2001: The Journey Begins
2021: The Journey Begins
After a year of pondering the 2020 election anomalies, I wanted to know where were the documented lessons learned or corrective action processes? This is what I came to expect from any healthy organization. Unfortunately, I heard of none and could find any documentation to suggest any effort was taken to learn from these anomalies and take corrective actions.
I began asking questions. I reached out to the Secretary of State, the Governor, and the Maricopa County Recorder. The Secretary of State responded that they couldn’t provide legal advice and referred me to the Governor. The Governor never responded. Although I spoke with the Recorder, I still never received an answer explaining what process existed to objectively evaluate a citizen’s governance concern.
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.
I eventually sought judicial relief. On December 1, 2025, I filed special complaint CV2025 – 063720, which was processed by the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County. This complaint was submitted pursuant to A.R.S. § 39-121 et seq. Five defendants were named in this complaint, which included the following:
- Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS)
- MCBOS Procurement Department
- MCBOS Information Governance Department
- MCBOS Elections Department
- Maricopa County Recorder’s Office (MCRO)
The defendants were named in accordance with the agencies the County determined needed to address my PRR. My PRR was routed to all of these agencies and they were unable to resolve my request for additional records or provide a complete explanation of the documents provided.
I referenced applicable Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.), which stated the records Arizona counties were required to preserve for public inspection in my plaintiff’s brief. Five defendants (government entities or agencies) were named, which reflected the multiple handoffs of my PRR. No one government entity took responsibility for resolving my concern.
In January 2026, the Executive Guidance Committee for the Maricopa County Republican Committee re-approved the same resolution that had been submitted in December 2024, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) Contracts Must Be Open and as Transparent, Subject to Public Oversight, Audits, and Corrective Action Plans,
The judge ruled in favor of Maricopa County, the defendant. He ruled that the County had delivered all the relevant records based on affidavits and testimony provided by the Maricopa County Staff. The issue of whether other documents and records should have been available and provided in accordance with Arizona statutes was not addressed in the ruling.
[include the discussion with Jen, direction to file a complaint, frustration finding the complaint, Jen sent a link to file a complaint, research of complaints, end with why we selected James Taylor as the ideal representative to hear our proposal]
August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint
On August, 3, 2026, I submitted my complaint in accordance with the guidance of [abc-Jen] and the special link that was sent to me, which wasn’t accessible on the public webpage. The complaint summarizes my objectives, which are cross-referenced to Part B, Governance Gaps. Generally speaking, the complaint consisted of the following topics;
- Complaint #1 requests the Contract Compliance Review that I was directed to submit through the Office of Procurement Services. It seeks written determinations regarding unresolved contract compliance questions arising from my Public Records Request and related correspondence.
- Complaint #2 raises a separate governance question. Throughout this case study, my concerns involved multiple County functions, including Procurement, Elections, the Recorder's Office, Information Governance, County Management, and the Board of Supervisors. While I was directed to the Procurement complaint process for contract-related concerns, I have been unable to identify a publicly documented process informing citizens where to submit a governance complaint concerning the County's compliance review process itself or other cross-department compliance concerns.
Notes:
i. Cross-references to a Green Book attribute in Bold font denotes an attribute with Green Book documentation requirements.
ii. Cross-references to a Green Book attribute with underlined font denotes an attribute with specific public accountability.
For Contract Compliance Review
Note:
1. Please identify the complete sequence of Runbeck contracts and amendments governing the November 3, 2020 General Election, including the effective dates of each contract and amendment: [Part B; 5.02, 5.05, 6.03, 7.04, 7.05, 7.06, 8.09, 9.01, 9.02, 9.03, 9.04, 9.05, 9.06, 9.07, 9.08, 9.09, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 10.04, 10.21, 10.22, 10.23, 15.01, 15.02, 15.04, 15.09, 16.06, 16.07, 16.08, 16.09, 16.10, 17.01, 17.02, 17.03, 17.04, 17.05, and 17.06] 2. Which Disaster Recovery Plan was contractually in effect for the November 3, 2020 General Election? [9.05]
3. Please identify the agreements, contracts, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual (EPM), or other governing documents relating to:
- Motor Vehicle Division terms and conditions with Elections; [see listed attributes in #1, above]
- United States Postal Service election mail processing; [see listed attributes in #1, above]
- First-level signature verification for the November 3, 2020 General Election; and;
- Any applicable Election Procedures Manual provisions governing these activities.
4. If any of the documents identified in Question 3 do not exist, were not maintained, or cannot be produced, please state that directly.
5. Who is responsible for performing the initial evaluation of a citizen-reported concern that may involve laws, regulations, contracts, policies, procedures, or internal controls?
6. Who determines whether such a concern is a routine administrative matter or a potential compliance issue requiring formal review?
7. Is there an identified process requiring that determination before a concern is routed to one or more County departments?
8. If such a process exists, please identify the policy, procedure, administrative directive, ordinance, or other governing authority establishing that process.
9. When a citizen reports concerns involving governing contracts, the Election Procedures Manual, discrepancies in contract documentation, Disaster Recovery documentation, the inability to locate agreements or memoranda of understanding, or other apparent gaps involving contracts, policies, procedures, regulations, or internal controls, who determines whether those issues warrant formal compliance review?
10. If requested contracts, amendments, agreements, memoranda of understanding, the applicable Election Procedures Manual, or other governing documents cannot be produced, who determines whether that itself constitutes a compliance issue requiring further investigation or corrective action?
11. If a concern is determined to warrant formal compliance review, who is responsible for assigning ownership of the matter?
12. Who is responsible for coordinating any cross-department investigation?
13. Who determines whether corrective action is required?
14. Who verifies that corrective actions have been effectively implemented?
15. Who is responsible for monitoring for recurrence?
16. Who is responsible for formally closing the matter?
17. How is the reporting citizen informed of the outcome of the review?
Timeline
- Preface — Author's introduction
- 2020: The Event — The November 2020 general election anomalies
- 2001: The Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
- November 2024: Midterm Election — The Katie Hobbs situation
- December 2024: Gaining Support — Resolution submission
- April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — Public Records Request process
- May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
- August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submission
Navigation
| Quick Navigation | ||
|---|---|---|
| 🏠 Main Page | 📖 The Story | 📊 Governance Analysis |
