The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns free and fair elections where one living, legal, registered voter equals one legal vote. Approximately three months after the election, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted to conduct a “full forensic audit” of the election equipment used in the largest county in Arizona. Even though President Donald Trump challenged the election results in November, the board waited to make their decision until after Joe Biden was inaugurated on January 20, 2021.
Conservatives and other Americans who care about free and fair elections are grateful for the board’s decision. Arizona is just one of the key battleground states who held questioned elections. According to chairman Jack Sellers, the board made its decision to provide “additional assurance” of election integrity to voters in Maricopa County.
Maricopa County elections were administered with integrity throughout 2020. That’s a fact. Multiple audits to date have proved as much, and multiple court rulings have concurred.
It’s also true that a significant number of voters want the additional assurance that a full forensic audit of tabulation equipment might bring, especially given all the misinformation that spread following the November 3 election. This audit shows our commitment to providing that assurance.
Sellers makes it sound as those the board made their decision to audit the machines out of the goodness of their hearts. The Republican-controlled Arizona State Senate wants to conduct its own election audit and had to go to court to do it. The Associated Press reported that the Senate “issued subpoenas to the county in mid-December seeking access to copies of ballots, software used in vote tabulation machines and the machines themselves, among other items.”
The board members fought the subpoenas in court, but they started to cooperate with Senate attorneys after a judge ruled against them. If prior audits showed no problems and everything was fair and honest, why did the board fight the subpoenas? Any honest person would not withhold opportunities to audit election results because doing so makes them look suspicious. At any rate, what can auditors hope to find when dishonest people have had more than three months to scrub the machines and clean up the evidence?