web analytics

California Clearly Violated Election Law—Votes are Invalid

By Daniel Bobinski

California has been mostly absent from the discussion of election law violation, but new information reveals that wording legally required to be on its ballots was missing, in direct violation of its own state law. This means the ballots should not have been cast or counted, yet California certified its ballots, and thus illegally cast its electoral votes for Joe Biden.

Let’s be clear about something: Our nation’s founders tried for years to work out their differences with England’s King George. But George was a tyrant, and a war broke out that lasted eight years. After that war, our founders avoided creating a government that was ruled by a man—they decided to be governed by laws.

Unfortunately, we now have states ignoring their own state and federal election laws, and by disregarding these laws, their election results must be nullified. Either that, or we’re no longer a country governed by laws.

California violated its own election laws

In California state law, the election code is titled “Division 13. BALLOTS, SAMPLE BALLOTS, AND VOTER PAMPHLETS.”

In Article 1 of this code we find Election Code 13200, which reads as follows:

“Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

That’s straightforward English. It’s at the 9th-grade reading level, so assuming California’s election officials can understand it, here it is one more time, with emphasis:

“Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

When we read a little further, we find Section 13205. Since we’re talking about the election of the President and Vice President, we’ll look at the applicable subsection:

13205 (b). In elections when electors of President and Vice President of the United States are to be chosen, there shall be placed upon the ballot, in addition to the instructions to voters as provided in this chapter, an instruction as follows:

“To vote for all of the electors of a party, mark the voting target next to the names of the presidential and vice presidential candidates of that party. A mark of the voting target next to the name of a party and its presidential and vice presidential candidate, is a vote for all of the electors of that party, but for no other candidates.”

This Napa County ballot is missing required text from Section 13205 (b). California code 13244 states sample ballots must match actual ballots, including instructions.

In other words, by California law, the paragraph quoted was supposed to appear on all California ballots. And remember, according to Section 13200, “Ballots not printed in accordance with the chapter [Chapter 3] shall not be cast nor counted at any election.”

And guess what? According to data collected by the American Independent Party in California, those words did not appear on ballots in 53 of California’s 58 counties.

In the remaining five counties, ballots required additional wording that is outlined in California Election Code 12305 (c). Some of those county’s ballots included the wording from section (b), but ballots in all five of those counties were still missing the required wording from section (c).

This means 100 percent of California’s voting was conducted in complete violation of its state election laws.

This Alpine County’s ballot has the required text for section 13205 (b) but not the text for section (c) which was required for Alpine County.

If the United States is to be a country governed by laws, none of the ballots from California should have been cast nor counted. It’s right there in California state code. Thus, all of California’s ballots are invalid, they cannot be officially counted in the state’s vote totals, and California’s electoral college votes must be invalidated.


Naturally, some will say, “Oh, c’mon, it’s a just a technicality.”

Yep, and in 2016, a man named Donald Clark committed a home invasion that resulted in the death of a 77-year-old man. But Clark’s confession to the crime was later considered void because Clark “didn’t fully understand his Miranda rights when he waived them and confessed.” Thus, a killer was set free on a technicality.

In other words, technicalities matter.

The question remains: Are we a nation governed by laws, or aren’t we?

Wisconsin’s Supreme Court showed integrity recently when a technicality invalidated roughly 200,000 votes cast in its state. On Monday, Dec. 14 it ruled that roughly 200,000 votes were cast in violation of state law and cannot be counted. That ruling now casts doubt on the validity of Wisconsin’s electoral votes.

Pennsylvania violated federal election laws

In Pennsylvania, the governor and state Supreme Court clearly violated the supreme law of the land. Section IV, Clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution is clear:

The times, places and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the Legislature thereof; but Congress may at any time make or alter such regulations, except as to the place of choosing Senators. (Emphasis added.)

In simpler terms, the U.S. Constitution says the elected legislators of each state are to determine when, where, and how citizens will vote. The problem? Pennsylvania’s Governor Tom Wolf (a Democrat) ignored this clause after his state’s Republican legislature would not approve his request to extend voting for three days, nor accept mail-in ballots during that time window if they didn’t have postmarks. Refusing to take no for an answer, Wolf ran to the left-leaning Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which rubber-stamped his proposal.

Either we’re a nation of laws or we’re not. If states in our union are to be governed by laws and not lawless tyrants, Pennsylvania’s election process was not legal. Therefore, Pennsylvania’s electors were selected illegally, and their electoral college votes must be invalidated.

To review:

  • California’s laws clearly state that certain instructions need to appear on its presidential election ballots.
  • Those instructions did not appear on California’s ballots.
  • California’s laws clearly say that if the instructions do not appear, those ballots cannot be cast or counted.
  • Therefore, ballots from California cannot be cast nor counted.

And in Pennsylvania:

  • The U.S. Constitution is clear that a state’s legislature determines when, where, and how citizens will vote.
  • The governor and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania changed election procedures without consent of the state legislature.
  • Therefore, Pennsylvania’s election was unconstitutional.

Is a judicial insurrection preventing justice?

Citizens are bringing forth evidence under penalty of perjury that election law violations occurred, yet this evidence is being shrugged off. America is supposed to be a nation of laws, but when evidence of wrongdoing and election law violations are systemically rejected by the courts, one must consider the possibility that a treasonous coup and/or a judicial insurrection is underway.

And because a compliant media continues to downplay the illegality of what happened during the election, citizens are believing a lie and a government is now forming in the wings that has no true authority to do so.

As reported in The Hill on Tuesday, Dec. 15, “Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Whip John Thune (R-SD) and Senate Rules Committee Chairman Roy Blunt (R-MO) all urged colleagues not to object to states’ electoral votes when they are received on the House floor next month.”

Their silence would be a gross dereliction of duty.

On Jan. 6, when the Electoral College votes are unsealed in our nation’s capital, someone with integrity in the United States Congress needs to challenge California’s 55 electoral votes as well as Pennsylvania’s 20 electoral votes.

If California’s and Pennsylvania’s votes are not challenged and denied, we are no longer a nation governed by laws, but a nation ruled by tyrants who disregard the law. And if that happens, Americans will need to decide once again if that’s the kind of government they want.