MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted: Difference between revisions

From Corrective Action Plan AZ
← Older edit

Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
2,035 edits
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:
* List of [[The Anomalies|Election Anomalies]]
** [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Inspector's report of Arizona Senate of Allegations]
*** Allegation [[Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)|#3: Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management System]]----[Click for [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Allegation #2]] or Allegation #4]
**** Sub-allegation '''#2 - Election Files Deleted''' ---- [Click for [[MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged|Sub-allegation #1]] or [[MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images|<nowiki>Sub-allegation #3]</nowiki>]]
This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management System anomalies. These were investigated by the Arizona 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 #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management System anomalies. These were investigated by the Arizona 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 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 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.
=== [[Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)]] ===
Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues.
==== MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted ====
Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.
===== Allegation =====
The Master File Table (MFT) of the drives, and a large number of files on the Election Management System (EMS) Server, and on the HiPro Scanner machines were allegedly deleted. This allegation originated with Cyber Ninjas. The deleted files included ballot images, election related databases, results files, and log files.
===== <u>Relevant Inspector Notes</u> =====
* Central count tabulation stations are comprised of a computer and scanner.
* Data files are shared/transferred over the local network to the EMS server. 
* Data files are removed from the tabulation stations when data space (memory) on the computer begins to get full.
* Since these files are not associated to the tabulation files stored on the EMS server, they are not backed-up or archived.
* February 2, 2021 - Standard archive steps were taken for the EMS server and Tabulation Stations were prepared for a March 2021 election.
* February 2 -12, 2021 - Pro V&V and SLI conducted audits on election equipment.
* February 11, 2021 - Election staff prepared the EMS server and other for a scheduled audit certification.
* March 3, 2021 - Election staff gathered subpoenaed ballot images from archive.
* April 12, 2021 - Election staff prepared EMS server and other election equipment for subpoena delivery.
===== <u>Inspector's Finding</u> =====
'''Indeterminate -''' Agents are pending a date to review archived data to ensure all election files are present.
===== <u>Governance Gaps Assessment</u> =====
* As of the winter of 2021, all of the election files were still not available for inspection by the AZ AG's inspectors, after more than one year had elapsed since the General Election of 2121.
* The report states follow up is needed but does not identify any one person accountable for the follow up. This issue remains unresolved based on the contents.
* The AZ AG's inspector description of files lacked specificity. It's difficult to understand the consequences to sensitive files when terms like "data files" and "these files" are being used without knowing how they related to vote tabulation.
=== Potential Governance Gap(s): ===
* Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
** Attribute(s): [[1.01]], [[1.02]], [[1.04]], [[1.05]], [[1.08]]
* Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
** Attribute(s): [[2.01]]
* Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
** Attribute(s): [[3.09]], [[3.10]]
* 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): [[7.05]], [[7.06]], [[7.09]], [[7.15]]
* Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
** Attribute(s): [[8.01]], [[8.02]], [[8.03]], [[8.04]], [[8.05]], [[8.06]], [[8.10]], [[8.14]], [[8.15]]
* Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
** Attribute(s):
* Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
** Attribute(s): [[10.01]], [[10.18]], [[10.19]]
* Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
** Attribute(s): [[11.02]], [[11.07]], [[11.09]], [[11.10]], [[11.11]]
* Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
** Attribute(s): [[12.01]], [[12.02]], [[12.03]]
* Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
** Attribute(s):
* Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
** Attribute(s):
* Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
** Attribute(s): [[15.02]], [[15.09]]
* Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
** Attribute(s): [[16.09]], [[16.10]]
* Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
** Attribute(s): [[17.01]], [[17.02]], [[17.03]], [[17.04]], [[17.05]], [[17.06]], [[17.08]]

Latest revision as of 12:19, 31 August 2026

In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:

This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management System anomalies. These were investigated by the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation Report. This topic is listed on 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 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.

Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)

Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues.

MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted

Governance gaps were identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations #3 Maricopa County Election Department - Election Management Server (EMS) issues, which consisted of ten separate allegations. MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged is an assessment of one of the ten sub-allegations associated with the EMS.

Allegation

The Master File Table (MFT) of the drives, and a large number of files on the Election Management System (EMS) Server, and on the HiPro Scanner machines were allegedly deleted. This allegation originated with Cyber Ninjas. The deleted files included ballot images, election related databases, results files, and log files.

Relevant Inspector Notes
  • Central count tabulation stations are comprised of a computer and scanner.
  • Data files are shared/transferred over the local network to the EMS server. 
  • Data files are removed from the tabulation stations when data space (memory) on the computer begins to get full.
  • Since these files are not associated to the tabulation files stored on the EMS server, they are not backed-up or archived.
  • February 2, 2021 - Standard archive steps were taken for the EMS server and Tabulation Stations were prepared for a March 2021 election.
  • February 2 -12, 2021 - Pro V&V and SLI conducted audits on election equipment.
  • February 11, 2021 - Election staff prepared the EMS server and other for a scheduled audit certification.
  • March 3, 2021 - Election staff gathered subpoenaed ballot images from archive.
  • April 12, 2021 - Election staff prepared EMS server and other election equipment for subpoena delivery.
Inspector's Finding

Indeterminate - Agents are pending a date to review archived data to ensure all election files are present.

Governance Gaps Assessment
  • As of the winter of 2021, all of the election files were still not available for inspection by the AZ AG's inspectors, after more than one year had elapsed since the General Election of 2121.
  • The report states follow up is needed but does not identify any one person accountable for the follow up. This issue remains unresolved based on the contents.
  • The AZ AG's inspector description of files lacked specificity. It's difficult to understand the consequences to sensitive files when terms like "data files" and "these files" are being used without knowing how they related to vote tabulation.

Potential Governance Gap(s):

  • Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
  • Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
  • Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
  • 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
  • Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
  • Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
  • Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
  • Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
  • Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
    • Attribute(s):
  • Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
  • Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
  • Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=MC_EMS_2020_-_Election_Files_Deleted&oldid=2064"