Fight Voter Fraud, Inc. Expands Horizons, Readies Evidence for Law Enforcement in Nine States

by Sharon Rondeau

(Aug. 2, 2023) — A Connecticut-based non-profit, non-partisan election-integrity organization launched in 2018 has expanded its work to include eight other states, Linda Synkowicz, founder and CEO of Fight Voter Fraud, Inc. told The Post & Email in a recent interview.

FVF seeks to prompt elections officials in municipalities across the country to clean voter rolls of registrants who have relocated, passed away, or are otherwise ineligible to vote under the mantra of, “One vote for one legal voter.”

A July 7, 2023 press release states:

The past couple of years have allowed FVF Inc. to utilize our unique process for identifying individuals who have potentially infringed on any election laws. We are currently investigating 394,940 of those individuals across Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Virginia, and Wisconsin.

Further, it reports:

In the coming months we will be addressing state specific findings and trends, and when the time is right releasing more of our data which clearly demonstrates the overall issues that we are facing as a nation. Our work highlights the effectiveness of our process in restoring accuracy and transparency to the voter rolls in each state where we are working.

Just over a year ago, Synkowicz was a guest of Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who recently dedicated herself to the issue of honest elections, founding the Election Integrity Network (EIN) and hosting the “Who’s Counting?” video-cast. On the program, Synkowicz described her staff as a “silent army” of citizens “battling for clean voter rolls — everywhere!”

Background: Connecticut

From our initial interaction with Synkowicz several years ago, The Post & Email learned that from its inception FVF had sought to identify deceased voters whose names continue to appear on Connecticut voter rolls but whose purging is mandated by the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (NVRA).

According to the Census Bureau at its 2020 tabulation, Connecticut’s population had inched upward by just under 1% to approximately 3.6 million. On October 29, 2020 NBC News reported that the Connecticut Secretary of the State’s office stated the number of “active, registered voters” to be 2,308,177.

As of 2020, Connecticut was one of a handful of states which by its constitution did not permit “early voting,” with absentee voting accommodated only under specific circumstances as stated in the Article Sixth of the founding document.

In the wake of the declared COVID-19 pandemic, a March 2020 executive order by Connecticut Gov. Ned Lamont decreed:

Section 9-135 of the Connecticut General Statutes is modified to provide that, in addition to the enumerated eligibility criteria set forth in subsection (a) of that statute, an elector eligible to vote at a primary or an election and any person eligible to vote at a referendum may vote by absentee ballot for any election, primary or referendum held before May 20, 2021 if he or she is unable to appear at his or her polling place during the hours of voting because of the sickness of COVID-19. COVID-19 means the respiratory disease designated by the World Health Organization on February 11, 2020, as coronavirus 2019, and any related mutation thereof recognized by said organization as a communicable respiratory disease. It shall not constitute a misrepresentation under subsection (b) of Section 9-135 of the General Statutes for any person to communicate the provisions of this modification to any elector or prospective absentee ballot applicant.

Consequently for the 2020 elections, then-Secretary of the State Denise Merrill mailed absentee-ballot application forms to all Connecticut “registered voters,” though by that time the legislature had “authorized absentee balloting in a manner similar to the provisions in this executive order in order to reduce the risk of transmission of COVID-19.”

Despite that, the legislative maneuver continued to lack the approval of the voters to amend the state’s constitution.

There were problems with the blanket mailing of absentee-ballot applications for the state’s primaries, Synkowicz said.  “Those applications went only to Republicans and Democrats, and then she resent them to the entire list of  Independents and Unaffiliated and everyone else for the general election, and none of the original ones were removed. This time, she had the return address as ‘local town registrar’ or ‘clerk,’ so there was no accountability. But then there were mix-ups between Stafford and Stafford Springs; it was just ridiculous. So we guestimate close to 200,000 were undeliverable.”

In another potential source of fraudulent voting, Synkowicz said, “You had people who decided to get an absentee ballot for their dead grandmother or someone who didn’t live there anymore, so they figured, ‘Hey, why not fill it out and get a ballot?’ We don’t know how many thousands that happened to.  It is not up to Fight Voter Fraud to make any judgment whatsoever on anyone; we are just going to be bringing forward what we believe to be the proof that there was a violation of state and/or federal election statute.”

In March 2021, Synkowicz testified to the Connecticut Government Administration and Elections Committee on HB 6205, a proposal to permanently expand absentee voting, which eventually passed out of the House but not the Senate. Last November, following a recommendation from the legislature and earlier advocacy by Merrill, a question on early voting (not absentee) appeared on the ballot to amend the state constitution.

Unlike in 2014, in 2022 a majority of Connecticut voters approved the measure, resulting in the legislature’s passage and the governor’s signing of a statute taking effect January 1, 2024 permitting in-person voting up to 14 days prior to an election.

The proposal on “no excuse” absentee voting is expected to appear on the 2024 ballot.

“In March of last year I started bringing forward the dead people in Connecticut,” Synkowicz said of FVF. “We have already helped remove, without litigation, over 4,000 voters. We have access to the Social Security Death Index through some of our research information, so we make our comparison and want people removed. Before, we just wanted the people who died before 2020 removed; we now have the capability of getting the names of people who died two weeks ago. So we’re providing information to the registrars of voters and basically saying, ‘Here’s all the information that proves it was that particular person.'”

Process Replicated in Other States

“We are actually helping to remove people who died in 2023,” Synkowicz continued. “We call them the ‘Obit Committees,’ and we have them in Connecticut, Arizona, Virginia and Florida. We’re doing it every six weeks in Connecticut. Our cutoff was July 15th, so by the end of this week or early next week, we’ll be sending out the books to the registrars by certified mail, return receipt and notarized letter; self-addressed, stamped envelope asking them to just confirm that these people are on the ‘Off’ list, because state law says that once a registrar is made aware that a person is deceased, they’re supposed to immediately do that. What we’re doing is providing them with what we believe to be 100% proof that that person is deceased and asking them to please remove them and put them on the ‘Off’ list.”

Although a step toward removing deceased voters’ names from the rolls, Synkowicz said, “the ‘Off’ list means they’re going to sit on it for a year because of the way state laws work. It also means that nobody could vote for those people. But in 2020, 500 deceased voters ‘voted’ in Connecticut; some of them even voted in person.”

“Meaning that someone stole their identity?” we asked.

“Correct, or a family member got an absentee ballot request form in the mail from the Secretary of the State’s office — remember in 2020, when the SOTS sent them out to everyone on the list? That was the hazard of sending out absentee ballot application forms without them having been requested. That was our lawsuit against them, that it violated our constitution, that they should not be sent out to everybody. We wound up in the Connecticut Supreme Court not once, but twice, and because we had no legislators backing us except for one from Bridgeport — everyone voted and said what the governor did with EO7QQ was legal –, we could argue with only 10% of our evidence. Then the court went against our constitution — the finding was ridiculous — and then we had 110,000 returned to the registrars of voters during the primary, which was August 11, 2020.”

An element of FVF’s propulsion to the national scene from its Connecticut roots was the aftermath of the 2020 election in which Synkowicz detailed “’hundreds’ of credible reports of voter fraud from across the country stemming from the November 3 elections.” At the time, she told The Post & Email:

We did not expect to be involved nationally with everything that’s going on. We have a “reportit” app where people can go on their cell phone in Connecticut, and we get only reports from Connecticut. What we didn’t realize was that the reportit on our website will take them not only from all over the country, but all over the world. Just after the election, I started having tons of them coming from all over the country, some containing very serious material which has been relayed to the proper federal authorities.

On Tuesday Synkowicz described some of the aspects of her group’s expansion. “We started working on Connecticut, which we still are, and it was on developing the process of how to prove the potential fraud person-by-person,” she said. “A number of organizations across the country can give you numbers that don’t match; we can identify right down to the person who it is, so it’s not just a number. What we’ve been doing is researching — we actually have paid researchers now — all across the country, because people don’t need to be living in the same state they’re investigating.”

“We came up with a process that we believe will hold up in court,” she added. “I can’t disclose to you exactly what we gather, but all the information is available free on the web, so everything we research is in the public domain.”

“We have a lot of other information we cannot disclose” in a database, Synkowicz said. “Our process is very, very specific. For the names we research, we are running at least 92% accuracy on those who have potentially violated any election law. I have to use ‘potential’ because I’m not law enforcement. With that said, we have multiple people who look at each individual name after the original research is done; we trace the chain of custody; everything is documented. I’ve had to take my time bringing the information forward because we’re trying to make sure we’re 100% accurate.”

Multi-State Operations

“State laws differ, so that’s a challenge,” Synkowicz told us. “Another challenge is whether a state allows on the rolls the voter’s date, month and year of birth. Some of them are very difficult for us to research. We know what to look for, and we are running at about 92% accuracy; on those we’re going to be bringing forward to law enforcement, I’d like to say we’re at 100%. We have so much evidence right now it’s unbelievable, but we have to go through it with a fine-tooth comb. In the very near future, I can say that in Connecticut we will be bringing the information to law enforcement.”

Unlike in the past, Synkowicz said, FVF will not be sending the evidence to Connecticut’s SEEC. “I will never, ever go through them again,” she said after we asked. “I did it in the past, and they dismissed a lot of information even though we had proof of things and never did what they were supposed to do, which is an investigation. We have already done the investigation. I am not going to wait to submit it to an organization where if they haven’t done the work after a year, it will be dropped. Why would we do that when we believe we have the information that has the proof?”

A September 2021 article in the Connecticut Post quoted the SEEC as having characterized FVF’s submissions from the 2020 election as prompting a “needless waste of limited investigatory resources.”

“’The Commission notes that, while significant commission resources were required to process and definitively disprove the allegations contained in these complaints, complainant could have avoided the waste of these resources if she had ascertained the requirements of the law and the meaning of the data she produced as evidence,’ the SEEC ruled,” the article reports. “’The commission would strongly encourage those who hold themselves out as authorities on election law investigations to educate themselves on both the facts and law of the complaints they file with the Commission to avoid the needless waste of the limited investigatory resources of the Commission.’”

In response, Synkowicz told The Post & Email she indicated “The evidence was provided but not accepted by the SEEC.”

When we asked to whom FVF will soon present its evidence, she replied, “The information is currently being reviewed and prepared for presentation to law enforcement. When we present it to law enforcement, we will also be doing what we’ve done with the Obits. That book we send to the registrars is what we believe to be public information with all the evidence, and the public should be allowed to look at it because we are sending to an elected official information that benefits the public as a whole and should be preserved for the public’s interest.”

Updated lists are being sent to Connecticut registrars “every six weeks,” she said. “We have another 80 towns going out in the next week or so with information you can actually ask for. Some states, when they are given evidence that someone is deceased, will remove that person’s name from the voter rolls. I know the SOTS’s office begs to differ; they maintain that it’s got to come from the registrar doing the research. I do not believe that, because again, it’s public information being sent to a public official signed for, certified-mail, return-receipt.”

“When we turn it over to law enforcement,” she added, “we will not publicize anyone’s name unless and until they’re arrested. We include the IP address with all the information, so they can type it in to verify it.”