DAT Files New Complaints: Kaufman County

Posted by |

Direct Action Texas has just filed new complaints with the Secretary of State detailing 47 counts of election fraud in Kaufman County. Our filing comes shortly after a District Judge called for a new election for the Republican nomination for County Court at Law 1. Judge Marty Lowy nullified the original results where Judge Jones had won his race by only one vote, citing voter fraud as well as violations of Federal Law, according to a recent Federal Court ruling.

Several voters took the stand in the Election Contest. One elderly couple, who could not read nor write, said that they don’t recall ever filling out or signing an application for a ballot by mail. They believe that their “voting papers” just arrive in their mailbox. A woman took the stand and said she doesn’t remember voting since JFK, and if she had voted it would have been in the Democrat Primary. Her vote was actually cast in the Republican Primary. Some recognized their signatures, some did not. In one case a voter said, “it looks like someone tried to write like me.” The details of their testimony varied, but all of them had one thing in common. None of them knew for whom they voted. None of them could name a single person on their ballot. Someone else had voted in their name.

In addition to attending the court proceedings, Direct Action Texas examined all the mail-in ballots received in Kaufman for both the Democrat and Republican Primaries. What we found was a clear pattern of ballot harvesting in both parties’ primaries. We discovered what appear to be numerous applications and ballots assisted illegally and some obvious forgeries. The Kaufman County main-in ballots show the same patterns we have reported in numerous other counties.

The main complaint we filed was against Brenda Prince, a known Democrat activist in Kaufman. Prince testified in the Election Contest that she did assist Inez Davis and mailed her carrier envelope containing her ballot yet failed to provide her information on the back of that envelope. This is a violation of two sections of the Election Code, “Unlawful carrier envelope action by person other than voter” (Sec. 86.0051) and “Unlawfully assisting voter voting by mail” (Sec. 86.010). Just like in-person voting, when someone assists with or has possession of another person’s ballot, the assistant must sign an oath that he or she did not influence the voter’s choices in any way. Prince failed to do so.

Prince’s own admission, that she claimed was “due to human error,” may have been one of the few true statements she made on the stand. In his tentative findings, Judge Lowy stated that the “Court is unable to credit most of Ms. Prince’s testimony.” He went on to say that she contradicted virtually every voter that testified.  Armed with this information and all the voter testimony from the proceedings, DAT set about looking through all the evidence. The court proceedings were clues, but we were sure to come to our own conclusions. We submitted those conclusions and the evidence we found to the Secretary of State and the Office of the Attorney General.

While much of our findings point to Mrs. Prince, it also appears that she was not the only harvester in Kaufman that election. We do know that she once worked with former State Rep. Terri Hodge who was convicted of federal tax evasion and taking bribes. Since her release from prison she has worked for various political campaigns and for Democrat U.S. Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson. She was also rumored to be an active ballot harvester. In 2017 she taught a seminar for the Dallas County Democrat Party on “Building Better Vote-by-Mail Results.” Perhaps Mrs. Prince learned her trade from Hodge?

The investigation into just how many people were involved is ongoing, as is the investigation into who funded the operation. Harvesters do not work for free. It is odd that a long-time Democrat activist would suddenly start harvesting ballots for a Republican Primary. One possible explanation, the County Court at Law 1 race, the Contested Election, was not the only race on the ballot. DAT has seen elections where several candidates benefitted from the same harvesting scheme. The guilty party/parties could be anyone with an interest in the outcome of the election. While many questions still remain, it is ultimately up to the Office of the Attorney General to investigate and prove wrongdoing. We provide them with a place to start.

Related Tags: , ,

Pin It on Pinterest