Raji Rab is a Congressional candidate for California’s 32nd Congressional District. Along with Rab for Congress Committee, Raji Rab filed his complaint of national significance in court seeking justice and urgent injunctive relief, to fight 2020 primary election fraud, and to protect the transparency and reliability of the primary election on March 3, 2020.

Raji Rab submitted his petition to the Court of Appeal, Third Appellate District, seeking relief following the contested decision and judgment of the trial court. Raji Rab requests substantive review of his petition for grievances, seeking the court's relief through his appeal. The issue in this appeal is whether the trial court erred in its analysis of the law or in its application and interpretation of the law to the facts. The trial court misinterpreted Election Code §15101(b), added words to the statute and further exceeded its authority and dangerously changed it for future elections.

Raji Rab, alleges that Respondents in the garb of “processing” ballots scanned Vote-By-Mail (“VBM”) ballots 10 days before 8 pm March 3, 2020, Primary election day. Once the ballots were scanned, they were not only just scanned, but scanned ballot images were instantly decoded into cast vote records (CVRs) and instantly, accessed illegally by Smartmatic Tally (VSAP) in control of Respondent Logan 10 days before 8 pm on the day of the election.

This is a violation of Election Code §15101(b) that constitutes malconduct and grounds of election contest under Election Code section 16100(a). This malconduct of tampering, by accessing CVRs before 8 pm on the day of election caused an error and unreliable summation of vote count occurred, invoking Election Code §16100(g).  Raji Rab stated that Malconduct is indisputable that upon scanning, vote count was decoded and instantly accessed by the Smartmatic Tally system.

Raji Rab presented proof with scientific evidence that Respondents violated California Election Code § 15101(b), accessed vote count (CVRs) using Smartmatic (VSAP) Tally system 10 days before 8 pm on election day. This accessing and tampering CVRs is malconduct under EC16100(a), that changed the summation of vote count under Election Code 16100(g), causing results to be illegal. 

The trial court in its judgment changed the wording of the Election Code sec 15101(b). The court misinterprets "machine reading" and dangerously permitted scanning ballots before 8 pm on the day of election. Moreover, Trial court exceeded its jurisdiction, and imposed its misinterpretation, changing the election codes for future elections, dangerously impacting our national security and public interest. Trial court exceeded its jurisdiction and made a harmful change in the statute stating, “To leave no room for confusion in the future, the Court reiterates: Elections Code section 15101(b) allows the County to start scanning ballots on the 10th business day before the election.” (9 CT 2519) 

“A Court may not insert qualifying provisions into a statue not intended by the Legislature and may not rewrite a statue to conform to an assumed legislative intent not apparent. Bruce v. Gregory (1967)65 Cal. 2d 666 (1967), 423 P.2d 193, 56 Cal Rptr. 265 [5]”. Raji Rab strongly contests this illegal addition to the election code as no one can add words to an election code and that’s the reason why Election Code §15101(b) prohibits access to ballots until 8 pm on the day of election. Trial court erred in putting the constitution, the national, public interest, and national security in danger, legalizing fraud and malconduct in future elections.

History is full of election fraud and because of deplorable instances of election malconduct, election codes and penalties for fraud and malconduct have been instituted. This is very much in the interest of the public to protect the integrity of this, and all future elections. California Courts have concluded that "election issues implicate the public interest (Hill v. Superior Court of County of Sacramento, supra, 15 Cal. App. At p. 313)"

Raji Rab, pleads to the appellate court to protect his constitutional rights, interests of national significance, public interest, and the sanctity of future elections from irreparable harm, in the complete interest of justice.