When I stop posting for a while it’s because I’m working on stuff. Last week I attended the Secretary of States, Election Law Conference. I have to cough up some fairly serious bucks to do things like that, but I think it was worth it. That was three days at the start of last week.

The new Elections Director for the Secretary of State is Christina Adkins. I consider this to be a step up from where we were, and I will say that my impressions of her were more positive than of her predecessor. That wouldn’t be hard to do, within 5 minutes of meeting him, we were adversaries. Ms. Adkins did take some time to listen, but she still may be a product of a bureaucracy that has not served us well. I will say that there were at least two places that I was pleased with the way she presented legislative issues. The first was the way she framed HB5180 to the elections workers at the conference. I thought it was very fair. This bill should help with the document access issues although there are some issues around that still needing attention. I hate to be a tease, but I don’t remember what the second item was. I’ll just say that there was another mildly pleasant surprise.

I will begin to address some operational issues with the elections division this week, that are due to significant misinterpretations of the election code, but from comments I’ve already received, I think it will be an uphill climb. I'll make the climb.

I did finally file my response to the Dallas V. Paxton suit yesterday. This is one of several suits that concern the release of election documents to the public. I’ve been in this law for two years now, and I really feel that God has forced me to do things over and over again to try and get it right. I keep finding new things, and I added an entirely new argument just hours before I filed the document. Since we have the new law that clarifies access to these documents which will be effective 1 September, I’m not certain where these suits are going. Dallas amended a filing to say that they didn’t think the new law should be applied to old elections. Think they’re hiding something?

Many ideas proffered in this filing are my unique perspective on the election code. While some of the ideas are unique and have not been argued before, I support each and every one of them with statutes the legislature has written. Some of them will not be popular with the establishment. The establishment has been “interpreting” laws for their own benefit for too long. I don’t know where this work is leading, and at times I think it’s pointless, but someone has to stand up and challenge the status quo.

I have been fighting for documents so long that I have ignored operational issues within the election system, and there are some of significance that need addressing concerning the processing and counting ballots as the legislature intended. I will began to address this issue this week, but it too will be a very difficult job to accomplish. These interpretations should have been countered the day they were proffered, but they have been allowed to take root for ten or more years. It’s now a big stump to have to dig out.

I've posted my response to the Dallas filing at the end of the paragraph. I'm not posting theirs, because has a lot of technical stuff and a lot of individual contact information that's hard to weed out. My filing will paraphrase the meat from their arguments, and I have done so as fairly as possible. I attempted to keep mine as readable as possible. petition_for_declritory_judgement_2.pdf

I’m certainly not a writer. Almost everything you read from me has a minimum of three revisions and most have many more. I’m not particularly skilled with office productivity programs, I’m a lousy typist, and I hate filling out forms and such. I mean really hate it. Something like that filling are a very significant investment in time for me, but the rock doesn’t go up the hill on its own. We are where we are because no one pushed on that rock years ago.

While I'm preparing this post, I get a notice of the following link. My initial read makes this nothing but noise as I don't see anything specific that authorizes the withholding of information, but more study is needed. In ES&S letter, the code they cite simply points out that it meets the definition of critical infrastructure. They are advocating using state critical infrastructure law to withhold the information, and we have a defense against that in the election code. Judges will be quick to respond to the ES&S argument though. These people are hiding something.

https://creativedestructionmedia.com/investigations/2023/08/07/breaking-explosive-shocking-attempt-to-hide-the-truth-uncovered-ess-accused-of-blocking-access-to-crucial-election-records-nationwide-massive-election-fraud-exposed-president-trump-vindicated/