Secure election

Re “How do you know?” (Your Views, Dec. 6): Steven M. Yedinak questioned the validity of Stan Pearson’s statement in his letter “COVID-19 or golf?” (Your Views, Nov. 30). Pearson wrote, “by any standard, the election of this past Nov. 3 was the most secure in our history.” Yedinak received three mail-in ballots, but destroyed all three and voted in person. However, Yedinak failed to mention that there are checks to prevent a single individual from voting more than once. If one receives a mail-in ballot, but then decides to vote in person, the ability to use the mail-in ballot is voided in the system. If one tries to vote more than once, the system picks that up as well.

It was not just Pearson who lauded the Nov. 3 election security. Lifelong Republican Chris Krebs, director of Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security prior to his post-election dismissal, confirmed that the election was secure. Similarly, U.S. Attorney General William Barr said there was no evidence of extensive fraud that would overturn election results.

Ben Sasse, a Republican senator from Nebraska, gave his constituents good advice. Sasse suggested that citizens disregard the “wild press conferences” led by former New York City Mayor

Rudy Giuliani. Instead, citizens should view court documents, which show that Giuliani and other Republican attorneys failed to produce evidence to support their claims that election fraud existed. A claim of fraud is not valid simply because one can envision how fraud could happen. A claim is valid when evidence proves that it is so.

Elizabeth Westbrook Lett, Norfolk