Look Ahead America Wisconsin Report Plus Press Release

Date: July 27, 2021 Contact: Kimmie Gonzalez
For Immediate Release [email protected]
LAA Voter Integrity Project: 157,299 Illegal Ballots Cast in

Wisconsin Presidential Election
Washington DC – Today, Look Ahead America’s Executive Director Matt Braynard made the
following announcement:
Today we are releasing our final Wisconsin Report demonstrating that the number of
illegal ballots is – at a minimum – over 157,000. This is about eight times the 20,000 vote
margin of victory in the presidential election.
This report is the product of the Voter Integrity Project (“VIP”), part of Look Ahead
America’s Research Group. It builds on and supplements the initial analysis conducted
by the VIP late last year and establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the deserved
winner of Wisconsin is unknowable.
We invite everyone to review the public version of the report at

https://www.lookaheadamerica.org/wisconsinreport. We will also make the unredacted
version with all of our supporting data available to journalists and academics who request
access.
This report is the result of countless hours of work by our research volunteers under the
leadership of our Research Director, Ian Camacho. For their help, I am truly grateful. I’m
also grateful to the many donors to this project that funded the extraordinary data
acquisition and processing costs.
To support LAA’s efforts, please contribute at https://www.lookaheadamerica.org/donate or

volunteer at https://www.lookaheadamerica.org/volunteer.
###
THE WISCONSIN REPORT
July 27, 2021
Written By:
Matt Braynard, Executive Director

Ian Camacho, Research Director
The LAA Research Group
Disclaimer regarding illegal ballots versus illegal voters: While this report identifies a large number of
illegally cast ballots and the names of ineligible voters in whose name those ballots were cast, it does
not allege that that those persons necessarily cast the illegal ballots. Determining who cast a ballot, legal
or otherwise, particularly as a private, non-governmental organization, proves nearly an impossible feat.
Disclaimer regarding redaction of voter information and research: The public version of this report has
redacted appendixes that include voter data and supplemental research. The full version, available to
government and law enforcement officials and, on a limited basis, to select individuals and members of
the media, has no such redactions.
Acknowledgements
We could not have made this report without the hundreds of hours of research and investigation from
our numerous volunteers, including Larry Maloney who did our SQL analysis, as well as:
@Betty
@GaryC
@Gina
@H20colorartist
@kitty/-n
@Mahican10
@marx
@MayflowerSue1620
@PinkFloydsMudman
@PrimeOne
@riffology
@wire_paladin
And to the several other volunteers who have chosen to remain completely anonymous at this time, you
all know who you are and we thank you for your efforts and assistance in ensuring accuracy in our work.
Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 1 of 24

Voter Integrity Project
Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................................. 1
Project History ........................................................................................................................................ 4
Seven Tranches of Illegal Ballots in Wisconsin ......................................................................................... 5
Tranche 1: EABCINV Registered Illegally .................................................................................................. 6
Tranche 2: Voters Illegally Claiming Indefinite Confinement (IC) Status as a Reason to Vote Absentee .... 7
Wisconsin’s Indefinitely Confined Status Defined and History.............................................................. 7
Initial IC Analysis.................................................................................................................................. 7
Appendices ......................................................................................................................................... 9
Tranche 3: EABCINV Matched to the NCOA Database ............................................................................ 10
The NCOA Database Defined ............................................................................................................. 10
Initial NCOA Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10
Scientific Basis for Utilizing the NCOA Database Matching ................................................................. 10
Supplemental Analysis of EABCINV NCOA Matches............................................................................ 11
Tranche 4: EABCINV Out of State Subsequent Registrations (OOSSR) .................................................... 13
Initial OOSSR Analysis ........................................................................................................................ 13
The Scientific Basis for the Validity of Full Name and Date of Birth Match.......................................... 13
Supplemental Analysis of EABCINV OOSSR Matches .......................................................................... 13
The Unexamined Tranches .................................................................................................................... 15
Tranche 5: EDBCINV Illegally Registered ............................................................................................ 15
Tranche 6: EDBCINV matched to NCOA and OOSSR ........................................................................... 15
Tranche 7: Unmatchable Invalid Residencies Among EABCINV and EDBCINV ..................................... 15
Summary and Conclusion ...................................................................................................................... 16
Recommended Voter Integrity Reforms ................................................................................................ 17
1. Thumbprint Authentication of Absentee Ballots. ...................................................................... 17
2. Mandated and Public Voter List Hygiene................................................................................... 17
3. Ban on the Use of “Black Box” Voting Equipment...................................................................... 18
4. Appointment of a Citizens Elections Supervisory Committee..................................................... 18
5. Creation and Sufficient Funding for a Dedicated Voter Fraud Investigation Division within the
State’s Attorney General’s Office....................................................................................................... 19
6. Equitable Distribution of Private Contributions to Election Operations. .................................... 19
About Look Ahead America and Voter Integrity Project ......................................................................... 20
Appendix A............................................................................................................................................ 21

Example 1: IC Case Determined to be Not Indefinitely Confined ........................................................ 21
Example 2: EABCINV NCOA Determined to be An Illegal Voter ........................................................... 22
Example 3: EABCINV OOSSR Determined to be Illegally Cast .............................................................. 23

Project History
In the days after the 2020 General Election, many concerned citizens and public figures, including
President Trump, raised several questions about the integrity of the election. Given the close margins
across many states, Matt Braynard and a team of researchers commenced the Voter Integrity Project to
run several experimental analyses. The team designed these analyses in such a way so as to determine if
illegal ballots were cast and, if so, whether that number significantly impacted the outcome of the
election.
The initial project ran as many as seven different procedures across six different states at a total cost of
$591,436. Analyzing Wisconsin cost approximately one-sixth of that budget, or $98,573. This covered
the cost of raw data, data processing, and various vendors and call centers that helped with the analysis.
The extremely compressed timeline to produce results for use in litigation and legislative hearings, and
for statewide officials responsible for administering elections and investigating voter fraud, increased
the difficulty of the challenge. Our initial results never received a fair hearing in a court of law nor did
any elected official thoroughly examine our work, however, despite providing results under
extraordinarily difficult and unique circumstances.
The Voter Integrity Project, now under the aegis of Look Ahead America, took a deeper dive into the
initial findings. Under the leadership of Braynard and LAA’s Research Director Ian Camacho, a team of
forty highly-trained volunteers (LAA’s Research Group) conducted a supplemental investigation into the
VIP’s data.
This report provides the results of the initial and subsequent investigations.

Seven Tranches of Illegal Ballots in Wisconsin
We have identified seven tranches of illegal ballots.
Tranche 1: Early and Absentee Ballots Cast In the Names of Voters (EABCINV) registered illegally.
Tranche 2: Voters Illegally Claiming Indefinite Confinement (IC) Status as a Reason to Vote
Absentee. Wisconsin did not allow the COVID-19 quarantine as a reason to claim
indefinitely confined status.
Tranche 3: EABCINV matched to permanent, out-of-state moves in the National Change of

Address Database (NCOA). At the time we processed this match in mid-November, the database
contained records as far back as four years prior to as recent as October 1, 2020.
Tranche 4: EABCINV matched to Out of State Subsequent Registrations (OOSSR) using our
national voter database (NVD). In these cases, the voter had registered in Wisconsin and
matched to voters subsequently registered in another state.
Tranche 5: Election Day Ballots Cast In the Names of Voters (EDBCINV) registered illegally.
Tranche 6: EDBCINV matched to the NCOA and OOSSR.
Tranche 7: Unmatchable Invalid Residencies Among EABCINV and EDBCINV
Due to the limitations of time, budget, and the inability to access necessary government databases, the
VIP could only analyze the first four of seven tranches.
Appendix A provides several redacted examples of the thoroughness of the supplemental research done
by the Research Group to determine a voter’s status.

Tranche 1: EABCINV Registered Illegally
In the state of Wisconsin, it is illegal for a voter to register with a residential address where they do not
live. (The same holds true for nearly all other states.) The VIP matched the EABCINV against the known
lists of postal box facilities (USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc.) and similar addresses where individuals could not
live. We found that many registrants disguised box numbers as ‘Apt’ numbers, ‘Suites’, and ‘Units.’
In some cases, these facilities exist at the same addresses of legitimate apartment buildings, however
we scrubbed our list of any potential false positives by calling the management companies as well as
investigating property records. In other cases, these individuals claimed to reside at businesses that our
systems flagged due to their location beside a USPS/UPS/FedEx drop off box. While these were not
technically postal box registrations, the individuals registered at these addresses neither resided,
owned, nor even worked at these businesses, which was why we marked these registrations as illegal.
Due to time and resource constraints, we did not run this analysis using EDBCINV. However, we did
match a small number of EDBCINV that had the exact same addresses that were matched using
EABCINV.
In total, we identified 65 EABCINV/EBDCINV registered illegally in Wisconsin.
The complete list of EABCINV data is shared in Appendix B.
NOTE: We also found several dozen inactive registrations that we didn't include in our count as they
didn't count either way towards the final election numbers, as well as active voters who did not vote in
November 2020. Nevertheless, they should be purged in future reviews of the Wisconsin state voter
rolls in order to sanitize and safeguard the elections.

Tranche 2: Voters Illegally Claiming Indefinite Confinement (IC) Status as
a Reason to Vote Absentee
Wisconsin’s Indefinitely Confined Status Defined and History

Details about the definition of Indefinitely Confined can be found in Wis. Stat. § 6.86(2)(a)
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/6/iv/86/2/a
“An elector who is indefinitely confined because of age, physical illness or infirmity or is disabled for
an indefinite period may by signing a statement to that effect require that an absentee ballot be sent
to the elector automatically for every election. The application form and instructions shall be
prescribed by the commission, and furnished upon request to any elector by each municipality. The
envelope containing the absentee ballot shall be clearly marked as not forwardable. If any elector is
no longer indefinitely confined, the elector shall so notify the municipal clerk.”
1,093% more Indefinitely Confined statuses were granted than in 2016, with 169,282 new applications.
COVID-19 was not a qualification. Matt Braynard discussed this at length in his YouTube presentation
with the Voter Integrity Project: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XH9ihoLi1NA&t=1582s
Additionally, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that Wisconsin elections were wrong to assert that
voters could claim the status of “indefinitely confined” because of COVID-19. Wisconsin’s statutory law
states that a person can only classify as indefinitely confined based on his/her age, his/her physical
illness (NOT the illness of someone else), or his/her infirmity.
The Court did note that a determination must be made in every single case before throwing out a ballot.
Instead, the Court deemed that indefinitely confined ballots must be looked at on a case-by-case basis:
https://www.wicourts.gov/sc/opinion/DisplayDocument.pdf?content=pdf&seqNo=315283
We took up this challenge using a randomized sample of 1,000 voters who claimed the status for the
first time in 2020 out of a universe of 169,282 first time voters who claimed the status.
Initial IC Analysis
The VIP matched the entire database of indefinitely confined voters as obtained from the state of
Wisconsin through a licensed vendor.
This process identified 243,900 indefinitely confined registered voters in the 2020 General Election in
Wisconsin. Of those voters, 169,282 claimed the indefinitely confined status for the first time.

From that first-time claimant population, LAA’s Research Group analyzed a randomized sample1 totaling
1,000 from the indefinitely confined matches and subjected it to further investigation by using a variety
of public and semi-publicly available tools to find supplemental evidence of one’s residential status.
These tools included the social media websites Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and
YouTube, along with blogs, review sites like Yelp and Google Reviews, news articles, property records,
tax records, and court records. We also used third party tools, such as nuwber, mylife, fastpeoplesearch,
peoplefinders, etc. to locate emails and phone numbers not already presented in the voter record, as
this would often yield social media account information.
The group initially determined that if we could confirm the subject’s name, date of birth, and address
using open source records, then we could conclude that we had accurately identified the subject.
Anybody who we could not completely confirm using the above criteria, we did deeper research into
their backgrounds using the phone numbers and emails they provided to confirm their identity, as well
investigated the family members such as co-owners of property to determine their identity. We also
used third party tools to determine that they were not another person in the state of Wisconsin or their
city. Once we established their identity, we then used social media and other resources to determine
their whereabouts in 2020 to the present to determine whether they had left their home without the
aid of an ambulance. If this was the case and they illegally claimed indefinitely confined status, we
marked these as Not Indefinitely Confined (NIC). Others, such as those in senior care facilities and
nursing homes, or those who passed away sometime after voting, we marked as legally claiming the
indefinitely confined status (IC). If we could not find enough information to determine their identity or
their 2020-21 status, then we marked the voter as Unable to Determine (UTD).
Each case went through a thorough review and validation process, first by an initial researcher, then by
a senior researcher, then by the Research Director, and finally by Look Ahead America’s Executive
Director.
Due to our compressed time and resources, internal to that 1,000 randomized sample, we managed to
review 309 cases (30.9% of the overall sample), after which point we suspended the study to complete
the other tranches. Among the 182 cases in our sample that we could determine (18.2% of the overall
sample), we concluded that 165 were not indefinitely confined and that 17 were indefinitely confined.
We were unable to determine the status of 127 voters that we sampled. If we unsuspended and
continued the study, then we guarantee that our confirmed case numbers would only increase.
In terms of raw numbers, this means that at a bare minimum 16.5% of all voters in our overall 1,000
randomized sample illegally claimed the indefinitely confined status. This comes to a rate of almost 1 in
6 voters casting a ballot illegally, just in the raw data alone. Conversely, only 1.7% of all voters in our
overall 1,000 sample appear to have legally claimed the indefinitely confined status.
Of the 309 subsample that we reviewed, this means that 53.4% of voters illegally claimed the
indefinitely confined status whereas only 5.5% of them did so legally.
1
All randomized samples used by VIP / LAA’s Research Group were generated within MS SQL Database using the
NewID function.

Thus, of all 182 determinable voters in this subsample, 90.7% of them illegally claimed the indefinitely
confined status with only 9.3% legally claiming the status. That comes to a ratio of 9.7 illegally cast votes
for every 1 legally cast vote.
Projecting these figures to the total universe of first time indefinitely confined claimants, we can
therefore conclude that no less than 24,037 ballots were cast illegally, with a (+/-) 2.3% margin of error
and a confidence index of 95%.2 Note that this estimate assumes that all 818 remaining unexamined and
undetermined ballots in our sample were legally cast. Therefore, even when factoring in the most
conservative of all estimates possible and even the margin of error, this tranche alone shows that the
number of ballots illegally cast far exceeded the margin of victory in the 2020 General Election.
Given that we found at least 90.7% determined to be illegally cast vs. 9.3% determined to be legally cast
thus far, however, we can assume that around 153,539 people likely illegally claimed the indefinitely
confined status. On the other hand, around only 15,743 voters in Wisconsin likely claimed the status
legally, a figure fairly consistent with prior years’ newly indefinitely confined voter claimants.
Appendices
In one case, we found a voter who not only illegally claimed indefinite confinement, but happened to be
the wife of a state representative who famously claimed in the aftermath of the 2020 General Election
that there was no widespread voter fraud in Wisconsin. When Matt Braynard publicized this discovery of
an illegal vote status on his social media accounts, she immediately locked down and wiped her social
media accounts. Fortunately, we kept the records and a redacted copy is available in Appendix A.
Similarly, all of the supplemental research that we managed to reach a determination on appear in
Appendix C. The entirety of the IC matches resides in Appendix D.
2
Z score of 1.96, p of 0.133, sigma p 0.0107383

Tranche 3: EABCINV Matched to the NCOA Database
The NCOA Database Defined

The US Postal Service (USPS) maintains the National Change of Address database. It includes individuals
who request to have their mail forwarded and provides the individual’s original address, their new
forwarding address, and indicates either a permanent or temporary move status. An individual
submitting to the NCOA database online must submit an address-verified credit card for a token
payment and as a means of authenticating residency.
Initial NCOA Analysis

VIP matched the entire database of EABCINV as obtained from the state of Wisconsin through a licensed
vendor for matching by the USPS. The licensed vendor does not conduct the matching process but
rather the USPS does.
The NCOA database maintains records going back four years, and we did not match any records that
filed move notices subsequent to October 2, 2020.
This process identified 6,207 EABCINV with filed permanent, out-of-state changes of residency more
than a month prior to the 2020 General Election.
Scientific Basis for Utilizing the NCOA Database Matching

The methodology of using NCOA to identify voters who have moved out of state has research to support
it. Stephen Ansolabehere, the widely-published political science PhD from Harvard University and the
Frank G. Thompson Professor of Government, co-authored an article titled “A Brief Yet Practical Guide
to Reforming US Voter Registration Systems,” which appeared in Election Law Journal3. The article
recommends using the National Change of Address database to identify “Deadwood” voters because
they moved out of state. From the article:
It is possible to develop comparable metrics of list quality and targets for improving registration
lists. An example of a possible metric is the incidence of “Deadwood”, (Obsolete records, usually
due to a person moving or dying) on Active and Inactive voter lists Using National Change of
address (NCOA) and other postal lists, information from marketing firms, past vote records, and
the national registration list, Catalyst has identified records that are dead wood. The data reveal
that 7.3 percent of all registration records in the United States are “deadwood.”
Additionally, after we published The Georgia Report of the 2020 General Election at
https://lookahead.s3.amazonaws.com/LAA_VIP_GA_Report_Public.pdf, Georgia Secretary of State Brad
Raffensperger used the NCOA to remove over 100,000 supposedly inactive voters, validating our work:
https://sos.ga.gov/index.php/elections/secretary_raffensperger_takes_action_to_uphold_ballot_integri
ty_with_major_list_maintenance_effort and https://lookaheadamerica.org/gasosncoa/
3
Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy Vol. 14, No. 1. Published March 13, 2015.

Supplemental Analysis of EABCINV NCOA Matches
While a permanent move out of state typically serves as grounds to invalidate an individual’s right to
vote in Wisconsin, exceptions do occur, particularly for members of the US military. False positives also
can occur, such as where the USPS did not correctly match an individual or where voter made a
permanent move out of state but then moved back.
LAA’s Research Group analyzed a randomized sample4 from the 6,207 EABCINV NCOA matches and
subjected it to further investigation by using a variety of public and semi-publicly available tools to find
supplemental evidence of one’s residential status. The group determined if a subject had established
residency outside the state, or whether they were qualified to vote in Wisconsin as the subject had not
moved, had moved out but moved back, or because of an exception (like military) despite moving, and
thus marked the subject as a false positive.
These tools included the social media websites Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, Pinterest, Instagram, and
YouTube, along with blogs, review sites like Yelp and Google Reviews, news articles, property records,
tax records, and court records. We also used third party tools, such as nuwber, mylife, fastpeoplesearch,
peoplefinders, etc. to locate emails and phone numbers not already presented in the voter record, as
this would often yield social media account information.
The Research Group evaluated the military status of EABCINV cases on the basis of proximity to a
military base or the use of a military address, or if the individual had a military or similar occupational
justification as determined by a LinkedIn record, etc.
In cases where we only found evidence that the individual resided in Wisconsin and not in the NCOA
state, we counted that as a false positive. In cases where we did not find any evidence that they
established residency in a new state or still lived in Wisconsin as of the NCOA match date, we counted
that as Unable to Determine.
Each case went through a thorough review and validation process, first by an initial researcher, then by
a senior researcher, then by the Research Director, and finally Look Ahead America’s Executive Director.
Due to our compressed time and resources, internal to that 3,310 sample, we managed to review 268
cases, after which point we suspended the study to complete the other tranches. Among the 179 cases
in our sample that we could determine, 103 were no longer residents of Wisconsin for greater than
thirty days prior to the election. We also found direct evidence of 1 double voter in the states of
Wisconsin and North Carolina, and included that number in the illegal voter calculation. Additionally, we
discovered that at least two of these illegal NCOA voters also illegally claimed indefinite confinement
status, despite significant evidence to the contrary.
If we were to unsuspend and continue the study, we guarantee that our confirmed illegal voter numbers
would only increase, not decrease.
In terms of raw numbers alone, at a bare minimum 3.1% of all voters in our overall 3,310 sample illegally
claimed a Wisconsin residential status. Conversely, 2.2% of all voters in our overall NCOA sample legally
claimed the Wisconsin residential status.
4
All randomized samples used by VIP / LAA’s Research Group were generated within MS SQL Database using the
NewID function.

In other words, 38.4% of the entire 268 subsample illegally claimed Wisconsin residency, whereas 28.4%
of the entire 268 subsample legally claimed it. Of all 179 determinable voters in this sample, 57.5% of
them illegally claimed Wisconsin residential status as opposed to the 42.5% who legally claimed it.
Projecting these figures onto the total EABCINV NCOA universe, we can conclude that no less than 156
ballots were cast illegally, with a (+/-) 0.59% margin of error when using a confidence index of 95%. 5 This
estimate of course assumes that all the other unexamined and undetermined ballots in our sample were
legally cast.
Given the current ratio of about 57.5% determined to be illegally cast vs. 42.5% determined to be legally
cast, however, using these determined percentages then we can assume that about 3,539 ballots were
cast illegally as opposed to 2,638 were legally cast.
All of the supplemental research for EABCINV NCOA matches that we managed to reach a determination
on appear in Appendix E. The entirety of the EABCINV NCOA matches reside in Appendix F.
5

Tranche 4: EABCINV Out of State Subsequent Registrations (OOSSR)
Initial OOSSR Analysis

The Voter Integrity Project assembled a national voter database and then matched it to the EABCINV
database using full name and date of birth. Because many states, including Wisconsin, do not make the
date of birth public, we relied on our third-party data vendors to append full date of birth, and we did
not attempt to match any records where we did not have a full date of birth.
In cases where we found a match, we compared the voter registration date in Wisconsin to the
registration date in the second state. If the second state registration date occurred after the Wisconsin
registration date, then that individual invalidated their ability to vote in Wisconsin per the state statute.
We identified 765 of these EABCINV with Out of State Subsequent Registrations (OOSSR) after excluding
any EABCINV matched by the NCOA process.
The Scientific Basis for the Validity of Full Name and Date of Birth Match
An article titled “ADGN: An Algorithm for Record Linkage Using Address, Date of Birth, Gender, and
Name” in Statistics and Public Policy6, also authored by Professor Ansolabehere, states the following in
his analysis of a database for the state of Texas:
Either Name and Date of Birth or Name and address identifies nearly all individuals in a database
uniquely. 99.6% are unique with Date of birth and name.
Supplemental Analysis of EABCINV OOSSR Matches

The LAA Research Group took a randomized sample of the OOSSR matches and attempted to validate or
invalidate them using the same research tools utilized in the supplemental analysis of the EABCINV
NCOA analysis.
As with the NCOA analysis, each case came under review and validation first by an initial researcher,
then by a senior researcher, then by the Research Director, and finally by Look Ahead America’s
Executive Director.
The supplemental research objective was to determine whether the evidence showed that the voter
really moved. The Research Group identified many individuals who moved away from Wisconsin but
then moved back. In other cases, the Research Group identified situations where the individual had no
apparent tie to the subsequent state and likely a false positive.
The supplemental research reviewed a subsample of 73 ballots. We concluded that of the 54 EABCINV
we could determine, 11 ballots were illegitimate, or at least 1.44% of the raw sample, and 43 were
legally cast, or 5.62% of the raw sample.
6
Volume 4, 2017, Issue 1. Published November 30, 2017.

Of the 73 ballots subsampled, 15.1% illegally claimed Wisconsin residency, whereas 59% legally claimed
it. Of the 54 determinable voters in this sample, 20.4% of them illegally claimed a Wisconsin residential
status as opposed to the 79.6% who legally claimed it.
Of the 765 ballots in this tranche, we concluded that no less than 17 ballots were cast illegally with a
margin of error of (+/-) 0.84% with a 95% confidence index.7 This estimate assumes that all the other
unexamined and undetermined ballots were legally cast.
If we were to unsuspend and continue the study, we guarantee that our confirmed illegal voter numbers
would only increase, not decrease.
Given the ratio we determined of 20.4% illegally determined, we believe that about 156 of these ballots
were cast illegally using OOSSR methodology.
The supplemental research for this tranche may be found in Appendix G and the complete dataset of
OOSSR matches may be found in Appendix H.
7

The Unexamined Tranches
Given our findings in these samples, there appears beyond a reasonable doubt that one will find many
more illegally cast ballots in the tranches that we could not examine due to our limits of manpower,
time, budget, and access to data. In nearly all cases, the state government, if it chose to, using the full
arsenal of tools at its disposal (full dates of birth, voter registration records, etc.) could research these
tranches that we could not.
Tranche 5: EDBCINV Illegally Registered

Tranche 1 only evaluated ballots cast early or absentee ballots registered at illegal addresses, and a
small number of election day ballots matched exactly to those addresses, because only voters who cast
early and absentee ballots were available when the VIP conducted this analysis. Inevitably, evaluating
the registration addresses of those marked as casting ballots on election day will yield many more such
ballots.
Tranche 6: EDBCINV matched to NCOA and OOSSR

We only conducted our NCOA and OOSSR analysis on early and absentee voters. Given the intensity of
the election that would induce non-residents to travel to a battleground state as well as the proximity of
voters who live just across Wisconsin’s borders, this analysis also likely would yield additional illegally
cast ballots if conducted on the election day voter list.
Tranche 7: Unmatchable Invalid Residencies Among EABCINV and EDBCINV

Both the NCOA and OOSSR processes had suffered from built-in limitations to our ability to identify
illegally cast ballots.
The NCOA database from the US Postal Service only goes back four years, so any voter who filed a
permanent move notice out of state before then would not have triggered a flag.
OOSSR depended on an accurate date of birth match. Not only could we not get an accurate date of
birth match on many records in Wisconsin’s voter file (Wisconsin’s voter rolls do not include the date of
birth), but we also lacked full dates of birth on many records in our national file where few states
released a voter’s full date of birth; our process required a date of birth on both sides to generate a
match.
Further, because of our insistence on exact name matches in addition to the date of birth, we missed
many who abbreviated their middle name in one state but not the other, or those who changed their
surname between moves or registrations.
Finally, we could not detect voters who permanently moved out of Wisconsin but neither filed an NCOA
nor registered to vote in their new state.

Summary and Conclusion
We established the following numbers of illegal ballots cast in each of the following tranches:
Initial Percentage Minimum Margin of

Analysis Illegal Projection Error (+/-)
Tranche 1 65 100.0% 65 0%
Tranche 2 169,282 90.7% 24,037 2.3%
Tranche 3 3,310 57.5% 156 0.59%
Tranche 4 765 20.4% 17 0.84%
Tranche 5 ??
Tranche 6 ??
Tranche 7 ??
The bare minimum total projected number of illegal ballots, not accounting for any illegal ballots in
Tranches 5, 6, and 7, is 24,275. This exceeds the margin of victory in the 2020 General Election in
Wisconsin, which was 20,695 (as per the vote recount), by 3,580 ballots.
When using the percentages that we determined, we expect the actual numbers to look like this:
Initial Percentage Likely Margin of

Analysis Valid Projection Error (+/-)
Tranche 1 65 100.0% 65 0%
Tranche 2 169,282 90.7% 153,539 2.3%
Tranche 3 3,310 57.5% 3,539 0.59%
Tranche 4 765 20.4% 156 0.84%
Tranche 5 ??
Tranche 6 ??
Tranche 7 ??
Not accounting for any illegal ballots in Tranches 5, 6, and 7, we expect the number of illegal ballots to
reflect the percentages we found in Tranches 1-4. Likely this number would come in at or around
157,299. This significantly exceeds the margin of victory in the 2020 General Election in Wisconsin,
which was 20,695 (as per the vote recount). Whether using the likely projections or the bare minimum,
which assumes everything that we did not examine or could not determine was legal, we must conclude
beyond a reasonable doubt that the deserved winner of the state of Wisconsin’s Presidential Electoral
Votes in the 2020 General Election is unknowable. It also does indicate that widespread voter fraud
definitely occurred on a statewide scale as per our findings and Wisconsin’s Supreme Court 2020 ruling,
and furthermore that sitting state representatives knew about this situation as per their own family
members claiming the status illegally.

Recommended Voter Integrity Reforms
The 2020 General Election exposed many flaws and raised doubts about the way states conducted their
elections. This has the dangerous impact of undermining the public’s confidence in future election
outcomes. Look Ahead America’s stated policy objectives are intended to eliminate these flaws and
restore faith in our electoral system.
These objectives were informed by the lessons learned by the Voter Integrity Project in the aftermath of
the 2020 election, the decades of election administration experience of Look Ahead America’s team of
experts, and hundreds of ideas suggested by the public.
Each of these policy objectives satisfies three key requirements: (1) eliminating vulnerabilities in our
election system, (2) practicality of implementation, and (3) harmony with current state and federal laws
and established legal precedence.
1. Thumbprint Authentication of Absentee Ballots.
A single machine-readable thumbprint on the affidavit envelope of an absentee ballot

will limit the ability of an individual other than the voter of record to cast that ballot.
Multiple ballots cast by a single individual will be easily detectible.
When paired with a thumbprint requirement on the absentee ballot request or as part
of the voter registration process, it practically eliminates fraudulent absentee ballots.
This process also eliminates many of the problems with ballot signature verification,
witness signatures, and unscrupulous ballot harvesting.
The state will encrypt the captured thumbprints as alphanumeric values with a one-way
hash using a secure key, and will be prohibited from sharing raw thumbprint data with
any other government agency.
2. Mandated and Public Voter List Hygiene.
The state will be required to engage in several processes to ensure the list of registered
voters contains only those legally eligible to cast ballots.
Further, whether or not these processes result in a voter record’s removal, the findings
of these processes will be reflected in the publicly available voter list (not applicable to
Social Security numbers). This will allow citizens or organizations to use this information
to take additional steps to ensure only legal ballots are cast.
These processes will include, but are not limited to:
Shared Interstate Residency Databases. The state will cooperate with other states to
build a secure, transactional database to detect when an individual has registered in
another state or taken other steps that would indicate a loss of residency and therefore

voter privileges. This database will rely on a match of name, date of birth and the last
four digits of the Social Security number. Any records matched through this process
must be publicly flagged in the state’s voter database.
Non-Citizen Matching Using the USCIS’s SAVE Database. The state will take advantage of
the USCIS’s SAVE database to flag non-citizens and remove them from the voter list. Any
records matched through this process must be publicly flagged in the state’s voter
database.
National Change of Address, Social Security Death Index, and Master Death File
Matching. The state will match the voter list against the NCOA permanent moves, SSDI,
and MDF on a monthly basis. Any matches will require a follow-up to ensure whether or
not the voter is still eligible to cast a ballot and, if not, they will be removed from the
voter list. Any records matched through this process must be publicly flagged in the
state’s voter database.
3. Ban on the Use of “Black Box” Voting Equipment.
“Black Box” voting equipment uses proprietary, non-public software and hardware
designs, and according to a study by Princeton University, are susceptible to undetected
hacking and manipulation.
The alternative is to mandate that all election equipment use open-source software and
design that is available for inspection and review by the public and technology
organizations to ensure the validity and accuracy of vote counting.
Open-source election software and hardware, paired with paper ballots, will remove the
potential for tampering as well as the suspicion of tampering.
More information can be found at https://lookaheadamerica.org/blackbox/
4. Appointment of a Citizens Elections Supervisory Committee.
The public must have assurance from those they trust that elections are conducted in
accordance with the law. A Citizens Election Supervisory Committee will help restore the
trust of the public in election outcomes.
The committee shall consist of trusted citizens who represent various political parties as
well as non-partisan organizations. Each committee member will be granted access to
the election process that is the equivalent of the state’s election director and any county
election director. These representatives will have the responsibility of documenting the
lawful execution of the election at every level.

5. Creation and Sufficient Funding for a Dedicated Voter Fraud Investigation Division
within the State’s Attorney General’s Office.
Many states have little to no standing effort to investigate voter fraud. Dedicating a
sufficient level of staffing and funding to a permanent division within the state’s
attorney general’s office will help to defend the integrity of our elections.
6. Equitable Distribution of Private Contributions to Election Operations.
While private individuals and corporations may choose to sponsor improvements to

election operations with direct donations of funding or material to government election
agencies, these contributions may not be geographically targeted and must be equitably
distributed throughout a state based on voter populations.
This restriction will only be applicable to contributions beyond a certain threshold to

allow incidental contributions to continue, such as a club allowing its headquarters to be
used as a polling place.

About Look Ahead America and Voter Integrity Project
Look Ahead America is an America First nonprofit dedicated to standing up for patriotic Americans who
have been forgotten by our government. We aren’t just talk; we’re action. That action means deploying
our R.E.T. (Register, Educate, Turnout to Vote) field programs across the country. It means leading
Patriot Actions and training citizens to lobby their state and local governments for America First causes.
And it means ensuring voter integrity by investigating cases of illegal ballots and advocating for election
reform to prevent them from being cast in the first place.
The Voter Integrity Project (VIP) was started by Matt Braynard in the aftermath of the 2020 Election and
was brought under the aegis of Look Ahead America. The mission of the VIP is to finish the investigation
into illegal ballots cast in 2020, sanitize states’ voter lists ahead of future elections to eliminate the
possibility of illegal ballots being cast, and to fight for real voter integrity reforms.
To learn more about Look Ahead America, how you can volunteer, and how you can donate, please visit
www.lookaheadamerica.org.

Appendix A
The following examples highlight the quality of the supplemental research performed by LAA’s Research
Group.
Example 1: IC Case Determined to be Not Indefinitely Confined

R-24: [Redacted Name and Birthdate]
Target’s Facebook Page was easily identified, but there is no birthdate information or birthday wishes.
Couldn’t find a Facebook page for her husband or relatives. On MyLife, her address matches, but her
birthdate is identified as [Redacted]. Since the research data says her birthdate is [Redacted], and I could
find nothing to confirm that, or confirm the MyLife birthdate of [Redacted], she is Unable to Determine.
File(s): /WI/[Redacted]-wi.docx
S-5: Unable To Determine. [Redacted] has a Date of Birth listed in the dataset of [Redacted] (age 58) and
OSINT tools indicate that [Redacted] at the address of the dataset has a Date of Birth [Redacted] (age
57).
https://www.mylife.com/[Redacted]
https://www.fastpeoplesearch.com/[Redacted]
File(s):
S-1: Confirmed to own the property:

http://gcsportal.[Redacted].org/GCSWebPortal/search.aspx
Husband is [Redacted], the co-owner of the property. This is his Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]
He confirms her 50th birthday is on [Redacted] in a post: https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]
This confirms that she is the same in the voter roll: https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/My-Voter-Information
She is a friend on his Facebook:

https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]/friends
She is also the only [Redacted] in Wisconsin:

https://www.peoplefinders.com/people/[Redacted]/wi?landing=all
Multiple photos of her outside with him, such as June 13, 2021:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=[Redacted]
May 8, 2021:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=[Redacted]
April 14, 2021

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=[Redacted]
On March 8, 2020 they are on a boat: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=[Redacted]

Therefore, it is apparent that she was not indefinitely confined despite her claim.
File(s): /WI/[Redacted]_NIC_DOB.docx
Example 2: EABCINV NCOA Determined to be An Illegal Voter
R-76: Peoplesearchnow.com search shows current address as Alpharetta, Georgia with previous address
as Racine, Wisconsin. Subject grew up in Racine, as noted on Facebook page (screenshots below).
https://www.peoplesearchnow.com/person/[Redacted]
A search on Facebook, shows date of birth and current residence:

The post above shows a date of [Redacted], saying thank you to all friends who wished subject a happy
birthday ‘yesterday.’
Subject’s email address is [Redacted], which suggests her date of birth.
More Facebook posts confirm birthday as [Redacted]: https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]
Facebook search determines subject moved to Georgia in June 2020:

Zillow shows current residence was purchased in June 2020: https://www.zillow.com/homes/[Redacted]
Facebook posts suggests subject voted in early October, 2020: https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]
Facebook post also suggests the first time subject voted in Georgia:
This research indicates subject was living in Alpharetta, Georgia when she cast her ballot.
File(s): /WINCOA/[Redacted]_1.docx
T-29: ADDITIONAL NOTES: Wisconsin address and sale verification:

https://ascent.racinecounty.com/LandRecords/PropertyListing/RealEstateTaxParcel#/Documents/[Redac
ted]
Researcher, using subject’s self-disclosing Facebook posts, shows that the subject moved to Georgia in
June 2020. Subject confirms having voted early in a self-disclosing Facebook post in early October
(consistent with the Wisconsin voter record). Subject doesn’t register as a voter in Georgia until early
December, in time to vote for the Senate runoff election in Georgia:
https://www.mvp.sos.ga.gov/MVP/voterDetails.do
Determination: Even though the subject had sold her Wisconsin residence and purchased her Georgia
residence in June 2020 thereby becoming a Georgia resident, she voted by absentee ballot in Wisconsin
for the national election. She was not a Wisconsin resident in October when she voted and thus she was

an illegal Wisconsin voter.
File(s): /WINCOA/[Redacted].pdf
S-16: I think research given is a good indication of the status of an illegal voter.
S-1: EXCELLENT research! I'd love to use this as an example for other researchers for how to put together.
Name, birth date, address, and date voted all match. No question that this is an illegal out of state voter
who moved long before she voted from Georgia. Illegal voter confirmed.
Example 3: EABCINV OOSSR Determined to be Illegally Cast
R-38: The voter’s LinkedIn profile has him working in New York since 2018.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/[Redacted]
This location is consistent with his Instagram and Facebook profiles.
https://www.instagram.com/[Redacted]
On [Redacted] he thanks his Facebook friends for birthday wishes.
He was a visitor to Wisconsin in 2018.
https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]/map
This is what shows for Wisconsin voter information using birthdate [Redacted]. He is not currently
registered.
https://myvote.wi.gov/en-us/My-Voter-Info
This is what shows for New York voter information using birthdate [Redacted] and Kings county
(Brooklyn). Both [Redacted] were tried as first name with same result.
https://www.nycvotersearch.com/Home/VoterSearch
This is what shows for Rhode Island voter information using birthdate [Redacted]:
https://vote.sos.ri.gov/Home/[Redacted]
The property where the voter is registered belongs to his parents and has been since at least 2000 which
is as far back as can be found online.
https://tax.[Redacted].gov/DisplayTax.aspx
The New York property affiliated with the voter is owned by a property management company.
https://a836-acris.nyc.gov/CP/LookUp/Index
https://a836-acris.nyc.gov/DS/DocumentSearch/[Redacted]

It is a mixed residential-commercial building.
https://www.propertyshark.com/mason/Property/[Redacted]
The Rhode Island property affiliated with the voter is a dormitory for the Rhode Island School of Design;
described in the tax record as commercial/industrial.
http://gis.vgsi.com/[Redacted]
The voter’s LinkedIn profile reports that he graduated from the school in 2016.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/[Redacted]
The voter has established himself in New York and should not have voted in Wisconsin.
File(s): /WIOOSSR/[Redacted].docx
R-12: The second researcher concurs with the first researcher's determination that the voter has
established himself in New York and should not have voted in Wisconsin.
File(s): /WIOOSSR/[Redacted].pdf
S-1: On the one hand, his "Official registration date" in Wisconsin is [Redacted]. This would cancel out the
New York and Rhode Island registrations, and show him as active in Wisconsin, as reflected in prior
research.
Given that he does not reside in Wisconsin, however, even though he is not double registered, he is not
military, a federal employee, nor a student, and so his vote should be considered illegal (at least by NCOA
standards).


Look Ahead America Wisconsin Report Plus Press Release

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Look Ahead America Wisconsin Report Plus Press Release

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Date: July 27, 2021 Contact: Kimmie Gonzalez

For Immediate Release [email protected]

LAA Voter Integrity Project: 157,299 Illegal Ballots Cast in

We invite everyone to review the public version of the report at

To support LAA’s efforts, please contribute at https://www.lookaheadamerica.org/donate or

Matt Braynard, Executive Director

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 1 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 2 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 3 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 4 of 24

Tranche 3: EABCINV matched to permanent, out-of-state moves in the National Change of

Tranche 6: EDBCINV matched to the NCOA and OOSSR.

Tranche 7: Unmatchable Invalid Residencies Among EABCINV and EDBCINV

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 5 of 24

In total, we identified 65 EABCINV/EBDCINV registered illegally in Wisconsin.

The complete list of EABCINV data is shared in Appendix B.

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 6 of 24

Wisconsin’s Indefinitely Confined Status Defined and History

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 7 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 8 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 9 of 24

The NCOA Database Defined

Initial NCOA Analysis

Scientific Basis for Utilizing the NCOA Database Matching

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 10 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 11 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 12 of 24

Initial OOSSR Analysis

Supplemental Analysis of EABCINV OOSSR Matches

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 13 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 14 of 24

Tranche 5: EDBCINV Illegally Registered

Tranche 6: EDBCINV matched to NCOA and OOSSR

Tranche 7: Unmatchable Invalid Residencies Among EABCINV and EDBCINV

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 15 of 24

Initial Percentage Minimum Margin of

Initial Percentage Likely Margin of

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 16 of 24

1. Thumbprint Authentication of Absentee Ballots.

A single machine-readable thumbprint on the affidavit envelope of an absentee ballot

2. Mandated and Public Voter List Hygiene.

These processes will include, but are not limited to:

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 17 of 24

3. Ban on the Use of “Black Box” Voting Equipment.

More information can be found at https://lookaheadamerica.org/blackbox/

4. Appointment of a Citizens Elections Supervisory Committee.

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 18 of 24

6. Equitable Distribution of Private Contributions to Election Operations.

While private individuals and corporations may choose to sponsor improvements to

This restriction will only be applicable to contributions beyond a certain threshold to

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 19 of 24

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 20 of 24

Example 1: IC Case Determined to be Not Indefinitely Confined

S-1: Confirmed to own the property:

Husband is [Redacted], the co-owner of the property. This is his Facebook:

He confirms her 50th birthday is on [Redacted] in a post: https://www.facebook.com/[Redacted]

She is a friend on his Facebook:

She is also the only [Redacted] in Wisconsin:

April 14, 2021

On March 8, 2020 they are on a boat: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=[Redacted]

Look Ahead America The Wisconsin Report Page 21 of 24

Example 2: EABCINV NCOA Determined to be An Illegal Voter

A search on Facebook, shows date of birth and current residence:

Subject’s email address is [Redacted], which suggests her date of birth.