225 WEST MADISON PH.

(602) 506-8541
PHOENIX, AZ 85003 FAX (602) 506-4317
WWW.MARICOPACOUNTYATTORNEY.ORG

Maricopa County Attorney

ALLISTER ADEL

August 18, 2021

The Honorable Karen Fann

Arizona Senate President
Fifty-Fifth Legislature
1700 West Washington
Senate Building
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

RE: Notice of Claim Pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-821.01

Dear Senate President Fann:

Maricopa County Attorney Allister Adel represents the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
(the “Board”). We write to alert you to the Board’s claims against the Arizona Senate as a result
of its election equipment being rendered unusable for Arizona elections because it was
compromised by the Senate’s vendors, and also as a result of costs the County incurred
complying with the Senate’s subpoenas.

I. FACTUAL BASIS OF CLAIMS.

A. The January 12, 2021 Subpoena.

Late in the afternoon of January 12, 2021, a little before 4:00 p.m., Senate President Fann caused
subpoenas issued jointly by her and Senator Warren Petersen to be served on the Board, the
Maricopa County Recorder, and the Maricopa County Treasurer.1 A true and correct copy of
those subpoenas is attached as Exhibit A. They commanded the Board, the Recorder, and the
Treasurer—or their designees—to appear before the Senate the next morning, January 13, 2021,
at 9 a.m., “to provide testimony” and “testify” concerning the items the subpoenas commanded
to be produced.

1
The subpoena to the Board of Supervisors was served on the Clerk’s Office at 3:49 p.m. The
subpoenas to the Recorder and the Treasurer were served at about the same time.
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 2

The Chairman of the Board of Supervisors, the Recorder, and the Treasurer all appeared with
undersigned counsel at 9 a.m. on January 13, as the subpoenas commanded. But there was no
legislative hearing scheduled for that morning. We were told that no Senator wanted to hear
from any of the County’s elected officials, despite the subpoenas’ command that they appear that
morning to provide testimony.

The County nonetheless immediately began producing what it lawfully could produce on January
15, 2021, and made a second production on January 21, 2021. Exhibits B and C, attached hereto,
are true and correct copies of letters from our office to the Senate’s counsel that accompanied the
production and listed the items produced.

B. Maricopa County v. Fann, CV2020-016840 and CV2021-002092.

The County was uncertain, however, whether it could lawfully produce some of the items the
subpoenas commanded. As a result, it filed a lawsuit, known as Maricopa County v. Fann, in
order to clarify the County’s legal obligations. In that lawsuit, the County questioned whether
the subpoenas were lawful when they had been issued under the authority of two Senators, alone,
without any authorization by the Senate as a whole. See, e.g., Maricopa County’s Motion for
Summary Judgment (filed February 22, 2021), at 6-8.2 Judge Thomason, however, ruled that the
subpoenas were lawful and enforceable, despite the fact that the Senate as a whole had not
authorized the subpoenas. Maricopa County v. Fann, CV2020-016840 (Minute Entry Ruling,
filed March 1, 2021), at 7-8 and 15.

C. Preparing for Production of the County’s Equipment, Ballots, and Data to

the Senate.

The same day that the County received Judge Thomason’s ruling, the County’s attorneys
contacted Senate President Fann’s counsel, Kory Langhofer, in order to arrange for the delivery
of the remainder of the subpoenaed items to the Senate. Mr. Langhofer responded that the
County should “maintain the materials in the County’s facility until the Senate has made suitable
arrangements for storing the materials elsewhere[.]”3 Mr. Langhofer also stated in his email that
his hope was that “the Senate will have firmed up its plans in the next few days.”

To that end, the County began preparations to transfer the 2.1 million ballots, 385 precinct-based
tabulators, 9 central count tabulators, and other election equipment to the Senate. On April 16,
2021, Mr. Langhofer sent an email to deputy county attorney Joseph La Rue, alerting the County
that the Senate was finally prepared to receive the items it had subpoenaed. Mr. Langhofer’s
email directed the County to produce the materials, beginning on April 21, 2021, to the Senate at
the Veterans Memorial Coliseum.

2
The County’s Motion for Summary Judgment is available on the Maricopa County Superior
Court’s website, at https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument-
/2415/637498369569730000.
3
Email from Kory Langhofer to Steve Tully, March 1, 2021 (5:08 p.m.).
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 3

D. The Indemnification Agreement.

On April 19, 2021, deputy county attorney Joseph La Rue wrote to Ken Bennett, who Senate
President Fann had appointed as the Senate Liaison to oversee the “audit” that the Senate
President intended to do of the County’s equipment and ballots. In his letter, Mr. La Rue asked
that Senate President Fann agree that the Senate would indemnify the County for losses it might
incur as a result of transferring its materials to the Senate. By this time, the County was aware
that the Senate planned to deliver the County’s ballots and equipment to Cyber Ninjas, CyFir,
and Wake TSI—none of whom were accredited by the federal U.S. Elections Assistance
Commission to work with elections equipment. In his letter to Mr. Bennett, Mr. La Rue noted
that Senate President Fann had signed an indemnification agreement with Cyber Ninjas, thereby
agreeing to indemnify Cyber Ninjas should it be sued or otherwise suffer losses as a result of
participating in the “audit.” Mr. La Rue stated that if Senate President Fann would similarly
agree to indemnify the County, the County would begin production of its materials to the Senate
at the Coliseum on April 21, as Mr. Langhofer had directed. However, if Senate President Fann
would not agree to indemnify the County, the County would produce the subpoenaed materials
to the Senate Building at 1700 West Washington Street, which is where the subpoenas had
commanded the materials be produced.

1. Senate President Fann Executed the Indemnification Agreement.

The next day, April 20, 2021, Senate President Fann returned the Covenant of Indemnification,
bearing her signature and constituting the Senate’s agreement to indemnify the County, to Mr.
La Rue. A true and correct copy of the Covenant of Indemnification is attached as Exhibit D.

2. Senate President Fann is a Sophisticated Businesswoman who was

Represented by Counsel.

Notably, Senate President Fann, in addition to having had a distinguished career as a public
servant is also a sophisticated businesswoman. According to her website, she founded Arizona
Highway Safety Specialists, Inc., in 1984, and is the current owner and CEO of the company.
Today, Arizona Highway Safety Specialists employs 30 people and is Arizona’s largest installer
of roadway guardrails and signage. Karen Fann, “Meet Karen,” available at
https://www.electkarenfann.com/meet-karen. Additionally, Senate President Fann’s website
states that, prior to becoming a local business owner, she “gained four years of experience in the
legal field[.]” Id. Senate President Fann also had access to good, competent counsel in Mr.
Langhofer of Statecraft PLLC, who represented the Senate at the time she signed the Covenant
of Indemnification on the Senate’s behalf.

3. The County Relied on the Indemnification Agreement to its

Detriment.

Having received the Senate’s agreement to indemnify the County, and relying on that agreement,
the County produced the subpoenaed materials to the Senate at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum,
as the Senate preferred, instead of at the Senate Building, which is what was commanded by the
subpoenas.
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 4

E. The County Incurred Expenses as a Result of the County’s Election

Equipment Being Compromised While in the Control of the Senate.

The County incurred costs as a result of its election equipment being compromised while in the
control of the Senate. Specifically, and as explained more fully below, the Senate allowed
unqualified persons to handle, examine, and manipulate the County’s election equipment in ways
that compromised it and rendered it unfit to be used in future elections. As a result, the County
has had to replace the subpoenaed election equipment at a cost to the County of $2,833,220.00.
These costs are directly recoverable from the Senate pursuant to the Covenant of
Indemnification.

1. The Senate Allowed Unqualified Persons and Firms to Handle,

Examine, and Manipulate the County’s Election Equipment.

After the County produced its election equipment to the Senate, the Senate allowed Cyber Ninjas
and other firms to handle, examine, and test the County’s election equipment. None of these
firms were accredited by the U.S. Elections Assistance Commission to test or “audit” elections
equipment.

As a result, the Arizona Secretary of State sent the County a letter on May 20, 2021, notifying
the County that it should not use the election equipment that had been in the Senate’s control in
any future election. Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the Secretary’s letter to the County.
In her letter, the Secretary wrote that she had “grave concerns regarding the security and integrity
of these machines, given that the chain of custody, a critical security tenet, has been
compromised and election officials do not know what was done to the machines while under
Cyber Ninjas’ control.” Id. at 1. She further stated that she had “consulted with election
technology and security experts, including at the Department of Homeland Security’s
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, regarding the appropriate next steps, and each
unanimously advised that once election officials lose custody and control over voting systems
and components, those devices should not be reused in future elections.” Id. at 1-2 (emphasis
added). The Secretary also noted that “once the subpoenaed machines were turned over to the
Senate and Cyber Ninjas, it is unclear what, if any, procedures were in place or followed to
ensure physical security and proper chain of custody[,]” and referenced “troubling security
lapses” that had been observed by her official observers or the news media. Id. at 2. As a result,
the Secretary “urg[ed] the County not to re-deploy any of the subpoenaed machines that it turned
over to the Senate in any future elections.” Id. The Secretary also requested that, “[i]f the
County intends to re-deploy the subpoenaed equipment, over which the County lost custody and
control, for use in future Arizona elections, please notify my Office as soon as possible, and no
later than July 1, 2021, so that we may properly consider decertification proceedings pursuant to
A.R.S. § 16-442 as to the subpoenaed equipment.” Id. at 3.

2. The County Obtained Replacement Equipment.

Because the County’s equipment was compromised while in the Senate’s control, the equipment
was rendered unusable not only in Arizona but in every jurisdiction. The equipment could not be
used by anyone without risking the safety and security of the elections. As the Secretary of State
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 5

explained, election and cybersecurity experts—including those at the Department of Homeland

Security—agreed that “no methods exist to adequately ensure those machines are safe to use in
future elections.” Id. at 2.

The County leases its election equipment from Dominion Voting Systems. Having received the
Secretary of State’s letter, the County contacted Dominion to obtain replacement equipment so
that the County could continue to conduct the federal, state, and local elections that it is
statutorily obligated to conduct. The County and Dominion negotiated an amendment to its lease
contract. In exchange for Dominion Voting Systems’ agreement to (1) provide the County
replacement equipment at the lease rates set in its current contract and (2) not require the County
to extend its current contract, as Dominion could have required, the County purchased the
compromised machines from Dominion. A true and correct copy of “Amendment No. 3” to the
lease contract, providing the just-described agreement and detailing the equipment and prices, is
attached as Exhibit F. The sum total to purchase the compromised equipment, in order to allow
the County to obtain the replacement equipment, was $2,833,220.00.

F. The County Incurred Costs Delivering (and Retrieving) the Subpoenaed

Materials to (from) the Senate.

The County delivered the subpoenaed materials to the Senate at the Coliseum on April 21 and
22, 2021. The County subsequently retrieved some of the materials from the Senate, at the
Senate’s direction, on April 30, 2021, and the remainder on July 29, 2021. This caused the
County to incur $165,044.18 in costs, as follows:

• Rental of delivery trucks, $46,602.00;

• Reimbursement of travel costs, and payment to, a specialist to disassemble and
reassemble certain pieces of the subpoenaed equipment, $36,729.00;
• Packaging materials (e.g., bubble wrap, card board boxes, gaylord boxes) for
the tabulation equipment, $1,399.00;
• Retaining a firm to clone hard drives before turning them over to the Senate,
$15,186.00;
• Regular and overtime pay for staff to prepare for the transfer of the materials,
deliver the materials, and retrieve the materials, $42,878.18; and
• Securing emergency backup tabulation equipment in order to be able to
conduct jurisdictional elections while the County’s equipment was in the
custody of the Senate, $22,250.00.

G. Additional Costs.

On July 26, 2021, the Senate served an additional subpoena on the Board of Supervisors. The
County may incur costs as a result of that subpoena, or as a result of other subpoenas that have
yet to issue. Further, additional claims may be discovered as a result of discovery. The County,
therefore, reserves its right to pursue additional costs that may be available but are unknown, or
have not yet been paid, at this time.
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 6

II. LEGAL BASIS OF CLAIMS.

As an initial matter, the legislature has given its statutory consent to be sued. A.R.S. § 12-820.
See also Lakritz v. Superior Ct. In & For Cty. of Coconino, 179 Ariz. 598, 602, 880 P.2d 1144,
1148 (Ct. App. 1994) (explaining that “[b]y declaring the public policy of the state to be that
public entities are liable for acts and omissions of employees, the legislature provided its consent
to be sued in a variety of specific circumstances”). Although generally the legislature is immune
from lawsuits related to “acts or omissions of its employees constituting . . . the exercise of a . . .
legislative function[,]” A.R.S. § 12-820.01(A), that immunity has no application where, as here,
the Senate President executed an indemnity agreement on the Senate’s behalf, agreeing that the
Senate would indemnify the County. It also has no application to the recovery of costs incurred
by the County complying with the subpoenas, such as the expense of renting delivery trucks.

A. The Covenant of Indemnification Requires that the Senate Make the County
Whole with Respect to the Compromised Election Equipment.

Senate President Fann executed the Covenant of Indemnification on behalf of the Senate. It
provides in pertinent part that “[t]he Senate shall indemnify the County against any and all
expenses it incurs as a result of the Subpoenaed Materials being damaged, altered, or otherwise
compromised while in the Senate’s custody and control, including without limitation expenses
associated with procuring new equipment[.]” Exhibit D, Covenant of Indemnification, at 1
(emphasis added).

The Covenant of Indemnification is binding upon the Senate. Judge Thomason recognized that
Senate President Fann has power to act for the Senate without the Senate approving such action
through a vote or resolution. Maricopa County v. Fann, CV2020-016840 (Minute Entry Ruling,
filed March 1, 2021), at 15 (ruling that the subpoenas issued by Senators Fann and Petersen on
their own authority were both legal and enforceable, despite not having been authorized by a
vote of the Senate).

The County had to replace its subpoenaed election equipment because it was compromised while
under the control of the Senate—the very possibility against which Senate President Fann agreed
for the Senate to indemnify the County. Accordingly, the Covenant of Indemnification requires
that the Senate pay the County the cost to replace the compromised equipment.

B. The Equitable Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel Requires that the Senate

Make the County Whole with Respect to the Compromised Elections
Equipment.

As explained above, the County relied on the Senate’s promise, given through the Covenant of
Indemnification. The County only agreed to deliver the subpoenaed material to the Senate at its
preferred location—Veterans Memorial Coliseum—in exchange for the Senate’s promise to
indemnify the County from harm that might occur to it because it delivered its equipment to the
Coliseum. Although the general rule in Arizona is that promissory estoppel will not lie against
the government, Bd. of Trustees of Marana Elementary Sch., Dist. No. 6 v. Wildermuth, 16 Ariz.
App. 171, 173 (1972), “the government may be estopped . . . when its ‘wrongful conduct
Notice of Claim to the Arizona Senate
August 18, 2021
Page 7

threatens to work a serious injustice and ... the public interest would not be unduly damaged.’”
Valencia Energy Co. v. Ariz. Dep’t of Revenue, 191 Ariz. 565, 576, ¶ 33 (1998) (citation
omitted).

Here, the Senate’s negligence in protecting the County’s equipment worked the requisite
“serious injustice” that necessitates applying the equitable doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Having received the benefit of the County’s agreement to deliver the subpoenaed equipment to
the Senate’s preferred location, it would be inequitable to allow the Senate to escape the
requirements of the Covenant of Indemnification—especially when the Senate should have
reasonably foreseen that placing the County’s equipment in the hands of unqualified and
unaccredited “auditors” would threaten the equipment’s certification for use in elections.

C. General Principles of Equity Require that the Senate Make the County
Whole with Respect to the Costs It Incurred Complying with the Senate’s
Subpoenas.

Legislative subpoenas are not governed by the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. As a result, the
provisions of Rule 45, including the mechanisms whereby parties may obtain their costs for
subpoena compliance, do not control.

That does not mean, however, that the County may not recover the costs it incurred delivering
the subpoenaed materials to the Senate and then retrieving them from the Senate, as described
above in Part I.E. Nor does it mean the County may not recover the costs it incurred replacing
the compromised equipment, as described in Part I.F. And it also does not mean that the County
may not recover future costs arising from the subpoenas or future subpoenas, as contemplated in
part I.G. Rather, general principles of equity require that the Senate reimburse the County for
these expenses, which would not have been incurred but for the Senate’s subpoenas.

The Arizona Supreme Court described equity as follows:

Equity is reluctant to permit a wrong to be suffered without remedy. It seeks to do

justice and is not bound by strict common law rules or the absence of precedents.
It looks to the substance rather than the form. It will not sanction an
unconscionable result merely because it may have been brought about by means
which simulate legality. And once rightfully possessed of a case it will not
relinquish it short of doing complete justice.

Sanders v. Folsom, 104 Ariz. 283, 289 (1969). Here, the County suffered $2,998,264.18 in
losses and damages as a result of having to comply with the Senate’s subpoenas. This is “an
unconscionable result,” even though it was “brought about by means which simulate legality[,]”
i.e., legislative subpoenas.
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
222 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1100 PH. (602) 506-8541
PHOENIX, AZ 85003 FAX (602) 506-8567
WWW.MARICOPACOUNTYATTORNEY.ORG

Maricopa County Attorney

ALLISTER ADEL

January 15, 2021

Kory Langhofer, Esq.

Tom Basile, Esq.
STATECRAFT PLLC
649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: Your Subpoena Duces Tecum, January 12, 2021 (Responses, Objections, and
Requests for Clarification)

Kory and Tom:

The Maricopa County Attorney represents the Board of Supervisors, the Recorder, and the Treasurer. Steve
Tully, of Hinshaw & Culbertson, LLP, represents the Board of Supervisors. Together, we write to provide
our clients’ initial responses to your clients’ subpoenas duces tecum (collectively, the “Subpoenas”), which
you served on January 12, 2021, on behalf of your clients, Senate President Fann and Senator Peterson.

Before turning to the substance of the Subpoenas, we note our clients’ general objections to the Subpoenas.
Despite these objections, which are not being waived, our clients will be producing records in response to
the demands of the Senators.

GENERAL OBJECTIONS

A. Lack of Reasonable Notice in Violation of A.R.S. § 41-1154.

Our clients object to the lack of “reasonable notice” provided by the Subpoenas, which required
production of multiple-millions of records a mere seventeen hours after being served.

The Senators served their subpoena duces tecum on the Board of Supervisors at 3:49 p.m. on January
12, 2021. A similar subpoena duces tecum was served on the Maricopa County Recorder and Maricopa
County Treasurer, also in the afternoon of January 12, 2021. The Subpoenas commanded our clients to
appear the next morning at 9 a.m. to provide testimony about multiple-millions of records sought by the
Subpoenas. They also commanded our clients to produce those multiple-millions of records the next
morning at 9 a.m.—less than seventeen hours from when the Subpoenas were served.
Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 2 of 7

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1154, a subpoena duces tecum must provide “reasonable notice” to the
person commanded to produce documents in order to be enforceable. The law does not state how much
notice is necessary to satisfy the “reasonable notice” requirement. Regardless, we are confident that
requiring the production of multiple-millions of records, over the course of one night—when government
offices are closed—is not reasonable.

B. Lack of Scheduled Meeting in Violation of A.R.S. § 41-1151.

Additionally, our clients object to the Subpoenas commanding our clients’ attendance at a hearing
that was not scheduled, and which was never intended to be scheduled.

Pursuant to A.R.S. § 41-1151, legislative subpoenas “may be issued by the presiding officer of either
house or the chairman of any committee before whom the attendance of a witness is desired.” The
Subpoenas commanded our clients to appear to provide testimony on a particular date and at a particular
time. Our clients appeared. Yet, as just stated, no hearing was scheduled, and no testimony was requested
and therefore the subpoenas were not issued in compliance with the law.

C. Our Clients will provide documents to the Legislature.

Without waiving the foregoing objections, and reserving our right to make further objections, our
clients will, as they would have done without a subpoena, voluntarily produce records sought in the
Subpoenas. Our clients do this because they respect the Legislature and want to help it accomplish its
important legislative purpose of crafting laws to govern Arizona, including its elections. Our clients look
forward to partnering with President Fann and Senator Peterson and providing them as many of the
requested records as is reasonable and legal, just as our clients have voluntarily done, and are doing, for the
House of Representatives without the need for any subpoenas.

Our clients believe it is important to note that the House has not served a subpoena on our clients,
but has worked with the County to get answers to its questions and obtain documents related to the
November 3, 2020, general election that it deems informative. Our clients tried to do the same with the
Senate. When the Senate Judiciary Committee asked the Board of Supervisors to provide testimony
concerning the general election, Supervisor Clint Hickman voluntarily appeared, as did the Board of
Supervisor’s Election Director, Scott Jarrett. Together, they testified voluntarily on December 14, 2020,
for nearly six hours concerning the November 3, 2020, election.

The County looks forward to a resumption of mutual cooperation and respect. Accordingly, in a
good faith effort to provide the Arizona Senate with documents relevant to Elections, a topic in which the
Arizona House and Senate have express—and, universally acknowledged—constitutional authority,
Maricopa County, duly empowered by the State of Arizona to administer elections, produces the following
records identified in the next section.

Furthermore, the County will continue to work with the Senate President Fann and Committee
Chairman Peterson to provide additional documents and information they require to fulfill their
constitutional duty to consider, propose and pass, as it deems necessary, new and/ or amended election
legislation.
Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 3 of 7

RESPONSES AND REQUESTS FOR CLARIFICATION

Without waiving any of the foregoing general objections, and reserving our right to make further
objections, our clients hereby respond to the document demands. They anticipate providing additional
documents as they identify those records that are responsive to the requests and confirm they can be
produced without violating state or federal election or confidentiality laws or prevent them from performing
their ongoing elections duties.

Our clients also ask herein for clarification regarding certain requested items and records.

Our clients also herein identify certain items sought by the Subpoenas which either do not exist or
which our clients do not possess.

Additionally, our clients today provide additional documents that they believe may be helpful to the
Senate. These documents were not requested by the Subpoenas, but we encourage the Senate President,
Senator Peterson, and the Judiciary Committee to review them.

Again, we hope this disclosure is the beginning of a dialog with the Senate. We anticipate
supplementing our responses, and may also identify additional items that either do not exist or are not within
our clients’ possession. We also invite the Senate to request any additional information it may find of
assistance as it goes through its election analysis.

I. The Subpoena to the Board of Supervisors.

A. Request No. 4.

1. The Board of Supervisors today produces:

a. Election Log Files for the Tabulators

b. Election Log Files for the Result Files

c. Provisional Votes Files (included in the Election Log Files for the Tabulators)

2 The Board of Supervisors requests that you clarify the meaning of:

a. “Signature Checking & Sorting Machine”

3. The Board of Supervisors states that it has none of the following requested items:

a. “RTMLogs”

b. “Result Pair Resolution”

Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 4 of 7

B. Request No. 5.

1. The Board of Supervisors today produces:

a. Rejected Ballots Report by Reason Code (included in the Election Log Files
for the Tabulators, produced in response to Request No. 4)

C. Request No. 7.

1. The Board of Supervisors today produces:

a. Windows event log and Access logs

2. The Board of Supervisors requests that you clarify the meaning of:

a. “FTP Transfer Points Log”

b. “Windows software log”

c. “Network logs”

D. Request No. 8.

1. The Board of Supervisors today produces:

a. The Administrator & Audit logs for the EMS Election Event Designer (EED)
and EMS Results Tally & Reporting (RTR) Client Applications.

E. Request No. 9.

1. The Board of Supervisors requests that you clarify the meaning of:

a. “the domain name Admin.enr.dominionvoting.com and

“*.dominionvoting.com domains.” The Board of Supervisors, their Election
Department Staff, and their contacts at Dominion Voting Systems are not
familiar with those URLs.

F. Request No. 10.

1. The Board of Supervisors states that it has none of the items requested in Request
No. 10. These items relate to Election Systems & Software (ESS) voting systems.
The County does not use ESS voting systems.
Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 5 of 7

G. Request No. 11.

1. The items requested in Request No. 11 all concern the Voter Registration Database.
The Board of Supervisors states that none of the requested items are within the
custody and control of the Board of Supervisors.

H. Request No. 12.

1. The items requested in Request No. 12 all concern the Voter Registration Database.
The Board of Supervisors states that none of the requested items are within the
custody and control of the Board of Supervisors.

I. Request No. 14.

1. The Board of Supervisors requests that you clarify the meaning of “Voter Rally Paper
Rolls” and “Ballot Test Matrix.”

J. Request No. 18.

1. The Board of Supervisors today produces:

a. Early Ballot Report (included in the response to the requested production in

Item No. 4, “Results File”)

b. Provisional Ballot Report (included in the response to the requested

production in Item No. 4, “Results File”)

c. ImageCast Central Logs (included in the response to the requested production

in Item No. 8)

d. Ballot Scanning/Tabulation Machine Logs (included in the response to the

requested production in Item No. 4)

2. The Board of Supervisors requests that you provide clarification as follows:

a. What are “Ballot Images – Raw Images” and “Ballot Images – Ballot Audit
and Review,” and how are these items different or distinguishable from the
items requested in Request No. 16 and Request No. 17?
 Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 6 of 7

II. The Subpoena to the Recorder.

A. Requests Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18.

1. The Recorder states that, to the extent any of the items requested in the above-
identified Requests exist, they are not in the custody or control of the Recorder.

B. Request No. 11.

1. The Recorder today voluntarily produces all the items requested in this Request,
subject to lawfully-required redactions. The Recorder respectfully reminds the
Senators that these records are protected by law from disclosure for purposes not
authorized by law, and that anyone who allows these records to be disclosed for such
purposes is guilty of a class six felony. A.R.S. § 16-168(F). The Recorder asks that
should it receive a public records request for these documents, the Senate insure that
the release is in accordance with law.

C. Request No. 12.

1. The Recorder today voluntarily produces all the items requested in this Request,
subject to lawfully-required redactions. The Recorder respectfully reminds the
Senate that these records are protected by law from disclosure for purposes not
authorized by law, and that anyone who allows these records to be disclosed for such
purposes is guilty of a class six felony. A.R.S. § 16-168(F). The Recorder asks that
should it receive a public records request for these documents, the Senate insure that
the release is in accordance with law.

III. The Subpoena to the Treasurer.

A. The Treasurer respectfully notifies President Fann and Senator Peterson that none of the
items requested from him in their subpoena were within his custody or control on January
13, 2021, when the Subpoena commanded him to appear and produce these documents.
Further, none of the items requested have ever been within his custody or control, and are
not in his custody or control today. Accordingly, the Treasurer has nothing to produce in
response to the subpoena..

IV. Additional Documents Voluntarily Provided by the County.

A. Final General Election Manual – Poll worker Training (2020)

B. Final November 2020 General Election Day and Emergency Voting Plan
C. Hands on Activity Outline.
D. Tabulator Aid (09/14/2020)
E. Certified letter from Secretary of State re pre-election L&A
F. Certified letter from Secretary of State re post-election L&A
Letter to Kory Langhofer
January 15, 2021
Page 7 of 7

G. Certification letter from Secretary of State, accepting recommendation from the

Certification Committee that Dominion tabulators with electronic adjudication capabilities
are certified for use in Arizona elections.
H. Arizona Secretary of State List of Voting Equipment by County
I. Arizona Secretary of State Certified Vote Tabulating Equipment List
J. Arizona Secretary of State Certification Advisory Committee Minutes
K. Combined correspondence between Attorney General’s Office and Maricopa County
pertaining to Sharpie Markers (3 letters) (Nov. 2020)
L. Image Cast Evolution Internal Memorandum regarding approved pens dated 06/04/2015
M. Maricopa County Adjudication Quick Reference Guide
N. Electronic Adjudication Board Procedures
O. Maricopa County General Election – November 3, 2020 Hand Count/Audit Report.
P. Signature Verification Training Materials.

///

We, the undersigned counsel and our team of attorneys, as well as our clients, look forward to continuing
to partner with the Senate as well as the House in their pursuit of continuing improvement of Arizona’s
election laws. We will be in communication with you in the near future about the remaining requests in the
subpoenas.

Sincerely,

ALLISTER ADEL HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

/s/Thomas P. Liddy /s/Stephen W. Tully

_______________________________ ________________________________

Thomas P. Liddy, Civil Division Chief Stephen W. Tully

Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors, Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors
the Recorder, and the Treasurer

Cc: The Honorable Rusty Bowers

Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Exhibit C
222 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, SUITE 1100 PH. (602) 506-8541
PHOENIX, AZ 85003 FAX (602) 506-8567
WWW.MARICOPACOUNTYATTORNEY.ORG

Maricopa County Attorney

ALLISTER ADEL
January 21, 2021

Kory Langhofer, Esq.

Tom Basile, Esq.
STATECRAFT PLLC
649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

RE: Cast Vote Record

Kory and Tom:

Senate President Fann has indicated that the Senate can benefit from a review of the following items in their
effort to evaluate whether new election related litigation may be needed. Please find enclosed, the Cast
Vote Record, containing raw data, in JSON format. The County is continuing to gather other materials that
may be of similar use to the Senate in its ongoing effort to provide needed relevant documents and materials
to the House and Senate.

Sincerely,

ALLISTER ADEL HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP

MARICOPA COUNTY ATTORNEY

/s/Thomas P. Liddy /s/Stephen W. Tully

_______________________________ ________________________________

Thomas P. Liddy, Civil Division Chief Stephen W. Tully

Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors, Attorneys for the Board of Supervisors
the Recorder, and the Treasurer

Cc: The Honorable Rusty Bowers

Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
Exhibit D
 COVENANT OF INDEMNIFICATION

This covenant of indemnification is provided by the Arizona Senate (the “Senate”) to Maricopa
County (the “County”), a political subdivision of the State of Arizona, in exchange for the
County’s delivery of certain materials subpoenaed by the Senate to the Senate’s preferred
address instead of the address commanded by the subpoenas.

WHEREAS, the Senate has subpoenaed materials belonging to or in the possession of the
County (the “Subpoenaed Materials”); and

WHEREAS, the Senate’s subpoenas command production of the Subpoenaed Materials at the
Senate Building, located at 1700 W. Washington Avenue in Phoenix; and

WHEREAS, the Senate, through counsel, has requested that the County instead produce the
Subpoenaed Materials at the Arizona Veterans Memorial Coliseum, located at 1826 West
McDowell Road in Phoenix (“Veterans Memorial Coliseum”);

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the County delivering the Subpoenaed Materials to

Veterans Memorial Coliseum, the Senate agrees to indemnify the County as follows:

1. INDEMNIFICATION

1.1 Indemnification of the County against third-party claims. The Senate shall defend,
indemnify and hold harmless the County from any Damages actually incurred or finally
adjudicated as to any third-party claim, action or allegation asserting that any action undertaken
by the County in connection with the County’s delivery of the Subpoenaed Materials to the
Senate violates law or the rights of a third party under any theory of law, including without
limitation claims or allegations related to the analysis of any third party’s systems or processes or
to the decryption, analysis of, collection, transfer, or use of the Subpoenaed Materials or data
therefrom by the Senate or its Contractors, including without limitation Cyber Ninjas or any
subcontractor employed by Cyber Ninjas.

1.2 Indemnification of the County against expenses the County incurs as a result of
damage and/or alteration of the Subpoenaed Materials by the Senate or its agents. The
Senate shall indemnify the County against any and all expenses it incurs as a result of the
Subpoenaed Materials being damaged, altered, or otherwise compromised while in the Senate’s
custody and control, including without limitation expenses associated with procuring new
equipment, certifying any such new equipment for use for elections in Arizona, and re-certifying
its current equipment re-certified for use for elections in Arizona.

This Covenant of Indemnification shall be enforceable against the Senate by the County upon the
County delivering the Subpoenaed Materials to Veterans Memorial Coliseum, as requested by
the Senate.
 20th of April, 2021, by:
Accepted and entered into on this ______

The Arizona Senate

, President
By:______________________________________

Arizona State Senate President

Title:_____________________________________
Exhibit E
 May 20, 2021

VIA EMAIL ONLY

Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Chairman Jack Sellers, District 1
[email protected]
Supervisor Steve Chucri, District 2
[email protected]
Supervisor Bill Gates, District 3
[email protected]
Supervisor Clint Hickman, District 4
[email protected]
Supervisor Steve Gallardo, District 5
[email protected]

RE: SUBPOENAED ELECTION EQUIPMENT

Dear Supervisors,
I am writing to express my concerns about Maricopa County’s election equipment that was
turned over to Senate President Karen Fann and Senator Warren Petersen and their agent,
Cyber Ninjas, pursuant to the January 12, 2021 subpoena, including components of the
certified Dominion Democracy Suite 5.5B voting system. I understand Cyber Ninjas has
begun returning the election equipment to the County. I have grave concerns regarding the
security and integrity of these machines, given that the chain of custody, a critical security
tenet, has been compromised and election officials do not know what was done to the
machines while under Cyber Ninjas’ control.

Indeed, such loss of custody constitutes a cyber incident to critical infrastructure—an event
that could jeopardize the confidentiality, integrity, or availability of digital information or
information systems.1 Therefore, my Office consulted with election technology and security
experts, including at the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, regarding the appropriate next steps, and each unanimously

1See Dep’t of Homeland Security, Cyber Incident Reporting, available at

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Cyber%20Incident%20Reporting%20United%20
Message.pdf.

Page 1 of 3
advised that once election officials lose custody and control over voting systems and
components, those devices should not be reused in future elections. Rather, decommissioning
and replacing those devices is the safest option as no methods exist to adequately ensure
those machines are safe to use in future elections. As such, my Office is urging the County
not to re-deploy any of the subpoenaed machines that it turned over to the Senate in any
future elections. Instead, the County should acquire new machines to ensure secure and
accurate elections in Maricopa County going forward.

A fundamental requirement to ensure the security and integrity of election equipment

includes maintaining strict access limitations and a clear chain of custody to prevent both
intentional and inadvertent tampering. Arizona’s election procedures enumerate detailed
requirements to protect voting equipment from these threats.2 Federal election standards
also set best practices, which require voting equipment to remain securely stored in facilities
that prevent unauthorized access.3 As you know, the Maricopa County Elections Department
upholds strict chain of custody procedures for its voting equipment by securing equipment in
limited-access facilities, logging access to the equipment, and air-gapping equipment at all
times.

However, once the subpoenaed machines were turned over to the Senate and Cyber Ninjas,
it is unclear what, if any, procedures were in place or followed to ensure physical security
and proper chain of custody. Indeed, our expert observers, as well as multiple news reports,
have noted troubling security lapses. And Cyber Ninjas has failed to provide full
transparency into what they did with the equipment. No election official or expert observer
designated by my Office was allowed to remain with the equipment for the duration of the
Cyber Ninjas’ processing and handling of the equipment, nor did Cyber Ninjas provide a
continuous, clearly visible livestream of the area where voting equipment was stored and
handled. The lack of physical security and transparency means we cannot be certain who
accessed the voting equipment and what might have been done to them.

Unfortunately, after a loss of physical custody and control, no comprehensive methods exist
to fully rehabilitate the compromised equipment or provide adequate assurance that they
remain safe to use. While the machines could be put through an intensive and costly forensic
examination by an accredited, national forensics laboratory, even after such forensic
examination, machines are generally not recommissioned given that the forensic analysis
cannot be guaranteed to locate all potential problems.

Considering the potential impact of decommissioning the subpoenaed equipment, including

on taxpayer dollars and County operations, my Office did not reach this decision lightly.
However, given the circumstances and ongoing concerns regarding the handling and security
of the equipment, I believe the County can agree that this is the only path forward to ensure
secure and accurate elections in Maricopa County in the future.

To be clear, this letter pertains only to the specific pieces of subpoenaed election equipment
that the county turned over to the Senate and its contractors, and not to the underlying

2Elections Procedures Manual, Chapter 4, Section III, at pages 95 - 98.

3See, e.g., U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Election Management Guidelines, Chap. 3,
available at https://www.eac.gov/sites/default/files/eac_assets/1/6/260.pdf.

Page 2 of 3
Dominion voting system, which remains certified for use in Arizona, nor any other election
equipment that the County did not turn over to the Senate and its contractors.

If the County intends to re-deploy the subpoenaed equipment, over which the County lost
custody and control, for use in future Arizona elections, please notify my Office as soon as
possible, and no later than July 1, 2021, so that we may properly consider decertification
proceedings pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-442 as to the subpoenaed equipment.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

Katie Hobbs
Arizona Secretary of State

cc:

Stephen Richer, Maricopa County Recorder

[email protected]

Scott Jarrett, Director of Election Day and Emergency Voting,

Maricopa County Elections Department
[email protected]

Page 3 of 3
Exhibit F
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

AMENDMENT No. 3
To

SERIAL 190265-RFP ELECTIONS TABULATION SYSTEM

Between

DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.

&
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA

WHEREAS, Maricopa County, Arizona ("County") and Dominion Voting Systems, Inc.
("Contractor") have entered into a Contract for the purchase of Elections Tabulation System
dated June 26, 20 I 9 ("Agreement") County Contract No: 190265-RFP.

WHEREAS, County and Dominion Voting Systems, Inc. have agreed to further modify
the Agreement by changing ce11ain terms and conditions;

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable
consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the pai1ies hereto agree as follows:

1. On May 20, 2021, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs wrote a letter to the Maricopa County
Board of Supervisors (Exhibit 1), stating the following in paragraph two of the letter:

"Therefore, my Office consulted with election technology and security expe11s,

including at the Department of Homeland Security's Cybersecurity and
Infrastructure Security Agency, regarding the appropriate next steps, and each
unanimously advised that once election officials lose custody and control over
voting systems and components, those devices should not be reused in future
elections. Rather, decommissioning and replacing those devices is the safest
option as no methods exist to adequately ensure those machines are safe to use in
future elections. As such, my Office is urging the County not to re-deploy any of
the subpoenaed machines that it turned over to the Senate in any future elections.
Instead, the County should acquire new machines to ensure secure and accurate
elections in Maricopa County going forward."

2. Following the Secretary's guidance, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has
chosen to amend the Agreement by purchasing from Contractor all voting system
components provided to the Arizona State Senate pursuant to the January 12, 2021
subpoena (the "Subpoenaed Equipment"). A list of the Subpoenaed Equipment is
detailed in Schedule A. The "Subpoenaed Equipment" will no longer be used by the
County and the County is authorizing the Contractor to remove, inspect and properly
dispose of the "Subpoenaed Equipment." The pricing and payment information related to
the purchase are outlined in Schedule A.

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 1 of 7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

3. The County will acquire new voting system components to replace the Subpoenaed
Equipment pursuant to the existing lease terms of the Agreement. The new equipment
description, quantities and delivery information are outlined in Schedule A. The
"Payment Term" of "Net 30 Days" and the "Unit Lease Price per Month"
payment/pricing schedule for the new equipment shall remain as specified in Exhibit A to
the Agreement.

4. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS REMAIN UNCHANGED.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Contract Amendment is executed on the date set fmih
below when executed by Maricopa County Office of Procurement Services.

DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC.

~~
Authorized Signature

John Poulos, President & CEO

Printed Name and Title

1590 Wynkoop St, Denver, CO 80202

Address

8/10/2021
Date

MARICOPA COUNTY:

i/,o/a.oru
Sellers, Chairman Date
aricopa County Board of Supervisors

Approved as to form on August 6, 2021 by the Maricopa County Attorneys Office:

@ll~a'( August 6 2021
Joseph La Rue, Deputy County Attorney Date

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 2 of7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

SCHEDULE A

1. Pricing and Itemized Summary Description, quantities and pricing for the purchase of
the Subpoenaed Equipment and related services. All pricing in U.S. Dollars

Product/Service Qty Unit Price Extension

Central Scanning: Absentee / Vote By Mail Hardware

lmageCast Central Kit - G1130 5 $25,000.00 $125,000.00

lmageCast Central Kit - HSS 4 $200,000.00 $800,000.00

Sub-Total $925,000.00

In-Person Voting: Polling Location Hardware

lmageCast Precinct 2 Tabulator 385 $4,500.00 $1,732,500.00

Sub-Total $1,732,500.00

Election Management Hardware

EMS Standard Server Kit (R630/WS2012/SS2016) 2 $17,000.00 $34,000.00

EMS Client Workstation Kit (3440 XE) 4 $1,700.00 $6,800.00

EMS Adjudication Workstation Kit (3431) 20 $1,700.00 $34,000.00

Sub-Total $74,800.00

$75,000.00

Estimated Shipping n/a $25,920.00

Purchase Total $2,833,220.00

2. Payment Schedule - Contractor shall provide invoices to the County as described below. The
County shall pay invoices in a timely manner and no later than thirty (30) calendar days from
receipt of a Contractor invoice.

ID Payment Invoice Issued Payment Amount

I Amendment No. 3 Signing $2,833,220.00

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 3 of 7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

3. Itemized Summary - Description and quantities for new replacement leased system
equipment.

Product/Service Qty

Central Scanning: Absentee/ Vote By Mail Hardware

lmageCast Central Kit - G1130 5

lmageCast Central Kit - HSS 4

In-Person Voting: Polling Location Hardware

lmageCast Precinct 2 Tabulator 385

Election Management Hardware

EMS Standard Server Kit (R630/WS2012/SS2016) 2

EMS Client Workstation Kit (3440 XE) 4

EMS Adjudication Workstation Kit (3431) 20

4. Delivery Details.
TBD

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 4 of 7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

EXHIBIT 1

KATIE HOBBS
SECRETARY OF STATE

~fay 20, 2021

VIA EIVIAIL ONLY

l\foricop11 County Hoa['([ of Supervisors
Chnirnrnn ,Jack Seller;;. District 1
,Jaek.Seller;;,11,1muricopa.guv
SupPnisor StPvo Chucri, i)istrict 2
Stev<➔ .Chucri<~11nnricopF1.gov
Supervi~or Bill Gales, Dist.rid, 3
Bill,[email protected]
Supervisor Clint Hickman, District 4
Clint, TT id( rn11n 11,,mnricop11 .gnv
Supc,rvhrnr Steve n11llardo. Dist.rid fi
SI e\·e. C~allarda{~imnrieopn .gu,·

RE: SUBPOENAED ELECTTON EQUIPMENT

Dear Supervisors,

I am writing to express my concerns about Maricopa Cuunty's electiun equipment that was
turned over lo Senate President. E:aren Fann and Senator ~iarren Petersen and lhoir ugen(.,
Cyber Ninjns, pursuant to the ,Jnnunry 12, 202 l suhpoenn, including components of the
cert:il'iHd Dominion Democracy Suite ti.tiB voting system. I understand Cyber Ninjas has
begun returning the election equipment to the County. I have grnve concerns regnrding the
security and integrity of these machines, given that the chain of custody, a critical security
tenet, has been ('.ompromiserl and eleet.ion officinls do not know what wRs done to the
nrnchinP.s whilP. und!➔ r Cyher Ninjas' control.

indeed, such loss of custody constitutes a cyber incident to critical infrastrueture--an event
thnt could joop1mli7.P tho confidentiality, integrity, OJ' 11vuilability of digitnl informHtfon or
inform nt:ion systP.rns. 1 Tlwreforn, my Ol1ice con:stdt1,d wit.h nlection tP.chnology and s1wurity
exports, including at the Department of Homeland Security's Cybcrsocurity and
lnfrastructme Securit:,· Agency. regarcling the appropriate next steps, and each unanimously

: See Dq.it of Horndall(l Sc"urily, (')'bc•r !neid<.•111 l/1.'j.HJJ't.iug, ,n,ui/,1ble ul

ht.tps://www.dhfi.gnv/sitns/d,•fot1lr./fil,,sipt1b]1r,nt.iom1/1·:y11,,r◊..i:20lncidPnt4o:20Rqmrting%:20lJnitNl%2tl
Mc•s~agi:·.pdf.

Page 1 of3

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 5 of 7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

advised thnt once election officials losc> custody and control over voting systems nnd
componnnts. !hos<, d<,vic<,s should not. ll<, reused in f'ut.uro olnctions. Rat.her, dnuommissioning
nnd replacing· rhosc deviens is the s11fos( option as no mut.hods exist. to mleqllntoly enSlll'C
those machines a1·e safe to u;;e in fut me ehections. As such, my O11.ice is lll'ging· the County
not to re-deploy any of the subpoenaocl machines that it turned over to the Senate in any
f'uturo clnct.ions. Tnsleml. t.he County should ncquirn new n11H•hines t.o <msurn s<wu1·0 nnd
,qccu1·nt.n tilect.ions in :Vlnricopn C'ount.y going· fo1·war<L

A funclamontnl requirement. to ensure tho security and integrity of election equipment

includes mnint-nining stricL access limitations nnd n clenr chain ol' cushidy lo provent both
intentional and inadvertent tampering. Al'ii:onn's election procedures enumerate detailed
requirements to protect voting equipment. from these (.hrents. 2 Federal election standanLs
also set best practices, which require voting equipment to remain securely stored in facilities
that: prevent unnut.horized access.~ As you know. the 'Mnrieopn County Elect.ions Depnr(.mont
upholds strio!: chnin of <1ustody procedures fol' its voting· equipment by securing equipment in
limited-access facilit.ies, logging access to (.he equipment., and air-gapping· equipment at; all
times.

However, once the subpoenaed mnchincs wore turned over t.o (he Senntc and Cyber Ninjas,
it. is unclear \\'hat. if Hny, prncedures were in plaee 01· followed to ensure physical security
nnd proper chain of custody. indeed, our c,xpoi·t obsorv01·s, ns well ns multiple nows reports,
have noted troubling security lapses. ..\nd Cyber Ninjns has foiled to provide full
trnnsparnn<'y into whnt thny did with th<' <!quipnwnt.. J\'o ele<'l-ion ollieinl or expert observnr
designated by my Ol1foe was allowed to remain with the equipment for (.he duration of the
CybN Ninjas' processing nnd handling of tho equipment, nor did Cybor Ninjns provide a
continuous. clearly visible livestrenm of the area where voting equipment wns stored and
handled, Tfw Ind; of physi<,nl s.,<,urity and t1·nnspm·o1w,v menns we (1Hnnot be curtain who
accessed the voting equipment and what might lrnve been done lo them.

Unfo1·tunntely. after a loss ol'physical cust,Hly nnd control. no compreh,msiv<i met.hods oxist
to l'ull~· 1·oh11bilitate the compromisnd oquipmont. or prnvido 11doqu11te nssuranct, Lhnt they
remain safe to use. While t.he mnehines could be put through an intensive and costly forensic
examination by an nccroditocl. national forensics laborntory, even after such forensic
examination, mnchines are generally not recommissioned given that the forensic nnnlysis
t•nnnot. be glrnrnntoml to loc11t.e nil polen!.i11l problems.

Considering· the potential impact of decommissioning the subpoenaed equipment, including·

on taxpnyer dollars and County operations. my Office did not reach this decision lightly.
However, given the circumstnnces and ongoingeoncerns regarding the handling andsecurity
of the equipment, l believe the County can agree that: this is the only path forward to ensure
secure nnd accurate elections in Mnricopn County in tho future,

To be donr, this let.tor pertains only to the spccifie pieces of' subpoenaed eloetion equipment.
that the county turned over (:o the Senat.e and its contract.ors, and not to the underlying

:" Bh,:t.inns P1·rn,..,dure>s [\,fonual, (~}rnplc>t' .J, 8R:tio11 111, flt pngPs 9/i • F18.
~: See, e.g., L:.s. Election J\ss1s~ance Co1nn11ss1011, Election l'vlanagerneut Utudeluws, c-:hap. 3,
•11·uiluble al htlps://www.c>nc.gov/s1tes/dei'ault/!1less/ew: Hssets/1/G/'!.f:i0.pclJ'

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 6 of 7
 SERIAL 190265-RFP

Dominion voting system, which remains cort.ifiocl for nso in Arizona, nor any ot.hor oloction
equipment. t.hat the County did nol Lum over to the Sonnie nnd its cont.rnclors.

If the County in lends lo re-deploy the subpoenaed equipment. O\'er which t.he County lost
cnstody nnd cont1'ol. for use in future Arizona elections, please not.ify my Ufifoc as soon ns
possihlr,, and no lntm· than ,July 1. 2021. so thnl 11·<: mny prnpl,rl:,• consider dncl,rtifi<!nlion
prncendings pursuant to A.Tl.S. § rn-,1-12 ns to the subpoenaed equipm<>nt.

Thnnk ~•on for yom prompt attention to this importnnt mnttcr.

Si1werely,

Kntio Hobbs
Arizonn Socretl.ll'y of Stnte

cc:

Stephen Richer, Maricopa County Recorder

sr ieh nr(filrisc.m nrieopn. gu\'

Scott ,TarrcU, Director ofElect:ion Duy nnd Emergency Voting,

Nfaricopn Count.y Elections Depnrlment.
sjarrett-:iilrisc.maricopa.go,·

Page a of:J

Maricopa County, Arizona County Contract No: 190265-RFP

Amendment No. 3 Page 7 of 7