The 2020 Election Steal Was Built Before COVID – Part II
Sacramento Had Election-System Warning Signs Before CTCL Money Arrived
By Christine Bish
Editor’s note: This follow-up article is a public-record and subpoena-roadmap piece. It does not claim the public record alone proves fraud, vote manipulation, or criminal intent. It argues that documented pre-grant warning signs justify a deeper investigation.
The first article followed the money.
It showed how Zuckerberg/Chan-funded CTCL money entered Sacramento County and helped fund vote-center workers, ballot drop boxes, voter education, polling-place costs, translation, and mail-ballot processing support.
This follow-up asks the question that should come next:
What did Sacramento County already know before that private election money entered the system?
The answer matters because the CTCL grant did not arrive in a vacuum. Sacramento County was already an early Voter’s Choice Act county. It had already moved into mailed ballots, vote centers, ballot drop boxes, centralized processing, and countywide election administration. By 2020, Sacramento was not just participating in California’s new election model. It was one of the counties helping prove the model could run.
And before the CTCL grant was approved, the county already had documented warning signs.
On March 20, 2020, questions were raised to Sacramento County after precinct-level results showed turnout numbers that appeared impossible. Precinct 0011397 showed 175% turnout, with 42 ballots cast and only 24 registered voters. Precinct 0011267 showed 126.81% turnout, with 544 ballots cast and 429 registered voters.
Sacramento County Registrar Courtney Bailey-Kanelos explained that the issue had two parts.
First, Conditional Voter Registration was distorting turnout reporting. Turnout was still being calculated from the 15-day close of registration, but same-day registration added ballots after that date without changing the original registration number used in the turnout denominator. The Registrar described that model as misleading and not an accurate depiction of what was happening at the county level.
Second, the Registrar identified poll-worker ballot-selection error. Poll workers were selecting the first precinct they saw instead of the voter’s correct precinct – and in that primary, also the first party option they saw, which was American Independent.
The Registrar stated Sacramento had seen the same issue in 2018 and had tried to improve training. Her summary was blunt: “Is it normal? Unfortunately yes. Should it be? No.”
That was not a post-election theory. It was a March 2020 warning, during the primary election cycle, before the November election and before the CTCL grant was awarded.
The voter-file side raised separate concerns. In a later email, the Registrar stated Sacramento tracked 177 voter calls, emails, and complaints from December 2019 through March 2020. Of those, 152 voters had been registered with a qualified political party, but after a DMV Field Office transaction their registration changed to No Party Preference. The Registrar said those changes occurred between April 2018 and December 2018, and that DMV updated its application interface in January 2019 to require party selection before moving forward.
That does not mean Dominion changed voter files. The Registrar expressly stated that Dominion does not touch voter files and that voter files and voting systems are separate systems that, by law, cannot interact. That distinction matters.
The issue is not one machine. The issue is a system: voter-file accuracy, DMV registration changes, ballot-style selection, vote centers, mailed ballots, tabulation equipment, vendor updates, cybersecurity, and public reporting.
Then came the Grand Jury.
On March 24, 2020, the Sacramento County Grand Jury issued its report on election security. The report raised concerns about security practices, including vulnerability scanning, penetration testing, and multi-factor authentication. It also requested that Sacramento County report back on the results of CyberDefenses review and a U.S. Department of Homeland Security audit by September 30, 2020.
That date matters because it came before the November 2020 general election and before Sacramento County’s CTCL grant was awarded.
The voting-system timeline also matters. In a November 25, 2020 follow-up email, the Registrar disclosed that Dominion staff had installed the D Suite 5.10A update from July 13-17, 2020 for tabulators and reporting, and from August 3-7, 2020 for Accessible Ballot Marking Devices and mobile ballot printers used as vote-center equipment. She also stated Dominion staff had been present for a 5.10 upgrade from November 11-15, 2019, and that Dominion staff were not allowed to do work unsupervised by county staff.
That statement does not prove wrongdoing. It defines the audit trail.
Before private CTCL money funded election workers and infrastructure, Sacramento had voter-file complaints, misleading turnout reporting, repeated poll-worker ballot-selection errors, Grand Jury security recommendations, a cybersecurity review, vendor software updates, and a formal request for DHS-related security results.
The question is no longer whether people had questions after the election. The record shows Sacramento had questions before the grant.
DOJ should subpoena the full March 2020 turnout correspondence, the referenced images and precinct reports, Conditional Voter Registration calculations, ballot-style selection logs, poll-worker training materials, DMV/NPP complaint records, the DMV interface-change documentation, Dominion update records, Grand Jury response files, CyberDefenses records, DHS scheduling communications, and all communications with the Secretary of State before October 2020.
This does not prove fraud.
It proves notice.
Before the CTCL grant arrived, Sacramento County had documented weaknesses in the election model California was about to rely on. If the system was secure, accurate, and properly controlled, the records should prove it. If not, the public deserves to know that before the same model becomes untouchable.
Article 1 followed the money. Article 2 follows the warning signs. The next question is what California knew – and why the DHS assessment was still not completed until after the 2020 election.
Article 2 Evidence Attachment Final by Joe Ho
The post The 2020 Election Steal Was Built Before COVID – Part II appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.
