No, but the circumstantial evidence has got to be a lot stronger than a test that is going to vary wildly depending on one's biases. If one is tribal, one will think one's own side is full of saints and the other side is full of scoundrels and thieves. If one is an optimist about human nature, one will think most everyone is a saint, or sainthood is just waiting to burst forth. A cynic will assume everyone is a scoundrel, and even the most good-natured actions will be scrutinized until a dastardly ulterior motive can be advanced ("that billionaire gave so much money to charity to flaunt his wealth, not because he cares at all about doing anything good").

Any deductive interpretation that ends up with "and we know this is true because of course they're devious lying scoundrels" isn't going to cut it for me. Even if the person is a devious lying scoundrel it doesn't mean that their eating cornflakes for breakfast is an act of deviousness. It might mean that we should be on guard, but we need more than just suspicions. ("Didn't he start conspicuously eating cornflakes right after that big spat with General Mills?")

In particular, the problem with assuming rather than documenting fraud behind something like voting by mail is that there is a perfectly legal reason to be pro-mail-voting as a Democrat: it helps your side in a completely above-board honest way because it is easier, and the Republicans are saying to avoid it! It's fair, because anyone can do it, but it's a win for Dems because Trump is saying to vote in person. Of course, there's the downside that errors are higher, but you can partly fix those again in a completely above-board honest way by alerting voters with spoiled ballots that they need to try again.

In the face of a massive reason to engage in an action that is both legal and advisable during a pandemic*, which will incidentally favor your side over your opponents on the basis of their own rhetoric, any additional blatantly illegal exploitation needs very solid independent justification. Voting by mail is already overflowing with oodles of justification.

(* Both Fauci and Birx issued statements that voting could be safe, but really, it was only potentially safe. There was no vaccine, no Paxlovid, and death rates were still high (over 1/1000 of symptomatic cases); if everyone was masked with KN95 or better, and the ventilation was good, then yes, the risk was minimal and we knew it at the time. It's wildly optimistic to assume that all voters would have access to conditions like that. Thus, fear of infection was not baseless--it could of course be exaggerated, but exposure was not out of the question.)

Nonetheless, despite the above-board justifications, it is a valid concern that "there was wrongdoing from a legal standpoint". It's worth asking whether this is the case. So, now that you've provided both a source and a clear claim of what it shows--that is, instituting voting by mail involved or induced legal wrongdoing--we can ask this question. Note that we should not answer simply yes or no but also how much, because amounts matter here. A few dozen or hundred extra fraudulent votes aren't ideal but in the big picture don't matter much. Hundreds of thousands potentially do matter much.

Given that your evidence is from before the election, we can't expect that the document will show actual fraud during the election. But we can use it to detect illegal process, and it can make a claim that the process is unacceptably vulnerable to fraud.

The document you provide shows the following:

(II.A) There are cases of fraud in mail-in ballots. All the cases were small and rare, or were not directly related to mail-in ballots (e.g. fake registration, which would cause mail-in ballots to be sent), save for the Georgia one which ended up not panning out as stated. So, fraud: yes; danger: yes; amount documented: small and rare.

(II.B) They document that voter rolls are kind of a mess. They state but do not provide any evidence that the mess is worse in Democratic areas. Indeed, the information is obviously partisan in nature, given that they, for instance, blame California and New York for not being members of ERIC (used to detect double-voting in two different states), but fail to mention that Louisiana left before that point, and most midwest (red) states never signed up. Nonetheless, that voter rolls are a rather a mess seems reasonably well-established. This does pose a potential danger for large-scale fraud: if someone could somehow selectively intercept the misdirected ballots, the deception would be very hard to detect. (In contrast, if you intercept a ballot to someone who is on the rolls and exists, and return it, then there is a high probability of being caught--roughly 80% of registered voters actually vote.)

(II.C) They suggest that delivery is a problem, which is no surprise if the voter rolls are a mess. That mail-in ballots aren't returned is a non-concern; nobody votes at 100% rates, and just ignoring the mail ballot is the most likely outcome. So of course they won't be accounted for: you delivered them and they weren't returned! The other delivery-problem numbers were modest, and along the lines of issues we've already talked about; it could be worse, or not, but they neither claim it or nor document it so I'm not sure how we'd know.

(II.D) The document makes serious charges of ballot harvesting resulting in a "flood of ballots arriving so late after election day" in California. This is patently contrary to California law, which reads, "The ballot must, however, be received by the elections official who issued the ballot, the precinct board, or the vote by mail ballot dropoff location before the close of the polls on election day." (source: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB450). Furthermore, the jurisdiction in question said that the counting and certification was slow because they were understaffed and underequipped to handle that many paper ballots, which is not what the report said at all. The other claim of the section--that there is a potential for fraud with ballot harvesting--is somewhat plausible, but actually altering the ballots seems fraught with error, and nobody has to watch you deliver your mail-in ballot anywhere, so I really don't see how this is even as bad as just allowing mail-in ballots to begin with. Anyway, with exaggeration, misinformation, and no evidence of non-negligible wrongdoing. This section is incredibly weak.

Note also that there's a very prosaic reason why "ballot harvesting" helps the party that does it more: laziness and lack of time are big impediments for a lot of people to return a ballot. Everything you do to make it easier will increase the number of (honest, legal, correctly-filled-out) ballots. If one side makes it easy and the other insists on making it hard, guess which side is going to do better?

So if you see ballot harvesting more on one side than the other and that side wins, you can't conclude fraud. Indeed, doing so is profoundly ignorant. Everyone knows that driving turnout is key to winning. Everyone knows that making voting easier increases turnout.

(II.E) The document charges that mail-in ballots may slow results, and may result in reduced confidence. Ironically, in the 2022 Presidential election, it was mostly Republican legal challenges that actually slowed results, and patently false statements by Republicans that reduced confidence. Anyway, it's mostly irrelevant to the issue of fraud. No new evidence is provided of actual fraud, and no new avenues of fraud are given. It does point out that some states have wildly optimistic timelines for getting mail-in ballots to voters. This would tend to disenfranchise people who intended to vote by mail and thought that a just-in-time request was sure to work. Not good, but not fraud.

(III.A) They correctly note that Democrats have tried to expand mail-in voting. They confuse the ACLU with being Democratic, diluting their point: it's true that the ACLU is left-leaning these days, but because the ACLU is not a branch of the Democratic party, you can't say "ACLU did it!" as a charge against Democrats without checking how it actually happened at the ACLU. Generally, the ACLU is pro-access, pro-voting, pro-speech, etc., regardless of whether that stuff helps one party or the other. Anyway, it doesn't bear on actual fraud.

(III.B) They point out that postage-paid ballots (which can be important to increase access) have the downside of not being postmarked (because the post-office for some reason doesn't postmark prepaid stuff). This is unfortunate, and the post office should switch to at least being able to detect if something prepaid ought to be postmarked. Anyway, yes, it's a possible concern, but it's a very temporary concern: there's no reason why it's physically impossible for the post office to postmark prepaid stuff! They just weren't. Because the document was from before the 2020 election, there's no evidence about the scale of non-postmarking being a problem.

(III.C) They point out again that Democrats like designated bearers for ballots ("ballot harvesting").

(III.D) They point out that a judge made a kind of crazy ruling in Wisconsin, which was overruled by the Supreme Court. Otherwise, they point out that people have sought extensions to receipt deadlines for mail-in ballots. They don't mention how the post-office had been having increasingly severe problems delivering mail in a timely fashion. The legal action was appropriate to avoid disenfranchising voters who, despite following all the rules, would have been let down by a combination of incompetence with USPS management and overly-optimistic rules set assuming a lack of incompetence.

(III.E) The section about weakening safeguards mostly is horrified that you might want to mail in your ballot without requiring two witnesses or a notary. Nobody requires this for absentee ballots!! This is pointless busywork for honest people, and doesn't stop fraud at all because if you're going to fill out the ballot itself fraudulently, you can also fraudulently fill out the witness stuff! They also try to make a big deal about Pennsylvania having a lot more mail-in ballots in 2020 than 2016...neglecting to mention that Pennsylvania passed a law in 2019 exactly designed to make mail-in voting a lot easier. This section is terrible.

The only bit worth reading is that Democrats did try to via a lawsuit get greater leniency in Pennsylvania for amending and accepting mail-in ballots, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court said no. But, contrary to this document, the reasoning wasn't because of risk of fraud. Even in the case of a missing security envelope, the reasoning was: "Whatever the wisdom of the requirement, the command that the mail-in elector utilize the secrecy envelope and leave it unblemished by identifying information is neither ambiguous nor unreasonable". Thus, no grounds to overturn the law on the basis of a lawsuit. So even the very best bit is partially misleading.

--------

That's it. That's the evidence you've provided. It's profoundly underwhelming. If you have a very strong bias against politicians in general, or Democrats specifically, you can read into every action sinister intent; into every outcome you can imagine fraud.

But unless one already comes in with immense bias, the document is deeply unconvincing. As I said before, the worst and most substantive charge was proved largely false (of the part which was true, mostly innocent error; and that error rate did not repeat for the 2020 Presidential election, we now know).

The document does demonstrate cause to be concerned. It is entirely reasonable to look deeply and carefully into the possibility of fraud. But this document isn't the one that's done it.

So, how about evidence where people have looked deeply and carefully into possible fraud and actually found it?

Hm?

I think there's plenty of cause to look deeply--I'd love to see that.

If you were actually concerned about truth, if you were actually concerned about facts, you'd very much want this kind of thing. Not having it, even if you thought fraud was likely prevalent, would bother you deeply, and you would be saying so, and talking about what kind of things we need to do to get a better handle on this.

In contrast, if you just wanted other people to affirm your bias in assuming terrible things where concrete evidence doesn't exist, you'd, well, it would look pretty much like what you've done.

I can't read your mind, but I can read your words, and it sure looks to me like it's way more likely that you either don't care about facts or truth, or you have forgotten how to distinguish between your personal beliefs and facts/truth, than that you are profoundly moved to be guided by carefully-discerned reality.