Thread by @AmberMcReynolds

There are numerous inaccuracies here @BreibartNews. None of this indicates fraud & is instead a distortion of facts & data to create confusion & misinfo. Here is what your ‘interview’ w/ Mr. Adams gets wrong. 1/10

breitbart.com/politics/2021/…

State policies vary which means some have more accurate data than others. As an ex, if a state has failed to adopt AVR (like TX) or doesn’t use NCOA proactively, states will not know a voter moved until a ballot is undeliverable. But guess what - there are safeguards. 2/10

Also, voters may decide to vote in-person & there is inconsistency with how states capture that data which is also evident in the EAVS data. Voters were told repeatedly by some that mail ballots were bad. So they changed their minds which is also part of the unreturned %. 3/10

And just bc a voter does not return a ballot does not mean there is nefarious activity. That’s like saying if you don’t have 100% turnout for in-person voting, there is a % of voters unaccounted for. No logic to expect 100% return for mail but not vote other methods. 4/10

Many states including CA, CO, GA, VA, NC, NV, & others used ballot tracking w/ intelligent mail barcodes so the unreturned ballots actually do have data as to status. In fact, ballot tracking systems enhance security & give voters info about their mail ballot & its delivery. 5/10

Further, if validation is not confirmed on returned ballots,
then the system caught an issue (a security feature w/mail ballots) & the best state policies advise the voter immediately so they can fix it. This is a best practice to ensure security & voter enfranchisement. 6/10

The unreturned ballot metric is simply a data point for future consideration & improvements. It does not at all indicate fraud or nefarious activity. Mr. Adams should be intellectually honest about the safeguards within the system instead of using data to mislead people. 7/10

And Mr. Adams was not accurate with regards to NVAHI funding sources. It doesn’t matter, but since Mr. Adams lied in this interview, I thought I would make note of that here because it demonstrates a lack of integrity on his part. 8/10

If you or Mr. Adams have an interest in actually improving election policies so that the system is fair, accessible, secure, transparent, equitable, & reliable for all, then follow our work & other nonpartisan orgs who are positively trying to improve the process.
9/10

Finally, Mr. Adams decided to target me here w/ inaccurate info. I think that just means he is bothered by my work to improve the voting experience & process. Clearly his intent is to target me w/ harassing trolls. I’m not scared of any of that. But nice try. 10/10