April 15, 2025: Public Records Request

You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; --Jamie's Examples; Public Records Request

• The next part of the story is May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato

---

I was getting nowhere with my efforts to engage with elected officials, so I decided to investigate using my experience, which was in the finance area, specifically with contracts. I submitted Public Records Request (PRR) to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors (MCBOS) Procurement Department on April 15, 2025. In turn, Maricopa County.

No Governance Gaps are identified on this page since there are no observations of Maricopa County practices or behaviors. I was submitting my Public Records request. My PRR was assigned tracking number PRR 2025-719 and forwarded my request to the Procurement Department.

I sought copies of signed contracts maintained by Maricopa County relating to the Service Level Agreements (SLA) during the 2018, 2020, 2022, and 2024 election cycles, including:

• Amendments
• Revisions
• Renewals
• Addenda
• Exhibits
• Post-election contract administration records

I specifically requested the contracts or Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) from the following entities:

1. Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. (a.k.a., Dominion) contracts and related amendments
2. Runbeck Election Services, Inc (a.k.a., Runbeck) contracts and related amendments
3. Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) election-related agreements maintained by the County
4. County-maintained United States Postal Service (USPS)-related election agreements
5. Temporary staffing contracts used for first-level signature verification
6. Written records reflecting post-election contract changes for the 2018–2024 cycles

Note: Dominion and Runbeck contracts were provided and additional information is available from the above hyperlinks. No additional information was provided by Maricopa County.

The request did not seek ballots, voter data, tabulation data, or confidential voter information. Again, my interest was in the resolution of anomalies, not the election outcome.

Jamie's Timeline

1. 2020: General Election Anomalies — Maricopa County has numerous election anaomalies
2. 2021: My Journey Begins — Starting to ask questions about lessons learned
3. November 2022: Ethical Issues with Katie Hobbs Overseeing Her Own Election — As Arizona S.O.S., Katie Hobbs oversaw her own election
4. December 2024: Gaining Support — [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no governance gaps]
5. April 15, 2025: Public Records Request — [My action; no governance gaps]
6. May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato — Public Records Request runaround
7. June 25, 2025: Runbeck Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
8. June 25, 2025: Dominion Contract Delivered - Responsive Record Delivered by Procurement
9. July 25, 2025; Still Gaining Support - [My action; Another PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
10. November 20, 2025: Debbie Lesko Presentation - Explains Recent Lost Ballots
11. December 1, 2025: Special Complaint File with Court - [My action; no new governance gaps]
12. January 24, 2026, Broadening the Support - [My action; PPP Resolution Approved; no new governance gaps]
13. February 23, 2026: Plaintiff's Briefing - [My action; I filed a brief with the court; no new governance gaps]
14. March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing - Maricopa County Legal Team's Defense Brief
15. April 3,, 2026, Plaintiff's Response to the Defense Briefing - [My action; no new governance gaps]
16. April 15, 2026, Evidentiary Hearing Set - Judge requires additional information before a final decision is made.
17. June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision - Judge Rules in Favor of the County
18. June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies - Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens's Aid agency
19. June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies - MC response was consistent with Arizona Ombudsman's expectations
20. August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint — Formal complaint submitted & response was as expected.

Public Records Request History

1. On April 15, 2025. Jamie submitted a single unified Public Records Request (PRR) to the Maricopa County Procurement Department, which reports to the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. The Procurement Department created PRR 25-719 to address Jamie's records request.
2. On May 15, 2026, Maricopa County Recorder's Office notified Jamie that
3. By June 1, 2025,the Procurement Department supplied Jamie with two contracts for Runbeck Election Services, Inc and two contracts for Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. The Procurement Department then transferred the plaintiffs request to the Elections Department to address requests that had not yet been fulfilled.
4. The Elections Department (under the MCBOS) created PRR 25-139 after receiving the unfilled records requests from the Procurement Department. No records were supplied to the Plaintiff by the Elections Department. Instead, the Elections Department reassigned the records request to the Information Governance Department.
5. The Governance Department (under the MCBOS) created PRR 25-1123 after receiving the unfulfilled records request from the Elections Department. Again, no records were supplied to the plaintiff by the Information Governance Department. Instead, the Information Governance Department reassigned the records request to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office (MC Recorder’s Office), which is a separate government entity than the MCBOS.
6. The MC Recorder’s Office (separate from the MCBOS) created PRR 25-64 after receiving the unfulfilled records request from the Information Governance Department. The MC Recorder’s Office did not provide the plaintiff any records. Their PRR 25-64 was closed on June 24, 2025 and inappropriately claimed all records had been provided.

• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 1.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 2.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 3.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 4.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 5.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 6A.pdf
• File:2025-12-01 Court Exhibit 6B.pdf

• April 15, 2025 - Original Public Records Request - Exhibit 1
• May 15, 2025 - Information Governance Transfer - Exhibit 5
• May 15, 2025 - Recorder's Office Acknowledges Statutory Requirements - Exhibit 3
• June 9, 2025 - Jamie clarifies PRR in email - Exhibit 6A
• June 11, 2025 - Elections Denies all Records - Exhibit 4
• June 13, 2025 - Voice Mail Follow Up - Exhibit 6B
• June 24, 2025 - Recorder Closes PRR - Exhibit 2

On “May 15, 2025” the defendant acknowledges the scope of PRR 25-64 by stating the following:

”Please provide the following records and explanations for the 2020 election, as required by A.R.S. § 39-121 (public records access):

2. A.R.S. § 16-161 (Voter Registration Records): • Reports submitted to the Secretary of State on voters registered without proof of citizenship, including ballots cast for federal offices only, per § 16-168(G).

3. A.R.S. § 16-121 (Voter List Maintenance): • Processes and reports used to maintain accurate voter lists, ensuring only eligible voters were included.

4. A.R.S. § 16-165 (Deceased Record Checks): • Records of checks to remove deceased voters from rolls, including any identified failures and corrective actions.

5. A.R.S. § 16-166 (Voter Registration Reporting): • Documentation of voter registration data reported to the Secretary of State, including compliance with federal form requirements.”

On “May 15, 2025,” the defendant acknowledges

On “June 24, 2025,” the plaintiff submitted a “Formal Escalation and Demand for Action”

On “June 24, 2025” the plaintiff reiterates the applicable statutes associated with the PPR with the following statement:

“Note: Submitting multiple formal requests under A.R.S. § 39-121 (Key Points:

·        It affirms that public records are open to inspection by any person, unless specifically exempt by law.

·        It applies to all state and local government agencies, including counties, departments, and elected officials.

·        It does not require the requester to explain why they want the records.

·        Agencies must respond promptly and cannot delay access unreasonably."

On “June 27, 2025,” the defendant closed this PRR by explaining “All records have been released, and your request has been fulfilled.” Seemingly inconsistent with the first statement, the defendant continues by stating “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.”