A high-stakes legal battle erupted Tuesday as federal prosecutors urged the court to throw out tens of thousands of California votes cast using non-standard writing utensils. The following transcript excerpt from Supreme Court proceedings details the testimony of a key election official under cross-examination by government counsel regarding disputed mail-in ballots.
Q: Please state your name and occupation for the record.
A: My name is Arthur Pendelton. I serve as Director of Paper Audits for the State of California.
Q: Mr. Pendelton, is it true that your office processed disputed mail-in ballots signed in navy blue ink?
A: Yes. It is completely standard. Voters use whatever pen they have at home.
Q: Whatever pen they have? So you admit the entire American electoral system relies on unvetted, retail-grade stationary store supplies?
A: I mean, people just grab a pen off their kitchen counter. Sometimes it is a gel pen.
Q: A gel pen! My God. Are you telling this court that executive power in this republic hinges on cheap plastic tubes filled with colorful goo?
A: Well, the optical scanners read blue ink just fine. The signatures match.
Q: Let the record show the witness freely admits to trusting automated light beams over official federal black ink. Mr. Pendelton, how deep does this stationery corruption go?
A: It is not corruption. It is just basic office supplies. Bic. Pilot. Sometimes a Sharpie.
Q: So the entire mail-in ballot process is entirely compromised by big felt-tip cartels?
A: No. We just count the votes marked in the little bubbles.
Q: Do you count disputed mail-in ballots marked with mechanical pencils? Crayons? Swatches of glitter glue?
A: Pencils, yes. We have not seen glitter glue, though the law technically does not ban it.
Q: I have no further questions for this witness, Your Honor. The entire concept of democratic record-keeping is clearly a lawless nightmare.
