Honest elections require detailed audits

Do people really want an honest fraud free election? The state of Arizona has been conducting a forensic audit of the 2020 election in Maricopa County. The audit was initiated because large numbers of people witnessed election violations and irregularities documented in sworn affidavits.

If the 2020 election was the “most secure”, honest and accurate election as claimed by the Democrats and liberals then they would support a top-to-bottom election audit. But that is not the case. The Democrats, liberals and liberal media are frothing at the mouth screaming the election was accurate, audits were done by election officials, end of story.

They say questioning the election and claiming there was fraud is the “Big Lie” and a conspiracy. They organized protests and filed lawsuits and have done everything they can to stop the Maricopa County audit and other audits across the country. If the election was honest then why would they fight to stop a detailed investigation? If they were honest they would support it but they don’t. What are they hiding?

Generally speaking, a regular audit looks to confirm that government procedures were followed and results are accurate per policy but does not consider all transactions. This is what the government election officials call an audit and what was done in most cases.

It looks to see if procedures were followed and does not look specifically for fraud. A forensic audit on the other hand uses techniques to discover errors, potential fraud, and is suitable to be used in legal proceedings. In other words a forensic audit takes a look at the entire election process and looks for irregularities that may be fraud.

Regardless of political party, every honest person in the United States should want honest and accurate elections free from dishonesty and fraud. This requires detailed audits by independent groups that have no political agenda.

It is a requirement for freedom and liberty. The Democrats and Liberals are absolutely against this level of accountability which shows they are likely manipulating the elections.

Jeffrey Bensen

Lompoc

Los Alamos development poses significant risk

A contested development plan in Los Alamos is coming before a county decision maker. Following public comment, its fate could be settled by the zoning administrator next month.

The builder seeks to add 11 more homes to an acre-and-a-half lot that already has one dwelling. He seeks access from a narrow road with a one-lane bottleneck. For obvious reasons of safety and health, this plan is unsound and should be denied.

In a letter to the zoning administrator I have set out three findings specified in State Government Code §66474 that are cause for disapproval of the plan.

There are several problems with the plan. First, with dozens of additional vehicles added to this space, peak-hour traffic, especially on school days, would dramatically increase and pose a significant hazard to vehicles, pedestrians and bicyclists along the 100-foot long one-lane section of road.

Next, the lot does not offer sufficient on-site parking space. Half of the new dwellings would not even have garages and some of the remaining garages would be used, at least partly, for storing personal items. Where would as many as 48 cars and trucks find parking? This section of Shaw Street has no shoulder and is a designated fire lane with 18 existing homes. Any vehicles illegally parked here could impede swift passage of emergency vehicles.

For the past year, Planning and Development has moved this project forward without attending sufficiently to its serious flaws. It has not called for a traffic study, it has ignored and then down-played the hazards posed by the bottleneck and the question of adequate parking, and it has substantially underestimated the increase in traffic volume. All this while trying to reduce the ability of residents of Los Alamos to influence the outcome.

In the rush to build many more needed affordable homes in the county, it has allowed an ill-conceived plan to unnecessarily risk the safety and health of residents … as well as of the prospective tenants on the developed lot.

We hope the county respects the residents of Los Alamos, takes account of our concerns and decides wisely.

Seth Steiner

Los Alamos

1
0
0
0
0

Recommended for you