Sunday, January 31, 2021

February 2021 Judiciary News

Leave every vacancy unfilled.

Nominations, Hearings, Confirmations:

Biden:  Law360 has a list of possible Biden appeals court nominees.  Many are district judges appointed by Obama, and several were previously rejected by senate Rs.

Biden:  Ed Whelan outlines three questions about Biden judicial nominees.  Will another Supreme Court vacancy arise?  Will many new vacancies open up on the federal appellate courts?  Will the Biden White House make nominations expeditiously?

Retirements:  Harsh Voruganti of the Vetting Room lists all appeals court judges who are currently eligible for senior status now or in the near future.

Renominations:  Harsh Voruganti lists all recent cases of a president renominating an unconfirmed nominee of a predecessor.  It is likely that some previous Trump and Obama nominees will be nominated by President Biden.

First nominations:  Harsh Voruganti discusses how quickly (or slowly) new presidents submit their first judicial nominees.

Court packing:  Ilya Somin argues that President Biden's commission on judicial reform is unlikely to support court packing.  Bob Bauer, the chairman of the commission, previously wrote an article opposing court packing.

Judiciary Committee:  The Senate Judiciary Committee has not yet organized itself for this session.  It currently has 12 Rs and 9 Ds.  It will presumably have equal numbers of Rs and Ds, but it is unknown whether any Rs will have to give up their seats.

Garland:  President Biden announced that judge Merrick Garland of the DC Circuit is his nominee for Attorney General.  Garland was nominated to the DC Circuit by Clinton in 1997, and Obama nominated him to the Supreme Court in 2016, but the R senate did not give him a hearing.  Garland was only nominated after the Georgia runoffs.  Some progressive groups want the senate to have hearings for Biden judicial nominees first, even though there are no Biden judicial nominees yet.

Senate Judiciary Committee hearings:

The Federal Judiciary:

Breyer:  Justice Stephen Breyer is getting pressure from the left to step down so that President Biden can appoint a black woman to the Supreme Court.

Trump judges:  Reuters gives an overview of the impact that Trump appointees are having on the judiciary.

Federalist Society:  The Federalist Society is debating what to do in the wake of the Capital riot.  David Lat argues that it should take steps to separate itself from partisan politics.

Many judges have announced that they are taking senior status, mostly liberals who were waiting for president Biden's inauguration.  Only two are circuit court judges so far.
ED-NY: Roslynn Mauskopf (W) 2/1 (uscourts director)
ED-MI: Victoria Roberts (Clinton) 2/24 (senior)
2nd Circuit: Robert Katzmann (Clinton) 2/21 (senior)
ND-CA: William Alsup (Clinton) 1/21 (senior)
D-ID: B. Lynn Winmill (Clinton) 8/16 (senior)
D-MD: Hollander (Obama) TBD (senior)
D-MD: Blake (Clinton) 4/2 (senior)
SD-TX: Gilmore (Clinton) 1/2/22 (retire)
ND-OH: Polster 1/31 (senior)
ND-CA: Hamilton (Clinton) 2/1 (senior)
ND-CA: White (W) 2/1 (senior)
D-OR: Mosman (W) 12/27 (senior)
SD-FL: Ursula Ungaro (HW) 5/1 (senior)
D-SD: D. Viken (Obama) 10/01 (senior)
SD-CA: A. Battaglia (Obama) 3/31 (senior)
ED-WA: R. Peterson (Obama) 10/1 (senior)
10th Circuit: Carlos Lucero (Clinton) 2/1 (senior)
ND-OH: James Gwin (Clinton) 2/1 (senior)
2nd Circuit: Denny Chin (Obama) 6/1 (senior)
ED-PA: Timothy Savage (W) 3/1 (senior)

State Supreme Courts:

Gerrymandering:  Billy Corriher observes that house Ds have a majority thanks to D gerrymanders imposed by courts in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Virginia.

Alaska:  The Alaska Judicial Council released the names of the seven applicants for a seat on the Alaska Supreme Court.  Three of them, Superior Court Judges Dani Crosby, Jennifer Stuart Henderson and Yvonne Lamoureux, were finalists for the previous vacancy.

New Hampshire:  Governor Chris Sununu appointed Attorney General Gordon MacDonald, age 60, to be the next Chief Justice of the New Hampshire Supreme Court.  The Hampshire Supreme Court has 2 D and 2 R appointees, with one seat vacant for over one year.  Former Justice Robert Lynn retired on August 23, 2019, as he was age-limited.  Governor Chris Sununu nominated MacDonald in 2019, but the state Executive Council, with a 3-2 D majority, blocked the nomination.  The council, which now has a 4-1 R majority, confirmed MacDonald on January 22.

Oklahoma:  Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice Tom Colbert will retire on February 1.  He was appointed by D governor Brad Henry in 2004.  Gov. Kevin Stitt will appoint a successor from applicants screened by the Judicial Nominating Commission.  This will be his third appointment.  The court has 5 D and 4 R judges, but only three conservatives.

South Carolina:  The legislature is considering adding two more justices to the five-member court.  Justices are appointed by the legislature after being screened by a panel.  The proposal would have to be approved by the voters.  The current chief justice, Donald Beatty, is a D appointed by the legislature in 2007.

Numbers and Trivia:

With the end of the Trump presidency, here are the final numbers of Trump-appointed judges.  He appointed 226 total article 3 judges.
3 Supreme Court justices
54 appeals court judges (net 53)
174 district court judges (net 170)
55 are women (24%)
37 are non-White (16%)

He also appointed the following judges to other courts.
3 Court of International Trade
10 Court of Federal Claims
7 Tax Court
6 Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims
2 Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
1 Court of Military Commission Review

2021: January

Sunday, January 24, 2021

Is Peter Meijer Vulnerable in MI-3?

Of the ten house Republicans who voted to impeach President Trump, two are from Michigan--Fred Upton of the sixth district, and Peter Meijer of the third district.  Upton is likely to retire in 2022, and would be highly vulnerable if he didn't.  The third district is more complicated.


Understanding MI-3 requires understanding Dutch Reformed conservatives.  Around 100 years ago, many Dutch immigrants settled in West Michigan.  They were predominantly Reformed Christians (Calvinists), who emphasized hard work, frugality, and social conservatism.  They were natural Republicans.  The biggest denominations are the Mainline Reformed Church of America (RCA) and Christian Reformed Church (CRC).  The RCA has both liberal and conservative wings, with liberals more common on the east coast.

(President Trump once identified as an RCA member, attending a church led by Norman Vincent Peale, the author of  The Power of Positive Thinking, which borders on the prosperity gospel.  Trump later called himself a Presbyterian, the more common theological cousins of the Reformed church founded by Scottish Calvinists.)

The CRC is more conservative than the RCA.  It is headquartered in Grand Rapids, and Calvin College, its flagship educational institution, is located there.  The CRC has some liberal influences itself, often emanating from Calvin.  Senator Scott Brown, rep. Bill Huizinga, and former rep. Vern Ehlers are prominent members.  Several smaller Reformed denominations have split from the CRC, viewing it as too liberal.  The CRC (and the splinter denominations) have long supported Christian schools over public schools, and in recent decades, many Reformed Christians have embraced homeschooling.

The Reformed churches have tended to be skeptical about military engagements, and MI-3 has one of the more anti-war bases of R congressional districts.  The other counties in the district have more conventional Republicans, and Calhoun County (added in 2012) has a more working class demographic.

Today, I would divide the R base in MI-3 into four groups, along with typical representatives.

  • Country-club moderates (Brian Ellis) centered in East Grand Rapids and upscale areas around Grand Rapids.
  • Establishment conservatives (the DeVos family)
  • Conservative/libertarian Trump sceptics (Justin Amash, Steven Johnson)
  • Trump conservatives (Tom Norton).  The latter two groups were both active in the Tea Party movement, but separated over Trump.
I won't try to estimate the sizes of the four groups, except to say that establishment conservatives are definitely the largest.


The Kent County area was represented by Gerald Ford from 1948 until he became vice-president in 1973.  Ford was succeeded by democrat Richard Vander Veen (1974-1976), whose election was a major upset in the wake of the Watergate scandal.  He was succeeded by R prosecutor Harold Sawyer (1976-1984) and former Calvin College political science professor and state legislator Paul Henry (1984-1993).

Vern Ehlers represented the 3rd from 1993 to 2010.  Ehlers was previously a physics professor at Calvin College, and a state legislator.  Ehlers was fairly moderate, though strongly pro-life.  He won easily with the support of the moderates and establishment conservatives.

The DeVos family has had a major impact in the Michigan Republican Party, and particularly in MI-3.  In 1959, Rich DeVos co-founded Amway, a company that sells home products using multi-level marketing.  He became a billionaire and Republican mega-donor.  In the early 1980s, his son Dick DeVos worked with young state senators John Engler and Dick Posthumus to displace the allies of liberal governor Bill Milliken from control of the state GOP, resulting in a relatively conservative party.  The DeVos family continued to be prolific donors.  Betsy DeVos (wife of Dick) was MIGOP chair 1996-2000 and 2003-2005, and US Secretary of Education 2017-2021.

Justin Amash was elected to the Michigan state house in 2008.  With the rise of the Tea Party movement, local activists were unhappy with Ehlers, and the libertarian Amash challenged him in the 2010 primary.  Ehlers decided to retire.  Amash defeated several other candidates in the primary with the support of the DeVos family and Club for Growth.  While he was one of the most anti-establishment members of congress, he maintained the support of the DeVos family.

In 2014, Amash was challenged by Brian Ellis, a moderate.  Ellis had the support of the Chamber of Commerce and former rep Pete Hoekstra.  Amash won 57-43, with the help of the DeVos family and Club for Growth.

Amash became increasingly critical of President Trump, and in May 2019, the DeVos family announced that it would no longer support him.  He left the GOP in July, and later became a Libertarian.

Peter Meijer was elected in 2020.  He is a 33-year-old Army veteran and heir of the Meijer retail chain.  He ran a rather bland campaign, with the exception that he opposed military interventionism.  He had the backing of the DeVos family.  He won the primary with 50%, with state rep Lynn Afendoulis (establishment) getting 26%, and Tom Norton (super-Trumpy) getting 16%.  Meijer won a relatively narrow 53-47 victory over Hillary Scholten in the general.


Will Meijer face more than one challenger?  Tom Norton, a Trump die hard who was a Tea Party activist has already announced a primary challenge to Meijer.  Norton has a poor electoral track record, finishing fifth in primaries for state house in 2010 and 2014.  He also has a history of controversial statements.  Shortly after announcing his primary challenge of Amash, Norton "passed out press releases calling on the House to expel Amash for allegedly failing to represent constituents in a district that backed Trump."

Amash has said it’s his duty to uphold the U.S. Constitution. But the congressman's “first duty” is to represent constituents, and “he’s failing at that miserably,” Norton said.

Norton would struggle to gain much support beyond Trump conservatives, and Meijer would most likely beat him.  Defeating Meijer would require a more mainstream challenger who could attract at least part of the establishment along with Trump supporters.  But will such a challenger emerge?

Does Trump endorse a primary opponent?  It seems likely that he would, though a lot can happen in two years.  If there is more than one challenger, will the other(s) drop out?  Meijer would be more likely to win the primary if opposition to him is split.

Does the DeVos family continue to back Meijer?  Betsy DeVos recently resigned as Secretary of Education, harshly criticizing President Trump's role in inspiring the Capitol riot.  It seems likely that they will continue to back Meijer, but if not, his position would weaken.

How will redistricting change MI-3?  Michigan's congressional districts will be redrawn by an independent commission.  There will presumably be a district containing the bulk of Kent County where Meijer will run.  What else is attached will matter, though.  The current district contains several Trump-friendly rural counties.  If they are removed in favor of more of Kent County or part of Ottawa County, Meijer's chances will improve.

Peter Meijer is in for a tough fight.  The answers to the questions above will determine whether he survives.

Saturday, January 23, 2021

6th District Committee Criticizes Upton Impeachment Vote

Republican leaders of the 6th District Committee and all six county GOP chairs in the district issued a statement criticizing Upton’s vote for impeachment of President Trump. While worded tactfully, this is still a big deal. As far as I know, none of them were anti-Upton before now, and most were slavishly loyal. In addition, the Allegan GOP voted to censure Upton.

About a third of the R base in MI-6 has never liked Upton, and he has periodically faced primary challengers.

  • 1990: defeated state senator Ed Fredericks 63-37
  • 2002: defeated state senator Dale Shugars 66-32
  • 2010: defeated state rep Jack Hoogendyk 57-43
  • 2012: defeated Jack Hoogendyk 67-33
  • 2014: defeated Jim Bussler 71-29
  • 2020: defeated Elena Oelke 62-38

Oelke's strong performance was a surprise, since she had little fundraising or institutional support.  I don’t think Upton would get a majority in the 2022 primary. I’m almost certain that he will retire in 2022.

Saturday, January 09, 2021

Voter Fraud Conspiracy Nonsense Debunking Roundup

There have been many claims of voter fraud or other misconduct in the 2020 election.  Most of these claims simply do not stand up to scrutiny, and most of the people passing on these claims seem not to be checking their accuracy.  A catalogue of unverified allegations appears at  I have been trying to check these allegations, and here is what I have found about some common claims.  Please click the links for more detailed explanations.


Did Vote Counting Machines Flip Votes from Trump to Biden?

There are all sorts of wild claims about Dominion Voting Systems, from who owns it to how its program in written.  It is not necessary to analyze the machines themselves to know whether they produced an accurate count.  The states that Trump contested use paper ballots, which can be recounted if there is any question about the machine vote count.  The Trump campaign asked for recounts in Milwaukee and Dane County in Wisconsin, which use a different vendor.  The Wisconsin recounts found no vote-flipping.  In Georgia, a hand recount was conducted automatically; it was not requested by the Trump campaign.  The recount found some human error; it did not find any vote-flipping.  In Michigan, Trump improved from 2016 in counties that use Dominion machines, and declined in counties that use other vendors.

Did Dominion Flip Votes in Antrim County?

There was an error in the initially reported result in Antrim County, MI, which the clerk has attributed to a problem with updating the software.  The magnitude of this error makes it unlikely that fraud could explain it.  A hand recount verified that the corrected machine count was accurate.

What about Hammer and Scorecard?

That story is a hoax.


Anomalies in the reported election results could provide evidence of fraud, or at least suggest areas that merit further investigation.  However, many such claims don't stand up to scrutiny.

Does High Voter Turnout Prove Voter Fraud?

Voter turnout was high, but not unreasonably so.  Reasons for high turnout include population growth, more absentee/mail voting, and intense support and opposition to Trump.  Turnout was up in every state, and many safe states had big turnout increases.

Turnout in Detroit was over 100%!

President Trump claimed that Detroit had "far more votes than people".  Russell Ramsland claimed that turnout in Detroit was 139%.  The turnout was actually 51%.  Similar claims about other jurisdictions are also false.

Did Trump lose due to surges of turnout in Detroit, Philadelphia, and other big cities?

Biden got 1000 FEWER votes than Hillary did in 2016 and Trump got 5000 MORE votes than he got four years ago in Detroit.  Biden's margin in Philadelphia also declined compared to Hillary in 2016.  Biden won by improving his margins in upscale suburbs in Michigan and Pennsylvania.  Biden did improve in other cities like Atlanta and Milwaukee, but the improvements were not only in swing states, as some claimed.

Do US Senate election results prove tens of thousands of Biden-only ballots?

It is perfectly normal for some voters to only vote in the most high-profile race.  This has often happened in the past, and it happened more in Michigan in the past than in 2020.

How could Trump lose when he improved with minorities?

There is solid statistical evidence that Trump had a small improvement with blacks and a significant improvement with Hispanics.  Trump lost because he lost ground with white voters, particularly college-educated voters.  With all the discussion of minority voters, it is easy to forget that the majority has more votes than the minority.

Did Battleground States Stop Counting Votes Before the Results Swung to Biden?

North Carolina (which Trump won) stopped counting because it ran out of votes to count.  Some localities did break for the night.  Michigan, Wisconsin, and Philadelphia did not stop counting.

Why were the late election results bad for Trump?

In many states, including Michigan, Pennsylvania, Georgia, and Wisconsin, Trump led early, but Biden gained until winning the election later.  There is a clear reason for this.  These states all counted election day votes first and absentee votes later.  Rs disproportionately voted on election day due to concerns about the security of mailed votes, while Ds disproportionately voted absentee due to concerns about COVID.  Thus it is no surprise that Trump won election day votes while Biden won absentee votes.  Note that Ohio counted absentee votes first, and Trump trailed early but won late.


Charles Cicchetti found the chance of Biden winning Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Wisconsin after Trump's early lead is less than one in a quadrillion!

For this calculation to be correct, votes would have to be counted in random order, so that a vote counted late was no more likely to be for Biden than a vote counted early.  However, this is false, since in these four states, absentee votes were counted after election day votes.  Biden did better in absentee votes than in election day votes.  Matt Parker and Robert VerBruggen have longer explanations.

Does Benford's Law prove that Biden's vote totals were fraudulent?

Benford's Law is a tool that can provide evidence of fraud in some data sets.  Some precinct data seems to violate this law.  To be applicable, the data set must follow a "power law", and must vary over several orders of magnitude.  Neither assumption is likely to hold for election data, so Benford's Law does not apply.  Matt Parker has a longer explanation.  Also, it is unlikely that Benford's law would catch most types of voter fraud, unless someone were making up vote totals from scratch.

Has Dr. Shiva Proven Michigan Voter Fraud?

Dr. Shiva made a serious mathematical error in his analysis and his conclusion is based on a false assumption.  The effect he found for Trump votes applies similarly to Biden votes.

"Mathematician" Bobby Piton was kicked off of Twitter after presenting evidence of fraud in Arizona!

It isn't clear whether Piton was ever kicked off Twitter, but he is there now.  Piton is not a mathematician, he is a financial adviser.  He describes his approach on his website:

Bobby has read well in excess of a million pages over his career and has extensively studied physics, quantum mechanics, mathematics, economics, trading, portfolio construction, model development, asset valuation, and alpha generation to develop and refine his methodology.

Piton's presentation in Arizona is on Youtube and the associated write-up is on his website.  Good luck following his argument.  He does compare (19:30) the turnout for the 1998 (governor) election to the 2020 presidential election.  Midterm elections almost always have lower turnout than presidential elections, so this is not a relevant comparison.


Many election observers have signed affidavits concerning their experiences on election night.  It is often noted that these are sworn under penalty of perjury, and therefore they are proof of fraud.  Realistically, it is unlikely that anyone would be charged with perjury, which would require proving beyond a reasonable doubt that they are lying.  That is not to say that most of them are lying.  Some are clearly just misunderstandings, many don't actually allege fraud, and many are impossible to check.  Some specific claims are addressed below.  Recall that Trump improved in Detroit and Philadelphia relative to 2016, which is hard to square with massive fraud in those cities.

Detroit's election workers input a false birthdate of 1/1/1900 for absentee ballots!

Yes, they did.  Detroit's election software required a birthdate to input the ballots, which election workers would not have.  The city clerk instructed workers to input that date as a placeholder so that the real birthdates could be filled in later.  Note that it would not make sense for anyone committing fraud to claim that a voter was 119 years old!

Election workers ran the same stack of ballots through the machine multiple times!

Each precinct has a list of everyone who voted, called a poll book.  If many ballots are run through a machine repeatedly, this will create a mismatch between the number of votes and the number of recorded voters in the poll book.  While many of Detroit's precincts did have mismatches, they were generally small, not hundreds or thousands of votes.

Almost half or 48% of the 134 counting boards were individually off by plus or minus four votes or fewer each, according to results certified by the county's bipartisan board of canvassers. Another 39 boards, or 29% of them, were in balance, while 31 boards, or 23% of the total, were off by five or more votes.

The total "difference in absentee ballots tabulated and names in poll books in Detroit was 150".

In Georgia, were there problems with secret vote counting, illegal voters, signature matching, etc?

Gabriel Sterling, a Republican who is Georgia's voting system implementation manager, debunked these claims in a press conference.


While these do not directly prove voter fraud, they are supposed to show that something strange happened.  In many cases, there are perfectly reasonable explanations.

Was There are Red Wave Downballot in 2020?

The election results for president and congress were quite consistent.  Rs picked up house seats relative to 2018, not relative to 2016.

Do Incumbent Presidents Who Increase Their Votes Always Win?

There are few elections where incumbent presidents lose, so there are few relevant elections to consider.  Also, this anomaly has happened before.

Can a President Lose While His Party Gains House Seats?

This is another claim which applies to only a few elections.  It has also happened before.

How could Trump lose when he won most bellwether counties?

A bellwether county is a county which always, or almost almost always voted for the winner in recent elections.  They are not crystal balls, they are statistical anomalies--counties that happen to swing the same way as the nation when party coalitions change.  These counties are mostly rural, and Trump did well in them in both 2016 and 2020.  Biden won by improving in large suburban counties, not rural areas.


The Trump campaign and supporters have filed around 60 lawsuits challenging the election results.  They have lost all of them, with one minor exception.

Did any judges rule on evidence of voter fraud, or were all the suits dismissed for lack of standing?

The suits not filed by the Trump campaign were generally dismissed for lack of standing.  This is something that the plaintiffs should have considered before filing, as not just anyone can challenge the results of an election.  However, some judges did rule on the merits of the claims.  Note that some of the more wild claims of fraud were not actually made in court, where lawyers can be disbarred for lying.

In Wisconsin, a Trump-appointed judge allowed the Trump campaign to present evidence.  However, they declined to present any evidence ("stipulated [the] set of facts") and only contested election law issues.  A Republican judge in Pennsylvania dismissed a Trump campaign lawsuit, saying "this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence."  The Nevada Supreme Court (which is ideologically mixed), similarly upheld the dismissal of a Trump campaign lawsuit on the merits.  In Michigan, the Trump campaign dropped its lawsuit before its claims could be heard.

Were election laws changed before the election?

Some legislatures and judges changed laws before the election.  The reason cited was generally the COVID pandemic.  It is likely that some judges were hoping to help Ds with their rulings.  This help could mean either encouraging more Ds to legally vote, or making it easier for fraud to be committed.  Some of these decisions were challenged before the election, and some were overturned, but others were not challenged before the election.

After the election, the Trump campaign filed challenges to many of these decisions.  Their complaints in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin seemed to have some merit.  The problem with this is that there is no way to know whether these decisions changed the outcome of the election.  So if the judges' decisions were illegitimate, what is the remedy?  The Trump campaign was asking for hundreds of thousands of votes to be thrown out, or even the entire election.  But this would disenfranchise millions of legitimate voters, including those who voted in good faith based on the rules presented at the time.  This would be a bigger injustice than the original decisions.  Many rulings have cited the doctrine of "laches" to toss out Trump campaign lawsuits.  Essentially, this means they waited too long to file.  The issues could have been resolved before the election with far less disruption, so waiting until after the election to file is too late.

Can state legislatures appoint the electors themselves?

The Constitution gives states the power to decide how presidential electors are chosen. Since the early 1800s, all states have passed laws to choose presidential electors by popular election.  A state legislature could theoretically repeal this law and choose the electors itself for a future election, but none have tried to do so since this would be very unpopular.  A legislature cannot unilaterally appoint its own slate of electors in defiance of the laws that are already on the books.  It is very dubious whether it could repeal the law for an election that has already taken place.  In any case, no legislature attempted to appoint its own electors.

Why was the Texas lawsuit thrown out by the Supreme Court?

In the Texas lawsuit, a group of states was attempting to get the Supreme Court to change their election laws.  This is a violation of federalism, as states can make and interpret their own laws unless there is a violation of federal law involved.  The case was basically a political stunt, and all nine justices viewed it as such.


The COVID pandemic led to a surge of absentee/mail voting.  Absentee voting can be more vulnerable to fraud, since the person who votes is not actually seen casting the vote.  However, we have a list of the people who voted, or at least the name they gave, so if there were many ineligible or fake voters, it should be possible to identify them.

Were there many dead people, minors, felons, illegals among the voters?

This has been claimed by Matt Braynard of the "Voter Integrity Project".  It isn't entirely clear what methodology he used to conclude this, but it seems likely that he compared lists of voters to lists of people who are prohibited from voting and looked for matching names.  The problem with this is that there are many people with the same name, so this will lead to many false matches.  This seems to be the case in Georgia, where a D state representative was able to discredit many of the names cited by Braynard.  The voter lists should certainly be investigated by authorities, but claims of hundreds of thousands of illegal votes should not be endorsed without proof.  A Georgia audit of 15000 signatures found only two with problems.

Did Steven Crowder find Massive Voter Fraud in Detroit?

Crowder simply misunderstood the way that Detroit reports absentee ballots.


There are a few arguments for voter fraud that seem plausible to me.  That does not mean that they are definitely true, but at least I don't see any obvious flaw in them.

Were there differences in the absentee ballot voting rates on the borders of counties?

John Lott argues that there are differences in the absentee ballot voting rates in precincts on opposite sides of county lines, where one of the counties is an urban center controlled by Ds.  He says that differences do not exist for in-person voting, and there was no such difference in 2016.  This analysis could be vulnerable to cherry-picking, so it would be good to see it checked with a larger data set.

Did more than 1700 Georgians vote twice in 2020 elections?

It appears so.  These voters apparently voted both in person and by absentee ballot.  It is important to recognize, however, that the number 1700 combines multiple elections.  For the November election, the total claimed is "at least 400".