Cavanaugh Claims His Primary Loss is ‘Statistically Impossible’ in Stolen Election Crusade

Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh recently addressed concerns about primary election results during a special Pinal County Board of Supervisors meeting. Cavanaugh, who is vying for the position of county sheriff, claimed inconsistencies in Republican race outcomes, prompting him to request an investigation from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.

His allegations stem from perceived “mathematical and statistical problems” in six local elections, including his own campaign. Cavanaugh highlighted that these discrepancies were absent in state and federal races, raising further questions about the integrity of the local electoral process.

In a detailed 21-page document compiled by Cavanaugh, his wife, and his administrative manager, they argued that the ballot percentages remained strikingly consistent between early voting and election day results. This anomaly, they claim, is statistically improbable across multiple races.

Cavanaugh’s team noted that candidates for county attorney maintained identical vote ratios in early and election day ballots. For instance, Kent Volkmer and Brad Miller consistently received 45.4% and 54.4% of the votes, respectively. This pattern, while unusual, prompted mixed reactions from other candidates.

Volkmer expressed his surprise at the lack of change in the percentages, stating, “It never changed from initial drop, earlies, to late earlies.” Cavanaugh’s assertion of statistical impossibility suggests a systemic issue, hypothesizing that these ratios occurring across six races among 13 candidates points to deeper flaws in the election process.

However, reactions to Cavanaugh’s claims have not been universally supportive. As the election approached, he expressed distrust towards the Pinal County Recorder’s Office and claimed that allegations of bias against him had been published. His critiques have not been without consequences; fellow Supervisor Mike Goodman publicly admonished Cavanaugh, suggesting his comments were damaging the public’s trust in governance.

Following a heated exchange during a recent board meeting, Goodman accused Cavanaugh of prioritizing personal political gain over responsible governance, emphasizing that unsubstantiated claims have been repeatedly debunked over the past several years. Goodman stated that Cavanaugh’s rhetoric could ultimately undermine confidence in government processes.

As the deadline for contesting the election results nears, Cavanaugh remains noncommittal on whether he will proceed with any formal challenges.