Steve Aste candidate for the
Utah State Senate 15th District.
Roy Piskadlo candidate for the
Utah House of Representatives 41st District.
Lew Moore, Steve Aste, Roy Piskadlo on KTALK with Lowell Nelson
Listen to Lowell's Audio Broadcast. Click the play button below
Transparency & Truth
Election Certification Matters understands that there are many differing opinions regarding the fairness and accuracy of our elections. Further, we understand that there are differences of opinion as to whether or not the methods we use to cast our votes are sound and that they are not tampered with in any way, others believe precisely the opposite. We believe that these differences of opinion will always exist.
Election Certification Matters also believes, that regardless of party affiliation, philosophy, religion or ideological viewpoint, that voters want fairness and accuracy in the election process regardless of the outcome.
With Transparency & Truth as our premise, we maintain that any person of integrity, intellectual honesty and sense of fairness would not be opposed to implementing a process that would ensure Utah elections are conducted fairly and that the rightful candidate (candidate with the most legitimate votes) assumes elected office.
Consider the wisdom that has been codified in Article I, Section 27 (Fundamental Rights) of our State Constitution; Frequent recurrence to fundamental principles is essential to the security of the individual right to the perpetuity of free government. Stated another way, when government is out of control, convoluted, excessive, lies to its citizens and prohibits transparency and no longer serves the citizens of the United States, but rather serves the interests of government itself, then it is time to revert back to the original intent of the constitution in order to once again ensure that that government is a servant of the people. We as a state and a nation, with respect to our elections, have clearly reached this point.
Utah’s Election Laws are contained in Election Code 20A which is over 463 pages in length. 20A refers numerous times to other Utah codes, such as Utah Title Code 63G among others, effectively making our election laws almost 700 pages long! In the 2024 Legislative session, there will be additional election bills presented that could make our election code almost 1000 pages long! These laws are confusing, cumbersome and often contradictory, which promotes an environment that is ripe for fraud.
To ensure fairness, real certification must be implemented to give the citizens of this state the confidence that their elections are conducted fairly and certified with full transparency.
We began with an email writing campaign to the 9 Salt Lake County Council members (Board of Canvassers, BoC’s) following the “Certification” of the 2022 General Election, asking among other things, the simple question, “What did you personally do to verify or validate that the election that you just voted to affirm or to “certify” is true and correct? What action did you actually take to make certain of the elections accuracy?” No Board of Canvass Member has been able to honestly answer this question with confidence.
Our correspondence and efforts has since been directed to the County Clerks and each member of the County Councils and County Commissions in each of Utah’s 29 counties.
In recent months, Steve and Roy have petitioned our Utah State Legislators to change election laws so that our Board of Canvassers can legitimately “Certify” our elections in the State of Utah.
Transparency in government and the ability to hold your elected officials accountable, beginning with our elections, is necessary to establish trust with the citizens of the United States of America. Lack of transparency an inability to hold elected officials accountable breeds distrust and inevitably ends in fraud. Fraudulent elections are nothing short of a hostile takeover of our government for personal power, wealth or an anti-American agenda.
Steve Aste and Roy Piskadlo have collectively been working to expose election fraud, in multiple states including Utah since before the 2020 general election.
WHAT IS THE PROCESS
All elections in Utah are “Certified” by our County Councils or County Commissions, acting as the Board of Canvassers (BoC) The process of certifying an election is called “canvassing”. By state law, it is these elected officials that are responsible to ensure that our elections are conducted in accordance with Utah State Election Laws and are fair and transparent.
Messrs. Aste, and Piskadlo recognize that it is our County Council members and Commissioners that are responsible for certifying elections in Utah and have been denied access to the data necessary to certify elections. The Board of Canvassers are unable to vote against the certification of an election. Certification of election results in Utah are no more than a rubber stamp and are worthless.
Working with the Utah State Legislature we seek the following:
Changes to Utah Election Law
- Every election official who is charged with “certifying” election results must have unfettered access to data necessary to verify, through their own due diligence, that the election was conducted fairly, in accordance with Utah State law and the results are accurate. Each Election Official;
- Will have access to all election data including; paper ballots or paper ballot records, envelopes used to cast mail-in ballots, all cast vote records, access to all computer logs, Voter Registration Data and,
- Will be granted a budget (paid for by the State) to which they can use to hire forensic experts (e.g. computer systems engineers, forensic accountants and data scientists) to audit all electronic files and computer equipment used to conduct the election.
- Every Election Official that conducts elections, certifies election results or is hired by an Election Official to conduct an election or audit an election may be held personally liable in civil court if they were Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind when performing their election related responsibilities. Election Officials can also be held civilly responsible if they deliberately manipulated the election results (Willful Misconduct). Suits may be brought by any registered voter in the State and will be heard and adjudicated before a jury in civil court. Election Officials that have been found by a jury to be Grossly Negligent, Willfully Blind or guilty of Willful Misconduct will be personally subject to financial penalties, forced to pay the plaintiff’s legal fees and will be dismissed from their positions.
- Private citizens shall have access to the same data available to Election Officials that certify elections.
The above additions to the Utah Election code copies the rules in place for company executives of publicly traded companies and their auditors. These rules governing private company executives and auditors/experts that issue certified public financial statements is called Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Act of 2002. As with public financial statements, these few simple additions to Utah’s election code will ensure transparency for all citizens while giving citizens a mechanism to hold Election Officials personally financially responsible for being Willfully Blind, Grossly Negligent or deliberately breaking the law (“Willful Misconduct”). Election Officials will be held to the same fiduciary and professional standards of care and professionalism as executives at financial institutions, auditors, and private company executives.
PRODUCT OR SERVICE CERTIFICATION DIAGRAM
What does Certification of a product you purchase mean to you?
How comfortable would you feel about your purchase if the “Expert” certifying the product you just purchased didn’t actually do anything to certify the product because the Expert;
- Did not have access to the product before certifying,
- Did not have the expertise necessary to certify the product,
- Was only paid by the Manufacturer if the Expert gave a “positive” certification,
- Could not be held accountable by you the consumer for giving bogus “Rubber Stamp” certifications?
Did you know that election certification in Utah is a Rubber Stamp?
“If the role of the Board of Canvassers is just to rubber stamp and to get a summary, then is that really what we’re looking for? …. In this issue and at this time, there is only one vote that we can cast and it’s “yes”. That’s it. There’s no other options. Because if we vote “no”, they certify [the election] another route anyway.”
Quote from Mr. Bill Lee – Former Utah County Commissioner and Member of Board of Canvassers during Board of Canvasser meeting in the summer of 2022.
Election Certification Matters is a group of Utah citizens seeking to change Utah’s election code by working with;
- Boards of Canvassers and County Clerks in all 29 Counties in Utah.
- Every State Senator and State Representative.
- Registered Voters – We need your help!
TERM SHEET FOR REAL "CERTIFICATION"
County Level Election Certification Process
Election Certification Matters (“ECM”) is proposing changes to the Election Certification Process in Utah. Our goal is to introduce these changes through State Senators and Representatives during the 2024 legislative session and seek a change to Utah’s Election Code. This document is a summary of ECM’s proposed changes to the Election Certification Process that is performed at the County level and is for discussion purposes only. ECM is meeting with County Clerks, County Auditors and Members of the Boards of Canvassers in all 29 Utah counties and will discuss proposed edits/modifications with election officials in each county and consolidate changes across the State. ECM will gather feedback on the proposed changes and incorporate feedback as necessary. We will then circulate those versions back to election officials in each county for further comments. ECM will also meet and discuss the proposed changes to the Election Certification Process with individual State House Representatives and State Senators.
All of us rely upon certification of many different products, processes, professional services in our everyday lives. Certification as defined by the International Organization of Standards (“ISO”) is;
“….the provision by an independent body of written assurance (a certificate) that the product, process, service, [a professional], or system in question meets specific [minimum] requirements.”
Consumers that purchase or rely upon products, processes or services rely upon professional independent bodies to certify that the products meet minimum performance and safety standards, processes meet legal requirements and are accurate and/or professionals have met education requirements. A certification has no value if the certification process is flawed or the people that rely upon that certification don’t consider the certification process as being real or valid. Would you board a commercial flight if you learned that the pilots were not certified to operate the aircraft, if the mechanics maintaining the aircraft weren’t certified to work on the equipment or the aircraft itself wasn’t certified as airworthy? Certification of elections is no different. Why should any registered voter have confidence that an election that was “certified” by a Board of Canvassers was conducted in compliance with State and Federal laws and is accurate if Election Certification is nothing more than verifying that items were received by the Board of Canvassers (i.e. Election Certification is a “Ministerial Function” aka a “Rubber Stamp”)?
Our proposed changes to the Election Certification process is a direct adaptation of the processes used to certify published financial results by publicly traded companies. Specifically, Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002. SOX is now more than 20 years old and has had a profound and mostly positive impact on the quality of financial information published by publicly traded companies. The success of SOX can be judged by “…the absence of any financial and accounting scandals like those which spurred the introduction of SOX throughout the 20 years since its inception”. The SOX changes increased investor confidence in the published financial information upon which they were basing their investment and other commercial decisions.
SOX was so successful that versions of the law were adopted by many OECD countries including countries such as Turkey, South Africa and India.
We present our proposed Election Certification changes side-by-side with the SOX changes in a term sheet below. A term sheet is a shorthand method used to communicate legal terms that is easily read by both ordinary people and lawyers. We are showing our proposed changes to the Election Certification Process adjacent to the equivalent SOX definitions to demonstrate that ECM proposed changes are anything but unique or creative. We had to make minor changes to Election Certification Definitions to reflect the specifics of an Election. The proposed Election Certification Process can be used to certify any type of Election (e.g. Mail-in ballots, RCV or paper ballots cast at the polling location and counted by hand). We will use the table below to discuss specific changes, identify missing protections and make changes. ECM recognizes that current Utah Code does not permit many of the changes we are requesting.
ELECTION CERTIFICATION PROCESS
(This table is best viewed on desktop)
|Election Certification Definitions
|Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) Definitions
|Board of Canvassers (“BoC”)
|Accounting firms such as Deloitte and E&Y
|Members of the Certification Body
|Members of the Board of Canvassers are elected county commissioners or county council members who have multiple responsibilities including Certifying elections for Federal and State Offices.
|Senior Partners at an accounting firm manage groups of accountants and assist in preparing their client’s published financial statements and certify that those financial statements are correct.
|Perform due diligence, as deemed necessary by the individual Members of the Board of Canvassers in their sole discretion, to certify that the election was conducted consistent with State and Federal laws and the results are accurate.
|Perform due diligence, as deemed necessary by the Senior Partners in their sole discretion to confirm that the Company’s financial statements were prepared in accordance with US GAAP and accurately reflect the current financial status of the Company.
|Access to Information
Members of the Board of Canvassers have access to ALL election related data including access to; i) High resolution images of paper ballots, ii) all Cast Vote Records, ii) High resolution images of outer envelopes, iii) forensic images of computer hard drives of computer equipment used to conduct the election, iv) computer software, and v) Voter rolls (including Withheld, Private and Public records) the (“Election Data”).
Members of the Board of Canvassers will NEVER have access to information that shows HOW any individual registered voter cast his ballot. Restricting access to such information can never be used by a Member of the Board of Canvassers to withhold certification of an election.
|Senior Partners have access in their sole discretion to ALL public and non-public Company information.
|Public Access to Information
Every registered voter will have access to the same information as Members of the Board of Canvassers without cost to the Voter. A Registered Voter who receives a copy of the information must agree to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement that limits the use of the information to analyzing the election. The Registered Voter can publish analyses of the data but may not publish the data itself. The Registered Voter may use the data and his analyses as evidence in either a criminal or civil suits.
Registered Voters that receive Election Data and use such data for purposes other than analysis of the election will be in violation of their Non-Disclosure Agreement and subject to significant financial penalties.
|Members of the public have access to all Company information that was used in the creation and certification of the Company’s Financial Statements.
|Use of Information
|Members of the Board of Canvassers must limit the use of Election information to performance of their Certification Obligations.
|Senior Partners must limit the use of public and non-public Company information to performance of their Certification Obligations.
|Access to Experts
|The Board of Canvassers as a body or individual Members of the Board of Canvassers may hire Election Experts to perform election due diligence on their behalf.
|Senior Partners may hire outside experts to analyze public and non-public Company information.
|The Board of Canvassers as a body or individual Members of the Board of Canvassers shall be granted a budget to hire Election Experts at their sole discretion.
|The Accounting Firm that is Certifying the Company’s Financial Statement will pass all costs (including third party Experts) of the certification onto the Company including a reasonable profit for the Accounting Firm and the costs of any Experts hired by the Accounting Firm.
|Disclosure of Information
Members of the Board of Canvassers may disclose information to Election Experts who were hired to perform analyses of Election Data (the “Disclosed Information”).
Election Experts hired by Members of the Board of Canvassers to perform analyses as part of certification of an Election must receive a Non-Disclosure Agreement from such Election Experts limiting their use of such Disclosed Information to the analysis being conducted on behalf of the Member of the Board of Canvassers in performance of his Certification Obligations.
Senior Partners may disclose information to professionals that they deem “Experts” in a relevant field to perform analyses on their behalf (the “Disclosed Information”).
Experts hired by Senior Partners to perform analyses as part of certification of a company’s financial statements must receive a Non-Disclosure Agreement from such Expert limiting their use of such Disclosed Information to the analysis being conducted on behalf of the Senior Partner in performance of his Certification Obligations.
|As a body, the Board of Canvassers certifies an Election via a Unanimous Vote.
|Every Senior Partner responsible for certifying the Company’s financial statements must sign the Company’s financial statements as an individual and as a partner of the firm.
The Board of Canvassers will provide a Preliminary and Final Certification.
Preliminary Certification will be within  days of the Election Day. Members of the Board of Canvassers will basis its Preliminary Certification on a preliminary analysis of the Election Data.
Final Certification will be no later than  months from Election Day. A member of the Board of Canvassers will be held harmless for withdrawing his vote to certify an election if he withdrew certification in Good Faith after further analysis.
If a Member of the Board of Canvassers chooses to withhold Certification of an Election for any reason, that Member must issue a public statement as to why he is withholding such certification.
|The Accounting Firm certifying a Company’s Financial Statements must do so prior to the date the Company publishes its Financial Statements. If the Accounting Firm must, in Good Faith, withhold Certification of the Company’s Financial Statements, it must make a public statement why it is withholding such Certification.
|Each Member of the Board of Canvassers has the authority to withhold their vote to certify an election in their sole discretion Provided That they have withheld their vote to certify in Good Faith.
|Every Senior Partner has the authority to withhold their certification of a Company’s financial statements in their sole discretion Provided That they have withheld their vote to certify in Good Faith.
Each Member of the Board of Canvassers will be held harmless and free from any penalties, political or economic retribution (e.g. dismissal from job or removal from office) for withholding his Certification of an Election in Good Faith.
The county will pay all legal fees incurred by each Member of the Board of Canvassers if they are the subject of one or more criminal or civil lawsuits that is a result of executing their Certification Obligations Provided That the Member of the Board of Canvassers was executing his Certification Obligations in Good Faith. For the avoidance of doubt, a Member of the Board of Canvassers is always presumed to be executing his Certification Obligations in Good Faith unless it is demonstrated in court that the Member was operating in Bad Faith, Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind when performing his Certification Obligations.
Each Senior Partner, employees of the Senior accounting Firm, Company experts hired by the Company or Accounting Firm (e.g. Bankers) will be held harmless and free from any penalties, political or economic retribution (e.g. dismissal from job or removal from office) for withholding certification of the Company’s financial statements in Good Faith.
The Senior Partner’s firm will pay all legal fees incurred by each Senior Partner if they are the subject of one or more criminal or civil lawsuits that is a result of executing their Certification Obligations Provided That the Senior Partner was executing his Certification Obligations in Good Faith. For the avoidance of doubt, a Senior Partner is always presumed to be executing his Certification Obligations in Good Faith unless it is demonstrated in court that the Senior Partner was operating in Bad Faith, Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind when performing his Certification Obligations.
|Members of the Board of Canvassers, Election Vendors, Election Experts and Election Workers can be criminally prosecuted for Bad Faith or Gross Negligence performance of their responsibilities.
|Senior Partners, employees of the Accounting Firm, Senior Company Executives (e.g. CEO, CFO) and Experts hired by the Accounting Firm can be criminally prosecuted for Bad Faith or Gross Negligence performance of their responsibilities.
Members of the Board of Canvassers, Election Vendors, Election Experts and Election Workers can be sued for malpractice in Performance of their Election Certification Obligations by private individuals in Civil court (Jury Trial).
Members of the Board of Canvassers, Election Vendors, Election Experts and Election Workers can be subject to material fines if a jury decides that the person that is subject of the suit performed his Certification Obligations in Bad Faith, was Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind.
Senior Partners, employees of the Accounting Firm, Senior Company Executives (e.g. CEO, CFO) and Experts hired by the Accounting Firm can be sued for malpractice in Performance of their Certification Obligations by private individuals in Civil court (Jury Trial).
Senior Partners, employees of the Accounting Firm, Senior Company Executives (e.g. CEO, CFO) and Experts hired by the Accounting Firm can be subject to material fines if a jury decides that the person that is subject of the suit performed his Certification Obligations in Bad Faith, was Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind.
|Loss of Indemnities
Members of the Board of Canvassers, Election Vendors, Election Experts and Election Workers will lose any indemnification or insurance if they are convicted in criminal court or judged to have performed their Certification Obligations in Bad Faith, were Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind.
Members of the Board of Canvassers, Election Vendors, Election Experts and Election Workers will have to repay any legal fees that someone has paid on their behalf and may be subject to financial penalties.
Senior Partners, employees of the Accounting Firm, Senior Company Executives (e.g. CEO, CFO) and Experts hired by the Accounting Firm will lose any indemnification or insurance if they are convicted in criminal court or judged to have performed their Certification Obligations in Bad Faith, were Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind.
Senior Partners, employees, Company Executives and Experts will have to repay any legal fees that someone has paid on their behalf and may be subject to financial penalties.
 Certification Obligations is the first new term that doesn’t exist in current Utah Election Code. Certification is not a defined term.
 The Board of Canvassers as a body or an individual Member of the Board of Canvassers may hire an Election Expert to provide a scope of work necessary to perform a valid certification.
 Utah Election law limits access to information to Members of the Board of Canvassers and the public. Other states limit access to different information. The only information which is restricted Federally is being able to see for which candidates a registered voter cast their ballot.
 Companies must disclose all company information that is used to produce the Certified Financial Statements. Investors need to be able to independently verify the information in the Financial Statements.
 Analyses used by Members of the Board of Canvassers can be performed by an expert (an “Election Data Expert”) hired by the Board of Canvassers or an individual Member of the Board of Canvassers. Members of the Board of Canvassers may rely upon the analysis performed by an Election Data Expert hired by the Board of Canvassers or any individual Board of Canvassers as accurate and free of manifest error. Members of the Board of Canvassers are presumed to be operating in Good Faith if they relied upon an analysis that was later shown to be in error.
 Expense of Certifying Financial Statements was the only material complaint to passing SOX. We anticipate that many elected officials will make similar criticisms of ECM Election Certification proposal. For a certification to be valid, the certification body must have access to resources that they deem necessary to perform the certification. Most company executives thought that the benefits of implementing SOX outweighed the cost.
 This is the second material difference between ECM’s proposed changes to the Election Certification Process and SOX. Financial Statements are published on a specific date (e.g. January 31st) each year. The accounting firm and Company Senior Executives have months to prepare for publication of the next Financial Statement. Elections need to be certified within  weeks. This places undo time pressure on Members of the Canvassing Board. ECM is suggesting a 2-step process. A Member of Board of Canvassers can perform preliminary due diligence on the election data. They can either vote to certify results on a preliminary basis or withhold certification. The Board Members and their experts can perform a more thorough analysis before voting on Final Certification. The Final Certification Vote most occur on or before 60 days after Election Day.
 A Senior Partner at an accounting firm can withhold his vote to certify his client’s financial results in Good Faith if he can point to an error in those financial results and/or he has been denied access to information necessary to confirm that the financial results are accurate. A Member of the Board of Canvassers can withhold his vote to certify an election in Good Faith if he can produce an analysis that demonstrates that the election was not conducted according to State and Federal Laws or is materially inaccurate. Material inaccuracy means that the error is large enough to change the outcome of the election.
 Accounting firms and banks typically indemnify their employees and cover the employee is involved in a civil suit or subject to criminal prosecution as a result of performing their work responsibilities. If an employee is judged to be criminally negligent or performed his responsibilities in Bad Faith, was Grossly Negligent or Willfully Blind, the employee is fired, must repay his firms legal expenses, and must cover all fines out of their own pocket.
 Judges have a fundamental conflict of interest. Judges are either elected or placed in their position by someone who is elected making them reluctant to hear a case brought by registered voter. Prior to the adoption of SOX, it was difficult to bring sue Accountants for malpractice who were certifying financial statements. SOX changed that relationship by making it explicit that any investor could bring a civil suit against accountants, bankers, and senior company executives for bad reporting practices. An investor will lose their lawsuit if they sue an accountant or senior executive simply because they made an honest error.
 Being subject to Civil liability was the most difficult aspect of SOX for Senior Accountants, Senior Company Executives and Bankers. However, people learned that it is very easy to avoid this liability simply by documenting how you are doing your job. Exposure to civil liability provides two important controls; First, civil suits are decided by juries. This removes the judge as a potential conflicted party. Second, obligating individual financial responsibility of professionals for acts of Bad Faith, Gross negligence or Willful Blindness forces individuals to do the best job possible and not simply go with the consensus.
Liberties, Freedoms and Opportunities:
We are so blessed to live in the greatest nation to ever exist on this planet! But the truth is we have taken the liberties, freedoms and opportunities this county offers for granted, we have become complacent in our duties to watch over her and protect her, we have taken our eye off the ball. The United States is being stolen right out from under us, therefore, we must act, and act quickly and decisively before she is gone for ever.
A recent Rasmussen poll tells the story:
62% of All voters believe that cheating in our elections is Likely
80% of Republicans
45% of Democrats
64% of Independents
These numbers are all time lows in voter confidence concerning the trustworthiness of our elections. If we cannot ensure free and fair elections we will lose everything, our children will lose everything, AND SO WE ACT!
Comments from Clerks and BOC Members
Several Clerks, Council and Commissioners “we welcome anything that brings more transparency and confidence to the process”
“We believe our county conducts our elections fairly and the results are accurate”
“It doesn’t matter what we do in our county because the big counties negate whatever we do anyway”
“We are too small to matter”
“We are in favor of the idea, so long as the counties do not have to pay for it”
“I have heard what you guys are doing and was told that it is unconstitutional”
“The concept makes sense and is sound. I can support it so long as it stays the same and is not changed during the process at the legislature”
“I want something like this, it would actually help me to do the best job that I can”
“People come into our offices, sometime threatening us. We would welcome a process that would give voters that extra level of confidence in our election”
“Are there companies out there that actually do this kind of work, and if so, how much is it going to cost?”
“Prior to any public release of the [report written for the benefit of the Board of Canvassers by the firm contracted to analyze the election data], the Board of Canvassers would need to review and approve the release”
“This would create more work for our staff which is already overwhelmed during the elections”
“This would actually make my job as a clerk easier and would give me more confidence in what I do’
“How would this proposal affect Municipal elections?”
“That’s all we need, more rules and regulations from the legislature. They really don’t understand what we go through at the county level”
Doing our part to remedy the mistrust in our elections
Roy Piskadlo and I have now met with County Clerks and/or Commissioners and Council Members from 25 of Utah’s 29 counties with more on the schedule. Their overall support and willingness to provide constructive feedback has been remarkably positive and encouraging. It has become clear to us that most, if not all of our Clerks and Board of Canvass Members have nothing but the best of intentions as it relates to conducting our elections. But in many cases they are overwhelmed, overworked and under appreciated.
While initially hesitant and defensive, most Clerks and Board of Canvass members soon realize we do not seek to criticize their effort, but rather, we are there to help make a very difficult job easier and more transparent.
How can we fight the issues that plague our society if we cannot be assured that the individuals we elect to represent us, were indeed elected by their constituents? The simple truth is we cannot effectively fight, and we certainly cannot control the narrative or outcome because they have effectively taken the power away from the people when they insert their preselected candidates into office.
This feedback is invaluable to our efforts. We will be meeting with most of the remaining 4 counties within the next 6 weeks or so, this will help us garner even more information and constructive ideas as we continue to formulate the structure of the legislation. As fall has turned to winter (2023-24) we have been meeting with as many State Legislators as possible, working toward the selection of men and women of impeccable character to sponsor and present this bill to the 2024 legislative session. We will not cease in our fight to ensure honest elections until such a time as the task is completed.
The Election Certification Matters team would like to thank you for taking the valuable time you’ve spent reading our website, our proposal and our announcements. Our goal is to generate a bill, propose it to the legislature and get our state representatives to pass this certification process by both houses. We can use your help…