New York Citizen’s Audit (NYCA) has been hard at work since August of 2021, collecting and analyzing data related to the 2020 election. Some of their most recent findings may be more sinister than they seem at first. As reported previously, NYCA has found a minimum of 299,920 people who have been collectively assigned multiple unique voter identification numbers; that figure is now 701,942, up from the 608,760 reported earlier. These numbers are called “SBOEID” by the New York Board of Elections (for State Board of Elections Identification). There are a minimum of 402,022 excess SBOEID numbers.

Tired of the ads? Go Ad-Free and Get EXCLUSIVE Content, Become a PREMIUM USER

Out of the total 701,942 excess SBOEID numbers found so far, 39,746 were assigned within 10 days of each other. One man in Brooklyn received 11 “unique” registration numbers on February 19 and 20th of 2020. NYCA has found 6,433 people who received all of their SBOEID numbers on the same day.

The NY voter rolls show 212,125 votes associated with people who have multiple SBOEID numbers. NYCA has been able to determine that some of the votes are legitimate, but others simply cannot be. For instance, one citizen came to NYCA with a question about her registration status. They found that she had two active SBOEID numbers. Her records appear in the group of 299,920 who have excess SBOEID numbers, and the vote attached to one of those SBOEID numbers is legitimate. It is unknown how many of the excess SBOEID records belong to legitimate voters, but it is known that a minimum of 4,804 votes have to be fraudulent.

Votes identified as “fraudulent” by the NYCA research team are “excess votes” assigned to multiple SBOEID numbers belonging to the same person. For instance, a generic record of this type would look like so:

In this example, a clearly identifiable person, matched by first and last name, birthdate, and address, has two different SBOEID numbers issued on the same day. A vote in the 2020 General Election is assigned to each of the two SBOEID numbers. One of the votes is legitimate (if it was cast by a real voter) and the other vote must be illegitimate because voters in the United States are allowed only one vote each. NYCA counted “illegitimate votes” by subtracting the total number of uniquely identifiable persons who voted from the number of votes recorded for those same individuals. The true number could be much higher, depending on how many of the “potentially legitimate” votes were cast by fake voters.

Another phenomenon reported by NYCA is what they call “missing votes.” A missing vote is a vote recorded by the county voter rolls but missing from the state rolls, or vice versa. New York City alone has 254,713 missing votes. Nearby Nassau county has 26,175. A missing vote, using the previous example, would look like this:

In this example, there is a county and a state record for the same individual. Both records have the same SBOEID number. However, the county records shows a vote cast in the 2020 General Election and the state record does not. At first glance, this appears to violate the federal election document retention law, 52 USC 20701. A vote is clearly within the scope of protected documents, which seeks to preserve all election documents for a minimum of 22 months after an election. If the record of the vote preserved by the county is lost by the state, they have failed to preserve the document. In New York City, they appear to have failed in this duty a minimum of 254,713 times.

** Join Our Community **

Analysis of Nassau county records provides a link between excess SBOEID numbers and missing votes. In 277 of the 26,175 missing vote records, there are also excess SBOEID numbers. With these records, one sees a combination of the two spreadsheet examples provided so far. It looks like this:

This is where the records start looking sinister. This example shows portions of three records. They are two state records for two different SBOEID numbers, and one county record for one of the two SBOEID numbers found in the state records. Each of the three records could be described as fraudulent, even if one of the two votes recorded for this individual is legitimate.

Here’s why:

1. State Roll 1 shows that SBOEID NY00000000000123456789 did not vote. However, County Roll 1 shows that SBOEID NY00000000000123456789 did vote. Therefore, either State Roll 1 has destroyed the record of a vote, thus violating 52 USC 20701, or County Roll 1 records a fraudulent vote.
2. County Roll 1 shows that SBOEID NY00000000000123456789 voted. State Roll 1 shows that the voter assigned this SBOEID did not vote. If State Roll 1 is correct, County Roll 1 is not and reflects a false record of a vote.
3. State Roll 2 shows a vote for a voter assigned SBOEID number NY00000000000985611516. The personal identifying information for this voter matches the information for the voter found in State Roll 1 and County Roll 1, but the SBOEID numbers do not match. Therefore, this is an excess SBOEID for a unique person. There is no county record with this SBOEID. Therefore, it is possible the record was created at the state level. This record represents an illegitimate registration and an illegitimate vote. Notice that this record shows that it was purged due to a move, yet it has the same address as the address listed in State Roll 1 and County Roll 1. It is also missing a purge date. Because a vote is recorded for this SBOEID, the purge date would have to post date the election but it isn’t in the record, making it impossible to know.

Now, let’s imagine that the Jane Doe used in this example is a real person. Ms. Doe has three records in her name, two SBOEIDs, and two votes for the same election. On its face, that makes it look as if she may have committed voter fraud by somehow acquiring two SBOEIDs and then using both to vote. Keep in mind there are thousands of real New Yorkers who are in that situation right now. However, it doesn’t make sense: How could she arrange to acquire two SBOEID numbers on the same day? Or the man in Brooklyn, who got 11 over two days? More likely, this is identity theft committed by a person or persons with access to the voter rolls and the permissions necessary to edit them.

Going back to the crossover example of three records with matching personal info but different SBOEID numbers and vote status, we see what may be a legitimate voter (County Roll 1) converted to a phantom voter (State Roll 2), with the corresponding state record (State Roll 1) altered to destroy the legitimate vote connected to County Roll 1 while counting the illegitimate vote connected to State Roll 2. Then, evidence of the malfeasance is destroyed by marking State Roll 2 as purged due to a move that didn’t happen.

The natural question raised by NYCA’s analysis is this: Has the NY Board of Elections engaged in identity theft for the purpose of inflating voter registrations and casting fraudulent votes? If so, have they also “framed” the hundreds of thousands of affected voters to deflect attention from themselves? Voting twice is a crime according to 52 USC 10307 , as is “false information in registering.” Identity theft is also a crime. Based on New York voter roll records alone, it appears highly likely that the state of New York has either thousands of double voting violations and hundreds of thousands of false registration violations or hundreds of thousands of identity theft crimes combined with thousands of examples of double voting.

I once thought there was no way voter fraud would be found in New York. I believed that Democrats wouldn’t sabotage an easy victory for their candidates in a reliably Democrat state by committing fraud. And yet, the voter rolls tell a different story. The amazing thing is that no group has attempted to canvass New York voters yet; the data reported here is straight out of the voter rolls.

One can only wonder what will happen when or if a canvass is attempted. For instance, is it possible that a canvasser will knock on a certain door in Brooklyn and discover 11 people live there who share the same name and birthdate? If not, the NY board of elections may have a significant problem, and they might have some explaining to do.

<Support Our Efforts To Keep Truth Alive>

The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary.