Pinal County Audit Confirms $150,000 Review Validates Accuracy and Security of Primary Election

Pinal County recently allocated over $150,000 for an independent audit of its primary election results after a losing candidate alleged fraud. The county spokesperson confirmed the audit returned no evidence of any wrongdoing.

The audit was commissioned in August by the Republican county supervisors, prompted by Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh’s claims that his defeat in the sheriff’s race was due to malfeasance. He voted to certify the election results “under duress,” seeking to bolster claims of electoral impropriety.

During a public presentation on Wednesday, attorney Brett Johnson from the law firm Snell & Wilmer emphasized the results of the audit. He noted that the investigation, supported by three technical experts, found no signs of fraud or data manipulation, assuring citizens of Pinal County that their votes were secure.

Supervisor Mike Goodman expressed hope that the audit’s clean findings would help rebuild trust in the election system, despite labeling the lengthy process as a waste of resources. Goodman criticized Cavanaugh for spreading misinformation, implying that the repeated audits were unnecessary and extravagant.

As of Thursday, the final costs of the audit were still being calculated, but preliminary figures indicate the county spent at least $150,000, a sum nearly equivalent to what is typically allocated for Election Day poll workers, according to County Recorder Dana Lewis.

Prior to the public unveiling of the audit results, Cavanaugh’s office issued a statement challenging the audit’s credibility. It pointed out that Cavanaugh was not interviewed as part of the investigation and claimed that “important witnesses” were overlooked, casting doubt on the findings.

Cavanaugh lost the sheriff’s race by a significant margin of 2-1. While Arizona law permits candidates to contest election results in court within five days of certification, Cavanaugh opted not to pursue this route. Instead, he reported his concerns to the state Attorney General’s Office and other law enforcement agencies.

Among Cavanaugh’s assertions was a critique of the voting data, where he identified unusual patterns in results across several races. Johnson countered this claim, attributing it to “basic math errors,” stating that the statistical analysis presented by Cavanaugh lacked support.

Additionally, Cavanaugh claimed that erroneous vote totals may have emerged from issues with the county’s election technology. However, thorough examinations of the software, logs from election devices, USB drives, and tabulators revealed no inconsistencies, further dispelling Cavanaugh’s allegations.