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
- 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.
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. I identified the multiple Defendants in my claim based on the "Hot Potato" game Maricopa County played, Various County employees routed around my original Public Records Request to different departments. Therefore, I was unable to identify who was ultimately responsible for responding to my request. The Maricopa County Organizational Chart may help identify the relationship of the following Defendants:
- MC Board of Supervisors - Elected Officials
- MC Elections Department - Reports to the MC Board of Supervisors
- MC Information Governance - Reports to the MC Board of Supervisors
- MC Office of Procurement Services - Reports to the MC Board of Supervisors
- MC Recorders Office - Elected Official
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.
I found some of the legal statements made in defense of Maricopa County’s responsiveness seemed to conflict or suggest inconsistencies with United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (a.k.a., the Green Book). I understand Maricopa County is under no obligation to comply with the Green Book. Nevertheless, some of the legal assertions made by the Maricopa County’s legal team suggest poor accountability to the citizens they were established to serve.
In the presentation of these legal statements, I will provide some context for which the Maricopa County is responding to, which will be followed by the attorney’s responses.
On last point, as the defendant, Maricopa County had to separate my request into one of two categories. First, Maricopa County had delivered all of the records I had requested in instance where those records were available. Second, Maricopa was unable to deliver all othere requested documents because they do not exist. All of the documents I requested fit into one of those two categories.
Repeatedly, the legal team makes the point that the Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) do not specify documentation requirements. Therefore, no records were created and retained for operational practices where no statutory obligation existed. Maricopa County is operating under the premise that documentation is not required to demonstrate compliance with Arizona Statutes,
The General Accountability Office's Green Book explains Documentation Requirements in their Greenbook, within the Overview Section. Attribute OV.10 makes the following statement:
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.
As defined by the Green Book, Internal Control Systems within Maricopa County would obviously inadequate and prone to recurring problems assuming the default legal claim was correctly stated; no documentation will be created and retained beyond what is required by statute. Maricopa County processes would appear to be more susceptible to fraud and corruption without adequate documentation to prove otherwise. Without documentation, citizens are totally reliant on the assertions of County officials and employees without any recourse to verify their assertions.
Is the fox watching the henhouse?
Defense Briefing
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 Plaintiff's Briefing
Various legal statements made to illustrate the County's commitment to minimum documentation are presented in the following, which were extracted from the Plaintiff's Briefing.
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.”
This defense statement 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 documentation 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): 1.05
Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
- Attribute(s): 6.01
Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information Security Risk
Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
- Attribute(s):
Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information Technology
- Attribute(s):
Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
Erroneous Request to Fabricate Records.
In my plaintiff’s briefing, I acknowledged receipt of four contracts, two with Runbeck and two with Dominion. However, there seemed to be gaps in the documentation. Changes were made to the contracts without any supporting justification or signatory sheet to authorize the changes. I felt that I had been provided some, but not all of the Runbeck and Dominion documentation associated with the contracts with Maricopa County. Therefore, I reiterated my request for Runbeck and Dominion contract information.
The legal team asserted that I was requesting Maricopa County create the documents I requested with the following statement:
- “There is no obligation for a public entity to create a record in response to a public records request.”
- “It is also important to note that the Defendants have no duty to create any records in response to Plaintiff’s public records request.
- As Defendants have no duty to create public records in response to Plaintiff’s requests, the Defendants do not have to create documents in response to Plaintiff’s wishes.
I never asked for Maricopa County to “create” records on my behalf; I just wanted the County to produce what appears to have been missing from the documents they had already provided. In my opinion, it would have been legally inappropriate to create documents “after the fact.”
It was interesting that the Maricopa County legal team chose to essentially claim they are under no legal obligation to create documents, which I would consider unethical or potentially illegal.
- Potential Governance Gap(s):
Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Attribute(s): 1.03
Voting Procedures for County Operations
I sought to understand how Maricopa County implemented the Arizona Secretary of State’s Instructions and Procedures manual, which is readily available for public review.
Maricopa County’s legal team claimed they were under no obligation to keep those records with the following statement: “Section 16-452 authorizes the Secretary of State to create the Elections Procedures Manual an imposes no duty on any of the Defendants to create the type of records Plaintiff requested.”
Hence, the Maricopa Legal Team was making the argument that they are only required to perform what is specified in the Arizona Statutes. Unfortunately, Arizona Statutes are not written to sufficient detail to assure proper governance during day-to-day operations.
Potential Governance Gap(s):
Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12
Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
- Attribute(s): 12.02 and 12.03
Maricopa County Recorder’s Office Response
On 6/24/25, the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office (MCRO) responded to my Public Records Request (i.e., items 2, 3, 4, and 5) with the following:
2. Reports will be provided to you through a secure FTP. (Request fulfilled)
3. All processes are followed as prescribed in state and Elections Procedure Manual (2019 edition)
4. All processes are followed in accordance with statute and the Elections Procedure Manual (2019)
5. A.R.S. 16-166 (Verification of registration) does not include a requirement for reporting. Please clarify the statute or specific report you are requesting.
The Maricopa County Legal team responded with the following:
- [regarding item #2] Here, Section 16-121 does not require the creation of reports.
- [regarding item #3] Section 16-121 defines the terms “qualified elector.” The statute imposes no requirement for any Defendant to create reports.
- [regarding item #4] A.R.S 16-165. No part of the statute requires the Record’s Office to create the records the plaintiff sought.
Arizona Elections Procedures Manual is a detailed document, which explains how to fulfill the fundamental steps necessary to comply with applicable Arizona Statutes relating to elections. At the state level, there is acknowledgement that Arizona Statutes are not sufficiently detailed to explain the election process and subprocesses. Hence, there is the need to develop an Arizona Election Procedures Manual.
An even greater level of detail would be expected at the county level, which is where the bulk of election activities occurs. Additionally, each Arizona County would be expected to implement State requirements with slight differences, necessitating county specific instructions, which would vary from county to county.
Potential Governance Gap(s):
Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Attributes 1.04, 1.05, 1.08
Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Attribute(s): 3.09, 3.10, 3.11, and 3.12
Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
- Attribute(s): 12.02, 12.03, and 12.05
Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
- Attribute(s): 13.04, 13.07
Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
- Attribute(s): 15.03, 15.09
Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
- Attribute(s): 16.04
"No Duty to Explain Anything"
The full quote reads, "Defendants have no duty to provide an index or explain anything." The quote was truncated to show the arrogance of the Maricopa County management and legal team, assuming the management team reviewed and approved of the content of the Defense brief. They obviously feel no responsibility to respond to the inquiries of their citizens.
Potential Governance Gap(s):
Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
- Attribute(s): 15.01
Can't sue me! Nana Nana Boo Boo!
The legal team may have disclosed another Trump card the County holds to withhold information from the public; it's like a "Get Out of Jail Free card."
The Maricopa County Recorder's Office (MCRO) is a "non-jural entity," which means they are incapable of suing or being sued. This according to the MC legal team. I will have to accept the legal team’s statement as truthful and assume I'm missing another legal definition given that MCRO prevailed in a 2026 court decision against the MC Board of Supervisors.
With that said, what oversight of the MCRO can be performed and how can they be held accountable if MCRO is not required to document "anything" unless specifically specified by Arizona statutes and citizens can’t sue them?
Potential Governance Gap(s):
Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
- Attribute(s): 2.02
