Interesting Takeaways

Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.

---

This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.

You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; -- Interesting Takeaways

These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.

56,226 Fictitious Addresses

There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector as presented in a report by the Arizona Attorney General's inspector.

These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.

For more details,

• see Allegation #2 Dropbox Collection (2020), Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database

86,391 Fictitious People

In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. 

The inspector conducting the AZ AG's investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a "belief" that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at their list of 86,391 was not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors.

Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a belief with using their tools as objective evidence to support or refute the allegation.

Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS.

A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation.

For more details,

• see Allegation #6 Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020), Sub-allegation #8
• see Allegation #2 Dropbox Collection (2020), Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database

Who is Watching the Hen House

Effective oversight of Maricopa County cannot be achieved by the Arizona Senate, Arizona Attorney General's Office, Arizona Secretary of State, Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, Maricopa County Ombudsman, Judiciary branch or the public when considering the following:

Arizona Senate tried to provide oversight of Maricopa Counties 2020 election anomalies but had to summit subpoenas to Maricopa County after they refused to cooperate with the Senate in their oversight role. Eventually, the Arizona Senate referred allegations of malicious or criminal activities to the Arizona Attorney General's Office after Maricopa continued their uncooperative practices with the Arizona Senate as explained on the cover page of the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation.

The Inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office relied on personal belief instead of objective evidence to discredit an Arizona Senate allegation of 86,391 fictitious voters on the Maricopa County Voter Registration rolls. In this case, the inspector simply discredited the accuracy and reliability of the commercially available databases used to identify the 86,391 fictitious people in the allegation; the inspector did not use his superior database to check a single person on a list of 86.391. Other examples of inadequate investigative strategies are contained in the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation under Allegation #6, Sub-allegation #8.

The Arizona Secretary of State did not independently investigate the 2020 election anomalies; there are publicly accessible examples of the Arizona Secretary of State parroting the Maricopa positions. Some of the 2020 election anomalies recurred in 2022, 2024 and 2025. Meanwhile, the Office of the Arizona Secretary of State Report on the Partisan Review of the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County goes on record with the following: "outlandish, unsubstantiated theories of fraud, perpetuating disinformation that continues to simultaneously undermine the results of a free and fair election and erode public confidence in the democratic process."

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) should be performing oversight as elected officials. However, the MCBOS was the entity contesting Arizona Senate's role to perform oversight.

The Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide is prevented from providing county oversight because of jurisdictional constraints defined in Arizona Revised Statutes.

The Maricopa Ombudsmen are not trained to the standards of the United States Ombudsman Association (USOA), do not have the support structure or independence to conduct oversight in accordance with the Model Act, which is endorsed by the USOA and the Coalition of Federal Ombudsmen (COFO).

In Jamie's special complaint against MC, the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The County is only required to create and retain documentation specified in Arizona Revised Statutes; they are not required to create and retain documentation for internal controls. How can Maricopa County be held accountable in other court proceeding for wrongdoing without documentation as objective evidence?

Citizens are allowed two-minutes to present their issues to the MCBOS at their monthly meetings. Did it take you more than two minutes to read this summary of oversight gaps? How effective would that presentation be when MCBOS has repeatedly blocked and/or litigated against other entities seeking answers to questions about fraud or internal controls. Recently, the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation seized evidence that was being withheld from them. 

Citizens may request an agenda item at the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to have more than two-minutes to present a request to the board, which Jamie pursued. Jamie's request was denied in September 2026 and she was referred to the County Ombudsman, which had already deferred Jamie's concerns to another county department without taking ownership of the issue. 

So, who is Maricopa County accountable to if all entities and structures intended for oversight are ineffective? Is it all for show?

Catch-22 for Governance

catch-22 (noun): a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions 

This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested.

Judge's final decision acknowledged Jamie's pursuit of accountability and controls for Maricopa County.

The Judge's final decision also acknowledged that Maricopa County has under no legal obligation to maintain the records Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.

This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling.

• On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.
• On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.  

Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. .

• For additional details, see June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision, Catch-22 for Governance.

587 "bad signatures"

During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. 

The following information will put this in perspective:

• 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.
• 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having no signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.
• 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)

In summary,

• 16,539 (0.87%) early ballots were rejected for no signature, No signature is the easiest decision to make for a Level 1 Signature Verifier because its binary; is there a mark within the signature block on the envelope, yes or no?
• 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because the decision is qualitative, five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute (A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G).

Common sense would suggest that a higher number a higher number of early ballots should be rejected based on the more difficult qualitative decision than the easier binary decision. This discrepancy did not concern the Arizona Attorney General's Inspector, who was investigating allegation of malicious or criminal behavior as referred to by the Arizona Senate.

• For additional details, see Gov. Examples, Signature Verification
• To learn more about Signature Verification, visit an external website, The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show

7.2 Second Barrier to Fraud

"According to Mr. Ray Valenzuela, Director of Elections, Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot).

By law, A.R.S. 16-550.01, paragraph G,the signature verifiers is required to compare five signature attributes between the signature applied to the early ballot and the signature applied when registering to become a voter (i.e., the signature of record within the voter registration database).

According to Maricopa Leadership, the Level I Signature Verifier should maintain a pace of one early ballot every 7.2 seconds.

Can a Level 1 Signature Verifier be expected to compare the statutory requirements for five signature attributes at pace of one ballot every 7.2 seconds for an eight-hour day?

• For additional details, see Gov. Examples, Signature Verification

Training for us, but not for thee

The inspector for the Arizona Attorney General reported 4 full-time and 29 part-time Maricopa County employees were trained as evidence of compliance were training requirements for Level I Signature Verifiers.

"According to Ms. Celia Nabor, Assistant Director of Early Voting, all Level I Signature Verifiers and Managers attended Signature Verification Training provided by Associated Forensic Laboratory, LLC. This training was conducted by Ms. Kathleen Annunziata Nicolaides a Forensic Document Examiner. This new training was provided in June 2020 prior to the General Election.

In the same report, the inspector explained temporary employees were hired as processing demand increased, but this hiring occurred after the training was delivered.

"According to Maricopa County Elections Department, an additional 40 temporary employees were hired from October 30th to November 6th 2020 to assist with Signature Verification and ballot curing."

According to the Arizona State Attorney General's inspector, the report Finding stated:

"No improper Election Procedures were discovered during the Signature Verification review.

This conclusion was made after his report noted that 40 temporary employees were hired in October, four months after the training had been delivered in June. The 40 temporary employees were also noted to be performing Level 1 Signature Verifications, apparently without any training.

• For additional details, see Gov. Examples, Signature Verification

Procedures Violated with Unknown Consequences

"Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Department Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off Locations and Drop-Boxes. Both Maricopa County and the state of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-Off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation.

Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box.

Section 1.7.d - Upon arrival at a drop-box location or drop-box, the two designated ballot retrievers shall note on the retrieval form prescribed by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections, the location and/or unique identification number of the location or drop-box and the date of time of arrival.

Section 1.7.e - The time of departure from the drop-off location or drop-box shall be noted on the retrieval form.

Section 1.7.f - The County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee) shall inspect the secure ballot container for evidence of tampering and shall confirm receipt of the retrieved ballots by signing the retrieval form and indicating the date and time of receipt.

Section 1.7.h - When the secure ballot container is opened by the County Recorder or officer in charge of elections (or designee), the number of ballots inside the contain shall be counted on the retrieval form.

Five procedures were violated by Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election according to an inspector for the Arizona Attorney General, who was investigating malicious and criminal allegations from the Arizona Senate. These procedures were written to fulfill the chain of custody requirements as specified by county election procedures and state election procedures; both sets of procedures were written to ensure compliance with the Arizona Revised Statues.

• The inspector's finding was framed as violations of only five procedure.
• The inspector did not state how many occurrences of each procedure violations.
• The inspector did not determine how many thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of early ballots were handled in a manner contrary to statutory chain of custody requirements.

This investigation began ten months after the 2020 General Election. Maricopa County failed to identify or investigate mishandling of drop-box ballots. Maricopa County had an opportunity to identify these procedure violations after citizens had identified chain of custody issues via Public Records Requests. As an example of poor governance, Maricopa County did not investigate these procedure violations. Accordingly, no employee, management or frontline, was held accountable to the violations of procedures, which were written to ensure the integrity of elections.

• For additional details, see Gov. Examples, Dropbox Collection (2020).

Two Person Rule for Drop Boxes Stricter than the Election Management Server

An inspector for the Arizona Attorney General determined multiple procedure violations had occurred during the 2020 General Election, including, "Section I.7.b - For any election that includes a partisan race, at least two designated ballot retrievers of at least two differing party preferences shall be assigned to retrieve voted ballots from a ballot drop-box location or drop box."

The inspector's report also investigated the Arizona Senate's allegation of failure to follow basic cyber security practices. The allegation was determined to be unfounded. As part of the justification, the inspector notes "The EMS server along with the other election equipment resides inside a controlled access room under 24-hour video monitoring. Further security requirements include a two-person rule to enter the room.

Let's contrast the requirements of the two-person team, drop box collection versus Election Management Server (EMS) access:

• Two people are required to pick up ballots from a drop box and the ballot pick up team must consist of people with different party preferences.
• Two people are required to have access to the EMS.

Let's contrast the consequence of error or fraud, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:

• Corruption by a drop box team may affect thousands or tens of thousands of ballots a most.
• Corruption by an EMS team may affect all ballots, which could be as high as 2,595,272, which is the number of registered voters.

Let's contrast the complexity of error or fraud detection, drop box collection versus Election Management Server access:

• Personnel would be required to physically handle the ballots and complete the pick up form, which documents the pickup location and time. These are fundamental daily life skills and no special knowledge would be necessary for one of the team members to detect fraud or corruption by the other team member.
• Personnel performing maintenance or updates on the EMS would be expected to have Information Technology skills; changes are being made to the computer for all election management calculations. It would be more difficult for a team member with less knowledge and experience to detect fraud or corruption being implemented by the other person in the team, it the other person in the team has more knowledge, experience or holds a higher position of authority. Imagine a new hire fulfilling the second person role and an IT manager is making changes to the computer.

By the way, the EMS area may be surveilled by a 24-hour video camera as the inspector noted. Elsewhere in the inspector's report, the inspector notes that Operating System Logs were only preserved until the maximum file size was reached. Then the old files were overwritten with new data. A 24-hour video camera is worthless for a fraud investigation unless the digital recording is preserved for an extended period to support a subsequent fraud investigation. In this case, the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General did not complete the investigation until 13 months after the 2020 General Election. The inspector noted the 24-hour camera but did not make note of reviewing any of the digital recordings.

• For additional details, see Gov. Examples, Dropbox Collection (2020).
• For additional details, see MC EMS 2020 - Failure to Follow Basic Cyber Security Practices.
• For additional details, see MC EMS 2020 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved

Judge Unknowingly Points ACV Towards the Green Book

The Judge presiding over Jamies Special Complaint ruled in favor of Maricopa County. The Judge correctly understood Jamie's intent was to seek accountability and understand how the county was controlling their processes with the following summary:

"In its April 14, 2026 ruling, the Court found that much of what Plaintiff requested was not records that existed, but answers to questions about accountability and controls in the administration of elections, and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond the Court’s authority in a public records case."

His ruling was based on Maricopa County fulfilling the minimum requirements of the law. With disappointment, we understood no answers for accountability and controls would be forthcoming via the judicial process. Therefore, a standard for controls was sought. We hit the Jackpot! The United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) wrote Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government.

"Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (commonly known as the "Green Book"), sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies and provides the overall framework for designing, implementing, and operating an effective internal control system. An entity uses the Green Book to help achieve its objectives related to operations, reporting, and compliance."

The GAO's Green Book is required for federal agencies. Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the GAO's Green Book; the Green Book does not apply to State and County governments. That said, the Green Book explains the book may be adapted for use in state, county, and local governments. Therefore, the Green Book became ACV's standard for what good governance looks like. Good governance will occur when government entities adhere to all 17 Principles, 196 attributes and fulfill the documentation requirements as stated in the Green Book. Within this website, we are essentially performing Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities by making comparisons of observed Maricopa County business practices and employee behaviors to the Green Book standard. We are not proving guilt, we are merely suggesting the areas of poor internal controls be considered a target rich environment for making improvements to earn public trust.

• For additional details, see June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision, Catch-22 for Governance.
• For additional details, begin by reading the Green Book Overview.

Does this sound familiar?

In many ways, Beau Johnson's story on the internet matched Jamie's experience. Click the following link to listen to another citizen, Beau Johnson, explain how accountability is missing in his local government: https://www.facebook.com/reel/2184592982102472


Note: A popup may mask the video (apparently for those without a Facebook account). However, the audio will continue, which is the important part of this message.

Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose

A Maricopa County frontline employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with the following:

“We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”

The Maricopa Leadership and Legal Team tell the Judge in their Defense Briefing:

"Defendants have no duty to explain." 

Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with the following statement, "The oversight body and management reinforce the commitment to doing what is right, not just maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations, so that these priorities are understood by all stakeholders, such as regulators, service organizations, employees, and the public." Empasis was by ACV.

• For additional details, see May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato
• For additional details, see March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

Told a Lie to Disprove a Myth

The Maricopa County website has a page, which includes the following titles:

Just the Facts, Election Myths, 2020 Election Myths

By drilling down on the 2020 Election Myths to find Maricopa County's explanation for SharpieGate, the following hyperlink can be found:

#SharpieGate was already debunked in court.

The hyperlink is bogus! It has nothing to do with Sharpie Pens. In fact, the hyperlink takes you to another case of a citizen wanting to be heard. She only sought a chance to have her ballot counted and the county seized the opportunity to attack the citizen. Maricopa County won their court against a citizen wanting their vote to be counted. However, Maricopa County is lying when they claim their court victory for this court case debunked Sharpie Gate.

• For additional details, see 2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens

Why Distribute Sharpies only on Election Day?

On October 22, 2020, Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department distributes email with the following statements:

"Next, we've heard you and we know you've been hearing issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers. Starting tomorrow, 10/23, and through 11/2, we are asking that Clerks hand voters BALLPOINT PENS rather than markers. We NEED to use Markers on Election Day, but for now and through 11/2, hand voters a Ballpoint Pen. 

Key points of the email are as follows:

1. We acknowledge the issues and concerns about Sharpie Markers.
2. Stop using Sharpie Markers from 10/23 to 11/2; use ballpoint pens during this time period.
3. Start using Sharpie Markers on Election Day, which is 11/3/2020.

This sequence of events makes no sense if Maricopa County was trying to do the right thing. Why distribute Sharpie Markers on Election Day if you already know there are issues and concerns with the Sharpie Markers?

This sequence of events makes perfect sense if viewed through a sinister mindset during the 2020 election period. If you know Sharpie Markers can cause problems with the in-person ballots, then get personnel at the voter centers to distribute Sharpie Markers instead of ballpoint pens, which had always been done in prior elections.

During deployment of the plan, the sinister minds discover the plan was implemented too soon. People are already starting to notice problems since Sharpie Markers were distributed at the beginning of the early in-person voting timeframe. To prevent too much attention being placed on the issues and concerns with Sharpie Markers, the sinister minds decided to stop using them. Better yet, they could temporarily stop using Sharpie Markers during a time of low in-person voting and wait for a more opportune time.

A sinister mindset still needs to leverage the problems with Sharpie Markers to their advantage, which means they needed to redeploy the Sharpie Markers on Election Day. There is less in-person voting before election day, so they need to hide the issues with Sharpie Markers by passing out ballpoint pens. However, the maximum adverse effect could occur if the Sharpie Markers were distributed on election day.

For additional details, see 2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens

Runbeck Contract Changes were not Approved, Justified or Explained

Maricopa County responded to Jamie's request for the Runbeck Contract; the contracts were delivered. Above is a screenshot of Exhibit C Disaster Recovery Plan. This is an example of a poor change process. The change (i.e., strikeouts) was poorly documented. It is believed this version of the Disaster Recovery Plan was stricken through just prior to the 2020 General Election, which is a standard convention for denoting contract requirements that no longer apply. This change may have been necessary because of the public health mandates implemented to address the Covid-19 pandemic. But then again, a disaster recovery plan also seems necessary to address the same Covid-19 pandemic.

Contrary to standard convention of a procurement document changes, there was no change justification sheet for the strikethroughs or clear authorization signature for the changes. It wasn't clear if a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place during the pandemic. If a Disaster Recovery Plan was in place, it wasn't clear which version was valid. Jamie sought clarification from Maricopa County through July 2026. Maricopa County ultimately responded by defending the contract as adequate and provided no further explanation.

In the absence of a complete explanation, the strikethrough of the Runbeck Disaster Recovery Plan appears to be a weakness with Green Book Attribute 9.05, which states "9.05 Management documents a change assessment process for identifying, analyzing, and responding to risks related to significant changes so that the internal control system can be quickly adapted as needed to respond to significant changes as they occur [documentation requirement]."

• For additional details, see June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered

Can you see a pattern?

Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their Defendants' Response Brief to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026.

The following quotes were taken from the Defendants' Response Briefing (Emphasis added by ACV):

• In PRR 719 she refers to Section [A.R.S. §] 16-452, but this section does not require any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents. (page 5, Line 18)
• Plaintiff also refers to Section 16-452 along with Sections 16-121, 16-165, and 16-166 for records she is requesting but, again, none of the statutes require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking. (page 5, Line 21)
• Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested. See A.R.S. § 16-452. (Page 6, Line 9)
• See A.R.S. § 16-121. The statute imposes no requirement for any Defendant to create reports. (Page 6, Line 19)
• No part of the statue requires the Recorder’s Office to create he records Plaintiff sought. See A.R.S. § 16-165. (Page 6, Line 25)
• See A.R.S. § 16-166. No part of the statute requires the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought. (Page 7, Line 5)
• Accordingly, Defendants are under no statutory obligation to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed. (Page 7, Line 17)
• No statute or other authority requires the Defendants create the non-existent records Plaintiff wants or to try and obtain responsive records from other entities. (See Page 8, Line 4)
• Section 39-121.01(E) imposes no duty on any public body to create any index or explain responses to public records requests. (Page 8, Line 27)
• No statute requires the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates. (Page 9, Line 21)

The Maricopa County's legal team prevailed in the court ruling. As noted above, the county's primary argument is that IF the law does not require documentation, THEN the county is under no obligation to create and preserve records. Meanwhile, the US GAO's Green Book views documentation of internal controls differently. According to OV2.11 Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system.

Maricopa County can never be held accountable to the public for their actions without documentation. Documentation will never be available to the public if the County is able to legally claim they are under no obligation to document anything other than what is specified by A.R.S. or other law. Therefore, Maricopa County cannot be held accountable to the public based on the county's belief, with judicial concurrence, that they are only required to document what is specified in law. 

• For additional details, see March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing.

Do They or Don't They?

Maricopa County's Legal Team submitted their Defendants' Response Brief to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County regarding case CV2025-063720 on March 20, 2026. According to the Maricopa County's legal team, the county has "no duty" to demonstrate compliance with A.R.S. § 16-452 based on the following statement in the Defendant's Response Brief (from Page 6, Line 4):

Going item by item for Plaintiff’s May 15th public records request, for item one, she refers to Section 16-452 and requests “[d]ocumentation showing compliance with the Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures Manual, ensuring ‘maximum degree of correctness, impartiality, uniformity, and efficiency’ in ballot handling” and “[r]eports or metrics (e.g., voter satisfaction ratings, regulatory scores) justifying approval of 2020 election results.”  Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual and imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.  See A.R.S. § 16-452.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation reached the following conclusion with respect to Allegation #2 - Maricopa County Elections Department - Drop Box Collections (Emphasis added by ACV):

Finding: Election Procedure Violations. Maricopa County election officials failed to follow Maricopa County Election Procedures mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Elections Procedures Manual related to Ballot Drop-off locations and Drop-boxes. Both Maricopa County and the State of Arizona have procedures to insure the proper chain of custody documenting ballot movement from Drop-off locations to the County Elections Department. The following procedure violations were identified during the investigation...

The Maricopa County legal team appears to be informing the Judge that the defendant, Maricopa County, is under no obligation to create and retain records associated with A.R.S. § 16-452. The legal team explains the Secretary of State is the entity responsible for complying with A.R.S. § 16-452. not the county. Implying no records exist to share.

Meanwhile, the Arizona Attorney General's investigator states the Maricopa County does have Election Procedures, which were mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State Election Procedures manual, which fulfills A.R.S. § 16-452. In inspector concluded Maricopa County Election Procedures for drop boxes had been violated based on the documentation the investigator reviewed.

Maricopa County's legal team' claimed Maricopa County has no records to "create" the documents Jamie requested in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-452. The Arizona Attorney General's inspector found Maricopa County must create election procedures in accordance with the Arizona Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual, which was established to comply with A.R.S. § 16-452. In fact, the investigator found the county had violated county and state election procedures based on documentation that was not stated in A.R.S. § 16-452, but contained in the State's Election Procedures Manual, which was mandated to the county.

Jamie's request appears to be reasonable; she simply wanted to review documentation to verify Maricopa County's compliance with the State of Arizona's Election Procedures Manual, which is a publicly available document. Maricopa's legal team may have been legally corrected by ethically wrong. Maricopa County is required to maintain documentation to fulfill A.R.S. § 16-452 as mandated by the Arizona Secretary of State, which has responsibility for A.R.S. § 16-452. Jamie's requests seems more reasonable when the Arizona Attorney General's investigator confirmed procedure violations had occurred.

• For additional details, see Allegation #2 Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)
• For additional details, see March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

To Be Developed

Plan? We ain’t got no plan! We don’t need no plan! I don’t have to show you any stinking plan! Now get out our way t,Election Management System!

Let's Play Hot Potato

Filing a Complaint by Invitation Only

Masking Fraud with Ballots Sent to Real People at Past Addresses