Introduction

The recent audit of Arizona's voting records by Cyber Ninjas, a term often associated with a non-professional or amateur organization, raises questions about whether any prosecutions for voter fraud will arise from this operation. While some believe that extensive actions taken to uncover fraudulent activities are typical, others doubt the likelihood of significant findings or convictions. This discussion explores the probable outcomes of such an audit and draws parallels with similar past cases.

Unlikely Prospects for Prosecutions

Given the resources and time invested by Cyber Ninjas, one might expect a significant number of voter fraud cases to emerge. However, the Arizona Attorney General (AG) is currently conducting an investigation. The AG's decision to pursue prosecutions may hinge on personal interests, including their own aspirations to run for the U.S. Senate. It is argued that there may be limited evidence for convictions, raising doubts about the real risk of legal actions based on the audit findings.

Typical Levels of Voter Fraud

In any given election, a very small percentage of voters engage in illegal activities. In Arizona's 2020 election, with approximately 3 million votes cast, fraudulent votes are estimated to fall within a narrow range: 0.0003 to 0.0025. This equates to around 9 to 75 fraudulent votes, a minuscule fraction of the total votes. While proponents of the audit argue that any illegal votes found justify the effort, critics suggest that such a low number renders the investigation unnecessary and wasteful.

Past Examples and Lessons

To contextualize the expectations for this audit, one can look at past events. South Carolina's experience with a voter ID law provides a relevant case. During the legislative debate, a DMV employee naive to election integrity procedures inadvertently flagged around 900 deceased individuals as voters, leading to a state-wide press conference. However, when the IDs were thoroughly investigated by the State Law Enforcement Division (SLED), no convictions were found. The issue was largely resolved through corrections and misinformation, underscoring the importance of proper expertise in handling such matters.

A similar scenario occurred in Kansas, when the Secretary of State Kris Kobach publicly claimed evidence of individuals voting in multiple locations. His investigation, which cost millions of dollars over a year, turned up only about a dozen cases. Most of these were clerical errors, further emphasizing the limitations of amateur investigations in ensuring legal outcomes.

Conclusion

Their example serves to highlight the limitations of record matching by amateur organizations. While the findings from Cyber Ninjas may reveal some irregularities, the absence of convictions in past similar cases reduces the likelihood of significant prosecutions based on their audit. It is essential for future investigations to be conducted by experts with a clear understanding of election protocols and legal procedures to ensure that any fraud detected can be reliably and legally addressed.