Arizona Election Fraud

Basic numbers and polls:

Recent official tallies give 37 percent (or 1.219 million) of registered Arizona voters to independents; 34 percent (or 1.115 million) to Republicans; and 28 percent (or 932,722) for Democrats.

A March 21st poll by the Justice Gazette favored Bernies Sanders over Hillary Clinton 60 to 40% in Phoenix.

A similar projection showed a probable victory by Bernie Sanders with 56.2% over Hillary Clinton’s 43.8%.

Mail-in Same-day
Sanders 67059                             (37%) 19883 (60.8%)
Clinton 114186 (63%) 12802 (39.2%)


The Bernie Sanders campaign doubts there was a strong Arizona ground game on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

Voters rendered ineligible:

On March 22nd, voters throughout Arizona were told they were registered as an independent or no party affiliation and, as a result, were prohibited from voting in the caucus. They filled out provisional ballots as the validity of their vote would be determined on a case-by-case basis according to Pima County Recorder F. Anne Rodriguez.   Most of the voters belonged to one of the major parties and did not change their status. Alisa Wolfe, for one of many examples, was interviewed on KOLD. She was a registered Democrat and told that she wasn’t eligible to vote in the caucus because her party affiliation was registered ‘party not designated’ and would not be able to vote.

The sheer volume of Sanders supporters discovering unexplained changes in their party affiliation is consistent with Arizona’s voter registration data being hacked and altered. Ely Diaz, a volunteer for the Sanders campaign, discovered that by March 20th, their campaign was told they could no longer use their customary get-out-the-vote phone app. When Diaz pressed the campaign workers for a reason, he was informed that Bernie’s voter list had been hacked.
It appears that the Arizona law prohibiting Independent voters was exploited through hacking into the Sanders list and changing their registration to prevent them from voting in last Tuesday’s primary.

Many voters were unable to vote on the actual primary ballots because their political parties were changed. Democrats that showed up to voting stations were told they were registered as independent and unable to vote in the closed primary. They were handed provisional ballots.

Suppressing the precinct votes:

Maricopa County drastically reduced their polling locations from 200 to 60 which helped stem a turnout that was triple what it was four years ago. Lines would circle blocks as people would wait up to five hours without water for the long wait in arid weather or sufficient parking for the disabled.   Those that managed to get inside the polling center were told they were bumped to a provisional ballot, which would not be counted on that day. While people were still in line to vote, the Associated Press named Hillary Clinton the winner with only 1% reporting.

A bomb threat caused the evacuation of the Pima County Public Service Center. The Recorder’s Office had been staffing a voter help line to answer questions about voter eligibility and the verification of provisional ballots. The bomb threat significantly hindered the verification of provisional ballots in a timely manner.

Another bomb threat evacuated the Pima County Attorney’s Office in the afternoon on the day of the caucus.

A third bomb threat led to an evacuation of the Arizona Attorney General’s Office in Phoenix in that same afternoon. Overall, the bomb threats made it impossible for many voters to pursue a timely recourse on this election day.

According to Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan, one of her office’s polling place locators, a vendor website called “Voter View” was malfunctioning on election day and could not be used by voters to check their registration status.

Diane Post (602-271-9019) a poll worker for 30 years, testified in yesterday’s public hearing that she worked 18 hours on that day. She states “sometimes actually I had their card, selected ‘Dem’ and it would only give me Republican as an option. Started at 9:30am in morning. Called for an inspector to help, they couldn’t fix it. Happened all day.”

Vote-by-Mail and a History of Fraud

In this election, Pima County Elections did not publicly commit the results prior to performing the hand-count audits.

A.R.S. § 16-602(1) states:

“The unofficial vote totals from all precincts shall be made public before selecting the precincts to be hand counted.”

In last Fall’s election, the Pima County Elections Department was caught trying to rig a bond election during the vote-by-mail count. An employee at the Pima County Elections Division broke into a sealed part of the central tabulator to hook up an ethernet connection. This occurred after the Logic and Accuracy (L&A) Test was completed and seals were placed prominently on the vulnerable parts of the system.  Since live video feeds show a running total of the number of viewers during transmission, they probably did it when Pima County’s video feed left the impression that no one was looking.  This occurred hours after John Brakey had left the observation room.  Brakey drove five minutes from his house, spent a couple of hours writing and emailing a number of people about the L&A Test and, by habit, hit the hot link to the election department’s live feed.  Moments later, he was watching the act take place before him.

Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson had lied to the press, candidates and party observers about last Fall’s computer breach. He claimed that an errant employee committed the breach in order to complete the L&A Test, but that same test was already completed that morning.

Pima County has rigorously fought measures to improve elections security, especially by its own Elections Integrity Commission, which was established during public elections records lawsuit in 2006.

Through many meetings in 2012, they had deliberated for hours over the importance of separating early ballots by precinct to help with detecting anomalies or fraud. They were successful in convincing a board majority that it’s far more difficult to stuff ballots if the early votes were physically separated by precinct prior to their customary hand count audit and the Secretary of State had implemented this practice of presorting statewide.

This vulnerability (or opportunity to cheat) was so important to Pima County that it circumvented its own Election Integrity Commission to get a waiver from the Secretary of State’s office allowing Pima County to forego this safeguard.

One consistent, unsettling outcome among recent state Democratic primaries is the vote-by-mail or absentee ballots that favor Hillary Clinton by 3 to 1. Absentee or vote-by-mail ballots (often referred to as early voting) have been difficult to monitor and are conducive to ballot harvesting or ballot stuffing. Elections researcher John Brakey has compiled data requested from key voting precincts in Michigan, Ohio, Illinois, Missouri and Massachusetts. All of these states show roughly the same early ballots ratio of 3 to 1 in favor of candidate Hillary Clinton over rival Bernie Sanders, who even won Michigan despite this advantage.

We attribute Clinton’s huge gain in vote-by-mail outcomes to some combo of the following:

  1. The Clinton campaign could have a better ground game on getting the early vote through the Democratic party machine in urban centers.
  2. The absentee/early votes are tabulated on central count scanners and the ballots are only sorted inside the tabulator and, like Arizona, steal votes where it is easiest to steal with impunity.
  3. Ballot stuffing of absentee ballots. An excellent summary of this problem was provided by Jim March and Jill Simpson in a 2012 in an article entitled, “Karl Rove’s Electronic Empire of Fraud“.

Ballots could be gamed with impunity in the Vote-by-Mail (VBM) ballots.  VBM ballots are not sorted by precinct except inside the central ‘hackable’ tabulator that could easily be preprogrammed to only alter ballot batches over a certain size, thus avoiding the random testing done by audit batches pulled for hand counting. That’s why the Volkswagen case is so meaningful to elections transparency activists. They rigged the testing in a similar fashion.

“…the cheating was preprogrammed into the algorithm that controlled the car’s emissions.  Computers allow people to cheat in ways that are new.  Because the cheating is encapsulated in software, the malicious actions can happen, far removed from the testing itself.  Because the software is “smart” in ways that normal objects are not, the cheating can be subtler and harder to detect.”

“That’s why we must have software verification with two parts: Transparency and Oversight” which as we know in Arizona, neither exist. “Transparency means making the source code available for analysis. The need for this is obvious.  It’s much easier to hide cheating software in the manufacturer’s code. Cheating on regulatory testing has a long history in corporate America.” By CNN Bruce Schneier:  “VW scandal could just be the beginning”.

Vendors’ Role in Affecting Outcomes:

In the small border county of Santa Cruz, Arizona, , AUDIT AZ discovered that one vendor had become the hidden de facto statewide election director. Elections Operation Services, helmed by William E. Doyle, was popular among election directors in at least 12 counties in Arizona. He was discovered through a public records request issued to Santa Cruz Elections Director Melinda Meeks. She committed perjury when asked “who programs your elections databases?” We discovered that William E. Doyle actually programs the database and occasionally uploads them into an election department’s central tabulator.   This is an example of how a “man in the middle” attack takes place.   Stephen Spoonamore, a key expert I.T. witness for the ‘man-in-the-middle’ attack of the 2004 presidential election in Ohio, provides an excellent account of how a once trusted elections vendor Smart Tech was provided an opportunity to compromise the election.
Election integrity activists John Brakey and Jim March investigated Scott Brown’s upset victory over Martha Coakley to replace Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat in 2010. They discovered that election officials tend to have an unsettling reliance on election vendors. In fact, when one election official in Boston was asked if it was possible to examine their database files (called mdb, which is short for Microsoft data base files), that official then asked, “What are mdb files?” Those that understand the process know that mdb files are an integral part of the tabulation process that should be overseen by the election officials. March and Brakey were told by this election official that “the vendors handle that stuff”. Another common statement repeated by officials in Diebold precincts was: “We don’t have Diebold here, we have AccuVote”. They simply don’t know that Diebold’s optical scanners are called “AccuVote”. LHS, the company that represents Diebold, actually have their vendors’ technicians loading the memory cards prior to tabulating the results.

Useful quotes:

According to CNN Politics, Arizona Democratic Representative Ruben Gallego announced,

‘Let’s be clear — voter suppression happened on March 22. We don’t know at this point if it was by chance or by planning, but no matter what, there’s nothing we can do to deny that voter suppression happened, sitting and standing in line four to five hours to vote, even if you end up voting, is still voter suppression. And the fact that people are not questioning whether their vote is counted at all is also suppression.’

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey

It’s unacceptable that many of them (Arizona voters) had to battle incredibly long lines. Our election officials must evaluate what went wrong and how they make sure it doesn’t happen again.”

Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders, said it best,

‘What happened in Arizona is a disgrace. I hope that every state in this country learns from that and learns how to put together a proper election where people can come in and vote in a timely manner and go back to work.’

This is encouraging because Bernie Sanders understands he has a contract with his voters to make sure elections are verifiable

Attorney Bill Risner Explains How Election Fraud Works in Pima County (Tucson) Arizona:

We know all that money corrupts the system, and let’s not be naïve, this election cycle will break all records and do what Jonathan Simon, author of CODE RED. On how this corrupt election system works

Excerpt from video.

We also have learned that computer programming is the province of small elite private programmers and/or corporations who work in the shadows beyond the reach of public records request
We include this short video of 8 minutes  because it gives the best overview and is right on the money in every respect, when it comes to electronic voting — be it via touch-screen computers, paper ballot optical-scan systems and God forbid, Internet Voting.
[1] If you want proof of the overall problem with elections in Arizona here is our attorney Bill Risner’s disclosure statement which is a mind blowing comprehensive statement of facts collected over many years of investigations and litigation: