Arizona Audit

A full audit of the votes in Maricopa County, the most populous county in Arizona, has been ordered by the state senate. The Democratic Party has filed a lawsuit to try to get a court to forbid the audit.

UPDATE: Judge orders a halt to the audit until Monday. 

UPDATE: AZ Democratic Party fails to post required million dollar bond. Audit back on. 


Christopher B said...

The cleanest election in history .... that we don't want anybody to review.

J Melcher said...

Does one house of a bi-cameral legislature have the authority to require this?

"Request", sure. Very reasonable. But I'm not sure setting up a half-legislature with authority over voting procedures is helpful in the current political environment. I assume the other half -- representatives -- can't be persuaded to join the request?

Grim said...

I don't know a great deal about the inner workings of Arizona's system; under ordinary circumstances I would view Arizona's elections as local business into which I ought not to put my nose. Even Georgia's elections are technically no longer my business, though as the state of my birth and upbringing it cannot be of no interest to me.

It takes a lot to get me this interested in the question of whether a distant state I have never lived in and never shall had a completely honest election.

Christopher B said...

While I don't have specific knowledge of Arizona procedures, in general investigations, i.e. hearings, are often conducted on the authority of one portion of a legislature. For instance, the U.S. Senate has no say in whether or how the U.S. House of Representatives conducts an impeachment investigation, as evidenced by the events of the last few years, and those investigations often have subpoena power.

Aggie said...

For a question like that, I would have to ask: Where is the harm?

This is not a putative change to the laws of the land, or of the regulatory environment. It will not even have a deleterious effect on the ballot evidence or individual privacy. It is simply an assessment, if I understand it correctly.

In the industry, if we wanted to test the integrity of equipment, we would call this a non-destructive inspection, NDI. There are other tests that explore the ultimate strength of material or design by testing to destruction, for proofing purposes. This is not that.

If the audit is conducted with fair oversight access granted to both parties, and to all appearances it is being exhaustively documented, then again: Where is the harm? The benefit is restoring a wide spread faith in the electoral process - whatever the findings may be.