressed in the Wisconsin Safe Voting plan about the “hand holding” level of assistance that such voters required in order to cast valid votes, even under greatly relaxed absentee ballot standards during Covid-19 afflicted 2020. To meet this need, Green Bay, Madison, Milwaukee, and Racine together budgeted over $540 thousand of their CTCL grant money toward various forms of “non-partisan voter education” alone.

The Wisconsin Safe Voting Plan outlined the prodigious efforts that the Wisconsin Five were willing to make in order to bend the election system from within toward these untapped tranches of low-propensity potential Democratic voters, and thereby increase Democratic votes in their cities, and in the statewide totals. Established by officials of the Wisconsin Five in collaboration with CTCL advisors, it would serve as the general template for CTCL’s efforts in other key swing states nationwide. It is an extravagant wish list of far-left Democratic election concerns and priorities……


William Doyle, Ph.D., is principal researcher at Caesar Rodney Election Research Institute in Irving, Texas. He specializes in economic history and the private funding of American elections. Previously, he was associate professor and chair in the Department of Economics at the University of Dallas.


Continue reading this article, published on December 24, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The American Conservative.

How Much Did Arabella’s Center for Secure and Modern Elections Undermine the 2020 Election?

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Part of an ongoing CRC investigation into how the Left twisted the 2020 election

The Left’s top “dark money” network was highly active in manipulating the 2020 election to elect Democrats and defeat President Donald Trump. That network, run by the shadowy consulting firm Arabella Advisors, was recently exposed by the Capital Research Center for raking in a staggering $1.7 billion in 2020 alone—and $4.7 billion since 2006.

But unseating Trump was only one of Arabella’s goals last year. Others—like passing automatic voter registration laws, mail-in voting, and weaker penalties for falsifying voter registration applications—were the target of one of Arabella’s most sinister fronts, the Center for Secure and Modern Elections (CSME).

CSME Origins

Exactly when the center was established is uncertain, but its origins date back at least to 2016, when it was the focus of an election panel for politically active grantmakers hosted by the Funders Committee for Civic Participation.

CSME seems to have started as “the Cities Project,” according to some older grant reports. It’s a joint project run by the New Venture Fund, Arabella’s $975 million flagship 501(c)(3), and the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Arabella’s 501(c)(4) lobbying shop. That means that all donations to the center are really donations to Arabella’s nonprofits, which aren’t even mentioned on the CSME website. It also means that the center doesn’t file public Form 990 reports with the IRS, keeping its exact finances a secret.

We’ve traced grants to both Arabella hosts to fund CSME from the leftist Bauman Foundation, which is tied to the Democracy Alliance; eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s Democracy Fund and Democracy Fund Voice ($1 million); the Blaustein Fund ($200,000); the mysterious pass-though Wellspring Philanthropic Fund ($1 million) to expand mail-in voting; and the Joyce Foundation, where then-Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) was once a board member.

The Joyce Foundation’s $600,000 grant was meant to help CSME support “elections jurisdictions in WI [Wisconsin], MI [Michigan], MN [Minnesota], and OH [Ohio] for the November 2020 election,” all of which were targeted by Biden campaign after Trump unexpectedly flipped Wisconsin and Michigan in 2016 and came within 45,000 votes of winning Minnesota, a decades-old Democratic stronghold. The professional Left and Big Philanthropy were intent on not letting that happen again in 2020.

Working With Zuckerberg

We know that the center was actively working with the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) to effectively privatize the 2020 election in thousands of local elections offices nationwide. New Venture Fund’s latest Form 990 reveals a $25 million grant to CTCL. But where was it active?

In late 2020, CTCL—an obscure Chicago-based nonprofit run by Democratic Party digital campaign operatives—received $350 million from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. These grants were distributed to government elections offices as COVID-19 “relief funds” ostensibly to make voting safer. In reality, our reporting reveals partisan trends in CTCL’s grantmaking that favored Democratic cities in battleground states essential to a Biden victory.

A lawsuit filed by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry in late 2020 accused CTCL of injecting “unregulated private money” into the state. CTCL’s communications with parish officials, Landry discovered, were facilitated by a local Democratic consultant and the then-obscure Center for Secure and Modern Elections.

A state judge shot down the lawsuit in late October, so Landry never made it to the discovery process. But we now know the Arabella-run center was actively aiding CTCL in a safe Republican state and warping the election in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, and Ohio—all of which received CTCL funds (exact amounts are unclear). Other documents suggest the center funded a campaign to track changes to voting laws brought on by COVID-19 ahead of the 2020 election.

Connecting CTCL, CSME, and NVHI

Ashish Sinha, a former Funders Committee for Civic Participation employee, was involved in an email chain between CTCL leadership, the National Vote at Home Institute (NVHI), and elections officials in Green Bay, Wisconsin. In the chain, they discussed the use of private drop boxes and “targeting communities” with absentee ballots in the coming 2020 election:

Why does this matter? Public record requests after the election revealed how Michael Spitzer-Rubinstein, a Vote at Home Institute staffer, practically ran Green Bay’s election as the city’s “de facto elections administrator” with access to its absentee ballots days before the election.

Spitzer-Rubinstein had access to four of the five keys to the ballroom where early ballots were stored and counted, and he even asked the city clerk to “cure” problematic absentee ballots. Green Bay “went rogue” under NVHI, in the words of the Brown County clerk. Green Bay also received $1.1 million from CTCL, the third-largest grant in Wisconsin.

Sam Oliker-Friedland, CSME’s chief counsel, previously worked for the digital campaign training group that birthed CTCL: the New Organizing Institute. We’ve documented its history here, but in short the now-defunct institute trained activists in registering voters and getting them to the polls in order to elect Democrats, earning it the Washington Post’s praise as “the Democratic Party’s Hogwarts for digital wizardry.” Three of the institute’s staffers—Whitney May, Tiana Epps-Johnson, and Donny Bridges—went on to found CTCL, where they perfected their craft to devastating effect in 2020.

The full extent of these three groups’ involvement in key states may never be known. But the evidence of their involvement in manipulating voting laws and election procedures behind the scenes is only growing.

Automatic Voter Registration Campaigns

CSME provides allies with model bill text for automatic voter registration, one of the Left’s longtime goals. Many Democratic groups (wrongly) believe that high turnout always helps Democrats, so focus on enacting bills to push voter registration on as many people as possible.

CSME has pushed automatic voter registration in ConnecticutOregonMaine, and Maryland.

It popped up again in a recently discovered, confidential “Statement of Work” contract for February–June 2020 between New Venture Fund and Dickinson & Avella PLLC, an Albany, New York-based political consultancy:

In partnership with Marc Solomon and the Center for Secure and Modern Elections (CSME) staff, represent New Venture Fund’s CSME project in support of Automatic Voter Registration and other provoter [sic] modernizations before the New York State Legislative, Executive and Administrative branches of government [emphasis added].

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) signed automatic voter registration into law in December.

Todd Shepherd, a reporter for the Pennsylvania-based Broad & Liberty, notes that Marc Solomon is a principal at Civitas Public Affairs, a nominally Republican-led consulting firm in Washington with clients that include the left-wing Voto Latino, Campaign Legal Center, Voter Participation Center . . . and Center for Secure and Modern Elections.

Solomon and his colleagues led the gay marriage campaigns of the early 2000s (Freedom to Marry) and seem to specialize in deception. I’ve documented Civitas’s role in secretly infiltrating the conservative movement with global warming, pro–carbon tax group practically run by its own staffers, most of whom come from far-left organizations.


This article was published on December 1, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

Court Rules Arizona Can Scrap Unsigned Ballots After Polls Close

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

(The Center Square) – A federal appellate court has flipped a lower court’s ruling, saying Arizona poll workers aren’t required to let a voter sign their ballot days after polls have closed.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that said it’s unconstitutional to allow voters to fix problematic signatures but not unsigned ballots.

The appellate court sided with the Republican Party of Arizona and others over the state Democratic Party and its allies.

The 2-1 decision said getting a voter to sign a ballot after polls close poses a burden on poll workers when they are at their busiest.

“The panel held that…the State had an important regulatory interest in reducing the administrative burden on poll workers, especially during the busy days immediately following an election. In light of the minimal burden on the voter to sign the affidavit or to correct a missing signature by election day, the State’s interest sufficiently justified the election-day deadline,” the opinion said.

Most Arizona voters cast their ballots by mail, something that’s been allowed since 1991. In the 2020 General Election, 2.5 million voters cast their ballots by mail.

The dissenting judge said the state “offered no rational explanation for requiring ballots missing signatures to be cured by election day, given the five-day post-election cure period for correcting other similar mistakes.”

The challenge stems from a 2019 law that required county elections officials to give voters five days to remedy a mismatched signature. Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich refused to approve a change to election rules proposed by Secretary of State Katie Hobbs that would have allowed the same grace period for missing signatures in the 2020 election.

The Democratic Party has yet to announce an appeal, which would likely be in the form of an en banc hearing by the same appellate court.


This article was published on December 9, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

The Left-Progressive Machine in Indian Country: Election Day

Estimated Reading Time: 3 minutes

The Left-Progressive Machine in Indian Country, 2020 Election (full series)
Election Day | Nationwide Organizational Structures
Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, and California | Beyond 2020


Summary: Left-of-center nonprofit organizations played a pivotal role in augmenting Native American turnout on and off reservations to seal Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. This constellation of Native American nonprofits that supercharged the Native American vote appears to be part of a larger left-wing political machine designed to skew elections to the left. Left-wing Native American nonprofits and organizations are working to increase their influence in redistricting after the 2020 Census and the 2022 midterm elections.


Shortly after CNN called the 2020 presidential election for Joe Biden on the afternoon of November 4, 2020, on-air commentator and former Obama administration official Van Jones read off the names of several nonprofit organizations he thought helped pave the way for Biden’s victory. While the untrained eye may think this was normal, Jones was oddly specific, glancing down at a notecard on the desk as he said the :

You see those little blue dots in Arizona? Those are Native American Reservations. The Native American community played a tremendous role—the Native Organizers Alliance, the Inter-Tribal Council. . . . These are groups that expect to be treated with respect. They are responsible for the victory.”

While Jones had mentioned prominent left-of-center Hispanic get-out-the-vote (GOTV) organizations earlier in the broadcast, it seemed peculiar that he had a list of nonprofit names ready to read on air once the results came in.

In the 2020 election, the Native American vote may have had the greatest impact in Arizona. Native American organizations were quite active in Nevada and in several instances appear to have violated election laws. Credit: Cenglish. Public Domain.

Investigation into Native Organizers Alliance (NOA) financial records explains why Jones mentioned them by name on November 4. The left-of-center Alliance for a Just Society reported a $842,921 program expense in 2020 in support of NOA, which it says heavily influenced historic Native American turnout and other programmatic expenses.

Oddly enough, the national press’s coverage of Native American activism in the election was not limited to Democratic insiders like Jones or to discussions of Arizona and Nevada. Much like the Time piece about the operatives who schemed “to save” the 2020 election from Donald Trump, John Nichols of The Nation recognized the NCAI’s Native Vote as one of the most important organizations behind Biden’s victory in Wisconsin, emphasizing the group’s efforts to boost Democratic turnout in Menominee County. According to The New Republic, Menominee County shares borders with the Menominee Indian Reservation and experienced the greatest swing to the Democratic Party in all Wisconsin, with voters casting 82 percent of their ballots for Joe Biden (up from 78.4 percent for Hillary Clinton in 2016). HuffPost emphasized Biden may not have flipped Arizona without Native American voters and noted that Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez met with Navajo Nation President Tom Perez earlier in 2020.

Press coverage of the Native American vote as a key voting bloc that would propel the Democrats to victory over President Trump appeared as early as 2019, when the Des Moines Register suggested that increasing turnout of historically Democratic-leaning Native American voters would help the Biden campaign overcome Hillary Clinton’s 2016 margins of defeat in key states such as Michigan, Wisconsin, Arizona, and North Carolina.

Predictably, on Election Day reports of record turnout across Indian Country in Arizona, Wisconsin, Nevada, and other locations trickled in alongside reports of potential fraud on Nevada reservations, but it was too late to address any nonprofit activities on the ground. Record turnout in Navajo Nation and parts of Wisconsin helped flip the two swing states in favor of Biden and hasten President Trump’s electoral demise. Shortly after the election, the New York Times was ready to identify the Native American activist nonprofits and the activists who were directly responsible for Joe Biden’s victory in Arizona.

If progressive activists like Van Jones and news reporters knew about various Native American nonprofit organizations and their plans at the national and state levels to increase Native American turnout on and off reservations, it begs some important questions: How ubiquitous and coordinated was the effort? Does this effort continue to the present day? And will Native American activists and other left-of-center nonprofit organizations replicate their electoral successes in the 2022 midterm election and the 2024 presidential election?

This piece examines the pivotal role that left-of-center nonprofit organizations played in augmenting Native American turnout on and off reservations to seal Joe Biden’s victory over President Trump in the 2020 presidential election. This constellation of Native American nonprofits that supercharged the Native American vote appear to be part of a larger left-wing political machine designed to skew elections to the left. As CRC has documented, the machine largely funds these partisan efforts with “dark money” funneled through nonprofits that are legally required to be nonpartisan. For example, in the 2020 presidential election Mark Zuckerberg and the Center for Technology and Civic Life (CTCL) played this role in numerous battleground states. Evidently, the pattern extends to Indian Country, a broad term for all “Native spaces and places within the United States,” not limited to reservations.


This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.


Head of Wisconsin Election Probe Accuses Two Big-City Mayors of Cover-up, Stonewalling

Estimated Reading Time: 2 minutes

The former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice leading probe singled out mayors of Madison and Green Bay.

A former Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who is leading one of the investigations into the state’s 2020 elections says it’s clear to him there is a cover-up going on.

Former Justice Mike Gableman told the Assembly’s Committee on Elections on Wednesday that the state’s Elections Commission, its administrator, and the mayors of Madison and Green Bay have refused to answer any of his questions about the Mark Zuckerberg-funded Center for Tech and Civic Life, and continue to refuse to cooperate with the subpoenas issued in the case.

“[Green Bay Mayor] Eric Genrich and [Madison Mayor] Satya Rhodes-Conway have chosen to ignore the subpoenas issued by the Wisconsin Assembly because they have no intention of answering uncomfortable questions about what they did with the millions of dollars in Zuckerberg money that they took.”

Green Bay and Madison, along with Milwaukee, Racine, and Kenosha accepted nearly $9 million from the CTCL in 2020, ostensibly for coronavirus safety operations.

Gableman on Wednesday said the money, instead, went to a massive get out the vote operation in the state’s five largest, and most Democratic cities.

“Reasonable minds might wonder whether the millions of dollars each of these mayors received from the Zuckerbergs may have induced them to do something other than treat all candidates fairly and impartially. And whether those mayors used the Zuckerberg money to get out the vote for Joe Biden,” Gableman said.

Gableman said a lawsuit from the Wisconsin Elections Commission and the move by Green Bay’s mayor to “lawyer-up” tells him that the people involved with the CTCL money in Wisconsin, and involved in last year’s elections, don’t want those questions answered.

“They are trying to run and hide from accountability to the citizens they are supposed to serve,” Gableman told lawmakers. “Why go through all of this legal evasion, maneuvering, and expense unless they do not want the public to know what they have done?”

Gableman is facing a lawsuit from Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul that seeks to stop his investigation. Specifically, it seeks to stop him from asking questions of Elections Commission administrator Meagan Wolfe. That case is due before a judge on December 23rd.

Gableman on Wednesday unveiled for the first time on Wednesday that he filed writs of attachment in Waukesha County Court against Genrich and Rhodes-Conway. A writ of attachment would allow the court to seize the documents and other pieces of evidence that Gableman is asking for in his investigation.


This article was published on December 2, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Center Square.

Zuckerberg’s Election Meddling Could Be Emulated by Foreign Interests

Estimated Reading Time: 4 minutes

Facebook might be a cesspool filled with lies, vitriol, and organized disinformation campaigns, but is it more frightening than a billionaire-funded political consultant with, quite literally, the keys to an election?


Mark Zuckerberg’s invention opened U.S. elections up to manipulation by foreign powers that everyone should be aware of.

No, not Facebook. His other invention. The private funding of public election offices.

When Zuckerberg contributed roughly $400 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life to privately finance public election offices, he was the first person ever to do so. It was a strategy simply unheard of before 2020. And this second invention of the billionaire, who became famous for his serious effect on tech, had a serious effect on elections.

But, while speaking out against Facebook and the damage it’s done to democracy earns a segment on 60 Minutes, speaking out about Zuckerberg and his “zuckbucks” might find one labeled a conspiracy theorist.

The idea that Zuckerberg impacted elections in partisan ways through Facebook is almost universally accepted, but strangely the idea he did the same through the Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) is somehow too farfetched. The reality is that CTCL impacted the 2020 election in ways Facebook never could, and legislators should be just as anxious to address “zuckbucks” as they are Facebook.

For proof, look no further than Wisconsin, where, in true Facebook fashion, one of CTCL’s “grant advisers” leveraged the terms and conditions of Zuckerberg’s funding to access information they had no right to see.

Reports show that Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein, CTCL’s Wisconsin “grant adviser” who once worked as a Democratic consultant in New York, became “de facto elections chief” for Wisconsin’s five largest cities despite holding no office.

Spitzer-Rubenstein re-wrote the rules for ballot curing in Milwaukee, requested to be allowed to personally cure ballots in Green Bay, helped election administrators decide how ballots would be transported, rented the room where ballots were to be stored in Green Bay, and as was given the keys to the hotel convention room where absentee ballots in Green Bay were stored “days in advance” of the election. In fact, Spitzer-Rubenstein was so intrusive and domineering that the Green Bay City Clerk resigned just before the election in disgust after her superiors ignored repeated email complaints questioning the legality and ethics of Spitzer-Rubenstein’s involvement.

Facebook might be a cesspool filled with lies, vitriol, and organized disinformation campaigns, but is it more frightening than a billionaire-funded political consultant with, quite literally, the keys to an election?

The details of how CTCL funds were used in Wisconsin are disturbing, but more disturbing is the fact that it was all legal. Most disturbing is that anybody else is now free to do the same. Anybody.

Oil tycoons, hedge fund managers, banking executives, literally anybody can fund 501(c)(3) nonprofits like the Center for Tech and Civic Life, and they can do it anonymously since 501(c)(3)’s are not legally required to disclose their donors. Worse yet, they wouldn’t even have to be a U.S. citizen because there are no rules against foreign donors either.

A Russian oil-oligarch looking to cripple his U.S. competitors could create a charitable front-group to disproportionately fund election offices of more environmentally conscious counties in hopes they would shut down drilling. A foreign dictator hoping to lift economic sanctions could use a nonprofit cultural center to pay for an election office’s voter outreach campaign but provide much more money to counties where a senator or presidential candidate sympathetic to their plight is winning.

This may sound like modern day McCarthyism, but there are numerous examples of foreign actors influencing U.S. elections in both 2016 and 2020.

Hansjörg Wyss, for example, is a little-known Swiss billionaire who illegally gave thousands to PACs (which non-citizens are not allowed to do) more than 30 times over several years before the FEC caught on. In 2021, the New York Times called Wyss an “influential force among Democrats,” despite the fact that he can’t contribute to candidates or political parties, because he uses his private foundation to funnel tens-of-millions of dollars into “nonpartisan” political advocacy groups each year, many of them 501(c)(3)’s just like CTCL.

Just this year, accusations surfaced that Wyss once again broke election law due to his involvement with the Arabella Advisors network, along with reports that he attempted to purchase numerous U.S. newspapers including the Chicago Tribune, the Baltimore Sun, and the Daily News. Furthermore, leaked internal memos show that the Wyss Foundation developed a  $100 million “Democracy Strategy” that included funding get-out-the-vote drives and lobbying to change election laws, and shared it directly with John Podesta, Hillary Clinton’s campaign manager, just before the 2016 election.

Wyss has no qualms about intervening in U.S. elections, and now that Zuckerberg has paved the way, Wyss might attempt to use his dark money network to follow suit. The same goes for the Russian government who famously tried to influence elections using targeted misinformation campaigns on Facebook in 2016, and the Iranian and Chinese governments who reportedly attempted to do the same in 2020.

It’s far from a conspiracy theory to say that “zuckbucks” gave Mark Zuckerberg a concerning level of influence over the 2020 election, and it’s just as reasonable to be worried that foreign interests will attempt to mimic Zuckerberg in the future. Luckily, dozens of states have put forward legislation to ban further private funding of election offices, but dozens more have yet to act. With 2022 fast approaching, time is running out for state legislatures to act, and if they don’t, our elections could be open to more interference and manipulation than ever before.


This article was published on November 23, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from Capital Research Center.

Whistleblower Videos Capture Pennsylvania Election Officials Destroying Evidence

Estimated Reading Time: 5 minutes

A complaint alleges Pennslyvania election officials were tearing tapes ‘into pieces and placing … them into the trash stating they will have a campfire to burn the data.’

Several residents of Delaware County Pennsylvania filed a sprawling lawsuit Thursday against the former Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, Delaware County, the Delaware County Board of Elections, and more than a dozen individual election officials. The lawsuit followed Wednesday’s night release of videotapes taken by a whistleblower capturing concerning behavior by several election officials in the Keystone state.

A source familiar with the lawsuit provided access to the tapes, noting the then-unnamed whistleblower had come forward with video evidence purporting to show Delaware County, Pennsylvania election officials destroying records from the November 2020 general election. The videos were also filed with the complaint and a bevy of exhibits the plaintiffs maintain support the allegations contained in their 91-page complaint.

The complaint, filed by Delaware County residents, Ruth Moton, Leah Hoopes, Gregory Stenstrom, as well as the Friends of Ruth Motion campaign, prevented both detailed alleged violations of state election law during the November 2020 election and claims of a conspiracy after the election to hide the numerous problems and illegalities that occurred during the last presidential election.

While the minutia of the election law recited in the complaint may escape the public’s notice, allegations that the defendants conspired to destroy or alter election data, materials, and equipment, “to prevent the discovery of the fraudulent results of the November 3, 2020 election, and the violation of various state and federal election laws,” when coupled with the videos, may finally awaken the sleeping masses to the cause of election integrity.

A May 21, 2021 request for 2020 election data and information submitted to Delaware County under Pennsylvania’s Right to Know Law served as an impetus for the alleged conspiracy and cover-up, as the complaint told the story.

A week later after the Right to Know request, a conversation is captured between two individuals, identified by those with knowledge of the lawsuit, as James Allen, the Director of Election Operations for Delaware County, and Jim Savage, identified by Delaware County’s directory as the Chief Custodian/Voting Machine Warehouse Supervisor.

In that video provided to The Federalist, Allen is heard telling Savage, “Then get rid of the pads and the second scanners.”

“We can’t talk about it anymore,” Savage replies, with Allen questioning, “Why?” “It’s a felony,” Allen countered.

The complaint added more texture to this video, alleging that Savage then “encouraged a private conversation to continue the conversation of the removal of the pads and scanners due to other Delaware County employees and [contract employee] Regina Miller,” being present.

The following month the whistleblower filmed a conversation she had with another Delaware County official, James Ziegelhoffer, according to a source with knowledge of the lawsuit. Ziegelhoffer, also known as Ziggy, held the position of “Judge of Election” for the Western Precinct in the Media Borough.

This tape purports to capture Ziggy saying, “What we have here . . . is evidence. Right? Let them figure that out.”

The whistleblower interjects, “Yes, but what I don’t understand and this makes — honestly this makes me nervous. Is why tapes were being thrown away?”

Ziggy begins to deny the claim, “No, no tapes were,” when the Whistleblower cuts him off:

“No, you guys have been throwing away tapes … so what tapes are you throwing away? Like why?”

“They’re all unidentifiable,” he counters before the whistleblower interrupts again:

“But it’s been that way since the November elections, so why would you throw anything away. Because you have to save it for 22 months,” the unnamed source is heard saying in the video, a reference to federal retention mandates.

“Yes there are tapes that are being tossed,” Ziggy finally acknowledges, but adds, “but they are of no audit value.”

A third video appears filmed in the same large room and captures a man identified by individuals with knowledge of the lawsuit as a Delaware County lawyer, Tom Gallager. As Gallager tears the tapes from the voting machines and discards them, the whistleblower can be heard asking: “Tom, why do you have to rip it up? Makes you feel better?”

“At this point,” Gallager replies, “I don’t want anybody to pick it up, and thinking we threw stuff away.”

“We’re gonna have a little campfire going,” Ziggy adds.

Several allegations in the complaint mesh with this video as well, with the plaintiffs alleging Delaware County layer, Tom Gallagher, and Ziegelhofer “set up a long table full of November 3, 2020, election data, and selectively destroyed the machines/proof tapes along with other November 3, 2020 records by tearing it into pieces and placing [it] into the trash stating they will have a campfire to burn the data.”

“Regina Miller became nervous” the complaint continues, alleging that Miller “informed the pair that they were violating numerous state and federal laws.” According to the complaint, Ziegelhoffer justified his actions by claiming “there was no audit value” to the November 3, 2020, election data.

Miller, who was a contract employee with Monarch Staffing, also claimed that in July of 2021, Allen threatened to consider a complaint taken to anyone else but him, as a “second and final violation of chain of command.” The complaint further alleged that Savage “told Regina Miller that he would have someone killed if he was ever betrayed by someone at work and described a story that he heard regarding someone from the county that someone “ratted on.”

Attempts to speak with Allen proved unsuccessful, with an administrative assistant stating he was in a meeting, but agreeing to convey my media request to him. Allen did not return my call. A call to Savage went unanswered and the County also ignored requests for comments from the gentlemen along with Gallager and Ziegelhoffer.

After detailing the purported violations of election law and the alleged destruction of election records and the claimed conspiracy, the complaint presented five legal theories for recovery, with Count I for common law fraud, Count II for fraudulent misrepresentation, Count III for negligent misrepresentation, Count IV for a claim for common law quo warranto, which apparently is a Pennsylvania claim for fraud related to elections and Count V for Mandamus and Equitable Relief.

While, if true, the allegations seem to scream of violations of the law, none of the claims alleged seem a close fit to the facts proffered to the court in the complaint. Also troubling is grasping the remedy the plaintiffs seek.

Typically money damages are awarded for fraud, but how do you monetize the harm to a voter when he is disenfranchised by election officials who counted illegal or fraudulent votes? Similarly, what court order (or mandamus) or other injunction could make the plaintiffs whole again.

The litigation, however, may have served another purpose: To highlight what the plaintiffs believe were widespread violations of state and federal election law and to expose the alleged conspiracy to cover up those problems, and thereby prevent a repeat in future elections.

Still, the videos may not be enough for those so blinded by their distaste for Trump that they cannot see the real threat to our democracy: elections without integrity and an electorate unable to trust the official outcome.


This article was published on November 19, 2021, and is reproduced with permission from The Federalist.