Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (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
 
(5 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
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 #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud'''----
*** '''Allegation #6: Unknown Published Flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud'''----
**** [Click for [[Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)|Allegation #5]] or Allegation #7]
**** [Click for [[Pima County voter spike prior to 2020 General Election|Allegation #5]] or [[Pima County Embedded 35,000 Votes (2020)|Allegation #7]]]


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 #6 Unknown published flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud. 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 #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 #5 - Pima County Election Department -- Voter spike prior to 2020 General Election ====
==== Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #1 ====
Pima County had a 90% voter increase reported in some precincts during the 2020 General Election.
More ballots were counted/reported by precincts than the number of people that showed up to vote: 1,551 more.


==== Investigators Notes ====
===== 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.


* According to US Census Bureau, the population for Pima County on April 1, 2020 was 1,043,433
==== Allegation #6: Sub-allegation #8 ====
** 772,140 were of legal voting age, which is 74%
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.


* According to the voter statistics from the Arizona Secretary of State official 2020 Canvas for Pima County:
==== Investigators Notes ====
** 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 ====
*No corroborating evidence was found.
'''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.
* 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 ===
=== 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.
There were no observations that related to poor governance identified within this allegation.


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

Latest revision as of 18:39, 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

This page seeks to explain potential governance gaps with respect to allegations from the Arizona Senate, specifically for allegation #6 Unknown published flyer - Numerous allegations of election fraud. 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 #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.
  • 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.
  • 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, 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 governance gaps were identified.

Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=Unknown_Published_Election_Fraud_Flyer_(2020)&oldid=2168"