16.10

Monitoring

Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities

Attribute 16.10 - Management identifies changes in the internal control system that either have occurred or are needed because of changes in the entity and its environment. External parties can also help management identify issues in the internal control system. For example, complaints from the public, regulator comments, and findings from investigations may indicate areas in the internal control system that need improvement. Other external parties that interact with the entity, including relevant suppliers, contractors, and service organizations, may collaborate with management to identify and respond to issues in the entity's business processes and related internal controls. Management considers whether current controls address the identified issues and modifies controls if necessary.

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<

• Index of Attributes
• Previous Attribute - 16.09
• Next Attribute - 17.01

Jamie's Story

June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies

Ombudsman investigations could be utilized as a separate evaluation per this Attribute. However, Maricopa County's Ombudsman program is deficient to Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide (AZOCA) agency. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen do not have the organizational independence to effectively perform their expected duties of an Ombudsman as defined by internationally recognized organizations for Ombudsmen programs.

Election Anomalies

Arizona Senate Allegations

Arizona Senate allegations arose from MC's failure to recognize the Arizona Senates Oversight Role. These allegations were investigated and reported on by the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.

This Green Book Attribute states, "External parties can also help management identify issues in the internal control system. For example, complaints from the public, regulator comments, and findings from investigations may indicate areas in the internal control system that need improvement."

MC leadership did not address citizen concerns about election-related anomalies, which were elevated to the Arizona Senate. MC leadership continued the uncooperative behavior with the Arizona Senate, which ultimately resulted in the following allegations.

• Maricopa Signature Verification (2020)
• Maricopa Drop Box (2020)

• Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)
  • MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged
  • MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted
  • MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images
  • MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images
  • MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices
  • MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided
  • MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins
  • MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered
  • MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
  • MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS

Maricopa County Directs the Use of Sharpie Pens

Using email, the Elections Department, Assistant Director of Recruitment and Training suspended the practice of handing out Sharpie Markers to in-person early voters on October 22 after issues were identified. However, the Assistant Director also directed that Sharpie Markers be handed to in-person voters on Election Day. As a change, Maricopa County apparently decided to direct voters to fill in ballot with a Sharpie Marker with known issues and concerns instead of using a ballpoint pen as had always been done in prior elections. Whether or not this change had an impact on the election results is debatable. For whatever reason Maricopa thought it important to use Sharpie Marker during the 2020 election, they have not passed out Sharpie Markers in subsequent elections. More importantly, there was no testing performed to verify ballots filled in with Sharpie Markers had the same degree of accuracy, or better, than those ballots filled in with ballpoint pens.

• Maricopa County Leader directed the use of Sharpie Markers on Election Day contrary to their acknowledgement of issues arising from the use of Sharpie Markers, which had occurred prior to October 22, 2020. Maricopa County Leader asked personnel to stop using Sharpie Markers and use Ballpoint Pens until the Election Day in an apparent attempt to prevent premature escalation of the issue until after the election.
• Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The inspectors were informed of issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers. Yet, the email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day after issues and concerns with the use of Sharpie Pens had been identified. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been ensuring secure elections apparently complied with the request to distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers. The Maricopa County Leader seeks to ensure everyone is passing out Sharpie Markers contrary to the ballot instructions. Everyone is alerted to issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers, but apparently no one questioned their extensive use on Election Day. This email message was delivered by the Elections Department Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training. In this case, numerous temporary workers are hired for a short period of time, for the single purpose of supporting an election. The Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training would have been more influential to newly hired temporary workers. It seems odd that a staff management position (i.e., Training) would be communicating a line management decision, or what should be a line management decision.
• An investigation into 2022 Mid-term election anomalies confirmed that Sharpie Markers bled through some ballots, which would be consistent with the reports of "issues and concerns" identified with the use of Sharpie Markers before October 22, 2020.
• As Maricopa County tells the story, they were concerned about long lines at voting centers. Their story goes on to attribute ballot tabulator fouling as the cause of long lines; delays and long lines occurred when voting stopped to clean the tabulators. They attributed fouling of the ballot tabulator to the wet ink from ballpoint pens being transferred to the tabulator. Their solution was to distribute Sharpie Markers at the Voting Centers to the voters; Sharpie ink apparently dries faster than ballpoint pen ink. The problem with their story is that it sounds more like an excuse than a plan. If any part of their story had been documented, which showed a thoughtful investigation, then most of the public's suspicions of foul play even would have been resolved, even if the corrective action to use Sharpie Markers was wrong.