BQ78 said:

---

But not illegal until there is fraud

---

Just violations of HAVA (which requires states to certify how they are spending their federal funds each year) and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.

ETA: Which in case people are confused is fraud for false certification to the government. HAVA and the NVRA require states to maintain their voter rolls but it doesn't specify which method they are required to use. And that ambiguity is what allowed the left wing organization ERIC to be utilized. States could just pay them $25, 000 per year to maintain their voter rolls. Cheap as hell. Why so cheap? Because that information fetched high dollars on the market. And ERIC membership specifically forbade states from using their own information in such a way.

Not a Dem, but I guess you can argue "but I'm not dead" like in Holy Grail.

aggiehawg said:

---

You work or have worked elections, IIRC. No?

---

On the vote count/tabulation side. Nearly 30 years now.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

You work or have worked elections, IIRC. No?

---

On the vote count/tabulation side. Nearly 30 years now.

---

So by the time a ballot even gets to you it has been verified (for lack of a better term)?

BQ78 said:

---

But not illegal until there is fraud

---

Well yea, it's not illegal until it is. That's kinda how that works

If you remove them, they can't vote. Duh.

NorthSideCloseKnit said:

---

Glad to see people are continuing to call out the need for election integrity and security. Apparently the Dems defend it as it makes voter rolls auditable. The state checks voters against the active voter roll. If somebody tries to commit voter fraud by voting for a deceased person, then the state can check the active voter roll. If the deceased voters are deleted entirely from the system, then how could it be audited? Seems like removing deceased people entirely would create a bigger security gap.

The following link lays out the arguments from the Dems and the GOP. Patriot Fetch - Minnesota Democrats Block Efforts To Remove Deceased Voters From Rolls

I don't know how credible that site is, but it's the most helpful info I found without a knee jerk reaction in either direction.

As quoted in the article: "Despite the provocative rhetoric, the voting records tell a more detailed story. Democrats... argue that while deceased voters are marked in the databases, retaining these records is essential. This practice helps prevent identity fraud by keeping a historical account that can signal any efforts to impersonate someone who has passed away....
..."Deceased voters are marked as deceased and removed from the list of active voters upon notification from the Minnesota Department of Health or Social Security Administration. Voter records marked as 'deceased' are not active and therefore not included on any voting roster or public information list.""

---

The point being it isn't illegal to leave the dead on the rolls, just suspect.

BQ78 said:

---

The point being it isn't illegal to leave the dead on the rolls, just suspect.

---

Until the election officials have to lie to the federal government about the purpose of the federal money...oh wait.

Ellis Wyatt said:

---

That's a crock of horse*****

---

You can go read it in their statutes, not that I expect you to.
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/201.13

Someone please help me with how this "audit" works. First of all, any auditor in the great fraud state of Minnesota already perks my ears up because you're likely giving said auditor an awful lot of power to either facilitate fraud or look the other way.

I understand their ham-fisted attempt at why they need to keep deceased voters on the roll so they can somehow police anyone trying to use their ID to vote illegally. My retort is if they're not on the roll they can't request a ballot at all for that deceased person because they're no longer on there.

Please make it make sense. We're told over and over again there is no voter fraud, that's a silly conservative talking point so why keep the dead on the rolls so they can "track it." I don't trust them to track jack *****

Without the dead voting, the only thing left to vote Democratic are the stupid, the dumb, and the lazy

Oh crap, I just described the majority that live/are buried in Minnesota.

Yes. Sometimes I deal with mail in or provisional ballots. Depends on the volume or situation.

It's a weird possibility, right? I have experience in data governance and controls, but I'm admittedly more ignorant with election-specific controls. This reminds me of Fortune 500 companies who save the IT accounts of terminated employees but they deactivate them. The accounts for terminated employees often (but not always) need to be kept for numerous reasons ranging from security, record keeping, auditability, etc.

I don't know the intricacies of how MN (or TX or any other state) manage their election process and all of the security controls tailored for each one. It sounds like Ellis Wyatt can speak more to how TX does it. HTown provided a helpful link for MN's process handling deceased voters. Maybe the GOP reps in MN are right and it would make things more secure in MN, maybe they're not.

I would need more info personally before deciding. Others have already drawn their conclusions based off of a random tweet and their own combined experiences. That's fine too. Always happy to learn more if I'm missing something.

Quote:

---

I understand their ham-fisted attempt at why they need to keep deceased voters on the roll so they can somehow police anyone trying to use their ID to vote illegally. My retort is if they're not on the roll they can't request a ballot at all for that deceased person because they're no longer on there.

---

What information is contained on voter rolls? Name, address, DOB, voting history at a minimum. What is NOT contained on voter rolls is date of DEATH for that voter. So keeping dead voters on the rolls does nothing to detect fraud and negate it after an election. Nor before an election for that matter.

There is absolutely no valid justification for dead voters to remain on voter rolls. And there is a distinction between an "illegal vote" and an "invalid vote." An invalid vote cannot be used in a final count. It could be a spoiled ballot, overvoted, not properly signed and dated, signature doesn't match, or a number of other non-nefarious reasons.

A vote cast by a dead person is an illegal vote.

BadMoonRisin said:

---

No, It's not a weird possibility, it's an idiotic suggestion.

Voter rolls should only consist of eligible voters. Dead people are not eligible to vote.

---

Exactly. Eligible and properly registered. Moved out of state? Not eligible to vote in the state in which you used to live

Fair points. It's good to compare notes and figure out ways to improve reliability of elections. The following article helped me understand of the pros and cons as well for MN's approach.

How Do States Handle Deceased Voters and What Lessons Should Minnesota Take?

They must have exit polls along with all this expert level record keeping. I'm curious as to which direction these dead people on the rolls tend to vote?

Quote:

---

So the short answer is:

• Factually.co is an AI-powered fact-check/research summarization site.
• It appears to be independently operated, likely by a very small team.
• Theo Savov is the only founder name I found tied to it.
• There's limited independent verification of its internal operations or editorial oversight.

That doesn't automatically make it unreliable, but it does mean you should treat it more like an AI research assistant than a gold-standard fact-checking institution such as Reuters Fact Check, AP Fact Check, or PolitiFact.

---

regarding your link to factually.co...

This "source" would appear to be about as reliable as leaving the dead on voter rolls for auditing purposes. You do know that this isn't the first time we've been gaslighted, right?

agent-maroon said:

---

Quote:

---

So the short answer is:

• Factually.co is an AI-powered fact-check/research summarization site.
• It appears to be independently operated, likely by a very small team.
• Theo Savov is the only founder name I found tied to it.
• There's limited independent verification of its internal operations or editorial oversight.

That doesn't automatically make it unreliable, but it does mean you should treat it more like an AI research assistant than a gold-standard fact-checking institution such as Reuters Fact Check, AP Fact Check, or PolitiFact.

---

regarding your link to factually.co...

This "source" would appear to be about as reliable as leaving the dead on voter rolls for auditing purposes. You do know that this isn't the first time we've been gaslighted, right?

---

Exactly. Any "source" that claims to be a "fact-check" I now basically assume is just lying. The two terms are synonymous at this point.

It's the ACKTUAAAALLLLLLLLY meme. Don't believe your lying eyes or ears, read about our "fact-check" spin.

All 3 of the ones that he mentioned; Reuters, Associated Press, and Politifact are known liars and Dem narrative spinners.

Facts are dependent on who runs or developed the platform.

Burrus86 said:

---

Next up for Minnesota, they will legalize incest with your brother to gain citizenship! Oh wait, they've informally done that already!

---

The brother is gay, and there is no evidence they consummated the fraud marriage.

There is a technology called Fractal, that takes voter rolls and compares them to publicly available databases including CADs, Post Office change of address, zoning, etc.

It is very fast taking a matter of hours to detect multiple voters at the same addresses, which aren't even residential properties, have the same DOBs, same last four digits of their SSNs, etc.

It is proprietary, last I checked but several states have hired them to help get their voter rolls under control. Everything I have seen indicates it works with with a very low error rate and most of those are from an incorrect entry in a state or county database.

I appreciate the skepticism and I'm also weary of fact checking sites that claim to be infallible. My previous link kicked things off with "Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news." And I appreciated that it cited it's sources and linked them throughout it's analysis. I thought it added some fair nuance to the discussion while still pointing out the problems with MN's current system. I'm sure there is likely additional info out there and I appreciated other's insight as well in this thread.

More on Fractal:

Quote:

---

Fractal technology is in the family of quantum computing.
One of its key characteristics is its ability to see, in complex databases, like voter rolls, DMV
files, Medicaid rolls data and relationships invisible to all current technology.
Fractal reconciles voter rolls with other databases constantly and instanteously and gives
governments deep visibility with real time analysis of anomalies via an inexpensive,
parallel system, set up and running in less than 30 days.
Such anomalies may include:
Incorrectly entered addresses
Voter ID that may occur in a cast ballot record but not in the voter registration file
Voters living at addresses which are not legitimate voting addresses like a bank
Voters residing in anomalous addresses such as UPS stores, FedEx locations and U.S.
Post Offices
Voters who registered on an impossible date, like a Federal holiday
Voters who have not voted in 4 years and 8 years, yet remain on the rolls
Voters appearing on the death registry and remaining on current voter rolls
Voters whose state voting identity is inconsistent with their identities in other state
rolls such as DMV, Medicaid, etc.
Voters added to the rolls, or removed, in a manner inconsistent with state laws and
timeframes
Moved voters according to the National Change of Address database throughout the
term of the license
Voters at undeliverable addresses like an apartment complex without a UNIT
number

---

More HERE

Clinton's foray into Somalia has paid off.

voter rolls does not equal voter registration system

the latter commonly includes historical or flagged records for deceased people

seems like intentional conflating of the two in order to rage bait

BQ78 said:

---

State's Rights man. They can do it however they like in their state. It doesn't say the dead can vote, just stay on the rolls. But why are they doing that? Certainly not more efficient, so we know why. But do they really need that in Minnesota of all places?

---

States should not have a right to count illegal citizens or the dead to determine my president or representatives in my government.

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

voter rolls does not equal voter registration system

the latter commonly includes historical or flagged records for deceased people

seems like intentional conflating of the two in order to rage bait

---

Wrong. States have registration procedures and they vary between states, such as Motor Voter, same day registration etc.

Motor voter laws range from it being optional to register to vote during a DMV visit for DLs to automatic registration that then a person has to opt out of voter registration. In the latter state, a visitor on a temporary visa can obtain a DL yet they remain ineligible to vote. They are on an honor system to not vote. But with massive use of mail in ballots? How would anyone other than the visa holder know?

aggiehawg said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

voter rolls does not equal voter registration system

the latter commonly includes historical or flagged records for deceased people

seems like intentional conflating of the two in order to rage bait

---

Wrong. States have registration procedures and they vary between states, such as Motor Voter, same day registration etc.

Motor voter laws range from it being optional to register to vote during a DMV visit for DLs to automatic registration that then a person has to opt out of voter registration. In the latter state, a visitor on a temporary visa can obtain a DL yet they remain ineligible to vote. They are on an honor system to not vote. But with massive use of mail in ballots? How would anyone other than the visa holder know?

---

Exactly and if this latest virus goes viral I'm sure the blue states will push to massively send out MIB's to everyone on their rolls, deceased, moved or otherwise. Trust us there won't be any fraud, it's all on the up and up.

Liberals really are loathsome, especially the useful idiots that repeat their talking points aka lies.

aggiehawg said:

---

Retired FBI Agent said:

---

voter rolls does not equal voter registration system

the latter commonly includes historical or flagged records for deceased people

seems like intentional conflating of the two in order to rage bait

---

Wrong. States have registration procedures and they vary between states, such as Motor Voter, same day registration etc.

Motor voter laws range from it being optional to register to vote during a DMV visit for DLs to automatic registration that then a person has to opt out of voter registration. In the latter state, a visitor on a temporary visa can obtain a DL yet they remain ineligible to vote. They are on an honor system to not vote. But with massive use of mail in ballots? How would anyone other than the visa holder know?

---

What, specifically, did I say that was incorrect?

All persons included in a voter registration database are not 1:1 included in voter rolls. That simply isn't true, they are not the same thing.