Wed May 05 19:50:50 +0000 2021

 · 2 min read
 · trapezoid of discovery

[tweet] [link]
I've had a chance to more thoroughly review the new information filed in the Antrim, MI election lawsuit, and one thing's become clear:

Bailey and DePerno's pivoted their argument because they have no case, and are grasping at straws. I'll do a thread later today.

[tweet] [link]
But the gist is that (after reading the Halderman report) they understood how to edit the election ballot definition files that the scanners use directly, using SQL Studio (you can also edit the ballot definition using the Dominion software directly)

[tweet] [link]
So they updated the ballot definition files that the scanner uses to shift marks by 1 (you can see that in the video they posted). They don't, however, update the ballot definition configured in the Election Management System itself.

[tweet] [link]
The ballot definitions used on the scanners AND by the election management system need to match. If they don't, the EMS will incorrectly tally the results. This is what happened in Antrim. They only updated the scanner ballot definitions for ONE township instead of all of them

[tweet] [link]
Because the majority of scanners were using the old ballot definition, when the results were loaded into the EMS, the votes were shifted.For the presidential race, this had the effect of discarding all votes cast for Biden, shifting Trump's votes to Biden, and Jorgensens to Trump

[tweet] [link]
The configuration mismatch occurred because a few townships found changes they needed made to their ballots in October. Antrim county was provided a new set of election project files that included the updated config. Antrim updated their EMS, but again - not all scanners.

[tweet] [link]
DePerno's new "evidence" is that...if you intentionally edit the ballot definition used by the scanner (either using SQL Studio, or the Dominion software itself) - and the configuration used by the EMS doesn't match that ballot definition, votes will be shifted and incorrect

[tweet] [link]
The other assertion made is that the scanner ballot definitions were intentionally incorrect. I reviewed the Lenberg and Penrose reports that are meant to support this claim, and I'm still not convinced. I'll break down those reports in more detail (with citations) tonight.