The review is being conducted by Cyber Ninjas, a cybersecurity firm with no experience in election auditing. And company CEO Doug Logan made claims Thursday that were immediately questioned by the county and independent experts.
Here’s a quick look at two of them.
Logan said door-to-door polling of voters in Maricopa County is the “only way” for listeners to determine if what they see in election data are “real issues” or “errors. writing of some sort ”.
“In Arizona, 74,000 ballots were counted without a record of sending. This is not normal. This is not true. It’s not sure and it’s not sure, ”Boebert wrote.
On Friday, Trump himself went further than Logan. In a written statement, he claimed that Thursday’s Senate briefing showed “74,000 ballots received in the mail which were never mailed (ballots appearing as if by magic)”.
This is why it is quite normal for Maricopa County’s submitted ballot list to include a significant number of votes that do not match the entries on the requested ballot list. After the deadline to request a mail-in ballot, which was October 23, 2020, the list of requested ballots is not updated by the county. But the list of submitted ballots is updated after that October 23 deadline – with the votes of the first voters in person.
Logan’s suggestion of some sort of unsolved mystery was definitely debunked by Garrett Archer, an election analyst on ABC15 television in Phoenix and a former official in the Arizona Secretary of State’s office, known locally and on Twitter for his work. control of state electoral data. .
Archer explained that the county stops updating the list of requested ballots, known as “EV32,” after the last day people can request a mail-in ballot, October 23. Thus, ballots cast in person after Oct. 23, Archer said, were included in the submitted ballot. -list of ballots, known as “EV33”, but had no corresponding item on the list of requested ballots “EV32”.
Archer analyzed the files and found that there were 74,241 ballots on the list of submitted ballots without a corresponding entry on the list of requested ballots – almost identical to the figure cited by Logan, “74,243 “. But Archer found that more than 99.9% of the ballots in question were recorded in the ballot list submitted on October 26 or later.
This matches the October 23 deadline that Archer previously noted for the list of requested ballots.
The explanation: October 24 and 25 were weekend days when county clerks did not update the list of submitted ballots, Archer said, so they added the ballots cast by voters in person these weekend days to the ballot totals submitted from October. 26.
Tammy Patrick, an election expert who has spent more than a decade working in the Maricopa County Elections Department, also said on Twitter that the list of requested ballots ceases to be updated 11 days before the polling day, but the list of submitted ballots continues to be updated until the day. before election day.
Without the access that the Logan team have, we cannot say for sure that there are no errors or issues with both lists; it is quite possible that one problem or another will be discovered at some point. It is possible, Archer said, that there were clerical errors with the small number of ballots – 29 – he found had been recorded on the list of ballots submitted by October 26. but did not have a corresponding entry on the list of requested ballots. .
But Logan had suggested there was a huge, unresolved data problem. Experts have made it clear that he just does not understand the data.
Logan also claimed that Maricopa County simply stopped verifying voters’ signatures at some point in the election.
“Yes, we had an affidavit that specifically stated that when the mail-in ballots were received he received so many that the standards declined over time,” Logan said. He said the affidavit claimed that the verification process started with 20 “points of comparison,” then “after a while” was reduced to just 10 points of comparison, then to five points of comparison, “and finally they were simply told to leave every single mail ballot. “
Logan was not clear on who would have lowered the comparison standard and how widespread the supposed change was. We of course cannot definitively verify what happened or what did not happen in every electoral office in the county, especially without seeing the affidavit that Logan refers to.