Cochise County supervisors hear legal, technical questions about voting-machine certification

Paul Rice, a presenter who described himself as “an Arizona citizen,” told the Cochise County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 8 that federal and state rules governing voting‑machine testing and certification raise legal and transparency concerns that could affect whether county officials should certify election results.

Rice told the board he focused his review on three questions: whether electronic voting machines are legal in Arizona, whether county boards of supervisors are obligated to use them, and whether Arizona law requires county supervisors to certify county election results. “I am not an attorney. I’m a citizen. I’m an Arizona citizen,” Rice said as he began his presentation.

Rice’s presentation summarized the federal Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA), the role of the federal Election Assistance Commission (EAC), and the private Voting System Test Labs (VSTLs) that test and report on voting system software and hardware. Rice said the VSTL accreditation process is central to election integrity and asserted that language in the VSTL manual used in prior election cycles limited accreditation grants to two years but that a later VSTL manual removed that expiration requirement.

Why this matters: Rice argued that a shorter or uncertain accreditation cycle and changes to how engineering change orders (ECOs) are published could narrow the window for counties to detect material changes to software between certification and use. That, he said, can create a legal and practical tension for supervisors deciding whether to sign statements that results are “true and accurate.” Rice said that tension implicates supervisors’ oath of office and could force an official to choose between certifying results and pursuing known legal concerns.

Key assertions and detail: Rice cited HAVA and the EAC’s VSTL and certification manuals, noting specific dates and documents he said were relevant, including a 2018 SLI Compliance accreditation certificate and a 2019 certificate of conformance for a software version dated May 3, 2019. He said he received a 2021 letter from an EAC certification director stating that “a grant of accreditation is valid for a period not to exceed two years,” and that later guidance or a later manual (version 3) removed the explicit two‑year expiration language. Rice also said he had made repeated public‑records requests for engineering change order deployment information and that the EAC had responded that it does not track deployment of ECOs by state and directed him to public materials on the EAC website.

Transparency and ECOs: Rice said ECOs — technical modifications to previously certified voting systems that get assigned an ECO number — used to be listed in the Arizona Election Procedures Manual (EPM) and on the Secretary of State’s site, but he could not find that listing in current publicly available materials. He said he asked the EAC for records and received a note that the EAC does not track where ECOs have been deployed by state.

Legal questions raised: Rice argued that Arizona statutes (he cited multiple provisions in ARS Title 16, chapter 4, and related articles) do not impose an explicit statutory requirement that counties must use electronic voting machines and that statutory language uses “may” when discussing equipment, indicating discretion. He also presented a distinction between canvassing (the examination and tabulation of returns) and certifying (issuing a formal attestation), contending that statute requires canvassing but does not explicitly mandate that a county board “shall certify.” Rice said that if supervisors become aware of potentially material legality issues they may have a duty under their oath of office not to certify until those concerns are addressed.

County staff and supervisors responded with clarifying remarks. A staff member, Ms. Savant, stated during the meeting, “The EPM for 2023 is valid,” and an elections staff member indicated that engineering change orders can be viewed on the EAC site filtered by state. Supervisor Gomez said she experienced problems with machines in the last election and that “hand counts seem to do the deal,” while also acknowledging the practical difficulties and time required for hand counts.

No formal action was taken. The work session was an information and discussion item; board members and staff asked questions and exchanged views but did not make motions or votes on policy or procedure during the session. Rice recommended either pursuing additional judicial review of these legal issues or seeking legislative changes to create a statutory “cure” or process for addressing valid, material concerns before a certification deadline.

What remains uncertain: The presentation repeatedly framed several matters as unsettled or in litigation — for example Rice noted cases he said were addressing parts of these questions — and he repeatedly invited follow‑up documentation and rebuttal. Rice said some issues “should be adjudicated in the courts,” and several supervisors and staff said the matter would require either legal action or legislative change to create a clear pre‑certification remedy.

The board scheduled other business and closed the work session. The meeting adjourned after roughly an hour and five minutes of discussion.