Guests - Alex Kolodin, Joel Strabala, Jack Dona
Missing Early Ballots Raise New Questions About Pima County's Election Administration
Arizona's November election is approaching, and a growing number of Pima County voters say they have not received the early ballots they expected in their mailboxes. The complaints have prompted urgent questions about ballot distribution, voter-registration records, election technology and the responsibilities of officials overseeing the process.
For Kathleen Winn, chair of the Pima County Republican Party, the concerns became impossible to ignore when her telephone began filling with messages during Sunday church services.
She initially heard from approximately 17 voters who said their ballots had not arrived. By the following morning, that number had climbed above 20.
The complaints appeared especially concentrated in Legislative District 17 and Arizona's Sixth Congressional District, two areas where Republican turnout could affect the outcome of competitive legislative and congressional races.
Among those reportedly waiting for a ballot was Republican Congressman Juan Ciscomani.
Winn said she personally confirmed that Ciscomani had not received his early ballot.
The situation struck her as extraordinary.
A sitting member of Congress, properly registered and accustomed to participating in elections, should not have difficulty obtaining a ballot.
But Winn's larger concern involved ordinary voters without a congressional staff or political organization available to help them resolve the problem.
One woman who contacted her was 91 years old and had participated in early voting for years. Other complaints involved multiple registered voters living in the same household, some of whom received ballots while others did not.
Winn questioned whether the distribution problems were administrative mistakes or evidence of something more troubling.
"I'm calling it voter suppression," she said.
That was Winn's interpretation of the reports, not an established finding that election officials deliberately withheld ballots. The source of the reported delivery problems remained unresolved.
Still, she argued that voters deserve an explanation—and a reliable way to cast their ballots before the election ends.
Alex Kolodin: The Secretary of State Must Accept Responsibility
State Representative Alex Kolodin, the Republican candidate for Arizona Secretary of State, said he was hearing similar complaints from Pima County.
Some voters, he reported, had checked their ballot-tracking information and discovered that their ballots were recorded as mailed approximately 10 days earlier.
Yet the ballots had not arrived.
Kolodin said the problems pointed to failures in election administration.
He placed much of the responsibility on Secretary of State Adrian Fontes and Pima County Recorder Gabriella Cázares-Kelly.
The Secretary of State's Role in Early Voting
Kolodin argued that the Secretary of State has statutory responsibilities involving the procedures used to produce, distribute and store ballots.
Although county officials administer elections locally, statewide procedures are established through Arizona's election laws and applicable guidance.
Kolodin believes Fontes should have anticipated potential distribution problems and established procedures capable of identifying them quickly.
"It's completely unacceptable," Kolodin said.
He accused Fontes of campaigning as a defender of early voting while failing to ensure that voters receive their ballots reliably.
For Kolodin, that represents a fundamental failure of leadership.
He argued that election administration should be measured by whether eligible voters can participate without unnecessary obstacles, not by the public statements officials make about protecting voting rights.
Incompetence or Intentional Suppression?
Winn took a stronger position than Kolodin.
She questioned why several complaints involved Republican voters living in households where Democratic or independent voters had received their ballots.
In one case, she said, two voters in a household received their ballots while another did not.
In another, a former resident's ballot reportedly arrived while the current Republican resident's ballot had not.
Winn said the concentration of complaints in competitive districts made her suspicious.
Kolodin initially attributed the problems to administrative incompetence.
But he acknowledged that repeated failures can become difficult to distinguish from intentional interference.
"One man's incompetence is another man's voter suppression," he said.
Neither speaker presented evidence establishing that election officials or postal employees deliberately selected Republican voters for non-delivery.
Nevertheless, Kolodin argued that the complaints warranted immediate investigation.
Could the Postal Service Be Responsible?
Winn asked whether the U.S. Postal Service could explain the delays.
Kolodin was skeptical.
He said ordinary letters generally do not require 10 days to reach their destinations, particularly when mailed locally.
In his view, the county recorder and Secretary of State should examine every step in the distribution process rather than assume the Postal Service was responsible.
His argument centered on accountability.
If ballot-production records indicate that a ballot was mailed, election administrators should be able to determine where the process failed.
Was the ballot printed?
Was it transferred to the Postal Service?
Was the address correct?
Was there a problem with the voter-registration record?
Those questions cannot be answered simply by assigning blame.
They require examining records from the agencies and vendors involved.
The Reported Turnout Gap Raises the Stakes
Kolodin said Republican turnout across much of Arizona was running approximately one percentage point ahead of comparable 2022 levels.
Pima County, however, was reportedly trailing its 2022 Republican turnout by approximately 5.6 percentage points.
He viewed that difference as politically consequential.
Pima County contains enough Republican voters to affect statewide margins even when Democratic candidates win the county overall.
Kolodin argued that Republican turnout in Pima County needs to exceed 70 percent if his party is to achieve its statewide goals.
He acknowledged that some voters may simply be waiting to participate.
But he worried that people expecting ballots in the mail might not recognize the problem until it was too late to request replacements.
His recommendation was to act immediately rather than wait for election officials to resolve the larger dispute.
Kolodin Explains What Voters Should Do When an Early Ballot Never Arrives
Kolodin's most practical advice was also his most emphatic.
A missing early ballot does not mean a voter has lost the opportunity to participate.
Eligible voters should check their registration information, contact the Pima County Recorder's Office and use an authorized voting location when necessary.
He directed residents to recorder.pima.gov, where they can review election information and locate early in-person voting sites.
"If you didn't get your ballot, you need to take action to ensure that your voice is still heard," Kolodin said.
Early In-Person Voting Provides Another Option
Kolodin encouraged affected voters to use early in-person voting rather than depend exclusively on receiving another ballot through the mail.
His advice was straightforward: identify an authorized location, explain that the expected early ballot never arrived and follow the election workers' instructions for casting a ballot.
Voters should not assume they are unable to participate simply because a ballot was previously recorded as mailed.
Applicable procedures allow election officials to determine how a voter may legally cast a ballot while preventing duplicate counting.
Kolodin encouraged voters to bring family members and friends who may need transportation or assistance.
The larger objective, he argued, is ensuring that administrative difficulties do not prevent eligible citizens from exercising their voting rights.
An Additional Identification Option Was Designed to Speed Up Results
Kolodin also discussed legislation he sponsored allowing voters returning early ballots at certain voting locations to present identification voluntarily.
He said the measure passed with bipartisan support.
Under the procedure, voters who choose to verify their identity when returning a ballot can avoid some of the signature-verification processing otherwise required.
The option is voluntary.
Voters who prefer to use established ballot-return procedures can still do so.
Kolodin said the change produced faster election processing during the primary.
"It worked like butter," he said.
He described the legislation as an example of how carefully designed procedural changes can improve elections without creating unnecessary obstacles.
Even some political opponents, he claimed, acknowledged that the system worked well.
Pima County's Mobile Voting Center Becomes Another Source of Controversy
Winn also questioned the reliability of Pima County's mobile voting center.
She described an incident in which the vehicle reportedly arrived approximately three and a half hours late at a scheduled location.
The center was supposed to operate for a five-hour period.
According to Winn, it nevertheless departed at its originally scheduled closing time.
That left voters with only a fraction of the promised opportunity to participate.
Kolodin Says Election Schedules Cannot Be Optional
Kolodin argued that election officials must treat published schedules as firm commitments.
A voter may take time away from work, arrange transportation or travel a considerable distance to reach a mobile voting location.
If the vehicle does not arrive when promised, those voters may lose their only convenient opportunity to cast a ballot.
"That's one of those schedules that has no fudge factors," Kolodin said.
He suggested that election officials should have equipment inspected before voting begins and establish contingency plans for mechanical failures.
He also questioned whether mobile voting equipment could be redirected to communities where early-ballot delivery problems were being reported.
If affected voters are having difficulty obtaining ballots, he argued, the county should consider additional ways to provide access.
Mechanical Problems Should Not Become Voting Problems
Winn said she had heard that the mobile voting center was experiencing additional maintenance issues, including a malfunctioning air-conditioning system.
She questioned whether those problems had been adequately addressed before the election.
Kolodin said voters should not bear the consequences of preventable equipment failures.
He emphasized that the concern applies regardless of party registration.
A Democrat, Republican or independent who relies on a scheduled voting opportunity deserves the same reliable service.
Joel Strabala: Voters Have Several Ways to Resolve Missing Ballots
Joel Strabala, chairman of Legislative District 17's Republican organization and a member of the Pima County Election Integrity Commission, provided a more detailed explanation of the available voting procedures.
Strabala acknowledged the reports of missing ballots but cautioned against prematurely identifying the cause.
He described the process as a chain involving several organizations.
The county recorder maintains voter-registration information.
Ballot information must be transmitted to the printing vendor.
The vendor must produce and prepare ballots.
The Postal Service must receive and deliver them.
An error at any point could prevent a voter from receiving a ballot.
"I can't prove any of it," Strabala said when discussing possible explanations.
His uncertainty was important.
Although the pattern of complaints raised legitimate questions, the available information did not establish whether the problem originated with county records, ballot production, postal delivery or another stage of the process.
The Voter Dashboard Is the First Place to Check
Strabala directed voters to the Pima County Recorder's website.
From there, residents can open the Voter Dashboard and enter the identifying information required to access their records.
He explained that the dashboard provides access to election information and ballot-request options.
For voters who believe their early ballot was lost or never mailed, the site can help determine the appropriate next step.
Strabala also recommended contacting the Recorder's Office directly when online records do not resolve the problem.
Friday, October 23, Is the Early-Ballot Request Deadline
Strabala and Winn emphasized that October 23 was the deadline to request an early ballot by mail for the November election.
A voter who had not received an expected ballot should not wait until the deadline to investigate.
Even when a replacement ballot can legally be requested, another mailing introduces additional time and delivery uncertainty.
Strabala recommended early in-person voting for people who want to eliminate that concern.
He encouraged voters to check official information before traveling because locations and hours can vary.
Early Voting Locations Expand Across Pima County
Strabala reviewed the early voting options available during the week.
He identified three locations that had been operating since October 7: the Recorder's Office downtown, the Recorder's Office facility near Valencia and Country Club, and the Ward 2 facility near Broadway and Pantano.
A fourth location opened at the Oro Valley Library.
Strabala said the library also provides ballot-return services.
For Marana voters who had not received their ballots, he identified the Oro Valley Library as one of the more practical nearby options.
Marana's Lack of an Early In-Person Voting Site Draws Criticism
Winn questioned why Marana did not have a regular early in-person voting location during the period discussed.
The community contains substantial numbers of registered voters, including many Republicans.
Some residents may face significant travel distances to reach locations elsewhere in the county.
Strabala confirmed that Marana voters could use authorized early voting sites outside the town.
He also explained that additional locations were scheduled to open the following week.
The absence of a convenient nearby site does not establish intentional voter suppression, but Winn argued that accessibility should be a central consideration when planning election services.
Additional Locations Are Scheduled to Open
Strabala said 12 additional early voting locations were scheduled to open the following week, extending access across the county.
Those sites would supplement existing locations and the mobile voting center.
For voters who had not received an early ballot, the expanded schedule offered additional opportunities to participate.
Winn urged residents to make a plan before Election Day rather than assume they would have ample time later.
The Mobile Voting Center's Remaining Schedule
Strabala reviewed the scheduled stops for the mobile voting center.
The itinerary included Marana on Tuesday, October 27, from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m.; Ajo on October 29; Tohono Plaza in Sells on October 30 and 31; and the Ajo Library on November 2.
Those were the planned dates discussed, not guarantees that every stop would operate without interruption.
Winn's concern was whether the vehicle would arrive on time and remain available for its scheduled hours.
She argued that the earlier mechanical problems made reliability especially important.
Strabala confirmed that election observers were scheduled to monitor mobile voting operations.
Mobile Voting Must Be Subject to the Same Oversight
Winn emphasized that a mobile voting center is still an official voting location.
Its unusual format does not eliminate requirements concerning ballot security, lawful procedures and public observation.
She credited Kolodin's legislative work with helping establish observer access.
For Winn, that oversight matters because voters should be able to trust the process whether they cast a ballot inside a permanent facility or a mobile unit.
Strabala agreed that trained observers should be present wherever election procedures permit them.
Election Observers Are Needed Throughout the Remaining Voting Period
Strabala said the Republican Party continued recruiting election observers for multiple responsibilities.
Volunteers could participate in observing early voting, ballot drop boxes, mobile voting, signature verification, ballot processing, tabulation and Election Day operations.
Training and registration information was available through PimaGOP.org, under the Elections 2026 section.
Strabala emphasized that observation involves following established procedures and documenting concerns appropriately.
An observer's responsibility is not to disrupt voting.
It is to watch election operations, understand what is occurring and report issues through authorized channels.
Election Day Requires Additional Volunteers
Strabala said preparations for Election Day observation were still underway.
He was also building the schedule for tabulation observation.
Winn encouraged politically concerned residents to become involved rather than rely on secondhand reports.
If voters want more transparency, she argued, they should learn how election administration actually works.
That includes observing procedures that operate correctly as well as documenting potential problems.
Reporting Election-Related Concerns
Winn provided a telephone number for voters who encountered election-related problems: 520-900-0419.
She identified it as an Arizona Republican National Committee election-integrity contact serving Pima County.
According to Winn, callers could explain their concerns and receive instructions for submitting reports.
She encouraged people to document what happened rather than rely on vague impressions.
That could include recording the location, date, relevant procedure and officials contacted.
The broader objective was creating records that could be reviewed and investigated.
Legislative District 17 Could Help Determine Control of Arizona's Legislature
Winn and Strabala devoted considerable attention to Legislative District 17, one of Southern Arizona's most competitive political areas.
Strabala said the district contains approximately 64,000 registered Republicans.
He contrasted that with Legislative District 18, which he estimated had approximately 41,000.
The size of LD17 makes turnout particularly important.
With relatively narrow partisan margins in the Arizona Legislature, an individual district can influence control of the House or Senate.
Rachel Keshel and John Winchester Face a Competitive House Race
Winn expressed support for Republican House candidates Rachel Keshel and John Winchester.
She criticized campaign advertisements attacking their positions and records.
One mailer, she said, used exaggerated visual representations of the candidates and made claims she considered misleading.
Winn was especially critical of attacks describing Winchester's legislative voting record.
Because he had not previously served in the Legislature, she argued, advertisements suggesting an established legislative voting history were misleading.
Her criticisms concerned the campaign's presentation of the candidates; the specific advertisements and their factual claims were not independently examined.
Chris King and the Senate Majority
Strabala also emphasized the importance of Republican Senate candidate Chris King.
He argued that winning the district's Senate seat would help preserve Republican control of the chamber.
The narrow legislative margins make individual races especially consequential.
A one- or two-seat change can alter which party controls committees, advances legislation and negotiates with the governor.
Strabala wants Republicans to retain legislative majorities that could support the policies of gubernatorial candidate Andy Biggs if he wins.
His priorities include election administration, public safety and a different approach to state governance.
The Congressional District 6 Race Adds Another Layer
Winn connected the LD17 contest with Arizona's Sixth Congressional District.
Many residents of LD17 also vote in CD6.
That overlap made the reports of missing ballots particularly concerning to her.
Representative Juan Ciscomani is seeking reelection against Democrat JoAnna Mendoza.
Winn noted that Ciscomani has historically performed better in portions of the district outside Pima County.
His reelection prospects therefore depend partly on limiting his losses in Democratic-leaning areas while maintaining strong turnout among Republican voters.
Strabala argued that the congressional race could affect the balance of power in Washington.
He also criticized Mendoza's positions on firearms and other issues, presenting Ciscomani as preferable from his conservative perspective.
The speakers' candidate evaluations were political judgments rather than neutral assessments of the full records of both campaigns.
Winn Defends Ciscomani's Record and Criticizes His Challenger
Winn argued that Ciscomani has become more effective during his time in Congress.
She praised his relationships with congressional leadership and his efforts to secure federal resources for the district.
She believes retaining an experienced representative would provide Southern Arizona with greater influence than electing a freshman member of Congress.
Winn also praised Ciscomani's relationships with officials and communities across Cochise, Graham, Greenlee and Pinal counties.
She said those connections have helped him win previous elections despite difficult political conditions in Pima County.
Gun Rights Become a Central Campaign Issue
Strabala described Mendoza as aligned with organizations advocating stricter firearm regulations.
He argued that Ciscomani would better protect Second Amendment rights.
He also emphasized First and Fourth Amendment protections.
Winn agreed that constitutional rights should be a central consideration for voters.
Their comments reflected Republican campaign priorities rather than a full comparison of the candidates' stated positions.
Winn Criticizes Mendoza's Comments on Transgender Issues
Winn also objected to positions she attributed to Mendoza concerning transgender people, employment discrimination and sex work.
She characterized those positions as inconsistent with protecting vulnerable individuals.
Winn cited her own years of work against sexual exploitation and trafficking.
Her argument was that policymakers should help people obtain safe employment and financial independence rather than normalize circumstances she believes can expose them to exploitation.
The specific statements attributed to Mendoza were not examined in their complete context.
Nevertheless, Winn viewed the issue as part of a larger disagreement over public policy and the responsibilities of elected officials.
A Republican Turnout Operation Is Underway Across Pima County
Winn described a large grassroots effort to contact registered Republicans who had not yet voted.
Volunteers were knocking on doors, making calls and distributing information.
She referred to several coordinated canvassing efforts conducted over the weekend.
One operation reportedly contacted approximately 250 households.
Another effort involved more than 400 doors.
Winn said the party had approximately 150 paid canvassers and was seeking additional workers.
Low-Propensity Voters Are a Particular Focus
The campaign has concentrated partly on voters who typically participate in presidential elections but skip midterms.
Winn argued that the Arizona election is important enough to deserve presidential-level attention.
The state's governor, attorney general, secretary of state and legislative leaders will make decisions affecting water policy, public spending, education and election administration.
She believes low-propensity voters need to understand those consequences.
Winn also described personally mailing nearly 1,000 letters to residents of her precinct.
Several recipients subsequently contacted her about missing ballots or offered to help mobilize friends and neighbors.
For Winn, those responses demonstrated the value of personal outreach.
Turnout Data Can Help Campaigns Identify Problems
Winn explained that campaigns monitor participation data to determine which voters have returned ballots.
Canvassers also collect information when residents tell them they have already voted.
If those reports do not appear in official participation data, campaign organizers may question whether records have been updated.
Winn said the apparent discrepancy between grassroots reports and official turnout figures contributed to concerns about ballot distribution.
However, reporting delays, differences in data collection and processing schedules can also create mismatches.
The discrepancy alone does not establish that votes were lost or altered.
Still, Winn argued that campaign organizations should investigate significant inconsistencies rather than ignore them.
Jack Dona: Election Administration Must Be Examined as an Engineering System
Retired Master Sergeant Jack Dona approached the concerns from a different perspective.
Dona has participated in research and analysis concerning election administration and voter-registration records.
His work with a research group has produced several reports involving Pima County.
He said the latest ballot-delivery complaints reminded him of problems his team had previously identified.
Rather than treating each complaint as a completely separate event, Dona argued that election administration should be analyzed as a system.
Every Reliable System Needs Testing and Accountability
Dona compared election administration with engineering projects.
Before a system is deployed, developers establish operating requirements, test components, identify errors and determine how the system should respond when something goes wrong.
The process can involve field testing and regression testing.
Its purpose is to identify problems before a system enters routine operation.
Dona believes election systems should receive the same disciplined scrutiny.
Officials should know how information travels between organizations, where errors can occur and how discrepancies are detected.
When failures repeat, he argued, investigators should examine the process rather than treating each problem as an isolated accident.
Dona Believes Administrative Failures Can Conceal Other Problems
Dona accused election officials of relying on explanations such as software glitches, procedural errors and equipment failures.
He argued that recurring problems can create opportunities for misconduct.
"They are utilizing system process errors to obfuscate," Dona said, describing his interpretation of the situation.
He alleged that some failures may be deliberately introduced or tolerated because they can affect election outcomes.
That is a serious accusation.
The discussion did not establish that election officials designed systems to manipulate votes or intentionally withheld ballots from Republican voters.
Dona presented his conclusion as the result of his engineering analysis and observations.
His argument was that repeated problems deserve more rigorous examination than a promise to improve procedures next time.
AVID: Arizona's Statewide Voter Information Database
Dona explained the role of the Arizona Voter Information Database, commonly called AVID.
AVID is maintained under the authority of the Arizona Secretary of State.
It provides a statewide framework for voter-registration information.
Dona said most Arizona counties operate directly within that framework.
He identified Maricopa and Pima counties as exceptions using separate county systems that exchange information with the statewide database.
Thirteen Counties and Two Distinct Systems
According to Dona, 13 of Arizona's 15 counties use the statewide arrangement without the same additional county-specific layers.
Maricopa County operates a separate system associated with Dominion technology, which Dona referred to under a newer corporate name.
Pima County uses equipment and systems associated with Election Systems & Software, commonly known as ES&S, along with a separate reporting platform Dona identified as Tenex.
Dona described the arrangements as distinct from the statewide database.
He used the term air-gapped to emphasize the separation.
That description reflected his technical characterization and should not be read as independent confirmation that the systems are completely disconnected in every operational sense.
Pima County's Multiple Layers Concern Dona
Dona argued that every additional system introduces another point where information must be transferred, reconciled or verified.
In his view, those handoffs complicate oversight.
He believes officials can attribute problems to a county-specific system rather than accepting responsibility at the state level.
The issue is not simply the number of software applications involved.
It is whether the relationships among them are clearly documented, tested and audited.
Dona wants greater transparency about how county information is exchanged with AVID and how discrepancies are detected.
The Secretary of State and County Officials Have Different Responsibilities
Winn questioned whether Fontes could avoid responsibility by pointing to Pima County's independent systems.
Dona said the division of authority can make accountability difficult.
The Secretary of State establishes statewide procedures and maintains statewide voter-registration infrastructure.
County officials administer local election operations and manage aspects of their own systems.
When a problem arises, those responsibilities may overlap.
Dona argued that unclear accountability creates opportunities for each level of government to blame the other.
His preferred approach would establish stronger oversight of the full process rather than treating each component as someone else's responsibility.
Dona's Research Identified Unusual Voter-Registration Addresses
One of the most detailed parts of Dona's analysis involved addresses associated with large numbers of registered voters.
He claimed that his team's research identified 661 registrations using the Pima County Recorder's Office as an address.
He also described a convenience store on Speedway Boulevard associated with 115 registered voters.
Dona considered those figures suspicious.
Hundreds of Registrations at the Recorder's Office
Winn suggested that some registrations using the Recorder's Office address could involve people experiencing homelessness.
Arizona law provides procedures through which eligible people without conventional residential addresses may register to vote.
Consequently, a government address associated with multiple registrations does not automatically establish unlawful registration or fraudulent voting.
Dona nevertheless argued that the number deserved investigation.
He wanted to know how election officials verified the eligibility of those registrants and whether the records were being maintained accurately.
Winn questioned whether such registrations could affect close local elections.
Neither speaker established that the voters involved were ineligible or that their ballots were unlawfully counted.
The Speedway Convenience Store Raises Another Question
Dona said his team found approximately 115 registered voters associated with a single Speedway convenience store.
He did not provide the address during the discussion.
Winn speculated about whether the location might be within Pima County Supervisor District 5.
Dona said he could share the information privately.
He argued that a commercial store should not ordinarily serve as a residential voting address.
The actual legality of individual registrations would depend on the records, applicable state procedures and whether the address represented a lawful registration designation.
Dona said his team had supplied information about registration irregularities to people associated with federal election-integrity work.
The discussion did not establish the results of any resulting investigation.
More Than 3,000 Inactive Registrations Draw Dona's Attention
Dona said his team identified more than 3,000 voters who had remained on inactive status for extended periods.
He argued that those records should have been removed under applicable registration-maintenance requirements.
Winn initially understood him to mean the registrations had been removed and subsequently restored.
Dona clarified that, according to his review, the names had remained on the rolls.
He criticized what he viewed as a failure to maintain accurate records.
Inactive Does Not Automatically Mean Ineligible
Voter-registration status is governed by federal and state law.
An inactive designation does not, by itself, mean someone is ineligible to vote.
Removal procedures may require notices, waiting periods and other conditions.
Dona's assertion that particular registrations violated removal requirements would therefore require examination of the actual records and applicable statutory deadlines.
His larger point was that counties should be able to explain why names remain on the rolls and demonstrate compliance with registration-maintenance laws.
Nine Registrants Were Listed as More Than 116 Years Old
Dona described another striking finding.
His team reportedly identified nine active voter-registration records associated with ages exceeding 116.
He said one record suggested an age approaching 120.
The extraordinary ages raised questions about whether the records contained incorrect birth dates, outdated information or other administrative problems.
Dona compared the entries with the ages of the oldest living people known at the time of the research.
Winn joked about wanting to know what those registrants were drinking.
But both considered the underlying records a serious matter.
An implausible age can indicate inaccurate data, though it does not by itself establish that a fraudulent vote was cast.
Dona argued that such anomalies should be identified and resolved as part of routine maintenance.
Felony Convictions and Voter Eligibility Become Another Point of Dispute
Dona said his research identified three registration records associated with felony convictions.
He also referred to two people on an active early voting list whose eligibility he questioned.
Winn connected those findings to concerns about access to voter-registration systems within correctional facilities.
She alleged that some incarcerated individuals had been provided devices allowing them to access voter-registration websites.
The discussion did not establish that ineligible incarcerated individuals successfully registered or voted unlawfully.
Eligibility Depends on the Individual's Legal Circumstances
A felony conviction does not necessarily create a permanent bar to voting.
Restoration of civil rights, completion of sentences and other statutory conditions can affect eligibility.
Consequently, the presence of a felony conviction in a research database is not sufficient to establish that a registration violates Arizona law.
Dona argued that the records should nevertheless receive careful review.
His concern was whether election officials consistently verify eligibility and remove records when legally required.
Winn accused Fontes of resisting certain voter-roll maintenance efforts.
That criticism reflected her interpretation of ongoing disputes over the applicable rules.
Dona Questions Ballot-Drop-Box Security and Overnight Storage
Dona devoted substantial attention to ballot custody.
He argued that election security requires reliable records documenting where ballots are located, who handles them and how they move from collection sites to processing facilities.
Without those records, he believes investigators may be unable to reconstruct what happened when a discrepancy arises.
Dona cited public-records requests his team submitted concerning Pima County ballot-drop-box procedures.
Are Ballot Boxes Staffed Continuously?
Dona questioned statements attributed to Recorder Cázares-Kelly concerning the staffing of ballot boxes.
He alleged that some boxes remained at voting locations overnight or for extended periods.
According to his account, maintenance and custodial workers could access certain facilities where the boxes were stored.
Dona said that arrangement raised security concerns.
"That's not effective chain of custody," he argued.
The relevant question is whether ballots remain protected by legally sufficient seals, access controls, surveillance and custody documentation.
The mere presence of custodial personnel in a building does not establish unauthorized ballot access.
But Dona maintained that the procedures deserved greater transparency.
Chain-of-Custody Documents Must Be Complete
Dona said his research identified ballot-transfer records with incomplete identifying information.
He alleged that some forms lacked information needed to establish who handled the ballots and when.
For him, this is a procedural issue with potentially serious consequences.
A reliable custody record should allow authorized reviewers to establish when materials were collected, transferred, received and opened.
Missing entries can complicate that reconstruction.
Dona argued that election officials should not dismiss incomplete documentation as harmless paperwork problems.
Twenty-Nine Chain-of-Custody Sheets Become a Central Example
Dona described a review of 29 chain-of-custody sheets associated with one ballot box and approximately 444 ballots.
According to his account, every form contained deficiencies.
He said the sheets lacked required identifying information, including ballot-box numbers, seal information or relevant collection and receipt times.
Of the 29 forms, Dona reported that 27 did not identify the courier by name.
He said 21 contained only a receiving signature and 24 had an incomplete section.
He considered the pattern evidence of serious recordkeeping weaknesses.
Dona Questions the 2024 General Election Documentation
Dona also claimed that transfer sheets associated with the 2024 general election lacked ballot-box numbers.
He alleged that some documents failed to identify seals or properly record bipartisan courier teams.
According to Dona, certain forms contained only initials instead of complete names and signatures.
He argued that such documentation would be unacceptable in other high-security systems.
Winn agreed that ballots deserve rigorous protection.
The discussion did not include the underlying forms or an independent review establishing whether the alleged omissions violated applicable election procedures.
Still, the allegations identified specific documents and fields that could be examined through a formal audit.
Incomplete Documentation Is Not Proof of Ballot Tampering
Poor recordkeeping can create vulnerabilities and make later investigations more difficult.
It does not automatically establish that ballots were altered, substituted or counted improperly.
Dona went further, arguing that he believes the deficiencies may be part of deliberate manipulation.
That conclusion was his allegation.
The documents he described would require independent examination before the nature and consequences of any deficiencies could be determined.
The Pima County Sheriff's Race Remains a Point of Contention
Winn connected ballot custody concerns to the previous election involving Sheriff Chris Nanos.
She described eight ballot boxes that she alleged did not arrive at the Recorder's Office when expected.
According to her account, the boxes appeared the following day.
She also criticized custody records that reportedly identified personnel only as "deputy sheriff" without complete names.
Winn connected those concerns to the close election outcome.
A Narrow Margin Makes Documentation Especially Important
Winn recalled the sheriff's race as being decided by approximately 400 votes.
She argued that missing or delayed custody information becomes particularly significant when an election is close.
Dona agreed.
He believes the county should be able to establish a complete chain of custody for every ballot container regardless of the eventual margin.
However, a delayed transfer or incomplete record does not by itself establish that the election result was incorrect.
The allegations would need to be evaluated against official records, applicable procedures and any evidence of actual ballot irregularities.
Winn Criticizes Nanos' Conduct
Winn also referred to earlier controversies involving Nanos' handling of personnel and internal investigations.
She argued that those issues, combined with the ballot questions, deserved greater scrutiny.
Her criticism reflected longstanding political opposition to the sheriff.
Dona's focus remained on election administration rather than the underlying personnel controversies.
He argued that no election should depend on whether officials are willing to overlook missing documentation because they trust the people involved.
Dona Calls for Federal Intervention in Arizona's Elections
Dona said his research group had provided election-related information to people associated with the U.S. Department of Justice.
He identified Ed Martin and former West Virginia Secretary of State Mac Warner among those who had reportedly received material.
He also mentioned Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and the Civil Rights Division.
Dona said he did not know whether federal officials had acted on all the information provided.
But he believes the state requires an outside review.
Why Dona Distrusts State-Level Oversight
Dona argued that Arizona's governor, attorney general and secretary of state belong to the same political party and therefore may be unwilling to investigate disputes that could embarrass Democratic officials.
That was his assessment of their political incentives, not proof that state agencies have refused to enforce the law.
He also expressed skepticism toward county law enforcement and local officials.
For Dona, the Department of Justice represents a possible avenue for investigating allegations he believes state authorities have failed to address.
The Civil Rights Division and Voter Protection
Dona said federal intervention should focus on election rights and the integrity of the process.
He expressed support for deploying federal observers where legally appropriate.
He also argued that the DOJ should examine concerns involving voter registration, ballot handling and election-system administration.
Federal involvement would remain subject to statutory authority and constitutional limits.
A federal investigation can assess credible allegations, but political dissatisfaction with an election result does not independently establish federal jurisdiction or wrongdoing.
Dona nevertheless argued that the seriousness of the complaints justified greater attention.
Allegations of Deliberate System Manipulation
Throughout his analysis, Dona repeatedly returned to the same suspicion.
He believes election procedures have become sufficiently complicated that errors can be introduced and explained away without accountability.
He described a pattern in which officials respond to problems by citing software failures, procedural mistakes or plans for future improvements.
Dona sarcastically summarized what he expects officials to say:
"We made a mistake ... We'll do better next time."
His argument was that repeated assurances are insufficient when similar problems continue arising.
But his conclusion that officials intentionally design or exploit those problems remained an allegation, not an established finding.
Dona Extends His Concerns to the Census and Congressional Representation
Dona argued that election integrity cannot be separated from census policy.
He questioned whether population counts and legislative apportionment accurately reflect the political representation that he believes American citizens should receive.
He speculated that Democratic representation in Congress might be substantially different under alternative counting rules.
His estimates were not supported by detailed calculations during the discussion.
Population Counts and Voting Eligibility Are Different Questions
Congressional apportionment is based on population under the constitutional framework, while eligibility to vote depends on separate legal requirements.
Those distinctions are essential when evaluating claims about representation.
Dona nevertheless argued that immigration policy and population counts should be part of a broader national debate.
Winn agreed that changes in immigration patterns can affect public services, political representation and regional finances.
Both viewed the issue as another reason federal authorities should review government data systems carefully.
Immigration and Allegations Against Ilhan Omar Enter the Discussion
Dona and Winn also discussed allegations concerning Representative Ilhan Omar and her family's immigration history.
They questioned the circumstances surrounding her father's entry into the United States and repeated claims about the accuracy of citizenship-related records.
Dona described Omar's father as having served in Somalia's military under Siad Barre.
Winn alleged that immigration records had been altered and argued that Omar's eligibility to serve in Congress should be examined.
These were serious, disputed allegations. The discussion did not establish that Omar was ineligible for citizenship or congressional office.
Winn Calls for Consistent Enforcement of Citizenship Laws
Winn argued that elected officials should not be exempt from scrutiny when questions arise concerning immigration documents.
She said the same legal standards should apply to officials regardless of party affiliation.
Dona predicted that disputes involving Omar could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
That prediction was speculative.
The discussion did not establish an active legal proceeding that would necessarily produce such a result.
Both speakers nevertheless used the controversy to reinforce their broader argument that public records and eligibility requirements should be administered consistently.
Pima County's Spending Policies Become Part of the Election Debate
Winn expanded the discussion beyond ballot administration to local fiscal policy.
She criticized Proposition 425, a proposed adjustment to Pima County's constitutional expenditure limit.
Winn argued that the measure would permanently expand the county's legal spending authority.
She characterized the increase as approximately 75 percent and warned that its long-term consequences could extend far beyond the current Board of Supervisors.
Proposition 425 Would Increase Spending Authority, Not Automatically Taxes
The proposed adjustment would change the historical base used to calculate the county's constitutional spending limit.
That change could permit substantially greater expenditures in future years.
It would not, by itself, impose a corresponding tax increase or require the county to spend the full additional amount.
Winn nevertheless argued that expanding expenditure authority creates opportunities for future supervisors to increase spending and seek additional revenue.
She compared the measure with the earlier Proposition 414 debate and described Proposition 425 as an even larger financial risk.
Her recommendation was to reject the proposal, reflecting her political position on the measure.
Jeff Rhodes and the District 5 Supervisor Race
Winn also discussed Republican Jeff Rhodes' campaign against Supervisor Andres Cano in District 5.
She criticized Cano's record and referred to an alleged purchase of politically themed merchandise using a government credit card.
She argued that public money should not be used for partisan political activities.
The particular allegation was not independently documented during the discussion.
Winn maintained that additional Republican representation on the Board of Supervisors would improve financial oversight.
She cited Supervisor Steve Christie as a member who frequently challenges county spending decisions.
For Winn, changing the board's composition was part of a larger effort to alter local government's direction.
Data Centers and Water Policy Illustrate the Stakes of Local Leadership
Winn also criticized Pima County's moratorium on data-center development.
She argued that the measure was inconsistent with state law and could discourage economic investment.
The legality of the moratorium would depend on the applicable statutes and any judicial determination.
Her broader concern was that local government should establish predictable rules for businesses considering expansion.
Data centers require substantial infrastructure, including electricity and water-related resources.
But Winn believes blanket restrictions can discourage development that might otherwise create economic opportunities.
Arizona's Water Future Remains a Major Concern
Winn returned to criticism of Governor Katie Hobbs' handling of Arizona's water policy.
She believes the state's negotiating position and regulatory decisions could harm Southern Arizona.
Water availability affects housing development, agriculture, industry and long-term population growth.
Winn argued that elected officials must defend Arizona's interests while establishing reliable policies for future investment.
She connected that concern to voter turnout.
The decisions made by the governor, Legislature and local officials will shape whether communities can grow and remain affordable.
Pinal and Maricopa Counties Face Their Own Election-System Questions
Dona emphasized that his concerns were not limited to Pima County.
He said his research group had also examined election administration in Pinal County.
He cited controversies involving ballot operations and county legal representation.
He questioned the role of the law firm Coppersmith Brockelman in election-related matters and referred to reported state contracts involving the firm.
Winn connected the discussion to earlier legal representation involving Katie Hobbs.
The speakers suggested that overlapping political and professional relationships deserved scrutiny, but they did not establish misconduct by the firm or its clients.
Maricopa County's Separate System
Dona also discussed Maricopa County's election infrastructure.
He referred to disputes involving Recorder Justin Heap, county supervisors and voting-system administration.
Winn mentioned reports involving memory devices and access to election facilities.
Those allegations were not independently examined during the discussion.
Dona's central argument was that county-specific systems can complicate statewide oversight.
He wants clearer accountability for how information is transferred, processed and verified.
The Difference Between Administrative Errors and Election Fraud Matters
Dona's research raised several categories of concern: inaccurate registration information, unusual addresses, incomplete custody records, system complexity and possible ballot-delivery failures.
Those issues are not identical.
An outdated voter-registration record is different from an ineligible person casting a ballot.
A missing signature on a custody form is different from evidence that ballots were altered.
A delayed ballot delivery is different from proof that an election official deliberately prevented someone from voting.
Each situation requires its own investigation and evidence.
Dona believes the recurring problems collectively indicate intentional misconduct.
Winn shares much of that suspicion.
But the observations discussed did not independently establish a coordinated effort to manipulate election results.
The strongest case for accountability begins with accurately identifying each problem, obtaining the underlying records and determining what actually occurred.
That approach can identify genuine vulnerabilities without assuming that every administrative mistake has the same cause.
Winn Says the Immediate Priority Is Making Sure Every Eligible Voter Can Participate
Despite the many allegations and political arguments, Winn repeatedly returned to one practical concern.
People who have not received their ballots still need to vote.
The broader disputes over responsibility, technology and recordkeeping may take months or years to resolve.
The election schedule will not wait.
Voters need to check their status, learn their options and cast ballots through authorized procedures.
Waiting for Election Day Is Not the Only Option
Winn encouraged residents to use the available early voting opportunities.
She particularly emphasized the expanded schedule of early voting locations and the option to visit the Recorder's Office.
A voter with a missing ballot can investigate the problem without abandoning the election.
Strabala's instructions provided a practical starting point through the official voter dashboard.
Kolodin urged voters to use early in-person voting when appropriate.
Dona argued that the process should be documented and investigated.
Those recommendations reflect different priorities, but they converge on the importance of participation.
Voters Should Verify Information Before Traveling
Because voting locations and schedules can change, residents should consult current information from the Pima County Recorder's Office.
That is especially important for mobile voting sites, where travel delays or equipment problems can affect operations.
The voter dashboard and official election websites provide the most appropriate starting points for confirming available services.
Political organizations can offer assistance, but election officials administer the process and determine the lawful procedures for casting and counting ballots.
Strong Participation and Strong Oversight Can Coexist
Winn argued that voters do not need to choose between participating in elections and asking questions about election administration.
Citizens can do both.
They can return their ballots and request records.
They can observe lawful election procedures.
They can report specific problems.
And they can demand explanations when government services fail to meet published commitments.
For Kolodin, that means competent administration.
For Strabala, it means understanding the actual steps involved in delivering and processing ballots.
For Dona, it means examining the systems and documentation that support the entire process.
The recurring principle is that election integrity depends on reliable procedures as well as public confidence.
When voters encounter problems, officials should identify the cause and explain the remedy.
When activists allege wrongdoing, those allegations should be evaluated against evidence.
And when the election arrives, every eligible citizen should have a fair opportunity to cast a ballot that is counted according to law.