LAA’s Patriotic Souls to the Polls Initiative Sees Success with Sunday Voting

Look Ahead America’s (LAA) Patriotic Souls to the Polls initiative launched in February, when members of Georgia’s Forsyth County Board of Voter Registrations and Elections approved Sunday voting for the primary.

Forsyth County hosted Sunday voting on May 15 for the first time, and 297 locals came out to cast ballots for the May 24 General Primary and Nonpartisan General Election.

Sunday’s total was higher than both Saturdays at the elections office, 231 voters on May 7 and 229 on May 14, and was the second busiest location for weekend voting so far in the primary behind Sharon Springs Park, which had 344 voters on Saturday, May 14.

Matt Braynard, Look Ahead America’s Executive Director, made the following statement:

With Forsyth County being one of three biggest rural counties, Look Ahead America successfully petitioned for a Sunday vote option in 2022, and we’re encouraged to see greater voter turnout for the newly added Sunday voting days compared to the Saturday for the May primary. We’re optimistic that with our help, Christian leaders will be able to use these additional days to mobilize rural patriots to vote in 2022 in Forsyth County. Other rural counties should take note and follow Forsyth’s example.

To read about LAA’s Patriotic Souls to the Polls initiative, https://lookaheadamerica.org/pspannounce/.

Action Report

Voter Registration Webinar with Matt Braynard

  • Capacity is limited to the first 100 participants to login on Monday, April 25, 2022 at 7:30 p.m. Eastern/4:30 p.m. Pacific.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

LAA Announces Election Integrity Webinar with Matt Braynard

Look Ahead America announced today that Executive Director Matt Braynard will conduct a live webinar on election integrity on Monday, March 14, 2022 at 7 PM EST.

 

The 2020 General Election exposed many flaws and raised doubts about the way states conducted their elections. This has the dangerous impact of undermining the public’s confidence in future election outcomes. Look Ahead America’s state policy objectives are intended to eliminate these flaws and restore faith in our electoral system.

 

To obtain the link to participate, please visit www.lookaheadamerica.org/webinar

LAA GradesTexas Election Integrity Bill: “F”

Look Ahead America today released our analysis of Texas’s attempt at election integrity, Senate Bill 1. Look Ahead America’s Research Director, Ian Camacho, who led the development of the report, stated the following:

Texas Senate Bill 1 does nothing to change the underlying issues with elections and in many cases makes the situation worse.

From the 35-page analysis:

Texas S.B. 1 purports to achieve voter integrity, however, the voters of Texas deserve much higher standards from their elected officials in addressing voter fraud and election integrity.

Not only does it fail at all of Look Ahead America’s core objectives to strengthen our elections, in many cases it actually undermines voter integrity. Not in the way that the Department of Justice claims it does, however, as the bill makes clear that the laws are not to discriminate against those with disabilities and leaves room for their aid. Likewise, at various points many accommodations are made for those with disabilities, those in need, those in hospice or assisted living. The actions by the DOJ appear at best uninformed and at worst political theater.

LAA’s Research Group produced the 35-page VISAGE Report which includes a full summary of the bill as well as an analysis of how well it addresses key election integrity concerns.

Read the full report here: LAA_TX_SB1_Analysis.

See a PDF of this press release here: LAA_PR_TXSB1.

LAA Releases Analysis of Arizona SB 1241

Today, Look Ahead America released it’s analysis of Arizona SB 1241. Read that analysis here: LAA – AZ SB 1241 Analysis.

LAA’s Executive Director Matt Braynard made the following statement on the analysis:

This was a highly contentious voter integrity reform bill. While it failed, we thought it would be worthwhile to give a clear-eyed review of what exactly this legislation attempted to do. It’s our conclusion that despite claims to the contrary, it was a reasonable attempt to improve how elections work in the Grand Canyon state. While we believe much more serious reforms are necessary, not just in Arizona but across the country, this bill certainly did no harm and had many provisions that would go a long way to restoring confidence in the state’s elections.

LAA’s Voter Integrity Project Releases Revised GA Report

We received helpful feedback from many of the organizations with whom we shared our unredacted data. Thanks to their help, we’ve made the following improvements to the report. Find the new report here: LAA_GAReport_Rev_A.

Here are some of the key changes:

• We discovered that we under-reported in Tranche One by additional 345 illegal registrations, boosting the illegal votes in the margin of victory from 1,056 to 1,401, or up from 9% to 12%.

• We also added subdivisions and severity rankings of all the items in Tranche One in anticipation of counter arguments that these were transposed Mailing Addresses.

• We reviewed three of our challenged examples that we coded as illegally cast vote determinations. We provided additional data in Appendix A to show that these voters definitely lived out of state and did not qualify as absentee voters.

• The 2015 study that we cited and GA SOS Raffensperger’s recent removal of over 100,000 supposedly inactive voters using the NCOA validates our methodology. While the 2017 article we also cited for OOSSR does not mention NCOA, it actually fortifies our NCOA claims and methodology.

• We corrected MOE downward in Tranches Two and Three per a previous miscalculation.

• We reviewed some previously undetermined cases in Tranche Two. We determined that another twelve were illegally cast ballots, while determining three of them were legal.

• Upon reviewing our data that we collected, we believe that we actually underreported our findings. Since The Georgia Report only presented three of the six types of illegal votes being considered, it was more likely that the report understated the number of illegal votes in Georgia because our study was incomplete.