Why Rockland Co New York Doesn't Prove The Election Was Stolen
How SMART Election and Liberal Content Creators Have Misguided You
Thanks to all of my followers and donors for supporting independent journalism and helping me keep access to information for free venmo Myranda-kazos
“The 2024 election was stolen — and now we finally have proof!”
Sound familiar? It should. That’s the headline, the viral hook, the talking point flooding your feed — especially if you’re grieving the results of 2024 and desperately searching for answers. But here’s the hard truth most won’t tell you: It’s a scam. And the so-called proof? Built on smoke and mirrors.
I too, desperately wish the results were different, don’t get me wrong but this was not some high-tech heist.
At the center of this latest deception is the Rockland County, New York voting case — a lawsuit pushed by the group SMART Elections. On the surface, it sounds explosive: One case in Rockland could overturn the entire election! Or, “A small county in New York proves the 2024 race was rigged!”
The reality? Smart Elections has been reckless — spinning a narrative that misleads their own audience, weaponizing half-truths for maximum visibility, regardless of the consequences to our already fractured political landscape. Their presentation of this case has been so distorted, it’s not just misinformation — it’s become a grift, preying on the political pain of vulnerable people desperate to believe there’s an easy explanation for what happened in 2024.
And while content creators rake in views, the political left — and the fight for real democratic reform — suffers.
We deserve better than recycled conspiracy theories dressed up as justice. If we’re serious about protecting democracy, we have to confront these scams head-on — not fall for them.
On the face of it their claims seem worthy of investigation but by digging deeper into the evidence, the numbers make sense and are not the “anomalies that they claim they are. Let’s break down some of their claims.
“There is nearly a 50% discrepancy between sworn affidavits stating they voted for third party candidate Diane Sare than the total amount counted by the county in one precinct”
Lets be clear- a 50% discrepancy in a single candidates total count is a BIG deal however it is only a big deal when properly figured mathematically with unbiased numbers within an appropriate sample size- The only evidence they have in a precinct where Sare only received 5 votes however 8 have sworn affidavits claiming to have voted for Sare leading SMART Elections to determine she would have had a minimum of 9 votes. Hence the inflated number of “nearly 50%” Not only is the sample size far too small to be considered seriously and affidavits hold little to no water especially when between the 8, only 2 are willing to swear under oath in court and participate as plaintiffs in the lawsuit, including Adam Mocio, a chronic election denier and avid Trump supporter. Yet somehow the desperate political left still views this as a worthy cause centered around justice for Harris voters. Additionally, SMART Election‘s largest “anomaly” as they call it, states that within this district, zero voters voted for Harris out of just over of just over 500 if zero were tabulated it would be far easier to find any ONE of those 500 people to sign an affidavit swearing that they voted for her, they haven’t. They also assert in their argument they only “interviewed” 3% of voters, giving the idea they went door to door when it is truthfully just coalition members and acquaintances. They suggest that because 97% of the population was not interviewed, they suspect they will find more. They filed that in December 2024, they have had half of a year to find more and have not. Furthermore, once this case took social media by storm, one would think people would be coming out of the woodwork.
“It is statistically impossible for a County to not cast a single vote for a presidential candidate”
First and foremost, this argument circulating social media is wildly inaccurate. Harris took 65,880 votes from Rockland County, New York. There are a handful of PRECINCTS where Harris took little no votes. SMART Elections has been misleading the public on this issue, and unfortunately, many social media creators have followed suit—spreading incomplete narratives without bothering to read the case files or examine the original documents for themselves. It’s true that, on a national scale, it’s unusual for precincts to report zero votes for a major candidate. But that statistic means little when stripped of context like population size and cultural voting patterns.
The precincts at the center of these claims include large Hasidic Jewish communities known for practicing bloc voting, where members of the community often vote collectively, sometimes based on the guidance of religious leaders or other factors unique to the community. This is a well-documented and entirely legal dynamic that election experts have recognized for years.
Unfortunately, districts with distinctive religious or cultural voting patterns have become a convenient target for election deniers—many of whom have migrated from the far right to influence left-leaning spaces under the guise of “election transparency.” Rockland County has faced these challenges before. In fact, as recently as 2022, a lawsuit was filed alleging that district lines in the area diluted the influence of certain communities, making it harder for specific candidates to compete.
You can read more about that legal battle here:
The activists behind this case, Michael Parietti, also sued the town of Ramapo- the town with districts in question- specifically in 2015 alleging “irregularities and /or misconduct” by the town clerk during the special election. After having the opportunity to provide evidence, both trial and appellate courts concluded no irregularities merited overturning the election.
You can read more about that legal battle here:
https://www.law.com/decision/almID/1202799260997/?slreturn=20250703125710
Parietti sued before that as well in 2014-2015 in Parietti v Sampson and again the case was dismissed, no evidence.
In short Rockland has long had a unique election landscape that has served as a playground for activists to raise suspicion about their election integrity locally now SMART Elections is turning it in to a cash cow banking on the left’s election grief.
Additionally, this same group also gave Biden no votes in some cases and very few in the 2020 election. There is no way to use the logic of this case to negate the 2024 election without also negating the 2020 election.
The judge is allowing the case to move forward because of the evidence presented by SMART Elections
The claims about a judge being moved by heaps of evidence is meant to mislead readers in to assuming sufficient evidence of wrongdoing was presented to the courts which warranted further investigation. The reality is that the first judge recused themselves out of conflict of interest and the Supreme Court Judge, Rachel Tanguay, ordered that discovery moved forward based on part of the Board of Elections’ answer to the complaint acknowledging that some discovery may result in an amendment to their answer. In short, they did not request to dismiss the case perhaps because they plan to take other legal action.
Despite incredibly misleading information circulating the internet, no expert affidavit by a statistician was provided to the court supporting evidence of election fraud. Lulu Friesdat the co-founder of SMART
Legislation, provided an affidavit. She describes herself as an election journalist, and stated that SMART Legislation is an “unincorporated action partner of SMART Elections. Friesdat, despite many efforts around the country, has never had a favorable court ruling.
The “drop off” rate indicates a discrepancy worth investigation
The so-called “drop-off” argument is perhaps the most baffling talking point circulating — especially among liberal content creators who, knowingly or not, have fallen for a classic right-wing psyop: protest voting over Gaza. Let’s be clear: The same voices who urged voters to skip the presidential race but vote down-ballot are now acting surprised when the numbers reflect exactly that strategy. You cannot champion protest votes and then weaponize their statistical effects as evidence of fraud.
Even the term “drop-off rate” is being misused here. It isn’t some formal political science measure — it's an activist-coined phrase, often thrown around without context, despite the fact that in many regions, voter drop-off is perfectly normal. There are countless valid reasons voters skip parts of the ballot, especially in communities with unique cultural or political dynamics.
Take Rockland County, for example — the latest fixation for election conspiracy theorists. Critics are pointing to how roughly 500 voters cast ballots for both Trump and Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, spinning it as suspicious. But anyone familiar with bloc voting, especially within tight-knit religious communities, understands this dynamic. You aren’t analyzing 500 individual voting decisions — you’re examining the likelihood that a community leader, who often guides voting patterns, made a calculated choice. And there’s nothing extraordinary about it.
Electoral realities back this up. Incumbents like Gillibrand are notoriously hard to unseat. And despite national partisanship, many voters — including bloc communities — will cross party lines for candidates with a strong local reputation. Gillibrand, notably, has long cultivated relationships within New York’s Jewish community.
Finally, the higher Democratic drop-off rate compared to Republicans? That trend is consistent with prior elections and easily explained. Factors range from protest votes, to local voting quirks like single-button ballot options, to state-specific rules — like in South Dakota, where certain RV voters are restricted to presidential ballots only.
In short, what we’re seeing isn’t proof of fraud — it’s proof that context matters, and oversimplifying election data to stoke outrage only plays into the hands of those working to undermine democracy.
I stand firmly behind organizations with a proven track record of advancing fair, accessible elections — groups like the NAACP, the Brennan Center for Justice, the ACLU, and the Campaign Legal Center. These groups understand the real threats: voter suppression, dark money, and policies designed to silence marginalized communities — and they have the legal victories to show for it.
But we also have to acknowledge the reality: during times of political chaos and economic hardship, it’s easy for grifters to fill the void — individuals or organizations with no real credentials, no legitimate backing, and no accountability. Worse yet are those who inflate numbers, misrepresent data, and then sit back as social media amplifies their misinformation — all while they refuse to correct the record, even as the damage to public trust grows.
Accountability isn’t just for election boards — it applies equally to the so-called “watchdogs” claiming to investigate them. If we allow bad actors to exploit genuine concern, we aren’t protecting democracy — we’re handing it over to chaos and confusion.
Is ETA in the same boat as s m a r T?