Arizona rigged voting machines in Republican areas so they would fail. They did a test run shortly before the election to make sure the machines were malfunctioning. As planned, the machines failed on a massive scale, suppressing the vote total for Trump and Kari Lake.
350,000 votes were manually signature verified at a rate of 2-3 seconds per ballot, which is obviously impossible. This boosted the vote total of Democrats because of their ballot harvesting operation.
savearizonafund.com
Arizona elections are now in uncharted territory. New evidence produced by
Maricopa County strongly suggests that Maricopa officials
intentionally sabotaged the 2022 General Election, then gave false testimony
attempting to cover up their misconduct. Even viewed in the light most favorable to
Maricopa, the evidence shows Maricopa intentionally failed to conduct logic and
accuracy (“L&A”) testing required by A.R.S. § 16-449(A) and altered the election
equipment thereby rendering the election irredeemably flawed.
On November 8, 2022 (“Election Day”), when Republican turnout was widely
predicted to be historic, vote-center tabulators at over 59% of Maricopa’s vote
centers rejected defective ballots printed by ballot-on-demand (“BOD”) printers
more than 200,000 times. The ensuing chaos led to massive lines and wait times,
thereby impairing or depriving the right to vote of tens of thousands of
predominately Republican voters.
After discovering this new evidence, Lake filed a motion (the “Rule 60
Motion”) for relief from judgment under Rule 60(b) of the Arizona Rules of Civil
Procedure (“ARCP”) [ROA 271] showing that:
• Maricopa falsely certified that it conducted L&A testing in accordance with
A.R.S. § 16-449(A) on October 11, 2022, complete with the required public
notice and observers, which in reality was simply kabuki theatre;
• After Maricopa conducted its falsely “certified” L&A testing on October 11,
2022, Maricopa conducted unannounced and unlawful testing on all 446 vote-
center tabulators on October 14, 17, and 18. The tabulator system log files
show that 260 of the vote-center tabulators rejected ballots with the same
tabulator error codes that occurred on Election Day. In other words, this
evidence supports a conclusion that Maricopa’s unannounced and unlawful
testing was a dry run for the Election Day debacle;
• Maricopa’s Co-Director of Elections, Scott Jarrett, gave false testimony about
the causes and the extent of the Election Day tabulator ballot rejections caused
by misconfigured, speckled, or faded BOD-printed ballots. In reality, vote-
center tabulators rejected BOD-printed ballots at a rate of over 7,000 every 30
minutes from 6:30 am, shortly after the polls opened, through 8:00 pm, after
the polls closed; and
• The cause of the misconfigured “fit-to-page” 19-inch BOD-printed ballot
images to be printed on 20-inch paper occurred at 127 of Maricopa’s 223 vote
centers on Election Day and was caused either by malware on the BOD
printers or remote administration changes.
Incredibly, in response to the Rule 60 Motion, Maricopa officials admitted,
seven months after the fact, that between October 14-18, 2022, they swapped out
the memory cards and the election software installed on Maricopa’s 446 vote-center
tabulators with “reformatted memory cards” that purportedly contained election
software supposedly previously tested on other equipment. Maricopa did not
perform L&A testing on these 446 tabulators after swapping out the elections
software and memory cards as required under A.R.S. § 16-449.
Aside from potential criminal misconduct, Maricopa’s unlawful actions also
invalidate the tabulators from use in the November 2022 General Election. As
detailed below, the election should be set aside on these facts alone. Although
finding Lake’s motion timely, the trial court denied Lake’s motion—ruling, inter
alia, that Lake had improperly amended her prior claim with this new evidence. This
was clear error. The claim Lake presented in this motion is plainly within the
complaint and the same claim presented at trial in December 2022—but Maricopa’s
wrongdoing is now plain to see.
The second claim here concerns signature verification that A.R.S. § 16-
550(A) requires for mail-in ballots. Signature verification is one of the most
important security requirements for ensuring that every mail-in ballot is cast by the
actual voter who requested and is legally qualified to vote it. The evidence presented
at trial revealed that Maricopa created the façade of a transparent, scientific rigor to
mislead the public about the integrity of the signature-verification process.
First, Maricopa published signature-review training materials and set up two
rooms at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (“MCTEC”) under
live video for the public to watch the signature-review process. These training
materials and the live-feed transparency were for show. In reality, Maricopa does
not require signature-review workers to “compare” signatures in accordance with its
training materials, and the vast majority of Maricopa’s 155 first-level signature-
verification workers worked remotely, out of sight, even at home. Deviating from its
own express training for signature verification while leading the public to believe it
was able to observe the entire process strongly supports an inference that Maricopa
intended to violate Arizona’s law requiring signature verification.
Second, Maricopa’s computer logs show that Maricopa’s signature-
verification workers “compared” and approved over 275,000 voter signatures at
humanly impossible speeds—meaning the signature comparisons required by A.R.S.
§ 16-550(A) and Maricopa’s own training materials cannot have been literally, much
less lawfully, performed. Over 275,000 voter signatures on ballot affidavits were
purportedly “compared” for consistency with the same voters’ signatures on
registration records in less than three seconds per
signature comparison, with 70,000 in less than two seconds per signature
comparison.
Lake’s signature expert testified, and common sense agrees, that it is not
physically possible to “compare” a voter’s ballot signature to his or her registration
signature at such speeds. The trial court ruled that the A.R.S. § 16-550(A)
requirement to “compare” signatures imposes no standard capable of judicial review.
The court’s ruling misconstrued the statute’s plain meaning, as well as the Secretary
of State’s and Maricopa’s own interpretations of this requirement.
Tom |
