The El Paso County, Co. recount is now done. At least for now. Lawsuits filed are challenging the legality of the recount.
Earlier this week, The Gateway Pundit reported that the team of local candidates in El Paso County, CO filed a lawsuit against the Secretary of State and the El Paso Co Clerk. The lawsuit would compel the CO Secretary of State to conduct the recount while assigning the Clerk and Recorder as an official observer to the recount. It is alleged in the lawsuit that the current method of testing and conducting the recount is inconsistent with Colorado Revised Statutes.
The new filing by CO Secretary of State candidate Tina Peters expands upon the Factual allegations, including the recount observations below:
On Tuesday, The Gateway Pundit fact-checked a “fact” check done on a story reporting that El Paso had “failed” their Logic and Accuracy Test. In the fact check, LeadStories insisted that the Logic and Accuracy Test was successful. They based this on statements from the Secretary of State, the El Paso Clerk and Recorder, and Dominion Voting. All three of the above named have a vested interest in the results of the testing:
- Dominion claimed the machines “are doing exactly what they have been configured to do during pre-election testing.” The machines had a 53% adjudication rate during the recount L&A test. Prior the the election, the L&A test had a much, much smaller adjudication rate. Therefore, the machines are not doing what they were configured to do during pre-election testing as Dominion stated.
- The Secretary of State has been embroiled in controversy surrounding the elections in Colorado. She was an opponent to Ms. Peters getting a recount in the first place. Sec. Griswold will face the winner of this primary in the general election three months time. Tina Peters, who was the Trump and Lindell endorsed front runner in both polling and fundraising, somehow ended up in 2nd place, barely beating out Mike O’Donnell for the runner up spot, and losing to the (on-leave) Director of the board for Center for Tech and Civic Life (CTCL).
- El Paso County Clerk Chuck Broerman was a candidate in the race.
Furthermore, if this was “completely expected”, then why did El Paso Co only account for one staffer for four hours and just four judges for a total of eight hours? The adjudication of 2,266 ballots one time would take longer than that. El Paso had to repeat that seven times for the remaining machines. That doesn’t seem very “expected”.
So when something shockingly dramatic, like a 53% adjudication rate, orders of magnitude greater than the pre-election testing, occurs, especially without any warning, it would render the test a failure by any auditing standards. Retroactively claiming “this was completely expected” doesn’t make it so. Sources on the ground claim the clerk definitely did not appear to be expecting this. None of the candidates were notified of a drastic increase of adjudications prior to the testing commencing. This sounds like an “unresolvable discrepancy.”
And there is a simple solution:
According to 8 C.C.R. 1501-1 Rule 10.13.1:
In accordance with section 1-10.5-102(3)(b), C.R.S., if there are no
discrepancies in the test under Rule 10.12, the recount must be
conducted in the same manner as the ballots were counted in the election
except as outlined in this Rule. If there are unresolvable discrepancies in
the test, the recount must be conducted as a hand count under Rule
Secretary of State Jena Griswold has the most ideal opportunity to ensure the elections in El Paso and Colorado are “free and fair” and the “gold standard” by conducting a hand recount.
Here is a copy of Tina’s filing.