Hector Slim

The problem with your entire argument is that you’re taking legitimate numbers, stripping them of their context, and drawing conclusions those numbers cannot possibly support. Let’s start with your biggest mistake. The SAVE program is a CITIZENSHIP VERIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT AN ELECTION AUDIT. It does not audit voting machines, verify ballot tabulations, investigate chain-of-custody violations, identify every duplicate vote, or determine whether every ballot was lawfully counted. You keep repeating that Texas checked 18 million voters and referred 117 cases. What you conveniently leave out is that those 117 referrals were announced on SEPTEMBER 15, 2026. THE ELECTION DIDN’T HAPPEN UNTIL NOVEMBER 3! You’re using a pre-election citizenship investigation to declare that an election occurring nearly seven weeks later was free of meaningful irregularities. Explain how that makes any logical sense. Furthermore, the state initially identified 2,724 potential noncitizens. Another 578 subsequently demonstrated citizenship. Your graphic doesn’t adequately explain the final disposition of the remaining records. That doesn’t establish illegal voting, but it certainly doesn’t justify pretending that 117 referrals represent the total universe of possible election violations. Now let’s discuss your vote totals. According to your own graphic: 🔴 Abbott 2022: 4.44 million 🔴 Abbott 2026: 4.53 million 🔵 O’Rourke 2022: 3.55 million 🔵 Hinojosa 2026: 5.23 million Republicans increased approximately 90,000 votes while Democrats increased approximately 1,680,000. That’s a massive disparity deserving examination alongside population growth, registration changes, turnout, and county-level election records. Does that disparity automatically prove fraud? NO. But does your explanation about campaign volunteers automatically establish that everything was legitimate? ALSO NO. Your $40 million Democratic organizing figure may be accurate. Your 30,000-volunteer figure may be accurate. Neither one is a substitute for an examination of election records. And comparing 117 pre-election citizenship referrals against Talarico’s 1.19 million-vote margin is especially misleading. Those figures measure entirely different things! You’re essentially arguing that because one specific type of investigation produced relatively few referrals, every other possible election-integrity concern can be dismissed. THAT IS NOT HOW EVIDENCE WORKS. I have no problem criticizing weak Republican leadership or acknowledging that Democrats ran an extensive ground operation. But those observations do not establish that every election procedure was followed correctly. If you want to demonstrate that the 2026 Texas election was properly administered, show the relevant post-election audits, reconciliations, chain-of-custody documentation, and county-level records. Don’t present a 2025 citizenship database check and a September 2026 referral count as though they constitute a comprehensive November election audit. Your data may be real. Your conclusion goes substantially further than your evidence allows. And that’s the fundamental problem with your entire post.