They are on contract and have a Statement of Work (SOW) which outlines what they are required to do and what they aren’t. Also, contained in the SOW is a section called “Deliverables”, this section defines what is/are the expected “End Product(s)” to be given at the end of their contract to the customer (the state government) in this case. This is fairly standard contract language for dealing with state and federal government contracts.
If anyone caved, it was their customer, the AZ state senate.
If you watch the video, I agree with Neil, I don't think they caved, I think they agreed to that because:
a) they already did it, using other methods or signature sources,
b) they don't need it,
c) they found enough that will trigger a look at the signatures later, regardless of the current suit.
I think this is more of a non-story than is being reported.
(This is all speculation.) I wonder if they have scanned these envelopes already, and can do signature matching between the envelopes. If they can prove that signatures match between multiple envelopes, that alone is proof of fraud (someone filled out a bunch of mail in ballots and sent them in.)
That is just thinking out loud. Other sources for signatures... DMV? other government records? I guess we will see when we get to the other side of this audit.
ooh okay that makes sense. I think that happened in PA. A bunch of ballots from a nursing home seemed to have been signed by the same person. I guess my question is would they even have access to the dmv etc... I believe voter registration fraud was key to stealing the election so I think Signature matches are key. Way more important than looking for watermarks tbh. But I'm going to stay hopeful. I'm hoping they had a good reason to settle.
They are on contract and have a Statement of Work (SOW) which outlines what they are required to do and what they aren’t. Also, contained in the SOW is a section called “Deliverables”, this section defines what is/are the expected “End Product(s)” to be given at the end of their contract to the customer (the state government) in this case. This is fairly standard contract language for dealing with state and federal government contracts.
If anyone caved, it was their customer, the AZ state senate.
If you watch the video, I agree with Neil, I don't think they caved, I think they agreed to that because:
a) they already did it, using other methods or signature sources, b) they don't need it, c) they found enough that will trigger a look at the signatures later, regardless of the current suit.
I think this is more of a non-story than is being reported.
What other signature sources would there be? I'm not sure what to think about this. It doesn't seem all bad but it doesn't seem that good either.
(This is all speculation.) I wonder if they have scanned these envelopes already, and can do signature matching between the envelopes. If they can prove that signatures match between multiple envelopes, that alone is proof of fraud (someone filled out a bunch of mail in ballots and sent them in.)
That is just thinking out loud. Other sources for signatures... DMV? other government records? I guess we will see when we get to the other side of this audit.
ooh okay that makes sense. I think that happened in PA. A bunch of ballots from a nursing home seemed to have been signed by the same person. I guess my question is would they even have access to the dmv etc... I believe voter registration fraud was key to stealing the election so I think Signature matches are key. Way more important than looking for watermarks tbh. But I'm going to stay hopeful. I'm hoping they had a good reason to settle.