It’s Not Just St. Louis – New York City Is Training Election Workers to Accept ALL SIGNATURES That Are WILDLY UNMATCHED
Earlier this week The Gateway Pundit reported on how St. Louis County election officials were telling poll workers during training sessions not to worry about the new Photo ID law in the state.
The trainers at the session told the workers not to worry about Voter ID adding, “We are not the photo police.”
Missouri passed Voter ID laws this past year.
New York City training guide says these signatures match.
On Friday evening another Gateway Pundit reader from New York wrote to tell us this is also happening in New York City.
And our friend from New York even sent screengrabs from the training.
Dear Jim:After reading your story “We are not the photo police” I have a related situation to report.
I’ve become aware of what I believe is a glaring opportunity for fraud in the New York City elections next week.
My husband and I have been training online as poll workers. Every lesson that deals with authenticating a voter encourages the poll worker to accept signatures that are wildly unmatched between the one “on file” and the one that the voter signs on the tablet on election day.
We all know that digital signing does not perfectly replicate a pen-on-paper signature, but the variations shown in the training are outrageously inaccurate. Not a single one resembles its on-file version, yet the poll worker cannot question it.
I saw this discrepancy immediately, but even my husband — who is not alert to visual details — was shocked when I pointed it out.
Interestingly, the printed manual (attached) does not contain any of these illustrations; they are only viewable in the online training modules. I’ve taken screen shots (attached) to demonstrate.
My husband and I were appalled that the training video does not address signature variation in any way. Any signature, no matter how flagrantly inauthentic, is passed through.
What the video does address are situations where a voter is not in the poll book, or where a vote has already been cast in the voter’s name, or where a voter has come to the wrong election district and refuses to go to the correct one. In those cases, the only option available is to cast an Affidavit Vote, which the training perplexedly states will not be counted.
It is possible, even likely, that since IDs are not required someone can easily cast a fraudulent vote in a legitimate voter’s name. Later, if the legitimate voter attempts to vote, he can only do so as an Affidavit Vote which will not be counted.
One might conclude that the Board of Elections is indoctrinating its poll workers to accept fraudulent voters or offer remedies that will invalidate a genuine vote.
If you choose to investigate this further, I will make myself available at your convenience.
Here is another example of an approved signature.