Election Laws: TEXAS IMPEACHMENT Accreditation Failures Usurp Voters
Ken Paxton impeachment would have been irrelevant if accreditation failures were exposed.
Written by Patriots in Texas
On September 16, 2023, the Texas Senate acquitted1 Attorney General, Ken Paxton, on all 16 articles of impeachment in a historic trial at the Texas State Capitol. Now GOP around the state are considering censuring2 their representatives who initiated and/or voted in favor of the impeachment. People throughout Texas commenced with digging3 into the Legislature the past couple of months, and are uncovering damning connections4. As the quip goes: follow the money.5 Lt. Governor, Dan Patrick, is now ready to audit the taxpayer money6 that funded this impeachment operation.
It's clear when you investigate the details of the impeachment allegations, while also understanding the behind-the-curtain conflict for power, this is a wrestle for control of Texas. An operation to remove a man taking on Big Pharma Corporations, Big Tech and election rigging corrupt actors. The initiators of this impeachment (unelected string pullers behind the scenes) are weaponizing vulnerabilities to remove Texas AG Ken Paxton from his ability to doing the work he was elected to do.
Therefore the elected officials conducting and voting on impeachment may not lawfully be holding office: Making this Paxton impeachment and the purported elections null and void. Let's understand why in the election accreditation regulations established by Texas law that were violated.
Here’s the Defense that Paxton never presented that would have put a stop to the impeachment proceedings:
Faux Elections
The United States Constitution, Article I § 4 places the responsibility on the State Legislatures. State and local officials made the concerted effort and choice to disobey the Texas Legislature’s regulations prescribed in the Texas Election Code, which caused harm to each person who takes their duty seriously to choose their representatives in government. Texans took the fight to the courts as a result of the injury they suffered due to state and local officials’ usurpation of the Texas Legislature and failure to abide by the law. We must all take notice of publicly available information on government websites and obtained evidence through Freedom of Information Act and Public Information Requests. The injuries the citizens of this country face as a result of officials’ misconduct are not hypothetical or speculative.
It is the intent of the Texas Legislature that the application of the Texas Election Code and the conduct of elections be uniform and consistent throughout this state to reduce the likelihood of fraud in the conduct of elections, protect the secrecy of the ballot, promote voter access, and ensure that all legally cast ballots are counted. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.0015.
Election officials and other public officials shall strictly construe the provisions of this code to affect the intent of the legislature under Section 1.0015. TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.003(a-1). (See TEX. GOV. CODE § 311.016 for legislative construction of laws for duties).
The Texas Legislature codified the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) making the federal statutes mandatory. The Election Assistance Commission (EAC) is charged with regulating and creating voting system guidelines and operating/managing the federally run voting system certification program.7 EAC developed the EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory (VSTL) Accreditation Program. The procedural requirements of this program are contained in:
EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual8
EAC’s Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual (OMB 3265-0018)9
According to a list of the state’s own requirements posted on the EAC’s website and the U.S. EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program, the State of Texas requires10 federal certification, voting systems to meet the current Federal Election Commission standards as well as state requirements, compliance with TEX. ELEC. CODE § 122.001 and 1 TEX. ADMIN. CODE § 81.61, and EAC certification as a baseline and conducts an additional examination.11 HAVA provided directives to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to assist the EAC in its accreditation of voting system testing laboratories (VSTL).12, 13
When the NIST evaluates laboratories to assess whether they can be accredited or not, the NIST relies on the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) to determine competency. An on-site review of the lab is to take place and the lab is to demonstrate competency in performing multiple tasks in a voting system review.14
EAC and NIST work together assessing laboratories to evaluate whether they can be accredited. The NIST relies on the NVLAP to determine competency. Program Manual ver. 2.0 effective May 31, 2015, page 38, Sec 3.6.1. Certificate of Accreditation: A Certificate of Accreditation shall be issued to each laboratory by vote of the Commissioners. The certificate shall be signed by the CHAIR of the Commission and state: Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, per the EAC, were the only two accredited VSTLs during elections from 2020 to present. VSTLs are responsible for the examination of the use of Commercial Off-The-Shelf (COTS) components as well as the examination of other applications, software, and components deemed to be proprietary.15
Voting System Test Laboratory
“The effective date of the certification, which shall not exceed a period of two (2) years….” So, not just the date is important but the signature on the Lab Certification of Accreditation is very crucial. Commission Chairman only serves one (1) year, but their signature is good on these certificates for two (2) years.
The EAC issued the modifications to the manual regarding 3.8 on July 23, 202116 without proper action under 52 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., HAVA, 52 U.S.C. § 20901 et seq, and Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. app. 2 §1-15. Modifications shall be reviewed and commented on by the EAC Board of Advisors and the EAC Standards Board or the requirement by HAVA and the APA guidelines of any modifications shall be provided to the public for notice and comment prior to approval. 52 U.S.C. § 20962, APA 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq.
HAVA prohibits the EAC from voting to adopt final guidelines until it has given both the Board of Advisors and the Standards Board 90 days to review and comment on the proposed guidelines and has “tak[en] into consideration” their comment process and recommendations. Id. § 20962(d)(1)-(2).
HAVA additionally requires a public notice and comment process that includes publication of the proposed guidelines in the Federal Register, opportunity for public comment on the proposed guidelines, and opportunity for a public hearing on the record. Id. § 20962(a)(1)-(3).
Certificate of Accreditation
SLI Compliance Certification Issued January 10, 2018, Effective January 10, 2021. (Exceeding, more than two (2) years – Should be signed by Chair of Commission).17
ProV&V - EAC Certification, Issued February 24, 2015, Effective Through February 24, 2017.18 (Should be signed by Chair of Commission)
SLI Compliance Certification Original Issued February 28, 2007, Dated February 1, 2021. (Exceeding, more than two (2) years – Should be signed Chair of Commission)19
ProV&V EAC Certification, Original Issued February 24, 2015, Dated February 21, 2021. (Exceeding, more than two (2) years – Should be signed by Chair of Commission)20
EAC Commissioners
Taking into consideration just the certificates issued in 2021; the Certificates of Accreditation have multiple issues demonstrating they are still NOT in compliance with laws and guidelines set by HAVA and the state of Texas. (Emphasis added). The accreditations are not signed by the Chair of the Commission but by the EAC Executive Director, Mona Harrington. The Chair is Thomas Hicks. Mona Harrington has never even been a commissioner.
Look up legal definitions of revoke and recertification. Not the same. This is why certification, recertification and revocation are all covered in the VSTL manual. HAVA created EAC which 52 U.S.C. § 20971 is discussing what the EAC shall do. Texas codified HAVA, therefore those requirements are mandatory even though HAVA is voluntary. That verbiage “accreditation remains effective…” was placed on the certifications in 2021 after citizens started to question the validity of the certifications to try to cover up the lapse in VSTL certifications, which still renders the certifications invalid because the correct information is listed on page 38 of the VSTL manual. This section talks about accreditation being revoked. There is a whole other section that speaks to renewal of accreditation. Look at the wording in 52 U.S.C. § 20971(b)(1) which speaks to certification, desertification and RECERTIFICATION. They are trying to claim that certifications remain valid unless revoked, but accreditation specifically can't last longer than 2 years and they must apply for recertification within a specific time frame. (6 months prior to expiration) Revoke and Recertification are not the same legal definition. Easiest example would be your driver's license. US Code does not state certifications are valid until revoked, that is their wording they added to the certifications. Words matter!
A vote for a VSTL’s reaccreditation is taken by the EAC and shall be passed by a vote of (3) three commissioners. The EAC did not met quorum for the year of 2018 due to only having (2) commissioners. Until Hovland and Palmer were nominated; no quorum was met until February of 2019 in which Christy McCormick’s signature would be required. This means that no VSTLs were properly accredited for the 2020 Presidential election on November 3, 2020 and continue to be unaccredited due to lack of compliance.
EAC provided the following loophole for SLI Compliance21 and Pro V&V22 dated January 21, 2021, stating Covid-19 circumstances which was not in accordance to VSTL Version 2.0 Section 3.8. (“PRE” Covid-19 pandemic). Reaccreditation should have been properly issued in 2017 and 2018 respectively prior to Covid 19. The Covid excuse falls flat and crosses over to dishonesty. During quorum, the EAC is required to vote on reaccreditation. There was no quorum for a year prior to 2019. Accreditation would not have been possible in order to be in accordance with HAVA of 2002 Section 231(b) and the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines in clear violation of law. Quorum would have and needed to be held well before any real or perceived complications due to COVID-19.23
EAC again provided on its website July 22. 2021 on both Pro V&V24 and SLI Compliance25 VSTL accreditation pages yet another excuse regarding the lack of proper and legal accreditations.
“3.6.1.3. The effective date of the certification, which shall not exceed a period of two (2) years.” To revoke is the process of “taking away”. The accreditation was not “taken away”. The regulation clearly states that the accreditation is for (2) two-year periods only. The EAC’s use of this section is disingenuous.
52 U.S. Code § 20971(c)(2) is not applicable to 3.6.1.3 and the effective date of the accreditation as the accreditation EXCEEDED the period of two (2) years. The statute does not refer to continued accreditation due to any failure of action by the private laboratories and or the EAC Program Director. This is erroneous reasoning at best, fraud at worst. Pro V&V and SLI Compliance were not accredited laboratories in accordance with HAVA of 2002 § 231(b). The EAC is not a legislative body and cannot create or establish law but must abide by HAVA of 2002. This is an overreach of power by disregarding the law set forth by HAVA of 2002 Section 231(b) and the federal legislative body.
Furthermore, the EAC’s Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual Version 3.026, 1.6.3, states: “State or local officials are responsible for deciding if an EAC-certified voting system complies with state laws and making the final acquisition decision based on which voting system offers the best fit and value for their specific state or local jurisdiction.” Certification of EVS have not been legally conducted per the guidelines set by HAVA and the EAC itself since 2017.
Specifically, Texas Election Code § 122.001(a)(3) states “operates safely, efficiently, and accurately and complies with the voting system standards adopted by the Election Assistance Commission,” and § 122.001(a)(4) stipulates “is safe from fraudulent or unauthorized manipulation.” Not only must voting systems in Texas be EAC certified by an accredited VSTL...they must also be examined and approved for use by the Secretary of State and the Attorney General.27
Before a voting system or voting system equipment may be used in an election, the system and a unit of the equipment must be approved by the secretary of state as provided by this subchapter.
The secretary of state may seek a temporary restraining order, or a writ of injunction obtained through the attorney general, to prevent the use of any part of a voting system or voting system equipment that has not been approved.
A person commits an offense if the person executes a contract to sell, lease, or otherwise provide a voting system or voting system equipment that the person knows has not been approved. An offense under this subsection is a Class A misdemeanor.
“Accreditation is the independent evaluation of conformity assessment bodies against recognized standards to carry out specific activities to ensure their impartiality and competence. Through the application of national and international standards, government, procurers and consumers can have confidence in the calibration and test results, inspection reports and certifications provided.”28 Accreditation and certification are used in many aspects of our society. For example, universities and colleges are accredited by private agencies known as an accrediting agency or accreditor. The Department of Education administers and approves these accreditors under CFR Title 34, § 602.29 Accreditation for the private accreditors is for five years; accreditors must reapply for renewal two years before accreditation lapses.
There are currently over 60 accreditors approved for accrediting our nation’s colleges and universities30. The Harvard University of Institutional Research website explains:
Accreditation is a voluntary, peer review process. It serves 4 main purposes: (1) to assure quality to the public, (2) to ease student transfer between institutions by signaling quality, (3) provides institutions with access to federal financial aid, and (4) certifies a graduate’s credentials to employers.
An “accredited” university meets the Standards for Accreditation established by an accrediting agency. The Standards ensure that an institution has appropriate and clear goals, sufficient resources to achieve them, is fulfilling its objectives, and will continue to do so. The process provides colleges and universities with an opportunity for reflection, honest assessment of strengths and weaknesses, along with a chance to develop strategies for continued improvement.31 Both accredited and non-accredited colleges and universities accept money, deliver a product (courses) and then award certificates and diplomas to attendees and graduates to document course and program completion. Imagine the public response if colleges and universities turn out to not be accredited due to an accreditor’s lack of credentials. This would inspire demands for action loudly across the country, as should the lack of VSTL accreditation.
“Words do have a limited range of meaning, and no interpretation that goes beyond that range is permissible.”
-Antonin Scalia, From 1995 speech at Stanford University.
Texas Elections
Since at least 2020, state and local officials certified, approved, adopted, and purchased (TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.014, § 123.001) EVS and their accompanying devices from third-party vendors that oversee the implementation of elections (Non-Delegation Doctrine) in which the EVS lacked federal certification from an accredited laboratory and did not meet the requirements legislatively prescribed in TEX. ELEC. CODE § 122.001, 52 § USC 21081.
The purchase of EVS places a heavy burden upon taxpayers; in addition, officials in Texas must contract with DHS for cybersecurity according to TEX. ELEC. CODE § 279 in order to utilize EVS for elections, which brings the federal government into elections in violation of Article I § 4. Those who already walk submissively will say there is no cause for alarm. But submissiveness is not our heritage. The First Amendment was designed to allow rebellion to remain as our heritage. The Constitution was designed to keep government off the backs of the people. The Bill of Rights was added to keep the precincts of belief and expression, of the press, of political and social activities free from surveillance. Laird v. Tatum, 408 U.S. 1, 28 (1972).
Local officials deflect to the Secretary of State (SoS) and vice-versa. The SoS broke the law by approving a purchase contract for a voting system, or approved and certified an EVS or their component parts for use in Texas. The SoS report was prepared under false pretenses due to the lack of an accredited VSTL; the report does not comply with the Texas statutes and rules. “First, in the case of ‘false pretenses,’ under Texas common law the term ‘false pretense’ has historically been utilized in the criminal law context to refer to a fraudulent misrepresentation, whether actual or implied by action, made for the purpose of inducing another to part with money or property.” Dare v. Jenkins (In re Jenkins), 607 B.R. 270, 282 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2019).
However, SoS approval does not absolve county officials from their ministerial duties: local officials are still obligated to adopt and acquire lawful, certified by an accredited laboratory, voting systems that protect their constituents’ voices for the consent of the governed in adherence to TEX. ELEC. CODE § 122.001 and § 123.001.32 If officials chose to have the votes that were cast on EVS counted and certified those results, they officially applied illegal and invalid votes toward the ballot counts for the election of government representatives (TEX. ELEC. CODE § 276.014). Texans did not get to lawfully choose the people they wanted to represent them.
Texas Constitution, Article VI, § 2(c): “The privilege of free suffrage shall be protected by laws regulating elections and prohibiting under adequate penalties all undue influence in elections from power, bribery, tumult, or other improper practice.”
County officials have the statutory authority to prohibit the use of or rescind the order for the EVS upon learning of their lack of compliance with the requirements of the law (TEX. ELEC. CODE § 123.002). Officials’ utilization of unlawful EVS have caused the people of Texas to cast illegal votes (TEX. ELEC. CODE § 276.013) where the ballot cannot be read by a human eye (barcode) and have released their Personally Identifiable Information to third-party vendors (who are also connected to both federal and foreign entities). If officials did not count the votes they caused to be cast illegally, they denied the right to vote to millions of Texans who were forced to cast their vote on the EVS. Texans’ votes have been not only diluted but effectively illegalized and negated in strict compliance (§ 1.003(a-1)) of legislative intent as illegal votes are not to be counted (TEX. ELEC. CODE § 1.0015).
Officials made a choice to approve, adopt, and purchase uncertified, non-compliant election voting equipment that do not adhere to the standards set forth in Title 8 of the Texas Election Code for every election we’ve had since 2020. (TEX. ELEC. CODE §§ 1.003, 1.0015, 123.001, and 123.002). The officials recently signed their adoption for the unlawful EVS for our November 2023 election. Texans have experienced innumerable injuries caused by the Constitutional violations of their state and local officials.33
The rule in Texas coheres to the common law of England (TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 5.001), which means the Magna Carta is in play and it is our duty to hold government accountable – especially when our elected officials refuse to (as is the case regarding District Attorney’s offices, where they choose to represent corrupt officials against their constituents in litigation).
“‘the King can do no wrong’ originally meant precisely the opposite of how it is interpreted today. Blackstone plainly states that the ‘ancient and fundamental maxim is not to be understood, as if everything transacted by the government was of course just and lawful.’ When Blackstone spoke of ‘the king,’ he spoke of the regal office, not an individual. Thus, the ‘king never dies,’ he ‘is always present in all his courts,’ and he ‘is incapable of doing wrong.’ In other words, as Professor Jaffe suggests, the king must not, was not allowed, and was not entitled to do wrong…As a proponent of natural law, Blackstone regarded ‘the Law’ as emanating from God, not government. Thus, ‘the principal duty of the king is, to govern his people according to law’…Moreover, a fundamental concept of our government is that the people are sovereign and possess all of the powers of sovereignty. Byers v. Patterson, 219 S.W.3d 514, 521 (Tex.App.-Tyler 2007, no pet.). Texas Dept. of Transp. v. Olivares, 316 S.W.3d 89, 108 (Tex. App. 2010).
The courts tell us that going to the ballot box is the proper recourse for our grievances. See Luther v. Borden, 48 U.S. 1, 55 (1849). How does the ballot box help when Texans must cast a vote to an unlawful or uncertified, non-compliant EVS that illegalize their votes? How do Texans find remedy through an election in which the system is designed to fail and produces no humanly-readable ballot (barcodes)? How is it possible to find recourse from selected officials when the election franchise negates the Texans’ votes and releases their private information to third-parties?
“…it is precisely in voting and election cases where the political process is least helpful and judicial intervention is most needed. When the very rules regarding the franchise and elections are what is broken, it is that broken system that incumbent officials have to thank for their incumbency. Such officials will not be motivated to reform the system that put them in power; instead, they will tend to sincerely believe that the system is just fine. See Steven Mulroy, Rethinking the Election System: Unskewing the System 124–26 (2018) (noting a ‘natural unconscious bias toward thinking that a system that elected you must be a very wise system indeed,’ and citing multiple examples of sustained incumbent resistance to ranked choice voting election reforms). To the extent the allegedly invalid voting or election rules disadvantage the political influence of reformers, the political process will be unable to self-correct.” Baby & Bathwater: Standing in Election Cases After 2020. Dickinson Law Review. vol. 126, iss. 1, pg. 19, 20.
Who is the enforcer of the legislative election laws? Is it not the attorney general? As it stands, not one elected official in Texas has been lawfully elected for at least three years. This means every one of them are impersonating public servants (TEX. PEN. CODE § 37.11). Being in office without the consent of the governed means not one House of Representative had the authority to impeach Paxton, and not one Senator had the authority to convict him. The impeachment scandal was a sham piece of theater from the start. The totality of the Defense should have been: “I am not lawfully elected and neither are any of you, so we must stop wasting taxpayer monies on this faux impeachment and give the people of Texas a Constitutional form of an election! (citing all of the above as evidence)”
And…yet, this was the Defense not used. Food for thought.
As TRUTH is uncovered and we catch a glimpse behind the curtain of the facade about our elections, the burden to remedy the failure to conduct legal elections has fallen to the people. WE THE PEOPLE must take action with our pens in the courts ourselves.
This is TREASON!
No Deals.
Sources:
1 Adams, Christopher (Sept. 16, 2023). Here’s how each Texas senator voted in the impeachment trial of Ken Paxton. KXAN. https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-politics/paxton-impeachment/heres-how-each-texas-senator-voted-in-the-impeachment-trial-of-ken-paxton/
2 Anderson, Erin (Sept. 15, 2023). Tarrant County GOP Supports Phelan Censure. Texas Scorecard. https://texasscorecard.com/local/tarrant-county-gop-supports-phelan-censure/
3 Benz, Mike (Sept. 8, 2023). Thread Reader. @MikeBenzCyber https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1699985908395606426.html
4 Jonathan (Sept. 18, 2023). Twitter. @DecentFiJC
https://twitter.com/DecentFiJC/status/1703797971588878574?t=yuDQGoziRxqZu3-WaZtjug&s=19
5 Dolcefino Consulting (July 26, 2021). Follow the Money. YouTube.
6 Flavin, Margaret (Sept. 17, 2023). Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick Calls for Audit of Taxpayer Funds Spent on Paxton Impeachment. Gateway Pundit. https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/09/texas-lieutenant-governor-dan-patrick-calls-audit-taxpayer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=texas-lieutenant-governor-dan-patrick-calls-audit-taxpayer
7 See 52 U.S.C. § 20962, 20971
8 Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/28/VSTLManual%207%208%2015%20FINAL.pdf (Last visited 09/06/23)
9 Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/Cert_Manual_7_8_15_FINAL.pdf (Last visited 09/06/23)
10 State Requirements and the U.S. Election Assistance Commission Voting System Testing and Certification Program (2020). https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/State_Requirements_for_Certification09042020.pdf (Last visited 09/06/23)
11 Ingram, Keith (2017). Election Advisory No. 2017-21. EVS and their component parts must be EAC certified to be implemented in Texas. https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2017-21.shtml
12 See 42 U.S.C. § 15371(b)
13 https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl (Last visited 5/20/22)
14 https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/05/exclusive-based-thorough-review-election-regulations-not-single-voting-system-testing-lab-used-2020-election-accredited-based-law-part/ (Last visited 5/20/22)
15 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/EAC_FACT_SHEET_Testing_and_Certification_Program.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
16 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/2021-07/NOC%2021.01_VSTL%20Accreditation%20Status_1.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
17 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/SLI_Compliance_Certificate_of_Accreditation011018.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
18 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/Pro_VandV_accreditation_certificate_2015.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
19 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/SLI%20Certificate%20of%20Accreditation%202021.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
20 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/Pro%20V%26V%20Accreditation%20Certificate.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
21 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/SLI_Compliance_Accreditation_Renewal_delay_memo012721.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
22 https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/voting_system_test_lab/files/Pro_VandV_Accreditation_Renewal_delay_memo012721.pdf (Last visited 5/20/22)
23 Credit for all research goes to TTTTexas; see @T-done on twitter.
24 https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl/pro-vv (Last visited 5/20/22)
25 https://www.eac.gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl/sli-compliance-division-gaming-laboratories (Last visited 5/20/22)
26 Voting System Testing and Certification Program Manual Version 3.0. https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/TestingCertification/Testing_and_Certification_Program_Manual_Version_3_0.pdf Last visited 09/06/2023.
27 See Tex. Elec § 122.03, Tex. Admin. §§ 81.60, 81.61
28 https://ilac.org/about-ilac
29 https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-34/subtitle-B/chapter-VI/part-602
30 https://www2.ed.gov/admins/finaid/accred/accreditor-federal-recognition-process-steps.pdf
31 https://oir.harvard.edu/faq/what-accreditation-why-should-university-be-accredited
32 Ingram, Keith (2017). Election Advisory No. 2017-21. EVS and their component parts must be EAC certified to be implemented in Texas. https://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/laws/advisory2017-21.shtml
33 Feds announce massive takedown of fraudulent nursing diploma scheme. ABCNews. January 25, 2023. https://abcnews.go.com/US/feds-announce-massive-takedown-fraudulent-nursing-diploma-scheme/story?id=96619487
So obvious this was rigged to distract from border etc.,,tx election survellience take over by federal bureaucracy concerning to us texans.