Arizona shocker: Audit liaison threatens to quit over Cyber Ninjas’ secrecy and forged results

Ken Bennett, the Arizona state Senate's liaison to its review of 2020's presidential election ballots threatened to resign from that post live on conservative talk radio on Monday, saying the Senate's pro-Trump contractors had been hiding their results from him for months and could even be manipulating audit data.

"I cannot be part of a process that I am kept out of critical aspects," Bennett told James T. Harris, host of The Conservative Circus on Phoenix's KFYI. "The reason that I am that close to stepping down as liaison is that I cannot be part of a process that I am kept out of critical aspects along the way that make the audit legitimate."

Bennett, a conservative Republican, and former Arizona secretary of state has been an accountant outside of politics. While he cited problems with Maricopa County's handling of ballots, Bennett said that the lead contractor, the Cyber Ninjas, might be covering up mistakes made in the review's earlier stages by falsifying data.

"We have to be very careful that the third count [of the total number of ballots] is, of course, independent from the Cyber Ninjas' second [hand] count [of presidential votes]," he said. "We have to make sure that we are not force-balancing to their numbers or giving them something too early to allow them to force-balance back to our numbers."

"When I asked Mr. [Randy] Pollen, [former Arizona Republican Party chair] what are the procedures for us to do this third count, so that we can make sure that we are independent from the second count, and he refused to tell me," Bennett said. "I became very concerned that there would be this forced balancing going on."

The collision between Bennett's role as the Senate's liaison and the pro-Trump contractors has been simmering for months. While the Senate's review has been widely criticized as a pro-Trump propaganda exercise to perpetuate the "big lie" that Joe Biden was not legitimately elected, many Republicans who voted for Trump have been awaiting Bennett's assessment as a trusted messenger.

"I'm truly alarmed by this," said KFYI host James Harris, in the segment that followed Bennett's interview. "In the [show's] first segment, you actually had Ken Bennett step down because, in good conscience, he can't continue with this if he's been shut out and he's thinking that these numbers are being used improperly. And we know that that might be the case because we had President Trump spouting wrong numbers on the state last Saturday."

"I personally believe that we need to have Ken Bennett in this position [as Senate liaison]," he continued. "I know for a fact he's well-respected all around the state. I even heard from some people who respect him greatly say, 'Hey, what's going on with Ken Bennett… He sounds a little bit off.' Well, he is a little bit off, because he's seeing things that are shady."

"All of a sudden, this is getting convoluted," Harris said. "And instead of us having full disclosure, [and] transparency, it sounds like we are getting a grift!"

The spark behind Bennett's threat to resign—unless, he said, the Senate gave him full control of investigating several remaining aspects of the 2020 vote count—was a series of events that culminated last week that involved Bennett working with an outside group of retired election auditors. The team includes a longtime Arizona Republican Party election observer; the retired CEO of Clear Ballot, a federally certified auditing firm; and the retired chief technology officer of Clear Ballot.

That team has been analyzing the public data from Maricopa County's presidential election and had been releasing findings to the Arizona media and challenging the contractors to prove them wrong. They showed, for example, that tens of thousands of Maricopa County voters voted for most of the Republican candidates on the ballot—but not Trump. The team also has been sharing its data with Bennett.

Bennett has told Voting Booth that the data from the independent auditors was the driving factor that led the Senate to recount the total numbers of Maricopa County ballots because the Ninjas' hand count did not match the election's official results. The auditors had accounted for virtually all the election's ballots and presidential votes and produced the hard evidence of public records to back up their findings. (They also found and corrected many data entry errors ahead of the Ninjas.)

As Bennett explained on the radio, the Ninjas were not telling Bennett what their progress or results were. In many instances going back months, they promised but never provided reports of their work. In recent weeks, Bennett said that he quietly has been comparing the outsider auditors' totals to the Ninjas' figures and seeing that the building blocks of the official presidential election results were accurate.

This reporter was on a Zoom with Bennett and the outside auditors on Wednesday, July 21, where Bennett said the conspiracy theories promoted by the Ninjas was a diversion because the pro-Trump contractors are realizing that Biden fairly won.

"The fact that they're posing questions, or asking questions, or throwing out things about all these other things tells me they know the counts are pretty close," he said. "They don't have any proof that there's any massive change in the numbers."

After the Arizona Republic reported on July 23 that Bennett had been talking to the auditors, he was locked out of the ballot count at a Phoenix warehouse. Trump held a rally in the city the next day. Two days later, on Monday, July 26, Bennett told KFYI's Harris that he could not continue as Senate liaison.

Bennett said there were serious election administration issues that the review has discovered that needed to be explained and addressed before future elections. Thousands of ballots from members of the military and citizens overseas had not been properly labeled when duplicated (after they came in by e-mail), he said. Some volume of mailed-in ballots that were counted did not have signatures on their outside envelopes and should have been disqualified, he said.

Bennett said that he wanted to investigate these problems and conduct another audit that compared the digital images taken of every ballot by scanners with the county's official spreadsheet of each ballot's votes. The interview concluded with Harris asking Bennett what needed to happen for him to stay on.

"The answer is there are key aspects of the audit that are not even part of the scope of work assigned to Cyber Ninjas," Bennett said. "Some of those other things need to be done independently of Cyber Ninjas, and maybe I can be a coordinator of those other aspects, not done within Cyber Ninjas' realm."


Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Inside observers say the Arizona 'auditors' are backtracking — and the reality only supports Biden's win

The "big lie" that President Joe Biden was not legitimately elected is not going away. One reason is Americans who care about their democracy are not learning how votes for president in 2020 were counted and verified — neither from the big lie's promoters nor from most of its fact-driven critics.

Most visibly, the absence of a clear and accurate explanation can be found among former President Donald Trump's ardent supporters. As seen in a July 15 briefing in Arizona's legislature, the contractors hired by the state Senate to assess the 2020 election's results unleashed a new thicket of finger-pointing and innuendo that fans doubts about Maricopa County's election administration and votes for Biden.

Critics of the big lie, who range from state officials (including Republicans) to voting rights advocates — and, of course, Democrats— have mostly emphasized that the Arizona Senate's inquiry and copycat efforts in other states are bad faith exercises led by Trump supporters who lack election auditing experience.

These competing narratives lack clear explanations of what matters when counting and verifying votes, and, by extension, what does not matter and is a sideshow. With few exceptions, easily understood explanations of how 2020's votes are counted and verified have been missing in the election's volatile aftermath.

Most of the arguments used by those trying to dispel 2020 election myths focus on labeling the big lie a propaganda narrative, or sweepingly dismissing Arizona's audit as a partisan-led hoax. But these don't seem to be nearly as effective as a different approach—one that focuses on demystifying the wonky details of the voting and vote-counting processes.

Two examples of the latter, more rigorous and successful approach stand out: the post-Election Day daily briefings by the Georgia Secretary of State office's Gabriel Sterling, which were widely covered by the media and attested to Biden's victory in that state and the victory by Democrats in its U.S. Senate runoffs; and ongoing efforts by a self-funded team of experienced election auditors in Arizona, which have attracted some coverage by using hard evidence from public data sources.

The team of experienced auditors includes a longtime Arizona Republican Party election observer; the retired CEO of Clear Ballot, a federally certified auditing firm; and the retired chief technology officer of Clear Ballot. They have drawn on Maricopa County's official 2020 election records to provide a baseline to assess the accuracy of its presidential election. Their nuts-and-bolts approach has been missing from almost every other report criticizing the state Senate's inquest.

Among their early findings were tens of thousands of ballots where most of the votes were cast for Republicans, but not for Trump — and many were cast for Biden, which provided a factual explanation for Trump's loss. More recently, the auditors' documentation of 2020 ballot inventories and vote count subtotals has pushed the Senate's contractors to start a new recount of Maricopa County's 2020 ballots.

Sources with access to the contractors' operations have told Voting Booth that the contractors now know that their hand count of 2.1 million ballots was initially sloppy, and cannot account for thousands of ballots in the official results. (Hence, a new count.) But what the contractors are doing in private, behind locked doors in a Phoenix warehouse, is the opposite of what they have been saying in public, which is peddling vote-theft conspiracies.

Because the public's picture of the Senate's inquiry has a notable absence of clear descriptions articulating the building blocks of counting votes, there is a void that keeps being filled with misinformation, as exemplified by the contractors' July 15 briefing for Senate Republicans in Arizona's capitol.

Their statements, not given under oath, exemplified this charade. The contractors repeatedly spoke with indignation and bluster about technicalities in the corners of Maricopa County's election infrastructure, suggesting that the county's handling of the presidential election was deeply amiss. Not only were these technicalities hard for almost everyone, including the senators, to follow, but their presentation and tone supported conspiracy theories (which dominated pro-Trump media). In reality, the issues raised have little to do with validating voters, ballots and votes.

The contractors said, for example, that Maricopa County's central tabulators could have been hacked because key passwords and antivirus software had not been updated. They implied that officials had covered up their Election Day actions because activity logs on the tabulators were erased in March 2021. The lead contractor, Cyber Ninjas' Doug Logan, said there were several categories of suspicious ballots, all involving volumes of votes that exceeded Biden's statewide margin.

It is no surprise that fervent Trump supporters are invested in perpetuating doubts about his loss while their investigators fan diversions that hide their incompetence. Mostly, the Arizona Senate's contractors have discovered Maricopa County could have done better with managing some aspects of conducting the 2020 election. It is not headline news that election administration is complex, that officials do make mistakes, and — crucially — that the process usually catches and corrects them.

But what is going on here is far more cynical and intentionally dishonest.

In April, the Senate's contractors were told what was needed to conduct a credible audit, but they rejected that accounting-style approach. They were urged to compare the starting and finish lines of the vote-counting process to see if the figures matched. That involves three sets of records: the hand-marked votes for president on 2.1 million ballots; the digital images of every ballot immediately created by the scanners to start the electronic counting process; and the official results spreadsheet that lists every vote cast on every ballot. If the starting and finish line votes and totals matched, the election's outcome is legitimate.

Instead, the Arizona Senate's agents raced ahead with a hand count that did not even try to compare its step-by-step results with the building blocks of the official results. Now, inside observers have told Voting Booth that the Senate's contractors are backtracking in private to make more specific comparisons. (They also are trying to figure out if the hand count missed thousands of votes, which is why they are recounting the number of ballots but not the presidential votes.) But, publicly, the Senate contractors are not telling anyone what is going on. Instead, they are suggesting with bluster that they are hot on the election theft evidence trail.

The Senate Republican leaders are either falling for this masquerade or helping to perpetuate it. Not once during the July 15 hearing did senators ask their contractors why the Senate had to spend additional thousands to rent machinery to reconfirm the volume of ballots. The contractors urged the Senate to subpoena more data from the county, including voter signatures, in that briefing.

A new subpoena could lengthen the Senate's inquest, and, if some records are not released, it would provide a pretext for the contractors to claim that they cannot conclude their inquiry because evidence was withheld. Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Warren Petersen telegraphed this scenario in his closing remarks, saying, "it [the inquiry] will be incomplete if we don't have those items."

The session ended with Arizona state Senate President Karen Fann reciting her oft-stated disclaimer that the inquiry was not about overturning her state's 2020 presidential results, but merely addressing the doubts of Republican voters. "At no time have we ever implied or inferred that there is any intentional misdoings here in any way whatsoever, and, in fact, we certainly hope not," she said. "But we do need to have this information and answer these questions."

After the briefing, Trump issued three statements falsely claiming election fraud. And several days later, another Arizona Senate subcontractor, Jovan Pulitzer, who has led its inquiry into forged ballots, said the same thing without evidence—that election fraud had deprived Trump of Arizona's 2020 Electoral College votes.

"Finally, you get to see the truth that there is such a thing as election fraud," he told Arizona pro-Trump activist Liz Harris on her July 19 podcast. Pulitzer was interviewed while on a private jet en route to Arizona to meet other funders and organizers (those featured in the new pro-Trump film, "The Deep Rig"). Pulitzer praised the patriotism of the donors who have funded the inquiry and the 1,500 volunteers who "made this happen," saying, "The Arizona Senate only paid $150,000 for what ends up being a $9 million audit."

But inside the Phoenix warehouse where the Senate contractors are continuing their work, people know that the documentation and methodology provided by the independent outside auditors have not only unmasked their hand count's flaws; they also keep pointing toward the conclusion that Biden won Arizona's presidential election, and that Maricopa County's administration of that election, while not perfect, was not fraudulent.

There are Arizona Republicans who know what is going on inside the Senate's investigation, but whether they are willing to stand up to Trump's supporters is another question. That task would be easier if the public knew more about the building blocks of counting votes.

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Tensions flare among Republicans in Arizona as factions split over the future of the 2020 'audit'

The same split that is dividing Republicans nationally, whether to embrace or reject the fiction that the 2020 presidential election was illegitimate, is now reverberating backstage at the Veterans Memorial Coliseum in Arizona, where pro-Trump contractors are leading a state-sponsored inquiry into the vote in Maricopa County, home to Phoenix and 60 percent of Arizona voters.

The state Senate's lead contractor, Florida-based Cyber Ninjas, whose CEO Doug Logan had said that Joe Biden's victory was illegitimate, has been opposing an effort to widen the Arizona Senate's inquiry—via another assessment that vets the 2020 vote more thoroughly. Logan also has sought to muzzle and even oust the lead proponent of that more detailed inquiry, former Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, a Republican. Senate President Karen Fann asked Bennett to take the role of Senate audit liaison after she hired Cyber Ninjas. He is not taking any compensation for his role, unlike Cyber Ninjas and the subcontractors.

Beyond the personality clashes involved, which Voting Booth heard about while reporting from Phoenix as a hand count of 2.1 million paper ballots was nearing completion, is an emerging bottom line: Cyber Ninjas has spent several million dollars and two months conducting inquiries that are not poised to present sufficient analyses that can legitimately assess the presidential results.

Cyber Ninjas' inquiries, which include a hand count of all paper ballots and looking for forged ballots based on high-resolution and microscopic examination of the ballot paper and ink marks, are generating reams of information that could be cited in partisan propaganda—which is how pro-Trump media outlets have covered the audit from its inception.

Crucially, the data Cyber Ninjas is accumulating has not been compared to the building blocks of the state-certified vote count. At best, it is conducting a loosely constructed recount, which is not an audit—which is based on comparisons.

"There must be comparable results in sufficient detail, or else it is not an audit," said Larry Moore, the retired founder and CEO of Clear Ballot, a federally certified audit firm. "It is unacceptable to put out anything less."

Moore is not an unbiased observer in Phoenix. He has criticized the inquiries and is part of a team of seasoned election auditors that has parsed the same official records given to Cyber Ninjas after a Senate subpoena. The team's early analysis confirmed that Joe Biden won in Arizona and offered an explanation why. The official records revealed voting patterns showing that tens of thousands of voters supported most Republicans on their ballots—but did not vote for Trump.

Moore's team, which is locally led by Tucson's Benny White, who is a longtime Republican Party observer in state and local elections, has shared its findings with news organizations in Phoenix, whose coverage is beginning to reframe how the Senate's exercise should be evaluated.

The team has gone further in recent days. They challenged Cyber Ninjas to take their subtotals (gleaned from the official election data) and compare it to the subtotals in a sealed box of ballots. By June 11, there were several dozen boxes of ballots that had not yet been opened and hand-counted. Cyber Ninjas did not take up the challenge.

The auditors then gave their data to the press, including reporters who have observed Cyber Ninjas revising their procedures repeatedly in recent weeks. The evaluation pushed by Moore and White would directly compare the paper ballots marked by voters, the starting line, to the official election results, the finish line, to attest to the election's accuracy. Cyber Ninjas' process isn't making this comparison.

Growing Pressure Inside and Out

That fundamental procedural flaw, meanwhile, has bothered Bennett, the former Arizona secretary of state who says he volunteered to be Senate liaison because he felt that doubts about the election's legitimacy had to be put to rest. Since April, he has expressed interest in expanding the Senate's audit's inquiries to parse the electronic records that detect votes on the paper ballots and then compile the overall results.

Bennett has been pushing for a so-called ballot image audit to do this assessment, which would compare the digital images of every ballot created by vote-counting scanners to the electronically compiled vote totals. Bennett has attempted to hire a California nonprofit, Citizens Oversight, that happens to be run by a Democrat for that specialized assessment. But that prospect has been attacked in right-wing media and on social media, including by the audit's contractors led by Logan.

Inside the Phoenix arena, there are reports that Logan has told Bennett—who also is a former Arizona Senate president—not to talk to the press. Logan has reportedly bad-mouthed Bennett in closed meetings with pro-Trump activists and legislators visiting from out of state—who are seeking to bring similar privatized partisan assessments to their states (after Trump also lost there). It is clear, according to interviews by Voting Booth with witnesses to these incidents, that Logan's allies fear that more investigations would expose their shortcomings and undermine whatever report they issue.

Thus, among other things, pushing Bennett out of the inquiry would seem advantageous to pro-Trump Republicans' efforts to discredit the integrity of the 2020 election. In response, Bennett said that he is committed to examining Maricopa County's 2020 ballots and vote counts as thoroughly as possible, because he said that he is still a trusted messenger to enough Arizona Republicans who are awaiting his verdict.

"It's not what evidence is presented to most people, it's who it is presented to them by," Bennett said. He added that he wants to look at what Cyber Ninjas' analysis, the analysis by Moore and White, and what Citizens Oversight may do, and then present his judgment, and, if necessary, the details leading to his evaluation, to dispel any doubts.

"I believe that we can convince 90 percent of the people that are questioning the election [of its legitimacy], because it was the opposite party that was questioning the results in 2016. Ninety percent can understand that if Trump lost the election, it was Trump that lost the election," Bennett said. He mentioned several debunked conspiracy theories about the 2020 election in Arizona, saying, "It wasn't ballots flown in at midnight from China. It wasn't any fractional counting of votes on voting machines. It wasn't because Dominion [Voting Systems] was owned by China or Russia, or I don't know who… And similarly, when the Democrats lose, maybe it's because Hillary Clinton just wasn't what the American people wanted in 2016."

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

New analysis reveals one key reason Trump lost Arizona — and deflates his claim of 'rigging'

About 75,000 Republican-leaning voters in Arizona's two most populous counties did not vote to re-elect President Donald Trump in the 2020 election, according to an analysis of every vote cast by a longtime Arizona Republican Party election observer and election technologists familiar with vote-counting data.

The analysis from Maricopa and Pima Counties underscored that the Arizona state Senate's ongoing audit of 2.1 million ballots from Maricopa County's November 2020 election was based on a false premise—that Democrats stole Arizona's election where Trump lost statewide to Joe Biden by 10,457 votes.

"I am continuing my analysis of why Trump lost in Arizona," Benny White, a former military and commercial pilot who has been a Republican election observer for years in Pima County and was part of the research team, said in a May 10 Facebook post. "Bottom line: Republicans and non-partisans who voted for other Republicans on the ballot did not vote for Trump, some voted for Biden and some simply did not cast an effective vote for President."

The analysis, whose methodology is similar to academic research by political scientists, offers a counternarrative to Trump's continuing claims that he lost a rigged election. It also underscores that election experts can extract records from voting systems to affirm and explain the results, such as showing that at least 75,000 Arizonans voted for many other GOP candidates but not for Trump.

Maricopa County and Pima County accounted for 76 percent of Arizona's 2020 presidential election ballots.

"The data is all there to form a justified belief that there wasn't anything amiss, and you should be looking at that [data] before you turn ballots over to partisan third parties," said Larry Moore, who founded Clear Ballot, a federally certified firm that helps local and state governments to count and verify election results, and helped White analyze to fall 2020's vote patterns from the two counties.

"This needs to be treated like a giant accounting problem where everything has to add up," Moore said. "We have been working on this nonstop for days. The [state] Senate's auditors don't know what they are doing… The county election officials and their attorneys also don't realize the power of the [data] tools that they have."

The analysis was based on the "cast-vote record" of every vote on every ballot in the two counties, which White obtained in a public records request and analyzed. The state Senate's auditors, led by the pro-Trump contractor Cyber Ninjas, were given the same data in February, but have not used it to cross-reference the subtotals in their hand count of Maricopa County's presidential and U.S. Senate votes, audit officials told Voting Booth. Cyber Ninjas has not yet issued any findings about several audits it is supervising.

"I want voters to decide the results of the election, not lawyers and judges, which is what is occurring in Maricopa County with this [Senate-led] audit that is extremely disruptive," said White in an interview. "It is really undermining the public's confidence in our election systems, and it's completely unnecessary."

Bryan Blehm, an Arizona attorney representing Cyber Ninjas, replied to White's post on Facebook—without identifying that relationship—by saying that White was not working with reliable data and was angling for a job with Arizona's Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat.

"Of course data facts matter," Blehm wrote on May 10. "That is why Mr. White relies on data supplied to him by government buearocrats [sic] rather than the actual real data. Hence, he questions anyone actually working with the underlying real data. I think Mr. White is pushing for a job with the Secretary of State."

However, a handful of political scientists who study voter turnout confirmed that using cast-vote records to analyze voting patterns, including voters who split their votes between major party candidates, was a standard research methodology.

"Yes, political scientists have done research using cast-vote records," said Charles Stewart III, who directs the Caltech/MIT Voting Technology Project. "Last year, I published a co-authored article that looked at the 2016 election, and we concluded that Republicans were much more likely to abstain in that election than Democrats—and the Republicans who did abstain had been anti-Trump in the primary."

"This approach is similar to research we have done," said Matthew Thornburg, a University of South Carolina Aiken assistant professor of political science. "What we find in political science research is that voters are more likely to defect in races they know more about. In presidential races, everyone knows the candidates well by November and can be persuaded by factors other than partisanship."

"Given that you have the data, you can make all kinds of analyses," said Duncan Buell, chair emeritus of the Computer Science and Engineering Department at the University of South Carolina, who has analyzed public election records in a half-dozen states. "This is not rocket science, and it is not partisan."

A Political Science Analysis

The approach that White and Moore used echoed what political scientists do when analyzing split-ticket voting patterns (when voters diverge between different parties' candidates as they fill out a ballot) or partisan voting patterns based on a precinct's demographics.

To start, White obtained the cast-vote record from the counties, both of which saw more voters support Biden than Trump in the 2020 election. This public document is a series of elaborate computer files that contain every vote cast in every race. Those records are organized as individual folders each containing batches of several hundred ballots. Maricopa's data was in 10,300 folders, White said.

White reached out to Moore, who enlisted Tim Halvorsen, Clear Ballot's former CTO. The Boston-based firm's expertise is based on analyzing digital images of every scanned paper ballot to double-check election results. After obtaining the cast-vote records, the researchers had to identify Republican-leaning voters.

General election ballots don't identify voters or list their party affiliation. White's team noted that there were 15 contests with Republican candidates for county or higher offices in Maricopa County in the 2020 election. There were 13 such contests in Pima County.

To identify Republican-inclined voters, Halvorsen created a search tool to identify the ballots where half or more of the votes in these contests were for Republicans. That meant at least eight votes for Republican candidates in Maricopa County and seven Republicans in Pima County.

The search tool also identified how many ballots contained a majority of votes for Republicans—but not for Trump. It found about 60,000 such ballots in Maricopa County and slightly more than 15,000 ballots in Pima County. White said that he needed an experienced voting system programmer to help process the data.

"I don't want to trivialize this analysis because it is very difficult," White said. "You have to have knowledge of the election administration process. You have to have knowledge of the way voting machines work. You have to have knowledge of what might be available to you in all of the public records… It takes actual expertise to be able to do that."

The finding that some number of Republican voters were turned off by Trump and did not vote for him in 2020's general election is not unique.

Michael McDonald, a University of Florida political science professor who tracks voter turnout patterns nationally, said "it seems consistent with what we've seen elsewhere concerning the suburban shift toward Biden."

"The upshot is that voters defect more the higher up the ballot the race is and the more information they have," said Thornburg, citing published research about this pattern. "This result does not surprise me."

"Fifty-nine thousand votes in Maricopa County amounts to only approximately 2.8 percent of the votes that were cast there," he continued. "Assuming (generously) that loyal Republicans made up just 45 percent of Maricopa's 2020 voters, that's only about 6.3 percent of loyal Republicans (which is in line with national exit poll results that show approximately 6 percent of Republicans and 5 percent of Democrats voted for the other party's presidential candidate)."

There was also a drop-off in Republican voter turnout in Georgia between its November 2020 election, which Trump also lost, and the turnout in early January's U.S. Senate runoffs, which Trump repeatedly said would be fraudulent and where the Democrats prevailed—returning the majority to Democrats. Trump's rhetoric has been seen as suppressing his party's turnout in the Senate runoffs.

Arizona Investigation Continues

The investigation by White and Moore was also using other public records to debunk another conspiratorial claim about Maricopa County's election: that 40,000 ballots were smuggled into vote-counting centers after midnight on November 4.

Using Arizona's public voter history file and eligible voter file, White found there were no unusual spikes in precinct-level turnout patterns (Maricopa County's turnout was 80.5 percent), Moore said. White also verified the identities of all but 720 voters out of the 2.1 million people who voted in the 2020 election in Maricopa, Moore said, adding the exceptions were people whose identities were protected as crime victims, law enforcement officers or public officials like judges.

"It completely checked out—all 2.1 million voters," Moore said. "There were no unknown names except for those 720… And the tool we used to explain all this [assertion] was mapping. We show by precinct the percentage turnout and the actual numbers of turnout. There's no [conspiratorial] there, there."

On May 17, Blehm, Cyber Ninjas' attorney, also commented on Facebook, again criticizing White for this line of inquiry. "Pretty map," he wrote. "And it shows you are up on the data they give you. So much for reality because you apparently only need what they feed you."

Ken Bennett, a Republican and former Arizona secretary of state who is serving as a liaison for the Senate's audit of Maricopa County's 2020 election, declined to comment on the research by White and Moore. Previously, Bennett has said that he hopes to oversee several audit procedures to address the persistent belief among Trump supporters that Arizona's 2020 presidential election was dishonest.

"The power of this [cast-vote record] analysis is dealing with the complete record of all votes and not just statistical estimates," Moore said. "This is not based on estimates. There are no confidence intervals. These numbers are based on 100 percent of all the voters voting."


Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Arizona Republicans chase Rudy Giuliani's election fever dream

After winning a lawsuit to take possession of all of the 2020 presidential ballots and election equipment in Arizona's most populous county, Arizona's Republican-led Senate is poised to take 2020's post-election brawls into new territory where investigating unproven claims of electronically stolen votes, not widespread illegal voting, will be center stage.

Many Republicans, including Arizona legislators, have voiced their belief that former President Trump was unfairly denied a second term, citing various vote-centered conspiracies. In 61 out of 62 post-election lawsuits filed by Trump's allies across the country, scores of federal and state judges rejected those assertions as groundless and lacking proof.

But now that Arizona's Senate has affirmed its authority to investigate the accuracy of 2020's presidential vote count in America's second-largest election jurisdiction—Maricopa County, where Phoenix is located—the focus has shifted from legislators fanning unproven claims of stolen votes to whether Republican lawmakers will conduct a credible evidence-centered inquiry.

"The Senate has and is doing a 100 percent audit, which is why we fought so hard to have access to all the data and documents," Arizona Senate President Karen Fann wrote on Facebook on March 2. "We are doing extensive research, interviewing, and background checks to make sure we find the best team available… This is and has always been about election integrity and getting answers to our constituents' questions and concerns."

The exercise will not change the election results, which have been certified. Trump lost Arizona by 10,457 votes, a closer margin than in Georgia, where that GOP-led state conducted a manual hand count of all of its presidential election ballots, and then electronically recounted those same paper ballots. It twice confirmed Joe Biden's victory over Trump before certifying the result. The investigation that is taking shape in Arizona could be as thorough as what was undertaken in Georgia, or it could descend into political theater to placate Trump's base.

"As you know, there is no credible evidence for any of the conspiracy theories that have abounded about the 2020 General Election," wrote Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, to Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen on March 3. "If your goal is truly to rebuild public confidence in our democracy, it is imperative that you establish and abide by clear procedures and parameters for the security and confidentiality of the ballots and election equipment while in your custody and ensure independence and transparency should you proceed with any further audit."

A Closer Look at 2020's Closest Swing State?

Immediately after Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Timothy Thomason's February 25 ruling authorizing the state Senate's subpoenas, the county's supervisors—where four out of five are Republicans—said that they would not appeal. Its election staff began transferring the election materials, starting with 11 gigabytes of activity logs from its hundreds of voting machines.

What soon became apparent was that the senators had been more focused on winning in court than on planning the investigation that they hoped to take on. For example, the Senate had not yet secured a site for truckloads of materials, starting with 2.1 million paper ballots in sealed boxes on 70 pallets, hundreds of voting machines and tabulators, vote count management systems and the related data—digital images of every ballot cast, machine activity logs, and more.

As the first week of March began, election experts in Arizona were skeptical that the exercise would be a serious effort to examine the accuracy of Maricopa County's 2020 results.

"In this case, Sen. Fann and House members are chasing down a rabbit hole that was proposed by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell back in November. Now they're trying to find the evidence," said Benny White, a longtime Republican Party election observer in Pima County, which is not far from Phoenix. "I don't want to talk poorly about my legislators, but I don't know what the hell they are doing. They don't understand election administration at all. They don't understand how these machines work. They don't understand how votes are calculated and aggregated. They are in a political position where they think they have to do something [to respond to Trump supporters]. So they're trying to do something."

Some of White's skepticism came from Fann's prior endorsement of a proposal by a Texas firm, Allied Security Operations Group (ASOG), that had made unfounded claims about the process in Michigan and Arizona. ASOG's "scope of work" said it would "hand count approximately 550,000 of the following paper ballots and scan approximately 55,000 of the following paper ballots… over a 7-10 day period on site in Arizona for a firm, fixed price fee of $10,000."

White and others said that proposal was not serious. A precise audit does not cherry-pick what ballots to examine, he said, and its fee was unrealistically low. Fann later distanced herself from ASOG. While neither Fann nor other Senate Republican spokespeople would speak on the record to Voting Booth, several background interviews suggested that the enormity of the actual task before the Republicans was dawning on them.

"My concern is I'm not sure if they know what they're looking for—or looking at," said Tammy Patrick, who, for 11 years, was the federal compliance officer for Maricopa County's elections department, has served on a presidential commission for election reform, and now is the senior adviser for elections at the Democracy Fund, a philanthropic organization. "I also don't think they understand the volume of materials they are talking about. You're talking about at least one semitractor load for the ballots alone. What are their security protocols going to be?"

Most of Hobbs' letter to the Senate Republican leaders concerned maintaining a catalog of security and inventory controls for the ballots and machinery, as well as urging the Senate to plan for bipartisan teams to count ballots and be as transparent as possible as it proceeded.

"I implore you to treat your responsibility for the custody, security, and integrity of those items with the same level of vigilance that election officials across this State treat that responsibility," the secretary of state wrote. "I again urge you not to waste taxpayer resources chasing false claims of fraud that will only further erode public confidence in our election processes and elected officials."

What Will They Do? Who Will Do It?

Maricopa County, and Arizona as a state, both have reputations for well-run elections. While no election is error-free, election officials have extensive protocols that test their voting system hardware and software, their voting machine performance, and the vote count's accuracy before and after Election Day—before results are certified. While vote count audits don't review every vote cast, the process includes political parties choosing samples of ballots that are examined by hand, which was done following November's election. In response to Trump supporters' claims of secret manipulation of vote counts—and GOP legislators encouraging those claims—the county hired two national voting system testing laboratories to examine whether their hardware or software had been hacked or hijacked. They found no breaches.

"What's wild in all of this is that all of the voting equipment had logic and accuracy tests, and those logic and accuracy test reports could be reviewed," Patrick said. "The machinery has also undergone the [post-election] forensic test that was done by two federal testing labs. The challenge that I've had with some of this is that voting systems are not just like every other electronic device that's out there. There are some very specific things that you need to understand about voting systems in order to know what you're looking at and what it means."

"There's not a lot of point to what they're proposing," she said, assessing the Senate's probe. "They wanted a forensic report, and they got one. And now that's not enough. Even if they bring in their own specialists, they're not going to find anything, because there is no 'there' there."

As the week progressed, background interviews with reputable experts advising the Republicans said that the Senate investigation, ideally, would have three focal points.

Like Georgia, there would be a full manual hand count of every paper ballot—a massive operation involving potentially hundreds of workers in a giant warehouse. Unlike Georgia, but like the state of Maryland—whose electorate is larger than Maricopa County's—there would be an independent audit of all of the digital ballot images created by scanners. Even though voters cast paper ballots, digital images of every ballot card are what is counted by Maricopa's voting system. Third, there would be an analysis of the system's software and activity logs—detailing every operation by each voting machine—to ensure that the ballot images were correctly read and counted.

These steps, if all undertaken and not marred by predetermined conclusions, would arguably be more comprehensive than what Georgia did to verify its 2020 presidential vote. Where politics would re-enter is when Arizona's Republican legislators have to stand by the results of their process that, in all likelihood, will affirm Trump's loss. Thus, in 2020's two presidential swing states with the closest 2020 margins and histories of electing Republicans for president, the evidence would show that Biden won.

But before that assessment can occur, the Senate has to hire credible contractors and a reputable audit manager—possibly a former state election director like Detroit did before its 2020 general election. Additionally, the legislature's investigation will have to demonstrate the same level of security and inventory controls that are required of local election officials—a point underscored by Hobbs in her letter to the Senate Republican leaders.

"You have stated previously that you believe a further audit by the Senate is critical for the people of Arizona to be able to move forward and trust the 2020 General Election results. I respectfully disagree," she wrote. "But I believe we can agree that proceeding without clear procedures for the security of the ballots and election equipment when they are in your custody, and clear procedures to ensure the integrity, independence, and transparency of the audit itself and the auditors selected, will only open the door to more conspiracy theories and further erosion of voters' confidence in Arizona's elections processes."

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

Trump fans ignite post-election turmoil in Arizona -- exposing an important fact about our voting system

Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo had heard enough. More than a half-hour into the board's January 27 consideration of a "forensic" audit where two outside firms would assess if its voting system used in Arizona's 2020 presidential election had been infiltrated and the results altered, the former state senator said that his vote in favor of the audit "was a tough pill to swallow."

"We had our presidential preference election, not one complaint," Gallardo said. "We had our primary election in August. Not one complaint. Everyone was happy. We had our general election. No complaint, until a day or two after the general election, when some folks in our community and across this country started looking at the results."

"They were not happy with the result," he continued. "That's quite normal in the world of elections. Folks that are not happy with the results generally do complain. This year, they took it a step further. They continue to spread lies and conspiracies about how our elections are conducted, and now our machines are the target."

Arizona had the second-closest presidential election margin in 2020, a difference of about 10,500 votes between the winner, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. The margin did not trigger a recount under state election laws, which the state's GOP-majority legislature had changed to make the margin that triggers a recount narrower in recent years. But in the months since Election Day, Trump supporters, including state legislators, have ramped up their attacks, raising the question of what proof, if any, will convince them of the outcome.

The supervisors governing Arizona's most populous county unanimously voted to begin an audit to determine if its electronic voting system was "accurate, reliable and secure," as the county's election co-director told the board. Meanwhile, in Arizona's state Senate, Republicans who supported Trump have ramped up their attack on Biden's victory and demanded Maricopa County turn over its voting machines and 2.1 million ballots to Senate investigators.

The county has so far refused, even as Trump supporters are urging the Senate to seize the machinery and ballots. Leaders of Trump's legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, speculated in Arizona testimony that Trump votes were secretly turned into Biden votes. Those allegations, in part, led Dominion Voting Systems, which made the county's voting equipment, to sue Giuliani for $1.3 billion. (Dominion has filed 2,912-pages of exhibits detailing Giuliani's false statements.)

This fight in Arizona centers on what evidence could be used to satisfy voters that election results are accurate and legitimate. But the fight is also part of a pattern in battleground states where perpetuating the myth of a stolen election has become the opening move in what may become major rollbacks of voting options.

"Nothing is going to convince them. They're always going to be casting doubt," said Gallardo. "They're using our system; they're using our audit as justification for doing it. How many times did I hear… the legislature, over the last two weeks now, say, 'We need to do an audit so we can introduce legislation?'… They're using this audit to introduce legislation to make it difficult for other people to vote. It's called voter suppression."

Gallardo's assertion that Trump's supporters will never be convinced underscores that one of the top challenges confronting American democracy is identifying what steps will restore public confidence in elections. Beyond debating how officials might counter propaganda attacking the process is a baseline question for those concerned with presenting the facts: Is the most crucial balloting data to verify results being made public?

Evidence of Accurate Vote Counts

Seen from afar, Arizona is a national leader in transparent elections. As Sambo Dul, Arizona elections director, told the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) during its recent winter 2021 conference, every step of the process—from programming the voting systems without being connected to the internet, to the use of hand-marked paper ballots, to pre- and post-election testing of machinery and audits of reported results, including verifying results before its certifies winners—is "aimed at ensuring the security and integrity of our system."

"After each voting location is closed down on election night, their materials go to an audit board," Dul said on February 3. "The audit board reviews the election board materials to make sure that all of the numbers [voters, ballots returned, ballots counted] are reconciled prior to the canvass… And as a final check, we require counties to conduct a logic and accuracy test [on counting scanners] after all of the ballots in the counties have been tabulated."

These steps all occurred in 2020's presidential election, including post-Election Day machinery tests and vote count audits that showed no hint that the results were wrong.

As granular as these steps were, Maricopa County's audit will go further, Scott Jarrett, director of Election Day and emergency voting with the Maricopa County Elections Department, told the county supervisors on January 27. "A forensic audit is a process that will review [the election process], to determine and identify whether our electronic equipment is accurate, reliable and secure."

"It's a multilayered, robust process that will review that it's not susceptible to hacking, and that it wasn't hacked during the November 2020 general election," he said, describing the audit. "We'll also review that there's no malicious software or hardware that has been installed on any of our tabulation equipment or devices. It'll also confirm that our tabulation equipment is not connected to the internet and wasn't connected to the internet throughout the November 2020 general election. But we're going to expand that to be even further [and] go back to when the logic and accuracy tests occurred for the August primary election."

These assessments will be technical and likely hard for the public to follow. Given the political landscape, their conclusions will likely be dismissed by Trump's base. But Maricopa County's forensic audit also may surface too much information without getting to the heart of the matter—which would reveal the most direct evidence that the county's 2020 results were accurate.

Why not? The forensic audit will probe whether the county's computers that processed its hand-marked and machine-marked ballots to count votes were accurately reading those ballots—not recalculating or reassigning votes, which is what the pro-Trump witnesses alleged during Senate's hearings in November.

But what the audit will not do is examine what may be the most important part of the vote-counting evidence trail: the computer files, including images of every paper ballot cast, created to count votes, and the activity logs documenting that process. The county will examine the machinery and software used, but not compare the paper ballots, ballot images and the ensuing vote count. That distinction was confirmed by the county election office's spokeswoman.

"The ballot images and the activity logs should be a public record," said John Brakey, an Arizona-based election transparency activist focusing on ballot image audits.

How Paper Ballots Are Counted

The latest voting systems, including those used in Maricopa County, do not count paper ballots directly. Instead, computer scanners create a digital image of every ballot card. Those images are then analyzed by software, which creates a grid that correlates ink marks—votes—with each ballot's choices. The resulting tally, a spreadsheet of sorts, is built into the vote count. Formally, that tally becomes what is called the cast vote record.

In mid-2020, lawyers associated with the Florida Democratic Party sued the eight largest counties in that state seeking to force the counties to preserve ballot images as public election records. Since the 1960 Civil Rights Act, all materials used in federal elections must be preserved for 22 months. However, that federal law, which criminalized the destruction of election materials, was written in an era predating today's paper and electronic voting systems.

The Florida counties agreed to preserve their ballot images if there was a 2020 presidential recount—which did not happen. Meanwhile, in January 2021, a Florida law took effect that allows its counties to use ballot images as part of their recount process. (Recounts are not the same as audits; recounts can change election results.) This seemingly arcane and technical fight revolves around a key question: Is all of the data surrounding vote counts a protected public record?

The short answer is no—even though state and federal election officials have been gradually acknowledging that this data is there and crucial. For several years, the state of Maryland has used ballot image audits to verify its results before certifying winners. The soon-to-be-adopted Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which states used as a best practice standard, refer to ballot images but do not urge states to save them. The massive election reform bill introduced by Democrats in Congress, H.R. 1 and its Senate companion, does not update election records retention requirements for digital data.

But, increasingly, election officials, including Republicans being attacked by pro-Trump factions, have been citing digital evidence generated during ballot-processing and vote-counting to push back on conspiracy theories that their elections were fraudulent and illegitimate.

In Georgia, during its second count of all presidential ballots—an unprecedented hand count of 5 million ballots—Gabriel Sterling, the state election operations manager, told the press that his staff was able to use the activity logs in scanners to identify why several thousand votes for Trump were not counted on election night. Basically, some poll workers, after a 15-hour day, failed to transfer the data from the scanners to their county's tabulation system. Those votes were subsequently added to Trump's totals, although he did not win the state.

A Paper and Digital Evidence Trail

There is no guarantee that providing real evidence to hyperpartisans will change minds when their candidate lost. However, not making public—and preserving—the paper and electronic records, data and evidence trail associated with counting votes will only fan more suspicions. Those doubts will emerge when facts about how ballots are counted are obscured.

For example, when Arizona Trump activist Liz Harris went on Stephen Bannon's "War Room" online radio show on February 3, she gave a laundry list of election files and data that she was hoping the Arizona Senate would seize to prove Biden lost. While the list was a fishing expedition seeking targets to boost their stolen election narrative, much of what she sought was irrelevant to counting votes.

"We're looking for election log files, election settings, accounts and tokens, Windows servers and desktops, Dominion equipment, Dominion network access to the logins for the Dominion records. We're looking for Election Systems and Software [another voting system maker]. We're looking for the voter rolls, and most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, access to all original paper ballots including but not limited to early ballots, Election Day ballots and provisional ballots," Harris said. "I'm very confident based on the work… we will find a minimum of 106,000 fraudulent ballots, and I make that statement with great faith."

What's missing from this list are the specific records and related data that were used to count the presidential election's votes in Maricopa County—in addition to the paper ballots, the digital ballot image files of every paper ballot cast, and activity logs from the scanners processing those ballots and tabulating the votes.

During NASED's winter meeting, countering misinformation was the subject of February 4's presentations. State election directors from states with Republican and Democratic majorities were uniformly confident that the 2020 election results were accurate. They said that election officials had done more than ever before to open their processes to public viewing. But they still felt they were burned by partisan disinformation, despite their efforts at transparency.

"I want to talk a little bit about transparency, which is a positive," said Matt Masterson, a former top-ranking federal official who has worked for various agencies on election technology and voting security. "I want to state over and over again… that the level of transparency that election officials offered in this election was far greater than any election that I've experienced. There were more livestreams or updates, more press conferences, more access to the information than ever before."

"And transparency is a positive, but can also be used as a negative, right?" he continued. "We saw repeatedly the use of video and livestreams to make [false] claims about, 'Oh, did you see what he did there? He switched the ballots out.' 'Did you see what she did there?'… Using the data to create really good-looking but completely misleading and incorrect charts, using voter data to claim, 'I'm not saying something happened. But if you look at this, it doesn't appear right.'"

Masterson came down on the side of more transparency. He urged state election directors to counter disinformation by presenting the facts of their administrative processes "as quickly as possible," to then focus on dispelling rumors, and then to offer more detailed analyses.

In Arizona, Trump activist Liz Harris told Steve Bannon that her state "has this stuff intact," referring to its preservation of the paper and electronic records surrounding voting in the 2020 presidential election. "We would be the perfect state to do the deep dive forensic audit."

On that point, Harris was correct. Jarrett, a co-director of Maricopa County's elections, told the supervisors on January 27 that their ballot-marking devices, scanners, tabulators and their accompanying digital files have been sealed and kept in a vault since the November 3 election—including untouched memory cards containing a backup of all ballot images and their votes.

"Our equipment is ready," Jarrett said, referring to the county's audit. "It has not been tampered with. It's still in the same state it was during the election and then the post-election."

Maricopa County's assessment of its election machinery—but not its presidential ballots and vote count—began on February 2.

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

Trump supporters are still fighting Arizona's election results — here's what we can learn from the fight

Maricopa County Supervisor Steve Gallardo had heard enough. More than a half-hour into the board's January 27 consideration of a "forensic" audit where two outside firms would assess if its voting system used in Arizona's 2020 presidential election had been infiltrated and the results altered, the former state senator said that his vote in favor of the audit "was a tough pill to swallow."

"We had our presidential preference election, not one complaint," Gallardo said. "We had our primary election in August. Not one complaint. Everyone was happy. We had our general election. No complaint, until a day or two after the general election, when some folks in our community and across this country started looking at the results."

"They were not happy with the result," he continued. "That's quite normal in the world of elections. Folks that are not happy with the results generally do complain. This year, they took it a step further. They continue to spread lies and conspiracies about how our elections are conducted, and now our machines are the target."

Arizona had the second-closest presidential election margin in 2020, a difference of about 10,500 votes between the winner, Joe Biden, and Donald Trump. The margin did not trigger a recount under state election laws, which the state's GOP-majority legislature had changed to make the margin that triggers a recount narrower in recent years. But in the months since Election Day, Trump supporters, including state legislators, have ramped up their attacks, raising the question of what proof, if any, will convince them of the outcome.

The supervisors governing Arizona's most populous county unanimously voted to begin an audit to determine if its electronic voting system was "accurate, reliable and secure," as the county's election co-director told the board. Meanwhile, in Arizona's state Senate, Republicans who supported Trump have ramped up their attack on Biden's victory and demanded Maricopa County turn over its voting machines and 2.1 million ballots to Senate investigators.

The county has so far refused, even as Trump supporters are urging the Senate to seize the machinery and ballots. Leaders of Trump's legal team, including Rudy Giuliani, speculated in Arizona testimony that Trump votes were secretly turned into Biden votes. Those allegations, in part, led Dominion Voting Systems, which made the county's voting equipment, to sue Giuliani for $1.3 billion. (Dominion has filed 2,912-pages of exhibits detailing Giuliani's false statements.)

This fight in Arizona centers on what evidence could be used to satisfy voters that election results are accurate and legitimate. But the fight is also part of a pattern in battleground states where perpetuating the myth of a stolen election has become the opening move in what may become major rollbacks of voting options.

"Nothing is going to convince them. They're always going to be casting doubt," said Gallardo. "They're using our system; they're using our audit as justification for doing it. How many times did I hear… the legislature, over the last two weeks now, say, 'We need to do an audit so we can introduce legislation?'… They're using this audit to introduce legislation to make it difficult for other people to vote. It's called voter suppression."

Gallardo's assertion that Trump's supporters will never be convinced underscores that one of the top challenges confronting American democracy is identifying what steps will restore public confidence in elections. Beyond debating how officials might counter propaganda attacking the process is a baseline question for those concerned with presenting the facts: Is the most crucial balloting data to verify results being made public?

Evidence of Accurate Vote Counts

Seen from afar, Arizona is a national leader in transparent elections. As Sambo Dul, Arizona elections director, told the National Association of State Election Directors (NASED) during its recent winter 2021 conference, every step of the process—from programming the voting systems without being connected to the internet, to the use of hand-marked paper ballots, to pre- and post-election testing of machinery and audits of reported results, including verifying results before its certifies winners—is "aimed at ensuring the security and integrity of our system."

"After each voting location is closed down on election night, their materials go to an audit board," Dul said on February 3. "The audit board reviews the election board materials to make sure that all of the numbers [voters, ballots returned, ballots counted] are reconciled prior to the canvass… And as a final check, we require counties to conduct a logic and accuracy test [on counting scanners] after all of the ballots in the counties have been tabulated."

These steps all occurred in the 2020 presidential election, including post-Election Day machinery tests and vote count audits that showed no hint that the results were wrong.

As granular as these steps were, Maricopa County's audit will go further, Scott Jarrett, director of Election Day and emergency voting with the Maricopa County Elections Department, told the county supervisors on January 27. "A forensic audit is a process that will review [the election process], to determine and identify whether our electronic equipment is accurate, reliable and secure."

"It's a multilayered, robust process that will review that it's not susceptible to hacking, and that it wasn't hacked during the November 2020 general election," he said, describing the audit. "We'll also review that there's no malicious software or hardware that has been installed on any of our tabulation equipment or devices. It'll also confirm that our tabulation equipment is not connected to the internet and wasn't connected to the internet throughout the November 2020 general election. But we're going to expand that to be even further [and] go back to when the logic and accuracy tests occurred for the August primary election."

These assessments will be technical and likely hard for the public to follow. Given the political landscape, their conclusions will likely be dismissed by Trump's base. But Maricopa County's forensic audit also may surface too much information without getting to the heart of the matter—which would reveal the most direct evidence that the county's 2020 results were accurate.

Why not? The forensic audit will probe whether the county's computers that processed its hand-marked and machine-marked ballots to count votes were accurately reading those ballots—not recalculating or reassigning votes, which is what the pro-Trump witnesses alleged during Senate's hearings in November.

But what the audit will not do is examine what may be the most important part of the vote-counting evidence trail: the computer files, including images of every paper ballot cast, created to count votes, and the activity logs documenting that process. The county will examine the machinery and software used, but not compare the paper ballots, ballot images and the ensuing vote count. That distinction was confirmed by the county election office's spokeswoman.

"The ballot images and the activity logs should be a public record," said John Brakey, an Arizona-based election transparency activist focusing on ballot image audits.

How Paper Ballots Are Counted

The latest voting systems, including those used in Maricopa County, do not count paper ballots directly. Instead, computer scanners create a digital image of every ballot card. Those images are then analyzed by software, which creates a grid that correlates ink marks—votes—with each ballot's choices. The resulting tally, a spreadsheet of sorts, is built into the vote count. Formally, that tally becomes what is called the cast vote record.

In mid-2020, lawyers associated with the Florida Democratic Party sued the eight largest counties in that state seeking to force the counties to preserve ballot images as public election records. Since the 1960 Civil Rights Act, all materials used in federal elections must be preserved for 22 months. However, that federal law, which criminalized the destruction of election materials, was written in an era predating today's paper and electronic voting systems.

The Florida counties agreed to preserve their ballot images if there was a 2020 presidential recount—which did not happen. Meanwhile, in January 2021, a Florida law took effect that allows its counties to use ballot images as part of their recount process. (Recounts are not the same as audits; recounts can change election results.) This seemingly arcane and technical fight revolves around a key question: Is all of the data surrounding vote counts a protected public record?

The short answer is no—even though state and federal election officials have been gradually acknowledging that this data is there and crucial. For several years, the state of Maryland has used ballot image audits to verify its results before certifying winners. The soon-to-be-adopted Voluntary Voting System Guidelines 2.0 from the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, which states used as a best practice standard, refer to ballot images but do not urge states to save them. The massive election reform bill introduced by Democrats in Congress, H.R. 1 and its Senate companion, does not update election records retention requirements for digital data.

But, increasingly, election officials, including Republicans being attacked by pro-Trump factions, have been citing digital evidence generated during ballot-processing and vote-counting to push back on conspiracy theories that their elections were fraudulent and illegitimate.

In Georgia, during its second count of all presidential ballots—an unprecedented hand count of 5 million ballots—Gabriel Sterling, the state election operations manager, told the press that his staff was able to use the activity logs in scanners to identify why several thousand votes for Trump were not counted on election night. Basically, some poll workers, after a 15-hour day, failed to transfer the data from the scanners to their county's tabulation system. Those votes were subsequently added to Trump's totals, although he did not win the state.

A Paper and Digital Evidence Trail

There is no guarantee that providing real evidence to hyperpartisans will change minds when their candidate lost. However, not making public—and preserving—the paper and electronic records, data and evidence trail associated with counting votes will only fan more suspicions. Those doubts will emerge when facts about how ballots are counted are obscured.

For example, when Arizona Trump activist Liz Harris went on Stephen Bannon's "War Room" online radio show on February 3, she gave a laundry list of election files and data that she was hoping the Arizona Senate would seize to prove Biden lost. While the list was a fishing expedition seeking targets to boost their stolen election narrative, much of what she sought was irrelevant to counting votes.

"We're looking for election log files, election settings, accounts and tokens, Windows servers and desktops, Dominion equipment, Dominion network access to the logins for the Dominion records. We're looking for Election Systems and Software [another voting system maker]. We're looking for the voter rolls, and most importantly, and I can't stress this enough, access to all original paper ballots including but not limited to early ballots, Election Day ballots and provisional ballots," Harris said. "I'm very confident based on the work… we will find a minimum of 106,000 fraudulent ballots, and I make that statement with great faith."

What's missing from this list are the specific records and related data that were used to count the presidential election's votes in Maricopa County—in addition to the paper ballots, the digital ballot image files of every paper ballot cast, and activity logs from the scanners processing those ballots and tabulating the votes.

During NASED's winter meeting, countering misinformation was the subject of February 4's presentations. State election directors from states with Republican and Democratic majorities were uniformly confident that the 2020 election results were accurate. They said that election officials had done more than ever before to open their processes to public viewing. But they still felt they were burned by partisan disinformation, despite their efforts at transparency.

"I want to talk a little bit about transparency, which is a positive," said Matt Masterson, a former top-ranking federal official who has worked for various agencies on election technology and voting security. "I want to state over and over again… that the level of transparency that election officials offered in this election was far greater than any election that I've experienced. There were more livestreams or updates, more press conferences, more access to the information than ever before."

"And transparency is a positive, but can also be used as a negative, right?" he continued. "We saw repeatedly the use of video and livestreams to make [false] claims about, 'Oh, did you see what he did there? He switched the ballots out.' 'Did you see what she did there?'… Using the data to create really good-looking but completely misleading and incorrect charts, using voter data to claim, 'I'm not saying something happened. But if you look at this, it doesn't appear right.'"

Masterson came down on the side of more transparency. He urged state election directors to counter disinformation by presenting the facts of their administrative processes "as quickly as possible," to then focus on dispelling rumors, and then to offer more detailed analyses.

In Arizona, Trump activist Liz Harris told Steve Bannon that her state "has this stuff intact," referring to its preservation of the paper and electronic records surrounding voting in the 2020 presidential election. "We would be the perfect state to do the deep dive forensic audit."

On that point, Harris was correct. Jarrett, a co-director of Maricopa County's elections, told the supervisors on January 27 that their ballot-marking devices, scanners, tabulators and their accompanying digital files have been sealed and kept in a vault since the November 3 election—including untouched memory cards containing a backup of all ballot images and their votes.

"Our equipment is ready," Jarrett said, referring to the county's audit. "It has not been tampered with. It's still in the same state it was during the election and then the post-election."

Maricopa County's assessment of its election machinery—but not its presidential ballots and vote count—began on February 2.

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

Independent Media InstituteCredit Line: This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

The next battle over voting rights has already begun — and it could get nasty

Across the country, more than 500 election reform bills are pending in state legislatures. Eighty percent of these bills seek to put into law many of the temporary measures that helped voters in response to 2020's pandemic. The rest would roll back last year's emergency measures or more deeply police voting.

The list of bills was compiled by the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law, whose Voting Laws Roundup 2021 report tracked and categorized bills that have been introduced, refiled or carried over from past legislative sessions.

"After historic turnout and increased mail voting in 2020, state lawmakers are pulling in opposite directions," the report said. "New legislation reflects a surge of bills to limit voter access, with a particular focus on mail voting and voter ID. At the same time, other bills would cement pro-voter policies implemented temporarily last year."

Most of the restrictive efforts concerned voter registration, a voter's access to a mailed-out ballot, and the options and requirements associated with returning mailed-out ballots. On the other hand, while there are 106 restrictive bills, 406 bills would expand access to a ballot or codify many of the emergency measures taken by states to assist voters.

"The 2021 legislative sessions have begun in all but six states, and state lawmakers have already introduced hundreds of bills aimed at election procedures and voter access—vastly exceeding the number of voting bills introduced by this time last year," said the report, which was published on January 26, 2021.

Expanding Participation

On the inclusion side of this ledger, the most prevalent legislation would permit all voters to receive a mailed-out (or absentee) ballot without satisfying an excuse, such as an illness, work conflict or travel. There are related proposals requiring local officials to contact voters who err when filling out their ballot return envelopes to fix those errors so their votes can be counted. There is also legislation to authorize or require officials to use drop boxes for returning these ballots, as well as legislation that allows officials to start vetting ballot envelopes sooner.

There are a handful of states where most or all of these options have been introduced. These steps are part of an overall system of verifying a voter's eligibility while making it easier for voters to participate in elections and for officials to administer elections. These states include Connecticut, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, New Jersey, New York and Texas.

States with Democratic-majority legislatures and governors will be more receptive to these reform packages, while GOP-majority legislatures and governors are less likely to adopt them. However, that blue-red divide is not as fixed in states where both parties hold state offices.

Missouri, for example, which saw political battles in 2020 over expanding access to a mailed-out ballot as the pandemic struck, is less likely than Kentucky to endorse these inclusionary measures. In 2020, Kentucky's Democratic governor and Republican secretary of state worked together to ensure ballot access during the pandemic. Its fall election was praised as well run, although, as often happens, partisans questioned the accuracy of some results.

Early voting is the next most frequent focus of 2021 legislation. Fourteen states have bills to expand that voting option or to introduce it for the first time. These states span the spectrum, from blue states with historically difficult voting rules, such as New York, to red states such as Alabama, Indiana, Tennessee, South Carolina and Texas. Purple states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania also have bills to expand early voting.

Going further upstream in the process to the starting line, 13 states have bills to implement same-day voter registration and voting. (These states are Alaska, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and Texas.) Eleven states have legislation to automatically register their voters, following the adoption of automatic voter registration (AVR) in the District of Columbia and 19 states in the past six years. (The proposed AVR states are Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Mississippi, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania and Texas.)

Restoration of voting rights for felons is another priority. Fifteen states have introduced bills to restore voting rights or ease restrictions. In 2018, Florida's voters passed Amendment 4, which re-enfranchised more than 1 million felons. However, its GOP-led legislature and Republican governor required those felons to pay back court fees before voting, which disenfranchised most of these individuals in 2020 and was seen as a factor helping Republicans to maintain statewide power. (The proposed rights restoration states are Alabama, Connecticut, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and Washington.)

"The Sentencing Project estimates that Mississippi disenfranchises over 214,000 citizens living in the community—more than 54% of whom are Black—because of past convictions," the Brennan Center report said.

Rolling Back Voting

While comprising only 20 percent of the proposed reforms, bills to make voting more difficult—compared to the options offered last fall—have gained the most attention. The Brennan Center said that the volume of 2021 bills represented "a backlash" to 2020's record voter turnout, and to last year's historic expansion of absentee and early balloting.

"In a backlash to historic voter turnout in the 2020 general election, and grounded in a rash of baseless and racist allegations of voter fraud and election irregularities, legislators have introduced three times the number of bills to restrict voting access as compared to this time last year," the Brennan Center said. "Twenty-eight states have introduced, prefiled, or carried over 106 restrictive bills this year (as compared to 35 such bills in fifteen states on February 3, 2020)."

There are four focal points to these restrictive measures: limiting access to a mailed-out ballot; imposing new or stiffer voter ID requirements for returning a mailed-out ballot; limiting voter registration; and enabling more aggressive voter purges.

The states with the most regressive bills are Pennsylvania (14), New Hampshire (11), Missouri (9), Mississippi (8), New Jersey (8), and Texas (8). Georgia also has numerous bills: "lawmakers reportedly plan to introduce bills to require an excuse to cast an absentee ballot, mandate photo ID when returning an absentee ballot, and ban ballot drop boxes, among other harsh restrictions," the Brennan Center's report said.

The biggest focus concerns voting with mailed-out ballots, which 65 million Americans used last fall. After the pandemic broke, states suspended the requirement that voters needed to satisfy an excuse requirement to get an absentee ballot. Three states—Pennsylvania, Missouri, and North Dakota—seek to revive their excuse requirement. "[T]hree different proposals in Pennsylvania seek to eliminate no-excuse mail voting, a policy just adopted in 2019," the Brennan Center said.

Another feature of absentee voting is what is called the permanent absentee list. These are voters who automatically receive ballots by mail. Typically, the voters are seniors, people with disabilities and overseas civilians and soldiers. There is legislation in Arizona and New Jersey to "make it easier for officials to remove voters" from this list, the Brennan Center said. A related voting option is the "permanent early voter list," which is targeted for elimination by bills in Arizona and Pennsylvania. While Republicans back these proposals, their base—especially in retiree-rich Arizona—has long favored voting by mail or voting early.

Related targets of legislation are groups and individuals who try to help voters obtain absentee ballots and return them. Advocacy groups would face restrictions with mailing absentee ballot applications to voters under bills in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Texas and Washington. (In 2020, some pro-Democratic groups made mistakes with sending voters absentee ballot applications, leading to criticism from local election officials and Republicans.)

There are additional proposed restrictions on who can help voters to cast mailed-out ballots. In Arizona, current law limits such assistance to family and household members. A proposed bill would add an ID requirement for those returning the ballots for another person and require that these absentee ballots be notarized. Alaska, South Carolina and Virginia also have bills that require returned mail ballots to be notarized first. A Virginia bill would require the absentee ballots to be returned at registrars' offices, which would eliminate the use of drop boxes.

There are also bills expanding the reasons for the disqualification of returned ballots. A Pennsylvania bill would impose signature-matching requirements that are used to vet voters—by how they sign the outside of their ballot return envelope—before their votes are counted. There are ways that checking signatures can be done scientifically, but it can also be done in ways that end up mistakenly disqualifying valid votes. The more professional processes match the ballot envelope signature with a mix of signatures in other state records—from voter registration forms, absentee ballot applications, drivers' licenses, tax returns, etc.

Under the umbrella of bills that could expand disqualification, Kansas and Pennsylvania also have legislation to reject any absentee ballot that arrives after Election Day, even if it was postmarked before Election Day. An Iowa bill would require voters to mail all ballots at least 10 days before Election Day.

Nearly 36 million people voted early in the 2020 general election. Another wave of proposed legislation would impose more stringent requirements for early in-person voting.

Ten states have introduced voter ID bills, including six states that do not now require early voters to show ID to get a ballot (Minnesota, Nebraska, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Washington and Wyoming). Two states, Mississippi and New Hampshire, would narrow the range of accepted IDs, including those often used by students. A related bill in New Hampshire would eliminate the state's same-day registration and voting option, which thousands of students use for its presidential primaries. GOP bills in Connecticut, Montana and Virginia would also eliminate same-day registration.

Finally, there are a handful of bills that, if passed, could create big bureaucratic problems. A Texas bill would strip "voter registration authority from county clerks and requir[e] the secretary of state to send voter registration information to the Department of Public Safety for citizenship verification." That scenario is troubling because the Public Safety agency would have to vet hundreds of thousands of voters, a process that is outside of its mission and expertise.

Similarly, three Mississippi bills would require the state to compare its voter rolls to other data lists to identify non-citizens, and "would require removal from the rolls of voters who fail to respond to a notice within 30 days with proof of citizenship," the Brennan Center reported. Depending on the database used to verify voters, many false positives (non-citizens) could be generated. Lawsuits from former President Trump's supporters made similar claims of non-citizen and illegal voting, but never produced authoritative evidence in court.

States and Congress

The fate of the proposed legislation will largely depend on which political party controls state government. Currently, 38 states are controlled by one party that has a legislative majority and the governor's seat, according to Ballotpedia—15 are Democratic; 23 are Republican. In these "trifecta" states, such as blue Virginia and red Texas, it is unlikely that bills proposed by the minority party will have traction. On the other hand, states with split party rule—such as Pennsylvania where the governor is a Democrat, and the legislature is in GOP hands—may experience nasty fights. But the state's legislature cannot override a gubernatorial veto.

How state legislatures handle election reforms will provide a very important legal baseline for whatever federal reforms might emerge from Congress in 2021. Currently, both chambers in Congress have teed up a massive reform bill drafted by Democrats for early action. The bills include many of the inclusionary reforms being pushed in the states. The federal legislation is written so court challenges could only apply to narrow policies—one at a time and not the whole bill—if successful.

Needless to say, Republicans are likely to challenge federal reforms passed by Democrats. In 2020, Republicans suing on Trump's behalf argued that the U.S. Constitution only authorized state legislatures—not governors, secretaries of state, or state supreme courts—to set the rules for elections. Reforms passed by blue state legislatures could be fortified if that "originalist" argument gained traction in federal court. But the converse is true as well. Red states rolling back voting options would also be sustained if that controversial legal theory was upheld in federal court—or by an expanded conservative majority on the Supreme Court.

The most that can be said at this stage in the process—as state legislatures and Congress begin their sessions—is the options and rules for voting into the foreseeable future are in play. Voters can see which political party controls the legislature and governorships in their states to game the likely success of the proposed reforms. For non-trifecta states, voters can take a closer look at whether a governor's veto can be overridden by the legislature.

The 2020 election showed how voting could be made easier for voters and officials despite the pandemic. Whether those emergency measures become laws and standard practices is now what is in play.

Steven Rosenfeld is the editor and chief correspondent of Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute. He has reported for National Public Radio, Marketplace, and Christian Science Monitor Radio, as well as a wide range of progressive publications including Salon, AlterNet, the American Prospect, and many others.

This article was produced by Voting Booth, a project of the Independent Media Institute.

GOP operatives are sending out clear signals about the next attack on democracy

Hours after President Biden declared that "democracy has prevailed" during his inaugural address, longtime Republican strategist Karl Rove urged Republicans to pressure GOP election officials and legislators to create "a model election code" to reconsider the laws surrounding 2020's two voting options that led to the presidential election's record turnout.

"Republicans should also encourage GOP secretaries of state and state lawmakers to develop a model election code," Rove wrote in a January 20 commentary for the Wall Street Journal entitled, "The Republican Future Starts Now."

"The job of proposing electoral reforms shouldn't be based on the unsupported claims of widespread fraud peddled by Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell," Rove continued. "Instead, the goal should be to suggest measures that restore public confidence in our democracy. How do states with extensive mail-in and early voting like Florida and Texas get it right?"

Rove's commentary comes as Republican-majority legislatures in battleground states such as Georgia, Pennsylvania and Arizona have proposed bills or convened hearings to review the laws that allowed people to vote with mailed-out ballots or early in-person in 2020.

"Whenever Karl Rove writes a piece in the Wall Street Journal, the history of it suggests that Democrats should pay careful attention," said David Daley, author of Unrigged: How Americans are Battling Back to Save Democracy. "Because the Wall Street Journal is where Republicans can signal to their donor class their key projects."

In March 2010, Rove penned a Wall Street Journal commentary openly discussing the GOP's REDMAP project, which targeted 107 state legislative seats that "would give them control of drawing district lines for nearly 190 congressional seats." REDMAP succeeded, creating GOP majority legislatures and congressional delegations in the otherwise purple states of Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Alabama.

The website of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), which drafts model bills for social conservatives and economic libertarians, did not yet promote election reforms on its website. However, it linked to the Conservative Action project, which posted a defense of the GOP lawmakers who opposed certifying the Electoral College slates from Arizona and Pennsylvania. The expanded use of voting via mailed-out ballots and early voting must be examined, it said.

"The 2020 election was conducted in an unprecedented manner: largely by mail, and in a way that overwhelmed the capacities of many states. It is not at all unreasonable to review the manner in which votes were counted," said the Conservative Action Project memo, which was signed by more than 100 activists and organizations. "Indeed, if the goal is to restore faith in future elections, then a comprehensive review and analysis to determine what went wrong, what went right, and what is in need of reform should be a critical next step."

Daley, whose prior book, Ratf*cked, profiled REDMAP and its impacts on the past decade's political battles and extreme politics, said Rove's commentary was a warning sign.

"Whenever Rove writes in the Wall Street Journal, it not to be a public intellectual but to put ideas in front of the Republican donor class," he said. "It fits perfectly with much of the Republican strategy on voter suppression."

"So much of it sounds reasonable," Daley continued, referring to the suggestion that a model election code be developed and embraced. "How can you be opposed to a blue-ribbon bipartisan commission that is going to step back and ensure that our elections are free, fair and secure? Except, that's not actually their intention, because we just had an election that was free, fair and secure. And [Sens.] Hawley and Cruz and 130-plus Republicans in the House voted to decertify [the popular vote results and Electoral College slates from] Pennsylvania and Arizona—even after a Republican governor [in Arizona] signed off on certification."

Already, Republican legislators in 2020 battleground states held hearings where they are badgering statewide election officials—some elected Democrats, some career civil servants—about decisions they took last fall that made it easier to vote with absentee ballots.

For example, on Thursday in Pennsylvania, Secretary of State Kathy Boockvar, a Democrat, was pressed by Republican representatives advising county election officials to count the returned mailed-out ballots of people who forgot to put their ballots in a secrecy sleeve. The state's supreme court subsequently ruled that the "naked" ballots should be disqualified.

"You disagree with the decision that was rendered by the Supreme Court?" Rep. Ryan McKenzie, a Republican, asked Boockvar.

"It doesn't matter whether I disagree with a decision rendered by the Supreme Court, because the Supreme Court's rule governs," she replied. "But what I would say is, and maybe this is part of your question, do I think that is the right approach for voters for making sure that every eligible voter's vote counts? No, I'd love to see the legislature change that law and say, 'Look, if a voter makes a mistake that does not have anything to do with their eligibility or their qualifications, such as a naked ballot, that vote should still count."

The Thursday legislative hearing was one of 14 that are slated in Pennsylvania to review voting laws and administrative rules that were in effect during the 2020 election. A separate GOP-sponsored proposal would create districts for electing state supreme court judges. If put into effect, it could become a judicial gerrymander to recast Pennsylvania's appellate courts—including the state's supreme court.

These steps and others, such as Republicans in Wisconsin (and Pennsylvania) talking about changing the way their states choose presidential electors, or Georgia possibly turning the secretary of state from an elective to an appointed office filled by the legislature, seek to change the laws so Republicans can win elections, Daley said.

"Republicans talk a lot about following the rule of law, but what they are trying to do is change the law to make it make it easier to do in 2024 what they were unable to do in 2020," he said.

Daley said Rove's push to review ballot access laws after an election where no evidence of fraud was provided by Trump's allies—despite 65 lawsuits—posed a longer-term threat to representative government than the pro-Trump mob that attacked the Capitol.

"In 2020, there were two mobs that attacked the Capitol," he said. "One mob did it with baseball bats, Trump flags and Camp Auschwitz shirts. And they tried to overturn an election through fear and terror and insurrection. And then there was the mob that wore tailored suits and congressional pins that walked in after that [first] mob, while there was still blood in the hallways and bullet holes in the walls, and they voted not to certify free and fair results from Pennsylvania and Arizona. They gave that mob everything that they showed up for."

"We need to be more fearful of that second mob," Daley continued. "Because they remain inside the House. They have been elected to the rules so that if this happens again, with better lawyers making the cases, they will have statutes that they can rely on to press fraudulent claims of election fraud."

Agitated Trump supporters are still in denial -- and they're coalescing into a new conspiracy-minded election movement

Georgia’s Trump supporters are not giving up. On Saturday, scores massed outside the statehouse in Atlanta, a small sea of mostly men in red MAGA hats hoisting signs hurling accusations against Joe Biden and wearing campaign tee-shirts saying “STOP the STEAL.”

Keep reading... Show less

'No way in hell': Trump supporters' delusional fears haunt the Georgia presidential election audit

By 7 a.m. on Saturday, November 14, the windowless, cavernous hall six flights below street level at the Georgia World Congress Center in downtown Atlanta was bustling. Hundreds of county government employees wearing face masks were seated in pairs at 170 tables with pens, forms and bottles of hand sanitizer. They had come to manually count every vote for president in Fulton County, the epicenter of Joe Biden's still unofficial 14,000-vote victory over President Trump.

Keep reading... Show less

Fabricated ballots, dead voters and other phantom fears from Trump supporters in Georgia

By 7 a.m. on Saturday, November 14, the windowless, cavernous hall six flights below street level at the Georgia World Congress Center in downtown Atlanta was bustling. Hundreds of county government employees wearing face masks were seated in pairs at 170 tables with pens, forms and bottles of hand sanitizer. They had come to manually count every vote for president in Fulton County, the epicenter of Joe Biden’s still unofficial 14,000-vote victory over President Trump.

Keep reading... Show less

Inside the strange story behind the Democrats' failure to flip Florida

One day after Florida election officials announced that President Trump and Republican candidates had so badly beaten Democrats up and down the ballot that pundits were asking if Florida had become an irreversible red state, Joe Biden's Florida campaign held a statewide conference call.

Keep reading... Show less

Voting wars: Inside the Republican Party's most overt voter suppression effort in years

Two countervailing forces are competing to determine the outcome of the 2020 elections' highest-stakes contests before the close of voting on November 3.

Keep reading... Show less

A federal court just jeopardized thousands of Minnesota ballots in the last leg of the 2020 race

A federal appeals court on Thursday ordered Minnesota to "segregate" all absentee ballots that are postmarked by Election Day, Nov. 3, but arrive in the mail over the subsequent days. The decision was a stark warning the courts may end up disqualifying these votes in post-election litigation.

Keep reading... Show less

Don't Sit on the Sidelines of History. Join Raw Story Investigates and Go Ad-Free. Support Honest Journalism.