A Maricopa County election worker’s account says Republican votes for Andy Biggs were sidelined during ballot adjudication and routed away from him.
Story Highlights
- An alleged insider described ballots marked for Andy Biggs with a cross-out being decided for Katie Hobbs.
- The same account said Biggs-Lombardo double marks led to neither vote counting.
- Data cited for November 1–6 shows 153,404 ballots sent to adjudication, with 54.70% flagged as overvotes.
- Arizona law and guides describe bipartisan adjudication and rules for unreadable or overvoted ballots.
Alleged Ballot Patterns Described by an Adjudication Worker
An election worker linked to the Maricopa County Ballot Tabulation Center described how certain marked ballots moved through adjudication. The worker said some voters marked Andy Biggs and also marked Katie Hobbs, then crossed out Biggs. That triggered an overvote review. The worker said adjudicators removed the crossed-out Biggs mark and kept the Hobbs mark based on voter intent, sending that vote to Hobbs. The account was reported with a direct quote describing that process.
The same account identified a second pattern on ballots marked for Biggs and Republican candidate Lombardo. The worker said these ballots were also flagged as overvotes. In those cases, the worker said neither Biggs nor Lombardo received a counted vote after review. The report presented this as a recurring issue noticed during adjudication. The description gives a concrete method that can be checked against ballot images, logs, and adjudication records if released by the county.
Reported Adjudication Totals and Overvote Share
Published figures tied to November 1–6 show 153,404 Maricopa County ballots went to adjudication during that window. The report breaks them into 54.70% overvotes, 27.82% ambiguous marks, and 17.27% write-ins. Those numbers place a majority of adjudicated ballots in the overvote bucket. The scale matters because it gives a measurable pool for a later audit. Reviewers could compare outcomes for the Biggs-Hobbs examples and the Biggs-Lombardo cases described in the account.
The outlet attributes the material to an “inside adjudicator” and includes a screenshot said to reflect internal data. The report frames the claims within ongoing Arizona election disputes and recent results coverage. It also connects to wider reporting that Democrats gained control of the Arizona House, Senate, and the governor’s office in 2026, heightening attention on ballot handling and close margins in key races.
How Adjudication Works Under Arizona Rules
Arizona’s process sends ballots to adjudication when a scanner detects problems such as overvotes, unclear marks, or write-ins. During adjudication, a Republican and a Democrat review the ballot image and try to determine voter intent so votes can be counted correctly. State statute also addresses equipment that rejects overvoted ballots and requires notice to voters about the effect of overriding an overvote or irregularity at the polls, including the risk that a vote for that race will not be tallied.
Election Worker Claims Republican Votes for Andy Biggs Were Discarded During Ballot Adjudication — Over 54% of Adjudicated Ballots Flagged as Overvoteshttps://t.co/XGDyqGeHsT
Questions Swirl Around Democrats’ Takeover of Arizonahttps://t.co/Cd7tquR8fH— anne (@anneMeritBay) November 8, 2026
These guardrails show why the worker’s description is testable. Officials can compare ballot images, adjudication actions, and reason codes to confirm how cross-outs and double marks were resolved. Reviewers can also check whether similar markings were treated the same across parties. If county logs exist as required, they should link user actions to each adjudicated ballot. That record can show who made a change, when they made it, and why they made it under written rules.
Next Steps That Could Bring Clarity
Transparency starts with records. Maricopa County can release anonymized adjudication exports for that November window. Those files should include contest-level flags, reason codes, and final decisions. Auditors can then sample Biggs-Hobbs and Biggs-Lombardo ballots and compare them with similar Democratic pairings. A bipartisan hand review can apply the written standards and check for even treatment. If needed, Arizona’s recount and contest laws provide tools for court review of close outcomes.
Why This Matters for Voter Confidence
Americans expect clear rules, equal treatment, and an auditable trail. The worker’s account names specific ballot patterns and points to a large adjudication pool. That gives the public something concrete to examine, not just feelings or spin. Fair elections rely on bright-line procedures that protect every lawful vote. Full disclosure of adjudication records would help answer the key question here: were similar ballot marks judged the same way, no matter the party or the candidate?
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, dispatch.com, tucson.com, azcentral.com
