Robert B. Sklaroff, M.D., F.A.C.P.

Medical Oncology/Hematology  Telephone: (215) 333-4900

Smylie Times Building - Suite #500-C  Facsimile: (215) 333-2023
8001 Roosevelt Boulevard  rsklaroff@gmail.com
Philadelphia, PA 19152-3041 April 6, 2022 – International Day of
Sport for Development and Peace

To: Distribution [Politicians, Media, Potentially-Interested Persons]

Re: PA ‘Forensic Audit’ of 2020 POTUS Election [PART CCCLXXXIII] – Another A.V.A. F/U
{}

It is again not possible to squish Tim Griffin’s weekly ‘blast’ e-mail, for reasons that are
captured in the first item; the quotations are neither in the text of the e-mail nor in the
attachment because it was impossible to cut/paste; anyone who wants to review inserts
can request that the e-mail be forwarded intact, for the version herein has been edited
only for typos and parallelism. Understandably/unfortunately, the focus of these 11 items
is increasingly on 2022 rather than on 2020; my motivation still stems from the latter.

1.) Obama Judge Goes Rogue in Florida. On Thursday, an Obama-appointed federal

judge in Florida ruled that the legislature cannot legislate on certain aspects of elections
that include dropboxes and voter registration. The court ordered the Florida legislature
into ‘preclearance’ under the Voting Rights Act. So for the next ten years, the Florida
legislature and Governor must get permission from a federal judge before making any
changes in law regarding aspects of mail-in voting, dropboxes, or those offering gifts,
food, or drinks to those at the polls. This rogue decision will be appealed to the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals which is controlled by conservative appointees. The logic and
reasoning of the decision lack merit and are baseless. I would like to walk through some
of the immediate problems with the decision.

District Judge Mark Walker found that Florida violated the Voting Rights Act and that the
intention of Florida’s election law was to suppress minority voters. I am attaching the
288-page sanctimonious opinion. I want to provide some highlights. The court opens up
by invoking MLK, Jr., but never does the court address the voter who is disenfranchised
by fraudulent dilution of votes.

{}

The Court does concede that Article I of the Constitution, Section 4, Clause 1, allows states
to govern ‘the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and
Representatives.’ The judge then tramples over Florida’s right to do just that.
The Argument. NAACP argued that it was discriminatory to require voter to have to
request regularly a vote-by-mail ballot every two years and to have to show identification
to do so. It seems the ID provision would alter the voter’s request for a mail ballot from
every four years to every two years. It also requires the last four digits of a social or DL#.

Florida’s SB 90. The new law requires:

- Ballot dropboxes be monitored by the supervisor of elections;
- Third parties to turn in voter registration forms within 14 days of collecting;
- Bars anyone from trying to influence an election within 150 feet of a dropbox or polling
place, what the court labels ‘line warming’ but the legislature seems to call solicitation.

Standing. I actually agree with the liberal grant of standing the court provides. The court
grants standing to almost any and everyone. I just wish the nation applied standing
requirements equally across the country.

- You won’t be surprised to learn that the court grants standing to NAACP and its members
very broadly. (It discusses both organization standing, standing of the organization to file
suit if the challenged conduct that impedes its ability to attract members, raise revenues,
or fulfill its purpose, AND associational standing to sue on behalf of its members who
have standing themselves and an interest to protect.) The court granted associational
standing based off of one of NAACP’s members, Ms. Scoon.

Ms. Scoon testified at trial that, due to the enactment of SB90, she will now have to
request a ballot by mail every two years instead of every four and this new law increases
the chance that she may forget. On cross-examination, Ms. Scoon was asked why she
couldn’t put a reminder in her calendar, which the court calls a ’blithe suggestion’ (blithe:
showing a casual and cheerful indifference considered to be callous or improper).

The court also found that Florida Rising had standing to sue because they spent $1M on
last year’s election and now they’ll have to spend $2M to remind voters to request mail
ballots.

A group called Equal Ground had standing because this new law requires it to hire a new
person to make sure voters request a mail ballot. Thus, Equal Ground has to take $55k
from its Souls to the Polls effort to hire a field organizer to push people to request ballots.

Hispanic Federation had standing because it specializes in get out the vote efforts, and
now they’ll be forced to reach out to voters to ensure they’ve requested a mail-in
ballot. Hispanic Federation sends text alerts at $.06 per text, and this law will force them
to send more text alerts. This financial cost grants the standing.

To read the court’s opinion, one may believe that Florida only allows mail-in voting.
Standing to challenge Dropboxes. It appears Florida is limiting dropbox usage to business
hours, but the NAACP believes this to be discriminatory. Ms. Scoon testified that she has
been voting at an unmanned dropbox for many election cycles. The court laments that
Ms. Scoon will now have to “alter the way she votes,” but doesn’t elaborate on why she
doesn’t vote in-person, early, or by mail. It appears Ms. Scoon may still vote at her
dropbox anytime between 8 am and 5 pm.

Poder Latinx, a latino GOTV organization, had standing to challenge dropbox hours
because it now has to notify voters that dropboxes are only allowed during business hours
instead of in the middle of the night.

{}

Standing to Challenge Florida’s Method of Voter Registration Deliveries. Florida

Rising had standing to challenge Florida’s requirement that third parties registering voters
must turn in registrations to the correct county. Florida Rising is very much against
having to deliver voter registrations to the proper county. The organization had
standing because now the group must “Google the addresses” of the people they are
signing up and make sure it’s delivered to the right county. Apparently, these groups have
a habit of delivering registrations to the wrong counties. What is really shocking is that it
appears “unsorted registrations” could still be delivered to the Florida Division of
Elections; however, this costs too much in postage and they really want the ability to
deliver them to the incorrect county, thus the challenge. If I were a conspiracy theorist,
I might believe that a group seeking to deliver voter registrations to the incorrect
counties were trying to pad voter rolls.

{}

Line Warmer Standing. The court also found that the people wanting to influence
elections within 150 feet of the polling precinct or a dropbox had standing to challenge
Florida’s prohibition of on-line warming activities like rewarding voters with snacks, pizza,
and drinks for voting. The court repeatedly calls it “line warming” while the legislature
appears to call it solicitation.

Ms. Slater of the NAACP indicated that she had been conducting line warming activities
for years, presumably giving out snacks and rewards to voters. The court bends over
backwards throughout multiple pages to explain that NAACP has standing to challenge
this provision because prior to the statute, the behavior was not punishable and now it
is. It is very confusing and requires more than a few contortions of logic.

The court found that Florida Rising had standing to challenge the line warming statute
because now that they are prohibited from handing out snacks to voters, they will be
forced to put up a much more expensive tent outside of the 150-foot space. The court
doesn’t address why a ban on snacks in the space doesn’t save the group’s money.
{}

Purpose and Impact. The court concedes that the law is not facially discriminatory based
off of race, but finds more nefarious secret motives to SB 90 to discriminate against black
voters. The court found that the law was enacted to discriminate against black, but not
hispanic voters. On page 38, the court says it must write a 288-page opinion to evaluate
the circumstantial evidence of discrimination since there is no direct evidence. The court
outlines that, while the Constitution would require a finding for the plaintiffs that both
the purpose and impact of the legislation was discrimination, the Voting Rights Act only
requires that the purpose be discrimination. The Court also highlights Hunter v.
Underwood, a 1985 Supreme Court case to show that if the law has a discriminatory
impact, and that discrimination was part of the motivation of the law, the burden shifts
to the government to show why the law would have passed even without the
discriminatory motive. It lays out the factors from Arlington Heights to be considered:
(1) the challenged law’s impact;
(2) the law’s historical background;
(3) the specific sequence of events leading up to the law’s passage;
(4) Procedural and Substantive Departure;
(5) Contemporary Statements and actions of key legislators;
and the court then pulls from another case to add more factors....
(6) the foreseeability of the disparate impact;
(7) knowledge of that impact;
(8) the availability of less discriminatory alternatives.

The court then states that this isn’t an exhaustive list and that an “invidious discriminatory
purpose may often be inferred from the totality of the relevant facts.” This is how you
know the court will be grasping at any possible straw.

The court does everything it can to lower the requirements it must meet to find a violation
of the Voting Rights Act. The court need not find racism, a racist legislature, or racist
sponsors. It need not find any overt or express evidence. The court need not find a
discriminatory impact. If the court simply concludes that if one Obama judge thinks the
law is racially motivated, it violates the VRA. The court begins its analysis not in 2021, but
in the year 1887. The judge cites a lynching in 1920, and voting rights in the 1960s. The
court walks through the skin colors of individual legislators in the 20th century. The court
says that at-large elections were racist. The court found that, although some say we live
in a post-racial society, “that is simply not so.” The judge walks through socioeconomic
disparities between the races including employment, education, etc. The court finally
gets to this century and alleges racism in bills passed after Bush v. Gore, and claims that
earlier efforts at cleaning voter rolls took minorities off of the rolls at a larger rate than
whites. The court neglects to go into the accuracy of the cleaned voter rolls, simply who
it impacted. The court laments that the 2012 SoS identified 2,700 possible illegally-
registered voters. However, the court doesn’t say that the SoS was wrong in his
conclusions.
The court walks through previous federal challenges to Florida’s election laws where the
courts did NOT find discrimination and denied the plaintiffs’ challenges but, creatively,
the judge says that the first time was an accident, the second time a coincidence, but now
finds that it is necessarily racist as the third time is a pattern. It is odd because he turns
findings of NO discrimination, into findings to support his findings of discrimination. He
neglects that the first two allegations were not found to be discriminatory. Shockingly,
this court actually goes back and identifies past opinions that held that Florida did not act
discriminatorily, and now uses it as evidence that Florida does act discriminatorily.

The court gets political and makes an ambiguous statement about the 2020 election,
finding that the “2020 election and its aftermath, on a national scale, was chaotic, though
scant evidence was presented on this issue.” The court considered the events of January
6th in Washington, D.C.

The Judge found that following how well the 2020 election went, the rationale for SB 90
was simply elusive (page 69). The court never discussed the pressure legislators were
getting to pass reform. The court found that addressing fraud was not the purpose of the
bill....it also found that the bill did not prophylactically respond to fraud concerns. The
court found it may be plausible that the law could lead to cleaner voter rolls, but that it
wouldn’t lead to clean voting rolls.

The court then engages in an odd act of reasoning. The court attacks politicians called as
witnesses in the case for not presenting examples of fraud that had occurred, something
that is not the role of the legislature. The court attacked Senator Baxley for not providing
proof of ballot box tampering, and found that there were no chain of custody problems
presented through dropboxes. The court lamented the legislative process of how the bill
went quickly through committee without enough input from the Democrat Party, and
that public comment was limited (page 81). The Court makes many presumptions
without basis in law or fact.

{}

The court sees racism and discrimination behind every Florida door. It considered texts
between the House sponsor and the Republican party chair, Senator Baxley. The text
messages could indicate that a crackdown on mail-in voting could help Republicans win
elections over Democrats. If true, this certainly would be unethical. Election laws should
give equal opportunity to all voters. But seeking partisan advantage is not discriminatory
under the Voting Rights Act. Clearly there is nothing suggesting expressly or impliedly
race in the text message exchange.

{}

The court found this text message was likely racist.

Racial Trope. The court found that a Republican legislator’s allegation that someone who
chose not to vote is lazy, was actually a cleverly disguised “racial trope” (page 87). The
court alleged that a legislator’s opposition to removing a Confederate monument is an
indication of discrimination. The court attacked Senator Baxley stating that he expressed
a racial motive during the following exchange prior to the bill’s passing:

{}

It is actually unclear to me what the senator here said.

Nonetheless, the court concludes that the intent of the Senate and House of Florida is to
discriminate on the basis of race. The grants an injunction to prevent these provisions
from going into law and requires future changes to be approved by a federal court under
preclearance. What some can’t achieve through the ballot box, they achieve through the
courts.

{}

2.) What happened to the 2020 Pennsylvania ballots that came from New York? You
will remember Phill and Amistad’s efforts to bring forward Jesse Morgan in 2020. Jesse
Morgan was a truck driver who was contracted to pick up mail with the USPS in
2020. Jesse came forward as a whistleblower after he was asked to pick up completed
Pennsylvania ballots from BethPage, New York prior to the 2020 election. Our own Tom
King gave an interview on this, this week:

3.) Colorado Senate to Consolidate Election Power. Last week, the Colorado Senate
passed its elections omnibus. It struck the language that infringed upon the First
Amendment by seeking to police speech. However, the bill seems to consolidate power
away from localities and into the Secretary of State’s Office.

4.) ERIC Membership Agreement. Last week, Patrice Johnson of Pure Integrity Michigan
Elections, shared with us the ERIC (Electronic Registration Information Center)
membership agreement, as posted on the PIME website; it seems to indicate exactly what
we were told: that ERIC requires more than maintaining voter rolls but active voter
recruitment. As Patrice stated, it seems to indicate that the chief elections officials of
states must recruit new voters and ask ERIC for forgiveness and permission when they fail
to do so.

{}

5.) Zuckerbucks Documentary. A new documentary on how private non-profit

organizations rigged the 2020 election is slated to be released this week. {This was shown
during last Thursday’s Election Integrity Seminar in Harrisburg.}
6.) Ballot Harvesting Video. There is a growing number of surveillance videos showing
ballot harvesters using dropboxes to inject ballots illegally into the stream. Here is a 2021
video of a ballot trafficker in Pennsylvania.

7.) Arizona lawsuit to allow illegals to vote. Arizona recently signed into law a bill that
requires a voter in a federal election to be a United States Citizen. Mi Familia has already
filed seeking injunctive relief. The claim seems to be that with the “new” citizenship
requirement, many voters who are already registered could have to provide a new
document showing citizenship that wasn’t previously required to sign-up to
vote. Certainly if this was a 2020 election challenge, courts would have been eager to find
a lack of standing or harm as this rule hasn’t even had time to go into effect yet. The
plaintiffs admit that hundreds of thousands of Arizona voters are currently registered
without proof of citizenship.

It is also interesting to note that the plaintiffs admit that an increase in mail-in voting has
led to a system that makes it harder to vote in-person.

{}

8.) League of Women Voters in Wisconsin. A local chapter of the League of Women
Voters is miffed because it has been accused of being a partisan organization, so some
candidates for office are refusing to fill out its surveys. I am glad some are recognizing
that the LWV has been the tip of the spear for anti-integrity lawsuits all over the country.

Chris Wright found an excellent article on JusttheNews where the league has sent local
elections clerks letters to provide cover if they choose not to follow the law again in
2022. You’ll remember that a lower court judge recently ruled that Wisconsin law allows
for two modes of voting: in-person or through the mail. Yet, the left is saying the decision
was an “attack on democracy”.... whatever that means. The ruling banned events like
“Democracy in the Park.” The case was appealed but the Supreme Court upheld the ban
on dropboxes; thus, there shouldn’t be any dropboxes for tomorrow’s primary
election. Wisconsin previously had at least 570 dropboxes, so this is a good example that
a state can roll back dropboxes. Remember, what some got away with during the
pandemic was supposed to be temporary, but opponents of election integrity are trying
to shore up those gains and make them permanent.

This background is what makes their recent letter encouraging localities to now follow
the court’s order so baffling.

{}
9.). Arizona Reforms. I still believe that Arizona (with maybe the exception of Florida) has
passed the most widespread election reforms over the past two sessions. Here are some
of AZ’s new laws:
• S.B. 1002 to specify that the early ballot envelope must also not reveal the voter’s
political party affiliation.
• S.B. 1003 to require the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections to
make reasonable efforts to contact the elector and advise them of the missing
signature on an early ballot envelope.
• S.B. 1485 to rename Permanent Early Voting List (PEVL) to Active Early Voting List
(AEVL). Under this legislation, if a voter on the AEVL actively votes by mail, they
will continue to receive an early ballot. If a voter on the AEVL does not return at
least one early ballot over the course of four years (two consecutive primary
elections and general elections, and any municipal elections that precede them)
the voter will be sent a postcard asking if they still want to receive an early ballot.
• S.B. 1492 to require for initiatives and referendums that a Proposition 105 notice
be printed by the Secretary of State in the publicity pamphlet, in bold-faced type
immediately below the Legislative Council analysis of the initiative or referendum.
• S.B. 1530 to make a simple change regarding the envelopes that early ballots are
mailed in, requiring the envelope that the ballot is mailed in state: “If the
addressee does not reside at this address, mark the unopened envelope ‘Return
to Sender’ and deposit it in the United States Mail.”
• S.B. 1714 to make several changes and additions to statute regarding campaign
expenditures for out-of-state contributors as it relates to advertisements.
• H.B. 2054 to require, rather than to allow, the Arizona Secretary of State to
compare the death records transmitted annually by the Arizona Department of
Health Services with the Statewide Voter Registration Database.
• H.B. 2307 to require the county board of supervisors, if the voting equipment used
for an election rejects over-voted ballots or ballots containing irregularities, to
provide a written notice on or near the voting equipment in clear view that advises
if the voter chooses to override the overvoted office or measure or any other
ballot irregularity, then the voter’s vote for that office or measure will not be
tallied.
• H.B. 2308 to make a number of changes to recall petition submissions and
circulations as well as to recall elections. The bill creates consistency between
initiatives, referenda and recalls.
• H.B. 2359 to require voting machines and electronic pollbooks containing data
ports, plugs, doors, and other methods of physical or electronic access to be
secured in a manner preventing unauthorized access to the voting machine or
electronic pollbook during an election.
• H.B. 2362 to require an election board judge to give a ballot privacy folder to a
qualified elector along with the elector’s ballot when voting at a polling location.
This bill specifies that a voter is not required to accept or use a ballot privacy
folder.
 • H.B. 2363 to allow a city or town to train its own election employees if the training
program is approved by the Secretary of State.
• H.B. 2364 to add to the identification requirements for informational and publicity
pamphlet submissions for school district override, initiative and bond elections.
• H.B. 2569 to prohibit the state, city, town, county, school district or other public
body that conducts or administers elections from receiving or expending private
monies for preparing, administering or conducting an election, including
registering voters.
• H.B. 2794 to stipulate that a political subdivision, agent or officer of this state or
any other governmental entity may not alter or agree to alter any deadline,
submittal date, filing date or other election-related date that is provided for in
statute.
• H.B. 2905 to prohibit a county recorder, city or town clerk or other election officer
from delivering or mailing an early ballot to a person who has not requested an
early ballot for that election or a person who is not on the active early voting list.
Any violation by an election officer will be classified as a class 5 felony.

10.) Alaska. GP is reporting that Alaska is stripping away much of its election integrity
protections in the upcoming election. It alleges that signature match is all but eliminated,
and it will be a statewide mail-in election.

11.) Fairfax, VA Registrar. The elections clerk [‘registrar’] of Virginia’s biggest

county, Scott O. Konopasek, announced his retirement. Scott, who calls himself the
elections Yoda, unilaterally decided not to follow the law in requiring a SSN on mail-in
ballots applications last November.