COUNTY COMMISSION STRATEGY – POST 2022 GENERAL [S]ELECTION

BACKGROUND
Citizens of New Mexico and multiple experts have patiently investigated historical election and registration
data, our electronic election system, violation of election statutes, and evidence of corruption by the SOS
and certain county clerks. We have found mountains of red flags in the data and multiple failures on the
part of the SOS to ensure the “the purity of elections [to] guard against the abuse of the elective
franchise.”1

These anomalies are documented in two extensive reports that are published online 2,3 as well as multiple
other analysis by citizens that have been given directly to county officials, along with hours of public
comments made on the record in county commission meetings across the state.

The 2022 General Election that just transpired shows a continuation of these anomalies and violations of
the law. New Mexico can no longer continue to gloss over these issues. They must be dealt with now.

NOVEMBER 8TH, 2022 Election

Voter Intimidation
In the 2022 General Election, multiple violations of the election code were observed and reported. Poll
workers intimidated voters concerning the use of their own marking devices, even though doing so is
allowed by the SOS’s own guidance document. See Figure 1. Not only are alternative marking devices
legal, but poll workers are prohibited by statute from looking at a voter’s ballot to determine what marking
device the voter used. See NMSA 1-12-59.B. Additionally, election workers lied to voters about their right
to take a picture of their own ballot as expressly provided under NMSA 1-12-59A, and incorrectly told
voters they could not take their cell phones into the polling place.

Moreover, election worker trainees reported that Otero County Clerk, Robyn Homes, directed them to take
down names of anyone that used their own marking device and then refer them to the District Attorney. A
voter in Dona Ana County reported that she was present when a poll worker publicly cussed at and
humiliated a voter who had brought their own pen to mark their ballot. Both instances are clear violations
of the law and extremely inappropriate conduct for election workers.

1
NMSA 1-1-1.1
2
https://dow9ovycsk6w7.cloudfront.net/media_items/68749-NM_Voter_Fraud_Report_with_Appendices.pdf?
1633970140
3
https://dow9ovycsk6w7.cloudfront.net/media_items/69241-Otero_County_Audit_Report.pdf?1660596423

1|Page
 Figure 1. Any Marking Device is Acceptable (from SOS document titled “Determining Voter Intent”)

In Torrance County, police officers were sent twice on election day to a polling place that had formed a line.
The officers “encouraged” voters to leave and find another polling place without a line. It is unknown how
many people felt that a “suggestion” from armed uniformed officers was a mandatory order, and then left
the polling place to have possibly never voted. There is legal precedent that this behavior constitutes voter
intimidation.

A similar case occurred in New Jersey in 1981 where armed officers appeared at Democrat-leaning polling
places and interacted with voters.4 Having officers present at a polling place was considered to be an act of
intimidation so egregious that it resulted in the Republican Party in every state entering into a consent
decree where they were barred from pursuing election integrity measures for decades without prior
approval.5 The fact that something very similar just happened in a New Mexico County – this time targeting
Republican-leaning precincts – should disgust everyone.

These coercive encounters between government employees and voters violate the law. 6

Pollbook Anomalies and Violation of Process

There was a report of a registered voter going to the polling place and the pollbooks did not have this
registered voter in the database. The issue had to be corrected by the clerk. There was a report of poll
workers checking in individuals to vote, but the individuals could not provide their own home addresses.
The poll workers coached these individuals on what to say so that they could be provided a ballot. In a state
without voter ID, individuals not knowing their own registered address, but still acquiring a ballot with the
help of an election worker, increases the possibility of identity theft and fraudulent voting. This is
unacceptable.

4
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_Security_Task_Force#:~:text=The%20suit%20was%20settled%20in%201982%2C
%20when%20the,though%20they%20did%20not%20admit%20any%20wrongdoing.%20
5
www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/2020-07/1982%20consent%20decree.pdf
6
“….coercion of employees, coercion of voters, intimidation or conspiracy to violate the Election Code” are all
potentially criminal acts under NMSA 1-12-59.D.

2|Page
Significant Evidence of Manipulation in Election Night Reporting
Initial review of the election data shows that serious anomalies occurred, and the results were not
consistent with polling data or registration trends. Since 2008, Democrats have steadily been declining in
percentage of registrations, while Republicans have continuously gained registrations. Yet, the 2022
election results showed a net loss of Republican seats from the top to the bottom of the ticket in New
Mexico.

Election night data is reported by the SOS and sent to Edison Research which pushes results out to media
outlets across the country. Edison data was available for the governor, congressional, attorney general, and
secretary of state races. All but one of these races showed serious anomalies consistent with manipulation
of the election.

The worst anomalies occurred in the governor’s race and two of the three congressional seats. Figures 2
through 4 show the cumulative vote totals for these races throughout election night and into the afternoon
of November 9th.

Figure 2. Election Night Reporting for NM Governor’s Race

Votes in an additive election process should never decrease. Yet in Figure 2, we see that a large upload of
votes was added at about 22:38 on November 8th only to be inexplicably removed a few minutes later.
Another batch of votes was removed at 10:35 on November 9th. This cannot be explained by a county
withdrawing their results to make a correction, because not all statewide races saw these decreases.

There was also an upload of approximately 170,000 votes at 22:08 on November 8th. Before the upload,
the margin between the two candidates was narrow, but after the injection the margin had increased
significantly in all races. This upload is seen on all down ballot races except Congressional District 3.

3|Page
This upload may be legitimate if it came from a county that did not have Congressional District 3 on the
ballot, such as Bernalillo County. However, the injection of votes represents 25% of the statewide election.
Given the number of reports in the record, it is unlikely that such a large number of votes was legitimately
reported in a single 3-minute interval. At this time, it is not possible to determine the how concerning this
major anomaly is without more information.

Figures 3 and 4 show Congressional House Districts 1 and 2 with multiple impossible anomalies. At about
10:30 on November 9th, thousands of votes were removed from the overall totals for both races. That
cannot happen in an honest election.

Equally unexplained, are the large ballot injections that occurred in each of these races on election night. In
all cases, the margin between the two candidates were narrowing prior to the injection, only to widen
significantly following the injection. The injections for Congressional District 1 occurred at 22:08 on
November 8th and 00:45 on November 9th. The injections for Congressional District 2 occurred at 21:45,
22:08, and 23:05 on November 8th.

Figure 3. Election Night Reporting for Congressional House District 1

4|Page
21:58, 23:05

Figure 4. Election Night Reporting for Congressional House District 2

Whatever spin the Secretary of State and clerks may offer, we know these vote injections cannot all be
legitimate. Because if the ballot uploads in the congressional races were real, there should be large
corresponding increases in the votes for governor, SOS, and AG. The only increase in the congressional
races that corresponded to races at the top of the ticket was the 22:08 November 8 th upload. The other
three large vote increases in the congressional races do not show large corresponding vote increases in the
races at the top of the ticket. Therefore, those vote injections are not consistent with legitimate reporting
from counties, but are consistent with fraudulent manipulation of these races.

5|Page
 Figure 5. Election Night Reporting for Attorney General

Figure 6. Election Night Reporting for Secretary of State

6|Page
Figures 5 and 6 show the election night reporting for the attorney general and SOS races respectively. Both
races had a large ballot injection at 22:08 that was addressed previously. Figure 7 shows the vote totals for
Congressional District 3. This is the only race that behaves as expected, and does not contain large,
suspicious vote spikes, or impossible vote removals.

Figure 7. Election Night Reporting for Congressional District 3

ACTION THAT MUST BE TAKEN

Polling data has shown consistently that between 60 and 70 percent of Americans do not trust our election
system, expected significant cheating to take place in the 2022 General Election, and do not have
confidence in the outcome of our elections. The vast number of documented violations of the law and
anomalies in the data in New Mexico, and across the country, will only worsen this crisis of public
confidence.

County clerks and county commissioners must now work together to canvass the election results and
certify the election before it can be finalized. Both the clerks and the commissioners have the opportunity
over the next week and a half to review the record and assure the public that the election is correct prior
to certification.

Every citizen that does not trust what they saw on election day, needs to contact their county clerk and
county commissioners right now and tell them they want them to take additional care in examination of
the election record as they are allowed to do by statute.

7|Page
The law is very clear that the commission has the authority to review the election returns. Election returns
are defined by NMSA 1-1-8 as follows:

…"election returns" means the certificate of the precinct board showing the total number
of votes cast for each candidate, or for or against each proposed constitutional amendment
or other question, and may include statements of canvass, signature rosters, poll books,
tally books, machine printed returns and, in any canvass of returns for county candidates,
the original certificates of registration in the possession of the county clerk, together with
the copies of certificates of registration in the office of the county clerk (emphasis added).

The words “may include” indicate that this list is not inclusive. There are two additional election records
that every county commission must do at least a preliminary analysis on before the results are certified.
The first is the cast vote record. This is a single electronic file that summarizes the entire election in the
county. Evidence of ballot stuffing and machine manipulation can be found quickly if it is there. This record
does not contain any identifying voter information. It was directed to be created by the National Institute
of Standards and Technology so that election officials and the general public could review it.7

The second record the clerks and commissioners need to check is the voter history in the registration
database. They need to verify that the number of voters in each precinct in the database matches the
reported number of votes cast in each precinct by type of vote (election day, early, and absentee). This
exercise is mentioned specifically in NMSA 1-13-5.A(3).

If there are red flags in either of these two records, then the clerk and county commission must ensure the
canvass is correct before proceeding to certification (NMSA 1-13-5.c). The only way to genuinely assure
the public that the canvass is correct is to do a full hand recount of the paper ballots. The ballots
themselves could also be considered “election returns” as defined by statute since they are part of the
election record.

SUMMARY
Flood your county commissioners and county clerks with emails and phone calls requesting these two
things be performed as part of the county canvass because of the anomalies already apparent in the
election results:

1. Provide the Cast Vote Record to a competent individual for analysis to look for evidence of ballot
stuffing or machine manipulation. A preliminary analysis can be completed in a matter of hours by
someone who knows what they’re looking for.
2. Ensure that the number of votes by precinct and vote type in the election results reconcile with the
voter history in the registration database.

If any anomalies in 1 or 2 are found, then demand a full hand recount of the election prior to certification.
The clerks and commissioners have the authority to grant these requests. We must hold them accountable
and assure them that they will have our support if they take these steps to protect the people of New
Mexico and our confidence in our elections.

7
nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/SpecialPublications/NIST.SP.1500-103.pdf, Section 1.2

8|Page