Erika Kirk Qualified Write-In Explained: The Law vs. Your Comments

[00:00] All right, I know that write-in candidates

[00:01] can be confusing.

[00:03] There's a reason most people don't know

[00:05] about them

[00:06] and qualified versus unqualified write-ins.

[00:09] 99% of voters, it never matters.

[00:10] But when it does, the current CEO of a

[00:13] billion dollar political organization has

[00:15] an undisclosed candidacy file buried

[00:18] deep 2,300 pages in of a government

[00:21] document.

[00:22] It matters.

[00:23] So 2 days ago, I dropped a video showing

[00:26] that Erica Kirk, the current CEO of Turning

[00:28] Point USA, filed as a a qualified ride-in

[00:31] candidate for the Republican precinct

[00:32] committeeman position in Maricopa County,

[00:34] Arizona.

[00:35] August 4th, 2020

[00:37] was the primary.

[00:38] Filed under her maiden name, Franz V,

[00:40] nine months before she married Charlie Kirk.

[00:42] And the video got strong engagement, but

[00:44] the comments told me something important.

[00:46] A lot of you do not understand how Arizona

[00:49] election law works.

[00:51] And that is not an insult.

[00:52] That is really the point of making these

[00:54] videos is to educate people because the people

[00:57] dismissing these findings are making

[01:00] arguments that the actual statute

[01:02] directly contradicts.

[01:04] So today, I'm going to show you something

[01:06] that I've never done before on this

[01:07] channel. I'm

[01:08] going to put your comments on the screen.

[01:11] And I'm going to read them and show you the

[01:12] exact Arizona statute that proves each one wrong.

[01:16] And

[01:16] look, I don't tell you what to think.

[01:18] I very rarely give you my opinion unless

[01:20] it's fact-based.

[01:21] But what I'm going to do is just show you

[01:22] what the law says.

[01:24] Like usual, bring the receipts and

[01:26] follow the information because ultimately,

[01:28] I think it's important that we all

[01:30] understand how this stuff works.

[01:31] So you're not out there just spewing off

[01:33] random stuff that you don't know what

[01:34] you're talking about.

[01:35] So that's why I'm here.

[01:36] I'm here to educate.

[01:37] I'm not here to slander.

[01:37] I'm not here to talk crap on you.

[01:39] I'm here to educate you.

[01:40] And

[01:41] somebody's got to do it. So

[01:42] let's get right into it.

[01:43] But before we get into the comments, I do

[01:45] want to show you one thing.

[01:47] So let me get something crystal clear for

[01:49] all of you.

[01:49] This is probably 90% of the pushback here.

[01:52] And I want to make it very clear exactly

[01:55] what we're talking about here, because this

[01:56] is a qualified write-in, which is different

[01:59] from somebody just randomly writing you in.

[02:02] So

[02:03] let me read to you what the law says in

[02:06] Arizona

[02:07] from Arizona statute 16312 of filing of

[02:11] nomination papers for write-in candidates.

[02:14] Now, section A here says, any person

[02:17] desiring to become a write-in candidate for

[02:20] an elective office in any election shall

[02:23] file a nomination paper

[02:25] signed by the candidate,

[02:27] giving the person's actual residence

[02:29] address or description of place of

[02:31] residence

[02:32] and post office address, age, length of

[02:34] residence, and the state and date of birth.

[02:37] So there are two types

[02:39] of write-in ballots, okay, or write-in

[02:41] qualifications.

[02:42] You have unqualified write-in

[02:44] and you have a qualified write-in.

[02:46] So let's go with type one first, which is

[02:48] an unqualified write-in.

[02:50] And this is when a random voter, which a

[02:52] lot of you in the comments have said,

[02:53] walks into a booth, grabs a pen,

[02:55] and writes a name on the ballot line.

[02:57] Now, Mickey Mouse, SpongeBob, as someone

[03:00] has said in the comments, your name

[03:02] whatever, under Arizona law, those votes

[03:05] get lumped into a single aggregate number

[03:08] on the certified canvas that I showed you

[03:10] in the previous video, and

[03:11] I'll link that down below.

[03:13] Now, they are counted as a group,

[03:15] not individually.

[03:17] In this race, there were nine of those, and

[03:20] just the number 9 next to the words

[03:22] write-in, that's it, with no names listed.

[03:24] Then you have type 2, which is a qualified

[03:26] write-in, which is what Erica Franz V was,

[03:29] next to her name.

[03:29] This is a legal candidacy.

[03:31] The candidate must personally sign

[03:34] and file a write-in nomination paper

[03:37] with the county elections department before

[03:39] the deadline.

[03:39] This is required under Arizona revised

[03:42] statutes section 16-312,

[03:45] which I'll go ahead and show you right here

[03:47] just in case you need to see it.

[03:49] It's right here.

[03:49] This is section 312.

[03:51] It was the standing policy of law

[03:54] within 2019 and 2020 when

[03:57] Erica Franzvi filed for the nomination.

[03:59] Now this is, again, it's required for this

[04:02] statute.

[04:02] This is Arizona state law.

[04:04] Once you file that paperwork, your name

[04:06] gets posted at every polling location in

[04:09] your precinct,

[04:11] independently named

[04:12] as a write-in that's qualified, not lumped

[04:15] together with the other nine.

[04:16] And there were seven

[04:18] above her that were not a write-in, they

[04:20] were fully qualified.

[04:21] So your votes are counted and listed

[04:24] individually by name on the certified

[04:26] canvas report,

[04:27] as you saw in my previous video.

[04:30] And so this is a nonpartisan

[04:32] write-in candidate

[04:33] nomination paper declaration of

[04:35] qualification.

[04:37] This is a qualified

[04:39] declaration.

[04:40] You are hereby notified that I, the

[04:42] undersigned, a qualified elector,

[04:45] am a candidate for the office of.

[04:48] Here is the name for the office sought in

[04:50] the political division or district.

[04:53] All right, so

[04:54] this is the paperwork that they have to

[04:56] fill out in order to be

[04:57] be a qualified candidate.

[04:59] So Erica Franz V went through this

[05:01] paperwork,

[05:02] signed under penalty of perjury

[05:04] her personal information.

[05:05] So this is

[05:07] court record.

[05:08] All right.

[05:08] So if you look here, it says, I declare

[05:10] under penalty of perjury that the

[05:11] information in this nomination paper and

[05:13] declaration of qualification is true and

[05:15] correct.

[05:16] And that at the time of filing, I

[05:19] am a resident of the county, district, or

[05:21] precinct, which I propose to represent that

[05:24] I have no final

[05:25] outstanding judgments against me of an

[05:27] aggregate of 1,000 or more

[05:29] dollars that arose from failure to comply

[05:32] with or enforcement of campaign finance law.

[05:34] And as to all other qualifications,

[05:37] I will be qualified at the time of election

[05:39] to hold the office that I seek.

[05:41] I further certify that I am not

[05:43] disqualified from running

[05:45] as a write-in candidate pursuant to this

[05:47] law 16-312.

[05:50] So Erica Franzvi is not in the

[05:52] aggregate group of nine. She is

[05:54] listed separately by name with the

[05:56] designation of qualified write-in

[05:59] next to her name on page 2,355 of the

[06:03] Maricopa County Official Canvas Report.

[06:06] And that distinction

[06:08] is the entire story.

[06:09] Well, the entire story of her qualified

[06:12] write-in.

[06:12] All right, so this was the number one and

[06:14] most interesting pushback, I gotta say.

[06:17] There were eight separate comments that

[06:18] made this very similar argument.

[06:20] argument.

[06:20] So I'm going to show you the best one here

[06:22] in my opinion.

[06:23] Kitty Cat Lover, triple zero.

[06:25] She was a write-in.

[06:26] There's a space where you can write someone

[06:28] you know in.

[06:29] Anyone could have written her name as a joke.

[06:32] It's not creating a political record.

[06:34] I could literally write your name in for

[06:36] president.

[06:37] I've heard of people writing in SpongeBob.

[06:40] It's not what you think you've found.

[06:41] Just so you know, you can Google it if you

[06:43] don't believe me.

[06:44] Okay, well I did Google it.

[06:46] I went further than Google it.

[06:47] I went to the actual statute, ARS.

[06:50] section 16312, which

[06:53] I'm happy to show you again,

[06:55] right here.

[06:55] The statute says that,

[06:57] and I quote,

[06:58] a write-in candidate must file a nomination

[07:01] paper signed by the candidate.

[07:03] That is the law,

[07:04] okay?

[07:05] This is not my opinion.

[07:07] And then you've got section C here, any

[07:09] person who does not file a timely

[07:11] nomination,

[07:12] Paper shall not be counted in the tally of

[07:15] ballots.

[07:16] So when you write SpongeBob on a ballot,

[07:19] that goes into the unqualified aggregate

[07:22] and it does not create

[07:23] an individual listing

[07:25] on the canvas.

[07:27] It does not post a name at the polling place.

[07:31] It literally does nothing.

[07:32] It just lumps you in with the other

[07:34] write-in candidates.

[07:36] And Erica's name appears individually as a

[07:39] qualified write-in after showing you this

[07:41] paperwork.

[07:42] This is what she has signed.

[07:44] This is under penalty of perjury, guys.

[07:46] That only happens when you personally file

[07:48] this paperwork with the county.

[07:50] Nobody can do that for you.

[07:52] The nomination paper is signed under

[07:54] penalty of perjury.

[07:55] It includes your residential address.

[07:57] your date of birth,

[07:59] your party affiliation, and your precinct.

[08:02] If somebody else filed that paper without

[08:04] her knowledge, that would be forgery of a

[08:06] sworn government document, and that is a

[08:09] felony.

[08:10] So either she filed it herself,

[08:12] or someone committed a felony to file it

[08:15] for her.

[08:16] And I will let you decide which one is more

[08:19] likely, okay?

[08:20] So let's take a good look at this right

[08:22] here, because this is going to show you

[08:25] the

[08:25] Erica Franzvi, Erica Lane Franzvi,

[08:28] qualified write-in.

[08:29] Now that you know the law,

[08:31] you can see that she's a qualified

[08:33] write-in.

[08:34] Do you see how it shows not qualified,

[08:36] two votes, not qualified, not qualified?

[08:39] These are all...

[08:40] doesn't show their names.

[08:41] It does on the ballot, but it doesn't show

[08:43] at the end of it when they're

[08:45] bringing everything into the Canvas report.

[08:47] But she's a qualified, she was the only

[08:49] qualified write-in that it appears to me. So

[08:52] that Q, qualified, next to her name

[08:55] is verifiable proof

[08:57] that she filed

[08:58] this paperwork declaring that she's

[09:00] qualifying herself

[09:02] under penalty of perjury.

[09:04] So going back to the comments, says, I'm

[09:07] confused, can't literally anyone receive a

[09:10] vote as a write-in?

[09:11] Yes,

[09:12] anyone can receive a vote.

[09:15] But not anyone gets listed as a qualified

[09:18] write-in on the certified canvas.

[09:20] That requires the candidate

[09:22] to have pre-filed

[09:24] under penalty of perjury.

[09:25] That is the difference and that is why this

[09:28] matters.

[09:28] That is the whole point of me making this video.

[09:31] Here's another one.

[09:32] Bro, someone wrote her in.

[09:33] She didn't run.

[09:34] She did not need to campaign.

[09:37] to run.

[09:38] She did not need to knock doors.

[09:39] She did not need to

[09:41] win at all.

[09:42] She didn't, she just, all she needed to do

[09:44] is file one piece of paper

[09:46] with the county and she did that.

[09:48] is the point.

[09:48] All right, let's show another one.

[09:50] We have casually observant.

[09:52] That is a volunteer unpaid position.

[09:54] Clearly,

[09:55] she wrote her own name on her own single

[09:57] ballot and no one else did.

[09:59] So she clearly did not get the position.

[10:01] And clearly she did no campaigning and

[10:03] entered so late, she couldn't even get her

[10:05] name on the ballot.

[10:06] So this is

[10:07] really a nothing burger.

[10:09] All right, let me address every claim in

[10:11] the comment from

[10:12] this point right here.

[10:14] Because this person managed to get several

[10:16] things wrong in a very small space.

[10:19] Unpaid volunteer position.

[10:22] might be correct.

[10:23] I never said that otherwise.

[10:25] The significance of a precinct committeeman

[10:27] is not the paycheck.

[10:29] It's actually the access.

[10:31] That's very important.

[10:32] PC positions elect legislative district

[10:35] chairs and LD chairs elect county chairs.

[10:37] County chairs elect state leadership.

[10:40] So state leadership feeds the national

[10:42] committee.

[10:42] It is the root access of the Republican Party.

[10:46] So she

[10:47] clearly did not get the position.

[10:49] That is obvious.

[10:50] She got one vote.

[10:51] That's also correct.

[10:52] I said in my video, she got one vote and

[10:55] it's probably her own vote.

[10:58] I never claimed that she won and obviously

[11:01] she didn't.

[11:01] I don't know how you'd win with one vote.

[11:04] So

[11:05] again,

[11:05] also she entered so late that her name

[11:08] couldn't even get on the ballot.

[11:09] It's another part of casually observant.

[11:12] And maybe that's the issue is just being so

[11:13] casually observant, they're not paying

[11:15] attention,

[11:16] is that

[11:17] this is the wrong framing.

[11:19] Write-in candidates, by definition,

[11:21] do not appear on a printed ballot.

[11:24] That is what write-in means.

[11:26] It is not that she was late.

[11:28] She chose the write-in pathway,

[11:30] which is a separate legal mechanism

[11:33] for candidacy under Arizona law.

[11:35] And a nothing burger,

[11:37] I'll address that.

[11:38] And if it's so irrelevant,

[11:40] why has no one ever mentioned it?

[11:42] Why has TPUSA never mentioned it? Why did

[11:45] someone take it, finding it on page

[11:47] 2,355 out of a 2,300 page document?

[11:52] certified government document for anyone to

[11:54] find out.

[11:55] The current CEO

[11:57] of Turning Point USA has an undisclosed

[12:00] political candidacy filing in the exact

[12:02] same county as

[12:04] in the exact same party apparatus where

[12:06] Tyler Boyer built

[12:08] his entire career from a

[12:10] precinct committeeman to county chairman to

[12:13] the RNC committeeman to

[12:15] TP USA.

[12:17] on the board, COO,

[12:19] various different positions.

[12:20] And you think that's a nothing burger?

[12:23] I think it's kind of interesting to me.

[12:25] I don't know, maybe I'm wrong.

[12:27] I mean,

[12:27] and there was a few comments saying that

[12:29] she used her legal name at the time.

[12:30] A few comments pointed out that Frozvi,

[12:33] Because of her legal name at the time, she

[12:35] was not married yet.

[12:36] What's the big deal?

[12:38] Nobody's disputing that.

[12:39] Franz Fi was her legal name in August of 2020.

[12:42] She married Charlie Kirk in 2021 of May.

[12:45] The question is about why did she file at

[12:47] all? She was already dating Charlie Kirk.

[12:50] She was already inside Turning Point USA.

[12:52] She already had

[12:53] access to the political machinery.

[12:56] through her boyfriend's organization.

[12:58] So why would she need her own

[13:00] independent credentials in the Republican

[13:03] Party apparatus? Obviously, what other name

[13:05] would she do it in? But that is the defense

[13:07] contractor's last name.

[13:08] That is Lori Fronsvi's name.

[13:10] The woman who sits on the board of

[13:12] Superfeed Technologies, the

[13:14] woman photographed wearing a USMC E9

[13:17] insignia

[13:18] at the Pentagon with no public military

[13:21] service record.

[13:22] And I can't tell you like what this means.

[13:24] I'm just going to ask you Think about why.

[13:27] She also held a patent, which is now

[13:29] expired,

[13:30] for critical vulnerability

[13:32] detection in various

[13:35] infrastructure.

[13:36] So

[13:37] think about that.

[13:38] On the board of a technology company that

[13:40] is known for harvesting voter data,

[13:43] and her daughter has applied under the

[13:45] last name of

[13:46] Franz V

[13:48] while she's on this board

[13:50] and now has access to political voter data.

[13:53] So let me connect the dots for you

[13:55] with no speculation,

[13:57] just pure documents.

[13:58] Let's look at Tyler Boyer again.

[14:01] Tyler Boyer, his own biography on the

[14:03] Turning Point Action website shows that he served

[14:06] as a Republican committeeman.

[14:08] So it shows that.

[14:09] Republican committeeman,

[14:11] Congressional Advisory Chairman, Regent,

[14:14] Republican Legislative District Chairman,

[14:16] Republican County Chairman of the largest

[14:18] Republican held county in America,

[14:20] Arizona RNC National Committeeman, and was

[14:23] a primary organizer and speaker at the

[14:25] first Trump rally in 2015.

[14:27] So that is the latter.

[14:28] A political precinct committeeman to county

[14:31] chair to national committeeman to TPUSA

[14:33] leadership,

[14:34] and he did it in the exact same county

[14:37] where Erica filed.

[14:38] Boyer introduced Erica to Charlie Kirk

[14:40] Boyer as a the chairman of the board of

[14:43] Superfeed Technologies, which is again a

[14:45] voter data company.

[14:46] Erica's mother, Lori Franzvi, also sits on

[14:49] the Superfeed board and TPUSA's own

[14:51] spokesman admitted

[14:53] on record that TPUSA gets a discount

[14:56] on Superfeed services in exchange for Tyler

[14:59] Boyer's service.

[15:00] So

[15:01] you have the man who built his entire career

[15:04] through the precinct committee pipeline,

[15:07] sitting on a voter data board with the

[15:08] mother of the woman who quietly filed for a

[15:11] political

[15:12] precinct committeeman position in the same

[15:14] county while the woman was already dating

[15:16] the founder of an organization of the man

[15:19] that runs it.

[15:20] I'm not making accusations.

[15:22] I'm reading you public record and I'm asking

[15:25] questions that deserve to be answered.

[15:28] So the bottom line here is that,

[15:30] and I understand that most people have

[15:32] never heard of a precinct committeeman

[15:34] position that is literally by design.

[15:37] I said that before.

[15:38] It is the most powerful position that

[15:40] nobody talks about.

[15:41] It's for a reason that they don't talk

[15:43] about it.

[15:44] All right, I know that write-in candidates

[15:45] can be confusing.

[15:47] There's a reason most people don't know

[15:49] about them.

[15:50] And qualified versus unqualified write-ins,

[15:53] 99% of voters, it never matters.

[15:55] But when it does, the current CEO of a

[15:57] billion dollar political organization has

[16:00] an undisclosed candidacy file buried

[16:03] deep 2,300 pages in of a government

[16:06] document.

[16:07] It matters.

[16:08] It matters when that filing is in the same

[16:10] exact county,

[16:12] the same exact

[16:13] party apparatus where her organization's COO

[16:16] built his entire career.

[16:18] It matters when that COO

[16:20] and her mother

[16:21] both sit on the board of a voter data

[16:23] company.

[16:24] It matters.

[16:25] So all the source information, I'll put it

[16:27] in the description down below like I always do.

[16:30] Look, I don't tell you what to think.

[16:31] The law is Arizona Revised Statute Section 1630,

[16:37] 16312.

[16:40] It is on the Arizona legislature's website.

[16:42] I have linked them both in the description below.

[16:45] I do not tell you what to think.

[16:47] I show you what the filings say,

[16:49] and then I let you decide.

[16:51] If you want the full context on this story,

[16:53] watch the live stream, watch the video

[16:55] before this.

[16:56] I'll link everything down below.

[16:57] If you're new here, please like, subscribe,

[16:59] hit that notification bell.

[17:00] We're building something special.

[17:02] This community is learning

[17:04] and gaining the understanding knowledge of

[17:06] how things actually work inside this

[17:08] country.

[17:09] And if you support this work, all you got

[17:11] to do is click the subscribe and that like

[17:12] button.

[17:13] I'll see you in the next one.

[17:14] And if you want to join for Friday

[17:15] membership only meetings,

[17:17] join us on Fridays for 99 cents.