Maricopa County (Ariz)

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Ex-Attorney General in Arizona Buried Report Refuting Voter Fraud Claims

      by

      Under Mark Brnovich, a Republican who left office in January, a 10,000-hour review did not see the light of day. His Democratic successor, Kris Mayes, released investigators’ findings.Mark Brnovich, a Republican who served as Arizona’s attorney general until January, buried the findings of a 10,000-hour review by his office that found no evidence of widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election, newly released documents reveal.The documents were released on Wednesday by Mr. Brnovich’s successor, Kris Mayes, a Democrat who took office last month as the top law enforcement official in the battleground state, which remains at the forefront of the election denial movement.The sweeping review was completed last year after politicians and other conspiracy theorists aligned with former President Donald J. Trump inundated Mr. Brnovich’s office with election falsehoods. They claimed baselessly that large numbers of people had voted twice; that ballots had been sent to dead people; and that ballots with traces of bamboo had been flown in from Korea and filled out in advance for Joseph R. Biden Jr., who won Arizona by a little over 10,000 votes.But investigators discredited these claims, according to a report on their findings that was withheld by Mr. Brnovich. (The Washington Post reported earlier on the findings.)“These allegations were not supported by any factual evidence when researched by our office,” Reginald Grigsby, chief special agent in the office’s special investigation’s section, wrote in a summary of the findings on Sept. 19 of last year.The summary was part of documents and internal communications that were made public on Wednesday by Ms. Mayes, who narrowly won an open-seat race in November to become attorney general.“The results of this exhaustive and extensive investigation show what we have suspected for over two years — the 2020 election in Arizona was conducted fairly and accurately by elections officials,” Ms. Mayes said in a statement. “The 10,000-plus hours spent diligently investigating every conspiracy theory under the sun distracted this office from its core mission of protecting the people of Arizona from real crime and fraud.”Efforts to reach Mr. Brnovich, who ran unsuccessfully for the U.S. Senate last year, were not immediately successful.His former chief of staff, Joseph Kanefield, who was also Mr. Brnovich’s chief deputy, did not respond to a request for comment on Thursday.In the eight-page summary of investigators’ findings, Mr. Grigsby wrote that the attorney general’s office had interviewed and tried to collect evidence from Cyber Ninjas, a Florida firm that conducted a heavily criticized review of the 2020 election results in Arizona’s most populous county, Maricopa, at the direction of the Republican-controlled State Senate.Investigators also made several attempts to gather information from True the Vote, a nonprofit group founded by Catherine Engelbrecht, a prominent election denier, the summary stated..css-1v2n82w{max-width:600px;width:calc(100% – 40px);margin-top:20px;margin-bottom:25px;height:auto;margin-left:auto;margin-right:auto;font-family:nyt-franklin;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1v2n82w{margin-left:20px;margin-right:20px;}}@media only screen and (min-width:1024px){.css-1v2n82w{width:600px;}}.css-161d8zr{width:40px;margin-bottom:18px;text-align:left;margin-left:0;color:var(–color-content-primary,#121212);border:1px solid var(–color-content-primary,#121212);}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-161d8zr{width:30px;margin-bottom:15px;}}.css-tjtq43{line-height:25px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-tjtq43{line-height:24px;}}.css-x1k33h{font-family:nyt-cheltenham;font-size:19px;font-weight:700;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve{font-size:17px;font-weight:300;line-height:25px;}.css-1hvpcve em{font-style:italic;}.css-1hvpcve strong{font-weight:bold;}.css-1hvpcve a{font-weight:500;color:var(–color-content-secondary,#363636);}.css-1c013uz{margin-top:18px;margin-bottom:22px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz{font-size:14px;margin-top:15px;margin-bottom:20px;}}.css-1c013uz a{color:var(–color-signal-editorial,#326891);-webkit-text-decoration:underline;text-decoration:underline;font-weight:500;font-size:16px;}@media only screen and (max-width:480px){.css-1c013uz a{font-size:13px;}}.css-1c013uz a:hover{-webkit-text-decoration:none;text-decoration:none;}How Times reporters cover politics. We rely on our journalists to be independent observers. So while Times staff members may vote, they are not allowed to endorse or campaign for candidates or political causes. This includes participating in marches or rallies in support of a movement or giving money to, or raising money for, any political candidate or election cause.Learn more about our process.“In each instance and in each matter, the aforementioned parties did not provide any evidence to support their allegations,” Mr. Grigsby wrote. “The information that was provided was speculative in many instances and when investigated by our agents and support staff, was found to be inaccurate.”When investigators tried to speak to Wendy Rogers, an election-denying Republican state lawmaker, they said in the summary that she refused to cooperate and told them she was waiting to see the “perp walk” of those who had committed election fraud.Ms. Rogers, who was censured by the State Senate in March 2022 after giving a speech at a white nationalist gathering, declined to comment on Thursday.In a series of emails exchanged by Mr. Brnovich’s staff members last April, Mr. Grigsby appeared to object several times to the language in a letter drafted on behalf of Mr. Brnovich that explained investigators’ findings. Its intended recipient was Karen Fann, a Republican who was the State Senate’s president and was a catalyst for the Cyber Ninjas review in Arizona.One of the statements that Mr. Grigsby highlighted as problematic centered on election integrity in Maricopa County.“Our overall assessment is that the current election system in Maricopa County involving the verification and handling of early ballots is broke,” Mr. Brnovich’s draft letter stated.But Mr. Grigsby appeared to reach an opposite interpretation, writing that investigators had concluded that the county followed its procedures for verifying signatures on early ballots.“We did not uncover any criminality or fraud having been committed in this area during the 2020 general election,” a suggested edit was written beneath the proposed language.Ms. Fann did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Thursday.In his role in Arizona, Mr. Brnovich was something of an enigma. He defended the state’s vote count after the 2020 presidential election, drawing the ire of Mr. Trump. The former president sharply criticized Mr. Brnovich in June and endorsed his Republican opponent, Blake Masters, who won the Senate primary but lost in the general election.But Mr. Brnovich has also suggested that the 2020 election revealed “serious vulnerabilities” in the electoral system and said cryptically on the former Trump aide Stephen K. Bannon’s podcast last spring, “I think we all know what happened in 2020.”In January, as one of Ms. Mayes’s first acts in office, she redirected an election integrity unit that Mr. Brnovich had created, focusing its work instead on addressing voter suppression.The unit’s former leader, Jennifer Wright, meanwhile, joined a legal effort to invalidate Ms. Mayes’s narrow victory in November.Ms. Mayes has said that she did not share the priorities of Mr. Brnovich, whom she previously described as being preoccupied with voter fraud despite isolated cases. The office has five pending voter fraud investigations. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Arizona Judge Rejects Kari Lake’s Effort to Overturn Her Election Loss

      by

      Kari Lake, a Republican who was defeated by Katie Hobbs in the Arizona governor’s race, had made false election claims the centerpiece of her campaign.A state judge on Saturday rejected Kari Lake’s last-ditch effort to overturn her defeat in the Arizona governor’s race, dismissing for lack of evidence her last two claims of misconduct by Maricopa County election officials.The ruling, after a two-day trial in Phoenix that ended Thursday, follows more than six weeks of claims by Ms. Lake, a Republican, that she was robbed of victory last month — assertions that echoed the false contention that was at the heart of her campaign: that an even larger theft had stolen the 2020 presidential election from Donald J. Trump.Ms. Lake and her supporters conjured up what they called a deliberate effort by election officials in Maricopa County, the state’s largest county, to disenfranchise her voters. But they never provided evidence of such intentional malfeasance, nor even evidence that any voters had been disenfranchised.In a 10-page ruling, Superior Court Judge Peter Thompson acknowledged “the anger and frustration of voters who were subjected to inconvenience and confusion at voter centers as technical problems arose” in this year’s election.But he said his duty was “not solely to incline an ear to public outcry,” and noted that, in seeking to overturn Katie Hobbs’s victory by a 17,117-vote margin, Ms. Lake was pursuing a remedy that appeared unprecedented.“A court setting such a margin aside, as far as the Court is able to determine, has never been done in the history of the United States,” Judge Thompson wrote.He went on to rule flatly that Ms. Lake and the witnesses she called had failed to provide evidence of intentional misconduct that changed the election’s outcome.“Plaintiff has no free-standing right to challenge election results based upon what Plaintiff believes — rightly or wrongly — went awry on Election Day,” the judge wrote. “She must, as a matter of law, prove a ground that the legislature has provided as a basis for challenging an election.”Undaunted, Ms. Lake insisted her case had “provided the world with evidence that proves our elections are run outside of the law,” and said she would appeal “for the sake of restoring faith and honesty in our elections.”Ms. Lake, a former Phoenix television news anchor, lost to Ms. Hobbs, a Democrat who is the Arizona secretary of state, and who rose to national prominence when she resisted efforts by Trump loyalists to overturn the vote in 2020.The Aftermath of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsCard 1 of 6A moment of reflection. More

    • 113 Shares109 Views

      in Elections

      Kyrsten Sinema Brings Bad Tidings for Democrats in 2024

      by

      Arizona was on the cusp of seating a Democratic governor alongside two Democratic senators for the first time since 1951 when Senator Kyrsten Sinema abruptly announced last week she is leaving the Democratic Party to become an independent.The move was met with harsh criticism from the left, which saw it as another in a series of self-aggrandizing acts that risk sacrificing the Democratic Party’s power and President Biden’s legislative agenda for her personal benefit.Polls make it clear that Ms. Sinema is reviled by a large segment of her now-former party. In a recent Civiqs poll of likely voters, she was at a meager 7 percent approval among Arizona Democrats. Her switch to declare herself an independent may seem like a desperate act to hold on to the Senate seat she won in 2018 by fewer than three percentage points.It may be that. But for Democrats looking ahead to 2024, her move compounds the difficulties of what is promising to be a brutal Senate map and suggests some hard truths about the party’s chances in Arizona and places like it.The Donald Trump era may have given Democrats in Arizona a bit of a blue mirage. They were very successful in the midterms: Senator Mark Kelly won re-election, Secretary of State Katie Hobbs will be the new governor, and Adrian Fontes will become the secretary of state.But it seems that the Democrats’ success is not simply the result of permanent shifts in Arizona’s demographics. Before Mr. Trump’s 2020 defeat, Arizona voted for five consecutive Republican presidential candidates and, before Ms. Sinema’s win in 2018, had not elected a single Democratic senator since 1976. Arizona’s electorate has certainly grown, urbanized and diversified, but registration percentages haven’t changed much since 2012. Today, 35 percent of Arizona registered voters are registered Republicans; 34 percent are Independents; and 31 percent are Democrats.Democrats’ recent victories were presaged by overtly moderate Democratic candidates running against opponents endorsed by Mr. Trump. Ms. Sinema’s path to the Senate was buoyed by her opponent’s irreparably damaging association with Mr. Trump.In announcing her departure from the Democratic Party, Ms. Sinema argued that representing Arizona as an independent will “provide a place of belonging for many folks across the state and the country who also are tired of the partisanship.” She is not wrong on that point: Over a quarter of Americans say they dislike both parties according to Pew Research Center. Only 6 percent said so in 1994.For independent voters, it is disdain for partisanship — not moderate ideology — that drives most of them to buck the party label. A vast majority of independents, 75 to 90 percent, have no trouble identifying their preferred party, and they nearly always vote for it. It is the rancor and incivility associated with partisanship that dissuades independents from publicly showing their true colors.Independent voters are hardly a uniform voting bloc: Generally, they just about evenly divide between those who hold liberal views and usually vote for Democrats and those who are conservative and usually vote for Republicans.The bad news for Ms. Sinema — and perhaps for Democrats — is that independent candidates rarely succeed. Without a sizable Republican or Democratic base, an independent will struggle to cobble together ideologically incompatible voters who are bonded primarily by their reluctance to publicly identify with the party they secretly support.This is one area where the Trump effect has come into play. In recent Arizona elections, the state’s independents have shown that they appear to be more favorable to Democrats than Republicans. In the state’s Senate race, exit polls suggest that independents backed Mr. Kelly over his Trump-endorsed opponent, Blake Masters, by 16 percentage points, and self-identified moderates favored Mr. Kelly by 30 percentage points. Ms. Hobbs similarly won the independent vote against her Trump-endorsed opponent, Kari Lake, by seven percentage points, and she won self-identified moderates by 20 percentage points.Indeed, recent survey data I collected across Arizona shows that independents look much more like Democrats than Republicans when it comes to their disdain for Mr. Trump. Even among those Arizona independents who say they lean toward the Republican Party, 40 percent see the state G.O.P. as “too conservative.”Given repeated Republican losses, it seems that Arizona Republicans — and independents, who have a large say in Arizona’s electoral outcomes — have rejected Mr. Trump as well as his chosen nominees, and this has helped usher in a wave of Democratic candidates, Ms. Sinema included.When a state’s status shifts to swing, it is often attributed to demographic change in the electorate. But in Arizona, that is not likely the case, or at least that isn’t the full story. And this is why the outlook for Democrats might be troubling.Sure, Arizona boasts high population growth in urban areas like Maricopa County. But voter data does not support theories that a transforming electorate is shifting electoral tides. Over time, voter registration percentages have shown Republicans declining slightly but maintaining their numerical advantage.That shift is probably better attributed to changes in the politicians who are running rather than to the people deciding whether to vote for them.If she had remained a Democrat, Ms. Sinema would not be the first politician who faced harsh criticism for frustrating her party, and many of them prevailed in subsequent elections. Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska are examples.If nothing changes and Ms. Sinema runs for re-election, her former party will be left in a pickle. She probably can’t win as an independent, especially if her popularity doesn’t improve quickly, but a Democrat (like Representative Ruben Gallego, who has hinted at a Senate bid) running against Ms. Sinema and a Republican is also unlikely to win.So for Democrats, Ms. Sinema has made a daunting Senate map in 2024 even worse. There will be 33 Senate seats up for re-election, and Democrats will defend 23 (including Ms. Sinema’s). Three of those seats are in states that Mr. Trump won by at least eight percentage points in 2020: Montana, Ohio and West Virginia.When Republicans in Arizona and other states leave Mr. Trump behind, Democrats will lose this electorally useful foil. States where Democrats enjoyed upset victories against MAGA Republicans might see some of their gains rolled back, especially if the Republican Party rejects Mr. Trump and elevates candidates who better represent more of the party’s voter base.Ms. Sinema’s move has just added another degree of difficulty to a formidable Senate puzzle for Democrats in 2024 — and beyond.Samara Klar is a political scientist at the University of Arizona and an author of “Independent Politics: How Disdain for Parties Leads to Political Inaction.”The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in Elections

      Federal Judge Allows Activists to Stake Out Ballot Boxes in Arizona

      by

      A federal judge on Friday declined to ban an activist group from gathering near ballot boxes in Arizona, arguing that the members’ actions did not appear to constitute a “true threat” or intimidation and that their right to assemble in public spaces is constitutionally protected.In his 14-page ruling, Judge Michael T. Liburdi found that while “many voters are legitimately alarmed by the observers filming” at ballot boxes in Maricopa County, there was no proof that the group, Clean Elections USA, had encouraged acts of violence or posted personal or identifying information online.“While this case certainly presents serious questions,” Judge Liburdi wrote, “the court cannot craft an injunction without violating the First Amendment.”In denying the request, the judge said he would keep the case open and agreed to hear new evidence that the group has “engaged in unlawful voter intimidation.”Clean Elections USA, whose founder is a purveyor of election and QAnon theories, has said it is trying to prevent voter fraud by organizing activists across the country to station themselves near drop boxes set up to receive mail ballots. The aim, the organizers say, is to observe voters and document possible instances of voter fraud or misconduct.An individual watches a drop box from across a parking lot in Mesa, Ariz., on Monday.Bastien Inzaurralde/Agence France-Presse — Getty ImagesA lawsuit filed on Monday by two nonprofit organizations, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans and Voto Latino, alleged that the group’s intent was to dissuade people from voting through harassment and threats.The complaint, which asked for an injunction and restraining order against Clean Elections USA, identified several incidents in which voters in Maricopa County were followed, photographed and accused of being “ballot mules” — a term borrowed from a conspiracy theory about voters fraudulently casting dozens of ballots at once. In several cases, the activists carried firearms and wore military-style protective gear and masks.Judge Liburdi’s ruling, which is limited to Arizona, comes 11 days before a midterm election that has been riddled with false claims and specious theories about misconduct in voting, and as former President Donald J. Trump continues to spread the falsehood that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Many right-wing groups have mobilized to work the polls, challenge ballots and station observers at counting centers in search of wrongdoing.Ballot drop boxes have become an early flash point. Since early voting began in Arizona on Oct. 12, Arizona’s secretary of state has referred at least six complaints of voter intimidation to the U.S. Department of Justice and the state’s attorney general for investigation. All of the incidents took place at outdoor ballot boxes in Phoenix and Mesa, a suburb.The State of the 2022 Midterm ElectionsElection Day is Tuesday, Nov. 8.Bracing for a Red Wave: Republicans were already favored to flip the House. Now they are looking to run up the score by vying for seats in deep-blue states.Pennsylvania Senate Race: The debate performance by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, who is still recovering from a stroke, has thrust questions of health to the center of the pivotal race and raised Democratic anxieties.G.O.P. Inflation Plans: Republicans are riding a wave of anger over inflation as they seek to recapture Congress, but few economists expect their proposals to bring down rising prices.Polling Analysis: If these poll results keep up, everything from a Democratic hold in the Senate and a narrow House majority to a total G.O.P. rout becomes imaginable, writes Nate Cohn, The Times’s chief political analyst.“Voter intimidation is illegal, and no voter should feel threatened or intimidated when trying to vote,” Secretary of State Katie Hobbs, a Democrat who is running for Arizona’s governor, said in a statement this week. “Anyone attempting to interfere with that right should be reported.”At a hearing on Wednesday, Veronica Lucero, a lawyer for Melody Jennings, the founder of Clean Elections USA, argued that there “there is no connection” between the activists cited in the complaints in Maricopa County and Clean Elections USA. Ms. Jennings “has simply advocated that people need to follow the law,” Ms. Lucero said.Ms. Jennings has described the ballot box monitors as “my people” and “our box watchers” in social media posts. On Friday, she praised the judge’s ruling in a post on Truth Social, the social media platform founded by Mr. Trump.“The Constitution won today,” Ms. Jennings wrote. “This battle is not over, but today was a step for freedom and for your 1st amendment rights being preserved.”In a statement, the Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans called the ruling “truly disappointing,” adding that “American citizens should be able to cast a ballot without fear of personal injury or other harm to their safety and security.”Marc Elias, a Democratic elections lawyer whose law firm represents the plaintiffs in the suit, wrote on Twitter on Friday that he planned to appeal.Ms. Jennings, who is from Tulsa, Okla., and has described herself as a Christian pastor and counselor, has fast become a leading voice in the election-denial movement. She first proposed sending observers to ballot boxes this spring, just weeks after joining Truth Social.“I have an idea,” she wrote on April 19. “In those states where they do not outlaw drop boxes, I think we have no less than 10 patriots standing around every one of those 24/7 for the duration of the voting period.”In podcast interviews, Ms. Jennings said she was inspired by a trailer for the film, “2000 Mules,” released in May. The film, directed and produced by the right-wing pundit Dinesh D’Souza, relied heavily on debunked research from True the Vote, a group focused on voter fraud. The film asserts that “mules” paid by the Democratic Party ferried illegal votes to ballot boxes, often in the dead of night. It was shown in more than 400 theaters and brought in some $1.4 million at the box office.Ms. Jennings’ ideas spread quickly as her posts were shared by election deniers with large numbers of followers, including Mr. Trump and his former attorney, Sidney Powell. Ms. Jennings launched a website in May and, this summer, frequently promoted her plans on right-wing podcasts. She urged people not only to gather around ballot boxes, but to photograph voters and reveal their identities online.“I am FULLY STOKED that ballot trafficking mules are about to be completely doxxed and put on blast at every drop box across America VERY SOON,” Ms. Jennings posted on Truth Social on Sept. 8.Ms. Jennings’s following on the platform has grown from barely 100 in April to more than 35,000.Internal membership rolls show that roughly 4,500 people in 48 states have registered with Clean Elections USA, according to a report in Votebeat, a nonprofit news outlet. The group tells volunteers that the information they collect will be shared with True the Vote, which in turn works with Protect America Now, a group of sheriffs who have pledged to investigate election fraud, the report found.It is unclear if Ms. Jennings has significant financial support. A fund-raiser she set up online in August had raised $3,600 as of Friday.Over the summer, several Republican officeholders and candidates in Arizona encouraged the effort and Ms. Jennings organized what she called a “dry run” during the state’s Aug. 2 primary elections.A second organization, the Lions of Liberty, began organizing ballot box surveillance in Yavapai County, north of Phoenix. The group is an offshoot of a third organization: a local chapter of the Oath Keepers called the Yavapai County Preparedness Team.In an interview, Jim Arroyo, an Oath Keeper and member of the Lions of Liberty board of directors, said the intent of what his group called “Operation Drop Box” was to “watch for people stuffing more than 30, 40, 50 ballots in the box and to photograph it and send that to law enforcement.”There is no evidence of a widespread ballot-stuffing operation in the 2020 election. William P. Barr, who served as Attorney General under Mr. Trump, described the evidence presented in “2000 Mules” as “singularly unimpressive” in an interview with the congressional committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol.Most states with early voting allow individuals to return other peoples’ ballots to boxes although rules vary significantly by state. In Arizona, family and household members, as well as caregivers, are legally permitted to do so. The laws are designed to make it easier for older, ill or disabled voters to cast ballots.Arizona does not permit observers to remain within 75 feet of ballot boxes or polling places, and even outside that perimeter they are prohibited from making “any attempt to intimidate, coerce, or threaten a person to vote or not vote,” according to the secretary of state. That behavior includes “aggressive or ostentatious display of weapons” or “directly confronting or questioning voters in a harassing or intimidating manner.”Voto Latino and Arizona Alliance for Retired Americans, represented by the voting rights firm Elias Law Group, claimed Clean Election USA was violating federal law, citing the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, both of which prohibit voter intimidation.In his decision on Friday, Judge Liburdi dismissed Voto Latino from the suit, saying that it did not have standing because it had not demonstrated a financial impact from the problems it identified in the complaint. Judge Liburdi, who was appointed to the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona by Mr. Trump in 2019, will have an opportunity to weigh in on the matter again. The League of Women Voters filed on Tuesday a second federal suit naming Clean Elections USA, and Ms. Jennings, adding the Lions of Liberty and the Yavapai County Preparedness Team as defendants. That lawsuit, citing the same federal laws, noted that “Congress passed both statutes to prevent the very kinds of vigilante-led voter intimidation defendants are now deploying.”That complaint was prepared by the Protect Democracy Project, which this week also filed a defamation claim against Mr. D’Souza and True the Vote, among others, over “2000 Mules.” Mr. D’Souza and Catherine Engelbrecht, the founder of True the Vote, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.“Melody Jennings is not operating in an absolute vacuum,” said Orion Danjuma, an attorney at Protect Democracy Project who worked on the Arizona case. More