In June 1994, the biggest story out of California was O.J. Simpson\u2019s low-speed white Ford Bronco chase.<\/p>\n
Simpson would eventually be arrested and tried in the slayings of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. Despite the ample physical evidence of his guilt, a jury acquitted him. Simpson later wrote a book titled \u201cIf I Did It: Confessions of the Killer.\u201d<\/p>\n
This came to mind as I watched the biggest story out of California in June 2026. Right after Election Day, it looked as if Spencer Pratt would finish in second place in the Los Angeles mayor\u2019s race. Incumbent Mayor Karen Bass was in first, but the outsider Pratt was well ahead of L.A. City Councilwoman Nithya Raman. On election night, she even gave what sounded like a concession speech.<\/p>\n
What a difference a week of counting ballots makes. Raman is now projected to finish second, preventing Pratt from being on the ballot in November. It does look like Republican gubernatorial candidate Steve Hilton will remain in second and advance to the general election.<\/p>\n
In an interview with \u201cMeet the Press,\u201d President Donald Trump called what\u2019s happening in California \u201ca rigged election.\u201d Interviewer Kristen Welker responded, \u201cThat\u2019s how they count the votes in California.\u201d<\/p>\n
It\u2019s amazing how uncurious the propaganda press is when their preferred candidates are winning.<\/p>\n
So, like O.J., it\u2019s time to explore how fraud could happen. Consider this an excerpt from \u201cIf California did it: Confessions of an election fraudster.\u201d<\/p>\n
The first thing a fraudster needs is access to ballots. Helpfully, California sends out ballots to every registered voter, a list that includes many bad addresses. On X, people have described getting ballots despite having moved away years ago. California fights efforts to clean up its voter rolls.<\/p>\n
In theory, signature verification is supposed to verify that a voter filled out his or her ballot. But signature verification is fundamentally flawed. Signatures aren\u2019t a unique identifying marker such as a fingerprint. In California, someone can even \u201csign\u201d a ballot with an \u201cX\u201d or dot. Another person can sign that they witnessed the \u201cvoter\u2019s\u201d signature. But reporting suggests the witness signature isn\u2019t verified at all. Of course, ballot harvesting is legal in California. It\u2019s a free-for-all for fraudsters.<\/p>\n
But sometimes you\u2019ll still guess wrong about how many ballots you\u2019ll need to stuff in those ballot boxes. California has you covered. Officials will accept a mail ballot without a legible postmark if \u201cthe voter has dated the vote-by-mail ballot identification envelope.\u201d What\u2019s especially convenient is that election officials will accept mail ballots up to seven days after Election Day.<\/p>\n
There\u2019s not even time to detail how new voters can register without providing a California driver\u2019s license or Social Security number. California doesn\u2019t require photo ID to vote either.<\/p>\n
Finally, you would see big shifts toward Democrats in the ballots counted after Election Day. In the L.A. mayor\u2019s race, the votes wouldn\u2019t just favor the leading Democrat. They would have to benefit the Democrat who needed more votes to end up in second place. And that\u2019s exactly what happened.<\/p>\n
California has willfully created the conditions that lead critics to question the integrity of their elections. Is it any wonder that many Republicans believe the best explanation for this seems obvious? If California did it, of course.<\/p>\n
Contact Victor Joecks at vjoecks@reviewjournal.com<\/a> or 702-383-4698. Follow \t\t\t
\n@victorjoecks<\/a> on X.<\/p>\n