Heat Maps

[need intro]

Election Anomalies

There were 14 events evaluated for potential governance gaps, which are deviations from the Green Book Standard. The Heat Map of Election Anomalies was comprised of the following events:

1. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #1 - Signature Verification
2. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #2- Drop Box Collection
3. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3- Election Management System (EMS): Sub-allegation #1 - Data Purged
4. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #2 - Election Files Deleted
5. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #3 - Corrupt Ballot Images
6. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #4 - Missing Ballot Images
7. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #5 - Failure to follow basic Cyber Security practices
8. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #6 - Subpoenaed Equipment Not Provided
9. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #7 - Anonymous Logins
10. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #8 - Dual Boot System Discovered
11. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #9 - Operating System Logs Not Preserved
12. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #3 - EMS: Sub-allegation #10 - Internet Connection to the EMS
13. AZ AG's Investigation: Allegation #4 - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not Provide for Audit
14. Maricopa County Assistant Director email Suspends Sharpie Markers and then directs there use on Election Day

Heat Map of Election Anomalies

Summary

The weakest areas of governance were with the following principles:

• Principle #1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values (54%)
• Principle #17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies (54%)
• Principle #12 - Implement Control Activities (43%)
• Principle #8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payments and Information (39%)

Principle #2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility scored low (8%). However, this principle is perhaps the biggest issue. All 14 Election Anomalies were identified to have a gap with oversight.

• Maricopa County Board of Supervisors did not acknowledge the Arizona Senates oversight role and the situation digressed into a litigated settlement agreement.
• Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and Maricopa County Recorder's Office did not respond to the public (Jamie's inquiries).
• The Arizona Secretary of State was legally responsible for providing oversight for Arizona Elections, but was ineffective in the oversight role.
• The Arizona Superior Court for Maricopa County "...found that found that much of what was requested was not records that existed, but answers to question about accountability and controls [in other words, governance], and much of the relief Plaintiff sought was beyond was beyond the Court's authority in a public records case.

All fourteen examples had Attribute, 2.01 as a weakness because the Attribute is written as an overview and scored as a governance gap because of the absence or ineffectiveness of oversight. The other Principle 2 Attributes (i.e., 2.02, 2.03. 2.04, 2.05, 2.06, 2.07, 2.08, 2.09, 2.10, 2.11, and 2.12) were intended to assess the oversight entity, but none existed and the legally designated oversight the Arizona Secretary of State, which was less than adequate. Hence, Principle #2 scored low for a serious governance gap.