Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020) - Revision history

Neil thibodaux: /* Potential Governance Gaps: */

2026-09-02T01:38:37Z

Potential Governance Gaps:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:38, 1 September 2026
Line 16:		Line 16:
	This allegation originated form emails sent to Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem on November 10 & 12 2020 from brianwatson70002@gmail.com.		This allegation originated form emails sent to Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem on November 10 & 12 2020 from brianwatson70002@gmail.com.

	===== Investigator's Notes =====		==== Investigator's Notes ====

	* The investigators were unable to locate the person that wrote the email.		* The investigators were unable to locate the person that wrote the email.

	=== Noteworthy Observations ===		==== Noteworthy Observations ====
	There were no observations that related to poor governance identified within this allegation.		There were no observations that related to poor governance identified within this allegation.

	=== Potential Governance Gaps: ===		=== Potential Governance Gaps: ===
	No potential gaps were identified.		No potential governance gaps were identified.

Neil thibodaux: /* Allegation #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud */

2026-09-02T01:37:42Z

Allegation #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
   The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.
-== Allegation #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud ==
+== Allegation #7 ==
-This Allegation was comprised of eight sub-allegations. All of the sub-allegations were determined to be unfounded. Still, this assessment sought information related to county-related governance gaps.
+Meeting held by Pima County Democrats (Voter Fraud Planning meeting) 35,000 votes were embedded into Pima County election system.
-==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #1 ====
+This allegation originated form emails sent to Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem on November 10 & 12 2020 from brianwatson70002@gmail.com.
 ===== Investigator's Notes =====
-* This can be explained by the curing process. This was explained in in the AZ AGs report and in this assessment in Allegation #1, [[Signature Verification|Signature Verification.]]
+* The investigators were unable to locate the person that wrote the email.
 === Noteworthy Observations ===

Neil thibodaux at 01:26, 2 September 2026

2026-09-02T01:26:49Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:26, 1 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~xxx~~		In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:

			* List of [[The Anomalies\|Election Anomalies]]
			** Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations
			*** '''Allegation #7: Representative Mark Finchem - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County'''----
			**** [Click for [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Allegation #6]]]

			This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #7: Representative Mark Finchem - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County. These were investigated by the A[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf rizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report.] This topic is listed on [[The Anomalies\|'''Election Anomalies''']] page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.

			''Governance Gaps'' are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government''] (also known as the ''Green Book'') because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution.
			The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

			== Allegation #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud ==
			This Allegation was comprised of eight sub-allegations. All of the sub-allegations were determined to be unfounded. Still, this assessment sought information related to county-related governance gaps.

			==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #1 ====
			More ballots were counted/reported by precincts than the number of people that showed up to vote: 1,551 more.

			===== Investigators Notes =====

			* No notes related to governance.

			==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #2 ====
			464 ballots with no signatures at all were counted by election officials.

			===== Investigator's Notes =====

			* This can be explained by the curing process. This was explained in in the AZ AGs report and in this assessment in Allegation #1, [[Signature Verification\|Signature Verification.]]
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #3 ====
			17,126 voters fraudulently mailed two or more ballots discovered by auditor Dr. Shiva.

			===== Investigators Notes =====

			* This can be explained by the curing process. This was explained in in the AZ AGs report and in this assessment in Allegation #1, [[Signature Verification\|Signature Verification.]]
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #4 ====
			Cyber Ninjas found 2,431 ballots duplicated an extra time by staff, during the course of procedural duplication of damaged ballots.

			===== Investigators Notes =====

			* No corroborating evidence was found.
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6: Sub-allegation #5 ====
			23,344 voters illegally voted via mail-in ballot even though they moved away before the October 5th cut-off.

			===== Investigator Notes =====

			* No corroborating evidence was found.
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #6 ====
			2,382 voters who had moved out of Maricopa County showed up and voted in person.

			===== Investigators Notes =====

			* No corroborating evidence was found.
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6: Sub-allegation #7 ====
			282 dead people voted by mail.

			===== Investigators Notes =====

			* No corroborating evidence was found.
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			==== Allegation #6: Sub-allegation #8 ====
			86,391 ballots from voters who have no record of existing. Not only do they not live in Maricopa County, there is no Social Security Number or record of their existence anywhere.

			==== Investigators Notes ====

			* No corroborating evidence was found.
			* Attributes of poor governance were not revealed in any inspector notes.

			Note: There is an investigative inconsistency noted in the inspector's addressing of this allegation when compared to Allegation #2, [[Dropbox Collection (2020)\|Drop Box Collection]]. In that section of the report, the USPS inspector reports 56,226 early ballots were undeliverable, which is a voter registration form with a fictitious address. These undeliverable early ballots with fictitious addresses should have been reviewed to determine if they also contained fictitious people.

			=== Noteworthy Observations ===
			There were no observations that related to poor governance identified within this allegation.

			=== Potential Governance Gaps: ===
			No potential gaps were identified.

Neil thibodaux at 01:20, 2 September 2026

2026-09-02T01:20:41Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 18:20, 1 September 2026
Line 1:	Line 1:
		xxx

Neil thibodaux: /* Potential Governance Gaps: */

2026-09-02T01:14:32Z

Potential Governance Gaps:

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:14, 1 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:~~

	* List of [[The Anomalies\|Election Anomalies]]
	** Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations
	*** '''Allegation #5: Pima County Elections Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election'''----
	**** [Click for [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Withholding Audit Data (2020)\|Allegation #4]] or [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Allegation #6]]]

	This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #4 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for election audit. These were investigated by the A[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf rizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report.] This topic is listed on [[The Anomalies\|'''Election Anomalies''']] page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.

	''Governance Gaps'' are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government''] (also known as the ''Green Book'') because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution.
	The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

	~~=== AZ AG's Report Contents ===~~

	~~==== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election ====~~
	~~Pima County had a 90% voter increase reported in some precincts during the 2020 General Election.~~

	~~==== Investigators 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.

	~~==== Report Finding ====~~
	'''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.

	~~=== Noteworthy Observations ===~~
	There are no noteworthy observations. The investigation of this allegation did not reveal any Pima County behaviors or actions that could be used to assess governance. The one description of the Pima County Recorder's letter was simply reporting data, no internal control attributes were noted.

	~~=== Potential Governance Gaps: ===~~
	~~No potential governance gaps were identified given the absence of any deviation or noteworthy observations relevant to internal controls.~~

Neil thibodaux at 22:34, 1 September 2026

2026-09-01T22:34:31Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:34, 1 September 2026
Line 4:		Line 4:
	** Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations		** Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations
	*** '''Allegation #5: Pima County Elections Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election'''----		*** '''Allegation #5: Pima County Elections Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election'''----
	**** [Click for [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Withholding Audit Data (2020)\|Allegation #4]] or Allegation #6]		**** [Click for [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Withholding Audit Data (2020)\|Allegation #4]] or [[Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)\|Allegation #6]]]

	This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #4 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for election audit. These were investigated by the A[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf rizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report.] This topic is listed on [[The Anomalies\|'''Election Anomalies''']] page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.		This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #4 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for election audit. These were investigated by the A[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf rizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report.] This topic is listed on [[The Anomalies\|'''Election Anomalies''']] page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.

Neil thibodaux: /* Investigators Notes */

2026-09-01T22:32:26Z

Investigators Notes

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:32, 1 September 2026
Line 40:		Line 40:

	==== Report Finding ====		==== Report Finding ====
	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.		'''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.

	=== Noteworthy Observations ===		=== Noteworthy Observations ===

Neil thibodaux: /* Investigators Notes */

2026-09-01T22:25:24Z

Investigators Notes

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 ==== Investigators Notes ====
+*According to US Census Bureau, the population for Pima County on April 1, 2020 was 1,043,433
 ==== Report Finding ====
 === Noteworthy Observations ===
+There are no noteworthy observations. The investigation of this allegation did not reveal any Pima County behaviors or actions that could be used to assess governance. The one description of the Pima County Recorder's letter was simply reporting data, no internal control attributes were noted.
 === Potential Governance Gaps: ===
+No potential governance gaps were identified given the absence of any deviation or noteworthy observations relevant to internal controls.

Neil thibodaux at 21:17, 1 September 2026

2026-09-01T21:17:39Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:17, 1 September 2026
Line 10:		Line 10:
	''Governance Gaps'' are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government''] (also known as the ''Green Book'') because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution.		''Governance Gaps'' are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government''] (also known as the ''Green Book'') because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution.
	The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.		The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

			=== AZ AG's Report Contents ===

			==== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election ====
			Pima County had a 90% voter increase reported in some precincts during the 2020 General Election.

			==== Investigators Notes ====

			*

			==== Report Finding ====

			=== Noteworthy Observations ===

			==== Observation #1 - ====

			*

			==== Observation #1 - ====

			=== Potential Governance Gaps: ===

			* Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
			** Attribute(s): [[1.01]], [[1.02]], [[1.03]], [[1.04]], [[1.05]], [[1.06]], [[1.08]]
			* Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
			** Attribute(s): [[2.01]]
			* Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
			** Attribute(s):
			* Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
			** Attribute(s):

Neil thibodaux at 21:12, 1 September 2026

2026-09-01T21:12:36Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:12, 1 September 2026
Line 1:		Line 1:
	x		In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:

	x		* List of [[The Anomalies\|Election Anomalies]]
			** Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations
			*** '''Allegation #5: Pima County Elections Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election'''----
			**** [Click for [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Withholding Audit Data (2020)\|Allegation #4]] or Allegation #6]

			This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #4 Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - Data not provided for election audit. These were investigated by the A[https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf rizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report.] This topic is listed on [[The Anomalies\|'''Election Anomalies''']] page, which lists various election-related anomalies that illustrate poor governance.

			''Governance Gaps'' are reported on and compared to a standard so that you may visualize how poorly managed County services can have an adverse impact without any criminal wrongdoing. We chose the [https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107721.pdf United States Government Accountability Office's (GAO) ''Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government''] (also known as the ''Green Book'') because it represents the ideal standard for governance practices since it is specifically written for government entities, not the business sector. Maricopa County has no obligation or commitments to adhere to any governance-related standards, including the Green Book. Regardless, the Green Book is a representation of what good governance looks like and deviations from that standard are worthy of consideration, not prosecution.
			The Governance Gap Assessment Team are not IT security experts. The technical aspects of the IT configuration are not being disputed. The assessment for governance gaps sought to understand how data and information was being treated with respect to the US GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.