JEFF FIRE Clork oF the Superior Court Fy Virginia Ssturnino, Deputy Date 12/09/2022 Vine 16152222 Tescriptien fount crrssns== (ABE VQ022-055907 LECTION CONTEST 4 8.00 Daniel J McCauley II, Bar Number: 015183 Tov ut 38.00 McCauley Law Offices, P.C. Receipt 25040664 6638 E Ashler Hills Dr. Cave Creek, AZ 85331-6638 Direct: (480) 595-1378 | Email: [email protected] Attorneys for Contestant(s)/Plaintiffs IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA cV2022- : Mark Finchem and Jeff Zink, in their ast No &¥ 053927 individual capacities, Contestant(s)/Plaintiffs; VERIFIED STATEMENT OF ELECTION CONTEST Vs. (Expedited Election Proceeding Adrian Fontes and Ruben Gallego, Pursuant to ARS. § 16-672, et seq.) officeholders-elect; and Katie Hobbs, in her official capacity as the Secretary of State; Contestee(s)/Defendants. Contestant(s), for their Verified Statement of Elections Contest against the Contestec(s) named above, alleges they are entitled to relief as follows: OPENING STATEMEN’W 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 Arizona is obligated to administer a full, fair, and secure election under the supervision of the Arizona Secretary of State, As more fully outlined below, it failed miserably to do so in the mid-term election. Reports emanating from and related to the election establish unequivocally that Arizona voters experienced monumental difficulties trying to register their votes/ballots | through tabulating machines. In Maricopa County alone there was widespread tabulation | machine failures. (See Exhibit A, map attached hereto). For example, ballot reading machines failed repeatedly to register a citizen’s ballot, even if the ballot was run and rerun again and again the tabulators failed Many Voters purposely stood in line, often for an hour or more, to cast their vote but were frustrated by machine failure. These citizens wanted to assure themselves that their vote counted, and they had an absolute right to such an assurance, Instead, they were offered weak and unsatisfying alternatives, like depositing their ballot into some mysterious Box 3 with the | assurance their votes would be counted later. These black box votes were likely never counted and constitute the 60,000 Maricopa County and 20,000 Pima county missing votes reported on | the Secretary of State website, (See Affidavit of Karla Sweet as to defective process; Exhibit B; Declaration of Robert Bowes regarding missing ballots; Exhibit C; Declaration of Michael Schafer, wimess to transport of Box 3 ballots Exhibit D). None of these voters came to the polling place for such an unreliable and unprecedented voting experience, Each such voter was deprived of personally registering their vote— to the point of inconveniencing themselves by traveling to a polling location and often waiting an hour of more, sometimes much more, when mail in voting with serious chain of eustody flaws was available. Election Contest Finchem v Fontesea AH e 10 u 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 More than that, a process that should be sacrosanct oozes impropriety. The state officer who was supervisor of the election, the Secretary of State, was herself running for governor. Despite repeated calls for the Secretary to recuse herself she refused, Recusal would cause her to lose control of the election she hoped to directly benefit from - a staggering appearance of impropriety and display of unethical behavior. To add to it, she worked directly with social medial platforms to suppress availability to the public platforms that she herself enjoyed the access to, Our election is the only mid-term election in the 50 states with such a comical and tragic ‘outcome. It was also the only election in the country where the governing Secretary of State presided over the election. All these circumstances when taken together were/are so extraordinary that the vote must be nullified and redone, INTRODUCTION i ‘This is an elections contest pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-672 ef seq. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. The jurisdiction of this Court over this action is established according to A.R.S. §16-672(A)-(B). 3. Venue of this Court is established according to A.R.S. § 16-672(B). PARTIES Election Contest Finchem v Fontes|Contestant(s) 4, Contestant Mark Finchem ("Finchem'") is a qualified elector of the State of Arizona and Pima County and resides in Pima County, Arizona.' 5. Finchem is the Republican Party's nominee for Secretary of State in the November| 8, 2022 statewide election (also denominated as the “midterm election”) as presented on the ballot, 6. Contestant Jeff Zink ("Zink") is a qualified elector of the State of Arizona and pa County and resides in Maricopa County, Arizona? 7. Zink is the Republican Party's nominee for the United States Representative for Congressional District 3, in the November 8, 2022 statewide election as presented on the ballot, 8. Finchem and Zink are collectively referred to herein as the "Plaintiffs." Contestee(s) a The person whose right to the Office of Secretary of State that is contested by Finchem, is Adrian Fontes ("Fontes"), in the November 8, 2022 statewide election as presented on the ballot. 10, The person whose right to the Office of United States Representative for Congressional District 3 that is contested by Zink, is Ruben Gallego ("Gallego"), in the November 8, 2022, statewide election as presented on the ballot, 1 Finchem’s full residential address location is protected from disclosure pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-153. 2 Zink’s full residential address location is protected from disclosure pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-153. Election Contest Finchem v FonteswR oN ao 10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 11. Kathleen ("Katie") Hobbs is an individual and is being sued in her purported official capacity as the acting Atizona Secretary of State and Chief Blection Officer ("Secretary Hobbs"). 12, Fontes, Gallego and Hobbs are collectively referred to herein as the "Defendants." GROUNDS FOR THE CONTEST 13. ‘The foregoing allegations are reincorporated as if fully set forth herein, 14, On December 5, 2022, Secretary Hobbs published the official canvas for the November 08, 2022, general election results. 15. Allegedly 1,200,411 votes went to Finchem, and 1,320,619 votes went to Fontes. 16. Allegedly 32,475 votes went to Zink, and 108,599 votes went to Gallego. 17. Plaintiffs allege this total is undependable and inaccurate because the electronic ballot tabulation machines were not certified and could not be certified as the laboratory engaged to do so was itself not certified 18, Defendant Hobbs herself said that new machines would be need as a result of the 2021 Arizona state senate audit Misconduct - Secretary Hobbs 19, Secretary Hobbs, in her capacity as Secretary of State, has a duty to supervise elections throughout the state of Arizona, Hobbs was herself elected Secretary in a contested election in 2020, 2 See: hitps://azsos.gov/sites/default/files/2022Dec05_General Election Canvass_Web.pdf Election Contest Finchem v Fontes|| seeking the office of Governor in the midterm election. 20. Secretary Hobbs, at the same time she had a duty to supervise the election, was 21. Kari Lake (hereinafter “Lake”) was the Republican candidate for Arizona Governor in the November 8, 2022, statewide election, as presented on the ballot. 22. Lake, her staff, and the Republican electorate perceived a conflict of interest in that Hobbs was a statewide official managing an election in which she was also a candidate for Governor, 23. Pursuant to the obvious conflict of interest that was evident to the voting public through media coverage, Lake repeatedly and publicly called for Hobbs to recuse herself from the Secretary of State’s management of the midterm election, 24, Secretary Hobbs repeatedly and publicly refused (o recuse herself.¢ 25. Aswill be more fully outlined below, Hobbs had a duty to closely manage and perfect the election process throughout Arizona. After winning her own 2020 contested election| she represented to her Arizona constituency that she would cure any defects in the voting process, 26. Hobbs also had a duty to make sure there were no obvious defects in the election process and negligently or intentionally failed to do so as detailed the expert testimony fully described below. 4 Ms. Hobbs most recently refused to recuse herself on November 4, 2022. See: 02. hittps://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/midterms-elections-votin, 11-04 Election Contest Finehem v Fontes27. She breached that duty and abused election law by failing to have the ballot tabulating machines, designated as critical infrastructure by the Obama administration, properly certified by a properly certified certification laboratory. Her deliberate ot negligent failure resulted in the uninspected and unverified machines to have widespread failures across the State causing clection result chaos. 28. Asarresult of the chaos, elected county officials governing elections in their counties, called for a full hand-count of ballots 29, — Hobbs abused her office of Secretary of State by threatening county officials with criminal charges and indictment for failure to certify a defective election process 30. For example, on November 18, 2022, the Cochise County Board of Supervisors yoted not to accept election results certified and submitted by the Cochise County Elections Department as the official canvass for the General Election held on November 8, 2022. Instead, they sot a special meeting for December 2, 2022, to hear expert testimony from compliance experts on the voting test lab accreditation S 31. Ina November 23 letter to the Mojave County Board, State Elections Director Kori Lorick, who serves as State Elections Director under Secretary Hobbs, said that the "6 canvass — or certification — of the election "is not discretionary. 5 See: hitps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvAxd054xoM&feature=youtu.be 6 See: hitps://justthenews.comv/sites/default/files/2022- 12/11.23.22%20Mohave%20B08%20Letter%20re%20canvass. pdf Election Contest Finchem v FontesBern 32, On November 28, Kori Lorick emailed the Mojave County Board. Reminding the supervisors again of their "non-discretionary statutory duty to canvass the 2022 General Election results by today," she invoked the threat of prosecution of the county election governing board as follows: "The only basis for delaying the county canvass is pursuant (0 A.R.S. 16-642(C) if returns from a polling place are missing, and that is indisputably not the case here," she wrote. "If Mohave County does not perform their ministerial duty to canvass your election results today, we will have no other choice but to pursue legal action and seek fees and sanctions against the Board. “Our office will take all legal action necessary to ensure that Arizona's voters have their votes counted, including referring the individual supervisors who vote not to certify for criminal enforcement under A.R.S. 16-1010." 33. Under the gited statute, an election official "who knowingly refuses to perform" their election duties "is guilty of a class 6 felony unless a different punishment for such act ot omission is preseribed by law." 34. Governing bodies in the different counties believed the cited statute is inapplicable when such a body is presented with reasonable evidence that the electoral system in their county was seriously defective. 35. In order to assure every constituent’s vote was properly counted the local governing body, not the Secretary of State, should determine what type of recount is needed to best provide the constituency with assurance that every vote was properly counted. 36. Hobbs’ own political party, on a national platform vociferously decries the “every vote must be counted”. Election Contest Finchem v Fontes10 ul 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 37. Asa direct result of Hobbs threats, on or about November 28, 2022, two of the supervisors on the Mojave County board said they were voting to certify the election "under duress" after being warned that they would “be arrested and charged with a felony" if they didn't, according to the board chairman, Ron Gould.” 38. On November 29, 2022, Secretary Hobbs filed suit to compel Cochise County to vote 'YES' to certify the election results despite the governing boards belief based on an expert opinion that the tabulation machines were not properly vetted via certification, See Hobbs v Crosby CV202200553. 39. ‘The governing board decided its constituency’s voted were best protected by a full hand count. 40, Hobbs demurred and ordered a partial count, ‘The governing board had a duty to protect — not Hobbs who was self-interested in the outcome, 41. Onor about December 1, 2022, Plaintiffs’ counsel of record, Daniel J McCauley IIL, notified the Cochise County Superior Court, the trial judge’s JA and the Cochise County Clerk, that he had filed a Notice of Removal to the District Court and advised each of them to contact the trial judge immediately, Further, he notified at least one office of the three different law offices prosecuting the two cases against the Board of Supervisors that a Notice of Removal to District Court had been filed and not to proceed pursuant to 28 U.S. Code § 1446(d). See Hobbs v Crosby CV-22-536-TUC-MSA. 7 See: https://twitter,com/KariLakeWarRoom/status/1597380690597023744 Blection Contest Finchem v Fontes9 10 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 ai 22 42, Upon leaming of the removal, one of the attorneys representing Hobbs continued with the threats and intimidation by threatening Plaintiff's counsel and each member of the Board of Supervisors with sanctions for removing the case, (See Gaona Email attached hereto as| Exhibit E). 43. On December 2, 2022, Hobbs again continued with the threats and intimidation, Ina letter to the Arizona Attorney General, regarding the Cochise County Board of Supervisors, Secretary Hobbs demanded the Arizona Attorney General take "all necessary actions to hold these public officers accountable."* 44, The hand count could have been accomplished within the time Hobbs aggressively stymied the will of the Cochise County public as legitimately put forward by its clected governing board. 45. Hobbs misconduct and self-interest is unprecedented and unacceptably in any Arizona election process. 46. In further abuse of her office, an email surfaced on December 3, 2022, that showed Secretary Hobbs' office flagging a constituents Twitter account for review on Januaty.7, 2021, $8 See: hitps://www,documentcloud.org/documents/23327719-2022-12-2-co ° See: Missouri et al v. Biden et al Case No: 3:22-ev-01213-TAD-KDM, Document 71-8 Filed 08/31/22 Page 45 of 111 PagelD #: 2793-2794 Attps:/Istorage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.laved. 189520/gov.uscourts.lawd.189520.T1.8,pdf 10 Election Contest Finchem v Fonteswk wD ee aa 10 is 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 47. ‘The message emerged during discovery in a First Amendment lawsuit filed in May by Missouri Attorney General Bric Schmitt and Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry against President Joe Biden, alleging collusion between the administration and Big Tech in a sprawling censorship enterprise. See Missouri et al. v. Biden et al, 3:22-cv-01213-TAD-KDM. 48. Under the subject line "Election Related Misinformation," Secretary Hobbs! communications director cited two tweets from an account that were of “specific concern to the Secretary of State." 49, In explaining the reason for the state intervention to seek suppression of the offending speech, the comms director said only: “These messages falsely assert that the Voter Registration System is owned and therefore operated by foreign actors. This is an attempt to further undermine confidence in the election institution in Arizona." 50. On October 31, 2022, Finchem's Twitter account was temporarily suspended “Twitter has blocked my account from speaking trath with one week left until the election," Finchem wrote on his Facebook page that afternoon, On information and belief the suspension was directly caused by Hobbs’ illicit censoring of her constituents in concert with Twitter (as pled herein). I Election Contest Finchem v Fontesnen 6 10 i 12 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 51. Jenna Ellis, a former advisor to Donald Trump, tweeted at Elon Musk that @elonmusk this shouldn't happen a week before the Finchem was suspended on Twittet election!" 52. Musk, who closed the $44 billion deal fo purchase Twitter, responded that he was “looking into” the suspension, and Finchem's account was restored within an hour. 53. Finchem vehemently contests the illegitimacy of the 2020 election. 54. Finchem is informed and believes Fontes and Secretary Hobbs categorized his tweets under "Election Related Misinformation" and caused his Twitter account to be suspended. 55, Had Musk not intervened personally in the enforcement decision, Finchem likely would have been censored during the election. legal Votes 56. Michael Schafer, a subject matter expert (See CURRICULUM VITAE and opinion incorporated by reference as Exhibit D) on the specific accreditation of testing laboratories by the EAC (Election Assistance Commission), on Labs; "Pro V&V," and "SLI Compliance," a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC, was asked in 2020 to evaluate if these specific labs met the standards of accredited test labs. 10 See: hitps://twitter,com/JennaBllisEsq/status/ 1587203 144878006272?s-208t=Hb9V o6dXZ51fp3sTVIboxg 12 Election Contest, Finchem v Fontes!10 u | 12 14 15 16, 17 18 19 20 21 22 57. The Voting System Test Laboratory Program requirements posted in Manual, Version 2.0 ("VSTL"), section 3,6.1., ia specific and requires the certificate to be signed by the Chair of the Commission and only be the Chair, Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 3.6.1, Certificate of Accreditation, A Certificate of Accreditation shall be issued to each laboratory accredited by vole of the Conimissioners. The certificate shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission and state: 58. Michael Schafer’s expert report (attached as Exhibit D) establishes that the VSTL manual requires that the Chair of the EAC Commission be the exclusive signer of the Lab's Accreditation Certificate, 59. — Inthis instance, the Chair of the Commission was Thomas Hicks. Thomas Hicks did not sign the accreditation certificate. Mona Harington, Executive Director, an ineligible person signed it. (See Declaration in support of test lab accreditation by reference as Exhibit D) Wows Haningtin. EHEC Dearth ee Mona Harrington Executive Director, U.S, Election Assistance Commission EAC Lab Code: 0701 60, The above shows that the Chair of the Commission, Thomas Hicks, did not sign the certificate of accreditation of the voting systems as required by VSTL section 3.6.1. 61, | THEREFORE, Michael Schafer determined Pro V&V and SLI Compliance are not accredited test labs to the compliance standard set out by the EAC Voting System Test B Election Contest Finchem v Fontes|Sc wrx a rat 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 || Vote Act of 2002. Laboratory Program Manuel Version 2.0 and 3.0, section 3.6.1, according to the Help America 62. Beyond the accreditation issue is the certification of the ESS EVS 6.0.4.0 which is irredeemably flawed. (See Exhibit G, expert report of Daniel LaChance) | 63. _ This is not a form over substance argument. The verification criteria were | formulated by legislators to create a public policy via legislation to prevent the exactly the chaos the occurred in this election. They created a public policy to assure the public that as our culture! moves deeper and deeper into the computet/information age every vote will be accurately tabulated by fully vetted technology. COUNT ONE — ELECTIONS CONTEST (Misconduct ARS. § 16-673) 64, The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if set forth herein. 65. A.R.S. § 16-672 guarantees that "[a]ny elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office...upon any of the following grounds." "[f]or misconduct on the part of election boards or any members thereof in any of the counties of the state, or on the part of any officer making or participating in a canvass for a state election..." 66. A.R.S, § 16-621 assures the public that "[aJll proceedings at the counting center shall be under the direction of the board of supervisors or other officer in charge of elections and shall be conducted in accordance with the approved instructions and procedures manual issued pursuant to § 16-452 under the observation of representatives of each political party and | the public." Election Contest Finchem v Fonles|10 i 12 B 4 Is 16 7 19 20 ai 22 67. — Secretary Hobbs has an absolute duty to enforce current rules and statutes related | to Arizona elections and to develop future rules that maintain the maximum degree of election management and control (See A.R.S. § 16-452). 68. She negligently or intentionally failed in that duty by not properly investigating the re-certification of both the certifying labs and the lab’s certification of the computer automated voting systems (See Expert Schafer analysis attached hereto as Exhibit D). 69. A.R.S, § 38-503 was passed to effect a public policy that protects the public from self-dealing by public employees. Secretary Hobbs' actions to threaten arrest of the Mojave County Board of Supervisors, sue and threated the Cochise County Board of Supervisors with a criminal investigation and prosecution, as a very senior representative of Arizona government direct Twitter to censor Twitter posts made by her constituent, and failing to recuse herself from overseeing the gubernatorial election in which she herself was a candidate - was all self-dealing, 70. _ Atminimum, Secretary Hobbs had an ethical duty to recuse herself— which, again, Plaintiffs allege, is indisputably a form of self-dealing. 71, Initiating court actions to compel the county Boards to certify her election, when the Boards had been presented expert compiled evidence that there were irregularities in the vote, constitutes "misconduct on the part of, ..officer[s] making or participating in a canvass for a state election". (See: A.R.S. § 16-672(A)(1)). 72. — Secretary Hobbs' negligent or intentional failure to closely monitor the certification and re-certification of the certification laboratories and the re-certification of the electronic tabulation system resulted in the chaotic performance of those machines during the 15 Election Contest Finchem v FontesSow awa ll 13, 14 Is 16 17 8 19 20 21 2 midterm election. Had they been properly vetted and inspected the machines would have run properly. 73. Such validation was essential since Hobbs approved a new voting process that allowed voters to cast ballots at any location. This new scheme was applied universally across, the entire State, not incrementally. Its failure directly caused the chaos in the election. 74. Any testing by the Secretary of State was obviously inadequate and should have been effected by a lab certified for such analysis. This has been proven to have been an essential step circumvented by the Secretary of State. 75. The Secretary changed the gauge of paper lined across the state, Before making such a substantial change a certified lab should have tested and certified a material procedural change before the paper substitution, 76. There changes had a vast effect on the publics’ voting experience and amount to material misconduct. 71. This failure resulted in an amount more significant than 201,232 votes for Fontes and 79,298 votes for Gallego, changing the outcome of the eleetion in favor of Defendants. 78, Had this failure not occurred during the election 201,232 votes would have gone t Finchem and 79,298 votes would have gone to Zink, changing the outcome of the election in favor of Plaintiffs. 79. Finally, Hobbs’ threatening and intimidating county officials who govern the midterm election is distinct misbehavior, As the third highest official in the Arizona governmental hierarchy Hobbs’ successfull demands on Twitter to censor the free speech of Arizona citizens because of “misinformation” offended her political perspective is not only 16 Election Contest Finchem v FontesCm a a ul 12 13 4 Is 6 17 18 19 20 21 2 misbehavior but should disqualify her from the office of Governor, These political demands and machinations by Hobbs constitute government censorship in the opinion of Plaintiffs. COUNT TWO — ELECTIONS CONTEST (Mlegal Votes - A.R.S. § 16-673) 80, ‘The foregoing allegations are incorporated as if set forth herein, 81, A.RS. § 16-672 provides that "[ajny elector of the state may contest the election of any person declared elected to a state office... upon any of the following grounds: 4, On account of illegal votes." 82. PlaintiffS herein allege that the failure of Secretary Hobbs resulted in widespread tabulation machine malfunctions. One of the direct results of these tabulation machine failures has resulted in Arizona becoming a laughingstock among the 50 states. Further, has cast serious aspersions on state government and its ability to run a clean and fair election, Asa result, the Plaintif's have been damaged as well and the State and its citizenry as a whole. The result is simply an illegal election. 83. The Arizona Supreme Court has developed a rule for deducting illegal votes from otherwise valid election results when it is impossible to determine for whom the ineligible voters actually voted. Specifically, unless it can be shown for which candidate they were cast, they are to be deducted from the whole vote of the election division, and not from the candidate having the largest number. 84. Applying this rule, illegal votes are proportionately deducted from both candidates. 17 Election Contest Finchem v FontesS cw rea I 12 13 14 15 | 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 85. There are a myriad of problems with identifying who votes were actually cast for | due to the well-publicized tabulation machine failures, And, further complicated by the fact that 1 minimum of 60,000 votes went missing, according to the Secretary of State's own website (See Declaration of Bowes; Exhibit C; See Report of Roving GOP attorney Mark Sonnenklar, now in the public domain, Exhibit F). 86. According to A.R.S. § 16-442 B. "[Mlachines or devices used at any election for federal, state or county offices may only be certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if they comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, and if those machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that is accredited pursuant to the Help ‘America Vote Act of 2002." 87. Wherefore, according to expert Michael Schafer, the accreditation of the laboratories used to certify the tabulation equipment that counted the votes from November 8, 2022, were not accredited due to the certificate not being signed by the Chair of the Commission, Thomas Hicks, and therefore caused all votes tabulated on by machines certified by test labs that were not accredited to be illegal votes cast. (See Exhibit D). 88. The election likely would have favored Plaintiff had the illegal voting not been cast, changing the election's outcome in favor of Plaintiff, DEMAND FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for the following relief: A, Pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-677 and/or Court rules, Plaintiffs are entitled to have the inspection/discovery done before preparing for trial 18 Election Contest Finchem v FontesBcw ra aus a 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 . For such injunctive, declaratory, mandamus (special act . That the Court order a reasonable inspection (sampling) of mail-in ballots (including their signed envelopes and/or scans thereof) in order to compare them to the signatures on file; and to compare "duplicate" ballots to the original ballots from which they were "duplicated," for Congressional District 3 in particular; as discovery under the Civil Rules and/or in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-677; . That the Court declare that the certificate of election of Adrian Fontes and Ruben Gallego is of no further legal force or effect and that the election is annulled and set aside in accordance with A.R.S. § 16-676(B); . That, if an inspection of the ballots should so prove, the Court declare that the Plaintiffs have the highest number of legal votes and declare those persons elected or in the alternative order a paper ballot revote. 5, That the Court order a state-wide special election, counted by hand, without the use of electronic vote tabulation systems at the precinct level, no mail in ballots supervised by a special master appointed by the court; That the court order a referral to the Attorney General to investigate Secretary Hobbs for willful acts in violation of impartiality under A.R.S. §§ 16-452 and § 38-503 according to A.R.S, § 16-1010. n), or other relief as may ‘be proper or necessary to effect these ends; . For Plaintiff's taxable costs under A.R.S. § 12-341, attorney fees and expenses under any applicable authority; For such other and further relief, the Court may deem proper in the circumstances. | Election Contest Finchem v Fontes |Dated: December 9, 2022, Dated: December 9, 2022, Dated: December 9, 2022, Hard Ychem Mark Finchem dey abe Jeff Zink Danie! J McCauley III, Attorney for Plaintiffs Election Contest 20 Finchem v FontesVERIFICATION State of Arizona ss. County of Maricopa | I, Mark Finchem, being first duly sworn, deposes and say: | Ihave read the foregoing First Amended Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof by personal knowledge. Therefore, I know the allegations of the First Amended Verified Complaint to be true, except the matters stated therein on information and belief, which I believe to be true, 1 declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Arizona that the foregoing is true and correct, Subscribed and sworn this 9" Day of December 2022. Mob Yncham Mark Finchem 21 Election Contest Finchem v FontesRow ao 10 i 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 22 DECLARATION AND VERIFI State of Arizona ss County of Maricopa I, Jeff Zink, being first duly sworn, deposes and say: Thave read the foregoing First Amended Verified Complaint and know the contents thereof by personal knowledge. Therefore, I know the allegations of the First Amended Verified Complaint to be true, except the matters stated therein on information and belief, which I believe to be true, I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Arizona that the foregoing is true and correct. Subscribed and sworn this 9 Day of December 2022. iy POO Jeff Zink 22 Election Contest Finchem v FontesDib EXHIBIT AMaricopa County vote centers with printer problems @ wrweceers [| coum ences ° ° ee e e eg et Siig Cc ere gsicig tig ° a 7 7 ee e Sees oS « ° ace e . * ce 6 eTDL EXHIBIT Blof i ‘The People’s Affidavit of Claim to insure Accurate Voting in Arizona Laftiant, Afr/a, SévtaZ One of the People of Arizona (as seen in Article 2 Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution) do swear to the following claims in order to insure remedy for the People to be able to verify election resulls against government servants who have decided to interfere with the People’s rights to know only legal votes are counted based on Article 7 Section 7 of the Arizona Constitutioh as seen below: Arizona Constitution A Text of Section Highest Number of Vot le 7 Section 7: Received as Determinative of Person Elected “In all elections held by the people in this state, the person, or persons, receiving the highest number of legal votes shall be declared elected.” Please take notice that Affiant claims to have only voted for the below mentioned People and that if any document shows any other opponent than the ones stated, that it is cone in error and against the will of Affiant or it shall be stated if the Affiant's ballot was already voted without their consent below: Voted for offices: Hari Fake Mark Fiyyhem Bloke. Mastere Abe. Hemacteh Kimberly ter. Term Florne NORSONS Verification of Used Ballot {if ballot was used please give testimony here]. Shkment Afechest Please tako notice that where remedy is interfered with, based on the fundamental maxims of law, the People have the right to assemble, and consult for their common good, and have used this process to create remedy in order to be able to secure elections by right (see evidence below): Maxi ; What is necessary Is lawful. Thus, necessity knows no law. Maxim: Nothing is more just that which is necessary, Maxim: That which necessity comes, it justifies. Please take notice that as one of the People, Affiant declares that action must be taken, by necessity to protect the body politic and that any government actors who interfere with the People's rights to free and fair elections are committing a Trespass against the People.eof S To Whom It May Concern: 11/9/2022 Yesterday | worked the polls in Maricopa County/Peoria, AZ. It was my first time to work the polls. | spent from 6am to 8pm standing at the tabulator helping people to enter their ballots into the machines to accept their votes. From 630 am and all day long the tabulators were only accepting about half of the ballots and rejecting the rest. | worked incredibly hard helping voters to reinsert their ballots 5-6 times each, trying to get the machine to accept tho ballots. | watched the voters, who had just stood in line for an hour and then filled out their ballots for 20-30 mins, get discouraged and distrustful as their ballots would reject. Early in the day, the "inspector" who was the man in charge at our sité and also a county employee tell the voter, if their ballot was rejected by the tabulator, that we could instead drop their ballot into the Misread Box #3 and 3 of us would count those ballots at the end of the election day. After hearing him tell this to many voters, when voters were not around, | asked him if that was true. He answered that it was not completely true but it was too complicated to tell the voters what will happen, | asked to know what would really happen to these ballots in door #8, He told me that after we close our polling center, 3 of us would run the ballots again through the tabulators. if they again were not accepted, we would package them into an envelope and send them "downtown" to be counted in a couple of days Once | knew the correct information from him, { began telling people the truth. | told them that if they wanted their ballot to be counted on election day, we could spoil their ballot and issue a new one. They could revote it in hopes that the labulator would accept it so it would be counted on election day. However, if they chose to drop it in the misread door # 3 box it could be a few days before it would be counted. Most of the voters chose to spoil their ballots. The other polll worker on our second tabulator had not been part of my conversation with our inspector 80 | am not sure he knew that correct information or what he was telling the voters, Our supervisor inspector continued telling voters we would be counting those misreads in Door #3 at the end of election night. By what my supervisor requested we do with those ballots at the end of the polling day, that information he told the voters was false and he was aware that it was not truthful qaike,hac WE NEW told me that it was not. 8S many times and was very efficient at it. | had to leave the tabulations3 fe minutes. When | returned, | asked him about running the misread ballots through the tabulators, He then told me, he and another poll worker had decided, that Funning them again dic not need to happen considering how poorly the tabulators had been working. He said they had decided to just go ahead and package them in the appropriate envelope to be transported. He assigned me and the other poll worker, who had been working the tabulators all day, to pull out the voted ballots from below the tabulators and put them into the Black Ballot bags. He then told Us to put the Misread Envelope into those bags as well. | set the Misreads Envelope on the floor next to the Black Bags we were working with. He came past us three times while we were working and pointed out the Misreads Envelope and told me not to forget to put them in the Black Bag. We eventually did. He put the tabulator tape rolls from both tabulators in the bag and then threw in the rest of the security blue zip ties into the bags, zipped the bags shut and security zip tied it with the security zip tie he left out. This morning | checked my Poll Worker Manual and realized that those misread ballots that the tabulators did not accept and our inspector had assured voters would be counted that night, had just gone into the Black Bag meant for Voted Ballots Only and were sealed. In my manual it ‘specifically says not to.place any supplies into those black bags other than voted ballots. Page 134 of the Maricopa County Elections Department 2022 Poll Workers Training Manual for the August Primary and November General states this in bold letters. That poll worker inspector who had assured voters with a smile and said to trust him, had just betrayed them all and those ballots will not be counted or possibly not ever be found unless those ballot bags are opened at some point and those ballots from door #3 are found. Another note to mention. There are extra security zip ties inside the Black Ballot bags securing all those votes, | write this because | am sick that this happened under my watch. | had spent 13 -14 hours with these voters at the tabulators, doing my very best all election day to help them vote while | dealt with a tabulator that did not function properly most of the day. | watched their faces of discouragement as their ballots were rejected by the machine and saw their resolve to be sure their vote would be counted that day, election day. There were 93 misread/tabulator rejected, uncounted ballots for the two tabulators at our vote center by the end of the day. There were many other misreads during the day that we were able to send back th | Success. It absolutely breaks my heart to think of the voters’ pels resolve to make sure their votes counted, each giving hours 6¥ ie that done, sometimes repeating their ballots. And yet | saw theta my supervisor who told them that if they dropped their ballots aN aR fate,ef S they would be counted that night. However now | am not sure they will ever be counted after being secured in the bag that was meant to hold only voted ballots. The American people of all races, ages, accents, occupations cared on Tuesday @nough to exercise their right and privilege to vote. And now I fight for them. l've heard from another poll worker who worked at a poll center close by who said by 1pm they had 103 in their misread door #3. If that was happening all over Maricopa County, how many of those ballots that were rejected by the tabulators all over Maricopa county will be counted? Or how many will have disappeared to places they will not be found or counted just like those.from my polling center. ‘heard Bill Gates, our Board of Supervisor president, state to the news yesterday that the machines were tended to Tuesday morning by technicians and from then on were working. That simple was not true in my polling center. | stood bye that machine all day and it malfunctioned at the same rate all day. Another mention I'd like to add is that yesterday we had a daughter bring her mother on a rolling bed to the vote center so she was able to vote at the poll on election day. We had elderly people in line with walkers who were alone, wanting to vote on election day, we had American citizens who cared so very much. | feel it is unacceptable that these people had to deal with tabulators that randomly rejected so many of these voters votes. And | personally wonder if the machine malfunction in particular areas was at all planned. Especially now that | know the voles from my vote center that were in Door #3 will not be counted. And finally, as | rolled up the tabulator tape last night of my tabulator, | was able to see numbers of the races voted for on my machine. My tabulator took in 662 votes. | saw Lake, Masters, Finchem and Hamadeh in the 500 numbers, getting 500 plus votes out of my 662, and opponents in the 100s. | know that is just my polling area and my tabulator but | wanted to report that to you. Please feel free to contact me will any questions or needs to clarify this letter. Thank you. Respectfully, Karla M Sweet 5 Maricopa County Poll Worker/JudgeSof > Verification | hereby declare, certify and state, pursuant to the penalties of perjury under the laws of the United States of America, and by the provisions of 28 USC § 1746 that all of the above and foregoing representations are trug and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. Exeouted in uy Cr . Arizona on this 2° day of Stewembar in the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand and Twenty-Two, December— Autograph of Affiant: A Notary as JURAT CERTIFICATE 'izons State } Maricopa. County } “Decem| On this < o BSS ay of NESS ( (date) before me, byt adore, a Notary Public, personally appeared (far Si.10.e/_ Name of Affiant, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to bo the woman whose name Is subsctibed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that she executed the same in her authorized capacity, and that by her autograph(s) on the instrument the woman executed, the instrument, | certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the lawful laws of Arizona State and that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct Soy Ss « nan a XS uninEXEIBiT EXHIBIT CDECLARATION December 9, 2022 BY ROBERT BOWES Thereby certify that I am an American citizen born in 1961 in Newport Rhode Istand residing in Arlington Virginia also certify that my professional career as financial institutions banker has included many years of complex financial analysis and fraud investigations including as an expert witness in litigation regarding mergers, bankruptcies, restructurings, regulatory seizures, workouts, and financial fraud. [also certify that for the past two years I have been involved in election fraud investigations in several States that include significant measurable whistleblower disclosures, Based on the results of compiling the publie website reports of Ballot Progress made by the Arizona Secretary of State and each Arizona County on and after the November 8, 2022 Election, I hereby DECLARE, that at least.60,624 ballots in Maricopa County, Atizona and 19,240 ballots in Pima County Arizona were not counted. Maricopa County reported that on November 10, 2022 at 8:52pm there had been 1,215,718 ballots so far counted and that an estimated 407,664 ballots remained to be counted, As ballot processing continued over the following days, 60,624 ballots were not counted. Upon final certification December 6, 2022, Maricopa County reported that 1,562,758 ballots had been counted, Had all of those estimated 407,664 ballots on November 10, 2022 been counted, the total ballots counted by December 6, 2022 should have been 1,623,382, No reason has been provided by Maricopa County about the 60,624 missing ballots. Pima County reported that on November 10, 2022 at 8:52pm there had been 308,593 ballots counted and that an estimated 114,203 ballots remained to be counted. Upon final certification December 6, 2022, Pima County ported that 403,556 ballots had been counted. Had all of those estimated 114,556 ballots on November 10, 022 been counted, the total ballots counted by December 6, 2022 should have been 422,896. No reason has been provided by Pima County about the 19,240 missing ballots. ‘The Arizona Secretary of State reported on November 10, 2022 at 11:03pm that the majority of the ballot inkage occurred in Maricopa County on the evening of November 10, 2022 when 53,779 ballots in the reported in process category never passed to ballots counted category. The Arizona Secretary of State reported on November 11, 2022 at 6:33pm the majority of the ballot shrinkage in Pima County occurred on November 11, 2022 when 18,160 ballots in the reported in process category never passed to ballots counted category. Screen prints and report are attached as an exhibit to this Declaration, 14.9% of Maricopa and 16.9% of Pima ballots in process were not counted. Thereby certify the above DECLARATION to be true and correct. Robert B. Bowes December 9, 2022Analysis of Ballot Procesing Count Repeating Ano a | Based on Data Repovted by Maricopa to AZSOS an by AZSOS posted |i spear 60,624 Ballots vanished ot of 407,664 Bal _Renorts by AZSOS of Mavicpoa Hallo! Progress i Nob ied | date sn Tne oft Maricopa igvlz022 &s2°M ‘siozo22 0p vison eR 1171272022 6470 i302 624M lonciat Canvass 1246 WAM Canny 108820 eby HO 1:03 1/10 11-030 chy 1/41 :11P HAV S:14Pey 11/12 647 11/2 6470 og 113 624" [11/13 6:24P ey Ofial Canvass 12/6 Anomalies in 110 8:52P cg 1110 11-030 10 Lease ehg 11 811 HA) 811P ey 12 eT 1/12 6470 eg 1/13 6-240 113 624? Oct Camas 36 ‘Macigoma Possible Ve Nuliisation Lost Ballots Thursday Nov 10 ‘Lost Ballots Friday Nov 11 (Found) Ballot Saturday Nov 12 ‘Los Ballots Sanday Nov 13 by AZSOS ana he Night to Night Change i the Ballots Processed ns Reported by Maricopa aes Estimated Estimated number of numberof provisional Ballots Atready early ballots ballots tlt to “Tabillated’ 1” Te To process press | 1215,718 13779 | \ats,718 | 29000) 347,000 } 353,885 | Changein | Changein | Change in Balance ot | Balance of | Balance of Uailots | Ballots Left ro | Provisenal “Tahulatea Change in | Change in Balance of | Balance of # of| Ballots Ready | Uncounte inthe Datla | % Completed (83.77) 736% sity] @.s00)| 4% oan) sim ino a ap te fc Er jipiaciae 8 ina a los Conn ya De of Ur [ ] es | ced by 50285. GA7D alos mpnionly vb"Los Ballots Between Nov 13 ant Deo 6 of tatance ‘of Uncounted that Vanishedi I Boteeere Pee |Asnsis or aa Proscsing Count Reposng Anant Fina Comyn Novant 2022 = [Based on Date Repoted by Pina to AZSOS and by AZSOS posiod on A7SOS webs under Ballet Progress. Seren Prins ached, ‘Over severl days, langey oa Now 12th, 1,240 alos venished of 114.203 Ballots in Process a8 of Noy 10, Oaly 94,963 f hose were Inept ny 02808 oma tana igr tinted ‘numberof Estimated. ‘provistonal umber of Date ant Tine a Up by A288 and Ballas Alrendy rats Te to ballots ready Pn Conny “Tabulted foces for tabalan. iawono2 0PM ais 23% a'| —iiaa05 | “rao L202. 6:33PM. oe 333,230 9,126 | 82.35% haano22 asaPM, 355,074 | 2397] tava sore 1/13/2022 3:31PM go4 | 38.874 | 90.38%] tiga sent zl | 52 | soar li/lanor2 $50 a | Ti,635 TOS) yrace2 6:13PM t ar Tae [tical Cawass 126 104M Changein | Changein | Changein | Changein | Cinnge in Balanceot | Balance of | Balanceof | Balance of | Balance of of ‘The Period o Petia Change in the Ballots] Ballots | Wallots Let Ballots Ready | Uncounted | Change in the Pruesse as Reported by Pima County "| Tabu "Process | Ballots | far'Tabutation| Ballots _| % Completed vio Be che 11 633M “> aaa | a3) . UW 6:33PM chy 11/12 444M, “2.163 — 55) 1112 4:44PM eb 1/13 3:03 11/03 2.03PM ohg 11/13 3831PM 113 31PM bg iva saad | DH 45430 tg 114 ssoeN eae 7 wat amy 1/4 0PM hg 114 630 ae Ti 1/14 6:13PM 0 Oficial Canvass 1216 Tay Hola between 11/1 Land 1246 TORE) Avomalies inthe Pina Reporttag “1110 8:52PM chy LL 6:33PM 11/1 633M chy 11/724-44M24-4PM eh 1/13 2:03 '33:03M eh 1/13 3:31PM 113 9:31PM i 1014 583M |i inci i pig tr nd 7 isi Rei ae of Und 70 EesgecLt | Easereste sae ea I eae an Tal Godan. nad Sree 494 Oe __ | | ar sn ny og cae DHA SA3PM cg 11714 5:50PM 1/14 8:S0PM ehg 1114 613PM 1/14 6 139M wo Oficial Canvass 126 ‘of Uncownted# rovers ves bee SueLL ‘29s'sst 21872307 mei as seer'oe oss oot ose, o0z'8 zeae eum, = 2z82 ZE0Z! 6008 2erzi og0't 209 2008 : eae Hee Sige ae eerie eee - Ferree Peete "gag — Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerer eestL “0008 oz “B1E98 “000% | ow = a ae “908 7 a “rl sevese me SSC se|ueai9, weyD se:81 2200) 354209 98-91 zzz! suey 30:8) Zz0ZI ouues0g : ; sse00d sjoyeg paunooun —_, uoneinge, 105 ys] SoNeG + sseo0ad 0} . pavaiduoo Josequinu — Apeau solteg jo jeuoistacid je Yai siolied Auseo 30 , paweingeL sBequscisg el —IEIon PaVeWNsS sequNU palewNSS JequNU perEWNSS JeqUINU Pan] — Apeuly siolleS funeo —parepdn ase ‘petepdn Jo pauodsy used 16 10u SnleA Sue UBIO val S| Pray BZzssore eueLb sebrsz 3811907 es 2 82 nee zegut rz. eo poe a4 - - - 8, nec 200708 022% exes eet soneez oes, ssso0ud ‘smoyeg pewunosun = _ ueneingen soy sssocid ot pareiduies jessqunu Apes stoyeg se ya] siojrEg Auze jo pareinga eBeiusoleg |eoL «RICA PSIEWNSS Jequinu PaeWNsS Jequinu peewnSS sequnupseWnES — Aneesty sioveE fsunog——paepdnasey~ caret, sours seer) eeee rey ams ay on 3 e Buna 985 22 at oer eae, - 7 - 2. 00% zug ves s3878 a28 ssp 28 08 Rug sSh95 are zee et son aug 798 errr 3 arr o00F ofenen - - - 208 008 leh Zeer % sorts 38 Dor's regs ez ee -a8b ser con: re wists szer 888 wE aso osbar siolieq patunosun —_uoneingenio: ot 4a siojfea sseooid ot paveidwsoo Jesaguinu — Apeas swoijeg jo aBmusosg pac, «= mist pelewnsE seswnu pseuneZ # ssai5oig 10\/2¢ts Pol ft ht goles ieee ae ihe 8 i ds 8 885 i338 gS s E 7 é ? ee Ere ee a eae gece sae 3 eo8 eee ay : lopoateog teg ii ge oes 7 oes ge ; ate #88 BBY ee ee e Ze 8 ee: i e508 ges wos se % gt 82° ° 8 Sise sss B 2 ga ge eg gas § es ces ase Se Lees ae aes 8 8 8 4 See Ge0 0 6 ie we ea fe fag ac ee sgat as 2 z i ® eee og. 8 n ° BER, E sais o 3 88 8 s ® Beat 7 8 8886S a8 8 3 > bt 2 2 a3 2 a g eq . i 2 a8 g oO > yw oS a © 4 Fe . a 252.605 47.828 state Totaleeoezet ToL as seer Puna ov'ei zz07 poses _ sseeh _ se0'8zh “091996 Pus 1691 ZzozeNI ieseoe esa OREN OOLPL zeOezILAL 9078 Breuoni 12s Zeon “geese edoouey) eet ZeozeU/L eee a vos'ob aeuz sore zine ige'6e osreb “awedy — erei 7207/8 ‘saojea pauncoun —__ uoneinqer 10} ovat sotieg > Sse00id oy Paverdwog josequnu peau sjojren jo euoistacudl40 ye! siotrea Auve so _ paweinget sBeiuacied (eto) —eloh peteuRsS JequiNU pReWRsa JequNY paleWAsE JequiNY PaEWNSS — AoCesY ROIS fuunog—_panepdn ase “petepdn Jo payodas used vei jou sey Je\nis envea sun “sUeIa Ue $) B9L EJ)- reorosr eer ssr'sh sostor eee Lzre 8 POS sou Ord ze eee srs'or PUMA 5% OFS 082 og osz, osF y097Zh = = - eeee cot oe “seven “ist = ° — eee eS” % 8E°06 vLe'8e Os'os “one OSL “081 S8e Bee eres err ° or coo’ soe'se aoe = oe er6'rar't E - Ssea0ud sjoweq paunooun —__uegeinqe} 10), ua so1eq » Sseo0ud of | paneidwoo Josequinu Abeer stoyreqso ——reuoysiaoud Jo. yay siolieg Auea jo | paveinaen sBrwuscied Itiel «IROL PALEUINSS sequIMU PeteWRsy JeOWNU pereUMSS JeqUINUDeEWsS — APEeITY sIOTES faunog——patepdn3se7 petepdr so psuoda: useq 12 jeu Sey J9ytis onyen sia UZIG Lal 8) play eZ sseiBold yolied- sors babes SL BIS o3et ~u sie oor edete4 - 7 - ae ane sores zno ewes - 7 - eee beeen ee rel mug Or kL osu'6s oe sts oozes Bus errr 9 or agar eeerse olen soorez goa aoeret see 08TL 7 £ 0 segs EveLh BOE hh = i - 2 S 2980: #7288 ere ier oor reer SUL ezIB 2 eSTB zsee 2 wz reo 22083 222k CEO e - 7 - cae noes cere. 50.8. 20S. ~ sse00sd on yal siolres svojreg pewneoun paieidives so veowny aferugoied ime. = een peieuiass 2 oneinger 10} Sunes parepdn ase7pareyduieg, eBriusoreg mL snoueq peunesun yo Jeqwnu woiea newewunss uoneinges 0) Apeei syoired 10 sseooid = sseooid or nu eRe | Stojreq Kee 10 SE ree0zet rey sag seUeRS 2083. ELBE ane2e 210) 29072 auuezeg 28082 Beneco oes suecy pereodq ase,oe baie it : 3 8 3 3 3 83 ; Bg ge BS a ‘Seer oeog tgp tg ge fe gs g' 93 Bee ites fe erie eae 5 “ E 8 § § g £ 2 s83 Bas aH sa32 8 ¢ -$33.8 RS we Be i gee a re uae ERE hse a eee bw 2 5 ob Ro agi 2 8 8886 Pee; > ahi 88 eens 2 & gee Sease w 4 Pours BEELS mmey BSS 88S 8 gE e383 Be 1ee gigs aig e ree Seger go eae ee ee : CEs B25 : Bee toe ge gg tag » bas é a i Bs ‘ ae 24 ae be & "go ° g'gi9-g8 @ 8 go : & cereus oie Ge ume iat 2 a6 a8 BB 38 Be BRE B 289 88 3 gaa 2 gee ees é aa ae e esi by 2, a Re eee et ge a 288555 5 2h BEE Be S Ba 7 QIN ggd g § 3 N88 8 8 8 is 8 7 THUS es ag 3 career: : 4 See ae 181488 18888 128.4% 25.8 State Totala berrsh seer ges Ime) seas one 2 2 ob BMA Seb OETA og of o8t ter 8 Tz wdeNeA ar Ezez Ete - - - zee cot gers. zr9 sues. SE SOTs 802°8 aoe 28, 08 S8eLL Rue 028 sesh core eee 00" Forage ews rege errr 2 err o00'r see'ee olen 58528 seers co ge gogs oor's orererh Pog 00 9 7 c 9 e222 ee er oo tdL 7 7 a o Let se18815) . = = 2) e ga. see e088 ee 3 s 08 802 tz ae ot ar cari ta irre au uezeg seer 866 ste sare oss er ssiue0S 2203 Loge (26 ae 28808 apesy sseo0d sioifeq patunooun uonemaesios —onuist Stollen ssso0id 01 paisiswog jolequnu —fpeas siojjegyo ——euoysinoid yo et sxojieq Auve Jo aBeueoisg iio eo parewnsE Jequinu peRWSS Jequinis Jsolunu panels Aunoo patepdn ages= veorsis testes eae Lb ser est Bros oss o0z oez esz90e reo aes 00ze eum, e182 ee 8% 60°08 go's Z | Sss00id swolleg pawneoun —, uoneingerio; §=— oa yal siolred =, sssa0id op ; Paraidwo youequinu —Apeal sjolfeqjo ——reuoisinesdJo wai siolreg Auee Jo . Paveinge, sBausoied i0L ‘elon pelewRsS JequNU PaEWNSS JequNU parEWINsE IequINU PREWSS — Apeesy siCKeS fuuneg——_pavepdn3sei Paepdn 10 payode: used 8 jou Sey Jets snjen sip MUEIG al SI PISY 24)Toor eras “res r8k ZORA #2006 Saaeee soeh zzozoWis “ee eee Zeon nveee ‘ootrh eeozitsint = "08 ~S”~*~*«OTBSS*S*~*~*~*~*~*«S ARGON POTN wore 0082 aireizy F “ edoouent corse zzoz0Lte pers “o.—oSS”~”~*CSE an ZOOL 5. 00'008 Q rd sewewe LOL ZOBOULL - a Los weuBe — ov'eL zoe 68 2 eon eID sei 2202 % 2e98 sore ier 00"t us regur ouusseg ez} 2z0z/ LLL wegze wee 0 see veo Lee'se aeuaeg ez} ze0wEH I - - - age noes cer'at suvedy — aecal Zzze ¢ _ sseo0d ‘Solleqpaiuncoun —, uoneMges 1} «aA YA SLOWTEG . ssanaid 03 » Pavaidwoo Jouaquinu — Apeai-siolreq so yeUotsiaoud 10 ust siotieg Ales Jo _ PaWeINgRL sBeueciag iGo, — feloy pSIEWNS| JequinU PaIEUNSS JequNY RESWNSS JequNUPaEUMSS — APeMIY SIONEG ‘funeg ——_parepdn.3se7 ‘ostzodn 1¢ peuode: used y=f jou sey seus eriea sin yLEIT Bai ‘Ssevoud uogeingg] aur $B SEuey> on 9alans ave ous id 1O//eg ssel6o.ixXTBltT EXHIBIT DCURRIGULUM VITAE Michael Schafer, CEO Compliance Testing, LLC 1724 S Nevada Way Mesa, AZ 85204 602-770-9776 | [email protected] Michael Schafer ("Mr. Schafer") is a subject matter expert and eighteen-year veteran in the accreditation of laboratories to 18017025. Mr. Schafer is President and Chief Executive Officer of a regulatory test lab with an ISO 17025 accreditation. The company also has and FCC and !SED-Canadian approved Telecommuicatinos Certification Body approved by both the FCC. and ISED-Canada to certify the documentation required for a grant to sell the tested products in the US and Canada. The lab specializes in testing and cerlifying electronic devices and complex transmitters for the Federal Communications Commission and Department of Homeland Security. Schafer's Services Include: © Testing to Federal Communications, Industry Canada Standards and European Test Standards © Emissions and Immunity Testing for FCC (Federal Communications Commission), & CE Mark and OHS Land Mobile Radio and communications infrastructure in the area of P25 Interoperability testing, Performance Testing and ISSI-CSSI Testing © FCC and ISED- (Canadian) Telecommunications Certification Body © Creation of Certifiable FCC, ISED, P25, CE Test Reports ‘ Identification of appropriate Test Standards and international testing and certification directives for products to enter Global Markets and be approved for sale in multiple countries © Custom and specialized testing and reporting requirements based on the Client's requirements. © Traffic Radar verification testing © Submission for worldwide conformity and interface with government regulatory agencies ‘Mr. Schafer has maintained accreditation for his Test Lab for approximately eighteen years, Mr. Schafer graduated Magna Cum Laude from the University of Pennsylvania, Wharton Business School, with a Bachelor of Business Administration in Management and Finance. Mr Schafer previously owned and operated a software development company for the Real Estate Appraisal Industry. WLMichael Schafer, CEO Compliance Testing, LLC 1724 S Nevada Way Mesa, AZ 85204 602-770-9776 | [email protected] 1. Facts about (est fab accreditation from compliance experts Michael Schafer, a subject matter expert (see CURRICULUM VITAE incorporated by reference) on the specific accreditation of testing laboratories by the EAC (Election Assitance Commission), on Labs; “Pro V&V", and “SLI Compliance”, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC, was asked in 2020 to evaluate if these specilic labs mot the standards of accredited test labs. Just Based upon the Voting System Test Laboratory ("VSTL") Program requirements alone shown in the currently posted Manual, Version 2.0, section 3.6.1., Michael Schafer asserts that the VSTL manual requires that the Chair of the EAC Commission must be the signer of the Lab’s Accreditation Certificate. In this instance, the Chair of the Commission was Thomas Hicks. Thomas Hicks did not sian the accreditation certificate. Mona Harington, Executive Director, signed it. (See Declaration in support of test lab accreditation by reference). | observed repetitions of modified Lab Accreditation Certificates that did not meet the VSTL requirements and in my opinion invalidate the Lab Accreditation Certificates. As a failure to have a valid Lab Acorediation Certificate, the Labs would not be able to certify and recertify as required by ARS 16-4428, the HAVA (Help America Vote Act) and the EAC’S VSTL manual. | ‘voting system Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 ‘The scope of accteditation, by stating the Federal standard or standards to winkch the VSTL. is competent to test; The effective date ofthe certification, which shall not exceed a period of 7 two (2) years; andUnited States Electton Asiatance Commission Certificate of Accreditation i Pro V&V, Inc, | I Huntsville, Alabama | fe weowniced bv the US, Flection Assistance Commission forthe testing of voting sjslems tothe Hl 200 wd 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VUSG 1.0 & 1.1) under the criteria set forth sn te EAC Voting SYsteo Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation Param, Pin Vis alo recognized as having successfully completed ascessments By the Na 5 tional Holuntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for conformance tothe requirements @C1SQ 10-6: 17023 and the criteria set forth In MIST Hendbooks 1500 and 150-22, fo Sones i EE Cuan i Ane Eos i - ; | re Aten does Mee Mlemingfon | Sa ate te tres NL ae dae Cmte ‘shes ACL Go 101 See my Exhibit 2 for more examples of departure from the EAC VSTL Manual In addition, the EAC VSTL manual requires recertification of voting machines (systems) in their entirety when Software Changes or Hardware changes are made. org system Tet ats atory Progam Mans! Veta 2 a othe ata TR, ots of he system wilh hed and the EAE‘sto Test tabeaony Program Mana, Vetson 2.0 282122 Thesystemhasteen subject toboth sofware and hardware madication ace the VSTL st employes wea inootecin the eyes Via PP7 in the VSTL Manual Definitions Voting System. The total combination of mechanical, electromechanical, and electrantc : ‘equipment (bichiding the software, Haiiitea and documentation regqired to program, contol, and sapyort the equipment) that is weed to define ballots, east and eouint votes, ior dicplay election zestlts, interface the voting system to the voter registration, syétem, and maintain andl produce any audit trail information HAVA Act States in Section 202 Duties : 116 STAT. 1674 PUBLIC LAW 107-262—OCT, 29, 2002 (2) carrying out the duties described in subtitle B (relating to the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software); THEREFORE, |, Michael Schafer in my opinion believe that not only are the two test labs Pro V&V and SLI Compliance not accredited test labs to the compliance standard set out by the EAC's VSTL, section 3.6.1 and Section 202 of the HAVA Act; but the current Voting Systems used in the past elections have not ever been fully Cerlitied or Recertified to follow Arizona and Federal law. In addition | had concerns being a Poll Marshall at both the Primary Election and the MidTerm election al the Via Linda Voting Center. In the recent Mid Term election | observed the night before the election we ran sample ballots through the machines successfully. However the next morning and most the day the machines wererepeatedly rejecting ballots at a very high rate, maybe 50-75% of the time, Then our instructions were to have the voters place their ballots in door 3. As an SME in testing, it was very unusual that the ballots the night before had no problems but our voting center and many others had significant problems which changed the pre set voting process. My conclusions regarding the rejections was that either different paper was used from the test paper to the actual paper or that something was changed the day of the elections to cause the problem. | observed a wireless router as part of the voting equipment that could have been used to access the machines and “flip a switch" or they could have been preprogrammed to do something that intitated the problem. | have not opened the devices to see if their were cell cards in the systems where they could have been controlled remotely. Lastly, I took it upon myself to visit the Runbeck Ballot Printing facility a couple of evenings following the elections. 1 had been told that for some reason ballots go to Runbeck as part of the process for the voting, which may violate the Chain of Custody requirements of the Arizona Voting Procedures Manual. | saw the following business right next to Runbeck's Ballot Printing Facility. It is a paper recycling plant. It caused me fo have a most frightening thought about the possibilty of ballots could have been shredded at the paper recysing facility and then replacement balllots could have been reprinted and then transported to the counting center MCTEK.2, Conclusion My conelusion from the above findings would cause the votes in these elections to not follow multiple laws and processes needed fo have a fair and equal elections, and therefore my opinion would the ballots would be considered illegal ballots and in Violation of ARS 16-442B, the EAC VSTL manual, the HAVA Act and the Arizona Constitution Article 7 Section 7 and the Arizona Voting Procedures Manual. Michael Schafer, a subject matter expert on accredited test labs, determined that both EAC's test laboratories are not acoredited test labs due to a Non-Binding Signature and other items identified herein. The signature must be signed by Chair of the Commission according to the compliance standard outlined in the EAC's VSTL, section 3.61.ctfully Submitted, Byes Michael Schafer President, Chief Executive Officer Compliance Testing LLC DECLARATION REGARDING TEST LAB ACCREDITATION FAILURE |, Michael Schafer, alleging himself to be conscientiously scrupulous of taking an oath, being solemnly affirmed according to law, on his affirmation, says the following. |. am a subject matter expert in the accreditation of Laboratories to |S017025, the same preliminary accreditation the Voting Machine Labs hold as a prerequisite to having an EAC (lection Assistance Commission) as a Voting System Test Lab (VSTL). 4.0 EXAMINATION QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED: 1.1 Shortly afler the 2020 election, | was asked to compare the accreditation of the test laboratories of Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC. 2.0 Methodology - Accepted Methodology: 24 A process of analysis, comparison, evaluation, and verification is conducted between the known requirements, standards and questioned Certification documents. In efforts to compel an industry standard for expressing opinions based on the expert's conclusions, a statement will be expressed consistent with the terminology and level of reasonable certainty based on the expert's experience in this field, 3.0 Range of Variation: 3.1 Accreditation of laboratories Pro V&V and SLI Compliance, a Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC, were provided and contemporaneous to the accreditation standards raised in the Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual. adherence to the program's procedural requirements is mandatory forparticipants. The procedural requirements of this Manual will supersede any prior laboratory accreditation requirements issued by the EAC" or any later modifications prior to the requirements of the time they occurred. 4.0 Governing Provisions of Accreditation: A. Legal Standard 41, Ariz, Rov. Stat. § 16-442 B. “Machines or devices used at any election for federal, stale or county offices may only be certified for use in this state and may only be used in this state if they comply with the Help America Vote Act of 2002, and if those machines or devices have been tested and approved by a laboratory that is accredited pursuant to the Help America Vote Act of 2002 ("HAVA"). 4.2, 52 U.S. Code § 20921 - ESTABLISHMENT "There is hereby established as an independent entity the Election Assistance Commission.” 4.3. 52 U.S. Code§ 20962 - Process for Adoption. 4.4, 52 .U.S, Code § 20922 - DUTIES to include Information relating to the testing, certification, decertification, and recertification of voting system hardware and software and further establishes the requirement of NIST's VVSG 2.0. atonal nsiuts of INST. Seen, IT igponentel Comment lbs. Manulactoners il ofr to the egutroments a xan neve voting stems the reqarements linen chon ia ow Vatng stems should ior be wsed inceason tyes ol elections andvatingenvironnvent, Test asl ler tothe WG when they develop test ying tbr te ving systems haveindeed satis the requltements, The WSG, therefore, serves as avery wor Gnsunog that the voting systems used U.S. electons wl be secure, able, and easier fo all Hh siysystom monulactuiors nd vatlg yet he WWNE won they ‘ote ue ecu 45 In order to meet its statutory requirements under HAVA §15371(b), the EAC has developed the EAC's Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program. The procedural requirements of the program are established in the proposed information collection, the EAC Voting System Test Laboratory Accreditation Program Manual ("VSTL")?, which establishes a framework of requirements under the EAC Voting System Certification Program. quipment/vating-system-tes-Inhorataries-vstl defini estos4.6. Pursuant to VSTL section 3.6.1., Certificate of Accreditation, "A Certificate of Accreditation shall be issued to each laboratory accredited by vote of the Commissioners. The certificate, shall be signed by the Chair of the 3.6. acuedited laboratory. The certificate will be signed by the Chair of the Commisaion and state: 5.0 Observations and Evaluations: A. Observations 5.1 ProVvav Lab Accreditation was Signed by Mona Harrington Date 2/1/21, Executive Director U, lection Assistance Commission. ‘ this is also four years alter the expiration of the Lab's Certificate of Accrediation. Nowa dlanbaffin pac nian Mone Harrington Executive Director, US, Election Assistance Commission EAC Lab Code: 1501 THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISION DID NOT SIGN AS REQUIRED BY VSTL SECTION 3.6.1. Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 of Accreditation. A Certificate of Accreditation shall be issued to each ny accredited by vole of the Commissioners. The certificate shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission and slate: | observed similar issues on the SLI Compliance Lab's Cerificaiton of Accreditation Certificates. bitpsvivww.e endl(Mews Slangin Mona Harrington Executive Director, US. Election Assistance Commission EAC Lab Code: 0701 THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT THE CHAIR OF THE COMMISION DID NOT SIGN AS REQUIRED BY VSTL SECTION 3.6.1. Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manual, Version 2.0 mn shall be issued to each laboratory accredited by vote of the Commissioners. The certificate shall be ned by the Chair of the Commission and slate: B. Evaluations 5.3. - According to 3.6.1. of the Voting System Test Laboratory Program Manuel Version 2.0 the current issue on the web site, states the certificate "shall be signed by the Chair of the Commission.” The signature must be signed by Chair of the Commission Thomas Hicks VSTL Manuel 2.0 § 3.6.1.° In this instance, the Chair of the Commission was Thomas Hicks who did not sign as required and the person who sighed the certificates was Mona Harrington, Executive Director (not the Chair) Itwas also observed that there were ade al issues and concerns on the EAC Lab Accreditation documentation, but the lack of a proper signature is sufficient evidence to prove the Lab's lack of accreditation. https://rumble.com/v1 pkgmb-the-voting-machines-cannot-bé-used. htm! iasioner-thomasshieks6.0 Conclusion Based on the foregoing governing authorities, the accreditation certificate was not signed pursuant to applicable authority and is therefore null and void and would require a hand count of the ballots. THEREFORE, in my expert opinion, the November 8, 2022, election results can NOT be certified via a machine count, because as shown herein above, the Certificate did not comply with the standards set forth in the EAC Manual and therefore, the lack of certification of the voting machines fails to comply with the EAC VSTL requirements, HAVA, and A.R.S. § 16-442(B) thereby also violating the ARS Constitution Article 7 Section 7, (Only Legal Ballots may be counted). Machine counted voles would not be legal ballots. | declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of Arizona that the foregoing is true and correct. Michael Schafer, President , CEO Compliance Testing, LLCUnited States Election Assistance Commission Certificate of Accreditation Pro V&V, Inc. Huntsville, Alabamaj { United States Election Assistance Commission ge . ee) Certificate of Accreditation Pro V&V, Inc. Huntsville, Alabama fe pecs ty the US. Election Assistance Commission forthe testing of systems 10 the 2005 and 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 & 1.1) under the criteria set Jorth in the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation Program. Pro V&Vis alto recognized as having. completed assessments by the Na- tional rc) Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for conformance to the requirements af ISO IEC 1702S and the criteria set forth in NIST Handbooks 150 and 150-22.Certificate of Accreditation SLI Compliance, Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC ‘Wheat Ridge, Colorado is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting systems 10 the 2002 Voting Systems Standards, the Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines versions 1.0 and 1.1 under the criteria set forth in the EAC Voting System Testing and Certification Program and Laboratory Accreditation Program. SLI Compliance is also recognized as having successfully completed assessments by the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program for conformance to the regulrements of ISO/MEC 17025 and the criteria set forth in NIST Handbooks 150-22. ee eo cwUnited States Election Assistance Commision ce } Certificate of Accreditation SLI Compliance Division of Gaming Laboratories International, LLC Wheat Ridge, Colorado | eA is recognized by the U.S. Election Assistance Commission for the testing of voting sys- sto th 2005 Fol i idelin J . tem: 1¢ 2005 and 2015 Voluntary Voting Systems Guidelines (VVSG 1.0 & 1.1) under th i ;le document changes, the VSTL manual 2.0 §3.6.1 have been added rules, and Date changes on the same signature date Another duplicate SUI Compliance Pee aieu ro Bice ec) This is a Pro V&V | Laboratory Date | | Unauthorized : Fe " 52 USC does not s eee allow for a blanket Non-Binding continuation of a 3 panera Must be Signed by : Chair of the EAC retroactively Commission VSTL Manual 2.0 3.6.1Poa bi & EXHIBIT EHobbs v. € a You replied on Wed 12/7/2022 11:32 AM You replied on Wed 12/7/2022 11:32 AM rosby - linyovoper Removal [CB-MAINDOCS.FID316510] Andy Gaone To: dan inlo-az.com Cc: bo@statesuniteddemocracyorgs Diana Hanson ‘Thu 12/1/2022 4:46 PM Mr, MeCautey: I've just received a hosi of documents from the U.S. District Court related to your attempted removal of Hobbs v. Crosby to federal court. t've also received the various deficiency notices related to those documents, all of which would require you to re-file those documents. Please be advised that if you proceed with re-filing those documents and thus require the Secretary to enter an appearance ancl respond, the Secretary will seek sanctions against you and your clients under Rule 11, Fed. R. Civ. P,, and 28 U.S.C, § 1927, Not only does the Secretary's mandamus action against your clicnis seeking their compliance with state law plainly not arise under federal law, but itis also now moot because Supervisors English and Judd just certified the canvass of the 2022 general election, Regards, Andy GaonaEXHIBIT F ECETo: Kelly Ward, Mickie Niland, Gina Swoboda, Alex Kolodin, and various 2022 AZ Republican Candidates From: Mark Sonnenklar Re: Maricopa County Roving Attomey Observations -- November 8, 2022 General Election Date: November 15, 2022 1. Introduction On November 8, 2022, | was a roving attorney on behalf of the Republican National Committee's Election Integrity program in Arizona, In that capacity, | visited ten different vote centers in Maricopa County (the "County’). In addition, after the election, | surveyed all of the other 16 roving attomeys in the RNC's Maricopa County Election Integrity program to find out about their respective experiences on election day, Ten of those roving attorneys responded to my survey. This report summarizes what | and the other roving attorneys who responded to my survey witnessed on election day. i. Executive Summary Iwas an Observer at ten vote centers on election day. The other ten roving attorneys that responded to my requests for information about thelr election day experiences observed at a total of 105 additional vote centers. Thus, together, 11 of the total 17 roving attorneys in the County observed at a total of 115 vote centers out of a total of 223 vote centers in the County (§1.56% of the total vote centers in the County). Finding #1: Colleotively,-| and the other ten roving attorneys reported that 72 of the 115 vote centers (62.61%) we visited had material problems with the tabulators not being able to tabulate ballots, causing voters to either deposit their ballots into box 3, spoil their ballots and re-vote, or get frustrated and leave the vote center without voting. In many vote centers, the tabulators rejected the initial insertion of a ballot almost 100% of the time, although the tabulators might still accept that ballot on the second, third, fourth, fifth, or sixth attempt to insert the ballot, However, many ballots were not able fo be tabulated by the tabulators at all, no matter how ‘many times the voter inserted the ballot. The percentage of ballots that were not able to be tead al all by the tabulators ranged from 5% to 85% at any given time on election day, with the average being somewhere between 25% and 40% failure rates. In many cases, the printer/tabulator issues persisted from the beginning of election day until the end of election day. ‘The strong consensus regarding why the tabulators would not read certain ballots was that those ballots, in particular the bar codes on the side of the paper, were not printing dark enough for the tabulators to read them. ‘These findings dlrectly contradict the statements of County election officals that (1) printor/tabulator issues wero limited to only 70 of the 223 vote centers, (2) the printer/tabulator problems were resolved as of 3:00 p.m., and (3) the printer/tabulator issues were insignificant in the entiro scheme of tho election, Finding #2: Collectively, | and the other ten roving attorneys also reported that voters had to wait in significant lines at 9 of the 115 vote centers we visited (51.30%). In many cases, voters had to wall 1-2 hours before they received a ballot for voting. itis certainly safe to assume 4that many voters refused to wait in such lines, left the vote center, and did not return to vote later. A survey of the electorate could easily confirm such an assumption. Conclusion: it seems very clear that the printer/tabulator failures on election day at 62.61% of the vote centers observed by 11 roving attorneys, and the resulting long lines at a majority of all vote centers, led to substantial voter suppression, Moreover, because Republican voters significantly outnumbered Democrat voters in the County on election day, such voter suppression would necessarily impact the vote tallies for Republican candidates much more than the vote tallies for Democrat candidates. Section Ill below is a summary of what | personally witnessed or was reported to me by the Republican Observers and Inspectors at each vote center that | visited. Section IV below contains the summary reports of all of the other Republican roving attomeys in Maricopa County who responded to my request for information about thelr experiences. Exhibit A to this report contains a comprehensive report prepared by roving attorney Tabatha Lavole regarding her experiences at each of the nine vote centers where she was an observer. Exhibit B to this report contains the reports of various poll workers and voters who corresponded with me after election day. Exhibit C to this'report contains my report irom my experience as a roving attorney during the primary election on August 2, 2022, which noted ubiquitous issues with the tabulators and printers that day as well IM, Vote Centers. | observed at the following vote centers on election day: Fountain Hills Town Hall, 13001 N. La Montana Drive, Fountain Hills ‘Copper Canyon School, 17650 N. 54th Street, Scottsdale North Scottsdale United Methodist Church, 11735 N. Scottsdale Road, Scottsdale Oasis Community Church, 15014 N. 68th Street, Scottsdale ‘Scottsdale Worship Center, 6508 E. Cactus Road, Scottsdale Venue 8600, 8600 E, Anderson Drive, Scottsdale Mountain View Park Community Center, 8625 E. Mountain View Road, Scottsdale Second Church of Christ Scientist, 10180 N, Hayden Road, Scottsdale Via Linda Senior Center, 10440 E. Via Linda Drive, Scottsdale Islamic Center, 12126 E, Via Linda, Scottsdale Horizon Community Center, 15444 N, 100th Street, Scottsdale Atter arriving at each vote contor, | showed my credentials to the polling inspector and then requested to speak with the Republican Observer. The Republican Observer and | stepped oulside of the vote center, and | asked the Republican Observer if he/she had witnessed any irregularities oF problems. | took notes during these conversations, After speaking with the Republican Observer at a vote center, | proceeded to speak with the polling inspector of that vote center. | asked each inspector how things were going, whether they had experienced any problems, and whether they had seen any the problems. | also took notes during these conversations. Below is a summary of the notes | took on election day at the above-listed ten vote centers: Fountain Hills Community Center Arrival time: 10:15 a.m, Observer: Tom Mulleady (703) 408-3001Inspector; Yvonne Davis (480) 363-5929 Printer/tabulator problems: The Observer told me that he believed the tabulators were not tabulating approximately 50% of the ballots, The inspector told me that, (1) the tabulators were not working well, (2) she called the County for help with the tabulators, (3) the County sent @ troubleshooter who cleaned “the machines’, (4) the troubleshooters efforts helped a litle bit, but the tabulators were stil not tabulating a large portion of the ballots. | decided to perform my own analysis of tabulator BT 0432. | observed forty voters attempt to Insert their ballots Into the two tabulators. Approximately 90% of those votors had to insert their ballots multiple times to get the tabulator to read their ballots, Ten of the forty voters (25%) ‘were unable to get ths tabulator to read their bellots at all after multiple attempts and either chose to place the ballot in box 3 or spoll the ballot and fill out another ballot. Many voters were ‘extremely frustrated when the tabulator did not work. Some expressed concern about whether their ballot would in fact be counted if they placed it in box 3; others who chose to fill out another ballot were frustrated because they had Waited for over an hour in line already and now were boing asked to fl out another very long ballot without knowing whether the tabulator would be: able to read it. | witnessed several voters spoll two ballots, Lino: | was in this vote center for over an hour, There were more than 160 psople in line to vote for the entire time | was there. The inspector told me that there had been a line out the door since she opened the vote center at 5:45 a.m. Other Observations: The inspector told me that the Fountain Hills Community Center had ensured her that the vote center would be located In a large ballroom room; however, she was instead given a small room that could not accommodate the overwhelming number of voters that day. ‘As | was leaving the vote center, a voter (Phil Carr 480-231-4823) told me that he spoiled two ballots and that the tabulator finally was able to read his third ballot, Mountain View Park Community Center Arrival time: 11:45 a.m, Observer: George Sutherland (480) 694-3935 Inspector: Unfortunately, | did not get the contact information for the female Inspector, Printer/tabulator problems: | began by performing my own analysis of tabulators BT 0365 and BT 0426. | observed 47 voters attempt to insert their ballots into the two tabulators, Again, almost all of those voters had to insert their ballots multiple times to get the tabulator to read their ballots. Ten of the 43 voters (21%) were unable to get the tabulator to read their ballots at all after multiple attempts, The rejected voters generally reacted in the same way that they reacted at all of the vote centers where the labulators were not reading the ballots, See Eountain Hills Community Center above. Soon after my survey of the tabulators, ! witnessed the Inspactor remove all of the misread ballots from Box 3 of both tabulators and place them in a black bag. | asked her how many ballots she estimated she had removed in the aggregate from both Box 3s, and she told me she thought there were 175 ballots in the two Box 3s (and this was around noon). | asked her if she knew why the tabulators were rejecting the ballots, 3and she told me that “the printers are not printing dark enough for the tabulators {o read the ballots.” She then took out all of the misread ballots from the black bag and showed me that thoy all contained bar codos on the side that were partially grey and partially black, instead of all black. Line: The line at this vote center was small, Other Observations: None. Istamic Center Arrival time: 12:30 p.m. Observer: Carrie Cox, [email protected], (815) 685-3850 Inspector: Pinny Printer/tabulator problems: | performed my own analysis of the two tabulators. | observed 62 voters attempt to insert their ballots into the two tabulators. Again, close to 100% of those voters had to insert their ballots multiple times to get the tabulator to read their ballots, 20 of the 52 voters (38%) were unable to get the tabulator to read their ballots after multiple attempts, The sejected voters generally reacted in the same way that they reacted at all of the vote conters where the tabulators were not reading the ballots. See Fountain Hills Community Center above. The Republican Observer informed me that a troubleshooter had replaced the toner cartridges ‘on at least one of the printers before | had arrived, which had improved the functioning of the tabulators alittle bit, yet they were still falling at a very high rate, Line: There was no line at this vote center. Other Observations: The Inspector had a messy pile of spolled ballots next to her chair, many of which had not been marked “Spoiled”. At various times, she left those unspoiled ballots Unattended while she was working in other areas of the vote center. While | was sitting with the Inspector, several voters came up to her to request that she spoil their ballot. Each time, the Inspector took the ballot and put it on top of her pile without actually spolling it, Almost all of these voters stood there awkwardly waiting for the Inspector to spoil the ballot, and it was. only then that the Inspector would write "Spoiled’ on the ballot, Before | left the vote center, | gently asked the Inspector if she was going to spoil a of the ballots in her pile, She got defensive with ‘me and told me that she hasn't spoiled the ballots yet only because she keeps getting pulled away by her staff. Via Linda Senior Center Arrival time: 3:16 p.m. Observer: Cindy Jensen (480) 577-0324 Inspector: Stephen Braun Printerftabulator problems: | immediately observed that this vote center was also having problems with the tabulalors reading the ballots. | spoke to the Inspector, and he confirmed that tobe the case. He mentioned that the problem had improved when a tech guy from an outside IT firm had adjusted the printers around 2:00 p.m., more than an hour before | arrived, 4| performed my own analysis of tabulators BT 0198 and BT 0044. | observed 35 voters attempt to insert their ballots into the two tabulators. Again, olose to 100% of those voters had to insert their ballots multiple times to get the tabulator to read their ballots. BT 0198 performed better than BT 0014, Between the two tabulators, a total of seven of the 35 voters (20%) were unable to get the tabulator to read their ballots after multiple attempts. The rejected voters generally reacted in the same way that they reacted at all of the vote centers where the tabulators were not reading the ballots. See Fountain Hills Community Center above, Line: | observed approximately 150 people in line to vote when | arrived. | overheard one voter say that she had waited in line for 80 minutes before she even got her ballot. Other Observations: The room was far too small for the number of voters. The Inspector told me that he had requested a much larger room, Second Church of Christ Scientist Arrival time: 4:30 p.m, Observer: Anna-Leise Seger (770) 356-8674 Inspector: Mitchell Glassburn Printer/tabulator problems: The Inspector, whom | know personally, told me that he hadn't had any problems with the printers or tabulators at his vote center all day, He also told me that he told MCTEC before election day that, ifhe had any issues at his vote center with any of the technology on election day, he was going to call the sheriff to check it out Line: There was no line at this vote center. Other Observations: None. Horizon Community Center Arrival time: 6:40 p.m. Observer: John Nanni (602) 690-9358 Inspector: Mary Whitney Printer/tabulator problems: The Inspector told me that one of the tabulators had gone down in the morning when a vote-by-mail ballot had been inserted into the tabulator. She stated that the tabulator came back online when it was reset Line: There was a line of approximately 75 people when | arrived and when | left this vote center, The Inspector told me that there had been a line of between 20-80 people continuously since she opened the vote center at 6 a.m. Other Observations: None. Venue 8600 Arrival time: 5:50 p.m.Observer: Robert Jolley Inspector: Jamie Alford (480) 262-1763, Printer/tabulator problems: The Inspector told me that (1) the tabulators were unable to tabulate about 90% of the ballots from 6:25 a.m, until approximately noon, (2) the voters were very upset, and some voters were yelling and making a scene inside the vote ceriter, (3) the police were called and calmed the voters down, (4) some voters put their ballots in Box 3, others spoiled their ballots, and many left the vote center very upset without voting, (6) the Inspector called the Counly holline at 6:30 am. to request a tech person to fix the tabulators, but nobody answered the hotline, (6) the Inspector called the hotline multiple times affer that at 7:00 a.m., 7:10 a.m., and 7:27 a.m., but again nobody answered the hotline, (7) “our poll workers figured. out it was the printer early in the moming due to the faded, greyscale. | asked Benny {the troubleshooter for the vote center) if we could get a new printer, he said MCTEC said no there were no printers available for replacement”, (8) *{w}e began using the AVD (Accessible Voting Device) to vote. We wore givon 60 ballots for this machine. Ask for more AVD paper to be delivered. Benny indicated MCTEC did not have anyone to bring us paper, He called MCTEC — they told him he needed to drive downtown to MCTEC and pick up paper for our location and several other locations. Someone did deliver our location 100 sheets at 9:15 AM. He picked up 400 ballots of AVD paper for other locations {from County election headquarters)’, (9) "Lynn, a MC Tech, arrived around 10:15 AM to work on the printers. Maricopa County Hotline returned a call at 10:45AM responding to our printer issues. Lynn spoke with them using my phone, Lynn ran 8 test prints ...We still had issues. Lynn cleaned both printers, | ask if the Issue was fixed...Lynn said it was a configuration or calibration issue on the printers; she could not say if it was completely fixed.", (10) "Approximately an hour later, one of the Tabulators (792 ballots) was cleaned by Troubleshooter. One out of 10 ballots were tabulated early morning with the rest misread, During the afternoon... ballots were tabulating at 80%. (1 of 2 out of 10 misread), We still had mistead ballots all afternoon, just not as many.” The Inspector sent me an email the next day with the following final totals from her vote center: (1) the two tabulators had tabulated a total of 1,170 votes, (2) there were 116 misread ballots dropped into Box 3, (3) there were 115 spoiled ballots, (4) there were 57 AVD ballots, (5) approximately 760 vote-by-mail ballots were dropped into the two blue bins, and (8) ‘most all of {the misread ballots in Box 3) had the one of the squares or timing marks printed in greyscale or fuzzy", Line: The Observer told me that there had been a line extending outside the building for the entire time he had been observing. The Inspector told me that there had been a huge line when she opened the vote center at 6: Other Observations: None, Copper Canyon Elementary Arrival time: 6:30 p.m. Observer: Holly Aury Truxell (602) 619-1435 Inspector: CathyPrinteritabulator problems: The Observer and inspector did not report any material problems with the printers/tabulators at this vote center. Line: When | arrived, there was a line of approximately 100 people waiting to get into the vote center. The Observer, who had been observing since 1:00 p.m., told me that there had been approximately 100 people in line to vote since the beginning of her shift. Other Observations: ‘The Inspector told me that the vote center room was far too small. Consequently, she was only able to set up eight of the total ten site books provided to her by the County. Oasis Community Church Arrival time: 6:55 p.m. Observer: Linda Lazarus Inspector: Ed Toschik Printoritabulator problems: ‘The Inspector told me that one of his tabulators works better than the other, and he estimated that the tabulators were unable to read about 10% of the total ballots over the course of the day. | performed my own brief analysis of the tabulators. | observed 16 voters attempt to insert their ballots into the two tabulators. One of those voters (6%) were unable to get the tabulator to read his/her ballot after multiple attempts, don't recall if there was a line when | arrived. Line: Other Observations: None. North Scottsdale United Methodist Church Arrival time: 7:35 p.m, Observer: Dawn Morell (602) 799-3001 Inspector: Jeanne Barry Printer/tabulator problems: The Observer, who had been working at this vote center since 4:00 p.m,, told me that (1) the tabulators were not able to tabulate certain ballots, (2) a tech person arrived around 2:45 p.m. to service the printers and adjusted the “printer settings”, and the tabulators seemed to work belter after that, The Inspector told me that the tech person from the County “cleaned the tabuletors" and “changed the temperature settings on the printers,” Line: There was no line at this vote center, because | arrived long after the vote center had closed. Other Observations: The Observer informed me that (1) in the afternoon, a U.S. Postal Service employee from the Evans post office brought @ box of mait-in-ballots postmarked on or before election day to the vote center, (2) the Inspector called the hotline to find out if it was legal to accept these ballots, (3) County election headquarters told the Inspector that It was. 7okay to accept the mail-in-ballots from USPS, and (4) the Inspector put the mail-in-ballots in the maitin-ballot box. The Inspector confirmed these events. IV. Summary Reports from Other Roving Attorneys Roie Bar ([email protected]) Vote centers Visited: Seven, including three in Glendale, three in Peoria, and one in Sun City. Printer/tabulator problems: “I covered seven locations, only two of which seemed to have had a relative smooth process (Christian Community Church and Church of Jesus Christ of LDS Union Hills, the latter of which still reported under 20% tabulation rejection rate), The rest of the locations had similar issties to those that you described - mainly with the tabulation machines as they were rejecting most of the ballots.” “In one location | covered (Journey Church), they had no tabulators working for most of the day. The place was overwhelmed throughout the day and nearly everyone in that location had to place their ballot in Box 3.In another, the tabulators were only reading about 10% of the ballots (Radiant Church Sun City). In one of the locations | ended up staying for much of the afternoon (Dove of the Desert United Methodist Church), | witnessed the tabulators accept appx. 30-40% of the ballots... 've witnessed voters spoil about 4-5 ballots before the machines either accepted them, or they otherwise gave up and placed it in the "hope it gets counted laler box," as one voter put it. | also witnessed the Inspector empty Box 3 into a black bag, which was left unsealed and unattended next to the printers for much of the afternoon.” “Needless to say that there were many upset voters, some of which simply refused fo leave until their ballot was counted. The place (Dove of the Desert Untd Methodist Church) got so overwhelmed as a result that they had two separate lines forming outside, one for those who ‘ware trying to vote for the first time, and the other for voters who got back in line to try and run their ballots again (they were literally sent outside with their ballots in their hand - in violation of the procedures)... ne voter who insisted on his ballot being counted, was sent to another {ocation with his ballot in hand (Dove of the Desert), They instructed him to have the other location spoil that ballot and try again there.” “1 also witnessed problems with the printers (Dove of the Desert.and Radiant Church). In one instance, as | was checking in with the Inspector, | saw ballots that were printing completely faced (Dove of the Desert). No wonder the machines were not accepting those, Another location figured out that the printers were printing the ballots somewhat misaligned, and so the tabulators were rejecting them for that reason (they were way too sensitive). In another location, the IT guy that showed up thought the tabulators were not calibrated correctly for the thickness. of the ballots. In another location (Journey Church), the IT guys replaced the tabulators without making sure the new ones work, which of course they didn't.” “Of the remaining two places, Lakes Rec Ctr @ Westbrook experienced about 25% tabulation rejection at the early part of the day, but that seemed to have improved later in the day, Peace Lutheran experienced printer issues in the morning but the Inspector ... was able to shut down that printer and the scanners were thereafter accepting the ballots just fine.” “To sum it up, itwas a complete mess! There Is no other way to put it”Long lines: In one location, “there was about a 2-hour wait fo vote (Radiant Church Sun City)... Journey Church and Dove at the Desert also had long lines for most of the day (at least an hour fong).” Roving Attorney #2 Vote centers visited: Fifteen in South Tempe, Ahwatukee, South Phoenix, and West Chandler. Printeritabulator problems: “According to my anecdotal experience, approximately 4/3 of my locations seemed to have some issue with the printers/tabulators at some point in the day (even if twas a quick fix)... Again, according to my anecdotal experience (relying on the observers at each of my locations), | would estimate about 8% of the ballots were having trouble being read during their first pass through, Some of the observers were taking notes on every ballot that was accepted vs. initially rejected which is in part how | estimated this number. Of the. ballots at my locations that were not accepted the first time through, the majority of them were accepted the second time through fafter spoiling the first ballot and marking a second ballot}, again according to my observers.” Long lines: “Some of this was a function of the time of day - but there were at least 5 of my locations that had relatively long lines throughout the day.” Aaron Ludwig ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Eleven in Sun City, Sun City West, Surprise, north Peoria, and north Buckeye, Printer/tabulator problems: “9 of 11 voting locations experienced printer/tabulator Issues. Unfortunately | cannot estimate a percentage of ballots affected. Anecdotally, | am confident that thousands of ballots were affected. | was informed by observers and inspectors, among many other things, that 1) "Box 3" became so full that it had to be repeatedly emptied; 2) bags full of Box 3 ballots were so full that they were very difficult to lift; and, 3) during just one ‘observer shift, many hundreds of Box 3 ballots were put into bags.” _ Long lines: "{T]here were long lines at 9 of 14 voting locations.” Other Observations: “! observed at least five voters tell an inspector that, earlier in the day, they left a particular voting location because of printer/tabulator issues, so they returned to it in the evening, but they arrived just after 7:00 p.m. and were not allowed in line.” Kevin Beckwith ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Four in Glendale, Peoria, and north Phoenix, Printeritabulator problems: “3 out of 4 had issues [with the printers/tabulators}, One had a 90% rejection rate, LDS Jomax.” “[Glendale Community College North] had a printer down for over 1-1/2 hours and it was still down while | was there about 11:25 a.m. election day. A printer was also out of ink for 1/2 hour but back up again. A tabulator was down for 1-1/2 hours mid morning,” At the LDS church in Peoria, “Both tabulators were only working about 10% of the time which means about a 90% failure rate. { was in the room and witnessed rejections there for a short time, | also saw someone who was probably an election worker open up Bin 3 in the back and then | don't knowwhat they did and shut it again, That was a secure bin they wanted people to put thelr ballots into when they were rejected by the tabulator. At the Goslet A. Beuf Community Center, it ‘was going woll the time | visited it, They sald initialy the ballots were too big for the tabulator but that was fixed quickly and they had no problems.” At the Copper Hills Church, "both tabulators ‘were not working properly for the first 4.5 hours and a printer also. They were working when | was there approximately 12:58 p.m. The poll watcher saw the inspector carry about 60 spoiled ballots around under her arm until she had to get a bag for them and then they disappeared someplace. The poll watcher observed one man drop off 10 ballots at one time which were accepted.” Long lines: “I witnessed jong lines at each vote center other than Copper Hill.” Specifically, Glendale Community College North had “a huge line approximately 60 yards fong” at approximately 11:25 a.m. and also at 6:30 p.m, Other Observations: "The room [at Glendale Community College North] was way too small for this many people.” In addition, “The observer Josh (at Glendale Community College North] had some good notes... He did indicate that someone dropped off a mail basket full of ballots which thoy told him was okay because they were stamped. His name was Josh Haggard 602-369- 3999." William Wilder ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Ten in central Phosnix (between 24” Street and 23" Avenue and between Indian Schoo! and Northern Avenue). Printer/tabulator problems: “| had issues at four of the 10 sites... The problem seamed to vary. At its worst, about 30-40% were not reading [by the tabulator). At its best, about 10-15% were not reading. | was told at a couple of these sites that the problems seemed to have resolved late in the day (after 4 pm or s0).” Long lines: "There were long lines (30 minutes or more) from 6-7 am and pm at about three of my locations, There were short lines (5 minutes or less) at several other sites. A.couple of my sites (2-3) had no lines - even during busy times.” Michael Brenner ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Eleven in Goodyear and Buckeye. Printer/tabulator problems: “Of the 11 polling places in my territory, only 2 were operating without major issues.” In addition, Michael said: “t did not personally witness {the problems with the printers/tabulators}; however, a few of the Republican observers at the Southwest Maricopa voting centers conveyed to me that they thought the light print was causing problems with the tab machines. The other explanation | heard was that the ink in the pens distributed to voters was not dark enough. Mostly, the feedback was that the tab machine batteries were dead, or the printers wero jamming, or there were network problems with the routers.” Long lines: “Long lines al the Compass Church in Goodyear. | guesstimate that the line was 45 minutes long in the moming, and 4 hour long in the afternoon, The explanation in the morning was that the tabulators and printers were down. In the afternoon | was told that only 4 tabulator was working... Voters being turned away at Youngker High School in Buckeye. The reason given was thal the printers and kiosks were down, and the tabulation machines were 10only working 10% of the time, Long lines at Buckeye Cily Hall, | guesstimate that the line was 30-40 minutes long. The reason | was given was that between 8:30a - 9:15am both printers wore down and 1 tabulator only worked sporadically.” Shiloh Bentacourt ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Nine to eleven vote centers in Anthem, Cave Creek, Carefree, and north Scottsdale. Printer/tabulator problems: “Five (6) sites had printer and/or tabulator issues, Black Mountain Church location in Gave Creek was the worst [sic], where two tabulators were down at the samo time, causing the inspector to use the "handicap" digital voting machine for the people standing inline... During the time | was observing each of the five locations, every single ballot was not being read and/or rejected by the tabulator (upon initially inserting it into the tabulator). | am unable to give a percentage in general... would say 50% of the time, it read it, and 60% did not, read it, and it had to be deposited into a box, likely Box 3.” Long lines: “All five (5) locations that were having printer/tabulator issues had long lines.” Roving Attorney #8 Vote centers visited: One prior to the opening of the voter centers at 6:00 a.m.; and fourteen during voting hours, all in Chandler, Mesa, Gilbert, and Sun Lakes (west of Loop 101, east of S. Gilbert Rd., north of E. Hunt HWY, and south of E. McKellips Rd.) Printeritabulator problems: “Of the 14 sites | visited during voting hours, 60% of the 14 voter centers had problems with the tabulators rejecting ballots, At one site, the tabulators rejected 85% of the ballots and almost all of those were going into drawer 3. The initial estimated rejection rates from the 7 sites | visited are 75%, 75%, 20%, 85%, 30%, 60%, 50%, but I do not have available all of the final rates of rejection after multiple attempts of re-feeding or spoiling and completing new ballots.” “Many observers altributed the problem to how the ballots were being printed without enough ink saturation on the edges of the ballots where the bar codes and black side markings were supposed to be solid but were not. Just found out that at one site where the initial rejection rate was 7%, the poll workers and voters were coloring in the ballot side markings with black felt pens and were able to get many through the tabulators. At another site, at least 30% of the ballots were too light and there was a constant flow of people getting new ballots and attempting to get their ballots accepted by the tabulators.” Long lines: "I recall long lines at sites - however, any location that was rejecting ballots had delays in voting.” Kathryn Baillie ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Fourteen in Glendale, Peoria, and west Phosnix. Printeritabulator problems: “11 out of the 14 locations had tabulator and/or printer issues, observed by me and by the designated observers... was told by the observers that majority were not going through... The printers were printing different ballots, Some had litle marks on the corners which prevented the tabulator to accept while another printer did not have the little marks and | observed the tabulator accepted the ballot. It was very odd. Also odd, ASU West 1had no issues at all... | saw a voter rip up her ballot and yell at the staff and say ‘these machines don't work and | don’t have time for this’. Long lines: ‘{TJhere were jong lines at the vote centers due to the machines not accepting the ballots... the long lines were at the tabulator problem locations,” Tabatha LaVole ([email protected]) Vote centers visited: Nine in Paradise Valley and central Scottsdale. Printer/tabulator problems: *7 of the 9 had problems with Tabulators.” Tabatha wrote @ separate report for Eric Spencer of the RNC, a copy of which is attached to this report as Exhibit A. Tabatha’s report details the very high percentages (up to 80% In some cases) of ballots that could not be read by the tabulators in the vote centers she visited. Long lines: Five of the 9 vote centers had long lines. For more detail, please refer to Exhibit A 12Exhibit orney Tabatha LaVole’s Compreher (See attached) 13To! Eric Spencer From: Tabatha LaVoie Re: Observations regarding November 8, 2022 Arizona General Election |. Introduction ‘On election day, | was a roving attorney on behalf of the Republican National Committee's Election Integrity program. In that role, | visited nine different vote centers. This memo ‘summarizes my experiences at each of those vote centers. 4, Summary Every vote center | visited had a Republican observer present. All but one vote center also had a Democrat observer present when I visited the vote center inthe moming, | After arriving at each vote center, | showed my credentials to the polling inspector and then requested to speak with the Republican observer, The Republican observer and | stepped outside of the vote center, and | asked the Republican observer if he/she had witnessed any irregularities or had any concerns. | took notes during these conversations. After the first thres vote centers | visited, | also informed each Republican observer about some of the problems that | had witnessed or had been reported to me by Republican observers at the earlier vote centers | visited, ‘and most were experiencing the same or similar problems. | also sent text messages to Amanda Reeve with brief descriptions of any such irregularities and concems after each visit, { visited each vote center in the morning and then again in the afternoon, After Chairman Bill Gates announced that the problems with the printers had been resolved at around 2:50 p.m., | visited some of the vote centers again to confirm thet the problems with the tabulators and printers where in fact resolved, Unfortunately, that was not true for all the vote centers | visited. Mr. Gates also mentioned that one of the options voters had in any vote center in which they encountered the tabulator and/or printer problem was to request to cancel thelr check-in and go to a different Vote center. So, in my afternoon rounds, | asked the inspectors if they were informing voters of the option to cancel their check-in and go to a different vote center. Only one inspector said they ‘were informing voters of that option, Below is @ summary of what ! witnessed or was reported to me by the Republican observer at each vote Center, IL Vote Centers Ascension Lutheran Church (7100 N. Mockingbird Ln., Paradise Valley, 85253) ‘© | arrived at this vote center at approximately 6:10 a.m, | introduced myself to the inspector and told her that | would like to vote but that after voting, | would like to speak with the Republican observer. * | checked-in to vote, | told the person at check-in that | had my early voter ballot, so he proceeded to mark it up to spoil the ballot. He asked me to proceed to another area where my new ballot would be printed. My ballot was printed with a second piece of peper thathad my full name and address, The person there asked me to confirm my information which | did and then handed me the printed ballot with a black felt tip pen. | questioned why we were using felt tip pens after the negative experience with such pens in the 2020 election, She informed me that these pans do not bleed through the ballot, and they are fast drying pens which should not pose a problem. 1 accepted her explanation and proceeded fo vote. As { was filling in my balfot, | heard people and a poll worker at the tabulation machines having issues processing their ballots successfully through the tabulators. The poll worker told them that the ballots needed to be aired out more so that the ink would dry before being put through the tabulators, | saw voters and the poll workers fanning ballots to cause the Ink to dry but still having problems with the tabulators accepting the ballots. After voting, | introduced myself to Judith Allen (602-602-6867) who was serving as the Republican observer at this vote center. She was seated next to the Democrat observer who was standing. (Subsequently, Ms. Allen informed me via text message that the Democrat observer loft and was not replaced when their shift ended). Ms, Allen reported that voters were having problems successfully processing their ballots through the tabulators. She also expressed concern about the felt tip pens. AL8:28 a.m. Ms. Allen notified me that the problem with the tabulator rejecting the printed ballots had worsened (‘The ballots are off Kilter and are rejected over and over.” | returned to this vote center at around 3:00 p.m. | checked in with the inspector and asked if the process had improved. She confirmed it had but that they still had some ballots rejected, | asked if she was informing voters of the option to cancel their check-in and vote at another vote center when thelr ballot was rejected. She said no and that was not something she was giving as an option. She was only telling them they could print another ballot or put their ballot in the box for adjudication. | also spoke with the Republican observer during this second visit. She informed me that they were still having issues with the tabulators and that many voters were frustrated after having to get a second printed ballot that was rejected by the tabulators and simply gave Up and placed their ballot in the adjudication box. Paradise Valley Town Halll (6401 E, Lincoln Dr., Paradise Valley, 65253) { introduced myself to the inspector who was preoccupied with a tabulator issue. | asked to speak with the Republican observer. The vote center was small, and | was not able to ‘860 where the Republican observer was seated nor confirm whether a Democrat observer was present. The Republican observer did not report any significant issues, In my afternoon round, the Republican observer informed me that they had not had a Democrat observer all day, Camelback Christian Church (6236 E. Camelback Rd., Scottsdale, 85251) | arrived at this vote center at approximately 8:16 a.m. Upon arriving, | introduced myselt to the inspector, but he was busy trying to deal with a tabulator problem, so | asked the Republican observer to step outside, Linda Sullivan (480-861-7106), the Republican observer, informed me that the Center was having problem with the tabulators reading the ballots, Ms. Sullivan informed me that the ballots were not printing correctly and there was a font issue causing Issues with the tabulator, She confirmed that voters were being given felt tip pens to fill their ballots.| personally witnessed a voter who had to gat a second ballot because the machine was not reading it ‘At that time, the line of voters was out the door. ‘Subsequently, Ms. Sullivan sent me a text informing me that when she was signing off front her shift, she told the inspector that she counted 207 people voting in-person. The inspector replied "you don't have fo count the tabulator counts, | can give you the total the tabulations total was 457" (combining both machines). She Is perplexed as to how she could've missed 260 people, ‘Shephard of the Hills United Church of Christ (5524 E. Lafayette Bivd., Phoenix, 85016) | arrived at this location at approximately 9:00 a.m. ‘The inspector was busy. | asked the Republican observer to step outside, Michelle, the Republican observer, informed me that the tabulators were down. She said that shortly after printing about 10 ballots they began to have issues such as the wrong ballot boing printed for about 30 voters and then the tabutators were not working because of a programming issue. She also said that a Republican poll worker was removed because she told voters she ‘would not trust putting their ballots that were not being read by the tabulator into the box for later adjudication. In my afternoon visit to this vote center, the Republican observer said that the tabulator issues had been reduced but that they still had about one out of 20 ballots rejected by the tabulators, ‘Memorial Presbyterian Church (4141 E. Thomas Ra. Phoenix, 85018) | arrived at this location at approximately 9:35 a.m, The inspector was busy. | asked the Republican observer to step outside, Judy, the Republican observer, informed me that they had two tabulators, bul one was down, She said votors wore being told to deposit their ballots into a box for tater adjudication, She mentioned that there was an issue with a voter who was referred to another vote center without canceling their check-in and they were not able to vote at the other vote center because it showed them as already voted. They had to provide that vote a provisional ballot. The line was a 30-minute wait with 50 voters in line at that time, tn my afternoon visit to this vote center at approximately 6:20 p.m., | met'with Rose, the Republican observer. She confirmed that the line at this location had been long all day with approximately 30-40-minute wait consistently and anywhere from 66-80 people in line. She noted that there were 120 voters in line at 4:00 p.m, Before leaving, | asked the inspector if he was informing voters to go to different locations and offering to cancel their check-in if they had ballot issues. He confirmed that he was doing so. Scottsdale Elks Lodge (6398 E. Oak St., Scottsdale, 85257) Immediately when | arrived at this vote center, | noticed the inspector dealing with machine issues. | asked the Republican observer to speak outside, ‘The Republican observer informed me that the machines (tabulators) were not reading the ballots. One of the tabulators had been repaired twice already and the.other tabulator had intermittent issues reading the ballots.El Dorado Gommunity Center (7641 E, Murray Ln., Scottsdale, 85257) © When | arrived al this vote center, | noticed a line of people that was outside the building and reached the parking lot. | walked into the building and the line looped inside the building before coming outside, | walked into the vote center and introduced myself to the inspector and she introduced me to Stuart Scurti, the Republican observer (408-289-9792). | asked him to speak outside. Mr. Scurti informed me that the machines had some tabulator issues, The printed ballots had to be run through each machine 4 times and if the tabulators failed to read the printed ballot, the voter would be fold to get another ballot printed and then they would run that new printed ballot 4 times through each machine. If that second attempt to run the ballot through the tabulators failed, then the voter would be told to put their ballot into the “adjudication box” © Mr. Scurti estimated that approximately 20% of ballots successfully proceed by the tabulators. + According to Mr, Scurtl, the walt me had been on average approximately 30-40 minutes but could be up to an hour. Messinger Mortuary (7601 E. Indian Schoo! Rd,, Scottsdale, 85251) «When | arrived, there were approximately 60 voters in line, « The inspector was busy. | introduced myself to the Republican observer and went outside. She informed me that the tabulators were not working and that the matter had been reported by the inspector. : © She said @ number of printed ballots had to be spolled and that she estimated approximately 20% of the ballots were successfully being processed by the tabulators, Indian Bend Wash Visitor Center (4201 N. Hayden Rd., Scottsdale, 85251) © When | arrived at this location, the line of voters was fong and almost reached the park area © This vote center is very small. 1 was not able to enter. | introduced myself to the inspector and he called the Republican observer outside to meet with me, : According to Bob (602-577-8869), the Republican observer, the machines were working but there were not enough voting stalls because of the size of the location, Apparently, they received a number of voting stalls but only had space for 6. © According to Bob, there were approximately 41-68 people in line at any time and the.wait ‘was approximately 1 hour and 1 minutes. In my second visit to this vote center at about 2:00 p.m., | suggested to the inspector that he instruct the voters in line to go to other vote centers because the wait had not improved, and the line was now wrapped around an area near the vote center as not to appear too ong or to avoid interfering with the park,Exhibit B Reports from Poll Workers and Voters Reported by inspector Jamie Alford; ip:[email protected]; (480) 282-763: “Linda Bames, a poll worker at Palm Ridge Rec Center Vote Center reported they ran out of toner on both printers at the same time around noon. When they went to replace, the county had given them the wrong toner cartridge. No one could vote for an hour and a half. This is how long It took the county to bring new toner. She said the lines were out the door...., believe she said more than 180 in line. This is a strong Republican area. She said you can contact her if you like, Here is her information: Linda Barnes 949-533-3277 [email protected]” Reported by Ann Richardson (623) 398-9155: ‘Ann was a Republican Observer at Worship & Word Church in Peoria from 6:00 a.m, until 4:00 p.m. on election day. Neither of the tabulators were working at 6:30 a.m. Many ballots could not be tabulated throughout Anne's entire shift. Ann estimates that more than 50% were incapable of being read by the tabulators. The Inspector, Linda Hetzenbocher (sp?), made little to no effort to resolve the problems with the printors/tabulators, despite Anne asking her several times when someone from tech support would be arriving. No tech support ever arrived during ‘Anne's shift, nor had the printers/tabulators been fixed when Anne voted at this vote center around 2:30 p.m. Many voters were angry about the tabulators not reading their ballots, and some of them left the vote center without voting, The spoiled ballots were not securely handled. They were cavalierly stored at different locations in the vote center at different times. The vote center had a line inside and outside the church throughout the day. The vote center was full all day long. An Observer from DOJ came fo observe and spoke to the Inspector for at least 15 minutes. ‘Two other unknown people (possible staf from MCTEC) came and observed together for about an hour. It appeared to Ann that the Inspector knew at least one of these Observers personally, Reported by Poll Worker Candace Czarny; [email protected]; (928) 821-5566: "| worked as a Poll Worker at: Polling Place: MOUNTAIN VIEW PARK COMM CTR 14Polling Place Address: ‘8626 E MOUNTAIN VIEW RD SCOTTSDALE AZ 85258 | had a young Hispanic couple come to vote. When | assisted them in logging into site books, the result sald they could only vote in the federal election. The result was the same for both of them. They were adamant that they wanted to vote for the Governor's race. | told them that when they registered to vote they did not provide enough information to qualify to vote in the state elections. They were again adamant that they wanted to vote for the Governor's race. My feeling (and only a feeling) was that they were paid voters for the Governor's race because they did not care about any other state race or the federal race, Ifyou have any questions | can be reached at 928 821 5566." 15ov feport : To: Erie Spencer From: Mark Sonnenklar Re: Observations regarding August 2, 2022 Arizona Primary Election V, Introduction (On election day, | was a roving attomey on behalf of the Republican National Committee's Election Integrity program. In that capacity, | visited eleven different vote centers, This memo summarizes my experiences at each vote center and, based on those experiences, provides recommendations for (1) policy changes that can be made to Increase the integrity of {the election process in the general election on November 8, 2022 and (2) statutory changes that should be implemented to improve integrity in future elections. VL Summary Every vote contor (except one) that {visited had a Republican observer present; most vote centers did not have a Democrat observer present when | was at the vote canter; Unless | note otherwise below, you can assume that a Democrat observer was not present at cach vote center. After arriving at each vote center, | showed my credentials to the polling inspector and then. requested to speak with the Republican observer, The Republican observer and | stepped outside of the voto center, and | asked the Republican observer if he/she hed witnessed any ittegularities ot problems, | took notes during these conversations. | also informed each Republican observer about some of the problems that | had witnessed or had been reported to me by Republican observers at other vote centers, and | asked him/her to keep an eye out for those irregularities, After speaking with the Republican observer at a vote center; | proceeded to spedk with the polling inspector of that vote center. | asked each Inspector how things were going, whether thoy had experienced any probloms, and whether they had seen any the problems that | had witnessed or had been reported to me at other vote centers, Below is a summary of what I witnessed or was reported to me by the Republican observer at each vote Center. Vil. Vote Centers Islamic Center of the Northeast Valley * Mitch Glassbum was serving as a poll worker at this vote center, | know Mitch, and we went outside so that he could inform me about what he was sesing. Mitch told me that multiple voters had reported to him and other poll workers that the site bodk recognized them as independent voters and forced them to choose between a Democrat ballot and a Republican ballot even though they were registered Republicans ("Site Book Registration Error’). | followed up with Mitch by phone on August 7, 2022, and Mitch 16 iestimated that approximately 40-60 Republican voters reported the Site Book Registration Error during the course of the entire election day. ‘* Mitch also reported that (1) his poll inspector was placing baliots thet were spolted Into an envelope without marking them as spoiled and (2) the tabulation machines were having problems accepting certain ballots and that they were having to run some of the ballots through the tabulators up to twenty times fo get the tabulator to accept the ballots (Tabulator Error’). «I voted at this vote center with a pentel pen provided by the vote center. Although | was very conscientious about keeping the pen within the ovals, I noticed that the pen smeared very fat outside of one of the ovals when | was handling the ballot after voting but before placing it into the tabulator. The tabulator initially rejected my ballot but then accepted it on the second attempt. Paradise Valley Community College © The Republican observer reported that he had seen a few cases of the Site Book Registration Error. When | asked the poll inspector whether he had sean the Site Book Registration Error, he referred me to one of the other poll workers, who confirmed that she had seen the Site Book Registration Error a few times as well, The poll inspector reported that they were experiencing the Tabulator Error, The poll inspector theorized that the tabulation machines might have been having trouble with ballots that were still wet, because waving the ballot in the alr (so that the ink would dry) seemed to help the tabulator read the ballot. Sunset Canyon © A Democrat observer was present. « The Republican observer and the poll inspector reported that they were experiencing the Tabulator Error. The poll inspector believed that the Tabulator Error was caused by wot ink on a ballot. Consequently, they were recommending that voters put their ballols in front of the AIC vent to help them dry off before inserting them into the tabulator, This seemed to be helping, North Valley Free Witl Baptist Church + There was no Republican observer present. The polling inspector reported that the pentel pens were running and smearing and she was counseling voters to let their ballots dry before putting them In the tabulators. Aire Libre Schoot 7The Republican Observer reported that a Democrat observer had been at this vote center in the morning but had ieft around noon to go to another vote center. The Republican Observer also witnessed at least one Site Book Registration Error North Phoenix Baptist Church ‘A Democrat observer had been at this vote canter earlier in the day. ‘The Republican observer and the poll Inspector initially reported no issues. However, immediately after | left, the Republican observer texted to let me know that both tabulating machinos were not accepting any ballots and that the poll workers were instructing voters to put their ballots in box 3 so that it could be "hand counted.” According to the Republican observer, the Tabulator Errors had begun before I had spoken to the poll inspector so it was clear that he had not been truthful with me when | asked him how things were going. | want back to the vote center and spoke with the poll inspector. He was very nervous (probably because he had lied to me), and he informed me that the Maricopa County Recorder's office was sending him two new tabulators to replace the malfunctioning tabulators. The new tabulators were delivered an hour later. However, the Maricopa County tech person did not arrive to install the new tabulators for another hour after that. The tech person realized that the problem was not with the tabulators, but rather with one or more of the printers, The printers were not properly printing the square in the top left hand corner of the ballots. They were printing grey squares, instead of black squares. The Republican observer noted that the ballots that printed with black squares were able to be scanned by the tabulators, but the ballots with gfey squares were not being accepted by the tabulators, ‘The Republican observer estimated that approximately 70 ballots ware placed in box 3 as a result of the technical issues outlined above, Sunrise United Methodist | personally witnessed a voter who was recognized by the site book as a registered Republican at the beginning of the site book check-In process but who was then later in the site book process identified as an independent and offered a choice between a Democrat ballot and a Republican ballot. The Republican observer had seen two instances of the Site Book Registration Error. He notified me by text message later in the day that he had witnessed two more instances of the Site Book Registration Error. All Saints Lutheran Church ‘The Republican observer reported that a Democrat observer who was also an attomey had been presont at this vote center all day sines 6:35am. 8‘© The poll inspector reported that the vote center had experienced some issues with the Tabulator Error. Shadow Rock Congregational Church ‘* The Republican observer reported that a Democrat observer had been present at this vole conter for only 2.6 hours and had told him that she was moving from poll to poll throughout the day St. Nicholas Serbian Orthodox Chureh The Republican observer and the polling inspector both reported that (1) the A/C had not worked at all that day inside the vote center, (2) the ballot printers had been working sporadically, and (2) the site books had been down for two hours earlier in the day, which created long lines, and they had been sending voters to other vote centers, + Shortly after! left this vote center (around 6:30pm), the Republican observer texted me to let me know that the site books were not communicating with the printers and they ‘were not able to print ballots. | went back to the vote center, and only one of the eight, site books were working. Shortly after | arrived, a County Troubleshooter fixed the problem by shutting down the “smaller new printers". The Troubleshooter informed me that many of these smaller new printers were not working at multiple vote centers across Maricopa County, Shadow Mountain High Schoo! : «The Republican observer reported that this location had a Democrat observer all day. © The Republican observer also reported that this vote center had experienced periodic Tabulator Errors, «The Republican observer also witnessed quite a number of voters depositing multiple mail-in ballots into box 3. She was concerned because nobody Is checking to determine If the voters are ballot harvesting. © The Republican observer texted me the next day to inform me that, after | left the vote ‘canter, they started experiencing the Tabulator Error but were able to use the second tabulator in fieu of the one that was not reading the ballots. ! 19EXHIBIT G EXHIBIT GES&S EVS v6.0.4.0 Certification IssuesWho am |? * Daniel LaChance, Citizen, Cochise County, Arizona, USA * 33+ years in the Department of the Army as a Commissioned Officer and Department of the Army Civilian in the US Army Signal Corps * As such I: lanned, engineered, secured, operated, and maintained Strategic and Tactical Army voice and aig ‘al networks (both LAN, WAN, Satellite, etc). | also developed and implemented MACOM wide Information Technology policy and Army wide Cybersecurity Defensive training for Army strategic networks. Conducted Army new equipment operational testing, fielding and training. + Was formally trained and functioned as a Battalion/Brigade Signal Officer, Division Deputy Automation Management Officer, Information Management Officer, Information Assurance Security Officer, Director of Information Management, Telecommunications and Information Technology Specialist and Staff Action Officer. * Asa Commissioned Officer, | swore an oath to “defend the Constitution against foreign and domestic”, it is an oath which | can never relinquish. * Itis that oath which compels me to be here today. | enemies, * My comments today do not have bearing on the Lab Accreditation issue, although I agree with those who have presented their findings concerning Lab Accreditation —- My comments today have to do with the certification of the ESS EVS 6.0.4.0 used by Cochise County.