Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020): Difference between revisions

From Corrective Action Plan AZ
← Older edit

Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
2,035 edits
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(7 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
* List of [[The Anomalies|Election Anomalies]]
* List of [[The Anomalies|Election Anomalies]]
** 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 #7: Representative Mark Finchem - 35,000 votes embedded into Pima County'''----
**** [Click for [[Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Withholding Audit Data (2020)|Allegation #4]] or Allegation #6]
**** [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 #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 #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.
''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 #7 ==
Meeting held by Pima County Democrats (Voter Fraud Planning meeting) 35,000 votes were embedded into Pima County election system.


==== Allegation #5 - Pima County Election Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election ====
This allegation originated form emails sent to Arizona State Representative Mark Finchem on November 10 & 12 2020 from brianwatson70002@gmail.com.
Pima County had a 90% voter increase reported in some precincts during the 2020 General Election.  


==== Investigators Notes ====
==== Investigator's Notes ====
* The investigators were unable to locate the person that wrote the email.


*
==== Noteworthy Observations ====
 
There were no observations that related to poor governance identified within this allegation.
==== Report Finding ====
 
=== Noteworthy Observations ===
 
==== Observation #1 - ====
 
*
 
==== Observation #1 - ====


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

Latest revision as of 18:38, 1 September 2026

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

  • List of 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----

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 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.

Allegation #7

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.

Investigator's Notes

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

Noteworthy Observations

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

Potential Governance Gaps:

No potential governance gaps were identified.

Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Pima_County_Embedded_35,000_Votes_(2020)&oldid=2167"