112020SB.DOCX

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020 Board Members
3:30 PM Clint Hickman, Chairman, District 4
Jack Sellers, Vice Chairman, District 1
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Steve Chucri, District 2
Maricopa County, Arizona Bill Gates, District 3
(and the Boards of Directors of the Flood Control Steve Gallardo, District 5
District, Library District, Stadium District, Improvement
Districts, Housing Authority of Maricopa County,
Housing Authority of Maricopa County and/or Board of County Manager
Deposit) Joy Rich
Clerk of the Board
"The mission of Maricopa County is Fran McCarroll
to provide regional leadership and
fiscally responsible, necessary Meeting Location
public services to its residents so
they can enjoy living in healthy and Supervisors' Auditorium
safe communities” 205 W Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
The Board of Supervisors of Maricopa County, Phoenix, Arizona, convened in Special Session
at 3:30 PM on Friday, November 20, 2020, in the Supervisors' Auditorium, 205 W. Jefferson
Phoenix, AZ 85003, with the following members present: Clint Hickman, Chairman, District 4;
Jack Sellers, Vice Chairman, District 1; Steve Chucri, Supervisor, District 2; Bill Gates,
Supervisor, District 3; Steve Gallardo, Supervisor, District 5. Also present: Joy Rich, County
Manager (telephonically); Fran McCarroll, Clerk; Kelly Gardiner, Minutes Coordinator; Andrea
Cummings, Legal Counsel (telephonically).
ACTION
1. CANVASS THE RETURNS FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2020 GENERAL ELECTION
Canvass the election returns for the November 3, 2020 General Election in accordance with
A.R.S §§ 16-642 – 16-645 and the Official Results prepared by the Maricopa County
Elections Department. The Maricopa County Elections Department has prepared the Official
Returns from all county precincts, declaring the vote for the November General Election held
on November 3, 2020. The Elections Department requests that the Board of Supervisors
canvass these returns and approve the Official Canvass for this election pursuant to A.R.S.
16-642 through 16-645. The Board of Supervisors is required to canvass these returns within
20 days following the election. The Official Canvass is on file with the Clerk of the Board of
Supervisors and retained in accordance with ASLAPR approved retention schedule. (C-06-
21-298-X-00)
Chairman Hickman welcomed everyone to this special meeting of the Board of
Supervisors. He explained that the room was set up to accommodate social distancing.
He invited Scott Jarrett and Rey Valenzuela to present the information about the
November 3rd election, and the canvass of the election. Scott Jarrett came to the podium
to begin the report on the canvass of the November 3, 2020, canvass of the election.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 2 of 19
Mr. Jarrett stated that the canvass represents a full accounting of the entire process and
of all of the ballots that were received. The canvass is the certification of the election
results. Mr. Jarrett also thanked the Board for appointing him to the position of one of the
Directors in the Elections Department, and for the opportunity to partner with the
Recorder’s Office and Mr. Valenzuela, the other Director. He stated that the Board had
asked for an election process that would be known as “best in class,” and he felt confident
that in partnership with the others, they have done so.
Mr. Jarrett noted that there were some major hurdles to overcome regarding the process
elements of the election, some of the issues dealing with Covid-19. One of their goals
was to provide easy and safe options for Maricopa County voters.
In reviewing this slide, Mr. Jarrett explained that the Presidential Preference election and
the Primary election provided experiences and information which the Elections team used
as “lessons learned” for this election. He referenced five factors that were carefully
reviewed and were used to redesigned the new Vote Center Model for this election. One

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 3 of 19
of the biggest changes was the actual location of the vote centers. Most previously used
polling places did not fit the needs related to safety of voters and poll workers given the
pandemic. New, larger locations had to be secured. CARES funding allowed them to be
able to rent retail spaces for many vote centers. Other challenges included a paper
shortage related to the specific paper used for ballots and the need for enhanced safety
measurers for poll workers, especially related to CDC guidelines.
One aspect of the new technology was the change to ballot-on-demand printers. These
were procured and thoroughly tested to be sure that each voter received the proper ballot.
Mr. Jarrett commented that the turnout in this election was historic – more voters turned
out for this election than ever before. There was over an 80% turnout of voters in this
election. He also commented that there was improvement in every metric that they track.
Mr. Jarrett also reviewed the statistics noted on the slide for provisional ballots, noting the
significant decrease in these ballots.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 4 of 19
In reviewing this slide, Mr. Jarrett commented on the number of voters who used the
various methods of casting their ballots. In this election, more people voted prior to
election day, than on election day. Voters were given a number of options about how they
wanted to participate in this election.
Mr. Rey Valenzuela came to the podium for the next portion of the presentation. He first
commented on the partnership between the Board, the Recorder and the Elections
department. He stated that this is the partnership, which included funding for new
equipment, is what allowed this to be such a successful election. Mr. Valenzuela also
commented on the number of voters who dropped off early ballots and the statistics on
the slide showing the comparison to statistics in 2016. Every ballot that was dopped off
was a saving in return postage that the County did not have to pay.
Statistics related to signature verification on early ballots was also presented by Mr.
Valenzuela. In 2016, there were 1,456 questioned matching signatures that were not
ultimately verified. In this election there were only 587 that were not verified. In response
to a question from Supervisor Gates about this issue, Mr. Valenzuela responded that one
factor was the “cure” period approved by the legislature. They allowed staff to reach out
to voters to “cure” questionable signatures. Another factor was a dedicated phone number
for return calls related to signature verification.
Mr. Valenzuela also outlined all of the procedures developed to work with the US Post
Office including having staff at the Post Office just before the 7:00pm deadline on election
day to pick up the last ballots the Post Office had received that day, not waiting to have
them delivered the following day which would have made them “late ballots.” For this
election there were 934 “late ballots” which is a lower number than in previous elections.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 5 of 19
Rey Valenzuela reviewed the above slide which shows the comparison statistics related
to Election Day, Emergency Voting, 1 week prior, and 2 weeks prior voting in 2016 to
2020. The Elections department continually called this the “Election Season” rather than
“Election Day” to highlight the various options for voters. The data gathered regarding all
of the options and sites for voting will be valuable in planning for future elections.
The above slide shows the number of voters that used various options for voting including
the number of Military and Overseas voters. Special Election Board used iPads in certain
circumstances. All of these options were available to voters in the 2020 election. He
compared all of the options above to the number of voters who used these options in the
last elections.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 6 of 19
The BeBallotReady campaign was a great success. In addition to a robust public
information campaign in Spanish and English, it included a personal dashboard for voters
so they could track their ballot in the process, as well as provide a number of additional
information such as where to return your ballot. This is available to voters to check their
registration throughout the year. This even gave the voter the information regarding
whether they voted by mail or in person.
Mr. Jarrett commented on the following slides. He stated that approximately 18 months
prior the County went through a very thorough procurement process regarding new
tabulation equipment. Through that process the selection was for the Dominion Voting
Systems, the Democracy Suite 5.5B. One goal was to choose a system that would support
Maricopa County’s voting model which includes a large number of early voters.
In this election, there were 600,000 more early voters than in previous elections. The new
equipment was chosen to handle this volume. He spoke about the accuracy of the

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 7 of 19
equipment which was not only determined by the Election staff, but also by the Political
Parties. This accuracy of this equipment has been seen in three separate hand count in
elections starting with the March 2020 election, through the August Primary election and
this November General Election.
The hand count audit is done by the political parties themselves. In this process, the
ballots selected for the hand count are actually viewed by the reviewers. They are not told
the results at the start of the process. The ballots are stacked pursuant to the candidate
chosen by the voter. Then the stacks are piled in stacks of 10, and finally counted as the
total for each candidate being reviewed in that count. Five thousand ballots were chosen
for the hand count per statutory guidelines. Another requirement is to select 2% of the
voting locations. In all three elections, the political parties found 100% accuracy in the
hand count.
Mr. Jarrett also reviewed all of the Innovative processes that are listed on the slide
including the Electronic Adjudication process which is also done by by-partisan boards.
Ballots that may have had an overvote, an ambiguous mark or a write-in candidate would
go to the adjudication boards.
Also, as an enhanced security measure the department used Help American Vote Act
funds to construct a new vault for the ballots. This was security measure added to the
process this year. The new vault has a specialized fire suppression system which does
not use sprinklers.
Mr. Jarrett explained that all of the tabulation equipment was “hard wired” on an isolated
network. This means that the equipment is not connected to the internet, therefore there
is no way to get access to any piece of equipment related to tabulation. None of the
equipment is connected to the internet. He explained that some people ask how the
results are reported on the County website or reported to the Secretary of State’s website
if not using the internet. To this question, Mr. Jarrett explained that to report the current
vote count, every time they need to post or send results, they use a brand new thumb
drive. They download information to the thumb drive and then they leave the tabulation
center and go to a dedicated laptop that has had a virus check and download the
information there in order to report to the Secretary of State or on their website.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 8 of 19
The political party observers can watch that whole process through the windows in the
tabulation center. They can also see the wiring of the tabulation machines that it only goes
to the servers. In response to a question from the Chairman, Mr. Jarrett explained that
the server is also in a viewable glass area which can be seen from the lobby, and there is
a camera on the server that people can view also. The camera is a 24-7 live video feed
which is available for public viewing. There is also restricted access to the tabulation room.
Only those with specific jobs in the room have proper badge access. Mr. Jarrett also
explained the use of encrypted data drives and encrypted memory drives at the polling
locations.
The precinct-based tabulators will not operate without the two required memory cards
inserted. If one card is removed, the tabulator will not work. If a card from one of the other
tabulators is inserted, it will not work. It must be the two cards that are programmed for
that machine. The memory cards are both secured with a tamper-proof evidence seal.
The inspectors at each location make sure they are the proper ones for that equipment.
In addition, all of the hard copy ballots are secured in boxes by batches. There is a digital
image of each ballot so there is no need to handle the ballots which could potentially
damage the ballots in some way. All of the batched boxes are then immediately placed in
the vault and have been secured there since the election.
In response to a question from Supervisor Chucri regarding the transporting of the memory
cards and ballots back to the tabulation center, Mr. Jarrett explained that vote centers
within approximately 5-8 miles of McTech (the Elections and tabulation center) bring their
items directly to McTech. Vote centers further out take their items to one of the 14
receiving centers set up around the county.
Mr. Jarrett detailed the process that the election workers go through to close out a vote
center at the end of the day, or at the end of the election. This includes taking one of the
memory cards to be transported back to McTech. The other is left in the machine for
redundancy. They also secure all of the ballot in canvas bag with a tamper-evident seal.
The poll worker also signed each of the seals and enters each step on the poll log. All
items are transported by two workers of different parties.
All items received at the receiving sites were checked off by the county employees who
manned the sites. These were also two people of different parties. There were Maricopa
County Sheriff’s deputies at all of the receiving sites and they follow the election vehicle
all the way back to McTech. For this election, there were two deputy cars following each
of the return vehicles. Mr. Jarrett than explained the process of how the ballots and the
memory cards are handled at McTech upon arrival.
Chairman Hickman comment that this presentation was very detailed, but that it was
important for all those listening or watching to understand the measures taken to secure
the ballots and the entire process of security for the election. Each of these steps have
been carefully thought-out and have security measures which are related to specific
legislative rules or lessons learned in previous elections where any slight abnormality
might have been noticed. In any of those cases, the process was amended to deal with
security concerns. Supervisor Chucri concurred that this detailed report is in part due to
some of the questions that have been asked about election processes.
The Chairman then relayed a question that he had seen on social media where someone
had taken a picture of election equipment in one of the vote centers after hours on election
night. The question on that post was, “is this where they are transmitting the voting results
from?” Mr. Jarrett responded that the equipment does come back to McTech. It is all

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 9 of 19
scheduled to be picked up and returned to the Elections department. It is ok for it to be
there overnight because all the ballots have been transported back to the tabulation
center, and one of the memory cards has also been returned to the tabulation center. The
equipment cannot do anything without both memory cards, and all the ballots are not left
at the vote center.
Mr. Jarrett proceeded to provide information about the integrity and certification of the
election. He explained that the county required full certification be completed before the
lease for the equipment was signed. He reviewed the certification process done through
the Secretary of State’s Office which is all completely independent of any county
personnel. There is a certification board that does a thorough review and test of the
equipment before they allow that equipment to be used in the state of Arizona.
The equipment for the County was leased instead of purchased because a new EAC
standard from the federal government was due to be release. The County did not want to
be bound by purchase of equipment prior to that standard being released in case there
were new processes or requirements for election equipment that this equipment might not
meet.
Mr. Jarrett then explained the four Logic and Accuracy tests that were done. Two tests
were done prior to the elections – the first test is done on a sampling of the machines by
the Secretary of State’s Office. No County personnel are involved. The results were 100%
accurate. Then the County did the same test on every one of the machines, and again
the results were 100% accurate. After the election the third required Logic and Accuracy
test was conducted, resulting in again, 100% accuracy. Although only 3 tests are required,
Maricopa County asked the Secretary of State’s Office to return and conduct a 4th test.
The political parties were also invited to attend along with representatives from the
Attorney General’s Office. Again, the accuracy was 100%.
Supervisor Gallardo commented that he was surprised when he had heard about the 4th
test as he knew that only 3 tests were required from his time of working in the Elections
department in previous years. Mr. Jarrett verified that he was correct, and that this was
the first time a 4th test had been done. He commented that the Secretary of State’s Office
was very gracious in agreeing to conduct this test.
Mr. Jarrett also thanked the political party observers. He explained that they had been
involved throughout the process, even beginning with the early voting timeframe at vote
centers. There were political party observers in every vote center and even following the
couriers as they delivered ballots to the receiving centers or to McTech. It also explained
the process of the couriers (two members of different political parties) who, when picking
up the ballots had oversight by the vote center Inspector. The couriers and the Inspector
sign the transfer forms as well as sign the affixed tamper-evident seals. He then explained
the final processes as the ballots were delivered to McTech.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 10 of 19
Scott Jarrett explained the processes outlined in the above slide related to accrediting
laboratories that certify tabulation equipment. The testing often takes months as the
technicians execute tests to determine any vulnerabilities of the equipment. The testing
process and the results are all posted on the laboratory’s website. All of this material was
reviewed prior to the County signing any contracts for the equipment. In addition, the
County did their own stress testing on the equipment. As an added measure, for the
Madison School District election conducted earlier this year, the staff did a full hand count
of the ballots to compare with the machine tallies. This added check point was also prior
to signing to lease the equipment. In a separate test the elections staff ran large numbers
of ballots through the equipment which verified that they could do at least 6000 ballots per
hour through the machines.
Mr. Jarrett also described other redundant backup procedures to insure that in the case of
the failure of a piece of equipment, there was a secure backup of the ballots to rely on
which was kept in an off-site location so if there was a fire in the tabulation center all of
the information on the ballots was safe and recoverable.
There were questions during the process regarding the use of Sharpies. Mr. Jarrett
commented that the department has used Sharpies in the all elections since March. He
explained that the decision to use Sharpies was based on the fact that the ink dries very
quickly. Therefore, as the ballot runs through the tabulation machine, there is much less
chance that the ink would put any type of a smudge on the equipment. It is fine to use ink
pens on early ballots because the process of returning the ballot allows plenty of time for
the ink to dry before the ballot goes through the tabulation machine.
Another concern about the use of Sharpies was the possibility of “bleed through” to the
opposite side of the ballot. The ballots were carefully designed to be offset so that any
possible bleed through would not have any effect on the items on the back side of the
ballot.
The presentation then moved on to over votes or under votes. Mr. Jarrett explained what
would constitute either an over or an under vote. He compared the number of over votes
in several contest in the 2016 and the 2020 election. In the three examples he mentioned

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 11 of 19
– the Office of President, Senate and Recorder – there were far more overvotes in 2016
in all three of those races than in 2020. Likewise, there were more undervotes in 2016
than in 2020. Mr. Jarrett stated that he attributed this to several factors including the use
of ovals in 2020 rather than the “connect the arrow” design of the ballots in 2016. In
addition, the offset of the columns on front and back of the ballot contributed to the lower
number of errors in either over or undervotes in 2020.
In response to a question from Supervisor Gates, Mr. Jarrett explained the process of
digital or electronic adjudication. If a ballot is identified as either an overvote or a write in
vote, it will go to an electronic adjudication board. These boards consisted of a Republican
and a Democrat on the board and an Independent as the inspector. These persons would
view the electronic image of the ballot to determine if it was a true overvote, or simple a
stray mark that was picked up by the scanning process, or an error that was corrected by
the voter. They would make their decision on that ballot, log it in their manual log, and
then compare that log to the electronic report generated at the end of the day for that
station. When they find mistakes, they go back through their manual log and the system-
generated log to find and correct any mistakes. New reports are run to insure the final
report is correct. The board members do not sign off until they are sure it is 100% correct.
During this explanation, Mr. Jarrett also commented that only red pens are used in the
tabulation area. He also stated that the tabulation machines cannot read red ink.
Supervisor Gates asked if Mr. Jarrett had the statistics about how many ballots reviewed
in electronic adjudication were for the Presidential race. Mr. Jarrett responded that he did
not have that exact statistic in response to that question, however, he stated that there
were 5000 overvotes related to the Presidential contest, and that 190 of those were from
election day ballots. These were ballots that went through electronic adjudication and
found to truly be overvotes.
In response to a question from Supervisor Chucri regarding the Sharpie pens, Mr. Jarrett
clarified that they at the start of early voting, all vote centers were equipped with fine-tip
Sharpies as recommended by the manufacturer. However, they discovered there was
some bleed-though with this product. Then they moved to ultrafine-tip Sharpies which
lessen any bleed-though issues.
While the ultrafine-tip Sharpies were on order, poll workers were directed to use ball point
pens. There were a few tabulator machines which had to be replaced because they failed
based on the use of ball point pens. However, he also pointed out that any bleed-through
issues did not affect the tabulation of the ballots. The department is now analyzing all of
these issues in order to plan for the next election. One thing they are researching at this
point is if a thicker paper may reduce or eliminate the bleed-thorough issue and still work
with the on-demand printer and the tabulation equipment. Another point of testing they
will go through is to see if they can find another type of ink that dries quickly so that it
would not affect the tabulation equipment. Supervisor Gallardo pointed out how important
it would be that the messaging regarding what type of pen to use either at home with early
voting, or at the vote centers would be very clear as to the type of pen and why it should
be used.
Another issue that was clarified during the election process was the on-line messaging
about a person’s ballot status. If the voter had received an early ballot, but then chose to
vote at a vote center, they would look on-line at the Secretary of State’s website, and see
the status of their ballot as “cancelled.” The “cancelled” notation was correct as it referred
to the fact that the early ballot was now cancelled since there was a ballot registered at a
vote center. The Elections Department made adjustments both on their website, and in
consultation with the Secretary of State’s Office to provide the best messaging to voters.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 12 of 19
He also clarified that the site book check-in system was not connected to the tabulation
equipment, but only would register that the voter voted in-person on that day.
On this final slide of the presentation, Mr. Jarrett thanked each of the groups listed
including community partners and other County agencies or departments. He specifically
mentioned the huge outpouring of offered support for poll workers when it became known
that they were having difficulty hiring enough poll workers. Over 20,000 people responded
that they were willing to help. In conclusion, Mr. Jarrett offered special thanks to all of the
employees of the Elections Department and the Recorder’s Office. These dedicated
employees started working on these elections in March, even working weekends for all of
the preparation work that needs to be done prior to the actual election activities such as
the initial opening of the vote centers. They on-boarded new temporary staff and trained
them in all of the new procedures added to deal with COVID-related issues such as new
cleaning protocols.
Mr. Jarrett stated that this was the completion of the presentation, and he and/or Mr.
Valenzuela would be happy to answer any questions at that time.
Chairman Hickman commented that Attorney Tom Liddy was also at the meeting. He
noted that the legal team had done great work dealing with legal issues that had come up
regarding the process or the canvass, and was often in court, even as recently as earlier
in the day. He stated that he had written a letter about election issues that the newspaper
published. Additionally, he wanted to make some comments prior to opening the floor for
questions.
He stated that he continues to hear from government officials and others about the integrity
of the elections in Maricopa County. His office has received 180 letters, over 4000 emails
and almost 3000 voice mails voicing concerns. After listening to the concerns about what
might have happened, he stated, “There is no evidence of fraud or misconduct or
malfunction in Maricopa County, and that is with a big zero.”
He continued saying that the County has been in litigation in Superior Court four times
since the election litigating those claims. None have been successful, and have fallen flat
when asked to produce facts. The Trump campaign and the Republican party stated in

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 13 of 19
Court that there was no allegation of fraud or cheating and that there was no mathematical
way that “any potentially inaccurately tabulated overvotes could affect the outcome of the
presidential election in Arizona, or any other partisan race on the ballot.” The evidence
shows that the system used in Maricopa County is accurate and provided voters with a
reliable election. The tabulation equipment met all standard in the logic and accuracy
testing prior to the three elections this past year. After each election, the hand count audit
also generated an accurate count. All three came back 100%.
The Chairman continued his comments stating that the Election Department conducted
the mandatory hand count of 2% of vote centers and 1% of early ballots as required by
Arizona law. The results were a 100% match to the count produced by the tabulation
equipment. All three political parties participated in those hand count audits. There are
triggers in Arizona law that could require another hand count or even a recount in a close
election contest. None of the thresholds were met in the 2020 election. He concluded by
stating that Maricopa County would continue to follow the law.
The Chairman then called on Tom Liddy, commenting that he had been very busy in court
recently. He thanked County Attorney Allister Adel and Mr. Liddy and his team for their
work on these election issues. Chairman Hickman then called on Supervisor Gates,
commenting that Mr. Gates comes from the legal field which was very helpful as some of
these issue arose.
Just prior to Supervisor Gates’ comments, Mr. Liddy stated that the final lawsuit that the
Chairman had referred to earlier had concluded earlier in the day. The case was
dismissed with prejudice from the bench which was another victory for Maricopa County.
Supervisor Gates commented that much of the recent discussion about the election
centered around Dominion software. He asked Mr. Liddy if the issue of Dominion software
has been raised in court. Mr. Liddy replied that this issue of Dominion software was raised
in the most recent case by some of the witnesses. Supervisor Gates also asked if any of
the plaintiffs including the Republican Party and/or the Trump campaign were ever denied
by the Judge to present any evidence about irregularities in the Dominion software. Mr.
Liddy replied that the court allowed testimony regarding Dominion software, however, he
pointed out that there are many different types of Dominion software. The County was
also allowed to testify about the specific software used in Maricopa County.
Supervisor Gates pointed out that it was important to let people know these issues were
brought up because many of the questions people have concern the Dominion software.
He commented that he wanted people to know the opportunities to bring specific evidence
were afforded to them by the court in the various cases. Mr. Liddy replied that there were
opportunities to present evidence. He also noted that the Trump campaign attorneys had
a very specific theory that they wanted to question about the County’s process. Their
questions involved a particular theory regarding overvotes. He commented that both sides
worked very cooperatively, even working through the night on that issue. In the end, the
Trump attorney looked at the evidence presented by the County and he went to the court
and said the question was now moot. He also said that based on the evidence presented
by the County it was mathematically impossible and that nothing was going to change the
outcome of the election in Maricopa County. The Trump campaign itself moved to dismiss
that lawsuit.
Supervisor Sellers then commented about a number of questions people have raised
about a recount of the vote or an audit. He asked Mr. Liddy about the Board’s
responsibilities related to those questions. Mr. Liddy first took a moment to review some
of his background. He had been doing election law prior to coming to the County for 25

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 14 of 19
years in approximately 19 different states. In most states, a candidate has a right to
request a recount if they come within 2% of the vote. In some states it is 1% and in some
states it is actually ½%. Some states say that a candidate can request a recount at almost
any time, but they would have to pay for the recount and probably have to put the money
in a bond prior to beginning the process.
Mr. Liddy explained that Arizona is rare in this regard in that no candidate can demand a
recount. The guidelines for when a recount can happen are set in statute depending on
what type of a race it is, ex. referendum, state legislative race, a statewide race, etc. In
those cases, the legislature has set a threshold. If the margin is within that threshold for
that type of race, the recount is automatic. A candidate cannot ask for the recount, and
neither can the Board of Supervisors, Secretary of State or even the Governor ask for a
recount. It is set in state law.
Supervisor Chucri commented that a number of current or former legislators or
congressmen have had similar questions about either a recount or an audit. Many now
understand that the recount is set in statute and have backed away from that request.
However, the question turns to doing an audit. He stated that it was his understanding
that the Board could not order an audit without there being some type of abnormality or
cause to warrant an audit. Additionally, the three major political parties would have to
agree there was a need for the audit. He asked Mr. Liddy to respond to this issue and to
the related question if the Board could order more than a 2% audit.
In responding, Mr. Liddy first commented that there has been an audit because the law
demands the audit. He referred to the previous remarks from the Elections Directors about
the audit that have been done with sampling of election day and early ballots. The law
sets a base of what has to be done. There is some discretion in that the sample could be
larger than the 2% which is the base. However, once the audit is done, it has been done
and another one cannot be done unless there would be some basis, like a problem was
discovered in the audit.
Supervisor Chucri asked a follow up question about a possible scenario where the Board
and the three political parties agreed to conduct a second audit with a higher percentage
of the ballots. Mr. Liddy provided an expanded explanation of the audit process involving
the political parties participation. He explained that the legislature is the entity who sets
the rules regarding elections and audits etc. He recounted a previous case involving
“changing the rules” after the fact where the United States Supreme Court determined that
could not be done. The rules set by the state legislature stand.
Mr. Liddy commented that during the past few weeks when there have been questions
and lawsuits regarding the election, he had gotten an email a phone call from very talented
lawyers who specialize in election law – a Republican attorney and a Democrat attorney
– who both commented on the excellent process for the election in Maricopa County.
In response to a question from Supervisor Gates about how the ballots for the audit were
selected, Director Jarrett explained that the political party representatives were the ones
who chose the ballots to be included in the audit – both the early ballots and the day-of-
election ballots. 5,000 early ballots and 2,900 day-of-election ballots were chosen. Mr.
Jarrett also explained that over 47,000 votes were included in the audit as there were
multiple races reviewed. He commented that 47,000 votes was sufficient to be considered
a significant statistical sample for review and to identify a variance if there is one. He
concurred with Mr. Liddy’s statement, that if there had of been a variance between the
hand-count and the tabulator count, that could have required that more ballots be selected

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 15 of 19
for further auditing. However, there was a zero variance found in the hand-count audit,
therefore, there was no statutory provision to expand the audit.
In response to a follow-up question from Supervisor Gates, Mr. Jarrett explained that the
ballots to be included in the hand-count audit from the selected vote centers are actually
“precinct” ballots consistent with the voters who chose to go to that vote center. Therefore,
there is actually a wide variety of precincts represented in the audit.
Director Valenzuela added that in comparison, in the 2018 hand-count audit 42,000 ballots
were included, and that was a precinct-based audit. There were even fewer ballots in the
similar audit in 2016. Also, Mr. Valenzuela explained that to get to 47,000 reviews -- the
number of votes that were checked – from 7,290 ballots, five ballots contests are looked
at. The Arizona statutes require the number of races to be reviewed which include: a
state-wide race, the presidential race, a state legislative race, a congressional race, and
a ballot measure. He added that there is a vote verification committee which includes
statisticians – one from ASU and one from UofA. They have stated that a 2% review is
adequate to show there is a variance between the hand count and the tabulation
machines.
Supervisor Gates then commented that a number of people who have called or written to
the Supervisors have voiced concerns or made statements that dead people voted in this
election. He asked the Directors to address that issue. Mr. Valenzuela stated that voter
registration is under the purview of the Recorder’s Office which is part of his responsibility.
He explained that they have a robust system of checks and balances related to the voter
registration database. Maricopa County is part of the HAVA plan (“Help America Vote
Act”) which is built after the “hanging chad” issue. The “Help America Vote Act” requires
a statewide voter registration database. All 15 Arizona counties report into the statewide
database. Part of that is sharing information from vital records, the motor vehicle
department and the Courts regarding felons, etc. That database is a real time database.
When someone passes away, vital records reports that. However, Mr. Valenzuela noted
that at times a person may cast a ballot prior to passing away. He stated that although
there seems to be rumors of a dead person voting, although they have asked for some
actual evidence related to a specific claim, they have not had a single case that shows
that actually happened. In addition, such a situation would have to pass signature
verification.
Supervisor Gates asked if there were Dominion personnel in the tabulation center and
were they able to move about freely. Mr. Jarrett responded that there were Dominion
employees in the center. He commented that they are the subject matter experts in the
contractual relationship with Dominion. It is a public-private partnership. He likened this
partnership to Phoenix’s Sky Harbor airport. The city owns the airport, but the various
airlines hire the pilots who are experts in flying planes. Dominion employees train
Maricopa County employees in operating the equipment, but the Dominion employees are
the experts. Tom Liddy added that arguments in court earlier today referenced Dominion
software that is 3 generations older than Maricopa County’s program, and the study
submitted was a study done in Texas on the older generation program.
Mr. Valenzuela added a clarification about the relationship between the County and
Dominion. He stated that Dominion personnel come and train County employees and then
the County employees use that training to build the ballot layouts and code the ballots for
use in the tabulation equipment. The County defines the district and precinct boundaries,
and County GIS personnel are involved in the entire process. He explained that Dominion
employees are at the County on election day pursuant to the contract. They are there in
case a tabulator goes down or some other issue arises.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 16 of 19
Chairman Hickman commented that many of the questions asked by Supervisor Gates
were representative of many of the phone calls and emails received by all of the District
offices. He also read a short report from the Clerk indicating the categories of calls in the
Clerk’s Office earlier in the day – the issues raised in those calls corresponded to the same
questions being asked at this meeting.
Supervisor Gallardo commented that he had also received a number of calls or emails
either to his Office or to his own personal phone regarding election issues. He stated it
was good to voice these questions during this meeting so that people hear the questions
and the answers. He added that he felt there were two very important votes taken by the
Board – those two votes being the annual County budget and the vote they will be taking
at this meeting to approve the canvass of the election.
Chairman Hickman returned to the question regarding Dominion software as a great
number of the questions received by his Office were related to that issue. He asked about
the length of the County’s relationship with Dominion, but also stating that Dominion had
to bid on the contract along with the few other companies that do election programs.
In response, Mr. Valenzuela noted that he sits on the EAC Standards Board as one of the
representatives from Arizona. He stated that the Dominion software is the latest version
from the company which has been improved upon through “lessons learned” just as other
software versions such as WINDOWS release new versions periodically which include
improvements from previous versions. As Maricopa County was testing the equipment
and software they made it clear that the actual signing of the lease would not go forward
until the program was fully certified and that it could handle the system of “rotation” that
Arizona uses in ballot layout. Rotation is what allows various candidates to be at the top
of the ballot an equal number of times. The rotation criteria is in Arizona law. He added
that the Standards Board had certified this version of this product.
Mr. Jarrett also clarified that the product was called the Democracy Suite. It includes the
software and the tabulator machines. This version includes high speed scanners which
are not available in other versions. He stated that in addition to the testing done in
independent vote system laboratories and certification by the EAC there is an independent
audit done before and after each election. Those audits are the logic and accuracy tests
and the hand count audits. In each those tests the results were 100% accurate. Those
tests were done either by the political parties or by the Secretary of State’s Office.
Mr. Liddy commented on the election preparation process which includes specific
deadlines to prepare for the election. One is that the layout of the ballot has to be done
by a specific date so that the tabulating equipment can be programed to properly read the
ballot votes. He added a clarification to this issue regarding a criticism of the Dominion
software which came out of an incident in Michigan. After investigation it was determined
that there had been a change to the ballot order in a local race after the deadline when
the ballot style and the tabulation machines are set. There were no ballot changes after
the deadline in Arizona.
Supervisor Chucri commented that part of the decision to move to new equipment was
that we heard from the voters in 2016 that our equipment was antiquated because
tabulating the results was so slow. For that and other reasons the County began a very
thorough process to review the entire election process.
Both Mr. Liddy and the Chairman clarified that this meetings and comments made were
not referencing anything that may have happened in other states or even in other Counties

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 17 of 19
in Arizona. This was about reviewing the concerns that have been raised in Maricopa
County and responding with information about the process and the equipment used here.
The Chairman also commented that many of the comments from 2016 asked the Board
of Supervisors to be more involved in elections as a partner with the Recorder’s Office.
This also involved a review of the statutory responsibilities assigned to the Board of
Supervisor. That process was done under Supervisor Gates’ leadership when he was
Chairman last year. Through the review and realignment process the County as a whole
has become a better steward of elections.
Chairman Hickman noted that at times he was disheartened by some of the rhetoric and
even efforts by some to use certain issues for fundraising since the election. He then
referenced a letter from Rusty Bowers, Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
to his colleagues, quoting his opening remarks… “I am writing to address the reelection
bid of President Donald J. Trump. I strongly supported his campaign. I walked for him,
Martha McSally and other Republican candidates. I supported the good his administration
achieved and how he worked to complete his promises. He got the job done and I
supported him. I am indebted to the work and energy that President Trump put into
Arizona and I voted for him.” Chairman Hickman commented that those statements could
be true of a number of individuals.
The Chairman continued by stating that in a free democracy, elections result in some
people’s candidate losing. I was disappointed in the outcome of certain races, and I was
extremely happy with the outcome in others. But I am not going to violate from the law or
deviate from my own moral compass as some have pushed me to do, and some have
probably pushed others to do here. Lastly, I appreciate the efforts of our elections staff
who have worked tirelessly to run this election during a pandemic. Scott, Kelly, Rey, Keely,
Megan, Erica… I want to personally thank you so much for your all your hard work during
this past year. I hope you can reintroduce yourself to you families and enjoy some time
with your families over the Thanksgiving holiday. This Board is truly thankful for all of your
service. … Now, no matter how you voted, this election was conducted with integrity,
transparency and, most importantly, in accordance with Arizona state laws.”
Supervisor Chucri commented that he considered it an honor to represent the people in
his district. He has also taken phone and email messages to heart, even messages from
out of state. He stated that he left “no stone unturned” in getting answers to questions
raised about this election. He said, “One’s right to vote is paramount, and one that I will
always work hard to protect. I sent an open letter to my constituents today to provide
background and clarifications to some of those questions and statements. In the past two
weeks I have tracked down upwards of twenty different general theories about how this
election went and responded to multiple requests and concerns. People have stated that
we are able to do things like a full recount, which we have no statutory authority to do if
certain thresholds are not met.” He then made note of two Arizona statutes – ARS 16-602
and 16-661.
Supervisor Chucri continued, “… two days ago, A logic and accuracy test was performed
involving Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarian parties as required by law. All
participated and a signed off. If they did not feel these machines were accurate, they
should not have signed off. This Board has been accused of not having an open
competitive process to procure the County’s voting system. All public records demonstrate
that this is not factual or truthful. Finally, just yesterday a motion filed to stop the
certification of this election failed. This Board has a statutory responsibility to canvass an
election within a certain amount of time. I have not played games with any other canvass
we have voted on over the past eight years of sitting in this chair and sitting on this Board.

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 18 of 19
I am not calculating nor playing games today. I want to thank our volunteers and election
workers for making our election day operations, vote tabulation, logic and accuracy test
required by law, sound and fair.” Supervisor Chucri concluded by saying that he had
received a communication for a gentleman who believed there was fraud in the election.
He then stated that if anyone has evidence of such, they should bring it forward.
Supervisor Gates thanked Mr. Jarret and Mr. Valenzuela for answering all of the questions,
although he commented that they should not be hearing questions, rather they should be
hearing nothing by praise. He said that the two of them working together is a model of
bipartisanship. He thanked them for the work they did to be prepared for the election
during this challenging time. He said that he had asked the tough questions that he had
received from his constituents and he was satisfied with the answers he received.
Supervisor Gates added that the reason he is on the Board is that he was inspired by his
grandfather, a WWII vet who went to Europe to fight for democracy. He stated that as a
lawyer and again as a member of this Board he took an oath to support the Constitution
and uphold the laws of the United States and of Arizona. Even though there may be
disappointment in the results of the election, that is not the focus of the point of this
meeting. The Board is focused on whether or not the count was done properly and with
integrity. He then pointed out that the elections staff has gone beyond what has been
done previously by conducting two full logic and accuracy tests. In addition, in the hand
count review, tens of thousands of races were checked, and there were no errors found.
Finally, he commented that there were multiple questions about the Dominion software.
Even though there have been multiple opportunities for individuals to go to court and
present evidence regarding these concerns, multiple courts have found that there has not
been any evidence that should keep the Board from making their decision today. He
stated that he did not feel there was any reason that the Board should refuse to fulfill their
statutory duty to certify this election.
Supervisor Gallardo thanked the Chairman for his leadership and also thanked him for the
letter the Chairman had put out recently regarding issues related to the election. He
commented that he wanted to thank the Elections Directors. He noted that he had started
his career in the Elections Department. He noted that so many of those who worked in
the Elections Department put their heart into the work to make it a successful election. It
is sometimes hard for those who have not been there to realize the amount of work that
goes into the entire election process. Many spend untold hours getting ready for basically
a month of voting to make sure that every voter has their right to exercise their right to
vote. These workers and their Directors work with integrity and grace because they
believe in the democratic process.
Supervisor Gallardo commented on the significant process it was to change to a model of
vote centers for this election because of the situation with the pandemic. They dealt with
so many issues to ensure the safety of election and the expected large turnout. It was an
historic turnout as many expected. He commented that this past election was the largest
turnout ever which show that democracy is alive and well. He noted a message from the
Homeland Security Cyber Chief stating that the November 3rd election was the most
secure election in American history. Even though people may not be happy with the
outcome, the election system in Maricopa County is secure. He reflected that four years
ago he was not so happy with the results, but it was the will of the people, and now it is
time for the Board to fulfill a responsibility to canvass the election.
Supervisor Gallardo reiterated the two very important votes of the Board of Supervisors –
the Annual Budget and certifying the election. He then stated, “The transfer of power in
this country is the key, the backbone of our democracy. It is what makes this country so

Special Meeting Minutes
Friday, November 20, 2020
Page 19 of 19
different. The people of Maricopa County and the people of the state of Arizona have
spoken, so on our behalf of Maricopa County, we are going to send our results to the
Secretary of State. I believe at the end of the month she will certify our state results.
Arizona has completed our duties and we will be sending our electoral college and giving
them the opportunity to cast their votes. Absolutely, it is so critical that the transfer of
power should move forward immediately.” He noted that as a country there are a number
of issues to be dealt with. He stated that it is no longer about Republicans and Democrats
– that was fought on November 3rd. The voters of Arizona have spoken, and we need to
let the results move forward.
Supervisor Sellers thanked the Chairman for his leadership throughout the process. He
noted that he had not been involved as long as others on the Board. He realized when he
came on the Board that there was a need to update and improve the election system in
the County. There was a willingness to invest the dollars and hire the staff necessary to
get the job done. Our Elections Directors and all their staff deserve our gratitude for all of
their efforts that led to the successful outcome. He stated, “The results are accurate and
complete, and it is now time to move forward.”
Supervisor Sellers said, “Mr. Chairman, pursuant to statute I move that the Board of
Supervisors Accept and Approve the Canvass of the Election Returns for the November
3, 2020 General Election and the Official Results prepared by the Maricopa County
Elections Department.” Supervisor Bill Gates seconded the motion
Ayes: Clint Hickman, Jack Sellers, Steve Chucri, Bill Gates, Steve Gallardo
MEETING ADJOURNED
There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned.
______________________________
Clint Hickman, Chairman of the Board
ATTEST:
____________________________
Fran McCarroll, Clerk of the Board