2.01: Difference between revisions

From Arizona Citizen Voice
← Older edit

Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
2,850 edits
VisualWikitext
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 22: Line 22:


=== Jamie's Story ===
=== Jamie's Story ===
No examples are available to illustrate governance gaps for this attribute.


=== Election Anomalies ===
==== [[2021: My Journey Begins]] ====
I directed questions to the Maricopa County Recorder, expecting a response since this is an elected position. I incorrectly assumed that elected officials would be interested in addressing citizen concerns. There was a brief interface between me and the Maricopa County Recorder. However, there was no response to my inquiries. I also receive no responses from the Arizona Secretary of State, who provides oversight to all Arizona County elections. 


==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====
==== [[November 2022: Mid-term Election]] ====
Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for all county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 2.01, Katie Hobbs oversight was ineffective. 
 
==== [[November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation]] ====
Debbie Lesko provides an oversight role as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS). Her presentation of why two boxes of ballots could not be located for three days following a November 2025 election parroted the [https://elections.maricopa.gov/news-and-information/elections-news/november-statement-election-1172025.html Election's Department statement]from November 7, 2025. She seemed to be accepting of people not following procedures to place the boxes of ballots in an unauthorized location for transport and how fortuitous it was that they had coincidently been stored in an area with 24-hour surveillance. Hence, a person in an oversight role did not see the need to investigate the incident for the purpose of determining corrective actions to prevent recurrence.
 
==== [[June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies]] ====
Maricopa County's Ombudsman are unable to effectively provide oversight. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. The Arizona Ombudsmen Citizens' Aide (ACOCA) has an effective ombudsman program. Maricopa County Ombudsmen lack the independence to provide effective oversight.
 
==== [[June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies]] ====
The Maricopa County Ombudsman was not fulfilling the expected Ombudsman to listen to citizen issues and conduct an independent investigation accordingly. In this case, the Ombudsman read remail, referred the request to another department and informed Jamie of the action she had taken. The Ombudsman was apparently not required to investigate potential gaps in internal controls.
 
=== [https://elections.maricopa.gov/news-and-information/elections-news/november-statement-election-1172025.html Election Anomalies] ===
 
==== [[Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation]] ====
This Green Book Attribute 2.01 calls for the involvement of oversight. Contrary to this attribute, MC did not believe the Arizona Senate was entitled to oversee the election-related anomalies.  Arizona Senate allegations arose from a failure to recognize the Arizona Senates Oversight Role. These allegations were investigated and reported on by 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]. The elected officials were considered as a possible oversight entity for MC operations.
This Green Book Attribute 2.01 calls for the involvement of oversight. Contrary to this attribute, MC did not believe the Arizona Senate was entitled to oversee the election-related anomalies.  Arizona Senate allegations arose from a failure to recognize the Arizona Senates Oversight Role. These allegations were investigated and reported on by 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]. The elected officials were considered as a possible oversight entity for MC operations.


Line 51: Line 65:
* Allegation #4, [[The Anomalies#Maricopa County Withholding Audit Data (2020)|Maricopa County Withholding Audit Data (2020)]]
* Allegation #4, [[The Anomalies#Maricopa County Withholding Audit Data (2020)|Maricopa County Withholding Audit Data (2020)]]
** The uncooperative tone is clearly displayed by the MCBOS and MCBOS member Bill Gates.
** The uncooperative tone is clearly displayed by the MCBOS and MCBOS member Bill Gates.
* Allegation #5, [[The Anomalies#Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)|Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)]]
* Allegation #6, [[The Anomalies#Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)|Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020)]]
==== Arizona Senate Allegations ====
As already noted in Green Book Attribute [[1.01]] and [[1.02]], Arizona Senate allegations arose from a 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. The elected officials were considered as a possible oversight entity for MC operations. In this case, MC Elected Officials and MC leadership were apparently aligned with the position that the Arizona Senate was not entitled to perform oversight. No oversight entity has been identified.
* [[The Anomalies#Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)|Maricopa Election Management Server (2020)]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged|MC EMS 2020 - Election Management System Database Purged]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted|MC EMS 2020 - Election Files Deleted]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images|MC EMS 2020 - Corrupt Ballot Images]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images|MC EMS 2020 - Missing Ballot Images]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices|MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided|MC EMS 2020 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Yet Provided]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins|MC EMS 2020 - Anonymous Logins]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered|MC EMS 2020 - Dual Boot System Discovered]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved|MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved]]
** [[The Anomalies#MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS|MC EMS 2020 - Internet Connections to the EMS]]
==== [[Dropbox Collection (2020)]] ====
There appears to be no independent oversight of Dropbox Collection activities. The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation] report did not reference any oversight entities during its investigation of issue #2, Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections. In the absence of formal documentation for internal oversight, this potential governance gap was rolled up to this Attribute 2.01, which is an overview of Principle 2. 
This allegation of drop-box issues was raised by the Arizona Senate in 2021, which indicate MC was not adequately responding to regulators in their oversight role.
The Arizona Senate was alerted to documentation discrepancies by Verity the Vote, which was lead by two citizens. Maricopa was unable to resolve issues raised by members of the public, which is why they took their concerns to the Arizona Senate for follow up.
The AZ AG's inspector did not mention any oversight bodies or entities in the report.
==== [[Signature Verification|Signature Verification (2020)]] ====
There appears to be no independent oversight of Dropbox Collection activities. The [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office's 2020 General Election Investigation] report did not reference any oversight entities during its investigation of issue #1, Maricopa County Elections Department - Signature Verification Process. In the absence of formal documentation for internal oversight, this potential governance gap was rolled up to this Attribute 2.01, which is an overview of Principle 2.
For clarification, the Arizona Attorney General's Office is not considered an oversight entity. Their purpose was to investigate for criminal activities. Hence, many of the open items in their report were left unresolved because the issues were noteworthy investigative facts but did not identify a crime.


No entity was identified as having an oversight body for MC Election Department activities associated with signature verification anomalies. The investigation confirmed procedure violations. However, the causes for these procedure violations may still exist in the absence of an oversight entity or documentation within a Corrective Action Plan Process.
==== [[2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens]] ====
There does not appear to have been any oversight of this issue. This issue was not addressed by [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] or the Arizona Secretary of State, which is officially responsible for overseeing elections administered by Arizona Counties, including Maricopa County.

Latest revision as of 12:50, 15 September 2026

Control Environment

Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility

Attribute 2.01 - The oversight body should oversee the entity's internal control system.

Attribute Categories:

The following attributes contribute to the design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of this principle:

  • Oversight Structure
  • Oversight for the Internal Control System
  • Input for Remediation of Deficiencies

***

Navigational Buttons:

Jamie's Story

2021: My Journey Begins

I directed questions to the Maricopa County Recorder, expecting a response since this is an elected position. I incorrectly assumed that elected officials would be interested in addressing citizen concerns. There was a brief interface between me and the Maricopa County Recorder. However, there was no response to my inquiries. I also receive no responses from the Arizona Secretary of State, who provides oversight to all Arizona County elections.

November 2022: Mid-term Election

Katie Hobbs was serving as the Arizona Secretary of State while running for Arizona Governor during the 2022 Mid-term elections. Katie was serving an oversight role for all county elections as the Arizona Secretary of State. Relevant to this Green Book Attribute 2.01, Katie Hobbs oversight was ineffective.

November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation

Debbie Lesko provides an oversight role as a member of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS). Her presentation of why two boxes of ballots could not be located for three days following a November 2025 election parroted the Election's Department statementfrom November 7, 2025. She seemed to be accepting of people not following procedures to place the boxes of ballots in an unauthorized location for transport and how fortuitous it was that they had coincidently been stored in an area with 24-hour surveillance. Hence, a person in an oversight role did not see the need to investigate the incident for the purpose of determining corrective actions to prevent recurrence.

June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies

Maricopa County's Ombudsman are unable to effectively provide oversight. Maricopa County has job positions with Ombudsman in the title. However, Maricopa County Ombudsmen 1) are not trained as Ombudsman, 2) are not operating within an internationally recognized process for Ombudsman, and do not have their independence legally established by statute or county ordinance. The Arizona Ombudsmen Citizens' Aide (ACOCA) has an effective ombudsman program. Maricopa County Ombudsmen lack the independence to provide effective oversight.

June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies

The Maricopa County Ombudsman was not fulfilling the expected Ombudsman to listen to citizen issues and conduct an independent investigation accordingly. In this case, the Ombudsman read remail, referred the request to another department and informed Jamie of the action she had taken. The Ombudsman was apparently not required to investigate potential gaps in internal controls.

Election Anomalies

Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 Election Investigation

This Green Book Attribute 2.01 calls for the involvement of oversight. Contrary to this attribute, MC did not believe the Arizona Senate was entitled to oversee the election-related anomalies. Arizona Senate allegations arose from a 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. The elected officials were considered as a possible oversight entity for MC operations.

This potential deviation from the Green Book standard applies to the following Arizona Senate Allegations:

All of the following are sub-allegations of Allegation #3:

2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens

There does not appear to have been any oversight of this issue. This issue was not addressed by Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation or the Arizona Secretary of State, which is officially responsible for overseeing elections administered by Arizona Counties, including Maricopa County.

Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=2.01&oldid=3073"