Did Maricopa transfer 120K excess Biden votes to other counties?

 MARICOPA ROUTERGATE

JULY 22, 2021:  When the Maricopa Audit team briefed Senators Karen Fann and Warren Petersen, it came as no surprise (to me) that they did not mention that by 8:04 PM MST on Election night that Joe Biden received 120,807 more votes than possible in Maricopa County.

Why didn't the auditors report this discrepancy?

Several reasons, but at the top is that the auditors cannot explain what happened to the excess 120K votes until they get access to the Maricopa County router data.

Those Biden votes had to go somewhere.

As I explained in my blogpost, "Maricopa Caught Red Handed," there are no other counties in Arizona that could have generated the two massive vote dumps that happened about one hour after the polls closed.  Pima County had the second most votes cast in Arizona -- at 526,319 about 100K fewer than the vote dump shown at 23 PCT.   The dump at 69 PCT could have only come from Maricopa.

See highlighted rows in the table below:

There are two big problems with these two dumps.

First, the sum of the two dumps is equal to 2,098,618 --  about 9,000 more votes than the FINAL results total in Maricopa (2,089,563).    This is a big problem because counting continued in Maricopa until November 30th and there are no significant subtractions of votes (i.e., a correction) in the time series data.  Note that Maricopa's official results canvass report was published November 24, 2020.

The next problem is even more significant.

The official results report that Biden received 1,040,774 votes in the 2020 election while the total from the two dumps shows Biden receiving 1,161,581.  Therefore, Biden received 120,807 greater votes in those two dumps than his total for the entire election in Maricopa County.   It bears repeating that there were not significant subtractions (corrections) to Biden's vote total in Maricopa.

 So, what happened to the 120K excess votes? 

The most likely explanation is that Biden's excess votes were transferred to other counties.

Statistical analysis can be used to identify the counties that were most likely to have received Biden's excess votes.

Contrast Analysis (4 counties flagged)

The chart and table below use a technique known as Contrast Analysis to compare the differences of differences between Trump vs. Clinton in 2016 and Trump vs. Biden in 2020.  

Contrast analysis (performed by statistician Dr. S. Stanley Young, et al) revealed that Biden over performed the 2016 margins in Maricopa, Pima, Coconino, and Apache counties.  Meanwhile,  Trump over performed the 2016 margins in all of the remaining counties but not to the degree of magnitude as Biden.

Arizona Contrast Analysis by Young, et al

Voter Registration Trends (6 counties flagged)

Voter registration trends are one of the best indicators of election outcomes.  Former military intelligence officer Seth Keshel has done an exceptional job analyzing the 2020 election.  

In Arizona, Keshel found that Maricopa and Pima Counties were the worst in terms of bucking the trend (highest potential for fraud).   Counties that  appeared to be questionable (moderate fraud) included Coconino, Navajo, Apache, and Cochise.  

Keshel, whose work was done independently from Young, et al, added Navajo and Cochise Counties to potential problematic identified by contrast analysis. 

Arizona 2020 voting fraud analysis by Seth Keshel

"Vote Shift Potential" (8 counties flagged)

I performed an analysis specifically for the purpose of identifying counties in Arizona that could have served as potential vote shifting (dumping) locations for Biden's excess 120K votes.    

The analysis compares "voter turnout" rates against Biden's gain over the Democrat vote totals in 2016.  Note that I have placed voter turnout in parenthesis because there are multiple methods for computing turnout and they may vary from state to state.  Arizona uses votes cast/registered voters, so that's what I used.  

In this analysis, high turnout rates (70% or more) combined with high Biden gains weighed against the total votes cast determined the counties that were possible dumping sites.   The red and blue colors indicate who won the county (Trump = Red, Biden = Blue).  

Numbers in the Biden v. Clinton column in blue italics identify the possible dump sites and dump potential. 

The following counties were identified as potential dump sites:  Apache, Cochise, Coconino, Mohave, Navajo, Pima, Pinal,  and Yavapai.  The counties of Mohave, Pinal, and Yavapai were not flagged in Keshel's analysis, but show up here based on the rule set.  

 

All three analyses identified Apache, Coconino, and Pima as problem counties -- those counties show approximately 100,000 excess votes.

Adding Keshel's counties (Cochise and Navajo) that are coincident with the Vote Shift Analysis,  the total rises to 113,000 excess votes.

The total Vote Shift analysis shows a potential vote excess of 153,256 votes -- certainly enough to cover the 120K excess Biden votes in Maricopa. 

Finally, it bears repeating that Maricopa County never provided a complete report of its absentee ballot requests in the lead up to the 2020 election.  As I wrote in Maricopa County Caught Red handed, it had a "blank checkbook" for creating votes (more about that below).

How to Accomplish Vote Shifting....and not get Caught

Mathematically, the potential to shift votes from Maricopa to other less populous counties exists.

But can vote shifting of this scale happen in reality?

Yes.

Electronic Manipulation

In order to make it work, a bad actor or actors would have accessed the Arizona's Voted File to determine how many votes were not cast by the time the polls closed on November 3rd.  Once determining the total number of eligible non-voters in each county, a lesser number of Biden votes could be electronically shifted to that county in the Election Management System.  After that occurred, the voters would be designated as voted in the Voted File.  

The canvassing of votes will not catch the error because the county compares the number of votes cast (from poll book totals) to the totals on the tabulator tapes to ensure they match.  The bad actors would have manipulated the figures to make them match and know which precincts and counties were clean versus those that were not. 

And that could have happened in Maricopa County according to an eye-witness who gave the sworn testimony (my emphasis added)

“So I’m, I was in the tabulation center six different days—day and night shifts. And no county employees, no IT people, no one else was touching any of the software. They (Dominion) did all the training for the adjudicators; they ran all the reports. And I brought this up on my very first day in the room. I said this doesn’t seem right, as a person with my background. Never in a million years would I turn my company’s most important things over to someone else. And there’s only two guys (Dominion’s Bruce & John), and they had whole control of everything.

This fraud could be outed if the counties recount the actual ballots and finds the shortages.    But the eyewitness added:

I also participated in the (2%) random ballot selection for hand audit. Picking the ballots, you know, determining which bins we were going to select. And even that, Dominion ran the report for it (which bins to pull).”

In this instance, the safeguards were not in place to ensure that ballot sampling was done randomly (correctly).

Paper Ballot Manipulation

If the bad actors have accomplices who can deliver truckloads of physical ballots to the counties then all bets are off.   

In a protracted period of vote counting, as occurred in November 2020,  there is ample time to deliver (or manufacture) the needed ballots to make up the shortage of actual votes.

According to the sworn testimony of eye-witness Janice (Jan) Bryant there was a constant flow of ballots and trucks through November 10th.

Jan Bryant: …ten days before they quit tabulating they thought they were done. And then more truck loads of ballots would come in. And I’m like, how can you not know how many ballots are still out there.

State House Rep. David L. Cook: Mr. Chairman I’m sorry. WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT. They thought they were done, and then there was WHAT?

Jan Bryant: They thought they were done multiple times. Multiple times the people that were running the rooms thought they were done (counting ballots), or almost done. Or were gonna be done Wednesday morning (Nov. 4th), then Thursday morning (Nov. 5th), then Friday morning. Then it went on the whole next week. And I’m like, I asked the question, You don’t know how many ballots are still left to come in? I don’t know who does, again…process…project management, but zero.

State House Rep. Mark Finchem: On that point Ma’am, I’m tracking with you but, what day did the truck show up?

Jan Bryant: Every day, yeah, every day.

Mark Finchem: OK. Just a minute. I want to make sure we capture this properly. So there were trucks that showed up on the 3rd, and then the 4th, and then the 5th, and how long did that go on. How many days?

Jan Bryant: I wasn’t there the whole last week. My last day was the 10th and they were still coming in.... 

In summary, the evidence provided above confirms that Maricopa County was not in control of its own election and that ballots were coming in unexpectedly.  

Did unexpected ballots show up in other counties?

While not specifically stated, election observers noted that ballot counting continued after the counting rooms "closed down" in Pima and Coconino Counties (two of the counties identified as potential dump sites). 

The Senate's Audit team must obtain access to router data to determine if vote shifting occurred among the Arizona counties.

-- Ray Blehar, July 22, 2021, 9:40 AM EDT