Cheaters cheat. 
Cheaters deny verification of their qualifying signatures. 
Cheaters circumvent the laws and codes of the election process. 
Cheaters call those who are onto them “extremists.”
Cheaters create fraudulent ballots. 
Cheaters deny transparency. 
Cheaters induce other candidates to file with 🥩 dinners. 
Cheaters use the shoulda, woulda, coulda excuse. 
Cheaters obstruct every effort to verify elections. 
Cheaters steal elections. 
Cheaters use media henchmen to castigate anyone who rejects their “gold standard of elections” indoctrination.
Cheaters spread propaganda on how fair and accurate those stolen elections are. 
Cheaters go on air and to media outlets to sow doubt about the doubters. 

Invalid signatures were collected. Why isn’t this fraud? If it is fraud, what should the consequences be for individuals, companies, and officials who knowingly participate in an effort to defraud an election? 

This is an election for high office in the United States of America. If a company that gathers signatures for candidates can’t guarantee the quality of their work, the consequences should go beyond contractual agreements between
private parties. 

The public interest is too great. The consequences of submitting fraudulent signatures should be extraordinarily high. If companies aren't willing to do business under these risks, perhaps they need to reconsider the practice
of hiring a bunch of unqualified college students that get paid per signature. It is also clear that signature privacy protections have infringed due process rights. 

This isn’t the first time two very important rights have come into direct conflict with each other, but this is a mess we need to sort out, because it is disenfranchising.