First of all, the headline itself is completely misleading, as there was nothing “skewed” whatsoever in the Droz team spreadsheet. Indeed, the AP article completely failed to prove that the data was skewed or that their assessment was correct.

Second, the fact-checker included ad hominem against Droz by imputing that his long-time activism “rejecting the science of climate change” somehow discredits his team’s analysis of 2020 election lawsuits. That’s yellow journalism – and, by the way, there is no proven “science of climate change” in any event. Indeed, the fact-checker’s inclusion of that phrase is additional confirmation of leftwing bias.

Third, the ad hominem attack used the phrase “self-described physicist” as a kind of grammatical pejorative. One would have thought that the fact-checker could have discovered that Droz holds physics degrees from Boston College and Syracuse University.

Fourth, the article concludes that information in the spreadsheet has been “misinterpreted” by readers of at least one blogsite (LifeSiteNews) to conclude that President Trump “could still overturn the election results.” This is a classic strawman argument, as the lawsuit list in the Droz team spreadsheet has nothing to do with that claim.

Fifth, the AP article identified a single database as the source for the Droz team spreadsheet and analysis. This is misleading, as the spreadsheet itself lists eight (8) separate sources for the information compiled.

Sixth, the AP article uses a cited example (Ritchie v. Polis) to “prove” that “some of the cases in the report are also wrongly coded as wins for Trump when they didn’t directly deal with the presidential election.” In fact, Ritchie v. Polis was not just about “petition-signing,” as the AP article states, but rather addressed the much broader situation of whether a governor has the authority to override a state legislature concerning election laws and regulations (the court ruled that the governor does NOT have that authority). Droz has subsequently confirmed that the fact-checker knew the truth about this lawsuit she cited, but chose to ignore it to maintain the false narrative of the article.