Skip to main content


Little traction for election fraud lawsuits

The Trump campaign hasn’t proven widespread voter fraud, but states can fix problems that came to light during the 2020 election

Little traction for election fraud lawsuits

A canvas observer photographs Lehigh County provisional ballots as vote counting in the general election continues in Allentown, Pa. (AP Photo/Mary Altaffer, File)

On Friday evening, the United States Supreme Court rejected Texas’ unprecedented bid to stop four states from casting Electoral College votes, saying Texas had no legal standing to do so.

In a brief order, the justices said Texas’ lawsuit “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.” Justices Samuel Alito Jr. and Clarence Thomas said Texas had a right to file the lawsuit but added they would not have granted it the outcome it sought.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton had asked the court to prevent electors from Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin from casting their votes for Joe Biden, so that those state legislatures could appoint new presidential electors. The attorneys general of 18 other states and President Donald Trump also joined the suit. The Electoral College will vote Monday.

Most political and legal experts had predicted the case had little chance of succeeding.

“Federalism and sovereignty say you have authority over how your state does it,” said Ryan Burge, an assistant professor at Eastern Illinois University. “This is not a federal issue, this is a state issue. States get to set their own rules about registration or early voting or closed primaries; … the federal government can’t touch that.”

The lawsuit argued that government officials in those states weaponized the COVID-19 pandemic to change election laws, making it easier for people to vote by mail or vote absentee.

Ahead of the decision, the state of Ohio filed a noteworthy brief in the case. It said though it wasn’t taking Texas’ side, the court should resolve election questions going forward: How much can courts or states’ executive branches change election rules, as happened in several states before the 2020 election? Though the Trump campaign and its allies haven’t proved the wide-ranging voter fraud they’ve claimed, Ohio’s question is one of several that state government officials may look to address to restore the trust of voters skeptical of the 2020 election.

“The States need this Court to decide, at the earliest available opportunity, the question whether the Electors Clause permits state courts (and state executive officials) to alter the rules by which presidential elections are conducted,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost wrote. “If only to prevent the doubts that have tainted this election from arising again in some future election, the Court should decide, as soon as possible, the extent of the power that the Electors Clause confers on state legislatures and withholds from other actors.”

In one example, the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to hear the Trump campaign’s case that alleged the Wisconsin Election Commission broke state election laws regarding absentee ballots.

Amy Black, a political science professor at Wheaton University, told me some post-election litigation raised legitimate questions that “if validated, would be problematic. But many of these cases have also asked for very extreme remedies, such as throwing out the results of entire elections, that don’t follow election law precedent.” 

Voters in states where election laws were changed did have the opportunity to challenge the changes.

In one case, Congressman Mike Kelly, R-Pa., asked the Supreme Court to overturn the election results in Pennsylvania because he claimed it acted unconstitutionally when it expanded its mail-in voting system in 2019. But the state Supreme Court rejected his lawsuit, saying that he had filed it too late. The time to challenge those changes would have been before the election. The U.S. Supreme Court, with no dissents, also rejected Kelly’s case.

Post-election scrutiny has highlighted other questions.

With a record-setting number of mail-in ballots used in 2020, maintaining accurate voter rolls has grown in importance.

Voter rolls are the biggest mess ever because people change their names, they get married or divorced … people move now quite frequently and don’t update their address. They don’t respond to mail. There’s a ton of reasons why voter rolls are not good but it’s insanely hard to have an accurate voter roll,” Burge said. 

On Saturday the Trump campaign asked Georgia’s Supreme Court to rule on its lawsuit claiming more than 140,000 people cast ballots in Georgia who weren’t on the voter rolls. The lawsuit also claims Georgia was too lax in checking voter signatures.

Burge pointed out that voter rolls have always faced questions of accuracy, and this year is no different. But states should have checks in the system to make sure that a clerical error doesn’t lead to a fraudulent vote. 

Still, on the whole, experts say that, given the challenges presented by the COVID-19 pandemic, the election went better than expected.

No election is fraud-free, but lots of protections are in place, and criminal penalties apply,” Black said. “No one has shown any evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election.”

Kevin Kosar, a resident scholar with American Enterprise Institute, said the U.S. Postal Service needs to improve tracking and communicating the speeds at which it processes mail, particularly election-related mail. “That would have put to rest so many of the rumors about how Trump and Postmaster General [Louis] DeJoy would steal the election by slowing mail ballots, which of course didn’t happen,” Kosar said.

He also thinks some states and localities could consider changes to allow election officials to tally mail-in and early ballots ahead of election night to get quicker results and place less stress on ballot counters and observers.

“It’s like working in a restaurant and someone ordering 50 hamburgers at once instead of [ordering them] spread out over five hours,” he said.

Some of that tension played out in Georgia after a 90-second video surfaced from election night that Trump’s legal team called proof of suspicious activity.

In the clip, a group of election observers and reporters file out of a room in Atlanta’s State Farm Arena where ballot counters had just stopped processing votes and were starting to pack things away. It was around 10:30 p.m. A few minutes later, the counters pull out containers of ballots from under tables. They resume work, this time unsupervised.

Trump allies like Rudy Giuliani pointed to the video as proof of voter fraud. Local officials deny wrongdoing.

There were “no magically appearing ballots,” Gabriel Sterling, an election official in Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s office, told WSB-TV in Atlanta. The uncounted ballots were in sealed ballot containers that election workers around 10 p.m. placed under a table in view of election observers. “They were planning on going home,” Sterling said. As ballot counters began putting things away and some left, the media and observers left the room.

A few minutes later, according to the Secretary of State office, Fulton County elections director Rick Barren called the workers’ supervisor with a warning: Employees shouldn’t call it a night so early. So, they pulled out the containers and resumed processing ballots.

It took more than an hour before a state monitor arrived around 11:52 p.m. He stayed until 12:45 a.m., when work wrapped up.

AP Photo/John Bazemore

Gabriel Sterling (AP Photo/John Bazemore)

Some question whether election workers told observers to leave. Ballot observers signed affidavits saying they were told counting had ceased for the night and would not resume until the next morning.

State election investigator Frances Watson told Lead Stories there was never an announcement about counting being over for the night or people needing to leave, but that contradicts what news media reported on election night.

In response to the confusion, Raffensperger’s office told National Review that it has launched an investigation into “why the monitors from the political parties left before scanning ended.” 

Despite these issues, election officials said nothing nefarious happened during the unsupervised period.

The incident became part of a lawsuit that Trump ally Sidney Powell filed alleging conspirators rigged the election by switching votes from Trump to President-elect Joe Biden using Dominion voter machines. A U.S. district court tossed out the lawsuit on Dec. 7, the same day Georgia recertified its results following another recount that confirmed Biden won the state by around 12,000 votes.

Georgia is among a group of states that within the last couple of years has replaced antiquated electronic voting machines with machines that produce backup paper ballots.

Julian Sanchez, a Cato Institute expert on technology and privacy, noted there are eight states that use all-digital voting machines with no paper ballot backups. But they’ve received almost no attention because they went decisively for Trump, or in New Jersey’s case, for Biden. Meanwhile, Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania have faced the most scrutiny despite making reforms within the last couple of years. These battleground states all have a paper trail to back up their voting results.

“States and state officials that are under attack are in many cases states have done everything experts say you should … at substantial cost,” he said.

—WORLD has updated this story to correct the spelling of Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger’s name.

Harvest Prude

Harvest Prude

Harvest is a political reporter for WORLD's Washington Bureau. She is a World Journalism Institute and Patrick Henry College graduate. Harvest resides in Washington, D.C. Follow her on Twitter @HarvestPrude.


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 02:09 am

    In Michigan, courageous people have testified about the election fraud that they witnessed. Of particular focus is a patriotic woman:

    RAW: Full Hima Kolanagireddy testimony before Michigan House alleging election fraud | Diya TV - YouTube

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 08:36 am

    These courageous people did not testify under oath.

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 09:54 pm

    It was a hearing, and at about 30:04 in the video: “Every single witness we’ve presented here has sworn an affidavit as to all of these facts.” As family8plus6sofar has pointed out, the definition of “affidavit” is “written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.”

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 08:22 am

    Hannah, did they testify to anything not included in the affadavit?

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 03:28 pm

    After viewing the video, what was your conclusion?

  • RA
    Posted: Sun, 12/13/2020 04:51 pm

    I don't think this article gets it right. Here's why:

    1. "Widespread" is an unhelpful word to use when describing the fraud that's alleged to have occurred. Ignoring the fact that any fraud is too much fraud, the word "widespread" has been used by the media to imply that the amount of fraud that might be proven in a court of law hasn't happened in many places or hasn't risen to the level of delivering the popular vote to Biden. First, the fraud didn't need to happen in many places, it just needed to happen in a few key precincts of cities like Detroit and Atlanta that could sneak enough fraudulent ballots into the system to deliver those four states to Biden. Second, whether or not enough fraudulent votes were counted to deliver a popular vote victory is irrelevant because of the Electoral College. So using the straw man argument that the rest of the media uses about there not being "widespread" fraud is less helpful in uncovering the truth than it is in obscuring it.

    2. The Texas lawsuit did not challenge the election laws that those four states used. The Texas Attorney General has said that the issue was that those states did not follow their own laws. Specifically, only state legislatures are given the power to make election laws, but in these states non-legislative officials like secretaries of state changed the way the elections were run (for example, accepting mail-in ballots far past the time allowed by state law) simply by deciding and implementing without any benefit of law. Non-lawmaking officials in these states seem to have broken their own states' election laws. Without consequence.

    3. Stop asking election officials responsible for places where fraud is alleged to have occurred if anything bad happened there on Election Day. Some of us might see it the same as if policemen on the beat were to ask the getaway driver outside if everything was OK inside the bank. When they tell you there's nothing to see here, it's time to get busy. The testimony of those who observed fraud were supported by affidavits signed under oath by many witnesses. The denials of wrongdoing were made to the press, to whom people can and do lie with impunity. I'm really amazed by the lack of investigative curiosity here on the part of journalists.

    4. Finally, the subtitle of this piece ("The Trump campaign hasn’t proven widespread voter fraud, but states can fix problems that came to light during the 2020 election") is remarkable. As I understand it, the Trump campaign has been turned away from most of the courts, thereby being denied the opportunity to prove their charges. And there is little reason to believe that those in power have any desire to fix the problems that have been brought to light during the 2020 election. Republican officals could not protect their interests in the counting rooms of Detroit and Philadelphia and Atlanta. Even the national leadership of the Republican Party seems unmoved by the plethora of red flags. As we've come to expect, the press remains intensely disinterested in anything that might benefit the President. The FBI will not investigate. The Justice Department remains strangely silent. If it's true that this was a manipulated election - and who denies that it was to one degree or another - on what grounds should one believe that anything will be "fixed"?

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 01:34 pm

    The FBI is investigating. The Justice Department is not "strangely silent" -- Bill Barr has clearly stated that he has not seen evidence fo widespread voter fraud. 

    As far as it being a manipulated election, the Trump campaign is manipulating its supporters by claiming publicly what they will not claim in court. 

    Republican officials were present in Detroit, Philadelphia, and Atlanta. They did not file challenges during the counting; only afterward, when Trump had lost, did these affadavits materialize.

    But it really is no use. As long as people are convinced in their hearts Trump lost, no amount of evidence will change their minds.

    This is why so many of us were uncomfortable with the GOP nominating someone without personal integrity to be a candidate for President. Once you defend someone's lies, in time you come to believe them. The GOP is reaping what it has sown, and I hope the country can withstand it.

  • Georganne
    Posted: Thu, 12/17/2020 09:54 am

    RA, Thank you, thank you, thank you!!  Your post exactly expresses my concerns.  Thank you for taking the time to put it into words and share it with us.

  • Mary Pray
    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 07:58 am

    Thank you RA for pointing out the obvious reasons why so many of us are concerned about the lack of interest by journalist, including World journalist, for taking seriously the allegations made under oath by those that were involved election night.

  • family8plus6sofar
    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 01:24 pm

    AMEN, Mary and RA ~ As you have said, signed affidavits are taken under oath:

    "definition: affidavit



    plural noun: affidavits

    a written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court."  

    So, WHY isn't WORLD Magazine investigating since the "main stream media" just takes the lberals
    word for everything rather than investigating?  My husband canceled our WORLD Magazine subscription
    a little over four years ago and I convinced him to get it again in Jun/Jul 2019... I'm beginning to think I was wrong to do so.  If WORLD is just going to parrot the secular media in such a case, why are we bothering?  Please, WORLD, give us a reason to continue subscribing.


    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 01:39 pm

    What concern do Republicans have now about lying under oath?

    Michael Flynn is a conservative hero, pardoned by the President, and Sidney Powell's star client.

    Why am I to believe a Republican affadavit filed under oath, when the party, from the President on down, rejects the integrity of the judicial process?

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 10:35 pm

    family8plus6sofar, I echo your cry, "Please, WORLD, give [me] a reason to continue subscribing." However, WORLD is a member of the Associated Press, so news stories in The Sift (which are combined into the Roundups) are from the AP. I'm thinking your husband was right. 

    For news from better sources than the "main stream media,"  I suggest 
    The Epoch Times 
    Liberty Nation 

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 01:03 pm

    Here's the bottom line:

    The evidence does not matter. 

    The message originally was, "Let's count every legal vote," the implication being that hundreds of thousands of votes weren't legal.

    The Trump campaign threw out theory after theory ... Dominion, vote dumps, pallets of ballots ... virtually none of which held up in court or out of it.

    Trump has had his day in court. (He probably could sue his lawyers for ineffective representation, but that's a different discussion.) He has lost, not just once, but repeatedly.

    Trump has made his case to the state legislators in the swing states, through staged hearings and personal conversations.

    Trump even got an embattled attorney general to file an unprecedented lawsuit to reject the electoral votes of swing states he lost.

    From the Supreme Court on down, the judicial verdict has been clear: Trump is wrong to say, "I won by a lot." He lost the election. Today, he will lose the Electoral College. 

    If you will not accept the judgment of not one, but multiple courts; if you will not accept the certified vote results in not one, but multiple states; if you will not accept the verdict of the Electoral College; if you will not accept the will of multiple GOP state legislatures who have declined to challenge their states' results, then I think it's fair to say, you are going by feelings and not by the facts.

    Your feelings matter to me; they really do. I have dear friends who are in shock and disgust at what has happened, and they can't imagine how America can disagree with them. I get that. It's legitimate. But your feelings are not evidence, and they don't replace facts.


  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 10:47 am

    No Tim, you are dead wrong on this. The voting fraud was monumental if you would take the time to seriously look at the evidence. Did you listen to the testimony of the Indian gal and the Hispanic guy? Essentially, the Republican poll watchers were being removed from the facility by force if they challenged the ballots. The facility would break out in cheers when the Republicans were removed. Even a government worker in Detroit testified that they were being trained to cheat in the election. I have already posted information about the vulnerability of the Dominion voter system. Here is another link. Why do you refuse to look at the evidence Tim? Are you a Democrat operative seeking to sway opinion? What is your motive?

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 10:44 am

    Cyborg3, I've listened to the evidence. I've gone deep into the Epoch Times pool, and I even listened to thirty seconds of the Eric Metaxes show. I read the Washington Examiner, National Review, World, and our local newspapers. I listen to conservative talkshows like Hugh Hewitt, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity. I also read the Dispatch.

    There's an old saying that there are two sides to every story. When I hear testimony, I ask, "What does the other side say?"

    And, frankly, in Michigan, where I've followed this very closely, even the Republicans don't buy the testimony you're talking about. 

    I'm not a Democrat, at least not yet. I've never voted for a Democratic presidential candidate, although I've voted for a few decent ones on the local level. I am prolife. I am anti-corruption. I have lived in Detroit for 30 years. During that time, I have certainly seen corruption, and I have opposed it. There are things that bother me about the current administration and city council, and they know it. At the same time, I know that there are a lot of people who are doing their best. My city council representative is a public servant in the best sense of the word. He is one of the best people I know of in politics anywhere, on a personal and public level. My state senator is not prolife, and I didn't vote for her because of that. But she is willing to listen and has worked with Republicans and Democrats to pass needed legislation that many progressives opposed. 

    These are people being demonized by the right, as if everybody in Detroit is hopelessly corrupt. Not true. A lot of us, including Democrats, have worked very hard to clean things up here, including some our city clerk.

  • Yokefellow
    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 08:17 pm

    I would simply recommend that your writers refer to the Epoch Times investigative reporting. I will include the link to a fantastic article published today.  Whether you are Democrat or Republican, this should cause you to have serious concerns for the future of election integrity.  There is so much more that the Epoch Times has reported on.  I wish World would have done a better job of investigating.  Blessings Mark

    Epoch Times link:

    Posted: Mon, 12/14/2020 10:12 pm

    Thank you for the link. I go to Epoch Times as well for excellent investigative reporting and timely news not covered by the "mainstream media."

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 08:04 am

    In looking at the Supreme Court decision, they sidestepped the issue of election fraud by focusing on procedure and even that argument didn't hold water.

    In a brief order, the justices said Texas’ lawsuit “has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections.”

    If a state doesn't follow their constitution nor the laws of their state in the voting process, allowing another candidate to be elected, then yes the Texas lawsuit is sound because the state has an interest in the election outcome. Texas voted for Trump and allowing other states to unlawfully elect Biden then does disenfranchised the Texas vote. This is common sense where the Supreme Court did not side with the law, but with the corruption of states, allowing corrupt states to decide the presidential election. If the Supreme Court had looked at the issue of election fraud, the presidential election would be overturned which the Supreme Court realized, so they focused on the procedure rather than the merits of the case. They were fearful of the appearances of the Supreme Court overruling the election and the resulting chaos, so they acted cowardly by not standing up for the rule of law! 

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 08:35 am

    Do you really think Clarence Thomas is a coward? Alito? Barrett? That's a ridiculous accusation to make because you disagree with their ruling. I can understand how a case can be made that Roberts is sensitive to how the court is perceived, but Thomas particularly has been willing on multiple occasions to stand out on the court if he thought it was the right thing. 

    The cowards here are the Republican leaders who are afraid to stand up to the President because they know he'll bully them into submission. Ask Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr and Mad Dog Mattis what happens when you disagree with Trump. it doesn't matter how loyal you were, once you disagree he'll mock and insult you.

    I can't believe that Republicans spent an entire campaign accusing Biden of being a communist and then are themselves trying to overturn a lawful election to install the losing candidate.

    Only one party tried to throw my vote out this election, only one party sued to keep my vote from being counted, and only one party is urging the Supreme Court, the state legislature, and the House of Representatives to overturn the election. I'm going to remember.

    Voting prolife doesn't help very much if you don't even have the right to vote. I will not vote for people who advocate taking away my or others' right to vote. They're dangerous.

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 11:22 am

    Tim, you are supporting the Democrats and their corruption so what does that say about you? I laid out my thinking very clearly and the argument that was used by the Supreme Court to not address this case. It is laughable at best to say that Texas doesn't have an "cognizable interest" in how another state runs their election when the state did not follow their own law or their own constitution!  We are all for "states rights" but when the state doesn't follow their own law then we descend into anarchy and chaos, and this does disenfranchise the legitimate vote of other states.  Not all the justices supported this decision so once again you are shown to be a propagandist with an agenda.

    Barr hasn't aggressively gone after the corruption in the justice department and failed to call out the disinformation during the election, which I think Trump has every right to be concerned about.  Barr is a good man but at the end of the day you need to look at results and he has not delivered swift justice regarding the illegal spying on Trump, the fake Hillary dossier and all the other corruption. Lou Dobbs has a less favorable view where I cannot deny what he says. In looking over all the people Trump had removed, I don't think there was one that I disagreed with. Trump's style is to replace someone who is working against his agenda or not seeing the role that the president wants the person to fulfill, which is legitimate.  You have watched too much MSM and the news pushed by Silicon Valley where you are blind to what is really going on!

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 10:18 am

    I don't have a TV ... I consume very little MSM. I don't support Democratic or Republican corruption. 

    Alito and Thomas said they wouldn't have given Texas the relief they sought; they simply thought the Supreme Court had to at least hear the case.

    The case had no merit because under the Constitution there is not a federal election system. The states decide how to choose their electors. If Texas can tell Michigan how to run its system, why can't California control the Texas system?

    Besides that, the election fraud claims have been litigated. I think it's 80 judges who have ruled on portions of these cases ... and the Trump campaign has lost nearly every case! The Trump campaign in many cases alleges fraud publicly, but withdraws their allegations under oath. Are they in on the conspiracy?

    Metaxes is right. It's not about the evidence. The evidence has been investigated, litigated, and repudiated. But Trump still thinks he should have won, so we'll keep arguing about these conspiracy theories.

    Let's give him a participation trophy, maybe an honorary degree from the Electoral College, and move on. 

  • Leeper
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 09:53 am

    Just  read report of Michigan judge order to audit Dominion audit voting machines in Antrim county Michigan. Report quite daming and unsettling to the the reliable of results. Bottom line machines are designed to manipulate results. Read at or 

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 10:23 am

    Given the track record of the person who made the report, I'll await the audit results before I adopt the Newsmax take on this.

    "Ramsland, a cybersecurity analyst and former Republican congressional candidate, mistook voting jurisdictions in Minnesota for Michigan towns in one recent flawed analysis of voter turnout in the Nov. 3 election. In another, filed in support of a federal lawsuit filed in Michigan, he made wildly inaccurate claims about voter turnout in various Michigan municipalities claiming that Detroit, where turnout was 51%, had turnout of 139%, and that North Muskegon, which had turnout of 78%, had voter turnout of 782%."

  • Leeper
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 10:39 am

    Tim please read the report made by a team or world cybersecurity experts. Hopefully the truth seems to be coming outl. Let's see if any of the fake news report this. I like word news just seems sometimes they don't have resources for deeper journalism on some issues. Thanks world

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 11:24 am

    What track record do these experts have? Why should I take them seriously when they have repeatedly promulgated misleading and untrue information in this election season?

    The answer to liberal fake news is not conservative fake news; it's the truth. 

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 11:24 am

    What track record do these experts have? Why should I take them seriously when they have repeatedly promulgated misleading and untrue information in this election season?

    The answer to liberal fake news is not conservative fake news; it's the truth. 

  • MTJanet
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 12:50 pm

    There were many irregularities with this election, and many of us believe that Trump did in fact win.  The article below, with cross referencing to Basham's original, need much explaining which will probably never come to light.  That said, the Lord puts our leaders into place, and we can trust Him to give us what we need/deserve.  Biden's worship of Molech is wretched, but our King is still on His throne, and what He has planned for us is perfect.

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 01:25 pm

    MTJanet, I appreciate your attitude of trust in the Lord.

    I also am not excited about a Biden presidency, although I have come to believe since the election that it is probably best for the country, given that the other guy and many of his supporters are advocating for the overthrow of the duly elected government and arrest of his political opponents.

    The raw vote totals tell a clear story. Trump gained slight support in the urban areas, maintained and gained slightly in rural areas, and lost big in the suburbs. Trump's polling before the campaign obviously showed he was weak in the suburbs, since at every rally he begged suburban women, "Please like me."

    In Michigan he did not lose the election by losing Detroit (where the voter fraud is alleged). If he had maintained his 2016 margin elsewhere in Michigan, he would have won. He lost in the suburbs, with Republican clerks and split-ticket voting.

    These "statistical analyses" are one-sided and don't factor in the changes that have been made in elections pre-COVID, the changes in voting patterns because of COVID, and, frankly, the animus a lot of leaning-Republican voters have toward Trump.

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 03:57 pm

    "Hammer and ScoreCard switch 19,958 votes live on TV from Trump to Biden in the Pennsylvania Presidential Race. At the 00:04 mark, the video shows Trump 1,690,589 and Biden 1,252,537. The video then cycles through Wisconsin, Arizona and Michigan. It returns to Pennsylvania at the 00:40 mark. Trump now has 1,670,631 a loss of 19,958 votes and Biden is now at 1,272,495 after magically gaining the same amount."
    Hammer and ScoreCard in action. 20 000 Votes flip live on TV from Trump to Biden (

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 04:06 pm

    Interesting that these slam dunk proof videos never make it to trial, even when Republican judges ASK for evidence, as they did in Wisconsin. The Trump campaign is not alleging major fraud in most of these trials. Why would they cover it up?

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 02:23 pm

    How exactly do the mail-in ballots have a paper trail! It seems to me that World is again pushing fake news!

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 03:31 pm

    First of all, it might be helpful to make a distinction between "mail in ballots" and "absentee ballots." My state, Michigan, had only absentee ballots. And they certainly have a paper trail.

    1. Voter Registration - have to have that before you can apply for absentee ballot

    2. Application - they compare to identifying info on file. It has your signature. We had to send this in to get our absentee ballot. (Contrary to what was reported, Michigan did not mail out unrequested ballots.)

    3. Outer Envelope - This again has your identifying information, including address, signature, and ballot number.

    4. Inner Envelope - Privacy envelope. No identifying information.

    5. Ballot - has perforated stub that is compared with outer envelope, then removed.

    Ballot is then tabulated, after the application/outer envelope/ballot have all been verified against each other and the poll book that lists registered voters. 

    We could track the progress of our ballot online from request to counting.

    Posted: Tue, 12/15/2020 04:34 pm

    Regarding "Ballot is then tabulated, after the application/outer envelope/ballot have all been verified against each other and the poll book that lists registered voters." That may have been true for your ballot, but for many other absentee ballots, that was not true.

     At about 17:15 in the video: “I saw a stack of [absentee] ballots which had a sticky note on it saying ‘Not in EPB/S.’ … When they would scan a ballot, nothing would come on the system. So they would manually enter these, and that’s when I figured out that they were not even entered in the poll book. So it is EPB/S, meaning ‘Election Poll Book or System.’ So none of these details [names and addresses] were in either of those.”

    RAW: Full Hima Kolanagireddy testimony before Michigan House alleging election fraud | Diya TV - YouTube

  • Eileen
    Posted: Wed, 12/16/2020 10:32 pm

    I have been a member of World News Group readership for many years and have been very happy with World, but unfortunately, lately I have been very unhappy with the way that the coverage of the post election is being covered.

    First of all, it is very upsetting to hear World refer to former Vice President Joe Biden as "President-Elect Biden" even before the Electoral College met, when only AP proclaimed him "President-Elect". AP does not have constitutional authority to make that declaration, and World has been remiss in not making it clear that this is the case. At least I have not heard this being brought forth and the constant use of this term is not honest journalism in my opinion.

    I would also like to say that I agree with the comments written here by Hannah, RA, Mary Pray, family8plus6sofar, Cyborg 3, and Yokefellow.

    I do appreciate Tim Miller's concern about the issues he brought up and his reluctance to believe the allegations brought forth against his home, Detroit, but I am also concerned about his dismissal of so many witnesses that have come forward to testify of fraud during the election.  There are many witnesses who have signed affadavits and have bravely testified after having been threatened, etc.  Also, there are quite a few that have come forth with evidence against Dominion and I have seen those videos showing the numbers of votes for Trump going down in various states during election night...I watched them very closely (including the recorded time, etc) and these show significant problems.  The one auditor that Tim mentioned is not the only computer expert reporting concerns about the machines. There are quite a few, so I am not convinced by Tim's dismissal of his audit results. Also, there were many other states and state legislators that supported Texas in its lawsuit   I have also been hearing other lawyers with concerns about this. 

    I also am very concerned about Tim's dismissal of General Flynn and Sidney Powell.  General Flynn was abused and fraudually indicted and later the case was dismissed, but Judge Sullivan, refused to comply with the dismissal by a higher court.  Sidney Powell was his lawyer, who did a wonderful job for him and has an impeccable long standing reputation.

    There is just too much evidence of fraud that I cannot dismiss so lightly.  To much evidence of corruption and hiding of evidence, timeing of things...things happening simultaneously by many different states at the same time in the late evening of Nov. 3, and other things such as the things coming out about Hunter Biden, that should have come out a while ago.  Durham has had almost 2 years to make his report. It is hard to believe that this was not held back deliberately until after the election.

    I have been finding that quite a few other news outlets have been more deligent to report on these stories, and I am sorry to say that I am also seriously considering canceling my subscription to World.  I do not want to be hasty and there are so many other things I really like about World, so I am going to take some more time to pray and consider this.

    Thank you.

    Posted: Fri, 12/18/2020 10:09 am


    Thanks for your kind words. I am very willing to acknowledge corruption in Detroit; in fact I could name several politicians that I believe are proven to be corrupt here, and some of them have big jobs. But I don't believe the election was mostly corrupt, based on multiple accounts from both sides. The best reporting I've read on Michigan, in depth, is Tim Alberta's article where he interviews multiple people, including state Republicans, who describe what actually happened. Many of the claims in the affadavits are answered there as well. (article:

    But I've been reading World since I was a senior in high school, and their reporting, while not sensational, has been consistently reliable. They're rarely the first to jump on a story (although they've broken some big news at times), but I think that's intentional, because they want to make sure they have the story right by the time we get it.

    This morning, I heard Albert Mohler (a World board of directors member) on World and Everything say that he thinks there was serious malfeasance in this election, perhaps enough to materially change the outcome of the election; at the same time (I hope I'm paraphrasing accurately), we can't simply reject the system; we must respect the rule of law as expressed by the courts, legislatures, and elected officials. Mohler supports changes to the system, but respects the election results as certified, because it's almost impossible to "uncount votes." (his words)

    I don't agree with all of that position, but I respect it. It's an honest, legit position that acknowledges the possible of serious voter fraud, but also recognizes that a compelling case for overturning the results has not been made (as evidenced by the court rulings).

    I think it's possible for Eileen, Albert Mohler, and myself to read and appreciate the same magazine. We won't always agree with the perspective, but we can learn from their reporting. For myself, I rely heavily on World to help me sort through the barrage of information. I hope you'll reconsider and compare World's consistent reliability to those other publications.

  • not silent
    Posted: Sun, 12/20/2020 02:14 pm

    I would like to affirm believers who are taking time to seek the Lord in prayer for guidance regarding current events, choices about what media to trust, and how to live in these crazy and confusing times.  I would also like to reiterate that we don't have to agree politically to love each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord and to work together for God's kingdom. (I previously used the example of Jesus' disciples, Matthew the tax collector and Simon the Zealot, who had VERY different political beliefs and would probaby have hated each other if Jesus had not chosen them to be his disciples and to spread the gospel and changed their hearts.)