Unfortunately, most in conservative and even alternative media are currently ignoring this story. But as is often the case, we’re highlighting the story here in hopes that others will pick up the ball.

Let’s look at some facts. First and foremost, the discrepancy between the Presidential race the Senate race is huge. Donald Trump defeated Kamala Harris by nearly 200,000 votes, over 6-points. Lake allegedly lost by 45,000 votes, or 1.5%. While there can definitely be variations between a Senate and Presidential candidate, Lake and Trump are practically in lockstep on nearly every issue. It’s extremely unlikely that a quarter million Arizonans voted for Trump AND Gallego on the same ballot.

You can’t make this make sense!

The Senate race was just called for Ruben Gallego, who apparently received MORE votes than Kamala Harris in the State.

Kari Lake also received more votes than Kamala, but fewer than Gallego. pic.twitter.com/XWMgvhb1gQ

— David J Harris Jr (@DavidJHarrisJr) November 10, 2024

So, Donald Trump got 150,000 more votes than Trump-backed candidate @KariLake. Lake got nearly 40,000 more votes than Kamala Harris.

BUT Dem. senate candidate Ruben Gallego got 45,000 more than Lake? And he got 80,000 more than Harris?

Somebody make it make sense. pic.twitter.com/ipb015U0cx

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 10, 2024

Then, there’s the strange ballot drops magically appeared after the deadline. In any state that runs fair elections, this would ring alarm bells. Unfortunately, Arizona is notorious as one of the most corrupt states when it comes to election integrity.

JUST IN: Arizona's Pima and Yuma counties appear to have added 22,816 votes following Election Day.

A US appeals court just ruled that counting ballots AFTER the election is ILLEGAL.

Do you support the Trump administration opening an investigation into the last two elections? https://t.co/eV5Z6FffoW

— Kyle Becker (@kylenabecker) November 10, 2024

According to Jim Hoft from The Gateway Pundit:

Election officials in Arizona are once again changing the ballot totals as the US Senate Seat has yet to be called.

President Trump won the state 52.7% to 46.4% over Kamala Harris.

But the officials in Arizona want you to believe that a majority of Arizona voters voted for Trump, and then a majority voted for the open borders communist Ruben Gallego, the son of a cartel attorney.

The Kari Lake campaign fired off a letter on Friday to Pima County officials after they were caught changing the ballot totals this week!

Then, there’s the election official in Maricopa County, the state’s largest, who declared that he wants to “make life hell” for Kari Lake. He happens to be in charge of county the ballots.

According to the Daily Mail, Stephen Richer’s animus toward Lake was revealed in the transcript of a June 21 deposition in which he was asked about a communication with a friend.

“And your response if kind of a laundry list here of bullet points: Get out of politics permanently; get out of politics temporarily; run for reelection as a Republican; run for reelection as an independent; run for mayor if no Kate; and then finally run for U.S. Sen, just to fly the flag for real conservatism and make life hell for Kari,” the lawyer questioning Richer said. “Did I read that correctly?”

“Yes,” Richer replied.

“Why would you want to make life hell for Kari Lake in March of 2023?” Richer was asked.

“I don’t remember,” Richer said. “I don’t think she’s a real conservative.”

Skeptics may question why Trump was allowed to win but not Lake. With Arizona’s notoriously late ballot counting status, the presidency had already been secured by Trump before half the ballots were counted in Arizona. It made no sense to risk national attention by having questionable vote counts hit that race.

Lake is insanely popular in Arizona with support that is very similar to Trump’s. For her to lose when Trump won the state by a good margin is unfathomable. But it’s Arizona, and in Arizona elections are swayed by those who count the votes. Unfortunately for Lake, the people counting the votes hate her.

As of Sunday afternoon, data provided by the University of Florida’s Election Lab shows 41.2 million voted by mail or early in person in the vast majority of states, with only a few states not reporting data.

Compared with four years ago, Republicans are returning more mail-in ballots and voting early in-person. Party affiliation does not mean that voters cast ballot for their party’s nominated candidate, meaning there is no way to definitively know what presidential candidate is ahead.

In states that report votes by party, registered Democrats have a 3.8 percent lead over registered Republicans, with 40 percent to 36.2 percent, respectively. Independent or minor party voters make up about 23.8 percent of the remainder, according to data provided by the lab.

Republicans have a 9-point advantage over Democrats during in-person early voting, while Democrats have a more than 11-point lead over Republicans for mail-in ballot returns, the data show.

As of Oct. 25, only 24.5 percent of mail-in ballots returned were from Republicans, while about 52.3 percent of Democrats did so, according to the Election Lab. Some 22.6 percent of returned mail ballots were from independents or those registered with minor parties.

Republicans in 2020 also had a smaller lead voting in-person early, the data show. At the time, some 40.2 percent of Republicans voted in-person early, while 37.5 percent were Democrats.

States that have reported no data so far include New York, Alabama, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.

Swing-State Breakdown

In Nevada, Republicans have a 5.1 percent early voting lead—or 31,000 votes—over Democrats, the Election Lab’s data show. That state was called for President Joe Biden over Trump in 2020.

Meanwhile, Republicans have a 6.9-percent advantage over Democrats in Arizona, a state that only reports mail-in ballots. Biden was also certified the victor in Arizona by a slim, 10,000-vote margin four years ago.

Voting by mail is extremely popular in Arizona, with nearly 90 percent of voters having cast their ballots early, most by mail, in 2020. Election officials in Arizona can begin processing and tabulating mail ballots upon receipt, but results cannot be released until one hour after polls close.

Late last week, Republicans pulled ahead in North Carolina, a state won by former President Donald Trump in 2020. By Sunday, the lead increased marginally to about 1.1 percent, or about 30,000 votes, over Democrats, data show.

Earlier this month, Trump visited areas in North Carolina that were ravaged by Hurricane Helene, saying that some Americans in the region “felt helpless and abandoned and left behind by their government.”

“In North Carolina’s hour of desperation, the American people answered the call much more so than your federal government,” he said.

And in mid-October, Vice President Kamala Harris held a rally in Greenville, North Carolina, and told a crowd that she wants to “fight for the ideals of our country and to fight to realize the promise of America.”

Pennsylvania has only reported mail-in ballots as of Oct. 27, showing that Democrats have taken a more than 330,000-vote lead over Republicans. However, Democrats’ lead has narrowed in recent days, down about 19,000 votes since Oct. 24, data show.

Pennsylvania did not have a clear winner in 2020 for four days after Election Day, as officials sifted through a huge backlog of mail ballots. The state is among only a handful that do not permit election workers to process or tabulate mail ballots until 7 a.m. ET on Election Day, which means it will likely again take days before the outcome is known.

Georgia, Michigan, and Wisconsin do not report party affiliation via the Election Lab website.

Reuters contributed to this report.

Judge Michael T. Liburdi said in his ruling that Arizona’s Democrat Secretary of State Adrian Fontes risked disenfranchising voters by certifying election even if some votes weren’t certified by counties. This will allow challenges and even investigations to proceed if credible reports of voter fraud are made.

As George Behizy reported on 𝕏:

A federal judge in Arizona just ruled that the Democrat Secretary of State can NOT certify the results of the 2024 election if any counties withhold certification due to fraud.

“Plaintiffs allege that the plain terms of the Canvass Provision require the Secretary to nullify a county’s votes if the county board of supervisors fails to timely canvass… Considering the above, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged a severe burden on their right to vote. The right to vote is fundamental.” – Judge Michael T. Liburdi

In 2022, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors voted to stall certification so they could investigate the fraud that took place. Democrats threatened them with lawsuits, forcing them to certify under duress. Wanting to stop that from happening again in 2024, Corrupt Secretary of State Adrian Fontes added a new provision to the Election Procedure Manual, mandating the certification of statewide results by tossing out the votes from counties that withheld certification.

The Rule: If the official canvass of any county has not been received by this deadline, the Secretary of State must proceed with the state canvass without including the votes of the missing county.

This ruling is a GAME CHANGER because it empowers counties to halt the certification process if fraud occurs in November. Bravo to Judge Liburdi.

Democrats have been employing a strategy of “running out the clock” on anything they believe can harm their chances of victory. This methodology has been employed in Arizona multiple times in recent elections, including 2020 and 2022.

By rightly declaring the new rule unconstitutional, Judge Liburdi takes the strategy off the table. If there are credible reports of election fraud that prevent any counties from being certified, then canvassing cannot begin until it’s resolved.

According to Jim Hoft at The Gateway Pundit:

The plaintiffs contended that the manual’s “Speech Provision” and “Canvass Provision” violated the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights of Arizona voters, specifically claiming it disenfranchised voters by allowing election officials to suppress speech and exclude votes from counties that fail to timely certify their results.

The Speech Provision in the manual explicitly prohibits actions like “raising one’s voice” or using “offensive language” at polling places, which plaintiffs argue could easily be weaponized to silence free speech under the guise of preventing voter intimidation.

Judge Liburdi acknowledged these concerns but noted the state’s intent to ensure orderly polling places. Plaintiffs contended that this rule was overly broad and amounted to unconstitutional censorship, which could have chilling effects on free speech not only near polling places but across the state.

On the Canvass Provision, the plaintiffs claimed that giving the Secretary of State the authority to proceed with the state canvass without counting votes from any county that failed to certify results in time was unprecedented and posed a significant risk of disenfranchising voters.

The plaintiffs cited the 2022 election in Cochise County, where election officials delayed certifying results, as an example of how this rule could be misused to throw out legally cast votes.

This is a small but important shift in the upcoming election. It allows for better scrutiny of election practices and prevents voters from being disenfranchised by the Secretary of State.

The court’s decision comes after officials discovered that a database error allowed people who had not provided proof of citizenship, per a 2004 ballot initiative, to vote the full ballot for nearly 20 years.

Neither the county recorder nor the state’s top election official suspected the affected voters were not U.S. citizens. However, they disagreed on what status the voters should hold.

Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer, a Republican, filed an emergency petition on Sept. 17 asking the state Supreme Court to weigh in.

Richer challenged guidance from Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, a Democrat, regarding voters who may not have provided documentary proof of citizenship during registration.

The state Supreme Court found in favor of Fontes, saying that Richer did not demonstrate that county recorders have statutory authority to remove the affected voters from being able to cast ballots in the 2024 election for federal offices and matters on a state ballot.

Arizona residents have been required to provide documentary proof of citizenship to vote in elections since voters approved Proposition 200 in 2004. This rule, unique to Arizona, came into effect in 2005.

Voters are required to provide a driver’s license or tribal ID number or attach a copy of a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization documents in order to cast ballots in local and state races. Driver’s licenses issued after Oct. 1, 1996, are valid.

However, state officials said that an error between the state’s voter registration database and the Motor Vehicle Division meant that some 97,928 voters who held licenses from before Oct. 1, 1996, were marked as full-ballot voters.

At around 2.5 percent of all registered voters, this could tip the scales in hotly contested state legislature races, where Republicans hold a slim majority over Democrats. It could also impact ballot initiatives.

State election officials said nearly 98,000 voters’ Arizona driver’s licenses were incorrectly recorded with an issue date after the cutoff on Oct. 1, 1996. This happened because those voters received a duplicate or updated license that listed its issue date as the duplicate or updated date rather than the original date of issue.

Richer argued that the affected voters should be restricted to federal-only ballots until they provide documented proof of citizenship, in accordance with Proposition 200. Fontes, however, directed county recorders to take no action, stating the voters should be permitted to vote in all elections. Richer argued Fontes ignored state law by doing so.

Under Arizona law, once a voter’s application is accepted, it cannot be revoked unless the recorder has evidence that the individual is not a U.S. citizen, the justices said.

The justices said county officials lack the authority to change the voters’ status because they registered long ago and attested under penalty of law to be U.S. citizens. Furthermore, the voters aren’t at fault for the database error, according to the ruling.

The court also noted the close proximity to the November election and cautioned against changing election procedures shortly before voting begins, saying the time for county officials to reject the voters’ registrations has passed.

“We are unwilling on these facts to disenfranchise voters en masse from participating in state contests,” Chief Justice Ann Scott Timmer said in the ruling.

The ruling was welcomed by both Richer and Fontes.

Richer took to social media to thank the court for quickly reviewing the case and Fontes for partnering with him to address the error.

“The 100k registrants will continue to vote a full ballot this election. Thank God,” Richer wrote on X. “Thank you Arizona Supreme Court for your extremely quick and professional review of this matter. Thank you [Fontes] for your partnership on this.”

Fontes thanked Richer and welcomed the win.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The poll was conducted between Aug. 12-16, surveying 1,003 registered voters in Arizona and yielding a 3.09% margin of error.

“For most of the election season, inflation, immigration, and abortion have been the top issues,” reads a report on the poll. “That’s still true – but a new issue, affordable housing, has officially cemented its status as a top-tier issue for Arizona voters. And, affordable housing’s importance is comparable to the other top issues – it’s high.”

However, neither Republicans nor Democrats have made affordable housing a major campaign point.

“Immigration, abortion, inflation – when these issues come up, the parties know what they’re talking about,” said David Byler, NPI chief of research. “And voters know who they trust. Housing is a different animal. Housing costs are just too high, and it’s becoming a bipartisan concern.”

According to a housing affordability study conducted by the University of Arizona, more than 30% of Arizonans are facing a housing burden, meaning that their housing costs consume more than 30% of their income.

“Households that are cost burdened are more likely to struggle to pay for other basic needs such as healthcare, childcare, transportation, and even food,” reads the study. There is a shortage of 133,684 affordable homes for Arizonans.

Low income households are not the only ones facing cost burdens, data shows that 37% of households that have “middle income” are still burdened when it comes to housing costs.

Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has taken steps to help Arizonans with housing issues including a first-time home ownership assistance program, dedicating $13 million to help individuals with a down payment on a home.

“As someone who has struggled to make mortgage payments myself, I know how owning a home can help build a strong financial foundation and anchor families to the communities they love,” Hobbs said in an April 12 statement. “This new program will offer the freedom and independence that comes with homeownership that has been eluding many deserving Arizonans across the state.”

However, Arizonans are still struggling, making housing affordability a major issue that candidates can use to win the swing state.

“This is a rare opportunity for both parties – an important issue where neither side has a pre-existing advantage or even a defined message,” Byler said. “The party that figures out how to win on housing will benefit hugely.”