June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision
Not reading for proofreading.
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, Judge Warner's final decision on 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.
ACV has focused on assessing county practices. This was a unique opportunity to capture independent thoughts, while realizing his judicial bias. In his final decision, the judge found Maricopa County to be legally correct. However, legal correctness is not the same as good governance. Governance gaps were identified from the Judge's final decision.
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.
Old
Judge's decision revealed a major deficiency with respect to documentation requirement of internal controls, which stands independent of the 17 Principles contained within the Green Book. Documentation is the foundation of internal controls. With a favorable ruling given to Maricopa county, its citizens will be unlikely to acquire documentation prove wrongdoing by the county if the county is operating under the philosophy that they need only document what is specifically required by statute.
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
Definition: 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.
The Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen is the tie between documentation and accountability. On one hand, objective evidence (e.g., documentation) would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing. On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document internal controls objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing. Citizens can't hold counties accountable if counties don't document what they do to serve its citizens.
Integrity and Ethical Values
Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values, Attribute 1.04, includes 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."
The Judge concurred with Maricopa County's position that all records required by law had been delivered. Was the Judge's decision reaffirming the "minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations that Federal Government entities in the executive branch are told to avoid in the Green Book's Attribute 1.04.?
Satisfying the minimum
MC Procurement Services Department delivered two Runbeck and two Dominion Contracts, which were required by law.
Ignoring what's right:
Sought Explanation of Delivered Contacts
Maricopa County was not required by law to explain anything about the Runbeck and Dominion contracts that were delivered, even if irregularities were observed.
Sought Written Agreements Between MC and Arizona Motor Vehicle Division
Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the Arizona Motor Vehicle Division (MVD). Good luck sorting out the impact of a MVD glitch that impacted over 100,000 registered without a written agreement.
Sought Written Agreements between MC and the United States Postal Service (USPS)
Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the USPS. Good luck sorting out the responsibility for updating 56,226 fictitious addresses (See Drop Box Collection) in the Maricopa County voter registration database. Apparently, no written agreement is needed to allow the USPS to share MC 56,226 ficticious addresses Runbeck Election Services, Inc (See Drop Box Collection)
Sought Written Agreements between MC and the Supplier of Temporary Workers
Maricopa County was not required by law to retain contracts between MC and the supplier of temporary workers during the 2020 General Election. Good luck proving the majority of Level 1 Signature Verifiers were never trained; MC didn't train them.
Green Book Documentation for Internal Controls
Prior to the presentation of the 17 Principles and 196 Attributes, the GAO's Green Book begins with an Overview, which explains of how to use the Green Book. Section 2 - Establishing an Effective Internal Control System, Documentation Requirements is fundamental aspect of governance. This section presents the following Documentation Requirements:
OV2.10 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.
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.
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)
OV2.12 These requirements represent the minimum level of documentation in an entity's internal control system. Management exercises judgment in determining what additional documentation may be necessary for an effective internal control system. If management identifies deficiencies in achieving these documentation requirements, the effect of the identified deficiencies is considered as part of management's summary determination of whether the related principle is designed, implemented, and operating effectively.
OV2.13 Minimum documentation requirements are identified throughout the Green Book with a symbol and the wording "[documentation requirement]" following the narrative. The minimum documentation requirements are also summarized in appendix I.
Components, Objectives, and Organizational Structure of Internal Control
Potential Governance Gaps
Maricopa County leadership and legal team gained a favorable ruling by the Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County by claiming Arizona Revised Statutes do not require the documentation Jamie requested.
Contrary to the Maricopa County's Philosophy of only documenting what is required by law, the Government Accountability Office acknowledges that Federal Laws and Regulations do not adequately specify documentation requirements. Hence, the Green Book defines in general terms the documentation requirements which is required for all departments and agencies under the executive branch of the Federal Government.
By the Judge's ruling, citizens are effectively prevented from acquiring the necessary information to prove wrongdoing by a County in a judicial setting. The Judge's ruling substantiates a governance gap with respect to documentation requirements for the internal controls within Maricopa County.
