Joni Tschetter was ROBBED – What if it was you? By: SD Canvassing Group

These are the results of the 2024 General Election for South Dakota State Representative in District 15.

According to the official results, Kadyn Wittman (D) came in with the most votes, followed by Erik Muckey (D) in second, and Joni Tschetter (R) narrowly edged out by SEVEN VOTES.

It’s pretty hard to lose by seven votes. But even harder after you realize what really happened.

The results in the D15 race are unreliable, unbelievable, unlikely and should never have been certified.

We wanted to know what the results could have been by removing the highly suspect UOCAVA vote. If we take out those very unlikely votes,

Joni Tschetter would have been the WINNER of the District 15 race for House by at least 155 votes!

District 15 has two of the notorious commercial mail-forwarding centers accounting for nearly 10,000 voters who list Your Best Address, 401 E 8th Street, or Dakota Post, 3916 N Potsdam as either their residence address and/or their mailing address.

10,000+/- voters in one district that don’t live where they say they live. And that is only considering the two major mail forwarding businesses. Not the new pop-ups and people registered to Staples, the UPS Store, campgrounds, hotels and so on.

Candidate Joni Tschetter requested a recount of her very close race. The results of the recount ended up with the recount board giving Muckey one more vote and then leaving the courthouse before resolving the issue of a disputed ballot. So Tschetter lost by 7 or 8.

From the Minnehaha County 2024 General Election data:

• 759 UOCAVA ballots – Minnehaha County
• 437 UOCAVA ballots – D15. (That’s a lot.) Why so many in D15? Mail-forwarding centers. A prior report showed 454 UOCAVA but the current reports now show 437.
• 18 UOCAVA ballots – were remitted by actual military members. That’s 4% of the total UOCAVA received in D15.

UOCAVA are the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act ballots. This law was originally designed so military service members could cast their ballot and it would be returned in time to count in the election. Just like everything else, a good thing has been used for bad things, and this is no different.

UOCAVA voters registering in the state of South Dakota must meet the requirements of the state in order to register to vote; which means South Dakota has to be their place of residence immediately prior to leaving the country.

In the case of a U.S. Citizen born abroad from FVAP.com:

SDCL 12-4-4.5 : The overseas citizen may register and vote absentee in the same county and election precinct in which the overseas citizen, or spouse or parent of the overseas citizen, resided immediately prior to leaving the United States.

South Dakota law requires a voter to be registered in the PRECINCT in which the voter resided immediately prior to leaving.

Secretary of State Monae Johnson however is directing the county auditors to: “…..ensure to allow our military and overseas citizens the opportunity to register and vote. Specifically, if an UOCAVA voter applies using the portal on the SOS website and lists a MAIL FORWARDING SERVICE as their RESIDENCE, this is permissible under UOCAVA. Identification and verification are conducted when individuals register to vote, ensuring their eligibility.”

No, no it’s not.

I don’t know about you, but that advice appears to be in direct conflict with SDCL 12-4-4.5 along with many other statutes in the law that we have listed in prior articles, which require the auditor to verify the voter and ensure an actual physical South Dakota residence is listed when using a PO Box or general delivery. Not to mention the fact that the voter signs under penalty of perjury that they meet the requirements of the state to vote, and actually live at and have no present intention of leaving the above address.

This law, along with many others, is not being followed properly by our county auditors in processing voter applications.

Federal Voting Assistance Program Instructions: (UOCAVA)
DO NOT WRITE A PO BOX FOR YOUR RESIDENCE ADDRESS.
Your address is: WHERE YOU PREVIOUSLY LIVED IN YOUR STATE OF LEGAL RESIDENCE.

WHERE

YOU

LIVED.

NOT, where you want to live, where you pretend to live, where you want to save money on auto registrations or insurance, or where you want to dodge income taxes from your home state.

The Pennsylvania Secretary of State was sued by State Senators for also illegally advising their election officials to process registrations without verifying the voter, putting the security of their elections at risk. The same should happen to Ms. Johnson.

OK, so we’ve established the UOCAVA voter has to be a former resident of South Dakota, or a child or a spouse of a former SD resident. We can then logically deduct that current or former bona fide South Dakota residents would likely share South Dakota values, and voting behavior.

But, that may be too much to assume.

During the D15 recount requested by Candidate Joni Tschetter, the recount board was required to verify that the UOCAVA ballots that were recreated by the resolution board were transcribed correctly. Most UOCAVA ballots are sent to the voter though email, then printed on printer paper, filled out and sent back by mail. The envelopes received by the election office are covered in tape, and processing these ballots takes triple the time and effort of a regular in person election day vote. The printer paper ballots are then sent to the resolution board for those election workers to recreate them on optical scan ballots to feed through the tabulator machines. It’s a tedious and laborious effort.

The superintendent of the recount board decided to read aloud the UOCAVA ballots to the other board members to verify. There were observers there that day who were in-person witnesses to the fact that all of those ballots that were read aloud went at least 9-1 for the democrats. Those observers have completed signed, notarized affidavits attesting to this fact. Candidate Tschetter, along with her husband and lawyer also heard the ballots read aloud going at least 9-1 for the democrats.

There were also resolution board members who noticed while transcribing the votes onto optical scan ballots that the UOCAVA ballots were 90% for the democrats, who have attested to this in a sworn, notarized affidavit. That’s a lot of eye witnesses to this phenomenon.

There are no other voter demographics in South Dakota that vote 90% democrat. NONE. So are these UOCAVA voters truly former South Dakotans?

We were made aware of, and consulted on, a 2024 General Election recount in Montana. The unusual results of UOCAVA ballots yielding returns 90% in favor of democrats popped up there too. Election judges completed signed, notarized affidavits. Read the screenshots below.

While investigating how widespread this “anomaly” appears to be, we found this on X:

You may also remember that the analysis of the 2020 CVR’s in Minnehaha County revealed the UOCAVA ballots were very heavily in favor of Biden, and deviated from all other vote returns.

• Cobb County, Georgia
• Gallatin County, Montana
• Fulton County, Georgia
• Minnehaha County, South Dakota

We are also learning of locations in Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Alabama, all reporting UOCAVA going 90% to democrats.

What are the chances all of these UOCAVA voters, who are supposedly former residents of said county, voted 90% for democrats? Even more so, what are the chances these voters from all over the country voted 90% for democrats in different election years in national, statewide, and local races?

It is highly unlikely that this particular group of voters actually vote like Washington D.C. residents. It is also highly unlikely that these voters are legitimate former residents, much less even real voters.

How can we say that? Watch this video in which Mark Cook describes a software program that allows mass FVAP requests to be automated by hackers.

Nationwide, the percentage of actual military using this system is 30% or less. Some jurisdictions report 10% and our own D15 revealed only 4% were actual military. The rest are non-military overseas ballots.

UOCAVA voters have been processed without providing a driver’s license or even a social security number. And remember that quote from the last article we posted?

Officials of the South Dakota Secretary of State’s Office did not respond to emailed questions or a phone message seeking the state’s tally of full-time travelers registered to vote. The office is not responsible for enforcing residency requirements, Division of Elections Director Rachel Soulek said.

Rachel Soulek says the Secretary of State’s Office is not responsible for enforcing residency requirements? Ok, so who is then?

12-4-5.3. Review of voter registration application by auditor–Notice to applicant–Promulgation of rules.

When a voter registration application is received by the county auditor, the county auditor or an individual designated by the county auditor shall review the application for eligibility and completeness.

If the applicant is not eligible to be registered or sufficient information to complete the registration card cannot be obtained from the applicant, the county auditor must send an acknowledgment notice by

nonforwardable mail

to the applicant indicating the reason the registration was not filed. The acknowledgment notice must state that the applicant needs to submit the corrected information to the county auditor within thirty days or the voter registration form may not be processed.

The county auditor shall send an acknowledgment notice by nonforwardable mail to the applicant whose registration is accepted. The State Board of Elections shall promulgate rules, pursuant to chapter 1-26, prescribing the form of the acknowledgement notice. The same confirmation mailing required by § 12-4-19 must be sent immediately to any person whose registration acknowledgment notice is returned undeliverable.

Our fabulous Secretary of State Monae Johnson has sent out notices to all the county auditors directing them to process anything, no matter how impossible it appears.

“When a voter registers, you should take their registration at face value. The information given may appear to you as wrong or even impossible to be true, but you should accept it and if it appears to be a perjured statement, then turn the information over to the appropriate law enforcement authority. It is not your decision to reject a voter registration form based upon your personal belief as to what the facts are.”

That is NOT what SDCL 12-4-5.3 says, or 12-4-2, or 12-4-5, and half the election code says, but hey, she’s the Secretary of State. Surely, the Secretary of State would not intentionally send out poor legal advice, right?

So Johnson says it’s not her job to verify the voter, and she is telling the auditors it’s not their job to verify the voter, then who the heck is verifying the voters???

We are in a precarious situation folks. No one is safeguarding the voter rolls. INTENTIONALLY.

When that happens, elections get stolen.

Here’s our analysis of the D15 House race outcome.

UOCAVA NUMBERS:

UOCAVA – 2024 General – 759 ballots – Minnehaha County

UOCAVA – 2024 General – 437 ballots – District 15 Minnehaha County (Remember – 90% Democrat)

437 * 90% = 393 votes – Muckey (Dem) and Wittman (Dem)

437 * 10% = 44 votes – Tschetter (Rep) and Lindwurm (Rep)

For this analysis we are going to use some assumed variables. In the race for house, a voter can vote for two candidates. We will assume the voters either voted for two democrats or two republicans. There were some undervotes where a voter bullet voted for one democrat or one republican, but for the sake of easy math, we will assume two votes dem or two votes republican.

We will also assume these ballots should be challenged as the voter registration forms were likely processed out of compliance with state law, and these voters failed to provide adequate identification making the registration forms inaccurate and incomplete. Previous analysis of a random sampling of voter registration forms statewide from mail forwarding services revealed a 99% inaccurate and incomplete rate. This, along with the nationwide anomalies found in UOCAVA data, render these votes unreliable and statistically unlikely based on the drastic deviation from the voting behavior of the rest of the entire population of South Dakota.

If we remove 393 unreliable votes for Muckey and Wittman, and 44 from Tschetter and Lindwurm, Tschetter comes out on top, followed by Wittman, and Muckey is the third place finisher.

We estimate Joni Tschetter actually would have been the top vote getter by at least 155 votes in D15 if these questionable votes would not have been accepted or counted. She also could have come in 342 votes ahead of Muckey, who supposedly edged out Tschetter by 7 votes.

Now if we add back in 437 ballots at the approximate 60% R / 40% D rate like the rest of the absentee voters in precincts 4-16 and 5-16 voted, Joni Tschetter would have been the top vote getter by 242 votes and beat out Erik Muckey by 429 votes.

Did Joni Tschetter REALLY lose her race by 7 votes? Are the people that live in D15 actually being represented by the person they elected?

Joni Tschetter, 2022 Candidate for District 11 House, lost by 97 votes. This is the same voting demographic, but is now District 15 after redistricting by the county.

Tschetter went through a recount in that race too, but came up short. Recounts just recount the counterfeit bills in the till. We need audits. Real audits.

District 11 Candidate for House John Kunnari lost the June 2024 primary by TEN votes. After his race, he canvassed the vote and came up with 16 affidavits of voters that did not live where they said they did, and in some cases, have no record of ever living in South Dakota.

Did John Kunnari REALLY lose his race by 10 votes? Are the people that actually live in D11 being represented by the person they elected?

Interestingly, Kunnari’s opponent, Bill Linsenmeyer, owner of Your Best Address at 401 E 8th Street, has since been found to be allowing (and obviously recommending) his clients to use his own personal residence address as their home address on their voter registration form. This is flat out lying, cheating, perjury, and fraud. How many other fraudulent ballots were cast in that race?

Verityvote.us has an informational report on their website on UOCAVA anomalies and abuses. You can find the report here: https://verityvote.us/overseas-voting-vulnerabilities/.

This report details some very questionable connections with the Department of Defense and democrat associated NGO’s. Notably, Chuck Schumer was involved in advocating for electronic ballot delivery to unverified voters, which resulted in changes to UOCAVA through Schumer’s MOVE act.

Chuck Schumer’s MOVE Act established funding and granted research authority to the EAC and FVAP. In 2010, as required by MOVE, FVAP again began to conduct electronic voting pilot programs using guidelines established by the EAC. This electronic voting testing was funded despite the continued objections of security experts.

South Dakota’s BPro was a recipient of the expanded funding of electronic voting for state governments, along with the likes of Konnech, Scytl, Everyone Count, and Runbeck. Konnech and Everyone Counts have ties to China, and Scytl is a Spanish company.

Please download the report and read it for yourself. Then inform your legislators that our military members are having their votes diluted by unverified voters, which should concern every single one of us. Thank you to Heather Honey of Pennsylvania, for doing such outstanding work and sharing it with all of us.

We have filed every kind of complaint we can think of, but everyone who is in a position of power or authority turns a blind eye.

What if it was you?

What if YOU lost your race by seven votes, but obviously had a legal challenge to over 400 votes that don’t appear real?

What if YOU lost your race by ten votes, but canvassed and produced sixteen affidavits of fraud in your race and your legal challenge was ignored?

What if YOUR thousands of dollars, knocked doors and days of your life spent campaigning for office were lost to results that can’t be trusted?

What will it take for our elections to be secured? When will we ever see justice, truth, integrity, honesty, morality, and ethical behavior?

Will it take your house being burnt to the ground by a “wildfire” to change your mind?

Who should REALLY be representing Districts 11 and 15 in 2025 & 2026?

Will we ever know?