Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Allegation #7 - Email sent to State Representative Mark Finchen */

2026-09-02T02:06:13Z

Allegation #7 - Email sent to State Representative Mark Finchen

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 1 September 2026
Line 326:		Line 326:

	=== Allegation #7 - Email sent to State Representative Mark Finchen ===		=== Allegation #7 - Email sent to State Representative Mark Finchen ===
			Meeting held by Pima County Democrats (Voter Fraud Planning meeting) 35,000 votes were embedded into Pima County election system.

			This allegation originated form emails sent to Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem on November 10 & 12 2020 from brianwatson70002@gmail.com.

	==== Inspector's Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====
			There were no observations that were relevant to poor governance

	==== Inspector's Findings ====		==== Inspector's Findings ====
			This was an unfounded allegation.
	~~==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====~~

Neil thibodaux: /* Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations */

2026-09-01T23:38:36Z

Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:38, 1 September 2026
Line 317:		Line 317:

	=== Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations ===		=== Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations ===
			This allegation consisted of eight sub-allegations, and all were determined to be unfounded.

	==== Inspector's Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====

Neil thibodaux: /* Inspectors Findings */

2026-09-01T22:31:46Z

Inspectors Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:31, 1 September 2026
Line 286:		Line 286:

	==== Inspectors Findings ====		==== Inspectors Findings ====
	Unfounded Allegation. According to statements made by M		'''Unfounded Allegation.''' According to statements made by Mr. Bill Gates and a letter dated September 17th 2021 by State Senate President Karen Fann to Attorney General Mark Brnovich, all materials were provided to the State Senate by Maricopa County. Mr Gates confirmed that materials not listed in the subpoena or settlement agreement were not released to the Senate.

	~~==== Hypothetical Questions for~~ the ~~Investigator ====~~

	=== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department - Voter spike prior to election ===		=== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department - Voter spike prior to election ===

	==== Inspector's Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====

			* According to US Census Bureau, the population for Pima County on April 1, 2020 was 1,043,433
			** 772,140 were of legal voting age, which is 74%

			* According to the voter statistics from the Arizona Secretary of State official 2020 Canvas for Pima County:
			** The General Election Data (November 3, 2020) - [Votes cast]
			*** 638,355 Total Eligible Voters
			*** 526, 319 Total Ballots Cast
			*** 112,036 No Vote Cast
			*** 82.% Voter Turnout
			** The Primary Election Data (August 4, 2020) - [Eligible voters by Party]
			*** 584,070 Total Eligible Voters
			*** 171,331 Republican
			*** 230,325 Democratic
			*** 4,243 Libertarian
			*** 178,171 Other
			* Pima County Recorder Ann Rodriguez sent a letter to the Pima County Board of Supervisors on November 18, 2020, with the following election data:
			** 489,623 registered voters are on the Permanent Early Voting List, which is 76.7%.
			** Ballot return rate was 87.5%, the highest rate for any prior election.
			** 526,319 votes were cast, which was 87.36%. Again, this was the highest rate in any prior general election.
			* The AZ AG's inspector notes that Ann Rodriguez also reported an increase in drop-off ballots vs. walk-in voters, which was supported by statistics but not carried forward into the AZ AG's report.

	==== Inspectors Findings ====		==== Inspectors Findings ====
			'''Unfounded Allegation'''. Between August 4, 2020 to November 3, 2020, the total of registered voters in Pima County increased by 54,285 voters. This 8.5% increase in voter registration validates the continuousness of the 2020 General Election. This review did not uncover any potential election fraud associated with the allegation. It should be also noted that Pima County Attorney's Office investigated 151 incidents reported by the Pima County Recorder's Office of potential voter fraud. These investigations determined that most were voter confusion about the electoral process to mail-in and provisional ballots. These additional ballots were not counted in the final tally of votes.
	~~==== Hypothetical Questions for~~ the ~~Investigator ====~~

	=== Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations ===		=== Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations ===

Neil thibodaux at 02:02, 1 September 2026

2026-09-01T02:02:53Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:02, 31 August 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~This~~ page highlights ~~some~~ observations of the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation of allegations from the Arizona Senate ~~from~~ September 24, 2021. The Arizona Attorney General (AZ AG) is responsible for investigating criminal allegations related to Election Fraud committed within the State of Arizona.		In a departure from the ACV's focus on Arizona ''county-level'' governance, this page highlights ''state-level'' observations of the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation (AZ AG's report). The AZ AG's report investigated criminal allegations originating from the Arizona Senate on September 24, 2021. The allegations were reported to the Arizona Attorney General (AZ AG), who is responsible for investigating criminal allegations related to Election Fraud committed within the State of Arizona.

	This website is focused on identifying governance gaps within Arizona Counties for the purpose of showing the need for Legislative Action to pass laws that hold the counties accountable for listening to and addressing citizen concerns. The AZ AG's report was used to identify potential governance gaps.		Separate from the collection of data being collected from the AZ AG's report to identify potential governance gaps, some of the inspector's observations are worthy of being highlighted on this page. Key points may be lost during the comparison of county behaviors to the US GAO's Green Book, which was being used as a standard for good governance in the absence of any known standard being applied by Maricopa County.

	Separate from the collection of data being collected from the AZ AG's report to identify potential governance gaps, some of the inspector's observations are worthy of being highlighted on this page. Key points may be lost during the comparison of county behaviors to the US GAO's Green Book, which was being used as a standard for good governance in the absence of any known standard being applied by Maricopa County.

	Finally, some of the inspector's investigative practices appear shallow, considering this was referred to the Arizona Attorney General's Office as a criminal investigation. Generally speaking, the Inspector relied heavily on interviews to reach report findings. None of the findings resulted in criminal charges. For example, five procedure violations in Allegation #2 were confirmed. These procedure violations were no by themselves acts of fraud committed by Maricopa County workers. However, these procedure violations were lapses in security measures intended to protect against fraud. Thus, Maricopa County workers did not commit acts of fraud, they knowingly or unknowingly, facilitated acts of fraud by not protecting early ballot security. The AZ AG's inspector could not determine the willingness of MC workers to participate in fraud without intrusive investigation to find objective evidence.		Finally, some of the inspector's investigative practices appear shallow, considering this was referred to the Arizona Attorney General's Office as a criminal investigation. Generally speaking, the Inspector relied heavily on interviews to reach report findings. None of the findings resulted in criminal charges. For example, five procedure violations in Allegation #2 were confirmed. These procedure violations were no by themselves acts of fraud committed by Maricopa County workers. However, these procedure violations were lapses in security measures intended to protect against fraud. Thus, Maricopa County workers did not commit acts of fraud, they knowingly or unknowingly, facilitated acts of fraud by not protecting early ballot security. The AZ AG's inspector could not determine the willingness of MC workers to participate in fraud without intrusive investigation to find objective evidence.
Line 134:		Line 132:
	* Requested forensic pre-view of Maricopa County Election System		* Requested forensic pre-view of Maricopa County Election System

	==== Sub-allegation #1 - EMS Data Purged ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #1 - EMS Data Purged ====

	===== Investigation Notes =====		===== Investigation Notes =====
Line 144:		Line 142:
	** According to Elections Department personnel backups were available, but the investigator did not review as part of a criminal investigation.		** According to Elections Department personnel backups were available, but the investigator did not review as part of a criminal investigation.

	==== Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted ====

	===== Data Notes =====		===== Data Notes =====
Line 154:		Line 152:
	* '''Undetermined''' - Agents are <u>pending</u> a date to review achieved data to ensure all election files are present.		* '''Undetermined''' - Agents are <u>pending</u> a date to review achieved data to ensure all election files are present.
	** According to Elections Department personnel backups were available, but the investigator did not review as part of a criminal investigation.		** According to Elections Department personnel backups were available, but the investigator did not review as part of a criminal investigation.
	==== Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images ====
			==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 168:		Line 167:
	* Why were no images reviewed to support or refute the allegation of corrupted ballot images?		* Why were no images reviewed to support or refute the allegation of corrupted ballot images?

	==== Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images ====

	===== Investigator's Notes =====		===== Investigator's Notes =====
Line 174:		Line 173:

	===== Investigator's Findings =====		===== Investigator's Findings =====
	* Undetermined. Agents are <u>pending</u> a date to review archived data to ensure all election files are present.		* '''Undetermined.''' Agents are <u>pending</u> a date to review archived data to ensure all election files are present.
	** This allegation was for missing ballot images, not missing data files.		** This allegation was for missing ballot images, not missing data files.
	** This allegation was initiated by CyFIR and delivery of files to Cyber Ninjas was credited as action taken towards resolution of the allegation.		** This allegation was initiated by CyFIR and delivery of files to Cyber Ninjas was credited as action taken towards resolution of the allegation.
Line 182:		Line 181:
	* Why were no images reviewed to support or refute the allegation of corrupted ballot images?		* Why were no images reviewed to support or refute the allegation of corrupted ballot images?

	==== Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices ====

	===== Investigator's Notes =====		===== Investigator's Notes =====
Line 191:		Line 190:

	===== Investigators Findings =====		===== Investigators Findings =====
	* Unfounded Allegation. Cyber Ninjas presented its opinions on these areas. There has been no indication of malicious or criminal acts performed by Maricopa County Elections Officials. Cyber Ninjas suggest a better practice base on their beliefs; however, Maricopa County Elections was within compliance of state and federal law as it pertains to these areas.		* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' Cyber Ninjas presented its opinions on these areas. There has been no indication of malicious or criminal acts performed by Maricopa County Elections Officials. Cyber Ninjas suggest a better practice base on their beliefs; however, Maricopa County Elections was within compliance of state and federal law as it pertains to these areas.
	** MC Election officials' assertion of appropriate behaviors seems weak for the malicious or criminal behaviors under investigation.		** MC Election officials' assertion of appropriate behaviors seems weak for the malicious or criminal behaviors under investigation.

Line 207:		Line 206:
	* In the absence of any disciplinary actions, how was the rule communicated to the staff and did it include consequences for violations?		* In the absence of any disciplinary actions, how was the rule communicated to the staff and did it include consequences for violations?

	==== Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 215:		Line 214:
	* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' According to the statements made by Mr. Bill Gates and a letter dated September 17, 2021 by State Senate President Karen Fann to Attorney General Marck Brnovich, all materials were provided to the State Senate by Maricopa County.		* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' According to the statements made by Mr. Bill Gates and a letter dated September 17, 2021 by State Senate President Karen Fann to Attorney General Marck Brnovich, all materials were provided to the State Senate by Maricopa County.

	==== Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 230:		Line 229:
	* Why was PacketWatch presented as investigative data when its time frame was different than the Cyber Ninjas allegation?		* Why was PacketWatch presented as investigative data when its time frame was different than the Cyber Ninjas allegation?

	==== Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 239:		Line 238:

	===== Inspector's Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* Undetermined. County Elections makes statement about SLI Compliance finding related to dual boot systems; however, within the SLI report, there is no mention of this finding. Furthermore, County Elections stated they did not retain copies of photos for this portion of the SLI report but stated they are available by request from SLI. County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas. Based upon the two date available from Cyber Ninjas and SLI, and the different naming conventions, it is unclear if it is the same computer.		* '''Undetermined.''' County Elections makes statement about SLI Compliance finding related to dual boot systems; however, within the SLI report, there is no mention of this finding. Furthermore, County Elections stated they did not retain copies of photos for this portion of the SLI report but stated they are available by request from SLI. County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas. Based upon the two date available from Cyber Ninjas and SLI, and the different naming conventions, it is unclear if it is the same computer.
	** For what it's worth, no follow up action is stated. There is no evidence to suggest follow-up was taken to any of the other undetermined findings.		** For what it's worth, no follow up action is stated. There is no evidence to suggest follow-up was taken to any of the other undetermined findings.

Line 247:		Line 246:
	* Why would you rely on County Elections personnel to say the second bootable drive was not connected or powered on when they are the ones under investigation?		* Why would you rely on County Elections personnel to say the second bootable drive was not connected or powered on when they are the ones under investigation?

	==== Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 263:		Line 262:
	* What was of special interest during the 2/11/21 access?		* What was of special interest during the 2/11/21 access?

	==== Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS ====		==== Allegation #3, Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS ====

	===== Inspector's Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
Line 271:		Line 270:

	===== Inspector's Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* Unfounded Allegation. Upon review of this section and applicable data known thus far, there is no further analysis that can likely be done as it relates to internet connectivity. Of the devices reviewed by Cyber Ninjas, they articulate a need to review the "routers" in order to determine if internet connectivity did in fact occur. Additionally, with the lack of log files, they cannot review information related to potential internet connections.		* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' Upon review of this section and applicable data known thus far, there is no further analysis that can likely be done as it relates to internet connectivity. Of the devices reviewed by Cyber Ninjas, they articulate a need to review the "routers" in order to determine if internet connectivity did in fact occur. Additionally, with the lack of log files, they cannot review information related to potential internet connections.

	=== Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit ===		=== Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Was Poor Posting of Public Document Intentional? */

2026-08-31T03:39:32Z

Was Poor Posting of Public Document Intentional?

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:39, 30 August 2026
Line 9:		Line 9:
	In a sad perspective, the AZ AG's shallow investigation seems in some ways to reflect poor governance at the state level whereas this assessment is concerned about poor governance at the county level. At its worst, the shallow investigation would appear to show collusion in the cover up of fraud perpetrated by others.		In a sad perspective, the AZ AG's shallow investigation seems in some ways to reflect poor governance at the state level whereas this assessment is concerned about poor governance at the county level. At its worst, the shallow investigation would appear to show collusion in the cover up of fraud perpetrated by others.

	=== ~~Was Poor~~ Posting of ~~Public Document Intentional?~~ ===		=== Arizona Attorney General's Office Posting of the Investigation ===
			Did the AZ AG's Office intentionally make it difficult for the public to read the report?

	The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] is a publicly available document, at the following:		The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] is a publicly available document, at the following:

Line 274:		Line 276:

	==== Inspector's Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====
			All of the following bullets are quotes from the AZ AG's inspector's report:

			* On Novemeber 23rd 2021, Mr. Bill Gates of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors responded to questions sent by Agent Geisler. Mr. Gates <u>did not grant agents</u> an interview and would only answer questions pre-submitted in writing.
			* Mr. Gates indicated all data was provided to the State Senat Attorney Kory Langhofer and Senate Liaison Ken Bennett, and not to the "Auditors."
			* He confirmed the board received Legislative Subpoenas issue on January 12th and July 26th.
			* Following a settlement agreement and Judge Thomason's decision on February 25th 2021, State Senate President Fann confirmed the Board Fully complied.
			* After signing the settlement agreement, President Fann sent a letter to Attorney General Brnovich on September 17th 2021 stating: ''"Accordingly, the settlement agreement places the County in with applicable state law, including the subpoena, and additional action by your office is not warranted."''
			* Mr. Gates stated that all data was provided as requested by the subpoena and that election archived data was not subpoenaed and not provided and were part of the settlement agreement.
			* Mr. Gates stated he is not aware of what was provided to Cyber Ninjas by the Senate and that question should be directed to Senate President Fann.

	==== Inspectors Findings ====		==== Inspectors Findings ====
			Unfounded Allegation. According to statements made by M

	==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====		==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====

Neil thibodaux: /* Hypothetical Questions for the Inspector */

2026-08-30T04:00:35Z

Hypothetical Questions for the Inspector

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:00, 29 August 2026
Line 199:		Line 199:
	* Were there any access logs, recording when each individual entered and exited the access point for the EMS server?		* Were there any access logs, recording when each individual entered and exited the access point for the EMS server?
	* Does the two-person control measures for EMS access seem disproportionately weak when compared to drop box pick up, which was investigated as Allegation #2. For drop box collection, two people from two different political parties (Democrat and Republican) are required to document the collection times in accordance with a procedure with perhaps a few hundred ballots at risk of corruption. For EMS access, any two people may enter the EMS server area without any controlling procedure or enter/exit logs with 1,910,317 ballots at risk.		* Does the two-person control measures for EMS access seem disproportionately weak when compared to drop box pick up, which was investigated as Allegation #2. For drop box collection, two people from two different political parties (Democrat and Republican) are required to document the collection times in accordance with a procedure with perhaps a few hundred ballots at risk of corruption. For EMS access, any two people may enter the EMS server area without any controlling procedure or enter/exit logs with 1,910,317 ballots at risk.
			* Does the two-person rule require both people to have equivalent knowledge and experience? It would be difficult for a person with minimal Information Technology experience to detect an experience fraudster's malicious activities.
	* Given that federal and state laws are generally written at policy level, not for implementation level, how is assertions of compliance to laws applicable to measures to securely tabulate ballots, regardless of what's specified in law.		* Given that federal and state laws are generally written at policy level, not for implementation level, how is assertions of compliance to laws applicable to measures to securely tabulate ballots, regardless of what's specified in law.
	* Prior to this event, had MC Officials ever detected a violation of the two-person rule? If not, were security measures and video surveillance adequate to deviation from the two-person rule?		* Prior to this event, had MC Officials ever detected a violation of the two-person rule? If not, were security measures and video surveillance adequate to deviation from the two-person rule?

Neil thibodaux: /* Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit */

2026-08-30T02:42:15Z

Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:42, 29 August 2026
Line 271:		Line 271:

	=== Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit ===		=== Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit ===
	*
	*		==== Inspector's Notes ====

			==== Inspectors Findings ====

			==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====

			=== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department - Voter spike prior to election ===

			==== Inspector's Notes ====

			==== Inspectors Findings ====

			==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====

			=== Allegation #6 - Unknown published flyer allegations ===

			==== Inspector's Notes ====

			==== Inspector's Findings ====

			==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====

			=== Allegation #7 - Email sent to State Representative Mark Finchen ===

			==== Inspector's Notes ====

			==== Inspector's Findings ====

			==== Hypothetical Questions for the Investigator ====

Neil thibodaux: /* Data Notes */

2026-08-30T02:22:38Z

Data Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:22, 29 August 2026
Line 43:		Line 43:
	* Election data provided by the Maricopa County Elections Department		* Election data provided by the Maricopa County Elections Department

	==== ~~Data~~ Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====

	* Additional details are available from Special Investigation Section #SIS-2021-0482.		* Additional details are available from Special Investigation Section #SIS-2021-0482.
Line 84:		Line 84:
	* Wick, Jason - United States Postal Service Inspector		* Wick, Jason - United States Postal Service Inspector

	==== Objective Evidence ====		==== Objective Evidence Reviewed ====
	* Arizona Secretary of State Drop Box procedures		* Arizona Secretary of State Drop Box procedures
	* Maricopa County Drop Box procedures		* Maricopa County Drop Box procedures
	* Early Voting Ballot Transport Statements (EVBTS)		* Early Voting Ballot Transport Statements (EVBTS)

	==== ~~Data~~ Notes ====		==== Inspector's Notes ====

	* Numerous EVBTS were missing data and/or signatures (see report for details).		* Numerous EVBTS were missing data and/or signatures (see report for details).
Line 127:		Line 127:
	* Richer, Steven - Maricopa County Recorder		* Richer, Steven - Maricopa County Recorder
	* Young, Nate - Director of Information Technology		* Young, Nate - Director of Information Technology
	*

	==== Objective Evidence ====		==== Objective Evidence ====

Neil thibodaux: /* Findings */

2026-08-30T02:21:13Z

Findings

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:21, 29 August 2026
Line 207:		Line 207:
	==== Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided ====		==== Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided ====

	===== ~~Data~~ Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
	* All data and equipment were provided as part of "the settlement agreement."		* All data and equipment were provided as part of "the settlement agreement."

	===== Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' According to the statements made by Mr. Bill Gates and a letter dated September 17, 2021 by State Senate President Karen Fann to Attorney General Marck Brnovich, all materials were provided to the State Senate by Maricopa County.		* '''Unfounded Allegation.''' According to the statements made by Mr. Bill Gates and a letter dated September 17, 2021 by State Senate President Karen Fann to Attorney General Marck Brnovich, all materials were provided to the State Senate by Maricopa County.

Line 230:		Line 230:
	==== Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered ====		==== Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered ====

	===== ~~Data~~ Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
	* There was a second hard drive on one computer; the drive was not powered on or used at any time while in Maricopa County's possession.		* There was a second hard drive on one computer; the drive was not powered on or used at any time while in Maricopa County's possession.
	* This drive did not play a role in any Maricopa County election as it was not plugged into the computer, and therefore not operational.		* This drive did not play a role in any Maricopa County election as it was not plugged into the computer, and therefore not operational.
Line 236:		Line 236:
	* County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas.		* County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas.

	===== Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* Undetermined. County Elections makes statement about SLI Compliance finding related to dual boot systems; however, within the SLI report, there is no mention of this finding. Furthermore, County Elections stated they did not retain copies of photos for this portion of the SLI report but stated they are available by request from SLI. County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas. Based upon the two date available from Cyber Ninjas and SLI, and the different naming conventions, it is unclear if it is the same computer.		* Undetermined. County Elections makes statement about SLI Compliance finding related to dual boot systems; however, within the SLI report, there is no mention of this finding. Furthermore, County Elections stated they did not retain copies of photos for this portion of the SLI report but stated they are available by request from SLI. County Elections was unsure if it was the same computer identified by Cyber Ninjas. Based upon the two date available from Cyber Ninjas and SLI, and the different naming conventions, it is unclear if it is the same computer.
	** For what it's worth, no follow up action is stated. There is no evidence to suggest follow-up was taken to any of the other undetermined findings.		** For what it's worth, no follow up action is stated. There is no evidence to suggest follow-up was taken to any of the other undetermined findings.
Line 247:		Line 247:
	==== Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved ====		==== Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved ====

	===== ~~Data~~ Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
	* Election Officials explain "the EMS server could be remotely accessed via the local area network within the air gap system."		* Election Officials explain "the EMS server could be remotely accessed via the local area network within the air gap system."
	* The EMS server was often accessed from the EMS Admin Station located within the BTC.		* The EMS server was often accessed from the EMS Admin Station located within the BTC.
Line 253:		Line 253:
	* On April 12, 2021, the Election Department identifies Brian Ramirez, a County Elections Staff Member, as having access. The county asserts that the second individual with Brian Ramirez is a coworker, but was not identified.		* On April 12, 2021, the Election Department identifies Brian Ramirez, a County Elections Staff Member, as having access. The county asserts that the second individual with Brian Ramirez is a coworker, but was not identified.

	===== Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* Agents have a pending request to review log entries with Election Officials. This review will allow for a better understanding of the logs, and help further identify why there are discrepancies between the logs identified by Cyber Ninjas and the logs notated by PacketWatch and County Elections. Additionally, further questions will be asked regarding what actions were taking place on 2/11/21.		* Agents have a pending request to review log entries with Election Officials. This review will allow for a better understanding of the logs, and help further identify why there are discrepancies between the logs identified by Cyber Ninjas and the logs notated by PacketWatch and County Elections. Additionally, further questions will be asked regarding what actions were taking place on 2/11/21.

Line 263:		Line 263:
	==== Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS ====		==== Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS ====

	===== ~~Data~~ Notes =====		===== Inspector's Notes =====
	* Election Officials explained REWEB and REGIS systems were web servers that host "record.maricopa.gov" and the internet connectivity is legitimate.		* Election Officials explained REWEB and REGIS systems were web servers that host "record.maricopa.gov" and the internet connectivity is legitimate.
	* The REWEB and REGIS systems do not connect to the EMS.		* The REWEB and REGIS systems do not connect to the EMS.
	* Walkdowns confirm the existence of an air gap system.		* Walkdowns confirm the existence of an air gap system.

	===== Findings =====		===== Inspector's Findings =====
	* Unfounded Allegation. Upon review of this section and applicable data known thus far, there is no further analysis that can likely be done as it relates to internet connectivity. Of the devices reviewed by Cyber Ninjas, they articulate a need to review the "routers" in order to determine if internet connectivity did in fact occur. Additionally, with the lack of log files, they cannot review information related to potential internet connections.		* Unfounded Allegation. Upon review of this section and applicable data known thus far, there is no further analysis that can likely be done as it relates to internet connectivity. Of the devices reviewed by Cyber Ninjas, they articulate a need to review the "routers" in order to determine if internet connectivity did in fact occur. Additionally, with the lack of log files, they cannot review information related to potential internet connections.

			=== Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for audit ===
			*
	*		*

Neil thibodaux: /* Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS */

2026-08-30T02:18:33Z

Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connections to the EMS

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:18, 29 August 2026
Line 264:		Line 264:

	===== Data Notes =====		===== Data Notes =====
	* ~~AddLevel I Signature Verifiers are expected~~ to ~~complete~~ an ~~early ballot verification at a rate of one ballot per 7~~.~~2 second (250 ballots per 30 minutes)~~		* Election Officials explained REWEB and REGIS systems were web servers that host "record.maricopa.gov" and the internet connectivity is legitimate.
			* The REWEB and REGIS systems do not connect to the EMS.
			* Walkdowns confirm the existence of an air gap system.

	===== Findings =====		===== Findings =====
	* ~~The A~~		* Unfounded Allegation. Upon review of this section and applicable data known thus far, there is no further analysis that can likely be done as it relates to internet connectivity. Of the devices reviewed by Cyber Ninjas, they articulate a need to review the "routers" in order to determine if internet connectivity did in fact occur. Additionally, with the lack of log files, they cannot review information related to potential internet connections.

	~~===== Hypothetical Questions for~~ the ~~Inspector =====~~
	*		*