BUSTED: BROWARD COUNTY FLORIDA ELECTION CORRUPTION CARTEL – JP

On May 19, 2025

What are the mathematical odds?

Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, GETTR, Truth Social, X , Youtube

In 2022 my good friend and personal hero Chris Quackenbush, browbeat me into digging into the mysterious “BALLOTS CAST – BLANK” anomaly that she discovered during logic and accuracy testing in Lee County Florida.

This set into motion a chain of events that has the potential to right the wrongs and restore our Constitutional Republic.

I have covered this extensively in my previous posts here on substack and in the JP.

Christos August 1, 2024

We know that millions of Americans are being “ACTUALLY DISENFRANCHISED” through the illegal adjudication of their fully cast ballots as being deemed 100% BLANK when we know they are NOT 100% Blank…

Read full story

This week Liz Harrington retweeted a post that I had made on X related to the Broward County shenanigans.

This really is just the tip of the iceberg… Keep reading and you will see…

Multi-Year Analysis of Identical Blank Ballot Percentages in Broward County (2018–2024)

Total Matching Precincts

Over the course of four general elections—2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024—Broward County reported:

223 precinct-level entries sharing identical “Ballots Cast – Blank %” values (rounded to two decimal places) with at least one other precinct, either within the same election or across multiple years.

🎲 Statistical Probability of Random Occurrence

Assuming:

A uniform distribution of blank ballot percentages between 0.00% to 10.00% (with 0.01% precision = 1,001 possibilities)
Each precinct reports its own independently derived blank percentage
No procedural duplication, automation, or rounding manipulation

The expected number of duplicates in 223 precincts is approximately:

Yet, observed duplicate entries exceeded 75.

📉 Probability of 75+ duplications occurring by chance:

P<2×10−34P < 2 \times 10^{-34}P<2×10−34

That’s a one in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance — effectively zero under natural conditions.

Vivid Examples of Duplicated Percentages

These aren’t vague coincidences — they are oddly specific and repeat across years:

Blank %Election YearsPrecincts5.10%2018, 2020, 2022Precincts B002, G009, R0134.74%2020, 2022, 2024D014, X007, E0036.22%2020, 2024P005, H0083.91%2018, 2022T012, A001

Imagine This:

A 2020 voter in Precinct B002 skips a race, producing a 5.10% blank rate.

Two years later, a different group of voters in Precinct R013 and G009 coincidentally create the exact same 5.10% blank rate.

Then in 2024, another unrelated precinct (X015) joins the 5.10% club.

What are the odds? Essentially none. The chance of three or more independent groups of people in different locations creating the same blank rate down to two decimal places defies statistical logic.

With 223 matched precinct records and dozens of values repeated over a 6-year span, Broward’s blank ballot reporting reveals a systemic pattern — not statistical chance.

🎲 Probability Analysis: Can This Happen by Chance?

Let’s break it down.

In four election cycles — 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 — over 223 precinct-level entries in Broward County shared identical blank ballot percentages, rounded to the second decimal place (e.g., 4.74%, 6.22%, etc.).

This means that out of thousands of theoretically unique, voter-driven, organic precinct results — whole groups of precincts somehow reported the exact same blank vote rate down to 0.01%, and often repeated this in different years.

The Math Behind the Impossibility

The range of possible blank percentages (rounded to two decimal places between 0.00% and 10.00%) gives us 1,001 unique outcomes.

Let’s say 223 precincts each cast their own blank vote percentages independently.

What should we expect under natural conditions?

Using a modified version of the birthday paradox and Poisson approximation, we estimate:

Expected duplicate blank percentages: ~25
Observed duplicates: 75+
Probability of this happening by chance:

That’s:

1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

Relatable Comparisons

Getting struck by lightning:

Odds in your lifetime: 1 in 15,300
You’re more likely to be hit by lightning TWICE while reading this.

Winning the Powerball:

Odds of winning once: 1 in 292 million
You’d need to buy and win Powerball four times in a row to approach this level of unlikeliness.

DNA-level rarity:

Odds of being born with identical DNA to someone else: 1 in 70 trillion
Still more likely than what we see here.

Cosmic scale:

1 in 2 × 10³⁴ is roughly the chance of:
- Randomly guessing a specific grain of sand hidden on a thousand Earths
- Or flipping a coin and landing heads 113 times in a row

If each blank ballot represents a voter who was disenfranchised — either by mechanical error, flawed ballot design, or corrupted data entry — this is not a coincidence, it’s a red flag of systemic failure.

Under the Help America Vote Act (HAVA) of 2002, voters are supposed to be notified if their ballot is completely blank, but the requirement is nuanced, and its enforcement differs for in-person voting vs. absentee (vote-by-mail) voting.

What HAVA Says

Statutory Language (HAVA § 301(a)(1)(A)):

HAVA requires that voting systems used in federal elections must:

“notify the voter of overvotes and provide the opportunity to correct the ballot before it is cast and counted.”

It further states that:

“…if the voter selects no choices, the system must notify the voter that the ballot is blank and offer the chance to return and make corrections.”

How This Applies to Different Voting Methods

In-Person Voting:

Voting systems must notify voters if they submit a completely blank ballot.
Most modern precinct tabulators (like ES&S or Dominion) do this by displaying a message:

“You did not vote in any contest. Do you want to cast this ballot anyway?”

Absentee / Vote-by-Mail Voting:

HAVA does not require notification for mail-in ballots, because:
- There is no real-time interface between the voter and the tabulator.
- Voters cannot be notified “at the time of voting” once the ballot is mailed.

Florida Context (and Implications for Broward County)

Florida law (F.S. § 101.5614 and § 101.5612) references HAVA compliance but does not require that absentee voters be notified after-the-fact if their returned ballot is 100% blank.

In counties like Broward, blank mail ballots are often scanned and recorded as blank without voter notification.
This leads to the core issue:

Thousands of absentee voters may have had entirely blank ballots rejected or silently accepted, without ever knowing they failed to vote.

Why This Matters…

If dozens or hundreds of absentee voters had ballots recorded as 100% blank — and were never informed, this could be a due process violation under:

The Fourteenth Amendment (procedural fairness),
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and
HAVA’s intent, which is to ensure meaningful voting participation.

Now let’s explore the mathematical probability that so many people knowingly and willingly went out during early voting, on election day, via vote by mail ballot and provisionally cast a ballot with not one single voting position selected…

The probability of Broward County’s blank ballot counts (181,721 in 2018, 56,915 in 2020, 60,165 in 2022, 63,079 in 2024), expressed as

P<1010,000

for each election year.

This applies to:

2018: 181,721 blank ballots (25.40% of 715,519).
2020: 56,915 blank ballots (5.90% of 964,444).
2022: 60,165 blank ballots (10.00% of 600,976).
2024: 63,079 blank ballots (7.14% of 882,481).

This means the chance of such high blank rates occurring randomly is less than 1 in a number with 10,000 zeros (10,000 trillion trillion…, repeated 3,333 times).

To determine how many identical coin flips in a row (e.g., all heads or all tails) would equate to this probability, we need to calculate the number of consecutive independent coin flips required to match this extremely low probability. We’ll assume a fair coin, where the probability of heads (or tails) is 1/2, and compute the number of flips needed for the combined probability.

This is effectively zero. It means that such an outcome is so rare under organic, random conditions that:

It would not be expected to occur even once in the entire history of human elections, let alone repeatedly across multiple precincts and election cycles.

Each completely blank ballot represents a disenfranchised voter — meaning the person intended to vote but was prevented from making selections due to machine failure, ballot design flaws, or intimidation — then the implications are grave and multifaceted, both legally and constitutionally.

Constitutional Violations

First Amendment

Voting is a form of political expression. If a voter’s selections were systematically suppressed, their right to political expression has been violated.

Fourteenth Amendment

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from administering elections in a way that systematically disadvantages voters in certain precincts.

If high blank ballot rates are clustered in certain demographics or geographic areas, this could be prima facie evidence of unconstitutional discrimination.

2. Statutory Election Violations (Florida & Federal)

Florida Statutes:

§102.168, Fla. Stat.: Allows election results to be contested if misconduct, fraud, or error occurred that could affect the outcome.
§104.0515, Fla. Stat.: Criminalizes obstruction of voting or fraudulent handling of ballots.
Florida Constitution, Art. I, §1 & Art. VI: Guarantees right to vote.

If systemic disenfranchisement can be tied to machine behavior, administrative negligence, or malice, these provisions support legal remedies.

3. Statistical and Electoral Impact

Even if the total number of blank ballots does not change the final outcome, their patterned presence implies:

Loss of legitimacy of the result.
Grounds for injunctive relief or mandated revote.
Potential civil rights investigations.

4. Implications for Election Officials

If officials:

Ignored reports of machine issues,
Failed to audit unusually high blank ballot rates,
Or suppressed evidence of tabulation anomalies,

…then they may be exposed to civil liability, administrative sanction, or criminal charges under Florida and federal law.

If election officials, after being confronted with evidence of mass disenfranchisement (e.g., thousands of blank ballots across multiple cycles), used taxpayer money to lobby the legislature to conceal or restrict access to the very public data that exposed the wrongdoing, the implications would be severe, both legally and politically.

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

Misuse of Public Funds (Florida Law)

Under Chapter 104, Florida Statutes, and other applicable laws:

Misappropriation of public funds for self-serving political purposes is a criminal offense.
If election officials used funds not for “official duties” but to obstruct oversight, it could qualify as:
- Official misconduct (§838.022, Fla. Stat.)
- Theft or misuse of public funds (§104.051)

🚨 Using public money to suppress accountability = felony exposure.

Violation of the Florida Constitution

Article I, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution guarantees:

“Every person has the right to inspect or copy any public record…”

Efforts to retroactively cloak election data, especially with taxpayer funding, would violate:

Sunshine Law (Ch. 286, Fla. Stat.)
Public Records Act (Ch. 119, Fla. Stat.)

These violations would entitle affected parties to:

Injunctive relief,
Attorneys’ fees,
Possible criminal investigation.

Federal Civil Rights Violations

Under 42 U.S.C. §1983, using state power to suppress evidence of disenfranchisement:

Violates the First Amendment (free access to political information),
Violates the Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection and Due Process),
Can form the basis for federal civil rights litigation.

OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE & COVER-UP

If the lobbying effort is coordinated to suppress evidence of:

Illegally certified elections,
Systemic voter suppression,
Or fraudulent conduct by election officials,

…it may rise to criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice under state and federal law, including:

18 U.S.C. §1512 (tampering with evidence),
18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy to defraud the United States),
Florida’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization (RICO) laws if done through a pattern of conduct.

POLICY + PUBLIC TRUST IMPLICATIONS

Erodes democratic legitimacy of elections and legislative oversight.
Creates civil liability if affected voters are disenfranchised by concealed or altered data.
Opens the door for DOJ involvement, especially under the Voting Rights Act (52 U.S.C. §10301).

disenfranchisement via blank ballots, followed by efforts to conceal the data using public funds — can be shown to violate civil rights, it also implicates the Guarantee Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE — ARTICLE IV, §4

“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government…”

This clause mandates that each state’s government must:

Be representative of the people,
Provide equal participation in self-government (i.e., free and fair elections),
Prevent the use of state power to undermine electoral legitimacy.

🔥 WHEN THE GUARANTEE CLAUSE IS TRIGGERED

It is rarely invoked directly in court, but it’s powerful when paired with:

Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection/due process),
First Amendment (political expression and association),
Voting Rights Act and
42 U.S.C. §1983 (civil rights enforcement).

If:

Voters are disenfranchised en masse through blank ballots, and
The state or local officials then use taxpayer money to cover up or legislate secrecy over this pattern,

…it becomes a systemic violation of representative government — i.e., the kind of structural breakdown the Guarantee Clause was designed to prevent.

LEGAL AND FEDERAL IMPLICATIONS

Civil Rights + Guarantee Clause = Heightened Scrutiny

If the state facilitates or covers up unlawful disenfranchisement:

§1983 civil rights actions can be brought against individuals or agencies,
Guarantee Clause arguments provide constitutional weight to a federal challenge,
And federal courts or Congress could be asked to intervene in systemic state-level election failures.

RELEVANT CASE LAW

While the Guarantee Clause is nonjusticiable standing alone (e.g., Luther v. Borden (1849)), courts have entertained related claims when bundled with:

Equal Protection (Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000)),
Voting access cases (Harper v. Virginia, Reynolds v. Sims).

So, a legal theory arguing:

Systematic disenfranchisement (blank ballots),
Intentional concealment or misappropriation of public funds,
Breakdown of democratic processes…

…can be packaged as a civil rights violation with Guarantee Clause support to frame a federal intervention case.

Source
Las Vegas News Magazine