Maricopa County board approves $400,000 election review after debate over vendor and scope

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors voted 4–1 to approve a contract not to exceed $400,000 with a private consulting firm to conduct a comprehensive review of county elections procedures, including chain of custody, physical security, candidate filing, temporary worker hiring and training, ballot drop boxes, and vote-center selection and setup.

The board approved the agreement after a presentation from county procurement and internal audit staff about the request-for-proposal process, the number of responses, the vendor vetting performed by county information technology, and follow-up questions about a prior data breach involving the recommended firm.

County procurement director Kevin Tine said the county publicly solicited proposals, extended the solicitation window to increase competition and ultimately received seven submissions; five were judged responsive and responsible and were evaluated by an independent panel from the internal audit department. Tine said the solicitation allowed for either single- or multi-vendor awards, and the evaluation committee recommended the single firm as the most advantageous across the six stated scope areas.

Internal audit director Susan Adams described the evaluation process: committee members with audit and proposal‑review experience independently scored each proposal on qualifications, proposed approach, staff qualifications and the proposed timeline and fee structure. Adams said the committee had been trained in the solicitation process and followed the procurement code in its review.

The recommended vendor disclosed a 2023 data breach in its history. County staff told the board they asked the vendor to explain the breach and document corrective actions; county information-technology staff reviewed the vendor response and told the board the vendor’s corrective actions and the county’s security controls provided assurance to proceed. Adams and Tine said the county also reviewed the vendor’s remediation steps and the firm provided required assurances to the county.

Supervisor Debbie Lesko, who introduced the item, said she sought the review to identify blind spots and improve public confidence in local elections. "I really want to get to the bottom of this," Lesko said during discussion on the record.

Supervisor Mark Stewart dissented in the final vote. He said he welcomed a comprehensive review but objected to selecting a vendor with prior work for the county and with a past data breach, saying "independence matters especially when public trust is on the line." Stewart said he would vote no because he preferred a vendor with no prior ties to earlier reviews of county elections.

Vice Chair Kate Brophy McGee and Chairman Thomas Galvin spoke in favor of moving forward. Brophy McGee said the county’s procurement and audit offices had followed the law and best practices and that an independent, competitively procured review would strengthen operations and public confidence.

Assistant County Manager Zach Scherer, who represented the elections office during the presentation, said the elections department welcomed an outside review and would cooperate with auditors. Scherer said the department has used outside reviews previously and values outside perspectives to strengthen procedures.

The contract approved by the board covers one year with options to renew; staff said renewals are not automatic and would require county approval. County staff told the board the award is publicly disclosed after final contract signature and that detailed proposal contents and evaluation scores become available through public records following award, subject to any statutory redactions for proprietary data.

Public commenters questioned the vendor selection and noted the vendor’s reported past data breach. Several speakers urged greater transparency in the procurement and suggested other national election‑focused firms be considered. County staff answered questions about the sealed‑proposal process, how vendors are notified through the county’s e‑procurement system and how proposals are evaluated.

The board’s formal action approved the contract recommendation by a 4–1 vote; Lesko moved approval, and the board recorded the outcome as approved. The county will direct the vendor to begin work in coordination with internal audit and elections staff and to report findings to the board when the review is complete.

The contract’s stated scope focuses on operational procedures rather than judicial challenges or election outcomes; any recommendations that would require statutory change would be a separate policy step for the board and state lawmakers to consider.

The board asked staff to return with updates about the review schedule and any necessary adjustments to scope to accommodate ongoing election operations.

Topic why it matters: The review will examine core election operations in Maricopa County, the state’s largest voting jurisdiction, and it could produce recommendations for procedural changes or legislative proposals that affect how elections are run statewide.