The Big Lie In Arizona: The Rachel Alexander File
The WorldNetDaily columnist has been its biggest promoter of the discredited claim that Kari Lake is the real winner of the Arizona governor's race and that it was stolen from her due to election fraud.
By Terry Krepel
The mainstream media have been saying since 2020 that Arizona is purple or even turning blue, but people in Arizona know that year was a fluke. Almost every one of the candidates endorsed in Arizona by Donald Trump are expected to win in the midterms, with even mainstream pollsters predicting so. The only one expected not to win is Blake Masters for U.S. Senate, but that's not because Trump endorsed him; a myriad of things went wrong in that race including being out-raised by a stunning amount.
But in case that didn't come to pass, Alexander -- a lover of conspiracy theories who fought to get corrupt Republican Rep. Steve Stockman sprung from prison during the COVID pandemic -- was also readying a backup plan by raising the ol' election fraud bogeyman:
Conservative activists are going all out to ensure there is little fraud in the election. They're up against a daunting task, however, as new information seeps out. Maricopa County hired 145 more Democrats than Republicans to staff the primary election, despite the fact Republicans concerned about voter fraud are applying in droves, and there are substantially more registered Republicans than Democrats in the county. "Bad" signatures were rejected 14 times more often during the primary election than during the notorious 2020 election, leading to fears that it is easy to manipulate AI to change the standard of review.
Alexander pushed the Luddite argument against machine-counting of election ballots in her Oct. 31 column:
A small group of concerned Arizonans, including one brave Arizona Corporation Commission member, are trying to convince Arizona counties to switch to counting ballots by hand instead of using electronic voting machine tabulators. Concerns have heightened around the country that unscrupulous actors are manipulating algorithms in the machines to adjust election outcomes. France, a country of 65 million, counts all ballots in the presidential election by hand, and is finished counting them an hour and a half after the polls close. If a country that large can do it easily, why not some small counties? Why the intense opposition? So far, they've persuaded at least one county in Arizona to conduct a hand count.
In fact, the reason France got quick results despite hand-counting are 1) that election was only for president, meaning the ballot was a lot less complicated, 2) counting was done at each polling station instead of a central location, and 3) election rules are nationalized. She continued:
Arizona Corporation Commissioner Jim O'Connor, who is a well-respected and trusted official in the state, sent letters to county officials around the state putting them on notice that they will be violating the law if they use the machines in the election. A significant number of citizens around the country are looking into the accreditations of the labs that certified the machines before 2020 and afterward, and discovered all kinds of problems, which they believe invalidates the certifications for the voting machines.
If Alexander has to appeal to the authority fallacy and insisting that O'Connor is "a well-respected and trusted official," that's probably a reason to suspect that he really isn't. Indeed, Alexander failed to mention that O'Connor also sent out to county officials a letter promoting an anti-electronic-counting event stacked with opponents of electronic count and titled "The Rise of Truth -- The Demise of Machines." Meanwhile, here in the real world of America, hand-counting is both less accurate and more expensive.
Alexander went on to write:
More information continues to pour out about how vast the Yuma County ballot harvesting scheme highlighted in the film "2000 Mules" was, as two more operatives were just indicted. Progressive groups aggressively targeted newly naturalized citizens in Arizona to break turnout records in the primary election. And it recently came out that Maricopa County Elections rejected "bad signatures" 14 times more during the primary election than during the controversial 2020 general election.
In fact, "2000 Mules" has been repeatedly discredited, and there's no credible evidence of voter fraud in Yuma County. Also, there's nothing illegal about encouraging people to vote, as much as Alexander wants you to think otherwise. And we thought right-wingers like Alexander believed that signature rejection was a good thing since it helps to keep out fraudulent voters.
Alexander concluded by claiming:
Voters concerned about fraud in Arizona are going all out this election to ensure there is little opportunity for dishonest actions. A federal district court judge ruled on Friday that observers may watch ballot drop boxes. U.S. District Court Judge Michael Liburdi slapped down accusations that the volunteers were engaging in voter intimidation (many of the observers sit in their cars over 100 yards away where no one even notices them).
In fact, armed people wearing bulletproof vest were interfering directly with people using ballot drop boxes and also shooting videos and photos -- which is clear voter intimidation.
Alexander was back on the hand-counting kick again in her Nov. 7 column, the last one before the midterm elections:
A group of concerned Arizonans has been trying to stop Arizona counties from using electronic voting machine tabulators, but due to lawyers intervening, so far only one small county has taken any action, merely including some hand counting. And after it did, Marc Elias, one of the most powerful activist progressive attorneys in the country, swooped in with his out-of-state firm to sue the Cochise County Supervisors. He did so despite the fact Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich issued a legal opinion a couple of days earlier stating counties have the legal authority to hand count ballots.
Alexander went on to invoke her own alleged authority to paint critics of hand counting as politically motivated (as if the proponents aren't):
As the former Maricopa County elections attorney, I am appalled to see these attorneys substituting their own political agendas in place of their statutory responsibility to merely provide legal advice. Paul Rice, another member of the concerned group of Arizonans, said, "The attorneys are violating their rules of professional ethics as well as statutes by not letting the boards act independently and autonomously and supporting them in good faith."
Again, Alexander censored the fact that hand counting is less accurate and more costly.
Well, Arizona's Republicans lost their statewide races, so Alexander sprung the trap in her first post-election column on Nov. 14 -- though she also whined that there wasn't enough evidence to sufficiently gum up the works the way she wants:
As the former Maricopa County elections attorney, I've watched the midterm election results trickle in with disbelief. Polls across the country mostly showed a red wave, and usually in previous years when the polls tighten up and show Republicans neck and neck with Democrats, the Republicans end up winning. (I've always suspected the "tightening up" was a trick by pollsters to demoralize the right early on.) But this year, just like 2020, the results are defying polling.
Alexander seemed shocked that one must have evidence before making a claim (which she shouldn't be, seeing as how she claims to be a lawyer). Rather than, you know, supplying evidence, she played victim by ranting that attorneys are being held accountable for making bogus claims:
The problem is no attorneys or judges licensed by state bars dare to get involved, since they're likely to get disbarred if they do; the left has so much control over state bars. One of the only election attorneys in Arizona who has the guts to get involved in these issues has been under investigation by the state bar for almost two years. The Arizona State Bar is one of the most vicious bars in the country targeting conservative attorneys. This is why the left repeatedly claims there has been no "evidence" of voter fraud in court cases.
Alexander pushed the unproven narrative again in her Nov. 21 column:
The Democrats, MSM and RINOs are complaining about voters' concerns over election fraud, saying "we need to move on," "quit living in the past," and "no one cares about it as an issue; you're hurting the Republican Party to continue focusing on it." There may be a grain of truth in all of that, but it's outweighed by the fact that if we don't stop the fraud, we may never get another Republican president into office and more states will turn blue.
Again, Alexander had only conspiracy theories, not solid facts, to serve up:
One of the main theories going around in Arizona is that since bad actors knew Republicans were going to vote heavily on Election Day, they focused their efforts there instead of on mail-in ballots. They speculate that someone on the inside, likely a tech inspector, was paid a large amount of money to incorrectly adjust the settings on printers located in heavily Republican precincts the night before, after the final tests of equipment were performed, throwing in a handful of blue precincts for distraction. Well over 350% more Republicans than Democrats voted in person on Election Day in Maricopa County.
Again, "2000 Mules" has been repeatedly discredited, and an investigation in Yuma County isn't tied to the film.
Alexander repeated her conspiracy theories in her Dec. 5 column, as well as her complaint that right-wing lawyers who tie up the legal system with bogus claims are being held accountable:
Republicans have started filing election lawsuits over the strange outcome in Arizona, since no one believes that the top Trump-endorsed slate of candidates who were almost all leading in MSM polls lost. But the left is already ahead of the lawsuits, filing bar complaints against conservative election attorneys. The scary 65 Project, which basically seeks to stamp out conservatives from the practice of law, has been selectively filing ethics complaints against these attorneys. Since state bars are almost all controlled by the left, and many states have mandatory state bars, it's a no-brainer way to push through an illegal agenda like rubber stamping voter disenfranchisement.
To discuss just one of those lawyers, Olsen: Numerous other lawyers in Arizona have said the claims of election fraud by Lake, as represented by Olsen, lacked merit. Still, Alexander declared that "These lawyers are the last bulwark standing in the way of massive voter disenfranchisement and suppression, it is imperative not to let them hang out to dry" and pompously concluded:
If we do not stop the fraud, we will never see a Republican president again, and the left will continue toppling red states like dominoes. The RINOs can complain all they want that the Trump-endorsed candidates lost because they were too Trumpian, not because they were targeted with election fraud, but we all know history repeats itself. The left will come for the RINOs next.
Alexander began her Dec. 12 column with this wildly conspiratorial claim:
The MSM secretly distributes talking points, which often come from the DNC, instructing its reporters to include statements in articles about voter disenfranchisement and suppression of Republicans, declaring that there has never been any evidence of widespread voter fraud. If you're not a lawyer, you might buy it. But if you know just the tiniest bit about the law, it's frankly embarrassing to see non-lawyer journalists repeatedly writing this, pretending to be authoritative and objective.
Needless to say, she provided no evidence of these secret talking points -- which fits right in with her lack of evidence on other claims. And the conspiracy theories, and her cheering on of Lake, just kept coming:
Previous election lawsuits in 2020 challenging voter disenfranchisement and suppression were stymied due to other reasons, not lack of evidence. It's dishonest for the MSM to pretend otherwise. Judges found vague technicalities to throw them out, afraid of having their careers destroyed since the left dominates much of the legal system.
Thompson threw out Lake's lawsuit and found what little evidence Lake provided was unpersuasive. Unsurprisingly, Alexander devoted her Dec. 26 column to complaining about it:
The trial court judge in Kari Lake's election lawsuit predictably threw out her case on Saturday, putting on a sham trial that on the surface looked fair to the general public that doesn't know any better, but to legal minds was a travesty of justice. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson only gave Lake two days for a trial and issued his ruling immediately afterward, even though he could have taken several days, and it was one of the biggest, most important cases in the country. Legal experts believe his decision was ghostwritten; they suspect top left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias emailed him what to say.
(Lake retweeted Alexander's bizarre and possibly libelous assertion that Thompson's ruling was "ghostwritten" by "left-wing attorneys like Marc Elias" -- which Lake deleted shortly thereafter, presumably after realizing that insulting judges and falsely accusing them of ghostwriting opinions is perhaps not the best way to encourage one to rule in your favor.)
Alexander clung to the dubious election fraud narrative in her Jan. 2 column:
Distrust in the justice system over its refusal to stop voter disenfranchisement is spiraling after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson dismissed Kari Lake's lawsuit challenging the results of Arizona's botched midterm election, where Democrat Katie Hobbs was declared the winner. Hobbs was losing in almost every MSM poll and didn't bother to debate Lake, prompting one of the most prominent progressive journalists in the state to denounce her hiding in her basement as "political malpractice." Hobbs was such an unremarkable candidate that she has only 177k Twitter followers to Lake's 834k followers, over 400% fewer.
But as a fact-checker pointed out, one of Lake's own witnesses at the trial admitted during cross-examination that delivery receipt forms did exist and that she had seen them in photos -- meaning that chain of custody does exist even if she wasn't given physical copies of them.
Alexander then pushed another conspiracy theory:
The MSM is ignoring the prosecution threats county supervisors have received for merely considering conducting a hand count of the ballots. Mohave County Supervisor Ron Gould was threatened with a felony and jail. Hobbs threatened county attorneys into not doing their legal job of representing county supervisors like him. A.R.S. 13-1804, extortion theft, states that it is a class 4 felony to threaten to "Take or withhold action as a public servant or cause a public servant to take or withhold action."
Alexander didn't mention that Gould and Mohave County officials were in the process of breaking Arizona law by refusing to certify the election by the state-mandated deadline.
Alexander concluded by touting Lake's desperate appeal of the court ruling:
All eyes are now on the Arizona Supreme Court and then the U.S. Supreme Court to see if they go along with the trial court judge and cover for the wrongdoing using a bogus technical excuse. In 2020, SCOTUS didn't provide reasons for rejecting certiorari on Trump's election lawsuit and others. The people need to watch both courts closely and hold them accountable if they do not correct this travesty of justice, by refusing to reelect the Arizona Supreme Court judges and creating awareness about the inaction of SCOTUS justices.
Clinging to never-proven or long-disproven conspiracy theories about election fraud shows why Alexander makes an ideal WND columnist.