I have a friend who works in the security sector. He always plays Red Team - so let's call him Reddy. His job is to look at systems, understand them, and then dream up ways to exploit and compromise them.
I recently asked for his opinion on the SAVE Act. No surprise, like the overwhelming majority of Americans, he is all for it - but his reasoning was less about preventing individual illegal aliens from voting but about reversing a deliberate systemic compromise of election system integrity by Democrats over the last two decades.
Reddy thinks Blue State voting systems are deliberately *designed* to enable fraud on an industrial scale, and California's electoral system is the model at or near full maturity.
He contends (and I agree with his analysis) that Democrats in California and their allied NGOs have successfully built up a huge bank of false registrations and jiggered their ballot handling and counting rules so they can always "find" enough votes on election night, or even after, (when they know the margins) to make sure they never lose.
Proof of residence, citizenship or ID is not required to register to vote in California's state and local elections. But you can also register to vote in Federal elections by just pro-forma ticking a box on a form to certify you're a citizen (on pain of perjury) and presenting a utility bill with an address.
But here's the thing; the authorities don't check, so there's no actual risk of a perjury charge. As a matter of de facto policy, Blue locales don't verify addresses, citizenship or even if the voter actually exists, if they are alive, or even human.
Which is how a woman in Southern California (Costa Mesa) was able to register her dog and the pooch actually received a ballot by mail. Twice. Even after it died.
Granted, very few deceased canines vote. On the other hand, deceased humans have a long storied history of voting in Blue states and cities.
But at least, the dead existed at some point, which is what leaves the awkward possibility of someone finding out his father voted in 2024 when he died in 2013.
So what if there is no one to notice a late relative (or pet) still on the rolls and actively exercising the franchise?
Enter the many thousands of voters registered at addresses that are non-residential (office buildings, public schools, private and virtual mailboxes, etc.), uninhabitated (empty, condemned, dilapidated houses), structureless (parking lots, parks, empty plots, etc.), legally overcrowded (eg. 50 adults in a 2BR house), or non-existent (#43 on a 30 home street, Apt. 32 in a 24 apartment building, etc).
Here's the kicker: in CA, you can have your ballot sent to a different mailing address. So, a 'voter' can be registered to vote at a genuine residential address but since the mailing address is somewhere else, the actual residents may never realize a dozen people they don't know are registered to vote where they live.
Reddy is a professional cynic. He says the vulnerabilities with this are so open and obvious that it is impossible that the people who designed it and/or oversee it can't see how easily they can be exploited.
Which means it's impossible no one is exploiting this.
And given the stakes - money involved, anonymity built into the system, the near impossibility of a voter noticing a tangible loss as their vote is cancelled, and the party in charge of the AG and most DA's offices in California (meaning no consequences) - it's likely happening on a massive scale - because the system allows it.
Here's another kicker - pointing out the vulnerability gets you ignored. *Demonstrating* the vulnerability so you can't be ignored gets you punished. When the lady who registered her dog was able to successfully vote (write-in non-existent candidate) on its behalf, and exposed it herself so they would act, the elections board referred her for prosecution and declined to review their procedures and active registrations.
"So?" you might ask. What's the problem with voter rolls teeming with fake voters? How do you get from registering fake voters to fake votes in elections? If you get your news from the New York Times, NBC, NPR, LA Times, CNN you've been assured by carefully selected "experts" that voting fraud is something that has never happened and will never happen because it is supposedly *impossible* - as if it violates the laws of physics.
Reddy's response to this is pure Red Team, and two-fold. First; why? Why would anyone go through the trouble of registering hundreds of fake voters for no reason? You don't seed ground you don't intend to harvest.
Second; the cited "experts" either lack imagination or like the system just as it is - for obvious reasons. So, going against the "experts," Reddy readily sketched out for me how this would work.
So let's say I run the typical Democrat-aligned NGO eg. Vote4TransingKids (V4TK). I can generate thousands of filled voter registration forms on my own and drop them off in the mail.
All I need is a printer (or autopen) and a simple middle-school level application to randomly generate and store names, addresses and random squiggles as signature images, print them on registration cards and tick the citizenship box.
Those are all easy and cheap enough - especially if I'm getting millions in taxpayer dollars.
Creating fake utility bills with the created fake voters' details is just as ridiculously easy. Again, a middle-schooler can easily write a program to generate and print any number required. The templates for multiple utility company bills can easily be found online. With the citizen box ticked, and a Xerox quality black-and-white 'copy' of the 'bill' included, the 'voter' can now be registered to vote in both state and Federal elections.
What about the last 4 digits of the SSN - supposedly validated with the SSA? Dates of birth and name must match, right? To this, Reddy says;
Ultimately, I can confidently submit fake voter registration forms and false address documentation in California (and most other Blue states) because there's no way (or will) to trace the fake filled out forms back to me once I mail them to the registrar.
So, after a few days, I can go check my private/virtual mailboxes for my Voter Notification Cards. I now know which of my fake registrations made it through. Or I can - safely - just check online.
Something like 99% will make it to the voter rolls and get a ballot in the mail. As a rule - as a matter of convenience and ideology - voter registrars in California's highly populated Blue locales don't cross-check, and, besides, without any ID or address requirements, what are they checking against?
Rinse and repeat. In weeks, I can have hundreds, even thousands, of fake registered voters on the rolls. Even without CA's universal vote-by-mail ie. "mail-in", scheme, I can use my database and printer to comfortably print requests for an absentee ballot for all of my "voters." With vote-by-mail, I get all my ballots at my four or five mailboxes with no effort whatsoever.
Filling out the ballots, getting the right signatures printed or autopenned on the ballot envelopes is simply a matter of setting templates and sorting. In hours, I can have hundreds or thousands of ballots filled, envelopes signed and prepared to be dropped off in the mail or very convenient ballot dropboxes.
I can even hold some ballots in reserve for election night. Since California allows ballots that arrive weeks after Election Day to be counted, if a certain race needs a couple hundred or thousand votes to flip, I can print and drop off just enough to take the Democrat over the line.
With current technology, this will not cost more than a few thousand dollars and require very little human resources. Even more convenient is that after two cycles, there's no need to register new 'voters' for another decade.
So this is basically modern day ballot-stuffing enabled by 21st century technology and deliberately lax voter integrity measures. The same lax voter integrity measures Democrats fully intend to take national ie. the John Lewis Act, because it's tailor-made for their atomized urban strongholds where neighbors are strangers.
To be honest, Reddy didn't need to spell it out for me to see how easily this can be done. Anyone with some intelligence can see how to exploit this system.
And as he says, if he's thought of it, someone else has as well. And given the means, motive, opportunity and very low risk involved, he's 99.9% sure someone is doing it.
Even more damning is that the Democrat supermajority in California has passed laws eg. AB 969, that expressly forbid not just the hand counting of ballots, but also access to election materials for post-election audits. So - in Kafkaesque fashion - any in-depth forensic investigation directly on ballots, poll books, etc. that could uncover such fraud is basically impossible absent a lawsuit in which the proof to justify the audit requires the audit itself to provide it. Many other Blue states are implementing similar rules in legislation - the most recent being the newly elected Democrat trifecta in Virginia.
What Reddy most wants is a full forensic investigation of the physical ballots for the 2024 Election from the battleground states, including some Red States, including address canvassing and verification. Per 52 USC 20701, which mandates the retention of election records for 22 months, these ballots are available until September 2026 - there's no reason why the DOJ can't request for them today.
Reddy supports the SAVE Act because its hard requirements for verifiable ID that indicates citizenship for registration and presentation to vote at every election creates a significant implementation hurdle for fraudulent registration and voting at both the individual and mass scale.
It mandates some sort of verification check that a candidate can audit. It provides a limited set of ID documents that poll workers can be realistically trained to authenticate. And it creates genuine legal jeopardy for fraud even if Democrat AGs and DAs won't prosecute.
Democrats in California have systematically removed any meaningful way of ensuring election integrity in the state and have insulated themselves against electoral repercussions for their failures.
The SAVE Act may not be a perfect solution but at the very least it stops the bleeding, provides some minimal level of voter integrity and gives us the chance to ensure that elections are real expressions of the will of the people, not expensive theater with the outcome set before people go to the polls.