Risk-limiting Audits Needed

Posted by |

Texas needs risk-limiting audits to rebuild trust in elections.

Right now, the only way an audit of an election occurs in Texas is if there’s a dispute about the result.

A dispute isn’t always triggered and certainly wouldn’t have been for the presidential election in Texas.

Still, there were questions in various counties about election result veracity, doubts that an audit could have allayed.

While narratives by national figures like Michelle Malkin and the Gateway Pundit suggesting electronic in Tarrant County fraud fell flat when challenged, distrust exists that can’t be overcome without an audit.

Not all audits are created equal. Texas needs robust and transparent audits.

The only thing worse than no audit might be an audit that can credibly be criticized like the half-hearted variants on display in states like Georgia and Pennsylvania this cycle.

In Georgia, while election officials claimed to have conducted a statewide audit really did what’s been alternatively labeled a “ballot inventory check” or a canvass of the vote.

Recounting ballots won’t unearth potential fraud; it might just turn up more ballots.

In addition to not conducting an audit, the state of Georgia, while it boasted signature verification could be open to the public and quickly when it was making a sales pitch to purchase new election equipment did not and has not released information for a crowdsourced review of signatures.

These sins have been further compounded by the bizarre and verifiable practice of observers being barred from meaningfully observing “audit” activities and election officials’ open hostility toward candidates on the ballot.

Juxtaposing Georgia, Arizona appears to have conducted a worthwhile audit of its mail-in ballots.

The result of that audit revealed that there were sufficient errors in voting to change the result of the election, and this was the conclusion of the Democrat observer.

Pin It on Pinterest