• April 17, 2021

Maricopa County Releases Junk Audit Reports – 12% Ballot Adjudication and Dominion Employee’s Use of Prohibited Orange External Drive Omitted from Report

 Maricopa County Releases Junk Audit Reports – 12% Ballot Adjudication and Dominion Employee’s Use of Prohibited Orange External Drive Omitted from Report

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.

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 RTRand 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.

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

Source: The Gateway Pundit

cruznewslive

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This