https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Neil+thibodaux 2026-08-19T23:32:07Z User contributions MediaWiki 1.46.0 https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.07&diff=1261 2026-08-19T23:31:55Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Control Environment'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute 1.07:''' Management, with oversight from the oversight body, defines the organization's expectations of ethical values in the standards of conduct. Management may consider using policies, operating principles, guidelines, or training to regularly communicate and reinforce the standards of conduct to the organization.<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;***&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.06]]'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute - [[1.08]]'''<br /> <br /> === Jamie's Story ===<br /> No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.<br /> <br /> === Election Anomalies ===<br /> No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.06&diff=1260 2026-08-19T23:25:01Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Control Environment'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute 1.06:''' Management establishes standards of conduct to communicate expectations concerning integrity and ethical values. The entity uses ethical values to balance the needs and concerns of different stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public. The standards of conduct guide the directives, attitudes, and behaviors of the organization in achieving its objectives.<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;***&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.05]]'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute -''' '''[[1.07]]'''<br /> <br /> === Jamie's Story ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.<br /> <br /> === Election Anomalies ===<br /> [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]]<br /> <br /> The following statement is made in the AZ AG's Office 2020 General Election inverstigation.<br /> <br /> &quot;After October 21, 2020, the number of ballots received became too large to utilize the ballot counter and the decision was made to weigh the trays containing approximately 200 ballots each.<br /> <br /> Potential Governance Gap:<br /> <br /> Contrary to the Green Book, it's unclear whether it was a frontline or management, but a &quot;decision was made&quot; to deviate from using the ballot counter as part of what appears to be an established process. This appears to be an ethical concern in that willful deviations from the process can be implemented on the fly.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.05&diff=1259 2026-08-19T23:05:33Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Control Environment'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Value'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute: 1.05''': Tone at the top can be either a driver, as shown in the preceding paragraphs, or a barrier to internal control. Without a strong tone at the top to support an internal control system, the entity's risk identification may be incomplete, risk responses may be inappropriate, control activities may not be appropriately designed or implemented, information and communication may falter, and results of monitoring may not be understood or acted upon to remediate deficiencies.<br /> __FORCETOC__<br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;***&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.04]]'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute -''' '''[[1.06]]'''<br /> <br /> === Jamies Story ===<br /> <br /> === [[March 12, 2026: This is How Maricopa County Wants to be Represented in Court]] ===<br /> This specific discussion of a Potential Green Book Deviation is from a sub-section titled, Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD). <br /> <br /> The MC legal team claimed there is no contract between MC and the Arizona MVD. This is almost impossible to comprehend given that the MVD was performing voter registration activities with a direct impact to election outcomes and yet, there was no written agreement between these two government entities. Given there is virtual certainty of some type of written agreement, I can assume that I was denied access to the documentation because I did not use the correct terminology in my records request, even though my intent was clear.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Green Book Deviation:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Contrary to the Green Book, I presume that I was denied access to the written agreement between MC and the Arizona MVD because MC management simply didn't want to disclose the agreement. The bureaucratic work around may have been to deny my request based on a technicality. Perhaps the written agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe, the other government entity was Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. The act of denying access to the written agreement because I did not use the correct terminology would violate ethical practices given there is no public information available from which I would have been able to use the correct terminology. With this supposition, MC management and legal team would be collaborating on this questionable tactic to deny public access to records that directly relate to internal controls.<br /> <br /> === The Anomalies ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.04&diff=1258 2026-08-19T23:03:36Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Control Environment'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''<br /> <br /> '''Tone at the Top'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute 1.04:''' The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. The oversight body and management reinforce the commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public.<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;***&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.03]]'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute -''' '''[[1.05]]'''<br /> <br /> === Jamie's Story ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.<br /> <br /> === Election Anomalies ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.02&diff=1257 2026-08-19T22:55:33Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''Control Environment'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''<br /> <br /> '''Tone at the Top'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute 1.02:''' The oversight body and management demonstrate the importance of integrity and ethical values through their directives, attitudes, and behavior.<br /> <br /> &lt;nowiki&gt;***&lt;/nowiki&gt;<br /> <br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute -''' '''[[1.01]]'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute - [[1.03]]'''<br /> <br /> === Jamie's Story ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.<br /> <br /> === Election Anomalies ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=1.01&diff=1256 2026-08-19T22:53:50Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>'''&lt;big&gt;Control Environment&lt;/big&gt;'''<br /> <br /> '''Principle 1: Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values'''<br /> <br /> '''Attribute 1.01:''' The oversight body and management should demonstrate a commitment to integrity and ethical values.<br /> <br /> The following attributes contribute to the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of this principle:<br /> <br /> * '''Tone at the Top'''<br /> * '''Standards of Conduct'''<br /> * '''Adherence to Standards of Conduct'''<br /> <br /> '''***'''<br /> '''Navigational Buttons:'''<br /> <br /> * '''[[Index of Attributes]]'''<br /> * '''Previous Attribute - N/A'''<br /> * '''Next Attribute - [[1.02]]'''<br /> __FORCETOC__<br /> <br /> <br /> === Jamie's Story ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute. <br /> <br /> === Election Anomalies ===<br /> No examples available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1255 2026-08-19T16:11:16Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* AZ Attorney General Investigation */</p> <hr /> <div>=== AZ Attorney General Investigation ===<br /> Potential Governance Gaps were identified with the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation] report. Drop Box Collection issues were investigated in Section 2 of this report, which address an Allegation that &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department failed to maintain chain of custody. Properly document ballot retrieval, tansport and count of Drop-Off &amp; Drop-Box ballots.&quot;<br /> <br /> You may read the report or go directly to the Green Book Attributes associated with a potential governance gap. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gap(s):&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authorit<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 10 - Design Control Activities<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 13 - Use Quality Information<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 14 - Communicate Internally<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 15 - Communicate Externally<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities<br /> ** Attribute(s):<br /> * Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies<br /> ** Attribute(s):</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1254 2026-08-19T16:11:08Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> * Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> ** Attrubute(s): 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08<br /> * Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Informati&lt;big&gt;on&lt;/big&gt;<br /> ** Attribute(s): <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, (no documentation) Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.03 (no oversight)<br /> * Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks<br /> ** Attribute(s): 7.05 (doc no training decision)<br /> <br /> === Possible Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> <br /> * Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1253 2026-08-19T15:46:18Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> * Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> ** Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08<br /> **<br /> **<br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, (no documentation) Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.03 (no oversight)<br /> * Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks<br /> ** Attribute(s): 7.05<br /> <br /> === Possible Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> <br /> * Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1252 2026-08-19T15:41:04Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>=== AZ Attorney General Investigation ===<br /> Potential Governance Gaps were identified with the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation] report. Drop Box Collection issues were investigated in Section 2 of this report, which address an Allegation that &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department failed to maintain chain of custody. Properly document ballot retrieval, tansport and count of Drop-Off &amp; Drop-Box ballots.&quot;<br /> <br /> You may read the report or go directly to the Green Book Attributes associated with a potential governance gap. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gap(s):&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1251 2026-08-19T15:39:11Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>=== AZ Attorney General Investigation ===<br /> Potential Governance Gaps were identified with the [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation] report. Drop Box Collection issues were investigated in Section 2 of this report, which address an Allegation that &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department failed to maintain chain of custody. Properly document ballot retrieval, tansport and count of Drop-Off &amp; Drop-Box ballots.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> Potential Governance Gap(s):</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1250 2026-08-19T15:38:40Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Background */</p> <hr /> <div>=== AZ Attorney General Investigation ===<br /> Potential Governance Gaps were identified with the Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation report. Drop Box Collection issues were investigated in Section 2 of this report, which address an Allegation that &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department failed to maintain chain of custody. Properly document ballot retrieval, tansport and count of Drop-Off &amp; Drop-Box ballots.&quot;<br /> <br /> <br /> Potential Governance Gap(s):</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Image.png&diff=1249 2026-08-19T15:35:17Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>AZ AG</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1248 2026-08-19T15:24:05Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Background */</p> <hr /> <div>=== Background ===<br /> <br /> <br /> Potential Governance Gap(s):</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:AZ_AG_2020_Investigation.jpg&diff=1247 2026-08-19T15:20:09Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Dropbox_Collection_(2020)&diff=1246 2026-08-19T15:13:05Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: Created page with &quot;=== Background ===&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>=== Background ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=The_Anomalies&diff=1245 2026-08-19T15:08:19Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Dropbox Collection (2020) */</p> <hr /> <div>This is a alphabetical listing of election-related anomalies, which were compared to the GAO's Green Book for potential identification of governance issues.<br /> <br /> == List of Assessed Anomalies ==<br /> <br /> ===== [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]] =====<br /> Governance issues identified from AZ AG investigation of Drop Box issues identified by the AZ Senate in 2021.<br /> <br /> ===== [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]] =====<br /> A broad-based assessment of the County's actions to address the potential for fraud. <br /> <br /> ===== [[Signature Verification]] =====<br /> An assessment of the importance of the signature verification step and its susceptibility to verification errors.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=The_Anomalies&diff=1244 2026-08-19T15:07:49Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* List of Assessed Anomalies */</p> <hr /> <div>This is a alphabetical listing of election-related anomalies, which were compared to the GAO's Green Book for potential identification of governance issues.<br /> <br /> == List of Assessed Anomalies ==<br /> <br /> ===== Dropbox Collection (2020) =====<br /> Governance issues identified from AZ AG investigation of Drop Box issues identified by the AZ Senate in 2021.<br /> <br /> ===== [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]] =====<br /> A broad-based assessment of the County's actions to address the potential for fraud. <br /> <br /> ===== [[Signature Verification]] =====<br /> An assessment of the importance of the signature verification step and its susceptibility to verification errors.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1243 2026-08-19T04:41:33Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Quantity of Training */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> * Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> ** Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08<br /> **<br /> **<br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, (no documentation) Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.03 (no oversight)<br /> <br /> === Possible Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> <br /> * Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07 6.08</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1242 2026-08-19T04:39:40Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Signature Verifier Training Investigation */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> * Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> ** Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07<br /> **<br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, (no documentation) Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.03 (no oversight)<br /> <br /> === Possible Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances<br /> <br /> * Attrubute: 6.02 (can't measure SV performance 6.04 6.07</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1241 2026-08-19T04:31:41Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01<br /> Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, (no documentation) Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.03 (no oversight)<br /> <br /> === Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1240 2026-08-19T04:26:44Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability<br /> ** Attribute(s): 5.01<br /> Note: can't assess performance because the of the single-person vulnerability, Never will no if they are doing a good or bad job.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02<br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> Why were more temporary employees used to perform a critical single-person vulnerability task as Level 1 Signature Verifiers? &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02, 4.04, 4.05<br /> <br /> === Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1239 2026-08-19T04:16:00Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other staff for assistance, but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt; <br /> <br /> * Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence<br /> ** Attribute(s): 4.02 <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. <br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> This assessment is focused on County governance, so the question is why did the County feel that it was acceptable to hire 40 temporary workers and not provide them with training? <br /> <br /> === Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1238 2026-08-19T04:03:49Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other people but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. <br /> <br /> ==== Wait! Did I read this wrong or what? ====<br /> The inspector makes the statement, &quot;This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.&quot;<br /> <br /> Later, the inspector makes the statement, &quot;According to the Maricopa Elections Department, an additional group of 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th 2020 to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing. <br /> <br /> Apparently, the 40 new hires did not receive any training since they were hired after the training was provided. If true, there were more untrained Level 1 Signature Verifiers than trained Level 1's given that 33 employees completed the training in June. <br /> <br /> ==== Summary of Potential Governance Gaps Relating to Training ====<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> === Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Acronyms_%26_Definitions&diff=1237 2026-08-19T03:50:05Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Acronyms */</p> <hr /> <div>=== Acronyms ===<br /> {| class=&quot;wikitable&quot;<br /> ! Acronym !! Full Term !! Description<br /> |-<br /> |'''ARS'''<br /> |Arizona Revised Statute<br /> |Documents all Arizona state laws<br /> |-<br /> |'''CAP'''<br /> |Corrective Action Plan<br /> |Process for identifying and resolving issues<br /> |-<br /> |'''FMFIA'''<br /> |Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act<br /> |Law requiring internal controls<br /> |-<br /> |'''GAO'''<br /> |Government Accountability Office<br /> |Federal audit and evaluation agency<br /> |-<br /> | '''MC''' || Maricopa County || Arizona's most populous county<br /> |-<br /> | '''MCBOS''' || Maricopa County Board Of Supervisors || County governing body<br /> |-<br /> | '''MCRO''' || Maricopa County Recorders Office || Office handling public records<br /> |-<br /> | '''MOU''' || Memorandum of Understanding || Formal agreement between entities<br /> |-<br /> | '''PRR''' || Public Records Request || Request for government documents<br /> |-<br /> | '''SOS'''|| Secretary of State||Responsible for statewide elections<br /> |-<br /> | '''SOX''' || Sarbanes-Oxley Act || Federal law requiring internal controls<br /> |-<br /> | || ||<br /> |-<br /> | || ||<br /> |}<br /> <br /> === Definitions ===<br /> <br /> ==== Green Book Definitions ====<br /> '''application control activities''': Automated control activities that are incorporated directly into application software to achieve the completeness, accuracy, and validity of transactions and data; application controls include control activities over input, processing, and output of data (paragraph 10.07)<br /> <br /> '''attributes''': Provide further explanation of the principles and may also contain minimum documentation requirements. Management considers attributes when designing, implementing, and operating the associated principles (paragraph OV2.08)<br /> <br /> '''baseline''': The current state of the internal control system compared against management's design of the internal control system; it represents the difference between the criteria for the design of the internal control system and the condition of the internal control system at a specific point in time (paragraph 16.02)<br /> <br /> '''business processes''': Processes established across the entity to enable organizations to achieve their objectives and transform inputs into outputs through a series of transactions or activities (paragraph OV2.14)<br /> <br /> '''competence''': The capability to carry out assigned responsibilities (paragraph 4.02)<br /> <br /> '''complementary user entity controls''': Controls that a service organization identifies as being necessary for the entity to implement to achieve the control objectives specified by the service organization (paragraph OV4.04)<br /> <br /> '''component''': One of the five required elements of internal control; the internal control components are Control Environment, Risk Assessment, Control Activities, Information and Communication, and Monitoring (paragraph OV2.04)<br /> <br /> '''configuration management''': Control activities to develop and maintain the operating and security features of information technology and control changes to their configuration (paragraph 11.09)<br /> <br /> '''contingency plans/planning''': The processes defined to address an entity's need to respond to sudden changes or unexpected events that could compromise the internal control system (paragraphs 4.06 and 11.17)<br /> <br /> '''controls''': Policies and procedures management establishes to effect relevant principles within each component of internal control (paragraph OV1.04)<br /> <br /> '''control activities''': Actions management establishes through policies and procedures as part of the control activities component to specifically mitigate risks to achieving the entity's objectives to acceptable levels (paragraphs OV1.04 and 10.02)<br /> <br /> '''control objective''': The aim or purpose of specified controls to effect relevant principles within each component of internal control (paragraph OV3.05)<br /> <br /> '''deficiency''': When the design, implementation, or operation of a control does not allow management or other personnel, in the normal course of performing their assigned responsibilities, to achieve the entity's objectives (paragraph OV3.07)<br /> <br /> '''detective control activity''': A control activity that is designed to discover and timely correct an unintended event or result after it occurs (paragraph 10.10)<br /> <br /> '''entity objective''': What an entity wants to achieve; entity objectives are intended to meet the entity's mission, strategic plan, and goals; objectives are also set to meet requirements for the entity that are established in applicable laws and regulations (paragraph OV2.22)<br /> <br /> '''entity-level control activities''': Controls designed to mitigate risks that have a pervasive effect on an entity's internal control system; entity-level control activities may include controls related to the entity's risk assessment process, control environment, service organizations, management override, and performance or analytical reviews (paragraph 10.16)<br /> <br /> '''fraud''': Involves obtaining something of value through willful misrepresentation (paragraph 8.06)<br /> <br /> '''general control activities''': Actions established through policies and procedures that apply to all or a large segment of an entity's information technology designed to mitigate information security risks; general control activities include security management, logical and physical access, configuration management, segregation of duties, and contingency planning (paragraphs 11.07 and 11.09)<br /> <br /> '''Green Book''': The commonly used name for ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government'' (Overview: How to Use the Green Book)<br /> <br /> '''improper payment''': Any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount (e.g., overpayments and underpayments); payments are also considered improper when there is insufficient or lack of documentation (paragraph 8.11)<br /> <br /> '''information security''': The protection of information or information technology from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, disruption, modification, or destruction to provide confidentiality, integrity, and availability (paragraph 11.02)<br /> <br /> '''information system''': The people, processes, data, and information technology that management uses to obtain, generate, communicate, or dispose of information to support the entity's business processes (paragraph 13.05)<br /> <br /> '''information technology''': The infrastructure, platforms, and software used to automate processes (paragraph 11.05)<br /> <br /> '''information technology infrastructure''': The physical information technology resources necessary to run software, including the hardware and devices used for information processing, data storage, and network communication (paragraph 11.05)<br /> <br /> '''inherent risk''': The risk to an entity in the absence of management's response to the risk (paragraph 7.03)<br /> <br /> '''internal control''': A process effected by an entity's oversight body, management, and other personnel, designed to provide reasonable assurance that the objectives of an entity will be achieved (paragraph OV1.01)<br /> <br /> '''internal control system''': Consists of integrated and continuous processes, effected by people, that are collectively designed to provide reasonable assurance, not absolute assurance, that an entity's objectives will be achieved (paragraph OV1.05)<br /> <br /> '''key role''': A position in an organizational structure that is assigned an overall responsibility of an entity (paragraph 3.06)<br /> <br /> '''likelihood of occurrence''': The level of possibility that an unintended event or result will occur (paragraph 7.08)<br /> <br /> '''logical and physical access''': Control activities that restrict access to information technology to authorized users (paragraph 11.09)<br /> <br /> '''magnitude of impact''': The likely magnitude of the effect of the risk on the entity's ability to achieve its objectives; it is affected by factors such as the size, pace, and duration of the risk's impact (paragraph 7.08)<br /> <br /> '''management''': Personnel who are directly responsible for all activities of an entity, including the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system (paragraph OV2.19)<br /> <br /> '''monitoring activities''': Activities that evaluate whether each of the five components of internal control, including controls to effect the principles within each component, is present and functioning or if change is needed (paragraph 16.02)<br /> <br /> '''must''': Denotes a requirement that management must comply with in all cases; these requirements are the components of internal control (paragraph OV2.04)<br /> <br /> '''organizational structure''': The overall entity, divisions, operating units, functions, and other structures management uses to achieve the objectives (paragraph OV2.14)<br /> <br /> '''oversight body''': Those responsible for overseeing management's design, implementation, and operation of an internal control system (paragraph OV2.19)<br /> <br /> '''performance measure''': A means of evaluating the entity's performance in achieving objectives (paragraph 6.07)<br /> <br /> '''platforms''': The logical information technology resources necessary to run application software, including operating systems and related computer programs, tools, and utilities (paragraph 11.05)<br /> <br /> '''policies''': Reflect management or oversight body statements of what is expected to be done to effect internal control (OV1.04)<br /> <br /> '''preventive control activity''': A control activity that is designed to avoid an unintended event or result before it occurs (paragraph 10.10)<br /> <br /> '''principle''': Fundamental concept that is integral to supporting the effective design, implementation, and operation of the associated components of internal control and represents requirements necessary to establish an effective internal control system (paragraph OV2.05)<br /> <br /> '''procedures''': Actions that implement policies (paragraph OV1.04)<br /> <br /> '''qualitative objectives''': Objectives where management may need to design performance measures that indicate a level or degree of performance, such as milestones (paragraph 6.07)<br /> <br /> '''quality information''': Information that supports the internal control system, using relevant data from reliable sources that are appropriate, current, complete, accurate, accessible, verifiable, retained as appropriate, and provided on a timely basis (paragraph 13.07)<br /> <br /> '''quantitative objectives''': Objectives where performance measures may be a targeted percentage or numerical value (paragraph 6.07)<br /> <br /> '''reasonable assurance''': A high degree of confidence, but not absolute confidence (paragraph OV1.05)<br /> <br /> '''reporting lines''': Communication lines, both internal and external, at all levels of the organization that provide methods of communication that can flow down, across, up, and around the organizational structure (paragraph 3.04)<br /> <br /> '''residual risk''': The risk that remains after management's response to inherent risk (paragraph 7.03)<br /> <br /> '''risk''': The possibility that an event will occur and adversely affect the achievement of objectives (paragraph 7.02)<br /> <br /> '''risk tolerance''': The acceptable level of variation in performance relative to the achievement of objectives (paragraph 6.08)<br /> <br /> '''security management''': A separate process, addressing all components of internal control, for responding to risks related to information security (paragraph 11.09)<br /> <br /> '''segregation of duties''': The separation of responsibilities for performing control activities related to the authority, custody, and accounting of operations so that incompatible duties are segregated (paragraphs 10.21 and 10.22)<br /> <br /> '''service organization''': An external party that performs business processes or provides services in support of business processes for an entity (paragraph OV4.03)<br /> <br /> '''should''': Denotes a principle requirement management should comply with except in rare circumstances where the requirement is not relevant for the entity (paragraphs OV2.06 and OV2.07)<br /> <br /> '''software''': The application software, access control software, and other software used to perform specific functions of the entity's business processes (paragraph 11.05)<br /> <br /> '''succession plans''': The processes that address an entity's need to replace competent personnel over the long term (paragraph 4.06)<br /> <br /> '''transaction control activities''': Controls that directly mitigate information processing risks in the entity's business processes (paragraph 10.17)<br /> <br /> '''user control activities''': Partially automated control activities that individuals perform by using information technology or by relying on the information processed through technology (paragraph 10.07)<br /> <br /> ==== Assessment Definitions ====<br /> Governance - <br /> <br /> == See Also ==<br /> <br /> * [[What is a CAP?]]<br /> * [[About the Green Book]]</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1236 2026-08-19T03:49:44Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Training Investigation ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other people but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. <br /> <br /> ==== Summary of Potential Governance Gaps Relating to Training ====<br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> === Personal Performance Deficiencies Unrelated to Training ===<br /> Level 1 Signature Verifiers may mis fraudulent signatures for issues unrelated to training, which include the following:<br /> <br /> * Quick pace - one signature verification per seven seconds is a quick pace (per investigation)<br /> * Duration of task - Signature Verifiers were expected to work eight-hour shifts sometimes longer<br /> * Fatigue - Doing a repetitive task at a quick pace for an extended duration<br /> * Clarity of the Voter Registration Signature - The signature may be a pen on paper (wet signature) or digital signature acquired from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department's voter registration process<br /> * High rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally discouraged since suborinate Level 1 Signature Verifiers would be making more work for the Level II Signature Verifiers, which appears to be their leadership<br /> * Low rates of flagging signature mismatches may be culturally and personally rewarding since little consetration is needed if the personal standard is low and the Level II Signature Verifiers are unlikely to complain about getting fewer suspect early ballots.<br /> * Workload is increased with emphasis on the convenience of early voting and voter registration errors that generator more ballots than valid voters.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1235 2026-08-19T03:20:37Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Competency Verification */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Competency ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other people but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Verifying the Student's Completion of Training ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification the Competency of the Student ====<br /> No evidence was provided in the inspector's report to suggest Signature Verification competency was verified. The were apparently no test scores for each student. Test scores would have been a more objective method of confirming student attendance than an interview with a manager (see above). A final examination is not noted as a training topic the investigator included in the report. <br /> <br /> ==== Verification of Student Competency in the Work Setting ====<br /> The inspector stated the Level 1 Signature Verifiers are expected to complete, on average, one verification every seven seconds. If seven seconds if the average rate, some verifications need to be completed in less than seven seconds. A valid competency training examination would have needed to replicate this astounding pace for an extended period time given that the pace would be expected for an eight-hour shift, maybe longer based on information the inspector included in his report. <br /> <br /> === Susceptibility to Environmentally Induced Errors ===<br /> Fatigue (highly repetitive tasks, sleep, lack of breaks, etc.)<br /> <br /> <br /> Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1234 2026-08-19T03:05:05Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Competency Verification */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Competency ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other people but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Training Verification ====<br /> The inspector interviewed an Elections Department to determine if all the Level 1 Signature Verifiers had completed the training. Apparently, there were no training documents created or retained to provide objective evidence of training attendance. <br /> <br /> ==== Competency Verification ====<br /> There slide topics do not <br /> <br /> === Susceptibility to Environmentally Induced Errors ===<br /> Fatigue (highly repetitive tasks, sleep, lack of breaks, etc.)<br /> <br /> Pace (seven seconds per verification<br /> <br /> Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1233 2026-08-19T02:59:56Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Signature Verifier Competency */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Competency ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> The investigators used facts to provide proof that training was performed in accordance with Arizona State requirements. However, these facts also suggested poor governance. <br /> <br /> ==== Quantity of Training ====<br /> The Level 1 Signature Verifier is the one person that allows a fraudulent ballot to be counted if they do not detect a mismatched signature; the Level 1 Signature Verifier gets two hours of training. <br /> <br /> If flagged by a Level 1 Signature Verifier, the ''suspect'' early ballot is then directed to the Level II Signature Verifiers, where alternative methods to authenticate the ballot may be applied. Eight hours of training are provided to Level II Signature Verifies and they are not a &quot;single-person-vulnerability.&quot; Level II Signature Verifiers may involve other people but a Level 1 is performing their task independently. <br /> <br /> ==== Pace of Training ====<br /> The two hours of Level 1 training consisted of 41 slides, which results in a average pace of less than three minutes per slide. <br /> <br /> ==== Proficiency Objective ====<br /> A training model called [[wikipedia:Bloom's_taxonomy|Blooms Taxonomy]] is used during the design and development of training so the student can perform the new task to the desired level of proficiency. In this case, the student would need to have become proficient in Signature Verifier ''knowledge'' and ''comprehension'' before acquiring proficiency with ''application,'' which seems to be the appropriate competency level for a Signature Verifier. <br /> <br /> ==== Competency Verification ==== <br /> <br /> === Susceptibility to Environmentally Induced Errors ===<br /> Fatigue (highly repetitive tasks, sleep, lack of breaks, etc.)<br /> <br /> Pace (seven seconds per verification<br /> <br /> Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1232 2026-08-19T02:20:29Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Signature Verifier Competency */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Competency ===<br /> A criminal investigation was initiated by the Arizona Attorney General (AG) in response to seven issues identified by the Arizona Senate 2020 General Election Forensic Audit for Maricopa County Elections on September 24, 2021. One of the issues to be investigated was titled &quot;Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process.&quot; The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' The investigation of the Signature Verification Training resulted in the following: &lt;u&gt;Finding&lt;/u&gt; - No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification Training. <br /> <br /> === Susceptibility to Environmentally Induced Errors ===<br /> Fatigue (highly repetitive tasks, sleep, lack of breaks, etc.)<br /> <br /> Pace (seven seconds per verification<br /> <br /> Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1231 2026-08-19T01:50:59Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> <br /> The following diagram may help understand how fraud occurs. Some fraudulent early ballots are expected to be mailed in with the intent of being tabulated. In other words, signature verification would not be needed if everyone was honest. Therefore, the signature verification is the only step to detect fraudulent ballots. Interestingly, a valid vote has a second opportunity to be correctly tabulated if it is incorrectly identified as suspect. However, there is no second chance to detect a fraudulent ballot if missed by the Signature Verifier. The fraudulent vote cannot be retrieved by any method once it gets past the Signature Verifier; a fraudulent vote will therefore be counted as a valid vote.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> This signature verification process is inherently weak, given that a single person is being relied upon to screen out potentially fraudulent ballots. Consider these factors when judging the robustness this process step.<br /> <br /> * Chances of not detecting a fraudulent ballot increase with the number of fraudulent ballots mailed in to be tabulated. <br /> * The competency of person performing the verification.<br /> * Conditions at home or at work that may increase the likelihood of verification errors.<br /> <br /> === Signature Verifier Competency ===<br /> Training was used during the investigation of the <br /> <br /> The Arizona Attorney General’s (AG) Office issued a report, which is titled ''[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf 2020 General Election Investigation].'' This report summarizes a criminal investigation conducted by Criminal Division / Special Investigations Section of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. The report is posted on the AZ AG website. <br /> <br /> === Susceptibility to Environmentally Induced Errors ===<br /> Fatigue (highly repetitive tasks, sleep, lack of breaks, etc.)<br /> <br /> Pace (seven seconds per verification<br /> <br /> Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Signature_Verification_Steps.png&diff=1230 2026-08-19T00:47:10Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>[[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|thumb]]</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Signature_Verification_Steps.png&diff=1229 2026-08-19T00:46:21Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: Neil thibodaux uploaded a new version of File:Signature Verification Steps.png</p> <hr /> <div></div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1228 2026-08-19T00:10:47Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Importance */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING for applicable attributes&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;&lt;'''<br /> <br /> === Conceptual Importance of Signature Verification ===<br /> This section will describe how s''ignature verification'' is used to prevent fraud. <br /> <br /> First some clarifying notes are necessary to understand the importance of signature verification. <br /> <br /> # The term &quot;early ballot&quot; used herein and is considered synonymous with the term &quot;mail-in ballot&quot; for the purpose of this assessment. We wanted to be consistent with the AZ EPM use of the term early ballot. <br /> # Signature verification is only applied to early ballots. <br /> # Signature verification is performed by a person, not a machine.<br /> # Signatures on the early ballot envelope are compared to the signature on the voter's registration record as a means of authentication.<br /> # Voter registration signatures may be collected by ink on paper (wet signature) or digitally with a stylus on a computer screen.<br /> # There is no traceability from the ballot back to the person once the ballot has been removed from the envelope. <br /> # The ballot is removed from the envelope after the signature on the envelope has been verified.<br /> <br /> Early ballot fraud occurs when an ineligible ballot passes through the signature verification process step without being detected by the signature verifier. Signature verifiers do not induce fraud; they allow fraudulent ballots to be counted. Signature verifiers do not reject early ballots with signature mismatches. Ballots with mismatched signatures are separated and not counted until the signature mismatch is addressed. Some of these separated early ballots may ultimately be counted if their authenticity is subsequently confirmed alternative methods.<br /> [[File:Signature Verification Steps.png|center]]<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> f authentication may allow the some of these early <br /> <br /> presented as a means to ensure the ballot is valid. Please note that presentation of personal identification is an alternative means of authenticating early ballots. Alternative methods of verification <br /> <br /> The purpose of signature verification is a means to ensure ballot contained thin the early ballot envelope is valid. inside the early ballot envelope matches the 1) voter's nameperson and address of the voter <br /> <br /> Signature verification prevents fraud by ensuring the signature on the Early Ballot matches the voter's signature on their voter registration document. A match provides assurance, not proof, of a properly cast vote. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ts a specific step used in the tabulation of early vvting or <br /> <br /> The signature verification process seeks to prevent fraudulent votes from being tabulated in election and corrupting election results. <br /> <br /> Employes of the MC Elections Department compare the signature on a early voting mail-in ballot to <br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:Signature_Verification_Steps.png&diff=1227 2026-08-19T00:09:55Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1226 2026-08-18T20:29:08Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Importance */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> '''&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt;FINISH REVIEWING'''<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> The signature <br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1225 2026-08-18T20:21:13Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Importance */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> Nondisclosure of the MC Election procedures inhibit the public's ability to hold the county accountable to their own standards. Citizens can't compare anomalous events observed in the MC Voting Centers to a MC elections procedure if none is available to the public. <br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> * Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values<br /> ** Attribute(s): 1.04, <br /> * Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility<br /> ** Attribute(s): 2.09<br /> * Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority<br /> ** Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, 3,12<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1224 2026-08-18T19:43:22Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> ==== Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ====<br /> <br /> ==== Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ====<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens if the Voting Center election procedures actually exist. The AZ SOS is publicly sharing their election procedures. If the County has procedures for their voting centers, why do they believe this information should be treated as confidential?<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Governance Gaps:&lt;/u&gt;<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1223 2026-08-18T19:34:28Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> === Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ===<br /> <br /> === Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ===<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created and publicly posted the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement with regard to the reason for the lack of publicly post MC Election Procedures presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls for election-related activities is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if procedures exist but the MC Elections Department management does not want the procedures to be shared with its citizens as it is being done at the state level with the Arizona Elections Procedure Manual.<br /> <br /> Potential Governance Issues<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1222 2026-08-18T19:30:24Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> [[File:AZSOS-Elect Procedures .jpg|center]]<br /> <br /> === Maricopa County Procedures for Elections ===<br /> <br /> === Did you Forget Maricopa County Procedures for Elections? ===<br /> No. The blank space underneath the title was made to emphasis a point. There aren't any Maricopa County Procedures posted on the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/ MC Elections Department] website.<br /> <br /> The Arizona SOS created the Arizona Elections Manual to explain how Arizona Counties are required to implement election services at the county level. Apparently, MC Elections department does not believe procedures are necessary to implement state procedures at the voting centers OR, even worse, MC Elections department has Election Procedures for the voting centers but does not want to reveal the content of those procedures to the public.<br /> <br /> The &quot;OR&quot; statement presents a governance dilemma. The effectiveness of internal controls is compromised if there are no procedures for the voting centers. Conversely, ethical questions arise if procedures exist but do not want to be shared with its citizens as it is being done with the publically accessible Arizona Elections Procedure Manual.<br /> <br /> Potential Governance Issues<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:ElecProcMan-SigVerification.jpg&diff=1221 2026-08-18T18:58:38Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=File:AZSOS-Elect_Procedures_.jpg&diff=1220 2026-08-18T18:58:04Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div></div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1219 2026-08-18T17:48:53Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Arizona Law for Elections */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> [https://azsos.gov/ Arizona's Secretary of State] (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1218 2026-08-18T17:43:17Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Arizona State Procedures for Elections */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> Arizona's Secretary of State (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS creates the [https://apps.azsos.gov/election/files/epm/2025/Election-Procedures-Manual-2025--FINAL-12-22-25.pdf Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM)] to explain how each county is required to fulfill their duties to implement election services. <br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1217 2026-08-18T17:40:10Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Delete this page? */</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud.<br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud.<br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud.<br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.'''<br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled.<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> Arizona's Secretary of State (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1216 2026-08-18T17:30:25Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: Replaced content with &quot;=== Delete this page? ===&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>=== Delete this page? ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Signature_Verification&diff=1215 2026-08-18T17:29:54Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: Created page with &quot;This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud. In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter&#039;s registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud. Some background information is neces...&quot;</p> <hr /> <div>This page assesses the signature verification process as weak barrier to preventing election fraud. <br /> <br /> In our assessment, we believe MC employees are doing what is expected of them to confirm the signatures on an early ballot match the signature on the voter's registration record. The MC employees are not deviating from organizational norms. That said, the governance practices hindering the employees from effectively detecting fraud. <br /> <br /> Some background information is necessary to understand why MC employees cannot adequately detect fraud. <br /> <br /> === Background ===<br /> <br /> ==== Arizona Law for Elections ====<br /> [https://www.azleg.gov/arsDetail/?title=16 Title 16 of the Arizona Revised Statutes] governs elections, voter qualifications, political parties, campaign finance, and related electoral procedures in Arizona. This statute states '''what must be done'''. The statute does not contain enough detail to explain '''how it is done.''' <br /> <br /> For those that familiar with corporate operations, statutes would be equivalent to policy statements and procedures would explain how policies are fulfilled. <br /> <br /> ==== Arizona State Procedures for Elections ====<br /> Arizona's Secretary of State (SOS) is responsible for ensuring elections are implemented fairly and consistent statewide, which gets complicated because elections are implemented at the county level. Arizona SOS<br /> <br /> === Importance ===<br /> Signature verification <br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Requirements ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Training ===<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Effectiveness Review ===<br /> <br /> * Differences between wet and digital signatures<br /> <br /> === Signature Verification Fraud ===</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=The_Anomalies&diff=1214 2026-08-18T15:58:41Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: </p> <hr /> <div>This is a alphabetical listing of election-related anomalies, which were compared to the GAO's Green Book for potential identification of governance issues.<br /> <br /> == List of Assessed Anomalies ==<br /> <br /> ===== [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]] =====<br /> A broad-based assessment of the County's actions to address the potential for fraud. <br /> <br /> ===== [[Signature Verification]] =====<br /> An assessment of the importance of the signature verification step and its susceptibility to verification errors.</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=The_Anomalies&diff=1213 2026-08-18T15:44:37Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025) */</p> <hr /> <div>This is a alphabetical listing of election-related anomalies, which were compared to the GAO's Green Book for potential identification of governance issues.<br /> <br /> == List of Assessed Anomalies ==<br /> <br /> # [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]]</div>

Neil thibodaux https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=The_Anomalies&diff=1212 2026-08-18T15:44:00Z

<p>Neil thibodaux: /* List of Anomalies */</p> <hr /> <div>This is a alphabetical listing of election-related anomalies, which were compared to the GAO's Green Book for potential identification of governance issues.<br /> <br /> == List of Anomalies ==<br /> <br /> # [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]]<br /> <br /> === Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025) ===<br /> This topic addresses the general concept of fraud or abuse and does not address a specific event. Conservative news reports of potential election-related fraud began in 2020 when a large number of anomalies were identified. News reports of potential fraud resurfaced during the 2022, 2024 and 2025 November elections. All media outlets noted problems with the tabulation delays during each of these elections, only the conservative outlets suggested the problems were potential related to fraud.<br /> <br /> &lt;u&gt;Potential Green Book Deviations&lt;/u&gt;<br /> Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk <br /> <br /> * Attribute(s): '''[[8.07]], [[8.09]], [[8.10]]'''</div>

Neil thibodaux