8.08: Difference between revisions

From Arizona Citizen Voice
← Older editNewer edit →

Neil thibodaux (talk | contribs)

2 user groups
2,850 edits
VisualWikitext
Line 13: Line 13:
== Jamie's Story ==
== Jamie's Story ==


==== '''[[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]]''' ====
=== Election Anomalies ===
The Green Book's Principle 8 addresses Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. Obviously, improper payments is not a concern during the Assessment of Election Anomalies. However, improper payments by MC county may exist, but would require a separate assessment.
 
The Green Book's <u>emphasis on fraud and information security</u> as separate risk assessment activity is intentional. MC may be able to defer to the Arizona Secretary of State's Election Procedure Manual as general steps taken to ensure the integrity of election results. Fraud occurs when loopholes are identified and exploited by the fraudsters. The implementers of election services (i.e., Arizona Counties) are better positioned to detect fraud and assess the risk of fraud because they are handling the data, not the state. Hence, governance gaps may be identified from patterns of poor assessment and response to risk with respect to election fraud and information security.
 
===== [[Dropbox Collection (2020)|Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)]] =====
Governance issues identified from [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Drop Box Collections issues.
 
The Green Book states, "Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another." MC leadership apparently tolerated procedure violations during the processing of early ballots during the 2020 election. The AZ AG's confirmed the Arizona Senate's allegations; five procedure violations were identified. The willful or tolerant actions of MC leadership suggest abuse, which is another example of poor governance. See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Allegations Confirmed|Deviation: Allegations Confirmed]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage for additional information.
 
The direct impact of these procedure violations is as follows
 
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Missing Entries on Election Forms|Deviation: Missing Entries on Election Forms]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Missing Ballot Counts|Deviation: Missing Ballot Counts]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Used Email instead of EVBTS Forms|Deviation: Used Email instead of EVBTS Forms]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Unfulfilled Party Representation Requirement for Couriers.|Deviation: Unfulfilled Party Representation Requirements for Couriers]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
* See the heading [[Dropbox Collection (2020)#Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database|Deviation: Fictious Addresses in MC Voter Registration Database]] from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage.
 
The indirect impact of these procedure violations is more consequential, but unknown. These procedure violations allowed fraudulent early ballots to be tabulated. However, there is no means to quantify the impact on election results because fraudulent ballots are comingled with valid ballots during tabulation; there are no distinguishable characteristics to segregate the two. 
 
==== [[Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)]] ====
Additional details regarding this aspect of my story are available in a subsection titled Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).
Additional details regarding this aspect of my story are available in a subsection titled Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).


Line 21: Line 41:


Contrary to the Green Book, some form of abuse may have occurred within MC in that a ''prudent'' manager would have insisted on some form of a written agreement between MC and the MVD given the exchange of sensitive digital voter registration data between them. Instead, MC managers and legal team insisted that no records were created because Arizona statutes did not require documentation. Arizona statutes rarely specify documentation requirements. A decision to not create a record appears to be an abuse of power, given the absence of these records would preclude any oversight or investigative entity from revealing fraud. The lack of transparency and number of election-related anomalies my indicate fraud as a means to conceal misconduct as noted within Attribute 8.08.
Contrary to the Green Book, some form of abuse may have occurred within MC in that a ''prudent'' manager would have insisted on some form of a written agreement between MC and the MVD given the exchange of sensitive digital voter registration data between them. Instead, MC managers and legal team insisted that no records were created because Arizona statutes did not require documentation. Arizona statutes rarely specify documentation requirements. A decision to not create a record appears to be an abuse of power, given the absence of these records would preclude any oversight or investigative entity from revealing fraud. The lack of transparency and number of election-related anomalies my indicate fraud as a means to conceal misconduct as noted within Attribute 8.08.
=== Election Anomalies ===
The Green Book's Principle 8 addresses Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. Obviously, improper payments is not a concern during the Assessment of Election Anomalies. However, improper payments by MC county may exist, but would require a separate assessment.
The Green Book's <u>emphasis on fraud and information security</u> as separate risk assessment activity is intentional. MC may be able to defer to the Arizona Secretary of State's Election Procedure Manual as general steps taken to ensure the integrity of election results. Fraud occurs when loopholes are identified and exploited by the fraudsters. The implementers of election services (i.e., Arizona Counties) are better positioned to detect fraud and assess the risk of fraud because they are handling the data, not the state. Hence, governance gaps may be identified from patterns of poor assessment and response to risk with respect to election fraud and information security.


===== [[Signature Verification|Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)]] =====
===== [[Signature Verification|Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)]] =====
Governance issues identified from [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues.
Governance issues identified from [https://www.azag.gov/sites/default/files/2025-06/2020_General_Election_Investigation_Summary.pdf Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation] of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues.


"Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another."
The Green Book states, "Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another."


There is a distinct possibility that MC Elections management may have been abusing power without conducting acts of fraud. MC Elections management may have been emphasizing the importance of a quick pace given Director of Elections told the AZ AG's inspector "Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot)." The rationale for the quick pace may have been considered reasonable considering 1,910,317 early ballots required signature verification.  
There is a distinct possibility that MC Elections management may have been abusing power without conducting acts of fraud. MC Elections management may have been emphasizing the importance of a quick pace given Director of Elections told the AZ AG's inspector "Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot)." The rationale for the quick pace may have been considered reasonable considering 1,910,317 early ballots required signature verification.  

Revision as of 12:28, 25 August 2026

Risk Assessment

Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk

Attribute 8.08 - In addition to fraud, management considers other forms of misconduct that can occur, such as waste and abuse. Waste is the act of using or expending resources carelessly, extravagantly, or to no purpose. Abuse involves behavior that is deficient or improper when compared with behavior that a prudent person would consider reasonable and necessary operational practice given the facts and circumstances. Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another. Waste and abuse do not necessarily involve fraud, though fraudulent misrepresentations may be made to conceal such misconduct. The presence of waste and abuse may indicate potential fraud and an environment that is conducive to fraud. Waste and abuse may also impact the achievement of defined objectives.

>>>Navigational Buttons<<<


Jamie's Story

Election Anomalies

The Green Book's Principle 8 addresses Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk. Obviously, improper payments is not a concern during the Assessment of Election Anomalies. However, improper payments by MC county may exist, but would require a separate assessment.

The Green Book's emphasis on fraud and information security as separate risk assessment activity is intentional. MC may be able to defer to the Arizona Secretary of State's Election Procedure Manual as general steps taken to ensure the integrity of election results. Fraud occurs when loopholes are identified and exploited by the fraudsters. The implementers of election services (i.e., Arizona Counties) are better positioned to detect fraud and assess the risk of fraud because they are handling the data, not the state. Hence, governance gaps may be identified from patterns of poor assessment and response to risk with respect to election fraud and information security.

Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020)

Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County Election Department - Drop Box Collections issues.

The Green Book states, "Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another." MC leadership apparently tolerated procedure violations during the processing of early ballots during the 2020 election. The AZ AG's confirmed the Arizona Senate's allegations; five procedure violations were identified. The willful or tolerant actions of MC leadership suggest abuse, which is another example of poor governance. See the heading Deviation: Allegations Confirmed from Maricopa Dropbox Collection (2020) webpage for additional information.

The direct impact of these procedure violations is as follows

The indirect impact of these procedure violations is more consequential, but unknown. These procedure violations allowed fraudulent early ballots to be tabulated. However, there is no means to quantify the impact on election results because fraudulent ballots are comingled with valid ballots during tabulation; there are no distinguishable characteristics to segregate the two. 

Fraud Potential (2020, 2022, 2024, 2025)

Additional details regarding this aspect of my story are available in a subsection titled Contract with the Motor Vehicle Department (MVD).

According the Superior Court ruling, the Judge concurred with the Defendant's position that there are no written contracts between MC and the MVD as presented in this March 12, 2026 Defendants' Brief submitted to the court. This Green Book Attribute describes abuse as "involv[ing] behavior that is deficient or improper when compared with behavior that a prudent person would consider reasonable and necessary operational practice given the facts and circumstances.

Potential Green Book Deviation

Contrary to the Green Book, some form of abuse may have occurred within MC in that a prudent manager would have insisted on some form of a written agreement between MC and the MVD given the exchange of sensitive digital voter registration data between them. Instead, MC managers and legal team insisted that no records were created because Arizona statutes did not require documentation. Arizona statutes rarely specify documentation requirements. A decision to not create a record appears to be an abuse of power, given the absence of these records would preclude any oversight or investigative entity from revealing fraud. The lack of transparency and number of election-related anomalies my indicate fraud as a means to conceal misconduct as noted within Attribute 8.08.

Maricopa County Signature Verification (2020)

Governance issues identified from Arizona Attorney General's Office 2020 General Election Investigation of Arizona Senate allegations of Maricopa County - Signature Verification Process issues.

The Green Book states, "Abuse may include corruption through the misuse of authority or position for personal gain or for the benefit of another."

There is a distinct possibility that MC Elections management may have been abusing power without conducting acts of fraud. MC Elections management may have been emphasizing the importance of a quick pace given Director of Elections told the AZ AG's inspector "Level I Signature Verifiers should be able to process around 250 signature verifications every 30 minutes (7.2 seconds per ballot)." The rationale for the quick pace may have been considered reasonable considering 1,910,317 early ballots required signature verification.

Abuse of power may have been to lower standards in order to quicken the pace and report election results in a timely manner.

The easiest detection of a signature mismatch is when no signature appears on the envelop. Signature Verifiers flagged 16,539 early ballots as having no signature on the envelop. A signature mismatch is more complicated. In fact, the 44 signature verifiers were only able to identify 587 "bad' signatures. Abuse of authority may have occurred given the low rate of detecting "bad" signatures from a pool of almost two million early ballots

Retrieved from "https://arizonacitizenvoice.com/index.php?title=8.08&oldid=1841"