Maricopa County Supervisors React to Ag About Voting Irregularities

Maricopa County Supervisors React to Ag About Voting Irregularities

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors addressed concerns it had with in-person voting on Election Day, November 8, in a letter sent to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office on Sunday.

The board defended its practice of collecting votes when they couldn’t otherwise be examined due to tabulation issues in a letter written to Arizona associate attorney general Jennifer Wright, who oversees the Elections Integrity Unit.

The Arizona Attorney General’s Office claimed in a letter that pervasive issues compelled some voters to use “Door 3” instead of the on-site tabulators, but the board ruled that the practice was legal.

The letter cites eight other Arizona counties where voters used a voting device akin to Door 3 to support its claim that all voters who encountered tabulator problems were given additional lawful opportunities to do so. Additionally, it states that no rules exist that demand ballots be tallied using precinct-based tabulators.

Having just returned from Thanksgiving, I’m appreciative of the County employees who diligently and carefully responded to inquiries from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office regarding the November General Election. The AG’s Office submitted its letter urgently, and we replied urgently, according to Board Chairman Bill Gates.

Recent Post:


The full text of our answer, which explains how Maricopa County complied with all applicable state and federal requirements to guarantee that every voter had the chance to cast a ballot, is available for public reading.

The attorney general’s office reported receiving “hundreds of complaints since Election Day” regarding in-person voting in the biggest county in the state. The board also addressed the issue of election uniformity. Less than 1% of ballots cast were impacted by unanticipated printing problems, although occurring at 31% of polling places, according to the letter.

“A faultless election process is not a legal entitlement under any statute, elections procedures manual rule, or authority specified by the parties or otherwise known to the court,” it stated from a prior case. The letter also indicated that, by Arizona law, any voter who left a centre without checking out and went to another voting centre would be permitted to cast a ballot.

It was told that while the site book would show a voter checked in, the county would check to see if a vote had already been cast to see if there was proof the person cast a ballot. The envelope containing the provisional ballot wouldn’t be unsealed if proof was discovered.

The attorney general and other interested parties would receive more information in the coming days, according to Gates, who noted that the three business days allotted for responding to the letter from November 19’s request for information was “not a reasonable amount of time to respond before the canvass of the election.”

We will also react to anybody who has asked the county for public records. Most critically, we will canvass this election on Monday as required by law, added Gates.