Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 22, 2022 - Viva & Barnes

02:28:07

Kari Lake v. Katie Hobbs & Maricopa Country - Day 2 of Trial LIVE STREAM!

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Why can't I hear anything?
	Why can't I hear anything?
	Oh, I'm here.
	Okay.
	Sorry, guys.
	I didn't see this.
	Okay.
	I need to make sure that when I close my computer that this is going to stay up, so give me a few minutes.
	I don't know why they started a little early today.
	Get here the audio.
	That fixed.
	Okay, good.
	Boom.
	There we go.
	And I think my audio is good.
	Now, the question is, if I shut my computer down, If I close this computer...
	Let me see what's going on here.
	Oh, that's Richard Barris is on the stand.
	Viva, up your mic.
	Hold on.
	My mic is probably quiet from yesterday.
	It is?
	Okay.
	I just need to make sure that when I close my computer to go to where I got to go, this is going to stay up.
	I see Richard Barris on my computer, but I don't see on the other computer, but not here.
	Your mic is so loud.
	Okay, I'm going to...
	Okay, I'm going to...
	Oh, that's because this is from yesterday, for God's sake.
	We'll get it, people.
	From yesterday.
	That's not live today.
	What the...
	What people can do when they come together, Ariel Rush.
	Oh, my God.
	Carrie Lake, Arizona live.
	day two.
	What the heck?
	Which has broken away from traditional exit polling in recent years, and it will be the future.
	What is the difference between a turnout model and exit polling?
	Turnout modeling, and that's a great question.
	Turnout modeling, we only have certain variables that we could look at with turnout modeling.
	For instance, historical turnout population increases, but that is limited.
	So the difference between exit polling and just, you know, turnout modeling in general is that we're able to talk to people to see whether or not There's something that would have changed.
	For instance, in regular turnout modeling that I looked at in the Maricopa County 2022 election plan, they gave two different variants.
	There's always variances to models, but they gave two different plans.
	If they would have used those plans in 2018, they likely would have understated turnout because there would have been no historical basis for turnout to have been as high as it was in the 2018 midterm election.
	When you say they gave two different, what are you referring to?
	So if you look at, I believe, page 11 in the election 2022 Maricopa election plan, you'll see that they are providing two different turnout models.
	One is a lower turnout model.
	The other is a higher turnout model.
	And they're using various variables that they're putting into this.
	Turnout rates, they're averaging certain cycles over the last several decades.
	But again, they're...
	I'd applaud them for that work.
	They did a good job.
	But it's limited because the turnout was very, very low in some of those elections.
	So you would never see a high turnout election coming if you didn't have long-term interviews with voters on the ground.
	For the record, I believe you're referring to Exhibit 2?
	It is Exhibit 2, exactly, yes.
	And that's Defendant's Exhibit 2. What are the factors that you take into account?
	With respect to turnout modeling.
	Maricopa is a great example of this.
	It really is.
	Because it's had an enormous amount of population growth.
	And when we look at voter records, we of course ask them their vote history.
	Did you vote in 2020?
	Did you vote in 2018?
	But that will be verified against the voter file.
	And a lot of new movers that have come to Maricopa County have robust vote records.
	So a pollster may not know them as a long-term voter in a state.
	Unless they check those records.
	Maybe when they move from New York, as so many have done, or California or Illinois.
	And when we look at those records, we'll see that they, in fact, are high-propensity voters.
	So these are voters that a lot of people can miss in what are called voter screens.
	That's what you're referring to.
	We screen these voters.
	And for an exit poll, we would have called them first.
	And we would have asked them to participate in that exit poll.
	And we would have checked their vote history.
	Whether or not they're high-propensity voters or not, we would put them through traditional screens.
	And if they agreed to take the exit poll, we would tell them to re-interview and take it, and we would contact them and complete the questionnaire as they cast their vote, which I think is very important in this case.
	So when you're...
	Awesome.
	Before there's an expression.
	You talk fast.
	You talk fast.
	You talk fast.
	We'll also check to see.
	Sometimes people just don't tell the truth.
	So we will check those voter records, what they're self-reporting to us against what is on their voter file.
	And were you hired by the plaintiff prior to the election?
	In fact, we were not hired by the plaintiff to conduct this exit poll.
	Okay.
	So you created this exit poll based on a Turnout model that included going through and identifying voters through their voter history and other factors?
	Yes, that's correct.
	Absolutely.
	Well, let me just leave it there for now.
	Okay.
	And you created a turnout model prior to the election, correct?
	Yes.
	And then in terms of the exit polling, those...
	Voters who agreed to participate, and they were part of your turnout model, would fill out a questionnaire.
	Yes.
	And what kinds of questions would that questionnaire ask?
	And some of them did this over a duration of time.
	So an interview may not be complete immediately.
	There are different ways in Maricopa County, in Arizona, as there are in many states, to vote.
	So we will identify after...
	Screening them and qualifying them as a likely voter.
	We will identify what method they intend to vote by.
	Do they intend to cast a vote by mail and mail it in early?
	Do they intend to drop it off at a Dropbox?
	Do they intend to vote in person?
	And at that point, if they are in-person voters or if they have not cast that ballot or mailed it in and they intend to drop it in the Dropbox, they are told not to and they won't.
	finish the questionnaire until or finish their interview.
	There are different ways they can take it until they actually cast that vote.
	And in terms of the number of participants in this exit poll that you created for the 2022 general election, was that for Arizona or for Maricopa County or was it national?
	It was for Arizona, although we did other states, we polled other states as well.
	But it was for Arizona, with Maricopa being such a large share of the vote in Arizona, it made up a substantial portion of the sample.
	So roughly a little over 1,300 people we spoke to statewide in Arizona, and about 813 of them were residents and voters in Maricopa County.
	And did you perform an analysis to determine whether or not that was a statistically reliable sample?
	Sure.
	So we can actually see the share of the Voting population that comes from Maricopa County.
	It doesn't mean it will make up that share of the vote when all the votes are counted and all is said and done, but it's a great place to start.
	And as a modeler, as a pollster, anybody who does this, we have to set ranges for where we think these numbers are going to fall.
	Was the sample that you chose and obtained participation from in your exit polling Statistically significant in your opinion.
	Yes.
	And what do you base that opinion on?
	Well, we calculate sampling errors, of course, like everybody else.
	We have a big data poll.
	We have certain minimum standards and minimum populations or sample sizes.
	And I could go into the principles of random sample.
	But ultimately, it would be ideal if you could speak to the entire population if you're polling an entire population, but it's not possible.
	So the larger sample you speak to of a target population, The lower the sampling error is going to be.
	So anything, every pollster is different, but we have minimum sample sizes that we employ by state, by population, whatever it may be, and it is statistically significant.
	How would you characterize your methodology and the statistical reliability of the turnout model and the exit poll that you conducted in Arizona for the 2022 general election?
	We use the same methodology for the exit poll that we conducted in Arizona that we have used for six years, even before the Associated Press moved to this methodology.
	In over six years, since we began releasing public polling on a steady basis in 2016, we have not inaccurately predicted the winner outside of a sampling error in a single poll.
	Not one.
	So everybody gets it wrong sometimes, but I'm very proud of the record that we've amassed a big data poll.
	Everybody gets it wrong, but if you get it wrong outside the sampling error routinely, then there's a problem with your methodology.
	So everyone is constantly refining what they're doing, and the world changes.
	So the ways you can contact voters are always going to change with it.
	But we feel we've done a good job evolving.
	You said that you had never inaccurately predicted within the sampling error?
	Not outside of the sampling error.
	So, for instance, you could predict the winner of a presidential election is going to be candidate A by a point.
	Maybe he loses by two points or a point and a half, but your sampling error is three and a half percent.
	So, you know, you're within the sampling error at that point.
	During the 2022 general election in Arizona, Did you make any changes to your exit poll questions?
	We did on the day of election.
	And what change was that?
	And just for the record, the reason we added this question is because of the interactions we had during conducting the exit poll.
	Interactions with who?
	Voters.
	Participants of the exit poll.
	Shortly after, polls opened on election day.
	Several of the participants who had previously agreed to take the exit poll but indicated that they would vote on election day were trying to vote before work.
	And when they went to go cast their ballot, the lines were long.
	So some of them would tell us, we'll come back after work and we'll see if we can do it.
	Some others complained that they couldn't wait on lines so they had to go pick up a kid.
	Life, really.
	So we, in fact, added a question that...
	It was not designed to see how many voters may have been suppressed.
	In fact, it was designed to try to point people in a direction, to a polling station, where they could vote.
	So we added a question that basically said, did you have any issues or run in any complications while attempting to vote, such as tabulators rejecting ballots or running out of paper at the polling station?
	And we took this from issues that voters were telling us.
	We didn't make this up.
	We took this from issues that we heard directly from them.
	And was this change in terms of the questions, to add this question, was that done in connection with any anticipated litigation that might arise out of this election?
	Well, the goal was to attempt to tell the participants where they could go vote, and we were taking lists of polling places.
	Those who were able to successfully cast a ballot, where were they able to do so?
	Now, you did a report.
	For use in this election challenge, correct?
	We did.
	And what was your conclusion as to the number of likely voters that were suppressed from turnout as a result of the chaos on Election Day?
	Well, like anything else, I try to set a range because we have sampling errors and we have variants.
	So I have to feel comfortable with the estimates that we're looking at.
	First, I'm looking to see whether or not there's still a substantial amount of voters out there that historically we could support with historical data that they could have turned out.
	Meaning, would this be out of the range of normal if we were missing such a large chunk of voters?
	Or can we look at the numbers and have expected it?
	The bottom line here is that those who said they would cast their vote by mail.
	Or dropped their ballot off by mail, completed their questionnaire at a 93% rate.
	There are always going to be people who tell you that they're going to participate in your poll, but then don't, especially in exit polls.
	The rate for Election Day voters was only 72%.
	So that doesn't, I can tell you that has never happened to me before, ever.
	And why is that significant?
	It's significant because, you know, looking at, you know, we can go through it a lot more in depth, but looking at all the totality of it, there's no explanation for why these voters simply did not come back.
	They didn't cast a ballot.
	There's always going to be a difference.
	But the difference here is almost 20 points.
	It's roughly 20 percentage points.
	It's a significant finding.
	And I can only, like, in my professional opinion, I've done many, many of these exit polls.
	These people didn't.
	Complete this questionnaire because they didn't vote.
	They didn't get to vote.
	And I don't know why anybody would agree to participate in an exit poll and then not show up in such large...
	Why would they not vote and then complete the interview?
	This just doesn't happen.
	What was the range of voters lost on Election Day?
	So, if we look at that 20%, you know...
	Admittedly, very large.
	Could we have expected the Election Day electorate itself, roughly 250,000 Election Day voters, could we have expected that to expand by another 20%?
	That's a lot, but there are means.
	Could we expect it to expand by 10%?
	Could turnout for Election Day have been 10% higher, 15% higher?
	Look at the number of votes that would mean.
	10% would be 25,000 votes.
	You know, did that fall within our modeling?
	Sure, it fell within the modeling of the 2020 election plan from Maricopa County.
	What about 15%?
	If turnout increased on election day by 15%, we'd be looking at almost 40,000 votes, roughly.
	Something like that?
	Absolutely could have.
	You're talking a little fast.
	Sorry.
	So, what was the expected range that you determined of voters who were disenfranchised as a result of the election day chaos?
	Between 25,000 to 40,000.
	And again, there's always going to be some variance there.
	Okay.
	And of the 25,000 to 40,000, what was the net effect on Republican voters?
	This is important.
	And you can only understand that by understanding the difference in vote preference by vote method.
	If you showed up on election day.
	You were far more likely to be a straight ticket Republican than if you cast a ballot by mail.
	The same is also true if you were, for instance, a Democratic voter.
	If you voted on Election Day, you were far more likely to cross over and vote for another party.
	And the same was true of Republicans.
	If they voted by mail, they were far more likely to vote, for instance, for the Democratic candidate, Katie Hobbs.
	You have to understand that when you're looking at it, it's not as significant of a number for disenfranchised voters as you may think.
	So the election day margin for Miss Lake was huge in the areas where we saw these depressions.
	And by huge, it was not uncommon for her to win 75-76% of the vote there.
	It's because she was also winning large numbers of crossover voters.
	So, you know.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	What was that figure?
	Well, that figure was between 2,000.
	It would have ranged between 2,000 holds for the current leader to roughly 4,000 for mislead.
	Do you recall a range of 15,000 to 29,000 in your report?
	Oh, well, yeah, yes, yes.
	Objection, Your Honor.
	I have an objection to that question.
	I understand, though, what he's saying.
	Sure.
	Counsel is leading the witness and testimony.
	It is leading.
	If you would like to have him refresh his recollection, that would be fine with the report, but I don't want to.
	It's not an evidence, put it that way.
	Yes, sir.
	Call up the exhibit.
	So I'm going to create.
	Which exhibit is it, Mr. Alls?
	Exhibit 48, Your Honor.
	Exhibit 48, Your Honor.
	If she wants you to ask him the question if it would refresh his recollection or not before he's allowed to refer to his report.
	Sorry, may I clarify what I was saying?
	He actually testified to the numbers, so he doesn't need his recollection reflected.
	Refreshed.
	I think I'm entitled to ask the question, Your Honor.
	You may.
	Would it refresh your recollection in terms of some of these numbers to look at your report?
	No, I think this is a matter of nomenclature.
	We're just talking in different terms.
	You're saying Republican votes, and I'm referring to it as the net change.
	So I'm not thinking about this as the registration of that voter.
	I'm thinking about how it would impact the margin of the governor's race.
	So the net gain for the Republican candidate, what would the net gain be?
	Is the margin, is the number you're referring to.
	So yes, it would be significant enough to change the leader of the race.
	It would.
	And you're basing that on the net difference between the candidates of 17,000-plus votes?
	That's correct, sir.
	Yes.
	So in your opinion, the suppression of Republican voters that you saw on Election Day, based on your exit polling and survey, exceeded or would have exceeded the margin between the two candidates of 17,000 -plus votes?
	Just a second.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	I have objection to your Honor.
	Counsel is again leading the witness and mischaracterized his testimony about voter suppression.
	Okay.
	Let's stick with leading.
	It was leading.
	You can ask him for his opinion.
	Mr. Barris, what is your opinion with respect to the What is the effect of the voter suppression as a result of Election Day chaos based on your survey, exit polling and experience in connection with this race where the margin between the two candidates is a little over 17,000 votes?
	Mr. Olson, in my professional opinion, and some of this is not opinion, we know the vote totals in these areas that we're talking about.
	We know what the margins were.
	In my opinion, in my professional opinion, this did have an impact on the outcome.
	It definitely impacted the outcome.
	The only question for me is whether it had the potential to change the result.
	And in my opinion, in my professional opinion, I believe it did have that.
	It was substantial enough to change the leaderboard.
	It was.
	When you say change the leaderboard, do you mean that it would have changed the outcome?
	That Miss Lake would be ahead right now.
	Miss Lake would be ahead.
	Yes.
	One person talks at a time because she can only take down one person at a time.
	So, I cut into your answer and broke my own ruling to try to get you to not speak at the same time.
	So, Mr. Harris, can you repeat your answer so my court voter can get it clear?
	In my professional opinion, the amount of Election Day voters that we're talking about here with the margin would have changed the outcome of the race.
	And the number is substantial enough to have changed who the overall winner was in this race.
	And are you saying that Plaintiff Cary Lake would have won this race but for the Election Day chaos?
	I have no doubt.
	I believe it that strongly.
	It's my opinion that strongly.
	Yes.
	Thank you, Mr. Barris.
	Are you done with questioning?
	Yes, Robert.
	Thank you.
	Cross examination, please.
	Good morning, Mr. Barris.
	Thank you for being here.
	Good morning.
	Thank you.
	My name is Lali Madhuri and I represent Governor-Elect Hobbs and I'm going to ask you a few questions.
	Just first, have you ever testified in federal or state court before?
	No.
	But I have been consulted by lawyers about election processes and laws.
	Have you, in an academic study, in an academic setting, ever studied polling?
	In an academic study?
	In an academic setting.
	You know, it's funny.
	The professor who got me into this said, beware of presidents and pollsters who have PhDs.
	They don't make good ones of either.
	So, no.
	Have you ever studied long lines in the context of elections?
	In an academic setting.
	I'm not sure that's, yeah, that's not my purview, and I'm not sure that has any bearing here.
	Have you ever studied the effect of long lines on turnout?
	No.
	Have you ever studied the various factors that can affect election day or any kind of turnout?
	Of course.
	In what setting have you, but not in an academic setting?
	Well, I'll say it again.
	I make my living in the real world.
	There's a difference between practice and theory, ma 'am.
	There is.
	So no, you've never studied the effect of...
	No.
	Have you ever published any peer-reviewed academic articles?
	No, but I've appeared in numerous outlets after elections.
	I've written commentary articles for various news organizations.
	No, it's not academic, but again, in my industry, academia means nothing.
	Accuracy matters.
	People come to me when they want the truth and accurate information.
	They don't care about theory.
	So no, you've never published any kind of academic peer-reviewed article.
	That's correct to say.
	Are you familiar with the New York Times?
	Yes.
	Are you familiar with 538?
	Unfortunately, yes.
	Are you aware that FiveThirtyEight aggregates more than 450 different polls for its analyses?
	I'm a long-standing critic of FiveThirtyEight.
	Yes, I'm very aware of our adversarial relationship.
	So you're aware that they look at...
	I'm a competitor to FiveThirtyEight.
	I'm sorry.
	I just want to remind you what the judge said about we can't talk over each other because our court reporter is taking everything down.
	So I'll be sure not to speak over you if you could do the same.
	Stop.
	Please, just calm down, because even when you're both trying to correct this, you're talking over each other.
	Okay?
	So take a deep breath.
	What I'll do is I will give you the chance to answer the question once you've finished it.
	But don't answer the question until you've actually heard it, even if you think you know where it's going.
	On the other hand, let them answer before you ask the next question, and we'll be just fine.
	Okay, so I apologize for the testy nature of what I'm telling you, but I'm looking down at my court reporter and she has to take this down and it's a mess and that's not a technical legal term.
	Just one person talking at the time.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	So, Mr. Barris, are you aware that 538 aggregates more than 450 polls for its analyses?
	Yes.
	Your polling organization, Big Data Poll, is excluded from FiveThirtyEight's aggregated polls.
	Is that right?
	That is true, yes.
	And Big Data Poll received a grade of F as a failing grade from FiveThirtyEight.
	Is that right?
	It is.
	And can I just...
	Okay, I'll just let you...
	More examination after she's done.
	Briefly.
	And it sounds like you're aware that 538 currently ranks about 500 different pollsters.
	Is that right?
	You know, honestly, ma 'am, I don't know how many they rank.
	I don't pay much attention to them.
	Any reason to disagree that it's about 500?
	No, I take your word for it.
	Okay, and are you aware that just 11 of those polling organizations have received an F grade?
	No.
	Are you aware that F grades are given to pollsters if their methodology is unreliable, their methods are not transparent, or their results are inaccurate?
	No, but again, I would just argue that you're acting as if they're an authority on polling.
	They're not.
	Are you familiar with real, clear politics?
	Yes.
	Yes, I am.
	Are you aware that it's been described as a right-leaning media outlet?
	No, they're not right-leaning.
	Are you aware that they also aggregate polls?
	Yes.
	And big data polls are also not included in RealClearPolitics's aggregation.
	Is that right?
	They just, at their request, asked for our stuff for submission.
	So if they go through a review process, we just gave it to them.
	I've had...
	Stay tuned.
	I don't know what to say.
	I mean, we've been under the radar for a while.
	I suspect that'll change.
	They just, RealClearPolitics just announced something called the Polling Accountability Initiative because polling has been so horrible and outlets like the one you're describing, Man 538, have used them for narratives and we're losing public trust.
	So RCP just began this initiative and starting to rank pollsters.
	I gave them our stuff for their review and I expect we'll end up within the top three like we are on election recon, right behind the IBD tip poll.
	And unlike them, we poll states as well, not just national.
	So it's actually harder to get a higher grade if you're polling both states and national polling.
	National polling is easier.
	State polling is more complicated.
	Yeah, and I'd like to move to strike that testimony is not responsive to the question that I asked.
	I'm not going to strike it.
	Go ahead and ask further questions if you want to clarify.
	Okay, so...
	I understand the explanation you just gave, but is it correct that you have not previously been part of the aggregations?
	Sorry.
	Is Big Data Poll a member of the National Council on Public Polls?
	No, but we do follow the transparency initiative that they laid out.
	And it's also not a member of the Association of Public Opinion Researchers?
	Same answer.
	And just for the...
	Just for the sake, it's only, you know, a lot of pollsters, probably 70% of them are not.
	Nobody wants to pay dues.
	Thanks.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	...responded from Maricopa.
	God damn it.
	God damn it.
	God damn it.
	God damn it.
	At disposal.
	I mean, there's no way to confirm whether the election day records are typically the last ones to come.
	But if I may, while it's true we didn't talk to people after the fact, it really very much is like the way an astronomer observes a planet when they can't see it.
	It dims the light of the planet as it passes it.
	It's the same principle.
	Where I can observe them by their absence.
	Okay, so let's talk about the questions that you asked.
	So I think sort of the key question that's at play here.
	You asked Election Day self-reported voters, "Did you have any issues or complications when trying to vote in person?" such as tabulators rejecting the ballot or voting locations running out of ballots.
	Is that right?
	That's correct, ma'am.
	And based on how many voters said yes to that question, you drew the conclusion that, to a reasonable degree of mathematical certainty, that turnout depression occurred on Election Day.
	Is that right?
	It's not.
	The conclusion is not derived from the...
	The answers to that question.
	In fact, the number, the percentage of areas affected, polling stations affected is where we can draw that conclusion from using that question.
	But the conclusion is of how many or what is the range of group of voters that were depressed or comes from the modeling itself that we went over, but also the absence of their completion.
	And this is, while we can't check their vote record now, these are people that do have vote histories.
	So if I see a woman who's voted every election since 1980, and for some reason she didn't show up this time when she told us, I am certain to vote, and I'm going to vote on election day, there is no reason not to believe her.
	How's my mic?
	So the conclusion you draw about how many voters To use your words.
	Witnesses Richard Barris.
	Or either suppressed or disenfranchised.
	Suppressed.
	That is based on who failed to complete your survey.
	Not only that.
	Is that correct?
	No, it's not.
	That's not only...
	It's a number of factors.
	We have historic data here.
	We have voting records of the past.
	There's a lot that goes into that.
	There is.
	I understand.
	I understand that.
	But the actual numbers sort of that you're saying that didn't turn out or were suppressed, that is based on how many people didn't complete the survey?
	In part.
	The exit poll would have projected a higher number.
	The exit poll would have projected over 50,000 if I took just the word of the people who told us they were going to vote, but then did not show up.
	I thought that, honestly, that was a little bit hard to support with historical data.
	So I'm using a mean.
	And that's what anybody else would do when you're trying to project.
	It's what Mr. Jarrett did when his team put together these models you saw yesterday in court.
	Model 1, Model 2. He's using means.
	So he's using the averages.
	It says right on page 11. He's not a lawyer.
	And he can't change his voice.
	Self-doxed.
	Who?
	Your projection about how many people would vote, was that based on any sort of interview with a person?
	Yes, later in part.
	Absolutely.
	I think I asked that question.
	Let me just make sure that we're speaking about the same thing.
	Your projection about how many people would vote on Election Day.
	That is based on how many people told you that they would complete your poll, correct?
	There's a little bit of vocal fry.
	On election day specifically, you're referring to?
	Or at all.
	No, no.
	I actually, again, I'd applaud the work I saw in the election plan in Maricopa County.
	It just has limitations.
	So we would add those interviews as a variable.
	Again, I use 2018 as a great example if you only used historical data.
	Then you would never have saw over 64% turnout in Maricopa County coming because you haven't seen an example like that in decades.
	So the reason, for instance, a pre-election pollster would be able to accurately project the outcome of that election is by talking to these voters, and at some point you have to believe them.
	And you have to, of course, verify and make sure that their vote history checks out.
	But if you're a pollster and you're interviewing them, you actually are a little bit, you have the advantage.
	You're able to catch on to new movers, for instance.
	Whereas if you're just looking at a historic turnout model, you're going to miss it.
	You're going to fall shy.
	Okay.
	And the people who actually responded to your poll, they all reported voting, right?
	Who actually responded, that's correct.
	Yes.
	Well, good news and bad news.
	We have a delay, which means I can stay here.
	Let's dig into that question just a little bit more.
	So for voters who...
	So you discussed with your counsel that you added a question to your poll on Election Day, right?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	So that question, which we've already gone over about sort of facing issues with any issues specifically referencing tabulators.
	There's no similar question that was asked to anybody who completed your poll before Election Day, right?
	Yes, that's true.
	And there's a reason for that.
	That's fine.
	So, yes.
	So, if early voters had faced issues, there was no question in your poll that would have captured that response.
	If early voters had faced issues, we would have added the question.
	That's what I'm trying to distinguish here.
	I understand.
	So, they were not asked the question.
	They were not.
	That's true, and they were not alerting us of any issues either.
	Did you ask Election Day voters outside of Maricopa if they had issues on Election Day?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	It's not really an accepted practice in the political polling industry to change or add questions partway through a poll, is it?
	Yes, it is.
	In a tracking poll, you can change a question every day.
	There's nothing wrong with adding a question if you feel...
	That there is a subgroup within the poll that is being uniquely impacted by it, then sure, sure you can.
	Part of the question had a premise in it.
	One of the issues you gave as an example that a voter could face was a voting location running out of ballots, correct?
	Yes.
	You're aware that Maricopa prints ballots on demand, correct?
	Oh yeah, we're aware of that now.
	Pinal County had an issue in the primary, so we were simply reflecting what participants of the poll were telling us they've had in the past.
	That's where they came.
	And again, the entire poll was conducted.
	That poll was even asked of other voters statewide, and it's worth noting that only Maricopa voters, only participants in the poll, who vote and reside in Maricopa County.
	responded that they had issues.
	There were no other voters outside in this state who said, yes, I ran into a problem.
	Okay.
	Your poll can't tell us how many voters encountered an issue with a tabulator in Maricopa, correct?
	Election day voters.
	It was about 32.7% did say they had an issue.
	Yes.
	They said they had an issue.
	Yes.
	An issue.
	Yeah.
	Only one.
	But your analysis can't tell us how many voters encountered an issue with a tabulator, correct?
	That's true.
	We didn't give them the option to switch.
	That's true.
	Absolutely.
	And it can't tell us how many voters of a specific party encountered an issue with a tabulator, correct?
	Specifically with a tabulator.
	That's right.
	We can give the share of each party that had issues.
	That had some issue on Election Day.
	You are correct.
	That's one issue.
	And no voter in your poll was asked whether they waited in the line on Election Day.
	So your analysis can't tell us about how many voters encountered a line when they went to vote.
	No, I think that's fair.
	And you can't tell us anything about where lines occurred in Maricopa?
	Well, not lines specifically, just issues being able to cast a ballot, yes.
	It also can't tell us how long those lines were.
	Should a voter have encountered a line?
	No.
	It can't tell us...
	It also can't tell us whether a voter decided not to vote because they encountered a line.
	That specific question?
	No.
	The only way we can, again, infer that is by the absence of their participation and the only ones to have an absence of participation.
	So there is always going to be a percentage of voters who tell you they're going to do your exit poll and then don't do it.
	Those who voted by mail were significantly less likely to not complete the questionnaire.
	And they are instructed to complete it at the time they cast their vote.
	93% did if they did not vote by election.
	72% did if they voted on election.
	Okay, and then that shows you what, Richard?
	And you can't tell us anything about whether long lines occurred in more Republican areas of Maricopa or more Democratic areas of Maricopa, correct?
	I can.
	I can only speak to general, like the question was worded, general issues.
	Did you encounter issues?
	Yes.
	So, yeah, we only know that 32%.
	So, again, the question was, did you have any issues or complications when trying to vote in person, right?
	Yes, 32%.
	This question doesn't allow us to distinguish between voters who encountered a significant issue versus a voter who had some kind of trivial issue, right?
	Well, because of the sample size, we can technically do that by just the amount of...
	The amount of signals is what we would call it.
	So are there areas that are consistently showing up as problematic areas?
	But because it's sample size, we can only look by congressional district that would not be able to look by vote center specifically.
	Okay, I understand.
	We can talk about your congressional district analysis, but I just want to clarify.
	The question doesn't allow us to distinguish between the type of issue that a voter face.
	That's true.
	You're correct about that.
	And voters who encountered a problem with something other than tabulators could have also reported experiencing an issue, correct?
	Yes.
	So, for example, if somebody had an issue with their voter ID, their voter ID, that could have been reported as an issue in your poll.
	Yes, he did not subdivide.
	And that's fair.
	I just want to make the point, though, that we...
	Decided what to ask people based on what was being relayed to us.
	So there were people who were attempting to contact us and tell us, you know, basically, I'm sorry.
	I know I said I would take your survey, but I had an issue.
	The line's too long.
	I mean, they were telling us these things.
	It's just at the time, you know, we did not design the poll thinking this, we'd be here today.
	You know, that's just a fact.
	Yeah, I understand.
	I heard you explain that to your counsel.
	I understand that.
	But for your poll, if somebody had gone to a Maricopa voter, went to a voting location that wasn't in Maricopa, and they found out they couldn't vote there, they could have reported that as an issue or complication when trying to vote in person, correct?
	I just want to make sure I'm understanding.
	So you're saying whether or not a voter who lives in Maricopa, who can vote anywhere in the county, went to the neighboring...
	A neighboring county and voted?
	Is that what you mean?
	It's just a hypothetical.
	So that voter, had they done that?
	I suppose it's possible, but we're talking about such large numbers.
	It shows that there was something systemic going on.
	There you go.
	We're not talking about a whole third of those who reported on Election Day that they had some complication.
	That's not going to be.
	A culmination of a ton of different issues.
	It's very unlikely, highly unlikely.
	It means it indicates there was something systemic going on.
	But a voter who showed up and had to vote provisionally, say, because their identity couldn't be verified, that person could report that they had an issue or complication when voting, right?
	No, they would have voted.
	If they cast a ballot, provisional or not, they would have.
	They would have been instructed to complete the survey.
	I think maybe my question didn't come across.
	The question I was trying to ask you is, a person who went to a voting center, expected to vote, and then found out that they could only vote provisionally, they might report that as an issue.
	Provisionally?
	Or complication.
	Yes, ma 'am.
	Yes.
	Now that I understand your question.
	It's Hobbs' lawyer, by the way.
	Thank you.
	I apologize for the lack of clarity there.
	So a voter who had to spoil their ballot and then vote a new ballot, they could have reported that as an issue or complication when voting on Election Day, right?
	It wasn't an option.
	I think that's unlikely.
	We did actually speak to several people who asked us whether they were looking for instruction.
	They got a bail in the mail and then they wanted to vote on Election Day.
	So they told us they went down to the polling station.
	Their mail ballot, they were told their mail ballot would be spoiled.
	What the lawyer is trying to establish?
	And I know this just has to do with how voters are feeling right now.
	It wasn't tabulator.
	But they wanted an election day ballot and they wanted it to go through the tabulator and count that day.
	There was just a group of people who just were diehard about this.
	So if they received an absentee ballot...
	They were telling us that they were instructed it would be spoiled, and then we told them, complete the survey, you voted, and it will be counted.
	Right, and I'll just clarify the question again.
	The question is just, if the person, a voter, like you said, a frustrated voter who had that experience, who actually voted, they might have still reported in your poll that they had a complication or issue when they went to vote.
	I honestly don't think that's likely.
	I don't.
	We interact with them.
	We do.
	So, I mean, we're constantly, you know, if they have an issue or something, our agents are telling them, no, that's not.
	You were able to cast a vote, you know, and that's it.
	I think it's unlikely.
	Is it possible?
	Sure, I guess.
	But if somebody didn't say anything out loud to us, but we are constantly interacting with them.
	We're very hands-on.
	We try to be.
	We really do.
	But again, we've done so many of these, I really have to point out.
	We've done so many of these, and these issues are not new.
	A lot of these issues you're bringing up.
	So it doesn't explain why out of nowhere we're seeing such huge positive responses.
	We would see this elsewhere.
	I'm just going to clarify.
	We're on a very limited clock.
	So if you can just answer my question and then your counsel will have an opportunity to ask you any clarifying questions and more testimony.
	I just wasted a minute.
	Thank you.
	I appreciate that.
	We're on a limited time.
	So kind of wrap this up here.
	So your poll doesn't give us any specific numbers about how many voters had issues that related to tabulators.
	No, it doesn't.
	That's correct.
	And it doesn't give us any information about what number of voters had issues that related to long lines.
	That's true.
	Doesn't break it down.
	They just 32% reported issues on election day.
	The majority of them were Republican voters.
	Do the math.
	Oh, but you don't know if it was tabulators versus long lines.
	In our conversation and also with your conversation with counsel, you mentioned sort of a geographical analysis that you did about where respondents of your poll reported encountering.
	Yes.
	Is that right?
	Okay.
	So I'd like to ask you a little bit about that now.
	You did that analysis by looking at the different congressional districts in Maricopa.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	2022, by the way.
	Right.
	All of my questions, just to be clear, pertain to the 2022 general election.
	Redistricting?
	I'm just wondering.
	Yeah.
	I understand what you're saying.
	The districts changed between 2020 and 2020, and you used the districts as they were in 2022?
	Yes.
	Okay.
	How did you determine where a poll respondent recited?
	How did you determine which congressional district they voted in?
	So we do know...
	It's a little scary, but you know a lot about a voter from the voter file.
	So we do try, even if they're on a cell phone, using longitude, latitude to verify where they're claiming to vote is honest.
	So we do ask them what congressional district they live in and vote in, and then we do verify that through the voter file.
	We even give them a map if they're taking a survey through a certain mode.
	Where they can view, they can even see the map of their own address.
	So to clarify, was it a question in your poll, did you ask the voter, where did you vote?
	No, just in which congressional district do you live in and vote in and reside?
	So the question was, which congressional district do you reside in?
	Both.
	They get both.
	That's what I'm saying.
	Did you live in?
	And Maricopa is a little bit different because you can vote anywhere.
	So you can go up the street and end up outside of Mr. Biggs' district.
	And end up in Mr. Stanton's district.
	So they get both questions.
	And we have the added benefit if they are taking that question on a cell phone.
	We can track them with their longitude and latitude.
	Software is crazy these days.
	Thank you.
	Okay, and I think your general testimony was, and please clarify if I'm mischaracterizing, but something along the lines of that congressional districts that ultimately elected either a Republican or Democratic candidate.
	That's the basis for which you said this is a, you know, a Democratic area or a Republican area.
	Is that right?
	That's part of it, I would say.
	We did show whether or not it was...
	Prior to the election, represented by either a Republican or a Democrat, whether that congressional district changed hands.
	But also as well, judging by, again, it's hard to really look when you're looking at samples this size.
	It's hard to look by centers.
	So there are parts of congressional districts we know support, you know, more Democratic candidates than Republican candidates and vice versa.
	But that is part of it.
	Yeah, we try to provide both.
	We're live on Rumble, by the way.
	I'll get the link.
	I didn't post the link here.
	Congressional District 9 is one of the districts that's in Maricopa, right?
	One, five, Schweikert, Siskimani, Stanton.
	Yeah.
	Ultimately, what we had, I believe, was five congressional districts in total, I believe them.
	Wrapped through.
	But I'd have to look and, you know, make sure.
	They're small samples.
	Sometimes you'll get a couple from, you know, a corner of one district.
	Yeah.
	Are you aware of how many congressional districts are in Maricopa?
	There are five congressional districts that wrapped in Maricopa.
	Do you want to ask any more questions to make them look much smaller?
	Would it surprise you to learn that there are eight?
	Well, no, it wouldn't.
	Sorry, but there were five participants that took the poll.
	There are five in the report.
	I see.
	So, there are three of the eight congressional...
	Yes.
	That's what I meant by a few of the...
	Sorry.
	Sorry.
	So, does that mean that in your poll, respondents only came from five of the three districts?
	Sorry, five of the eight districts?
	There were some in others, and they're on the table, but they're so statistically insignificant, I really can't draw any conclusions from them, and they're in the report.
	Okay, so there were three districts, three congressional districts in Maricopa, where you didn't have enough of a response to be able to report what the issues, how frequent the issues were in those congressional districts.
	That's correct.
	We're talking about 0.2%, you know, it was very small.
	Okay, and one of the congressional districts I remember from your report is Congressional District 9. Does that have any reason to disagree?
	With me?
	Yeah, I'm not sure.
	I mean, I'd have to have it in front of me to make sure I know exactly which one.
	Eight, I know the percentage for eight, you know, first.
	To feel comfortable if you're about to ask me about percentages, I'd need to, you know, honestly refer to it.
	Don't worry, Laurie.
	He's doing very well.
	He looks a little nervous, but that's probably because he's nervous.
	Being nervous is sometimes a good thing.
	It shows authenticity and, you know, not being a pathological liar.
	Go ahead.
	He's doing good.
	So you analyzed for each congressional district what percentage of the people who reported problems or complications resided in a specific district.
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	So, if my memory serves, about 30% of the people who said they had encountered issues came from the 1st Congressional District, what is now the 1st Congressional District.
	And the 8th Congressional District, if I remember correctly, was about 14%, I believe.
	There's the 5th as well.
	I mean, again, I'd have to have it, you know, right in front of me.
	I thought you were going to ask me.
	Sorry.
	So you just reported some percentages, and it's fine if they're exact or not.
	I'm not asking you to, it's not a memory test to report what the percentages were.
	What I wanted to know about is when you reported that percentage, I think you just said around 14% for CD8.
	Did you consider how much of the voter population resides in CD8?
	Sure.
	And that's why we chose to show it as a, that it is, First of all, that weighting, if it was necessary, would have taken care of that as a share of the overall population in Maricopa.
	Because each district is representative as far as how many came from that district in the overall sample, basically it...
	It's the principle of randomization.
	It wouldn't matter if there were 30% more in David Schweikert's district versus a much less populated district like Andy Biggs' district or more populated like former Congressman Stanton's district.
	It wouldn't matter.
	They still have the same probability of being asked the question.
	We have to look at this by Vote by party and, you know, I don't want to get ahead of myself, but they still have the same probability.
	So it doesn't really matter that one district is smaller than the other.
	It doesn't.
	Back up and make sure I understood then.
	So the congressional districts that you excluded from this analysis, I think we determined it was three of the eight.
	Does that mean that there weren't sufficient voters from those three districts who reported having problems?
	And that's why they're not included?
	No, the size was so small.
	That's why they weren't included.
	The sample size from that district.
	Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but yeah.
	Yes, the sample size.
	Okay.
	So for an excluded district, you didn't have a large enough sample size to say whether or not voters had problems in that district.
	That's right.
	So for the three of eight.
	there wasn't enough voters to determine whether there were problems in that district okay
	Moving on, you discussed some calculations with your council and you provided some calculations in your report about What could have happened had turnout been different than what it was?
	Is that right?
	Yes.
	Specifically, you and your report did those calculations based on if turnout had been 2.5% higher for all voters.
	Not turnout, because that might confuse turnout rates.
	If the total vote...
	Was just 2% higher, not a turnout rate.
	That's right.
	Okay, there you go.
	2% higher.
	Actual votes.
	What would that be?
	I understand.
	That fall within the range of the share of the election day vote was projected to make out.
	I understand.
	So you're saying had 2.5% more voters voted, what would have happened?
	And specifically, you're looking at what would have happened if those 2.5% of voters had voted on election day.
	Correct.
	Correct.
	Because we have all the ballots from early votes so it could only have been from election day voters the only population.
	You don't have any evidence specifically other than your projection.
	That's evidence, but go on.
	2.5% of total voters stayed home on election day.
	They didn't stay home.
	They had issues and did not complete the vote.
	I'm trying in that report just to show whether or not we needed some historically ridiculously high, significant number to show up.
	But I was looking at that two and a half, and I think it's probably...
	The least significant number to look at.
	It's whether or not they could, historically, and from what people told us, whether or not Election Day vote could have increased as a share of the overall electorate by what it would have needed to in order for it to have changed the outcome.
	Okay, and other than your projection, you don't have any evidence that 2.5% of total voters stayed home on Election Day.
	Not stayed home.
	We're not able to cast their vote.
	Everything that goes into your projection.
	Including what people told us and their vote history.
	Yeah.
	So it's your projection, right?
	Well, sure.
	Sure.
	And you're not offering any opinion that 2.5% of total voters stayed home on Election Day because of tabulator issues, correct?
	Well, my opinion is that's, you know, it's...
	When you look at Joe Voter, for Politicos, it might be a little hard to understand how average people would react if they were listening to their friends or they saw on social media, they saw news reports.
	There were widespread issues that deterred people from voting, or if there were long lines people couldn't wait in.
	It's easy to see how people walk away.
	Not everyone is so...
	You know, intense about politics that life can't be put aside.
	Life gets in the way.
	So, no, you're not offering an opinion that 2.5% of total voters stay at home on Election Day because of tabulator issues?
	Listen to that question.
	Oh, no, no.
	Let me clear that up.
	What I am saying...
	You said no.
	No.
	Whoa, whoa, whoa.
	I'm trying to explain that it is my opinion that the problems that people heard about and the issues they experienced.
	To press the vote.
	Not that much.
	To 40,000 votes.
	That is my opinion.
	Absolutely.
	From what people told us.
	And they've got the opinions.
	And the amount of percent that was missing from the poll.
	Again, at all the exit polls we have ever conducted, you don't see missing participants like this.
	There you go.
	Without something.
	But you don't know that it was because of the tabulators.
	You're not offering an opinion that any specific percentage of voters stayed home as a result of the tabulator issues.
	Can you imagine a range?
	Yes, I gave a range.
	I mean, I can't give a specific number.
	I can only give you an idea of whether or not it's...
	Mathematically, or just whether or not the range that is reasonable, we can conclude with a degree of mathematical certainty that this affected this chunk of voters.
	Is that enough to have changed the outcome?
	And I am offering the opinion that that range is enough to put the outcome in doubt.
	But you don't know if it was because of the tabulators.
	It could have been because of other things.
	You're offering a range, not a specific number, correct?
	That's correct.
	Okay, let's talk about some of the math that you did, and if you don't have to bear with me, lawyers are notoriously bad at math.
	Okay, so you do a calculation based on what would have happened if 2.5% more voters turned out, 2.5% additional.
	Not more voters, more votes cast.
	That's correct.
	The point is the voters turned out, they couldn't get their votes in.
	And you give a projection of what would have happened in the election had those people...
	Turned out and voted on election day.
	Not turned out.
	Had they successfully voted.
	And that calculation that you do, you said 2.5% is about 39,000 more voters.
	Does that sound right?
	Well, I know.
	Yes, it does.
	But the two and a half percent is...
	You really shouldn't focus on that.
	The point is the range of the share of Election Day vote.
	How many voters would have needed to turn out?
	How many more voters to push the share, the overall share of the Election Day voter?
	You know, as opposed to those who are dropped off in a box.
	Those who voted by mail to push it within a certain...
	Basically, I'm looking for the low of my range.
	So we estimated it would be over one-fifth, could be a quarter of the vote was Election Day vote, as, by the way, Model 1 does in the 2022 Maricopa plan.
	It could have been that high, which would have pushed Election Day voters from 250, roughly, to 300, much closer to 300.
	I'm looking for the bottom of that range, which is roughly 20. I understand that you're looking at a range.
	I understand your opinion.
	I'm not asking you about that.
	I just want to talk about the actual calculation that you did.
	So the number that you used was 2.5% and that was about 39,000 more votes on election day.
	Does that sound right to you?
	Roughly, yeah.
	Okay.
	As of election day, there were 2.5 million registered voters in Maricopa.
	Does that sound right?
	Yes.
	Of those, 1.3 million had already voted before Election Day, right?
	Those are all those early votes that were already cast.
	Less than 900,000 voters who would have been eligible to vote.
	That's true.
	You're going to need to fix my math if this is wrong, but 2.4 minus 1.3, I think, is about 1.1 million voters.
	No, you're wrong.
	It's 1.3.
	We said there were 2.4 million total registered voters in Maricopa.
	But we have to remove the Election Day votes.
	Go ahead.
	I understand what you're saying.
	Yes.
	Well, let's just take it step by step, so we're on the same page.
	So of those 2.4 million, 1.3 million had already voted by Election Day.
	That's those early voters, non-Election Day voters, correct?
	There was more than that, though.
	If you count those, you drop by drop box.
	Okay.
	And voted in person early, right?
	Sure, that whole number.
	So that would have left about 1.1 million voters who could have voted on Election Day.
	Sure, sure.
	And we know that 250,000 of those voters did vote on Election Day.
	But nobody has a perfect voter file, so you can't get the 100% turnout.
	So when the difference between your 1.1 and where I'm going with, it's less, is that there are voters who just aren't going to show.
	These are not high propensity voters.
	I can't justify that they could have showed up.
	They don't have the vote history to show up.
	I understand.
	I'm not asking you about that.
	Okay.
	So I think you said 900,000 numbers.
	Is that what you mentioned just now?
	Just now?
	No.
	Okay.
	So 250,000 people voted on Election Day.
	Does that sound right?
	In Maricopa?
	Roughly.
	Okay.
	250,000 in Maricopa.
	Taking out the number of people who had already voted before Election Day.
	They're not included.
	With the people who actually did turn out on Election Day.
	That leaves about 900,000 voters in Maricopa who ultimately didn't vote in the election.
	Does that sound right?
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Now, 2.5% of those voters, that's not 39,000, right?
	No.
	That's about 22,000.
	Yeah, I mean, I'll take your word for it.
	I used a calculator.
	2.5% of a million.
	So we have 22,000 votes.
	22,000.
	Fine.
	Using your 2.5%.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	And you say...
	Guys, we got it.
	She has vocal fries.
	Forget about it.
	You give a range, but you say, you know, about 70% broke for Miss Lake and about 30% voted.
	For a governor-elect Hobbs is one of the ranges that you use.
	Is that right?
	It's not a- I'm sorry, not a range.
	It's a specific number.
	Yes, there are specific numbers.
	I was being actually conservative with those numbers.
	The first tabulated batch from Maricopa was a much higher margin.
	And just to be clear on the math before, it did 2.5% of what had been voted already.
	Just to show whether it was plausible.
	It's not a matter of what's left.
	We know what's left out there as far as who is still eligible to vote.
	So I'm not using...
	I wasn't using that 2.5% as that, you know, as...
	I see what you were saying, but that's not the relevant math.
	The relevant math is whether or not there is enough voters to push the overall share of the election day vote.
	The 2.5% you're focusing on a lot.
	That's not the point of the number.
	You didn't pull 2.5% out of the air.
	I was just trying to show how small of the vote that had been cast would have needed to have been changed.
	The relevant number is the percentage of people who did not participate and whether or not there still would have been enough eligible voters out there that could have pushed the share of the Election Day voter higher.
	And then that would have changed.
	Okay, but taking your number just...
	This is the number you reported, and that's the reason I'm using it.
	I understand that you're saying that there could have been a range, but the number you used was 2.5%.
	So I just want to make sure we're understanding what that 2.5% actually means.
	So that's what I understand.
	I understand.
	Okay, so taking your number, the 2.5% of the voters who could have been left to vote on Election Day.
	That's actually about 22,000, not 39,000.
	I'm talking about the entire election.
	The entire election.
	Again, the math is still the math.
	There was still enough of the Pew.
	What the exit poll indicated to us was that it could have been 20% of that 250 that did not show up because of a lack of completion of that questionnaire and because of the issues they reported.
	Again, would there, if that's the case, would there be 50,000 votes remaining, you know, from those who are already voted early versus those who voted by Election Day?
	And there would have.
	There would have been 800 plus thousand.
	And to speculate that they would have voted, they could have voted by mail.
	I mean, the mail was done.
	It's in.
	Nothing else to talk about.
	We're talking about Election Day.
	That's a good point.
	Is there enough?
	And I'm using that as the 2.5% of the total vote just to see whether or not it would fall anywhere near that range.
	And it does.
	So you gave some projections, had 39,000 more people voted on Election Day, right?
	Voted, that's right, not turned out.
	39,000 people out of the 250,000 people who did vote on Election Day.
	That's about a 16%.
	Yes.
	Okay.
	Yes.
	You're hypothetical, the number you chose.
	What you're evaluating is what could have happened, in theory, if almost 16% more voters had turned out on Election Day.
	Is that right?
	Yeah, that's fair to say.
	I mean, it could have, because of the margins, and they did vary.
	For instance, some of the draw three.
	She won 80% of those votes.
	It wasn't 70%.
	I was being conservative with that 70%.
	The truth is, in the areas that we're talking about that are likely, if you want to call them suppressed, I don't know what term you want to use, but those voters who didn't show because of those lines, in some of those areas, it was higher.
	I was being conservative with 70%.
	Miss Lake was winning 76% plus of some of these areas.
	So it didn't need to be.
	It might not need it to even if.
	Increased by 50%.
	I'm not good at math, but 76 is more than 70, right?
	Almost 56.7, maybe something.
	I defer to your math over mine.
	Around 16%.
	Okay, that's actually sort of what you just talked about.
	It's actually a little bit different than what I was trying to ask you about, so let me just rephrase what I was trying to ask.
	You had this 39,000 number of 250,000 voters.
	That's just a raw number of about 16% of that total that actually turned out on Election Day, right?
	Sure.
	Okay.
	So your 2.5% selection, that example that you gave, what that is really saying is what would have happened if 16% more voters had turned out on Election Day, right?
	Cast a vote.
	That's not unusual in what we do.
	It's not.
	It happens.
	And so the math, the way you've done it, that basically assumes that one out of every six voters who was going to vote on Election Day didn't vote, right?
	I guess that's fair.
	A little less, actually, but the truth is, we absolutely can anticipate that that could have happened.
	It's not that many votes.
	It's not.
	And if you look, and another thing here is that made me a little bit uncomfortable is how much Those numbers would have made the Election Day vote as a share of the overall electorate.
	But then when I look at new registrations and who is registering to vote via what is essentially Arizona-America's permanent absentee ballot, 25% are not registering to vote by mail.
	So it seems to me, you know, 10 years ago, Arizona was 80-plus percent all mail.
	It seems to me that the Election Day vote is getting more and more of the electorate as time goes on.
	And I think that probably...
	Parties, like I said, they employ strategies to get voters to vote different ways.
	I think it would be folly.
	American people are unpredicted, and I think it would be folly if that's what the data tells us they were going to do.
	be folly to pretend like we know better.
	Yeah, I really, I mean, I don't know what she's managed to succeed at doing here other than, all right, so it's rough numbers, modest estimates, and their estimates.
	That's why you're a pollster, and I presume they have a number of affidavits from people who said I had to turn away and couldn't vote because it was just three hours long.
	I got things to do.
	In your direct testimony, you used the term disenfranchised.
	What did you mean by that term?
	I think if governments can't do everything in their power, there are always problems on Election Day.
	There's always going to be something that turns up.
	But if this was normal, then I would see this in every exit poll I do.
	This was not normal.
	This is the first time this has ever happened.
	Why would she ask this question?
	So I can only assume these people...
	I mean, when you hear the frustrations in their voice, like we did, there's no other word for it.
	Good question, Lauren.
	Thank you.
	By disenfranchised, you mean the people who chose not to vote?
	No, the people who got screwed by a corrupt system.
	I told you they didn't choose not to vote.
	Again, they may have chose not to vote early, but that's their right.
	They chose to vote on Election Day, and they were not provided ample opportunity to do so.
	This one gentleman is going to stick in my head forever.
	He showed up.
	It was 7:13 in the morning.
	And he said, you know, I'll vote after work if I can.
	I don't know if he did or not.
	And that to be fair, but he didn't take the exit poll.
	And I think just one last question for you.
	You have no knowledge that anyone from Maricopa County or otherwise intentionally tampered with the printers or tabulators.
	Great question.
	Correct.
	Although I will say this.
	It can't be an accident.
	I'm sorry.
	No, let him answer.
	You're right.
	I don't want to hear anymore.
	Thank you for your time, Mr. Barris.
	Yeah, thank you for yours.
	Might have a little more time to go.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Morning, Mr. Barris.
	Good morning.
	How long have you been working in the polling industry?
	Altogether about eight years.
	Did you start eight years ago or was there a gap?
	Six.
	Did you start eight years ago or was there a gap?
	I don't understand what you mean.
	So the last eight years of your professional life you've been working in the polling industry, is that correct?
	2014 on polling and elections, correct.
	How familiar are you with the challenges to the polling industry, technical and otherwise, that precede 2014?
	Only from research, sorry.
	You testified earlier that even the Associated Press has broken away from traditional polling practices.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	Traditional exit polling practices.
	That was your testimony.
	Are you aware that they've also broken away from traditional polling practices from pre-election?
	For pre-election day polling?
	Yes.
	Yes.
	Do you know why?
	They moved to a different panel, response biases, various, I imagine, like everybody else.
	But you're familiar with the technical issues, with the changing behavior of the American people with regard to cell phones rather than landlines, working people out of the home, people answering in the home.
	Random digit dialing no longer.
	That's right.
	So because of those changes, polling specifically in the last 25 years has been notoriously flawed.
	Correct?
	Not everyone.
	Not everyone.
	Not everyone there, sir.
	Now it's a pollster.
	None yet.
	You're familiar with the term random sample.
	Yes.
	And my understanding from your report is that you sampled or attempted to sample 813 voters in the state of Arizona?
	No, 813 just in Maricopa.
	813 just in Maricopa.
	It was a statewide survey that was what represented Maricopa.
	Yeah, what is the judge doing?
	And how many voters in Maricopa?
	About 813, yes.
	And not about 813 to qualify and participate.
	I'm sorry, I wasn't clear on my question.
	How many registered voters are there in Maricopa County?
	There are about 2.4 and change, almost 2.5, I would say.
	And would you say 813 is a sample size that would give you a significant amount of confidence in the outcome of that?
	Dude, they base national polls on 1,000.
	The reason I would say that is because we're looking at certain subgroups of the population.
	Specific location.
	So admittedly, not everybody is going to come out and vote.
	There are people who have vote histories that support that.
	That's part of projecting.
	The projections we use for turnout goes into the sampling errors, the calculations we do for sampling errors.
	But 813, there are polls out there right now.
	Based on the thousands.
	800, maybe even less, for the state of Arizona.
	In Canada, they determined that people supported the Emergencies Act based on 1,065 respondents.
	813 sample size?
	About 3.5%.
	Plus or minus?
	Plus or minus.
	And you said there were 2.4 million voters in Arizona?
	Yes.
	but there's not going to be 2.4 projected to turn out.
	What steps did you take in order to ensure that those 813 were selected randomly?
	That's a great question.
	We use a vendor, a national voter file database.
	And in this case, it is national.
	We obviously just stuck to Arizona.
	And they draw a random sample off of the voter file.
	And from there, when we contact them, it is randomly selected.
	So I understand from your testimony that you did not select the random sample.
	Is that correct?
	Well, of course I did.
	I mean, if every vendor...
	I testified that a vendor did.
	Is that correct?
	No.
	The vendor is the data source.
	It is randomly selected.
	Okay.
	So, Your Honor, may I object?
	I would just ask that counsel allow the witness to finish responding before you interrupt them.
	Here's the way it has to work.
	Your attorneys on the other side are going to have a chance to ask the questions.
	So, like I said before, wait until the questions...
	Barn's not coming today.
	I wasn't supposed to be here right now, but we're having one delay after another.
	We're both in transit today.
	Mr. Barris, I apologize if I misunderstood your response.
	I now understand your response to be that you've got the universe of registered voters from a vendor, but it was you yourself that did the random sampling.
	Software does the random sampling for everybody, counsel.
	Everybody.
	For everybody.
	All the pollsters, let me rephrase that.
	All the pollsters I know rely on software to draw random samples from the database.
	When you collect a random sampling, you're going to assume that some of those people that were randomly sampled are not going to participate in the poll, correct?
	Absolutely.
	So in your original universe, it exceeded 813?
	Yes, of course, yes.
	I understand you correctly, yes.
	then you assume that those who declined to participate in your poll and that those who, well I mean I want to ask a compound question, you will assume that those that you invited to participate in your poll but chose not to, their behavior would be the same as those who did choose to Zoom in more.
	Not always.
	And that's why we're big proponents of larger samples, because people are different.
	And, for instance, a more educated voter of the same party.
	Would be much more likely to participate than somebody who's non-college educated, even though it's the same party and they may appear to be the same kind of voter.
	That's a no?
	Yes, but that's a no, I would imagine.
	So when you get responses, you're not assuming that people who did not respond were going to behave in the same manner as those that did respond.
	Is that your testimony?
	No, that's mischaracterized.
	Obviously, it's principles of random sampling that you assume that everybody has the same chance and that they will, but we believe in larger samples to reduce that error.
	I wasn't saying that correctly.
	What I'm trying to get at, Mr. Barris, is which is it?
	Do you make an assumption that those who don't participate in your poll will behave in the same manner as those who do, or do you not make that assumption?
	We make the assumption that those who do participate Will mirror the behavior of those who don't, yes.
	In particular, you were interested in tracking the behavior of people by voter registration, is that correct?
	Not only, no.
	But it's correct that you were interested in tracking the behavior of people by voter registration?
	And for this poll alone, I just want to make sure I'm understanding your question.
	For this poll alone, you're asking if I'm Interested in tracking the behavior of registered voters.
	Yes, for the issues before this court.
	Your poll, yeah, that's right.
	Yes, at the most simple, basic, yes, yes.
	I think you testified that in addition to party registration, there are many different variables that can impact the behavior of a voter, correct?
	Correct.
	Yeah.
	Did you test for those in this poll?
	That question doesn't make sense.
	Well, let's say that in a previous election, there was a candidate for statewide office who was registered a Republican prior to 2022.
	And in 2022, there was a candidate for statewide office Who, upon winning the primary, feigned to have a dagger and slaughter the supporters of that other Republican.
	Could that being broadcast throughout the state affect the voting patterns of other people that are registered as Republicans?
	I don't understand that question.
	Do you anticipate and, in fact, did vote in 2022?
	What the hell was that question?
	I gotta be honest.
	I mean, Your Honor, I don't know if I could.
	That's such an over-the-top example.
	I don't know.
	If I could make a serious response to that.
	You can ask to have a question rephrased if you...
	How about strike that stupid question and ask a proper question?
	Monsieur Le, Monsieur Avocat.
	Can we get a...
	Yeah.
	There are events that do change voting behavior.
	Absolutely.
	And are you aware that that, as you characterize it...
	Over-the-top example actually happened?
	It's not a hypothetical?
	No, I'm not.
	And so, therefore, you did not test for that in your survey.
	The results of WITS are here in this court.
	Yeah, but if you're suggesting it impacted one group of voters over the other, I can absolutely point to 10 counterexamples where our main problem is not a response bias that would act in the direction that would change the behavior of a voter in the course you're suggesting.
	I can point to 10 others that would suggest that I have to do my job a lot harder and dig a lot deeper because voters are so terrified to even talk to people and give their opinions anymore.
	So it's your professional opinion that registered Republicans in Maricopa County that have a history of voting in every election and have for Senator John McCain every time he was elected and when he went for president.
	Would not have a negative reaction to another Republican running 6-5 who feigns to slaughter McCain supporters?
	Feigns to slaughter?
	What the hell is he talking about?
	That's all going to come up in the margins for candidates.
	And if they tell me they're going to vote, your example's irrelevant.
	Because if you're telling me they're going to vote and they have vote history, they're not going to lie to a poll.
	They'll just simply tell me, I'm not going to vote.
	Okay, so your opinion is that my example is not going to matter.
	Is that because every registered Republican is going to vote the same way in every election, regardless of the difference of the Republican candidate running for statewide office?
	Well, first, let me just clarify.
	I'm not saying your example doesn't matter.
	I'm saying I catch your example.
	I catch those voters, the vast majority of them.
	I'm going to catch them.
	So I'm not going to miss them.
	They're going to say, no, I'm not voting for this candidate, A, because of whatever.
	Click.
	And that's it.
	Or I'm not going to vote because of it.
	They all tell us that.
	That's a good point.
	But what was the second part of your question again?
	Or the follow-up?
	I'll accept your answer.
	Oh, good for you.
	Very, very big, very manly of you.
	I'll accept your answer.
	I have no choice.
	But I'll accept it because I have power over you.
	Your general conclusion is that fewer Republicans voted on election day than otherwise would have.
	Were able to vote, successfully voted.
	But for the problems of the printers and perceived problems of the tabulators.
	Is that correct?
	I would just say, I would say general issues that led to long wait lines, that's what we heard from the voters.
	I can't, you know, just nail down one.
	That's not my...
	I mean, you know, that's not my purpose.
	And I believe you testify that your research is based upon your study of the behavior of these registered voters in previous elections in Maricopa County?
	Yes.
	And did you track as a variable in your survey the weight lines of other midterm elections, such as 2018 or 2000?
	Oh, of course he did.
	Sure.
	And compared them to presidential election turnouts as well.
	Oh.
	Well, let me just...
	What was the wait time?
	You looked at 2012.
	I thought you, when you're saying weight, I thought you meant how much weight is given to turn out for different when you're modeling.
	Weight lines, you're being specific to weight times.
	That's correct.
	No, I did not study the impact of weight lines in prior elections.
	I'll see that.
	So it's difficult for you to examine your own data from 2022 with regard to registered Republicans voting on Election Day and 2022 general election.
	Because of wait times based on previous behavior of Republicans who voted on Election Day.
	When you did not look at the wait times in those previous elections.
	Well, and actually, in truth, I did look at some wait lines from the presidential election in 18. I didn't look, you know, in great depth.
	But I do understand that the wait lines in some areas reported wait lines were actually longer in 2020.
	But I think we have to be clear here that your wait time estimate is not the estimate for people who are waiting on line.
	You're looking at site check to the time that they get a ballot.
	You're not looking at estimates of people who are wrapped around the corner in a shopping center, you know, a mile long.
	The county wait estimate is not the true estimate.
	And the three-minute estimate is greatly exaggerated by adding election day drop-off ballots into that equation.
	Thank you.
	So is it your testimony that you did not account for the wait times in the midterm elections of 2012, 14, and 18?
	I would just say anything beyond a four cycle rolling a four cycle average, which is what we do, I would not have looked at now.
	And there's just...
	No, it's okay.
	You already answered the question.
	I have another one.
	Is it your understanding that Republican vote out on 22 was low?
	Republican vote in 22 was low?
	No, it was high.
	It was still high.
	It was.
	Turnout was very strong for Republicans in America.
	And to what to attribute your opinion that it was very strong?
	The turnout rates versus the Democratic Party, for instance.
	Republicans absolutely outvoted.
	Democrats has a turnout rate, 80-plus versus 80, probably.
	I haven't looked at the latest because the numbers have changed, but probably I wouldn't be surprised to hear if it is mid-80s, while Democrats are much lower.
	Mid-70s.
	Mid-70s?
	Okay.
	Democrats, very, very, very high.
	69.9.
	Would you be surprised to hear that?
	No.
	Now, you've said that...
	You base your opinions in part on the previous voting behavior of the subjects of your survey, correct?
	Correct.
	And I believe your early testimony was that you have perceived a difference in voting behavior of people who vote from the early voting list who vote by mail and people vote election day.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	And you base that on?
	It's starting now to become a trend, but I base it on the actual vote totals that we're seeing come in, and that's part also on Election Day.
	We do get real-time results at my company, so I can actually see, as Maricopa tabulates, what those election results are.
	And then, you know, I'm going to compare that to our work on the exit poll to see how accurate we were.
	So, for instance, in Maricopa or statewide, what was Ms. Hobbs' margin when all of the early, early vote was reported?
	And we'll go and we'll see how close we are in the exit poll, for instance.
	So you've based your opinion, in part, on the previous voting behavior of people who voted early in Maricopa County as opposed to people who voted on election day?
	That's not what he said.
	Is that correct?
	That's correct.
	And that's the answer.
	And did you account for a political party or a political campaign urging voters who already are on the permanent early voting list and have their ballots to not turn them in and vote on election day?
	I did.
	I did try.
	I mean, we definitely looked at that.
	And did you make the assumption?
	That the behavior of voters on the permanent early voting list who have a history of voting early were going to change their behavior in 2022 because now they were going to vote on Election Day.
	A great deal of them told us that, yes.
	So then your assumption that people's behavior tends to be the same whether they vote early two or three or four cycles back versus one year is...
	Non-valid, correct?
	No, I think you're misinterpreting.
	I mean, if they're going to vote at all, they're going to vote based on prior behavior.
	How they vote by method changes a great deal as time goes on.
	I would say from 2021, we're really experiencing a very drastic change in how people, certain groups, are deciding to vote.
	And I think you testified that in Arizona or Maricopa County, I don't think you were clear, but according to results, that vote by mail is getting less and less and less popular.
	Well, I don't know if we can call that a trend yet, but it does appear from the last two cycles that it will be.
	Yes, that's true.
	Would it surprise you that early voting popularity has exploded in Arizona?
	I don't know.
	What are you basing that on?
	Data?
	Early voters?
	You know, would.
	Because the people who registered in the last two years, newly registered voters in Maricopa County, are registering to vote less as an early vote than had...
	Uh-oh, that's not me.
	That's not my...
	Okay, hold on.
	That's not my technical glitch right now.
	That is a feed issue.
	Recordings just got better.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Okay, let me see something here.
	Okay, that's a feed issue.
	The people who registered for the early vote went from 75% to 77%.
	Well, you know what?
	That could happen.
	And then, like I said, it's still that they are not changing their status.
	And when we talk to them, they are, as you said before, and you were right, there are people who are, and we can see them on the voter file, they're on the absentee ballot list.
	But then they tell us, I'm still going to bring my vote on election day.
	I'm going to bring my ballot.
	I think we're just in a process and maybe it hasn't caught up yet.
	Are you aware that 84% of the vote in the general election in 2022 was early voting?
	Yes.
	Combined?
	Yes.
	16% election day.
	Thank you.
	No further questions, John.
	So maybe I'm dense.
	I don't know what they got out of him on that.
	We desperately need a morning break.
	We're at 35 minutes or 40 minutes past.
	So we'll take a 15-minute recess.
	We will come back at 5 minutes to 11. All right.
	Thank you.
	Hey, if Laura Barris is in the house, maybe she wants to pop into the stream.
	Let me see if I can't manage to do a...
	to get Joe Nierman.
	Joe Nierman is also...
	Sorry, I'm dealing with a bad camera now because I packed up my other one.
	Day two, just make sure we're not missing anything.
	Okay.
	This shot always reminds me of Rittenhouse when they zoomed in on the crest after...
	Every day.
	Let me go here.
	No video.
	Well, let's...
	Okay, Laura, I'm going to go send the link via Twitter DM to Richard.
	No, I have your email address.
	Hold on.
	Let me see here.
	See if I can do this.
	No, that's not it.
	How about this?
	No, that's not going to do it.
	No, not coming up there.
	I'll send it to you via Twitter DM.
	Let me just get that comment off.
	Okay, copy.
	Boom.
	So they're done with Richard.
	They concentrated on attacking his methodology.
	That's all that he was there to testify on.
	Okay, that's the one that we're using, and this is not the one we're using, so let me go here.
	Messages.
	There we go.
	Okay, I'm going to send it via here.
	Let's see if this works.
	And then I'll do this.
	Messages.
	I'm going to send this to somebody else.
	Hold on.
	Oh, what's this?
	Hot mic.
	What are we going to get?
	Okay, so we're going to let this run.
	See if we can hear anything.
	Who wants water?
	Yeah, hot mics are good.
	Hold on.
	Okay.
	Is there any issue with keeping the screen going on?
	The only thing is I have to swap that.
	My battery is unfortunately elastic.
	So I got to swap out.
	I wish I had better battery than the late.
	I'm just thinking for, because we're streaming the whole thing.
	Yeah.
	It's fine if not.
	We'll just run commercials through.
	I'm trying to make it the best possible.
	This is awesome.
	So you're still keeping it up today?
	Because yesterday you were turning it.
	I'm just going to keep up on the seal.
	Oh, good.
	OK, yeah, yeah.
	That's all I do.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I'm not.
	Awesome.
	Yeah.
	I thought you meant No, no, no.
	Yeah, you've got to do the battery.
	This won't shut up unless Oh, it's OK.
	Well, yeah.
	I'm still going to be charging and everything.
	OK.
	So it's just awesome.
	Okay, well I think this is going to get boring real quick.
	Do I take this out?
	I'll hear it in the background.
	Will I do a recap later on?
	Maybe not a dedicated recap.
	I'm supposed to be going home, going home, going to Canada, but we're having delays after delays, and I'm starting to get nervous.
	So...
	Oh, I really want to keep hearing this.
	It's a 15-minute morning break, by the way.
	They had Richard Barris come on.
	I missed some of what Barris had to say.
	I'm going to take it out.
	I'm not going to hear anything.
	I missed some of what Barris had to say.
	But Barris is a pollster.
	He does People's Pundit.
	And...
	Ooh, hold on.
	Now we hear some talk.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Yeah, there's a blizzard in Canada.
	Dude, they're talking about...
	Oh, Twitter handle changed.
	Laura, I sent it to Richard, but hold on.
	Let me see.
	Laura, what is your Twitter handle?
	Yeah, Robert Gouveia does a great recap, and he's got his mind maps, and it's amazing.
	Let me see if I can go find Laura.
	Yeah, there's one right here, Brian.
	On Twitter.
	Richard Barris?
	Laura Barris?
	Okay, account suspended, so that may not be the right one.
	Looks like Laura's account that I know is...
	Let me see here.
	Laura Barris, too.
	Okay, give me one second.
	Okay.
	Okay, follow and...
	Laura, I think you need to follow me if I'm going to be able to send this to you via DM.
	And we're going to get inside the numbers with Mrs. Barris.
	Okay, hold on.
	Let me see here.
	Two feet of snow expected in Ontario.
	That's great.
	Okay.
	We will see what happens, people.
	But one way or the other, there will be fun.
	Okay, here we go.
	Here we go.
	Now I can send it to Laura.
	Here we go, Laura.
	Boom shakalaka.
	Okay.
	We're going to get Laura in because she'll be able to explain it better than me.
	Shane Cashman was in court.
	Yesterday and reported on Timcast that Hobbs lawyers were making fun of the witnesses yesterday.
	I'm sure they were.
	Who cares?
	Making fun.
	I don't know what that means, but it'd be cool to be in the courtroom for this.
	I don't care what anybody says.
	I don't care how much you think this is a lost cause or how much you love Hobbs or hate Carrie Lake.
	Nobody could look at what happened yesterday and say it went smashingly for the defense.
	It was...
	RBM has a much better feed and audio than Viva's feed.
	This may be true.
	I'm using today ABC.
	Yesterday, there were glitches with RSBN's audio yesterday, which...
	Yeah, the audio is lower here.
	There's no question about that.
	Nobody can say that yesterday went well for Hobbs.
	This morning, Barris, he's a pollster.
	He does what Nate Silver does, except he doesn't...
	slightly more accurately.
	And, um...
	You're looking at me like you're not...
	I'm doing it.
	Yeah, I got it.
	Okay, I don't know.
	It's this table.
	I'm looking at you.
	You're sitting at this table.
	Yeah, this table.
	You said that they were waiting for someone to...
	Yeah, okay.
	I just want to make sure that what I'm saying...
	Yeah.
	Some rumble rants.
	I'm sorry, I forgot to get to these.
	Daddy Dragon, $10 rumble rant, says, Ashby versus White confirms that the right to vote and your right and your vote being registered is at the core of our Constitution and consent to being governed.
	And there's another one, Daddy Dragon, $10 rumble rant.
	The American right that their vote is inviolable comes from English common law, Ashby versus White, 1703.
	They are dropping the ball by not mentioning it.
	And there was some...
	There was some more Rumble rants in the chat in Rumble.
	We got a $5 Rumble rant from Periodontosaurus.
	Viva, how do trial lawyers craft questions to experts when they have no clue about the expert's field?
	Do these guys have help because the questions aren't very good?
	That's a good question.
	I'll get to that in a second.
	I'm going to pull out the stream because I see Laura's in the background.
	This is going to be distracting for me and for everybody.
	Okay, removing that.
	Laura, I'm bringing you in.
	There is no video, just a pulsating avatar, everybody.
	Laura?
	Oh, there you are.
	Now I hear you.
	Okay, good.
	Let me wait for your audio to get stabilized.
	I'm sorry.
	Okay, no, that's good.
	I think we're good.
	Everyone in the chat, let me know if I'm way lower than Laura or if Laura's way louder than me.
	Okay, so Laura, for those who don't know who you are.
	All right, so I am the famed wife to Rich Barris.
	I'm also the producer to the show, a.k.a.
	secretary, producer, wife, counselor, and so on.
	All right, now, so you, first of all, what is it like watching Richard testify live?
	Oh, man.
	This is a first, right?
	Yes, this is a first for me.
	I was sweating because I'm, as you all know, a little spicy.
	So when she was asking him and lip smacking and being derogatory towards him, it was very upsetting.
	But he handled it like a champ.
	So I give him credit.
	Okay, so explain, simplify what he was getting at and what they were trying to get at on cross.
	He's explaining his methodology as to how he does exit poll sampling.
	Just explain that, clarify that in ways that lay people like myself.
	All right, so what happened is this.
	The whole problem is they've been trying to disqualify him for about a week now.
	They've been trying to get him out.
	And their argument was that Rich made this number up out of thin air.
	And that is why he started off, when you're like, I don't understand, he was laying the foundation for his math so everybody could understand where he got it from.
	But what they kept trying to do, if you notice, they tried to get all registered voters versus those that voted, and they're trying to mess with the math so it looks unclear, which was aggravating me.
	But every now and then, the only way that they could invalidate, well, they tried to invalidate His data by saying, you could, by using the word tabulators, and using, like, specific key issues.
	Like, no, his data didn't show just one.
	It just showed all of your issues put together.
	And in the end, that minimal percentage that he actually used a very favorable number towards Katie Hobbs, not towards Carrie Lake.
	And Carrie Lake, with all that data put together, still.
	Would have been the winner.
	They were trying to disqualify him, like get him not to testify?
	Yes, they were trying to disqualify him as an expert and said that he's not an expert and that's why they brought up FiveThirtyEight because everybody knows Nate Silver hates my husband and Nate Silver gave him an F. But meanwhile, I give him credit because he was graceful about it.
	If you compare my husband's record, Big Data Poll's record, to FiveThirtyEight, there's no competition.
	And the fact that somebody like FiveThirtyEight, who's in the red as a company all the time, negative millions of dollars, amazes me every day how they're still in business.
	Well, Laura, I would have said that.
	I was fishing through my Twitter feed to see when I put out a tweet asking, Twitter was still in business despite the fact that it never turned a profit.
	Let's just assume that FiveThirtyEight exists for the same reason Twitter did back in 2020.
	Not to make money, but to influence and shape public opinion.
	Yes, well, that's exactly why he hates us because Rich opened the door and said, hey, come here.
	If I'm so wrong, show me how I am wrong.
	Come to my house.
	Come to my office.
	I will give you the keys.
	Let's run through the math.
	He can't.
	He doesn't even understand basic polling questions that Rich asked him.
	And they said, Richard, had you ever been off?
	Had you ever been wrong?
	And he said, I've never been wrong by more than the margin of error.
	Did you understand?
	I mean, I guess you understand that.
	What did he mean by that?
	Okay, so the margin of error gives you...
	Being within two to four points of...
	Let's say...
	Oh, man.
	Let's say you and I are running against each other, right?
	And he says, Viva's going to win by two points.
	But I win by a half a point.
	He's still within the margin of error.
	Like, his data wasn't so far off that he was completely wrong.
	But he missed it by a few percentage points.
	Where other pollsters, let's say 538, would say, hey, Viva wins by 15 points.
	There's a huge disparity between Rich's accuracy and other pollsters' accuracy.
	And now, the reason why I'm thinking about that is because some people are going to say that a bunch of people may have not gotten it right in 2020 midterms, but within the margins of errors, because some of those races were 17,000 vote difference and not a 500,000 vote victory for Katie Hobbs.
	Correct.
	All right.
	And when did Richard go down?
	He went down the day before yesterday?
	Yes, he was actually supposed to testify yesterday.
	And that's why I was like, okay.
	And he was like, I'm not sure.
	They're not being clear.
	And they were running the clock out.
	They were running the clock out.
	And I think what it was is they were still trying to get rid of him somehow as an expert, in my personal opinion.
	Because they were asking irrelevant questions towards the end with the last witness.
	Who was great, by the way.
	I thought he was perfect.
	I know for a fact they didn't want him there.
	Very cool.
	Have you spoken to him since he finished?
	Not yet.
	I'm sure that he is taking his break.
	I mean, the way...
	I'm so proud of him right now.
	I can't even express it.
	I know I'm, like, gushing over my husband right now.
	Well, it is amazing.
	First of all, like, some people were joking that he's sweating or, you know, that he looks nervous.
	Nobody's ever testified in front of a judge that could understand the stress, even if you are, you know, it's normal to be stressed and nervous, and if you're not, that might be more suspicious.
	But he was good.
	As his wife, I could tell you he was annoyed.
	I know his telltale signs.
	He was annoyed with the repetitive questions.
	Asking it in different ways but the same question.
	He wants to get as much information out because he's an information guy.
	He just felt like they were trying to mishmash everything.
	I could tell he's an information guy.
	I love it.
	They were trying to...
	You know, poke holes at the credibility of his polling numbers because he didn't get the specific reason for which they said there were 32% of them said there were issues.
	Were they tabulator issues?
	Were they long line issues?
	I mean, I'm argumentative and I'm sorry.
	It's always easy to sit back and say what I would have said.
	But, you know, at some point you say like the long line issues become a result from a tabulator issue.
	So the question itself doesn't make any sense.
	Oh, they didn't say tabulator issues.
	They said long lines.
	Well, they might have said long lines because the lines were long because they didn't even see the tabulator issues.
	Yes.
	Now, me on a personal level, I would have used their words.
	I mean, I know it's easier said than done because I'm sitting at home, but I would have thrown their words in their face.
	I was like, well, I can't pinpoint a tabulator issue, but I can tell you it was a disruption issue and used the word disruption that they kept using yesterday over and over and over again just to throw their own words back in their face.
	Absolutely.
	What was the best one they had yesterday?
	Oh, the unlawful ballot and the witnesses.
	I think technically under the law they say invalid.
	No more questions.
	It was fantastic.
	Shrink to fit was epic.
	Shrink to fit.
	Shrink to fit, 19 inches.
	There's so many hashtags or memes that are coming out of this for anybody who's bothering to watch.
	Some people are...
	Some people are saying, who's Rich?
	Oh, Rich.
	No, people are thinking of Seth Rich, not Richard Barris.
	Seth Rich, everybody knows, was the suspected individual who leaked the DNC files and then got robbed, but not robbed.
	Rich Barris was the witness this morning, People's Pundit.
	Laura, before we get back to the show here, where can people find you and Rich?
	Oh, well, we are all over.
	Getter, YouTube, Rumble.
	It's the People's Pundit.
	What else?
	Where else?
	Oh, and locals, peoplespundit.locals.com as well.
	And you can find Viva there, too.
	VivaBarnesLaw.locals.com.
	VivaBarnesLaw.local.
	Now, I'm looking at, we're on Rumble as well, so I'm just trying to survey the chat here.
	Attorney Steve, $20 rumble around, says the element of intent may be inferred from all of the facts and circumstances disclosed by the evidence, state versus logins.
	That's what I wanted.
	You know, Barnes was yelling at the screen yesterday to the witness.
	The evidence?
	We know of a certain number and they refuse to do what they legally are required to do.
	Therefore, I infer the evidence.
	Oh boy, so you're relieved and you're going to go talk to Richard now?
	Yes, I'm going to go call him and tell him how proud I am and that I love him to pieces and keep up the great work and I can't wait until he comes home so we can do Christmas Eve because we're also half Italian so Christmas Eve is a big deal of the Feast of the Seven Fishes.
	I've never spent...
	I spent one New Year's in Florida in my entire life when we were 13. Every other New Year's I've spent up at my parents' cottage.
	And I don't know if we're getting out of here this year because apparently there's delays after delays.
	It's my dad's 80th birthday, so we'll see if we can...
	Oh, traveling with three kids and delays with three kids.
	But at least...
	We got the delay notice early, so we don't have to, you know...
	Run out.
	Yeah.
	Thank you.
	Oh, Laura, thank you for coming on.
	Ghost of Recon says, dang, I lost my bet that Richard B's wife was made up.
	I mean, who could imagine someone who loves math that much could also attract a mate?
	Good on the both of you.
	Poke Viva until he gives you half of this.
	I'll go drop.
	I don't want any of it, Viva.
	Don't you dare.
	Don't worry.
	And then I'll drop in during your next stream.
	When do you guys...
	What's your schedule?
	Because I know you go...
	Yes, usually, just because of all this is happening, it's been cattywampus.
	But on Tuesdays and...
	No, I'm lying to you.
	Oh my god, my brain just died on me.
	Friday?
	Sorry, Wednesdays and Fridays.
	We used to do Monday, Tuesday, and then Friday, but it is Wednesdays and Fridays at noon p.m. Eastern Standard Time to 2 p.m.
	All right.
	And that's where you can find us.
	And thank you, Viva.
	Laura, thank you very much for popping on.
	Timing is perfect.
	Go talk to Richard.
	The court is coming back, and it's right here.
	Awesome sauce.
	Thanks.
	All right.
	Have a good one.
	You too.
	Bye-bye.
	Okay, that was cool.
	Is Richard still on the stand?
	Oh, they're going to have a redirect.
	That's why she couldn't talk to him yet.
	Okay, they're going to have a redirect, I guess, because the cross-examination finished.
	Hold on, is my audio off?
	Yeah, my...
	Gosh darn it, fever.
	...
	I can't bring up the audio so.
	To understand that it's exhibit 120 that will be marked that you comply with my request to have an outside clean thumb drive provided that the recording has been downloaded to the clean thumb drive that is in place.
	That's correct.
	I'm going to lower my volume a lot now so you can jack up all your audio.
	I used to offer a few of the objections from the defense.
	Your Honor, beyond the standing objection with respect to the 807, And now they're arguing about the voicemail from yesterday, Betty.
	They said they knew.
	Okay, I'll give that the relevance that it's entitled to, but I'm going to admit it over objection.
	Thank you.
	Fine.
	It's admitted.
	Okay, the audio just picked up.
	Okay, here we go.
	I believe where we left off was...
	What's it called?
	Redirect.
	Redirect, not reestablish.
	Redirect to Richard.
	Go for it.
	Do it.
	Viva is still too loud.
	Hold on.
	Mr. Barris, has your polling company ever been ranked by any professional organizations?
	Yes.
	And which professional organizations ranked your company?
	It's my understanding.
	It's being ranked by RealClearPolitics right now.
	The only other bipartisan group, I would say, that has looked at or worked thoroughly and ranked it is Election Recon.
	They're a forecast website.
	And what was your ranking by Election Recon?
	Big Data Falls number two.
	So your company is ranked number two out of how many?
	They look at...
	A lot of polls only published in the top ten.
	You have to have four cycles of polling history to be ranked by them.
	So a good deal.
	I would say it's probably in the neighborhood of 200.
	That's interesting.
	So out of 200-plus polling organizations, you were ranked by Election Recon as number two.
	Yes.
	And is that based, at least in part, on the accuracy of your polling results?
	Yes.
	how much of a bias you may have to one party candidate or the other and your accuracy rate In your cross-examination, counsel asked you a number of questions about hypothetical issues that might have arose on Election Day that could have affected turnout.
	Based on your conversations with the participants in your survey, do you have an opinion as to what the primary issues that those participants were telling you about?
	Absolutely.
	And what is that?
	It calls for speculation.
	Overruled.
	And mischaracterizes the prior testimony.
	End discussion.
	Okay.
	We can cure the second half of the objection by simply asking a straight question and not basing it upon any statement of prior testimony or answers.
	And I would...
	The question I think that you were posing, I just want to make sure that it's directed to the basis for his statements related to the opinion relating to the reasons for not showing up.
	I'll rephrase the question, Your Honor.
	You understand what I said?
	I think I did.
	All right.
	Well, if you don't, I think we'll hear about it in just a second.
	So please re-ask the question.
	You were asked by counsel for the defendants a number of hypotheticals that might have affected turnout on election day.
	You spoke with the number of participants.
	Sorry, objection, Your Honor.
	Can I finish my question, maybe?
	He's repeating exactly what he did before, and he's characterizing my question as hypothetical when it was not.
	The court specifically asked him to just pose the question without referring to my previous question.
	Your Honor, I'm actually not referring to his examination.
	I'm referring to your co-counsel, and she actually used the word hypothetical.
	I'll overrule it, let you re-ask the question along the lines that you're asking.
	Just restate the question, please.
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Mr. Barris, you were asked a number of questions by counsel for the defendants as what possibly could have caused voter concerns on Election Day.
	Do you recall that?
	Yes.
	In your conversations with those voters, what do you believe was the main concern expressed by those voters?
	Long wait times, same time.
	The ballot's not reading properly.
	Generally, it's what they've expressed.
	You were also asked by Mr. Liddy about certain events.
	I think he used the word if somebody talked about a knife and some kind of gory details as possibly affecting voters?
	Yeah, I recall.
	If I told you that any comments like that were made several months before the election, would any impact, any comments such as that be included in your data?
	Yes, as I said before, Mr. Olson People would tell us they're simply not voting or they're voting for somebody else.
	It would have been included.
	It's after the fact.
	So I believe you said that you have never experienced a drop-off rate on exit polling that you experienced in November 2022 before?
	That's correct.
	And what was that drop-off rate again?
	The drop-off rate is normally anywhere between five to eight percent.
	So for mail-in balloting, those who chose to vote by mail, The drop-off to 93% completion rate, meaning of those who said, yes, I will take your exit poll, 93% did, in fact, complete the exit poll.
	It was 72% for election day voters, which we don't see the differences like that.
	They're not.
	That's never happened.
	So that was approximately a 19% drop-off rate in comparison?
	Approximately, yes.
	Out of how many polls have you conducted in your experience?
	Over six years, I think it's fair to say hundreds.
	Have you ever seen that much of a drop-off rate in the several hundred polls that you've conducted in your six years?
	No, I have not.
	Have you ever experienced anything even remotely close to that drop-off rate?
	not on the next poll, no.
	Thank you, Mr. Burris, Your Honor.
	We have no further questions.
	May we excuse the witness?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Ms. Burris, you're free to go, sir.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Council, have we attended to all the exhibits that the plaintiff intended to offer?
	Yes, Your Honor.
	Do you have any further witnesses or testimony?
	No, Your Honor.
	Okay.
	Plaintiff rests.
	So they in redirect.
	Excuse me.
	Got Barris to clarify.
	He's a damn good pollster.
	The honor will call our first witness who's captain mayor and he'll be joining us by the team's link.
	Now this is the defense.
	Team's link.
	Is he on vacation too?
	By the way.
	Excuse me.
	Right Side Broadcasting Network is doing this live, I think on YouTube, but definitely on Rumble as well.
	Joe Nierman, Good Logic, is also live.
	I don't know if Kurt on Civil Law is live, but if my feed cuts out, because at some point I'm going to leave and try to set up a second computer, and I don't know why it was cutting out.
	If my feed cuts today, there's options.
	So Joe Nierman, Good Logic, RSBN, Right Side Broadcasting Network, I believe.
	Can you hear me?
	I'm going to see if Kurt...
	I can, Your Honor.
	I'm going to have you sworn in, sir.
	Are you on vacation?
	Are you with Richard right now?
	He's wearing a suit, at least.
	I do.
	Thank you, Your Honor.
	Good morning, Dr. Mayor, and thank you for being here.
	I'd like to just begin by discussing your background.
	So first, will you please briefly describe your education?
	I have a PhD in political science from Yale University that I received in 1988 in political science.
	I've received a bachelor's in political science with a minor in applied mathematics from UC San Diego in 1982.
	Next, will you describe what position you currently hold?
	I am currently a professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison and an affiliate faculty at the La Follette School of Public Affairs, also at UW-Madison.
	Now can you briefly describe some of your scholarly work and the publications in which it appears?
	I am very smart.
	Most of my recent scholarly work has been in the area of election administration.
	Everything from voter turnout to wait time and non-voting.
	Oh, that's convenient.
	And also academic studies of the presidency.
	I have many letter-down books behind me, as you can see, and the letter A on my right.
	Can you chat a number of different areas of research?
	Can you focus a little bit on some of your work as it relates to polling?
	And tell us a little bit about your background there.
	I have actually done various polls since my earliest days at Wisconsin.
	I was hired as a pollster in the early 1990s.
	I have done the work in the last 15 years.
	What was this guy's name again?
	Surveys of state election officials.
	I'm on the board or steering committee.
	of a unit here at UW called the Election Research Center, and we've done a number of polls around the Midwest and states in 2016 and 2020.
	I've also done surveys of non-voters, so I've been involved with the design and execution of surveys and polls over the last 30 years.
	And another sort of relevant to this case area that I would like you to describe some of your background in.
	Specifically, can you describe some of the work that you have done relating to pulling place lines?
	I was part of a national research group that did a study of pulling place wait times and lines in 2016.
	And I'm currently involved with some advisor consulting with a local municipality about optimizing their allocation of polling place resources to reduce wait times.
	And have you previously testified as an expert in legal cases?
	Chat, what I'm getting at, get his name.
	Someone go back and get his name.
	The court's relied on your expertise and opinions.
	Kenneth Mayer, okay.
	Yes, they have.
	The court ever rejected your testimony?
	Hell no.
	As being excluded as a non-witness?
	No, as an expert witness?
	No.
	Have you served as an expert witness for both plaintiffs and defendants in the cases that you've been involved in?
	Yes, Katie Hobbs with both plaintiffs and defendants.
	Have you worked on behalf of both Republicans and Democrats?
	Ah, that's right.
	Yes.
	Can we get a number?
	Was it like a SBF donation?
	Now, turning to this case and your work in this case, as it relates to printing and tabulator issues, what were you asked to do?
	I was asked to evaluate claims that issues at voting centers caused long wait times or had resulted in voters basically walking off or not being able to vote.
	My analysis was focused on the available data.
	Did you review the complaint that was filed in this case?
	Yes, I did.
	What about any of the attachments to that complaint?
	I reviewed the attachments with respect to a number of the affidavits or declarations that voters had filed and also reviewed the report of Mr. Barris.
	Have you watched any of the testimony that's been given in this case yesterday and today?
	Yes.
	Have you watched all of it?
	Yes.
	So as it relates to the question that you analyzed, what is sort of your high-level opinion?
	My high-level opinion is that all of the claims that were made in the complaint about the effects of voter wait times, the claims of disenfranchisement, claims of a disproportionate effect on Republicans and late voters.
	That they are all based on pure speculation that there's simply no data to support any of those claims and actually quite a bit of data that suggests that those things actually did not happen.
	Okay, let's now discuss the specifics of what you base your opinion on.
	Are you familiar with reconciliation and provisional vote data?
	Yes.
	Just generally, what is that?
	So in this context, reconciliation data typically refers to comparing data on the number of voters who check in at a polling place and the number of ballots that are cast, provisional vote data.
	There are a number of circumstances in which people will present at a polling place.
	And for one reason or another, there are questions about their eligibility and rather than Turn them away.
	After the Help America Vote Act in 2002, polling places were required to let them vote provisionally.
	They cast a ballot.
	And then after election day, election officials try to figure out whether or not they were eligible.
	And if they're eligible, if they find out or conclude that those voters are eligible, the ballots are counted.
	Otherwise, they're rejected.
	And what about reconciliation data?
	What is that?
	Well, that's the comparison of check-ins and ballots, which will provide information that there are people who check in at a polling place.
	When they check in, they show their ID, they identify themselves, and the number of ballots that are cast, and those numbers should line up or be close.
	And did you examine reconciliation and provisional vote data in this case?
	I examined the summary data reported by Maricopa County.
	And what did that data show?
	Everybody.
	It showed that there were, I think the numbers are, there were 170 voter difference between the number of people who checked in and the number of people who cast a ballot.
	And we don't have information about why they were not, or they did not cast a ballot.
	Either a ballot that wasn't counted or a potential walk-off.
	So that gives us an idea of the number of people who, for example, might have presented in the polling place and because of trouble with the ballot or trouble with the tabulator, simply left without putting their ballot into door three.
	I've also looked at the provisional vote data, the summary data produced by the county.
	Which shows the number of provisional ballots that were cast in the county.
	Has anyone...
	I think I found his Twitter handle.
	And what about...
	Kenneth Meyer from University of Wisconsin.
	...about voters who perhaps checked in at one voting location but then didn't ultimately vote there and voted somewhere else?
	Yes.
	So there is a process that voters who check in at a voting center and for one reason or another...
	have trouble turning their ballot or there was a tabulator issue.
	They didn't want to use the door three.
	They had the opportunity to actually check out of a vote station and go to a vote center and go to another vote center.
	And it would also show up that if someone checked in at a vote center and for whatever reason didn't.
	Submit a ballot that was tabulated and they actually left the vote center without checking out and went to another vote center.
	That's also something that will show up in the data because then they'll be in the registration system twice, once where they checked in initially and once where they checked in a second time.
	And I would have to look at the county report.
	I think there were There were 84 people, 94 people who checked out and then checked back in and voted.
	There were another 120 or so people who checked in and then left without checking out and then cast a ballot at a second vote center.
	And I think all the 13 of those ballots or all the 13 of those voters were able to successfully cast a ballot that was counted.
	Okay, so in your opinion, is there any reason to believe that large numbers of voters abandon their efforts to vote after encountering difficulties with tabulators?
	not only is there no evidence that that happens, the evidence that exists suggests strongly that that did not happen.
	I think I found a Twitter handle.
	I think you mentioned this already, but the voters who perhaps did encounter an issue with a tabulator, did they have another option of how to submit their ballot for counting?
	Yes, they could have submitted them into what Arizona calls door number three, which is just a storage area within the tabulator that the voter submits their ballot, and then it is later either tabulated.
	At a tabulator at a central location or if it's not readable or there's an issue with the pens or the ambiguity of the mark, it's duplicated and then tabulated.
	So there was a failsafe option for voters who could not get their ballot to be read by a tabulator at a vote center.
	In your experience with election administration and your work, are things like tabulate or malfunction something that can happen in elections?
	Yes, it happens.
	It is one of the most common issues that arises in the work on election day operations that I have studied.
	And is it possible for issues with tabulators to occur even when election officials follow best practices?
	Yes.
	It can happen for reasons that are not anticipatable.
	It can be just sort of machine breakdowns of the sorts of things that are hard to predict.
	When tabulators do break down, is that a reason to suspect that the integrity of the election results are somehow compromised?
	No, it's not.
	Are you familiar with the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency?
	Yes, I am.
	What is that?
	It is a unit within the Department of Homeland Security That was created to address critical infrastructure problems and cybersecurity problems, and I believe it was in 2017 when election infrastructure was declared a critical infrastructure.
	It became part of the purview of that unit within DHS.
	Has that agency put out any information or guidance on sort of how to think about Tabulator malfunctioning and whether that has any effect on election integrity?
	Yes, they have.

▲