Donald Trump’s Claims About Pima County — Wrong Again, Still

Benny White, J.D.

October 16, 2021

Yesterday, October 15, 2021 the unannounced campaign of Donald Trump for President 2024 issued a Press Release which contained a number of false claims about what happened in the 2020 General Election in Pima County.

I do work for the Pima County Republican Party and the Arizona Republican Party as a data analyst. I get voter registration files from all 15 counties in Arizona. Those files include voter information such as residence address, registration status and date, jurisdictional information and voting history, i.e., which elections the voter participated in and what voting method they used. In Pima County there are separate voter registration files for Active voters, Inactive voters and voters whose records are sealed (names only).

During elections I also receive daily and weekly reports from all 15 counties as to mail or early ballots requested and those same ballots returned. I track all of that information on a daily basis to advise the political party and party candidate campaigns how the early voting is going. I do this analysis down to the precinct level and political party registration of the voter. This work is a little bit complicated and involves use of database and spreadsheet software such as MySQL, Microsoft Access and Excel. I am posting my Excel spreadsheet for the last day of Early Voting activity reported by Pima County for the 2020 General Election, November 13. This spreadsheet accounts for every mail and early ballot that was counted except for the voters whose records are sealed. I don’t receive reports for those voters’ activities.

Here are Donald Trump’s claims and I want to debunk each one individually:

When mail ballots started pouring in way higher than normal (at over 87%), this trend [the Republican candidate was steadily outperforming the Republican share of mail-in ballots by 3%, while Joe Biden was underperforming Democrats by 3%] this trend flipped.

False. To begin, there is no way to know whether what is being claimed is true; it can be shown that it is not true. There are no results, i.e., votes for individual candidates, reported until after 8 PM on Election Night. The chart below shows the number of ballots returned on a daily basis by voters in the respective political parties.

Daily Return of Early Ballots in Pima County 2020 General Election

What this shows is that there were always more DEM ballots being returned than REP ballots except for a couple of days in late October and those that were received at the polling place on Election Day and counted after the election. For Trump’s claim to be true DEM voters and non-partisan (PND + IND) voters would have to be voting for Donald Trump. That did not happen in any great numbers in Pima County.

At the close of business on November 2, 2020, about 424,765 ballots had been counted. Analysis of the Cast Vote Record, which is a record of the votes on each ballot cast during the election, shows that for those 424,765 ballots, Joe Biden had received 264,497 votes and Donald Trump had received 150,174 votes, a difference of 114,174 votes. (Beware, the CVR is a BIG file.) The final tally in Pima County was 304,91 for Biden and 207,758 for Trump, a Trump loss by 97,223. Contrary to Trump’s claim that the DEMs dumped a bunch of ballots after they saw he was winning, Trump was never ahead in Pima County and the gap between Biden and Trump actually closed late in the election cycle as the outnumbered REP voters in Pima County finally turned in their meager number of mail ballots or went to the polls on Election Day. The gap closed but it wasn’t enough to make a difference.

“Two precincts in Pima had over 100 percent turnout for mail-in ballots.”

False. The highest voter turnout (percent of mail ballots returned) was Precinct 186 which is about evenly ballots DEM/REP with 276 early ballots returned (96.17%).

“One precinct with 99.5% mail-in turnout had 9,812 ballots counted. Another precinct with 100.6% turnout had 2,182 ballots returned, but only 2,170 mail-ins were ever sent.”

False. As explained above the highest mail return percentage precinct was Precinct 186. The highest overall (early +polling) turnout precinct was Precinct 145 where there were 4,596 early ballots returned and 362 voters went to the polls for a 94.0% voter turnout in that precinct. You see, I use actual data and tell you exactly what I am talking about rather than talking in unverifiable generalities.

There is no way to tell what precinct the second part of this claim is involved other than to say no precinct had a turnout (return rate) of more than 96.17%.

Here’s a chart that shows the percentage of mail ballots returned in every precinct. (For details you will need to look at the spreadsheet.)

Percentage of mail ballots returned from each Pima County precinct

There is also a section of claims in the press release that includes charts by Shiva that appear to be some sort of analysis of mail ballot return rates. However, the data on these charts does not match the official records for Pima County so once again I conclude that they are just making this stuff up hoping the public will buy it.

To close, these latest claims by the unannounced Trump campaign are simply a continuation of claims being made by a group of people and Donald Trump who simply don’t understand voter registration records, voter history, election canvass and other public records involved in elections. They continually pump out this nonsense and expect the public to simply accept it without ever questioning whether it is true or not.

Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly what is happening in our modern social media for news gathering and republishing society.

Maricopa Hoax:Our review of the “not final” Senate machine count report

Benny White, J.D.

Larry Moore

October 12, 2021

At the close of business Friday, October 8, the Senate’s lawyer, Kory Langhofer posted the full report Randy Pullen submitted to the Senate on September 24.

We initially introduced the concept of “disaffected voters” in our earlier work. Now we need to introduce one more new concept to describe our work and that is “Boxes of Interest.” When we looked at the recent report we saw a number of boxes where there was a difference between the reported Ninja hand count of ballots and the Senate machine count. We decided that where there was a difference of at least 25 ballots we would take a further look at those particular “boxes of interest” to see what, if any, those differences made in the credibility of the ballot counts of the Ninja hand count and Senate machine count. Here is a table that shows the impact.

Boxes and Ballots of Interest

The Arizona Republic highlighted our finding that over 311,000 ballots were involved in the boxes of interest where the Ninja hand count and the Senate machine count differed significantly. This large number of ballots breaks down into 167,000 where the Ninjas did not report anything about their hand count and 144,000 where they did report something but there were still significant differences with the machine count.

Our initial analysis showed the report completely discredited any comments made by Pullen or Doug Logan about the accuracy of the Senate “forensic audit.” For example, Pullen now says the report he submitted, and Sen. Fann subsequently submitted to the Attorney General when she asked for a criminal investigation of everything the Ninjas have been saying, was only preliminary. Since it is the only report of the extended audit that has been released to the public we are now going through that report in detail to see how it stacks up against the official results.

The answer is not very well. The report is very difficult to deal with. It is 695 pages long (actually 724) in PDF format. The first thing we have to do is put the information into a machine readable format to compare the hand count and machine count numbers against the official results. We use Microsoft Excel for that part of the work.

Then we try to figure out which boxes and ballots are indicated by the entries in the report. Sometimes this is straightforward and the “First Batch” entry can be related to the Ballot Manifest reported by Maricopa County. At other times we have to look at the Batch numbers and find them in the official results using the Cast Vote Record. That allows us to compare the official results of ballot counts to both the Senate machine count and the Ninja hand count of ballots.

There are problems with both the Ninjas reporting and the Senate’s supposedly final report submitted to the Senate on September 24. Doug Logan claimed to have an accurate ballot and vote count which is impossible to verify. There were also numerous claims about voter registration and voting irregularities which have been fully investigated and debunked by Maricopa County and other election knowledgeable experts.

The machine count report shows many batches of ballots that were actually counted by the machines are not reported in the report even though it is apparent by the total count that the batches missing from the report are included in the machine count total. This shows the confusion in the way Randy Pullen published his report.

Batch Counted But Not Reported

Sometimes it is just impossible to figure out what the report is trying to say, as with the two boxes of 15592, which actually had 1988 and 946 ballots for a total of 2934, instead of 1280 and 1652, for a total of 2932. Someone, at some point, moved ballots around in these two boxes. The total votes for the two boxes, combined, should be correct but the boxes don’t agree with the official results after the Ninjas have gone through them.

A Different Kind of Counting

Here’s the ballot manifest sheet for Pallet 40 where these boxes lived. It is not a lot of help either.

There are always transposition errors where someone along the line wrote something down and when someone else tried to read it or enter it into a spreadsheet they made a mistake. There are also boxes where the batches are obviously counted twice, and there were more than just a few.

Number of Double Counted Ballots

A lot of the boxes don’t include any hand count information or only a partial hand count of the ballots in the box.

No Hand Count Information Reported

Our bottom line is that there are so many errors in the machine count report and the disagreements it shows between the machine count and the hand count that nothing the Ninjas or Randy Pullen have to say about how many ballots have been counted or how many votes anyone received cannot be considered accurate. That and the fact that Doug Logan is still saying that the Ninjas have not finished reconciling the hand count numbers (of ballots) convince us, once again, that any discussion of votes based on this “forensic audit” are completely meaningless.

The official results announced last November were correct then and they are still correct today.

Maricopa Hoax: The Ninjas made up the numbers

On Friday, September 24, the political world held their breath as the Cyber Ninjas and other pro-Trump contractors delivered their report on the accuracy of Arizona’s 2020 presidential election. Surprisingly, and somewhat comforting, the Ninjas said that Trump lost 261 votes. Not surprisingly, the Cyber Ninjas affirmed that Joe Biden held onto his 45,000-vote lead in Maricopa County and gained 99 votes.

The next day, the Washington Post quoted Senator Fann, “This [the fact that the audit matches Maricopa’s official machine count] is the most important and encouraging finding of the audit. This finding therefore addresses the sharpest concerns about the integrity of the certified results in the 2020 general election.” 

We held a darker view: Were Senator Fann and the country victims of an epic hoax?

Buried in Randall Pullen’s (Arizona Senate’s co-liasion)  report of the Senate’s machine count were 17 pages of innocuous-looking tables with no description of the column headings.  Anyone with 15 seconds of instruction, and a calculator can come close to our findings in less than 15 minutes.

Herein, our report provides evidence developed by analyzing Pullen’s report. Starting on page 20, he provides an extract from the Ninja’s 695-page report entitled “AZ Audit Consolidation Worksheet 7/10/2021” (hereafter, “Consolidated Worksheet”), which shows:

  • A difference of 15,692 ballots when the Ninja’s hand count of ballots is subtracted from the Senate’s machine count. In short, with this enormous discrepancy, any discussion of vote counts – including Biden’s 99 vote gain and Trump’s 261 vote loss – is meaningless.
  • The difference between our published counts from July 12 and the Senate’s machine count of ballots shows a difference of five ballots. In short, as far back as July 12, we predicted the ballot count per box which now serves as an independent audit of the Senate’s machine count of ballots by box.
  • Our 27-page report and accompanying spreadsheet fully describes how we developed our conclusions solely from documents provided by Pullen.

This is our story.

While everyone was breathing relief that the Ninjas exercise – don’t call it an audit – upheld Maricopa County’s official results, our antennas were already up because three pesky facts have continued to bother us.

  1. The Ninjas did not count the same set of ballots. The Cyber Ninjas said their results tracked the county’s certified results even though they decided to count about 27,000 ballots that Maricopa Elections did not count and ignore about the same number of ballots Maricopa did count. When ballots are damaged or fail tabulation, a two-person bi-partisan team copies the voter’s choices onto a clean ballot in a process called “duplication.”  The Cyber Ninjas, claiming there were fewer original ballots than duplicates, counted the original ballots and ignored the duplicates. Curious.
  • Senator Fann is hiding something. The Senate continues to fight the release of public data on grounds that Arizona’s courts have decisively ruled against. Included in the withheld documents are batch and box-level ballot counts, just like those contained in Pullen’s report on the Senate’s machine count. More on this below.
  • A curious anomaly. Garrett Archer, a reporter at Phoenix’s ABC15 News Affiliate, noticed that the ballot counts for the Presidential and the U.S. Senate contests did not match. The Ninjas excuse? “NOTE: Vote totals for the presidential and senatorial elections mismatch slightly primarily due to small differences (emphasis ours) in hand counts among the 2.1M million ballots.”

This last item – a mismatch in the ballot counts on contests that appeared on the same ballot – piqued our interest because such a mismatch should be impossible.

Now, with Pullen’s report, we had something meaty we could dig into.

In the words of Seth Meyers, “It’s time for a closer look.”

First, a few stats:

Table 1

Our focus was the 17-page extract at the end of Randall Pullen’s report mentioned above. That extract is from the above mentioned Consolidated Worksheet. The worksheet in Pullen’s report is the only detailed data released so far by the Ninjas and is one of the documents we have sought since our August 11 public records request.

The Consolidated Worksheet enumerates the results of five methods the Senate and the Ninjas used to audit their ballot count as shown in rows 2-6 in the table below. In row 1, is a reference to our July 12, 2021 published report which maps Maricopa’s official canvass to storage boxes. We use this report to audit the AZ Senate’s machine count. As shown in row 2, the difference is 5 ballots

Table 2

* The Senate’s machine count matches the official results (CVR) within 5 ballots. Since the machine count was so close, remaining discrepancies are computed from the Senate’s own counts. In short, the Senate’s counts audit the Ninja’s hand count.

** Discrepancies expressed as absolute values to prevent plusses and minuses from cancelling out.

*** Discrepancies expressed as simple differences to show excess ballots counted.

Below is a timeline of our attempts to provide information enabling the Ninjas to check their results against the official results. We did this, not out of any belief that what they were doing was valid because we do not. Rather, we wanted to show that Senator Fann and the Ninjas we were prepared to hold them accountable for spreading disinformation.

We believe our worst fears have happened – the entire exercise in hand counting ballots on lazy Susans for two months, was a hoax.

TIMELINE

Late May, 2021: we knew that the Ninjas could not produce an audit because they could not compare their results (i.e., ballot counts and vote counts by storage box) against the official results. That is because Maricopa’s reports its results by precinct and voting method (i.e., Early Voting, Election Day, and Provisional). The Ninjas counted by box.

May – June: We developed a “Rosetta Stone” to link the official results to each of 10,341 batches and 1,634 boxes. On June 6, we published the ballot and vote counts for two boxes of ballots and challenged Senator Fann to direct the Ninjas to confirm their counts against ours. The Arizona Republic’s front page of their print edition read, “Put Up or Shut Up.”

June 30: We believe that by the end of June the Ninjas knew their ballot counts were substantially different from Maricopa’s.  Furthermore, we believe that someone convinced Senator Fann that the official results were wrong and a separate count would support the Ninja’s hand count and if so, a high-speed machine count of the ballots would confirm that Maricopa’s ballot count was wrong. 

July 12: We sent an open letter and spreadsheet to Senator Fann, Kory Langhofer, and Ken Bennett with the ballot counts for 1,634 boxes and the list of boxes that should be counted. A few days prior to Sept. 24, I was told by the Senate’s attorney for the “audit” that the list of boxes was “extremely helpful” to the Ninjas. We now believe it helped them determine which boxes to say they did not count.

July 13: Senator Fann states that their ballot counts did not match the county’s ballot count and that they would initiate a machine count.

July 15: Senators Fann and Peterson conduct a Senate hearing where Doug Logan reveals (skip to 1:23) that his team is confused as to which boxes to count. That is because Maricopa County transferred 1,691 boxes and, of those, 1,634 boxes contained exactly the 2,089,563 ballots listed in the official Canvass. Furthermore, our analysis of the vote counts for every candidate across every contest also matched the official results perfectly.

July 19: Ken Bennett gives us ballot counts for six boxes – five boxes match our published counts exactly. In the sixth box we found a transcription error. The Senate staff reported 1,379 ballots against our published count of 1,397 ballots.

July 21: Ken Bennett provides us with additional 18 box-level ballot counts which had minor differences in four boxes.

July 22: We provided the Arizona Republic with the data that the machine ballot counts had closely matched our prediction of the ballot counts in 24 boxes at an accuracy level of 99.94%.

July 23: Ken Bennett is refused entrance into the Wesley Bolin Building where the Senate’s machine count is underway. It is our view that Bennett has always been interested in a proper audit and gave us the ballot counts out of frustration that the Ninjas had refused to share any information with him. It turns out, we did confirm the machine counting process capable of producing accurate counts.

August 11: We file a public record request for detailed ballot and vote counts organized by batch and box.

Sept 16: We update our July 12 spreadsheet with vote counts for third-party candidate Jo Jorgensen which gives the Ninjas an additional check on their vote counts. Votes for Biden and Jorgensen are not revealed to enable a valid audit where two independent results could be compared.

Sept 21-23: Ee obtain an early draft of the Ninja’s report and publish a report which debunks most of the allegations in Volume III related to voter registration and the “voted file.”

Sept 24: The AZ Senate’s hearing – a mountain of detail and, at the end, an Easter egg. Randall Pullen’s report on the machine count contains 17 pages of detailed ballot counts.

Sept 25-27: we analyze Pullen’s data drawn from the Ninja’s 695-page report.

KEY FINDINGS

  1. An enormous discrepancy of 15,692 missing hand counted ballots from 40 boxes  out of out of 1,634, supports our opinion that the Ninja’s hand count of ballots was so far off the Senate’s machine count of ballots that any statements about the vote counts (e.g., that Trump lost 261 votes) are meaningless.
Table 3

2. Our analysis shows that the machine count at the box level agrees with official results; as shown below, the difference in our published box-level ballot counts was off by 5 ballots.

Table 4

3. We believe the Ninjas have profoundly misled the public, Senator Fann and her colleagues. Senator Fann should exercise oversight, order the release of all public data and publicly distance herself from the Ninjas as quickly as possible.

4. Having zero experience in election audits, the Ninjas announcement that they had confirmed, to a high degree of accuracy, the election results of the second largest county in the country is, we believe, laughable.

5. The assertion that Trump had lost 261 votes was, we believe, a “shiny object” designed to convey believability to an otherwise unbelievable hoax.

CONCLUSIONS

We are not done; much is left to do. As we stated in this Op-Ed in the Arizona Republic, Senator Fann must release the Ninja’s findings. Now, with the Arizona Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Appellate Court, she must comply – or be held in contempt. Those court decisions require her to turn over lawfully requested public data including our request of the 695-page Consolidated Worksheet as well as a similarly detailed report containing vote counts.

Once we obtain the data we have requested, we will conclude a real audit of the Ninja’s sham process, publish our results and stand ready to defend them vigorously.

The events surrounding the Maricopa Hoax are a shameful episode in America’s history. Each of us feels lucky to be able to serve America, to protect our elections, debunk lies and confront those who would use their power to spread disinformation and doubt about America’s electoral systems – the heart of our democracy.

Election Audits – A Simple Explanation

Larry Moore

September 20, 2021

Recently I posted a blog entry that provided additional data by storage box. I released the vote counts for third-party Presidential candidate Jo Jorgenson for each of 1,634 storage boxes.

To the organizers of the Arizona Senate’s months-long process designed to undermine confidence in the Maricopa’s election, this data signaled that we could effectively audit their numbers.

Several people asked me questions that indicated that they did not have a clear concept of the audit. Having spent the last decade working on this audit methodology now marketed and supported by the company I founded, the Clear Ballot Group, it behooves me to explain it more clearly.

First, a definition. An audit compares two independently produced results based on the same data. It’s like asking two people to add an identical list of numbers.  If the results are the same and they did not talk to one another, we can be reasonably sure the totals are correct.

But, what is a “result?”

In elections, there are two types of results: ballot counts and vote counts.  Like Maricopa’s, all U.S. election departments create ballot counts by precinct and vote counts by candidate and precinct. However, the Senate contractors, the Cyber Ninjas, Inc., did not have the ballots organized by Maricopa’s 743 precincts. Instead, ballots were organized by storage box. Each storage box had an average of 1,274 ballots and 374 distinct precincts. Precincts were comingled in the same storage boxes because 90% of ballot cast were returned during the early voting period. There was no need to physically sort the ballots by precinct because the tabulation software could do that automatically.

Why does this matter? Because the county’s results and the Ninja’s results were not comparable.  Precinct counts cannot be compared to counts by storage box. The Ninjas cannot do an audit. Period.

We, the Audit Guys, linked Maricopa county’s official results to the 1,634 ballot storage boxes. The result: we can make an apples-to-apples comparison between the county’s results and the Ninja’s results.

Here are excerpts from the Audit Template with which we intend to audit the Ninja’s ballot and vote counts.

Compares official ballot counts to Ninja’s ballot counts and links counts to storage box and pallet.
Compares official vote counts to Ninja’s vote counts and links counts to storage box and pallet.

Here is a link to an expanded version of the above snapshots that explains the audit in greater detail.

Hopefully, you will see the conceptual simplicity of the audit:

List the boxes that should be counted, subtract the Ninja’s results from the official results for ballots and votes, analyze the differences.

I’ve personally participated in over 50 audits. We typically find that ballot control is the hardest thing for an election department do consistently. 

Maricopa’s process, which traces every ballot from the envelope opening process straight through tabulation, is among the very best I’ve ever seen.

What next?

Benny White, J.D.

September 18, 2021

The Senate is scheduled to receive a report of some sort from the Cyber Ninjas on Friday, September 24. This will be another press extravaganza designed to continue to disinform the public about elections generally and the 2020 General Election in Maricopa County. Many claims will be made. Most will probably have no evidence and will be difficult to verify.

We think the Ninjas will say they found more votes for Donald Trump and there are several areas where they continue to have questions because they have not been given all of the information they need from the Maricopa County officials.

I will address a few areas we suspect they will try to tell the public where they found problems.

Duplication

The Ninjas were confused about ballots that were duplicated; they were not sure which ballots to count or did not trust the duplication process. The Secretary of State reported that instead of counting the ballots that were duplicated and were actually counted in the official results the Ninjas decided to count the original ballots that had some sort of defect that prevented them from going through the vote counting machines.

Here is a table that shows the actual number of ballots that were duplicated during the entire election:

You can see there were a total of 27,457 ballots that were duplicated and included in the official results. These included mail and early ballots that were duplicated by the election boards before they went to the central count room where the ballots were tabulated. The remaining 7,436 ballots were those that were rejected by the tabulators for some reason and had to be duplicated.

There is no mystery here. There are clear, detailed public records available that account for each of these ballots.

Electronic Adjudication of Ballots By Adjudication Boards

The next area the Ninjas will probably complain about is the process of electronic adjudication. Electronic adjudication allows an expedited and accurate process of resolving ambiguous vote marks and determination of write-in vote marks. Maricopa County is the only county in Arizona that employs electronic adjudication, in part due to the size of the voting population and the number of ballots cast in their elections.

Here is a table that accounts for every ballot that underwent electronic adjudication:

This table shows that there were 2,089,563 total ballots counted. We have public records that confirm that each of these ballots were cast by a qualified voter and the daily records of ballot tabulation of Early, Provisional and Election Day ballots exactly matches the official results.

Much was made initially about the high percentage of ballots that required electronic adjudication. There were 235,392 ballots (11.27% of total ballots cast) that were reviewed by adjudication boards. The vast majority were contests (102K) for which no changes were made, the reason being that the oval was identified as being ‘ambiguous’ (an insufficiently filled in oval), and the adjudicator examined the oval and decided that the weak mark was actually vote intent. The weak mark was allowed to stand without changing anything. Finally, 132,139 ballots needed some sort of modification to resolve which whether the write-in mark was for a qualified candidate, which qualified write-in candidate should receive a vote, whether it was really an overvote or undervote.

11,954 of these electronically adjudicated ballots involved the Presidential Elector contest. There may have been other contests that had some issue with vote marks but the table below shows exactly what the issues were, how they were resolved and what the results were:

This data shows us a few very important things. First, the vast majority of these ballots (6,611) were marked for unqualified write-in candidates. Secondly, these adjudications awarded additional votes to all three Presidential candidates with Biden receiving 2,069 to Trump’s 1,516.

There is a detailed record for each one of these ballots, the actions taken and identification of the election board involved and the time the action was taken. In addition to those records that were produced at the time the action was taken there is a complete record of the adjudication action included with every digital image of every ballot no matter whether some ambiguity was resolved or not.

We anticipate that the Ninjas will once again demonstrate that they don’t know what they are doing. They will talk about counts that we will show are wrong. They will talk about various problems they have discovered. Most of these will be about things involving election administration and operation of the election systems which they did not understand when they started and haven’t learned about over the last six months.

They attempted to create a different result that would show Donald Trump won Arizona and they have failed.

The Audit Guys Publish Vote Counts in Preparation for a Real Audit

Larry Moore

September 16, 2021

Today, the Audit Guys provide additional data to Arizona Senate President Karen Fann, her contractor, the Cyber Ninjas, and the media. With this “September 16th spreadsheet“, the Ninjas can easily verify the accuracy of their vote-counting methodology before they release their report to the Senate. The September 16 spreadsheet updates the July 12 spreadsheet, which has enabled the Ninjas to test the accuracy of their ballot-counting methods for the past two months.

To recap:

In mid-May, 2021, we began to develop the capability to provide an independent audit of the Ninja’s unorthodox recount procedures.  That is because the Ninjas seemed unaware that they would not be able to conduct an audit. Why?

An audit compares two independent results based on the same data.  Maricopa counted votes by precinct; the Ninjas counted votes on ballots in storage boxes.  It would have been challenging for the Ninjas to count ballots and votes by precinct; Maricopa has 743 precincts and, on average, storage boxes contain 1,274 ballots and 374 distinct precincts.  

Drawing on public data, we devised a method (see Appendix F of our report) to recast the official results to compare the official vote counts to votes counted by ballot storage box.

On July 12, the Audit Guys sent an email to Senator Fann, Ken Bennett (Senate liaison), and Kory Langhoffer (counsel to the Senate) containing a spreadsheet that listed the 1,634 boxes containing exactly the 2,089,563 ballots reported in the officially certified election results. Doug Logan, CEO of Cyber Ninjas, should welcome this data because, on July 15, he publicly expressed confusion over which ballot storage boxes should be counted out of the 1,691 boxes delivered by Maricopa County in response to the AZ Senate’s subpoena. See Logan’s testimony at 1:23 here.

In addition, the July 12th spreadsheet contained the ballot counts for each of the 1,634 boxes. One day later, on July 13, Senator Fann announced that the Ninja’s hand count of ballots did not match the official ballot count. The difference, although never revealed, was sufficiently significant to justify purchasing two high-speed paper counters at the cost of $30,000 to create an independent ballot count.

What is new in the September 16 spreadsheet? Two additional items which the Ninjas can use to check their results.

First, it contains the count of ballots in 24 boxes which Ken Bennet provided the Audit Guys. This ballot count, performed on high-speed paper counters, matched the official ballot counts at 99.94% level of accuracy. It will be interesting to compare the hand count to the offical results and to the Ninja’s machine count.

Second, the September 16 spreadsheet provides box-level vote count for Jo Jorgensen, the third-party candidate for President.  

With the names of 1,634 boxes to be counted, ballot counts for each box and vote counts for one candidate, it should be relatively easy for the Ninjas to see how close their ballot counts are to the official results.

Once the Senate complies with our public record request, we will compare ballot and vote counts from the Ninjas hand count and machine count to the official results.

Disaffected Voters: Impact on the Presidential race in the Arizona 2020 Election

I am publishing a spreadsheet that contains the backup data to support our contention that Trump lost Arizona because a sufficient number of disaffected Republican-supportive voters did not vote for him in the two most populous counties – Maricopa and Pima Counties.

This spreadsheet provides additional information not contained in our report, Lessons from Maricopa …

For our purposes, disaffected voters vote for a majority of down-ballot candidates of one party but not for that party’s President.

Here’s a link to the supporting spreadsheet.

Highlights:

CellComment
C2674,822 Disaffected Republican Supportive Voters
C1948,577 voted for Biden
(represents 4.6x the margin of Biden’s statewide victory (10,457)
Source: Cast Vote Records from Maricopa and Pima Counties
obtained under a Public Records Request.