2020 Maricopa County Directs Use of Sharpie Pens: Difference between revisions
| Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
** Attribute(s): [[16.09]], [[16.10]] | ** Attribute(s): [[16.09]], [[16.10]] | ||
* Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies | * Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies | ||
** Attribute(s): [[17.01]], [[17.02]], [[17.05]], [[17.06]] | ** Attribute(s): [[17.01]], [[17.02]], [[17.05]], [[17.06]] | ||
Revision as of 21:54, 6 September 2026
In your exploration of election-related anomalies, you are here:
- 2020 - List of Election-Related Assessed Anomalies
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.
Backgound
While reading Maricopa County 2022 General Election Ballot-on-Demand Printer Investigation, there were mentions of the 2020 "Sharpiegate" incident during the General Elections. The 2022 introduced the Sharpiegate incident with the following:
"During the 2020 general election, however, on some ballots, the ink from the “Sharpie” pens provided at the vote centers bled through the paper."
Elsewhere in the 2022 report, the investigator discredit's the Sharpiegate incident as being unfounded. Alternate independent evaluations of the Sharpiegate incident were sought, given the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors was funding the report that discredited the incident.
Something more interesting than another report was found. Email from Maricopa County leadership directs the use of "Sharpie Markers" on Election day! Why?
The email was obtained from an internet-based news agency but appears authentic. The news article was disregarded as being biased. However, the actual email was raw data from which we could assess Maricopa County governance practices.
The Email
The email was sent by Kelly Dixon, Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department.
The subject was Pens and Thank! (Not in that order!)
The email was sent on October 22, 2020, twelve days before the General Election on November 3, 2020.
What in this email?
The email begins with Kelly Dixon's thanks to Troubleshooters.
Then the contents get interesting.
Sharpie Pen Isssues known before Election Day
Emphasis (caps) was placed by the author of the email.
"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.
Spread the Word
Please message this to your Inspectors and ensure they cascade this change down to everyone on the Board.
Reasonable Interpretations; No Conspiracy Theories
By way of background, Maricopa County ballots had always directed voters to use black or blue ballpoint pens when making their selections on the ballot. The 2020 ballots included these instructions.
Deviation: Contrary to these ballot instructions, voters were given Sharpie Markers by voter center personnel and told to use them when filling in the ballot.
My neighbors attested to being given a Sharpie Marker to fill in the ballot on election day.
People are Starting to Figure this Out!
As of October 22, 2020, the Maricopa County Leadership is alerting people that issues with "Sharpie Markers" has been identified. Stop using Sharpie Markers.
Stop using Sharpie Markers is excellent advice if there are known issues with their use, which is acknowledged in the email.
Unfortunately, Maricopa County Leadership disregard a known issue and decided to insert a known issue at a more opportune time, which is November 3, the Election Day, when in person voting turnout is at its highest.
Deviation: Maricopa County Leadership 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.
Deviation: Maricopa County Leadership 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.
County Leadership assures workers that they have enough ballpoint pens and Sharpie Markers to execute their plan.
Spread this Unethical Plan
The message says "Please message this to your Inspectors and ensure they cascade this change down to everyone on the Board." Interestingly, the target audience is "your Inspectors."
From the online Cambridge dictionary, one of the definitions of inspector is "someone whose job is to officially inspect something, for example, a factory or building, in order to check that everything is correct and legal. [Emphasis added by ACV]
Deviation: Inspectors were the target audience of this email message. The email asked inspectors to intentionally distribute Sharpie Pens on Election Day in the same email that had also acknowledgeed there are issues with the use of Sharpie Pens on ballots prior to October 22, 2020. The very people (i.e., inspectors) that should have been directing compliance with the ballot instructions the use of ball point pens were being told to violate ballot instructions by ensuring poll workers distributed Sharpie Marker to voters on Election Day, even though there were know issues with Sharpie Markers.
Deviation: The email seeks to ensure everyone is passing out Sharpie Markers contrary to the ballot instructions. This may not be illegal, but it appears to be unethical.
Notable Observation: This message was delivered by the Elections Department Assistant Director for Recruitment and Training. Ordinarily, this position would not be considered a line position; Recruitment and Training would be supporting line management. 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, who would have been unlikely to know the line management.
Note: The author of the Maricopa County 2022 General Election Ballot-on-Demand Printer Investigationasserted that the use of Sharpie Markers had no effect on the ballots. Generally speaking, the technical accuracy of the author's testing of printer issues was presented well. IF the author performed Sharpie Testing to confirm their position that Sharpie Markers had no impact on the ballots, then the testing was performed paper stock that was asserted by Maricopa County and/or Runbeck Elections Services. It was doubtful that the specific paper used in the 2020 General Election was preserved for testing, especially if there was malicious intent by Maricopa County and/or Runbeck Election Services. IF testing was performed, it would have been invalidated if a different paper stock were used.
Arizona Revised Statues
Arizona Revised Statue 16-449. Required test of equipment and programs; notice; procedures manual
A. Within the period of time before the election day prescribed by the secretary of state in the instructions and procedures manual adopted pursuant to section 16-452, the board of supervisors or other election officer in charge, or for an election involving state or federal candidates, the secretary of state, shall have the automatic tabulating equipment and programs tested to ascertain that the equipment and programs will correctly count the votes cast for all offices and on all measures. Public notice of the time and place of the test shall be given at least forty-eight hours prior thereto by publication once in one or more daily or weekly newspapers published in the town, city or village using such equipment, if a newspaper is published therein, otherwise in a newspaper of general circulation therein. The test shall be observed by at least two election inspectors, who shall not be of the same political party, and shall be open to representatives of the political parties, candidates, the press and the public. The test shall be conducted by processing a preaudited group of ballots so marked as to record a predetermined number of valid votes for each candidate and on each measure and shall include for each office one or more ballots that have votes in excess of the number allowed by law in order to test the ability of the automatic tabulating equipment and programs to reject such votes. .... If any error is detected, the cause therefor shall be ascertained and corrected and an errorless count shall be made before the automatic tabulating equipment and programs are approved. A copy of a revised program shall be filed with the secretary of state within forty-eight hours after the revision is made. If the error was created by automatic tabulating equipment malfunction, a report shall be filed with the secretary of state within forty-eight hours after the correction is made, stating the cause and the corrective action taken. The test shall be repeated immediately before the start of the official count of the ballots in the same manner as set forth above. After the completion of the count, the programs used and the ballots shall be sealed, retained and disposed of as provided for paper ballots.
B. Electronic ballot tabulating systems shall be tested for logic and accuracy within seven days before their use for early balloting pursuant to the instructions and procedures manual for electronic voting systems that is adopted by the secretary of state as prescribed by section 16-452. The instructions and procedures manual shall include procedures for the handling of ballots, the electronic scanning of ballots and any other matters necessary to ensure the maximum degree of correctness, impartiality and uniformity in the administration of an electronic ballot tabulating system.
C. Notwithstanding subsections A and B of this section, if a county uses accessible voting equipment to mark ballots and that accessible voting equipment does not independently tabulate or tally votes, the secretary of state in cooperation with the county officer in charge of elections may designate a single date to test the logic and accuracy of both the accessible voting equipment and electronic ballot tabulating systems.
Question: Was testing performed by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (or delegate) to verify the accuracy of ballots filled in with Sharpie Markers was as accurate or achieved a better accuracy than tests for ballots filled in with a ballpoint pen?
Notable Relationship to Signature Verification
This email was distributed by the Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department.
Separately, the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigationaddressed allegations of issues with Signature Verification. The AZ AG's inspector found no deficiencies given that Level I Signature Verification training had been developed and delivered to 33 Maricopa County employees. The AZ AG's inspector's report states 40 temporary employees were hired four months after the Level I Signature Verification training had been implemented. These 40 temporary employees were apparently performing Level 1 Signature Verifications without any training.
Without a clear description of the organizational structure and responsibilities, it would seem that the Assistant Director, Recruitment and Training for the Elections Department would have had responsibility to the Signature Verification deficiencies as well as the direction of unethical practices to voting center personnel as discussed in this anomaly.
Potential Governance Gap(s):
- Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
- Attribute(s): 2.01
- Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Attribute(s): 3.01
- Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
- Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
- 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
- Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
- Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
- Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
