June 9, 2026: Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies
You are here: Poor Governance Data; Poor Governance Examples; Jamie's Example; June 9, 2026, Maricopa County Ombudsman Replies
The next part of Jamie's Story is August 3, 2026: Submitted Complaint.
This page examines the Maricopa County Ombudsman Reply with insight's gained from a Representative from the Arizona State Ombudsman Citizens' Aide (AZOCA) agency.
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.
The Response
Ombudsman Background
Definition
From the Merriam-Webster dictionary, the most relevant definition is as follows:
ombudsman (noun): a government official (as in Sweden or New Zealand) appointed to receive and investigate complaints made by individuals against abuses or capricious acts of public officials
History
The following History of the Public Sector Ombudsman was provided by the United States Ombudsman Association:
For as long as government has existed, guaranteeing citizens fair and equitable treatment under the law has been an issue and various protections have been utilized over the years. In modern times the public sector Ombudsman, where instituted, has been a successful and valuable guarantor of citizens’ rights. By impartial and independent investigation of citizens’ complaints, it has provided an informal and accessible avenue of redress.
The first public sector ombudsman (OM-budz-man, -buhdz-, -boodz-) was appointed by the Parliament of Sweden of 1809. The Swedish Constitution divided and balanced power between the king and Parliament with the king having executive powers and Parliament retaining legislative power. The ombudsman, who was appointed by and responsible to Parliament, was to protect individual rights against the excesses of the bureaucracy.
This first ombudsman’s office, since its creation, has been the model for the public sector ombudsman, and set the definition that is still accepted today: a public official appointed by the legislature to receive and investigate citizen complaints against administrative acts of government. These acts may or may not include the administrative acts of the judiciary or the legislature, depending upon the statute.
The ombudsman concept spread through Europe, and to this continent with the first offices being established in the United States in the mid 60’s. This was a time in the United States when exposure of government secrecy and scandal, and when movements such as civil rights and good government created a political atmosphere more favorable to openness, and to establishing recourse for the aggrieved.
Hawaii established the first public sector office in 1967. Since then, a number of states, counties and municipalities have followed suit by establishing offices of general jurisdiction.
The ombudsman movement in the United States has also been characterized by offices that represent a departure from the Swedish model. These variations would include offices with general jurisdiction but appointment by a governor or mayor, legislative offices with special jurisdiction such as corrections, and single agency ombudsman with statutory authority.
Notable Observations:
A Representative from the Arizona Ombudsman Citizens' Aide agency had already provided their independent assessment of deficiencies of Maricopa County's use of Ombudsman program on the previous day. See June 8, 2026: Arizona State Ombudsman Replies for additional details. Therefore, programmatic aspects of Maricopa County's Ombudsman program were not evaluated a second time based on the Ombudsman for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors succinct response. However, the actual response was assessed based on the response itself.
Potential Governance Gap(s):
- Principle 1 - Demonstrate Commitment to Integrity and Ethical Values
- Principle 2 - Exercise Oversight Responsibility
- Attribute(s): 2.01
- Principle 3 - Establish Structure, Responsibility, and Authority
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 4 - Demonstrate Commitment to Competence
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 5 - Enforce Accountability
- Attribute(s): 5.01
- Principle 6 - Define Objectives and Risk Tolerances
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 7 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Risks
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 8 - Assess Fraud, Improper Payment, and Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 9 - Identify, Analyze, and Respond to Change
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 10 - Design Control Activities
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 11 - Design General Control Activities over Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 12 - Implement Control Activities
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 13 - Use Quality Information
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 14 - Communicate Internally
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 15 - Communicate Externally
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 16 - Perform Monitoring Activities
- Attribute(s):
- Principle 17 - Evaluate Issues and Remediate Deficiencies
- Attribute(s):
