June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision.
The next part of Jamie's Story is June 8, 2026: Maricopa County's Ombudsman
On June 1, 2026, the final decision of Judge Warner regarding case CV 2025-063720 was published. The judgement was in favor of Maricopa County. The first and last page of this decision are shown below.
No governance gaps were identified from this event since this was a Judge's decision and did not reflect any new aspects of MC governance.
Jamie's Timeline
- 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
- 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
- November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
- December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
- April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
- May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
- June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
- July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
- December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
- February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
- March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
- April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
- April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
- June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
- June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies - Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens's Aid agency
- June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies - MC response was consistent with Arizona Ombudsman's expectations
- August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted & response was as expected.
Court Document: Final Decision
On June 1, 2026, the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County published the Judges Final Decision in Jamie's case against Maricopa County.
The Judge stated:
"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. The Court also found that the declarations the County submitted with its briefs regarding the scope of its document search were conclusory, thus requiring an evidentiary hearing to determine whether there are records in the County’s control that are responsive to Plaintiff’s requests, but which were not produced."
"Based on the evidence, the Court finds that the County’s search for responsive records was sufficient, and that it produced all responsive records to Plaintiff."
Maricopa County prevailed in their position that all responsive records had been provided.
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
The 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 is under no legal obligation to maintain the records Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.
There is 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 documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during the 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.
Potential Governance Gaps
No potential governance gaps were identified from this documentation; it was a succinct statement of the final decision. No observations of poor governance could be extracted from this document.
