Interesting Takeaways

This is a place saver. Do not Proofread!

Interesting Takeaways will bring forward some interesting findings, without a direct reference to trending of governance gaps.

---

This page highlights some interesting facts discovered while researching governance issues.

You are here: Governance Gaps; Governance Gaps; -- Interesting Takeaways

These Interesting Takeaways are not presented in any logical order.

Interesting Takeaways

Catch-22 for Governance

catch-22 (noun): a dilemma or difficult circumstance from which there is no escape because of mutually conflicting or dependent conditions

This takeaway is courtesy of the Judge presiding over a Special Complaint Jamie filed against Maricopa County for not delivering most of the county records she had requested.

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 has under no legal obligation to maintain the records Jamie sought to show poor accountability and inadequate controls.

This presents a Catch-22 for the Maricopa County citizen by this ruling.

• On one hand, objective evidence would be needed in a judicial hearing to prove Maricopa's County's wrongdoing with an issue that has caused concern or harm to a citizen. In many cases, county documentation would be relied upon as the objective evidence to demonstrate the county's understanding of an issue before and/or during their wrongdoing.
• On the other hand, Maricopa County is not required to document and retain said documentation that could serve as objective evidence needed to prove wrongdoing.  

Laws rarely specify the process details. Governments normally use policies and procedures to conduct business, which is good governance. Granted, Judges must focus on the law, not policies and procedures. Hence, Arizona Counties can shield themselves from public oversight in areas of governance by simply not storing the records created as part of the process, but ensure they comply with the few statutes that recquire documentation. .

• For additional details, see June 1, 2026: Judge's Decision, Catch-22 for Governance.

56,226 Fictitious Addresses

There were 56,226 undeliverable early ballots in Maricopa County during the 2020 General Election per a United States Postal Service Inspector. 

These early ballots were undeliverable because the addresses were fictitious; there was no residence at the address provided on the voter registration form. Can you imagine how easy it is for a corrupt postal worker or workers to steal a few thousand for fraudulent purposes? If you don't think that would be possible, why do you think your credit cards are mailed to you without the name of the credit card company on the envelope? Credit card companies know credit cards are stolen from the USPS if the letter content (credit card) can be determined by distinguishing letterheads on the envelope. Imagine how easy it would be to steal those easy to identify green early ballot envelopes, especially when they have already been segregated form other first-class mail and there are boxes and boxes of early ballots that are still valid and are being treated the same as all first-class mail.

For more details,

• see Allegation #2 Dropbox Collection (2020), Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database

86,391 Fictitious People

In September of 2021, the Arizona Senate requested the Arizona Attorney General investigate an allegation of 86,391 fictitious people on the voter registration rolls during the 2020 General Election. 

The inspector conducting the investigation discredited the allegation of 86,391 fictitious people based on a "belief" that the databases used by Cyber Ninjas to arrive at that list were not as accurate and reliable that the databases used by the Arizona Attorney General's inspectors.

Meanwhile, the inspector did not perform any random sampling, to acquire objective data for such a serious allegation. Not a single record was checked despite reasonable evidence collected by commercially available data bases. Banking and financial institutions routinely perform a credit check using these commercial databases critical financial decisions. Somehow, the inspector was free to discredit all 86,391 fictious people based on a belief with on objective evidence.

Elsewhere in the inspector's report, 56,226 early ballots were noted to have been undeliverable due to fictious addresses. This objective evidence was presented by a United States Postal Service (USPS) Inspector. He also said all of those undeliverable early ballots were digitally scanned by the USPS.

A prudent action would have been to reconcile the list of 56,391 fictious addresses to the list of 86,391 fictitious people. A negligent action would be to discredit 86,391 fictitious people on the voter rolls without any objective evidence and ignore evidence collected elsewhere in the investigation.

For more details,

• see Allegation #6 Unknown Published Election Fraud Flyer (2020), Sub-allegation #8
• see Allegation #2 Dropbox Collection (2020), Deviation: Fictious Addresses in the MC Voter Registration Database

587 "bad signatures"

During the 2020 General Election, Maricopa County Level 1 Signature Verifiers identified 587 signatures on early ballots that did not match the signature on the voter registration record. 

The following information will put this in perspective:

• 1,910,317 was the number of early ballots reviewed by Level 1 Signature Verifiers.
• 16,539 was the number of early ballots flagged for having no signature by the Level 1 Signature Verifiers.
• 587 was the number of early ballots flagged for having a "bad signature" (signature mis-match)

In summary,

• 16,539 (0.87%) were rejected for no signature, This is the easiest decision to make because its binary; is there a mark on the envelope, yes or no?
• 587 (0.030%) were rejected for a bad signature, which is a much more challenging decision because five signature attributes need to be matched according to Arizona Statute.

• The Catastrophic Risks of Inadequate Signature Verification in U.S. Elections – A Five-Alarm Fire for Democracy - Hand Count Road Show

Well Aligned, but to the Wrong Purpose

A Maricopa County employee replied to one of Jamie's inquiries with “We have no statutory responsibility to answer your questions.” This comment would be expected from a frontline employee given that Maricopa County leadership and legal team included the following in their March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing, "Defendants have no duty to explain." Maricopa County culture appears to be aligned from top to bottom for the purpose of maintaining a minimum level of performance necessary to comply with applicable laws and regulations. However, Green Book Attribute 1.04 has a different perspective, with 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." Empasis was by ACV.

• For additional details, see May 15, 2025: Let’s Play Hot Potato
• For additional details, see March 12, 2026: Maricopa County Defense Briefing