Residents press Navajo County supervisors for election audits, hand counts and drop-box monitoring

Multiple county residents used the board’s call-to-the-public to press Navajo County officials on a range of election integrity concerns, asking for independent security assessments of voting machines, broader video monitoring of ballot drop boxes, and routine hand counts or backups to verify results.

At the meeting’s public-comment period, Belinda Scholl criticized the county’s handling of last month’s primary and said county staff repeatedly declined outside security checks of ES&S voting equipment. "Navajo County has been on notice since 2018 of many critical election issues," Scholl said, arguing such an examination should be paid for by the volunteers if the county would not permit it.

Several other callers described procedural gaps they said undermine confidence. Pinetop resident Donna Sherwin recounted a post-election review in which three of 39 vote centers failed to turn in inspector reports and others lacked signatures, and she said an electronic adjudication process had been conducted without bipartisan observers. Sherwin asked whether the board had followed up with elections staff to confirm statutory chain-of-custody procedures were honored.

Celia Laughlin and Michael Pitts urged more fundamental changes. Laughlin alleged centralization of counting and named federal resources she said had influenced local processes; Pitts demanded that the county "immediately cease and desist" using contracted machine systems and called for a full hand count in 2024.

Jerry Hubbard, a former poll worker and marshal in Heber-Overgaard, pressed the board about ballot-drop-box video coverage and FOIA production of tally-sheet images; he said residents were told cameras were "in the process of being installed" but that the FOIA returns contained only two tally-sheet images out of many.

Roger Gorse asked whether the county would change rules that restrict poll observers to one specified location on Election Day, arguing that broader observer access would provide a more realistic view of operations.

County Manager Layton (staff) was referenced by multiple commenters as having discussed cameras and other measures in prior meetings; at the meeting Layton reported staff had mailed a poll-worker survey to roughly 370 people and had received about 30 responses as of the previous night, and he described ongoing efforts to prepare fact sheets explaining what the county can and cannot regulate (for example, federal oversight of some health and safety questions). Layton did not take or announce any immediate votes or formal commitments to the specific requests raised during public comment.

Why it matters: Commenters raised process and transparency concerns that, if unresolved, could affect public confidence in local elections and prompt further records requests or legal challenge. The board did not act on any of the requests during the meeting; several callers asked for follow-up or for the board to place items on a future agenda.

The board adjourned the meeting and scheduled a 10-minute break before a work session; no further public action on these requests was recorded in the meeting transcript.