Arizona State Senator Kelly Townsend has filed another 1487 request to Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s office seeking answers to the questions raised by the Arizona audit.
In August, State Senator Sonny Borrelli used this same law which requires the Attorney General to investigate a potential violation of the law and withhold 10% of state shared funds if the violation is not corrected within 30 days.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich delivered, forcing the County to settle with The Arizona Senate over Senate subpoenas.
The questions raised over the last six months about the 2020 election remain unanswered and after the most recent audit report, Townsend wants the answers.
Ballot Paper Issues –
A.R.S. § 16-468(2) and A.R.S. § 16-502(A).
1. It has come to my attention that there may have been multiple types of paper used that were not authorized. Please provide evidence of all of the various papers that were purchased and used from a company that provides such legally authorized paper.
2. Who were the suppliers of paper for both Runbeck printed ballots and the day of election ballots of an kind?
3. Did Dominion supply any paper for ballots? If so, please provide purchase orders to show where this paper came from and if it met the standards of our statutes.
4. At any time did any precinct need to buy paper that ran out on Election Day? If so, which precincts ran out of paper and where did Maricopa County procure additional paper? Who was responsible for supplying that paper and do we have explanation as to why it ran out?
5. Maricopa County said they used VoteSecure paper by Roland. Please provide purchase orders and which VoteSecure paper that were used and where.
6. If these processes regarding the use of ballot secure paper were not followed correctly and by state law, who would be held accountable for these violations?
7. As a member of the Arizona Senate, I received information regarding irregular ballots that were inserted among the other ballots. These ballots were being logged and tracked in an official log book. Please report back how many of these anomalies were found, and what do the logs say about them. Additionally, what were the vote tallies on those ballots?
8. In the preliminary report, we received information that the ballots had bled through and caused overvotes, despite the Legislature being told that these issues would not happen due to ballot secure paper that was impermeable from Sharpie ink. Please report back any information obtained regarding the county having ballots that had bleed through and what effect that had on adjudication rate.
9. If different types of ballot paper were used for different precincts and voters, and occasionally non ballot secure paper was used creating bleed through and overvote / artifact, leading to adjudication rates being high among some voters and not others, would that constitute an unequal application of policy / election security and a 14th Amendment violation of the voter’s civil rights?
Signature / Envelope Issues
1. Did Maricopa County fulfill statutory requirements for signature verification on all counted ballots included in the official canvass?
2. Signature issues were reported in the recent Audit conducted by the Senate. They included the following problems:
1. Completely blank signature
2. Nearly blank signature
3. Scribbled signature that did not match
If there are ballots included in the official canvass that were counted without complying with A.R.S.16-550(A), how many were included that did not meet this legal threshold?
3. Who would be responsible for allowing illegal ballots to be counted that did not meet the legal threshold of A.R.S.16-550(A)?
4. Ballot envelopes were reported in the audit with a “Verified and approved” stamp appearing BEHIND the envelope graphic of a triangle. How did these images of the verified and approved stamp print from behind the triangle image on the envelope?
5. How many of these envelopes with irregular printing of the “verified and approved” or other stamp behind the original graphics of the envelope have been uncovered, and were the ballots contained therein counted in the official canvass?
1. In the Dr. Shiva presentation of the Arizona audit, it was reported that there were 17,322 duplicate voter envelopes submitted in the final canvass of the election.
a. What is the party affiliation of those voters? Can we contact them and ask them who they
b. Did they knowingly submit too many ballots and will they be held accountable if so?
c. Why were these voters allowed to keep their duplicate ballots / votes as part of the official c
canvass? Who was responsible for removing the duplicates and will they be held accountable?
2.There were 255,326 votes mismatched between the VM55 and EV33 files. Which file matched the hand count?
3. If it is 255k votes over the hand count, does that match with any of the wrong paper usage?
4. If the discrepancy cannot be accounted for, what is the proper and legal course of action?
Chain of Custody
1. Please provide evidence that all chain of custody documents required by law were adhered to and preserved for inspection and audit.
2. If these documents do not exist or are not available, who is responsible legally for that failure?
Data Security (Usernames & Passwords) –
2019 Elections Procedures Manual, p. 209 (Section 2, Subsection a., number 2)
1. The elections procedures manual requires that “The application shall provide distinct security roles, with separate usernames and secure passwords for each user or station.” Please provide evidence that this requirement was followed in Maricopa County as it relates to all login and password requirements, systemwide.
2. Who is responsible for ensuring this is maintained, and what consequence/recourse does the state have for such a breach of protocol?
3. Is the master/administrative password that has not been released by Maricopa County or Dominion in compliance with State law?
4. Do anonymous logins of any kind violate the 2019 Elections Procedure Manual?
1. Were the EMS Server, EMS Client workstations, REWEB 1601 & 1602 connected to the internet?
2. If they were connected to the internet, is this a violation of A.R.S.16 and the Elections procedure manual?
3. Do the Dominion voting tabulation machines have the capability to connect to the internet?
4. Was at any time the voting machines connected to the internet?
5. Who would be responsible and held accountable if any laws in this section were broken?
52 U.S.C. § 21081(b)(1)
1. In the initial audit report we received information that the machines in some locations were not calibrated and that the ballots were offset significantly. Please report back as to what information is available regarding the miscalibration of the machines that caused the offset reported to us regarding the work by Jovan Pulitzer.
2. Did the calibration problems come from specific voting machines or were they random?
3. If they were specific machines, what precincts had the machines that were grossly mis-calibrated?
4. Have those machines been identified and sent for repair, or will they be replaced by the newly purchased machines?
5.Who is responsible for the calibration of the machines?
6. In order to identify the machines that are grossly mis-calibrated, which ballot on Demand systems or printers were used to print ballots either for early votes, day of, and duplicate votes? Where were they located, and model/registration number and service number of the actual machine.
7. Is there a GPS tracker on each machine, and if so, what is the data on each of those machines?
1. In the audit, we learned that some of the adjudicated ballots were missing serial numbers, had wrong serial numbers, or had obstructed serial numbers. How many ballots did not meet the requirements of A.R.S.16-621(B)3(a)?
2. Who is responsible for ensuring that this law is abided by, and what is the recourse for voters when this law is not adhered to, yet the illegal ballots were counted in the official canvass?
Deleted files –
52 USC 20701
1. Please investigate all reports of deleted files at Maricopa County for the 2020 General election. The County has explained that these deleted files were regarding a different election and were being archived. Please verify the validity of this information.
2. Please provide proof these files exist in archive.
3. Did the auditors or subcontractors find that there was a program created to specifically remove and purge files of the 2020 election? If so, who implemented it?
4. If we are unable to show that these files were archived and indeed deleted and not related to a different election, does that show intent to tamper with evidence?
5. Is it normal procedure to create a special program to archive files at the Maricopa County Recorder;s office?
6. Please provide a detailed report of this special program used to “archive” or delete files on 02/01/2021 at the Maricopa County Recorder’s office referenced in the audit report, a copy of the program and an explanation of what it is designed to do.
7. Who designed the program?
1. Why were the ballot boxes delivered to the Senate auditors unsealed?
2. Who removed the seals off and when? Please provide all documentation available that is required to be kept upon opening boxes.
3. Who is responsible for compliance with this state law, and is it possible to discover who opened the boxes based on video recording?
Ineligible Voters Allowed to Cast Votes –
A.R.S. 16 Articles 1, 1.1, and 2, Elections Procedures Manual
1. Were ineligible voters allowed to cast votes in the Maricopa County 2020 General election?
2. If there are votes included in the official canvass of the 2020 General election, it is to be concluded that the election performed was an illegal election and should be nullified and repeated? Please comment on how to proceed, based on any findings of yours that establish illegal completion of a secure election in Maricopa County.
Redacted Maricopa County Audit Details –
NOTE: This concerns information obtained regarding the actions of the Maricopa County Recorder’s office discovered through the Senate Auditors. If not 100% of the information obtained was released, the public will not receive answers to what information was obtained via an audit that was paid for, in part, by public funds. Therefore, the subsequent questions asked are salient and appropriate for this 1487 complaint to ensure that all the forementioned laws were abided by.
1. Does there exist information about Maricopa County that was discovered via audit this year that has been omitted and not reported to the public and if so, what was that information?
2. Who requested that information to be omitted and why?
3. Were there any threats of cancelation of contract and removal of indemnity should any discovered information be reported to the public?