| | Soon after, the [[Center for Tech and Civic Life]] (CTCL) whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million, began sending agents into states to recruit certain Democrat strongholds to prepare grants requesting monies from CTCL. For example, CTCL approved a $100,000 grant to the Mayor of [[Racine]], WI in May of 2020 directing the Mayor to recruit four other cities ([[Green Bay]], [[Kenosha]], [[Madison]], and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request of CTCL. This effort results in these cities submitting a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15, 2020 to CTCL and, in turn, receiving $6.3 million to implement the plan. This privatization of elections undermined the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters. | | Soon after, the [[Center for Tech and Civic Life]] (CTCL) whose previous annual revenues never exceeded $1.2 million, began sending agents into states to recruit certain Democrat strongholds to prepare grants requesting monies from CTCL. For example, CTCL approved a $100,000 grant to the Mayor of [[Racine]], WI in May of 2020 directing the Mayor to recruit four other cities ([[Green Bay]], [[Kenosha]], [[Madison]], and Milwaukee) to develop a joint grant request of CTCL. This effort results in these cities submitting a “Wisconsin Safe Election Plan” on June 15, 2020 to CTCL and, in turn, receiving $6.3 million to implement the plan. This privatization of elections undermined the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), which requires state election plans to be submitted to federal officials and approved and requires respect for equal protection by making all resources available equally to all voters. |
| | According to the Amistad Project, these are but examples of radical changes in election processes that opened the door for significant fraud. | | According to the Amistad Project, these are but examples of radical changes in election processes that opened the door for significant fraud. |
| − | had to go on the equivalent of a “where’s Waldo” hunt. These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials.<ref>https://trumpwon.biz/The-Legitimacy-and-Effect-of-Private-Funding-in-Federal-and-State-Electorial-Processes-1.pdf</ref> | + | had to go on the equivalent of a “where’s Waldo” hunt. These irregularities existed wherever Zuckerberg’s money was granted to local election officials. |
| | + | carried by Trump in 2016, there was one drop box for every 1,100 square miles and every 72,000 voters. Government encouraging a targeted demographic to turn out the vote is the opposite side of the same coin as government targeting a demographic to suppress the vote<ref>https://trumpwon.biz/The-Legitimacy-and-Effect-of-Private-Funding-in-Federal-and-State-Electorial-Processes-1.pdf</ref> |