Guest post by Mark
Maricopa County in Arizona recently released reports by two vendors who conducted election audits in early February. Witnesses working at the (MCTEC) Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center testified that 12% of all ballots were being sent to adjudication. Numerous supervisors offered this data when struggling to assign this large amount of ballot files to adjudicators.
Advertisement - story continues below
So one in eight ballots were being sent as a digital image to humans at computers. These adjudicators would review and could change the circles voters selected on these ballots. Changing a ballot is as easy as checking a box on a PDF form. But neither audit discloses this unusually high rate of adjudication or why it happened.
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors provided both audit organizations a “test deck” of ballots. The audit by Pro V&V states they processed at least 1,549,703 ballot positions. If their test was truly replicating the election, then 186,000 of these ballots should have been sent to adjudication. But there’s no mention of this or any recurring scanner issues. Other than 2 ballot jams, their report simply says “Ballots were imported into RTR and adjudicated resulting in accurate numbers.” The reports are purposely void of any details. It should be noted the MCTEC center was staffed with anti-Trump zealots, just not as bad as the TCF center. These were the people adjudicating ballots.
TRENDING: NOT MAKING HEADLINES - EXCLUSIVE: AG Garland's Wife Is an Advisor Closely Linked to Brennan Center and Connected with Far-Left Groups Working to Prevent 2020 Election Audits -- HE MUST RECUSE!
There is a major difference between an investigation and an EAC accredited audit. With an EAC “audit” the vendors are given a strict scope of work by the customer. Anything outside these parameters is not investigated or disclosed. This 12% of adjudication would have created a tremendous amount of errors in the logs. Did these auditors choose not to disclose this? Or did their “test deck” not produce many adjudicated ballots? If so, why? No one knows because it was not in the scope of the audit. An investigation would get to the bottom of this. Investigators would compare “ballot images” against the actual paper ballots.
As another example, Maricopa instructed auditors to check devices for internet connectivity between July 6th and November 10th. So SLI looked at the logs of a couple of servers, some adjudicator workstations, and 35 of the 315 precinct scanners. They only checked the logs for signs of internet connectivity. No other analysis was documented because it wasn’t ordered by the Maricopa Board of Supervisors. It says no evidence of internet connectivity was found, but farther down discusses reviewing browser history and search terms. Analysts have noted that Dominion software allows logs to be edited, replaced, and completely deleted while leaving no audit trail of that users credentials.
Advertisement - story continues below
These publicly released audit reports are noticeably void of dates, especially when software was installed. During the “investigation” conducted by Allied Security for Antrim County, they found the Dominion ImageCast Precinct Cards were reprogrammed. This software affects how ballots are read and tabulated. The programming was changed just before the election on 10/23/2020. Then two days after the election on 11/05/2020 it was changed to a compliant software version most likely to hide fraud. When an audit just checks the software version or hash numbers it could conclude this recently installed software was compliant and everything was OK.
SLI Compliance states they inspected many aspects of EMS (Election Management System) from the registry to the USB history. Several witnesses stated a Dominion employee used an orange external drive to back up the entire system. The device was removed at night, taken off-premise, delivered to someone, and reconnected to the servers via USB in the morning. The Dominion employee admitted there was no chain of custody and would not disclose his offsite handoffs. There is no mention of this USB activity or any EMS activity like this in either audit report. Again, this is the difference between and EAC accredited “audit” and a real investigation.
SLI Compliance states they audited all 9 of the ImageCast Central Count (ICC) high-speed scanners used at MCTEC. Witnesses testified that ballots were dropped off by Runbeck Election Services trucks on November 4th, 5th, 6th and daily until the 12th. Supervisor explanations on these deliveries was always the same: “Runbeck has high speed scanners.” Their facility is 6 miles away from MCTEC. But there is no mention of Runbeck or these offsite scanners in either audit report. Bryan Dandurand, VP of Operations for Runbeck, was contacted for further clarification and has not yet responded.
It’s likely there is more documentation from these audits than what is provided to the public. Only 14 of the 60 pages from SLI Compliance report contains useful information for the public. About 7 of the 10 pages in the Pro V&V report is useful. What’s noticeable is that EAC accredited audits never seem to look at known issues and whitewash the obvious. A real election investigation focuses on the known issues, looks at all aspects of information, and follows the evidence.