Maricopa County officers disputed a lot of the main points state investigators raised in regards to the conduct of the Nov. 8 election however stated additional solutions must wait, given upcoming duties to canvass the election after which to recount three races that have been on the poll.
The response, issued Sunday, comes a couple of week after the Arizona Legal professional Common’s Workplace made its request and because the county prepares to canvass election outcomes Monday morning.
Jennifer Wright, head of the AG’s Election Integrity Unit, demanded in a Nov. 19 letter “a full report and accounting” of Election Day points final weekend, together with printer issues, provisional ballots and the dealing with of voted ballots put in a safe field known as “door 3” to be tabulated later. She referenced sworn testimony from elections staff in addition to ballot observers to buttress her demand for particulars on election procedures, though she didn’t present these statements.
Wright has been important in social media posts of the county’s conduct and advocated for Republican candidates who have been on the 2022 poll, bringing into query her means to impartially examine election procedures.
County rebuts main complaints
The response from the county’s Board of Supervisors rebutted most of Wright’s arguments and included an Elections Division report, which particulars specifics resembling procedures for voter check-in at vote facilities and a log of printer places and issues with these printers. A complete of 31% of the county’s vote facilities had printer issues on Election Day.
In her letter, Wright cited provisions within the state structure and state legislation requiring election procedures to be free and uniform. She recommended the printer issues at vote facilities on Election Day violated that requirement.
Tom Liddy, chief of the county legal professional’s civil companies division, replied that the uniformity clause doesn’t pertain when sudden issues come up.
“It doesn’t imply that an election could be invalid if there are sudden printing difficulties, stopping on-site tabulation,” Liddy wrote. That is very true when voters got choices for casting their ballots after they couldn’t get the vote middle tabulator to just accept their poll, he added.
Liddy additionally pointed to a 2020 ruling from the Maricopa County Superior Court docket that discovered the method doesn’t need to be good to make sure free and uniform elections.
A cascade of calls for
The five-page reply to the Legal professional Common’s Workplace marks the county’s first official response to a sequence of probes and lawsuits launched by some Republican candidates and politicians.
They embrace lawsuits from Republicans Kari Lake and Abe Hamadeh, candidates for governor and state legal professional common, respectively, in addition to a subpoena from state Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, in search of data and information associated to the county’s poll printer woes on Election Day. Townsend set a 9:30 a.m. Monday deadline for a response, however the subpoena will not be enforceable and not using a vote of the state Senate.
As well as, Maricopa County Republican Celebration Chair Mickie Niland refused to log out on a post-election examination of election tools.
Level and counterpoint
Wright sought data on the county’s process for a voter to “take a look at” of a vote middle. However Liddy wrote there was no requirement for a voter to take action after which walked by the method by which voters who go away one polling website to vote at one other can guarantee their poll is counted.
Wright additionally wrote that the county appeared to have damaged the legislation by commingling uncounted ballots deposited in “door 3” with ballots run by the tabulation machines at vote facilities. “Door 3” was an possibility the county provided to voters whose poll, printed on-site, couldn’t be learn as a result of the formatting marks on the ballots produced by some printers weren’t being printed darkish sufficient for the tabulators to learn.
She additionally stated the county erred by sending these “door 3” ballots to the central tabulation middle to be reconciled in opposition to voter logs fairly than counting them on the polling website.
However the transfer to vote facilities and away from precincts additionally moved the reconciliation course of to the county’s elections headquarters, Liddy wrote.
Extra particulars to return, county officers say
The county’s letter didn’t tackle a few of the different points cited in Wright’s letter, resembling sworn testimony from paid county elections staff that the printers at vote facilities have been working correctly after they have been examined the evening earlier than Election Day.
“These complaints transcend pure hypothesis, however embrace first-hand witness accounts that increase considerations concerning Maricopa’s lawful compliance with Arizona election legislation,” Wright’s letter learn. Wright didn’t seem to offer these statements to the county.
Supervisor Invoice Gates, chairman of the five-member board, stated in a information launch accompanying the response that “The AG’s Workplace despatched their letter with urgency and we responded with urgency.”
He added that within the coming days the county would supply extra information and particulars not solely to the Legal professional Common’s Workplace but in addition to others who’re demanding particulars in regards to the conduct of the election.
