March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing

This is not ready for proofreading.

You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing

The next part of Jamie's Story is April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing

---

This page critiques the Maricopa County's Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County. The critique focuses on governance gaps and ignores legal arguments. Basically, Maricopa County leadership and its legal team defend themselves in Court by presenting legal arguments that reveal poor governance.

This may have been their strategy for a long time. They may have been intentionally trying to be so sloppy in their governance that no evidence would be preserved and they could never be held accountable in a court of law.

Jamie's Timeline

1. 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
2. 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
3. November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
4. December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
5. April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
6. May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
7. June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
8. June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
9. July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
10. November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
11. December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
12. January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
13. February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
14. March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
15. April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
16. April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
17. June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
18. June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies - Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens's Aid agency
19. June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies - MC response was consistent with Arizona Ombudsman's expectations
20. August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted & response was as expected.

Background

This part of my story explains how Maricopa County chose to represent themselves in the Superior Court of the State of Arizona for the County of Maricopa. In their representation, their legal team portrays the County as being fully committed to doing the bare minimum to comply with the law. Arizona statutes did not specify any documentation retention requirements for Arizona counties; therefore, the County kept no records. Hence, Maricopa County could not provide me with all the documentation I requested. They did provide some contract documents with third-party companies where documentation becomes a legal requirement for enforceability. Unbeknownst to the County's legal team, their efforts to prevail in court revealed how poorly they are at day-to-day governance.

On March 12, 2026, three lawyers for Maricopa County (Defendants) responded to my Plaintiff's briefing with a Defense Brief.

The Maricopa County Legal Team representation of multiple Defendants with the same arguments unknowingly revealed how widespread poor governance existed within Maricopa County. Multiple departments reporting to two different elected Officials displayed the same culture. By making the argument Maricopa County was under no legal obligation to create and retain documentation addressing statutory requirements, their legal team was also making the argument that Citizens must rely on the assertions of Maricopa elected officials and employees of full compliance since the County did not preserve any records. Thus, the public would be unable to provide oversight as intended by lay.

Contradictions with Green Book

Maricopa County is required to comply with the law, which is the focus of their Defense Brief.

Meanwhile, the GAO's Green Book sets the standard of internal controls for Federal departments under the Executive Branch. Maricopa is not required to comply with the Green Book standards. The comparison is made to illustrate how far Maricopa County deviates from good governance.

Green Book Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values

Attribute 1.04 The oversight body's and management's directives, attitudes, and behaviors reflect the integrity and ethical values expected throughout the entity. 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.

Consideration: Every time you see the lawyer claim they are in compliance with the law, consider if the citizen's request. Is the request reasonable considering that sloppy internal controls can change election outcomes?

Green Book Appendix I, Requirements, Documentation

Documentation is a necessary part of an effective internal control system. The level and nature of documentation may vary based on the size of the entity and the complexity of the processes it performs. Management exercises judgment in determining the extent or type of documentation that is needed. Documentation is required for the effective design, implementation, and operating effectiveness of an entity's internal control system. (paragraph OV2.11) Management develops and maintains documentation of its internal control system. (paragraph 3.09) Documentation of the internal control system is further discussed at principle 3.

The Green Book also includes the following minimum documentation requirements:

• If management determines that a principle is not relevant, management supports that determination with documentation that includes the rationale for how, in the absence of that principle, the associated component could be designed, implemented, and operated effectively. (paragraph OV2.06)
• Management documents the results of the risk assessments, including the identification, analysis, and response to risks, that are completed on both a periodic and ongoing basis. This includes documentation of the consideration of risks related to fraud, improper payments, information security, and significant internal and external changes that could impact the internal control system. (paragraph 7.15)
• 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. (paragraph 9.05)
• Management establishes control activities by documenting in policies what is expected and in procedures specified actions that implement policies, to mitigate risks to achieving the entity's objectives to acceptable levels. (paragraph 12.02)
• Management evaluates and documents the results of ongoing monitoring and separate evaluations to identify internal control issues. (paragraph 16.09)
• Management evaluates and documents internal control issues and determines appropriate corrective actions for internal control deficiencies, including those reported from internal and external audits and evaluations, on a timely basis. (paragraph 17.05)
• Management completes and documents corrective actions to remediate internal control deficiencies, including those reported from internal and external audits and evaluations, on a timely basis. (paragraph 17.06)

Defense Brief

Maricopa County's Defendants' Briefing to the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County was submitted on March 12, 2026, which is available from the following hyperlink.

The Complete Defendants' Briefing to Court

Topics from Defense Briefing

The text within the following yellow boxes was taken directly from the Defense Brief.

Maricopa County's List of Records Requested by the Plaintiff

Contracts with External Service Entities

On April 15, 2025, Plaintiff submitted a public records request to the Maricopa County Office of Procurement Services (hereafter “Procurement Services”).  [Ex. B at pdf 1] This public records request was designated as OPS Record # 719 (hereafter “PRR 719”).  [Ex. B. at pdf 1] Through this request, Plaintiff sought contracts related to the 2018, 2020, and 2024 elections,1 specifically asking for contracts from the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division, Dominion, Runbeck, and “first level signature verification with temp agency contract” for those years.  [Ex. A at pdf 7-9; Ex. B at pdf 1] Plaintiff’s request also stated she wanted “to see how AZ 16-452 is impacted by the same contractual conditions that were missed.”  [Ex. A at pdf 9]

Documentation of Compliance with the Secretary of State's Elections Procedure Manual

For the first item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-452 and asked for “[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 for “[r]eports or metrics . . . justifying approval of 2020 election results.”

Reports on Proof of Citizenship

For the second item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-161 and asked for “[r]eports submitted to the Secretary of State on voters registered without proof of citizenship, including ballots cast for federal offices only, per § 16-168(G).”

Processes and Reports to Maintain Accurate Voter Lists

For the third item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-121 and asked for “[p]rocesses and reports used to maintain accurate voter lists, ensuring only eligible voters were included.”  [Ex. C. at pdf 1]

Records of Checks to Remove Deceased Voters from Rolls

For the fourth item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-165 and asked for “[r]ecords of checks to remove deceased voters from rolls, including any identified failures and corrective actions.” 

Documentation of Registration Data Reported to the Arizona Secretary of State

For the fifth item, Plaintiff referred to Section 16-166 and asked for “[d]ocumentation of voter registration data reported to the Secretary of State, including compliance with federal form requirements.”  

Explanation of Runbeck/Dominion Contracts in Place during 2020

For the sixth item, Plaintiff requested documents related to the 2020 Runbeck/Dominion contracts, including “evidence of compliance with contract terms, including certification of Dominion’s software/hardware by the Secretary of State, source code escrow with the Secretary of State, maintenance of Optech Insights and 400-C units, and explanation for strikethroughs in Runbeck/Dominion contract disaster recovery language . . . and why new contracts were not initiated.” 

Argument, I

From the Defense Briefing:

It is unclear why Plaintiff believes additional records must exist.  In PRR 719 she refers to Section 16-452, but this section does not require any of the Defendants to make the supposedly missing documents.  See A.R.S. § 16-452.  In PRR 1123, the May 15th, 2025, request, 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.

There is no obligation for a public entity to create a record in response to a public records request.

...none of the statutes require any of the Defendants to make the types of records she is seeking.

If the text is clear and unambiguous, a court will not apply other methods of statutory interpretation.

ACV Conclusion: All of these four Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request.

Argument, I. A

For item one of PRR 1123:

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.

A contrary claim is made by the inspector for the Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation. The inspector notes the Maricopa does have election procedures, which mimic the Secretary of State's Election Procedures manual within the investigation of Arizona Senate's Allegation #2, Drop Box Collections. In fact, five procedure violations occurred because election requirements were not documented in accordance with procedures Maricopa County and Secretary of State Election had in effect during the 2020 General Election.

It's a mystery as to why Maricopa County's management and legal team did not want to reveal they also had Election Procedures.

For item two of PRR 1123:

Section 16-121 does require the creation of reports.

For item three of PRR 1123:

The statute imposes no requirement for any Defendant to create reports.

For item four of PRR 1123:

No part of the statue requires the Recorder’s Office to create  the records Plaintiff sought.

For item five of PRR 1123:

No part of the statute requires the Recorder’s Office to create the records Plaintiff sought.

For item six of PRR 1123:

No statute mandates any of the Defendants create these types of records.

In summary:

The statutes Plaintiff cites to are clear—none require the Defendants to have the additional records she seeks or to have ever created them in the first place.  Accordingly, Defendants are under no statutory obligation to have the records Plaintiff wishes existed.

ACV Conclusion: All of these seven Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request.

Argument, I. B

Maricopa County's leadership and legal team erroneously misconstrued my request as asking them to create records on my behalf. They responded appropriately, based on their misunderstanding of my request.

Public bodies only have a duty to search for the public records they have.

Argument, I. C

Again, Maricopa County's leadership and legal team erroneously misconstrued my request as asking them to create records on my behalf. They responded appropriately, based on their misunderstanding of my request.

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.  Therefore, the Defendants have produced to Plaintiff all the public records subject to their control that are responsive to her public records requests.

ACV Conclusion: This one Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request.

Arguments, II

Plaintiff also claims that the Defendants have a duty to explain their production, provide legal citations allowing the withholding of responsive public records, and state whether no responsive records exist.  She cites Sections 39-121.01(D) and (E) as support.  Plaintiff is incorrect.

ACV Conclusion: This one Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request.

Arguments, II, A

A.R.S. § 39-121.01(D)(2).  This requirement is only imposed on agencies.  Id.  The statute provides that the definition of “agency” is the same as in Section 41-1001.

While Section 39 121.01(D)(2) creates a duty for agencies to provide an index upon request, the Defendants are not included in the definition of “agency.”

If no responsive public records are withheld, there is no index to provide.

ACV Conclusion: The first two Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request. The final argument is a logical position assuming no records were withheld and compliance with the law for the first and second argument.

Arguments, II, B

No statute requires the Defendants to explain their work to Plaintiff or provide any certificates.  Similarly to the non-existent records previously discussed, Plaintiff merely wishes the Defendants did this, but they do not have to.

Plaintiff may want additional explanations, descriptions, and certifications, but she is not entitled to them.  Plaintiff will be unable to point to any statute, case, or other authority requiring the Defendants furnish her with this information, because none exists.

ACV Conclusion: These two Defense Arguments (above) can be summarized once again as the plaintiff is not entitled to any of the requested documents in accordance with the law, regardless of the appropriateness of the document request.

Arguments, III

...the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office is incapable of being sued and it is an improper party in this case.

ACV Conclusion: The Plaintiff did not originally seek records from the Maricopa County Recorders office. It was Maricopa County workers that reassigned the Plaintiff's Public Records Request to the Maricopa County Recorder's Office. The Plaintiff was simply identifying the defendants based on the transferring of requests to other departments as though it was a game of hot potato.

Conclusion

For the reasons above, each of Plaintiff’s claims fail and she is not entitled to any relief. Defendants respectfully request the Court enter final judgment in their favor.

Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD)

I had sought contracts between Maricopa County and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Department (MVD) for the purpose of determining responsibility voter eligibility decisions, knowing people could register to vote using MVD services. This request was submitted by Public Records Request (PRR) 719.

By way of background, Adrian Fontes, the Arizona Secretary of State, issued a press release on September 30, 2024, indicating over 218,000 Arizona residents were adversely affected by a “coding error.” I sought to understand the contractual responsibility for this error by reviewing the contracts between Maricopa County and the MVD. The Maricopa County Legal Team responded with, “In response to PRR 719, Plaintiff was informed there were no contracts with the Motor Vehicle Division.”

The June 2026 Maricopa Count Defense Brief would lead one to believe there is no agreement in place to handle the transfer of critical information from the Motor Vehicle Division to Maricopa County. If true, this represents a serious breach of public trust. To this day, I cannot understand how Maricopa County could receive important information from the MVD without a written agreement of responsibilities. After all, erroneous data transfers of voter registration data could compromise the integrity of election results, regardless of intent.

Giving Maricopa County the benefit of doubt, perhaps I didn't put the correct terminology in my request. Maybe the agreement was called a Memorandum of Understanding instead of a contract. Maybe the agreement was between Maricopa County and the Arizona Department of Transportation, not the MVD. There is a serious ethical problem within the County if they denied the legal agreements I sought because I used the wrong terminology. How could a citizen possibly know the correct terminology to put in the PRR when the third-party agreements to outside entities are not publicly accessible, except by the PRR process itself? It would be a terrible breach of public trust if records were denied based on a language technicality so that my intent could be disregarded.

Potential Governance Gap(s):

• Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
  • Attribute(s): 1.01, 1.03, 1.04, 1.05
• Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
  • Attribute(s): 2.02
• Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
  • Attribute(s): 3.04, 3.09, 3.10
• Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
  • Attribute(s):
• 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
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
  • Attribute(s):
• Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
  • Attribute(s):