Exhibit 306 Part 1IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE, ; DOMINION VOTING INC., and DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORPORATION, ‘Puaintiffs, v. FOX NEWS NETWORK, I.C, Defendant. US DOMINION, INC., DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS, INC., and DOMINION VOTING SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Plaintitts, v. FOX CORPORATION and POX BROADCASTING — COMPAMY, LLC, Defendants. Case No. N21C-03-257 EMD ‘ONSOLIDATED Case No. N21C-11-082-EMDA IDAVIT OF JONATHAN BRATE STATE OF MICHIGAN ) ) COUNTY OF INGHAM ) BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, personally appeared Jonathan Brater, who being a credible person of lawful age first duly swortfiaccording to law, deposes and states as follows: I, Jonathan Brater, having been first diily sworn hetghy dépose and state: 1. Tam employed by the Michigan Secretary sf thesDirector of i MAb 2s the Bureau of Blections. I have served in this capacity since January 2020. 2. Lwas responsible for preparing official documentation needed for the Michigan Secretary of State to certify the November 3, 2020 Presidential Election. In addition, the Bureau of Elections provides support to the county, city, and township clerks in their administration of elections. {am _ personally knowledgeable about laws goventing eleotion administration in Michigan. I am also familiar with the voting systems used in.the State of Michigan, including the Dominion Voting Systems systom néed in Antrim County, Tam also personally familiar with the Bureau of Elections’ and the Michigan Department of State's record keeping practices and procedures, The testimony provided herein is basedon my personal knowledge and, if called upon, 1 could and would competently testify thereto. 3, Prior to the 2020 Presidential Election, Michigan Board of State Canvassers certified Dominion Voting Systems’ (“Dominion’s”) voting equipment and software for use in the State. 4. The clerk of cach of Michigan's 83. counties determines in consultation with cach city and township within their county which vendor to use. MCL 168.372. 5. In the 2020 Presidential Election, Antrim County used Dominion’s election management system and voting machines (labulators), which count hand- marked paper ballots. 6. Following the 2020 Presidential Election, there was an error in the reporting of unofficial results in Antrim County, which was the result of a user error by the county clerk. That human error was quickly identified and corrected. 7. That error did not affect how tabulators counted ballots in the Presidential Election. This was an isolated c1ror, and there is no evidence that this user error occurred anywhere else in the state. Further, there is no evidence leading me to believe that this was the result of intentional misconduct by an election official, was a result of software or equipment malfunction, or was caused by some sort of tampering.8. Attaclud ay Mekibit “A” to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of the “Declaration oF Joitatan Brater” submitted as part of the Slate's filing in support of Defendants’ Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order in King et al. v. Whitmer et al., No. 2-20-ev-13134, E.D. Mich. (Dec. 2, 2020). I signed and submitted the “Declaration of Jonathan Brater” as authorized by law and in the course of my official duties. T had authority to make the statements in the declaration. The statements set forth therein set forth matters concerning the regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities of the Bureau, 9. Attached as Exhibit “B” to this affidavit i is a true and correct copy of a report of the Michigas Department of State, entitled “Audits of the November 3, 2020 General Election,” dated April 21, 2021. This is an official report and publication issued by the Michigan Department of State and sets forth matters concerning the regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities of the Michigan Department of State and factual findings following an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, 10. Attached as Exhibit “C” to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of the copy I had in my files of the Michigan Senate Oversight Committee’s “Report on the November 2020 Election in Michigan.”11. Attached as Exhibit “D” to this affidavit is a true and correct copy of an official publication of the Michigan Department of State, entitled “Isolated User Error in Antrim County Does Not Affect Election Results, Hag Nei Impact on Other Counties or State.” ‘This is an official publication issued dy the Wichigan Department of State on November 7, 2020 and sets forth matters concerning the regularly conducted and regularly recorded activities of the Michigan Department of State, observed pursuant to the duties of the Department and for which the Department had a duty to report, and factual findings following an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law. 12. I am authorized to make the above certifications of Exhibit “A” through Exhibit “D” I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of Michigan and the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. nN Ww hee Jonathan Brater SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED before me onthe _/7 day of January, 2023. Notary Public in and for the State of Michigans qaues WALTER DARNELL Notary Public: Washtenaw County, MI My Commission Expires May 23, 2025 Acting In The County of WashtenawExhibit 306-ACase 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2243 Filed 12/02/20 Page 1of 13 EXHIBIT 2Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2244 Filed 12/02/20 Page 2 of 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION TIMOTHY KING, MARIAN ELLEN SHERIDAN, JOHN EARL HAGGARD, CHARLES JAMES RITCHARD, JAMES DAVID HOOPER, and DARREN WADE _ No. 2-20-ev-13134 RUBINGH, HON. LINDA V. PARKER Plaintiffs, v MAG. R. STEVEN WHALEN GRETCHEN WHITMER, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of Michigan, JOCELYN BENSON, in her official capacity as Michigan Secretary of State and the Michigan BOARD OF STATE CANVASSERS, Defendants, CITY OF DETROIT, Intervening Defendant, ROBERT DAVIS, Intervening Defendant, DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE and MICHIGAN DEMOCRATIC PARTY, Intervening Defendant.Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2245 Filed 12/02/20 Page 3 of 13 Gregory J, Rohl (P39185) Attorney for Plaintift’s 41830 West 11 Mile Road, Suite 110 Novi, Michigan 48375 248.380.9404 Heather S, Meingast (P35439) Enik A. Grill (P64713) Assistant Attomeys General Allomeys for Defendants PO Box 30736 Lansing, Michigan 48909 517.335.7659 David Fink (P28235) Attorney for Proposed Intervenor City of Detroit 38500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 350 Bloomfield Hills, Michigan 48304 248.971.2500 Mary Ellen Gurewitz (P25724) Attomey for Proposed Intervenor DNC/MDP 423 North Main Street, Suite 200 Royal Oak, Michigan 48067 313.204.6979 Scott R. Eldridge Attomey for Proposed Intervenor DNC/MDP One Michigan Avenue, Suite 900 Lansing, Michigan 48933 517.483.4918 Andrew A. Paterson (P18690) Attorney for Proposed Intervenor Davis 2893 East Eisenhower Parkway Ann Arbor, Michigan 48108 248.568.9712 a:Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2246 Filed 12/02/20 Page 4of 13 DECLARATION OF JONATHAN BRATER L Jonathan Brater, state as follows: 1. Thave been employed by the Secretary of State as Director of Elections since January 2, 2020 and in such capacity serve as Director of the Bureau of Elections (Bureau). 2. I bring this declaration in support of Defendants’ response in opposition to the Motion for a temporary restraining order. 3. Lam responsible for preparing the official documentation necessary for the Secretary of State to certify the November 3, 2020 general election. In addition, the Bureau provides support to the county, city, and township clerks in their administration of the election. Iam personally knowledgeable about state and federal laws governing election administration in Michigan. Additionally, | am familiar with the voting systems used in the State of Michigan, including the Dominion system used by Antrim County. 4, In Michigan, there are three vendors that have been certified by the Michigan Board of State Canvassers for use in the State — Hart Intercivic, Dominion Voting Systems, and Election Systems and Software. These vendors were each approved by the Board of State Canvassers in 2017. Importantly, the clerk of each of Michigan’s 83 counties determines in consultation with each city and township located within their county which vendor to use. MCL 168.37a.Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2247 Filed 12/02/20 Page 5 of 13 5. With respect to the Dominion Voting System, Democracy Suite v. 5.5/5.5S is certified for use in Michigan, having been approved by the Board of State Canvassers in May 2019 after it was reviewed by an accredited Voting Systems Test Laboratory and approved by the bipartisan Election Assistance Commission.' Plaintiffs’ claim that Defendants “disregarded” the January 24, 2020 decision of the State of Texas to refrain from certifying “the same Dominion Democracy Suite” in that state is not accurate for multiple reasons. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, 10, 137. First, the Dominion equipment used in Michigan was certified prior to Texas decision referenced above. Second, the Texas decision related to different equipment. Plaintiffs could have easily discovered both the timing and that the version of Democracy Suite approved for use in Michigan, v. 5.5/5.5S, differs from the version tested in Texas, v. 5.5.A,? had they conducted even a cursory review of the Board of State Canvassers meeting minutes.* " https://www.eac. gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl, U.S. Election Assistance Commission, Voting Systems Test Laboratories (VSTL), https://Awww.eac. gov/voting-equipment/voting-system-test-laboratories-vstl (last accessed December 2, 2020). ? https: //www.sos.texas.gov/elections/forms/sysexam/dominion-d-suite-5.5-a.pdf, State of Texas Report of Review of Dominion Voting Systems Democracy Suite 5.5-A (last accessed December 2, 2020). 3 https://www.michigan.cov/documents/sos/Approved_Minutes_052319 Meeting _6 58692 _7.pdf, Meeting of the Board of State Canvassers, May 23, 2019 (last accessed December 2, 2020), 4Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2248 Filed 12/02/20 Page 6 of 13 6. Antrim County uses the Dominion Voting Systems election management system and voting machines (tabulators), which count hand-marked paper ballots. The election management system software is used to program tabulators and to report unofficial election results. 7. It is my understanding that in October 2020, after Antrim County initially programmed its election software for the November Election, the county identified two local races where the ballot content had to be updated. The county then received updated programming from its election programming vendor, Election Source. The updated programming correctly updated the election software for the county, 8. When the software was reprogrammed, the County also was required to update the software on all media drives that are placed into the tabulators to ensure the tabulators communicated properly with the election management system. It is my understanding that the county did update the media drives that went into the tabulators in precincts that had the race change but did not update the media drives for the remainder of the county. Because the clerk updated the media drives for all areas with race changes, the tabulators counted ballots correctly. 9. Because the county did not update the media drives for the tabulators in the areas of the county that did not have changes to the race, those tabulators didCase 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2249 Filed 12/02/20 Page 7 of 13 not communicate correctly with the county’s election management system software that combines and reports unofficial election night results. 10. After discovering this error, it is my understanding that the clerk worked to immediately correct the unofficial results by reviewing the physical totals tapes which are printed by each tabulator. I understand that she then hand- entered the results for each race and for each precinct in the county to get the corrected unofficial results. 11. This error affected only how the results from the tabulators communicated with the election management software for unofficial reporting. It did not affect how tabulators counted ballots. This was an isolated error, and there is no evidence that would lead me to believe this user error occurred anywhere else in the state. Further, there is no evidence leading me to believe that this was the result of intentional misconduct by an election official, was a result of software or equipment malfunction, or was caused by some sort of tampering. 12. It is important to note that even if the error in reporting unofficial results on election night had not been immediately noticed and quickly fixed by the county clerk it would have been caught and identified during the county canvass. Michigan Election Law requires county clerks and the bipartisan Board of County Canvassers to meet and begin canvassing the election by 9:00 a.m. on the Thursday after the election, MCL 168,821. During the two-week county canvassing period,Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2250 Filed 12/02/20 Page 8 of 13 two canvassers nominated by the Democratic Party and two canvassers nominated by the Republican Party verify the total number of ballots tabulated against the tabulator totals tape that is printed out after the close of polls, for each and every precinct in the county. They verify the total number of voters against the list of voters in the poll book and ensure the two numbers match.‘ This process is the reason I am confident the error in the reporting of unofficial results would have been caught before the Board of County Canvassers certified the results as official This process is also described in a document published by the Secretary of State regarding the Antrim County incident. Plaintiffs claim the document, which they cite in their brief, “fails to address” what would happen if the error was not caught prior to the unofficial canvass, First Amended Complaint, 4138, but the document does in fact address this — it explains that the county canvass would catch the error. Plaintiffs could have determined this by reviewing the document they cited in their brief. 13. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claim that human error in the reporting of unofficial results is “only discoverable through a manual recount” is false. First Amended Complaint, $138 * A complete step-by-step guide to the county canvass is available on the Bureau’s website here: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/BCC_Manual_464331_7.pdf 7Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2251 Filed 12/02/20 Page 9 of 13 14. The error described above was not a result of “malfunctioning voting equipment or defective ballots”S as Plaintiffs allege in paragraph 126 of the First Amended Complaint. This was an isolated user error that did not impact any other county, There is no reason to think, despite plaintiffs’ assertions (which are not accompanied by any supporting evidence), that this occurred in any other county in the State of Michigan. See Complt. { 138, Plaintiffs’ unfounded accusations that other counties using Dominion manipulated results are baseless. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, $139. 15, _ Plaintiffs; assertion that Dominion changed votes through the use of ranked choice voting, a method of electing candidates that is not authorized by the Michigan Election Law for use in federal- or state-level elections, is bizarre.® Complt. ¢ 140, 5 And even if Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding malfunctioning equipment were true (thereby triggering a special mail election under MCL 168.837), the total number of votes cast in Antrim County (16,044) is miniscule compared to the magnitude of Trump’s loss in Michigan (154,188 votes). Notably, Trump won Antrim County by a vote of 9,748 to 5,960 for President-Elect Biden. htips:/mielections.us/election/results/2020GEN_CENR.html (last accessed December 2, 2020), © Due to a consent decree it entered with the Department of Justice in 2019, the City of Eastpointe in Macomb County is the only jurisdiction in Michigan that uses ranked choice voting to elect city officers. United States v City of Eastpointe, Case No. 4:17-cv-10079, E.D. Mich. Notably, the voting system used in Macomb County is not Dominion, but Election Systems and Software (ES&S). 8Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2252 Filed 12/02/20 Page 10 of 13 16. The Board of State Canvassers certified the results of Michigan’s November 3, 2020 election as official on November 23, 2020.’ Further, the Certificate of Ascertainment awarding Michigan’s 16 electoral votes to President- Elect Joseph R. Biden has already been signed and sealed by Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, and filed with the Archivist of the United States, National Archives and Records Administration.’ MCL 168.46, 3 USC 6, 17. Mr. Ramsland’s claims, cited by Plaintiffs in paragraphs 142 to 146, demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of basic facts about Michigan's election system. He includes in his claims two counties, Macomb and Oakland, that do not use Dominion Voting Systems. 18. Mr. Ramlsand does not understand how unofficial election results are reported in Michigan. Mr. Ramsland assumes, for reasons that are not immediately apparent, that counting “was closed at 2:00 am” on November 4 and that ballot totals reported after that time must have been counted after that time as well. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, ballot counting is not “closed” at any particular 7 Draft minutes of the November 23, 2020 meeting of the Board of State Canvassers, htips://www michigan, gov/documents/sos/112320_draft_minutes_708672_7.pdf (last accessed December 2, 2020) * hitps://www.archives gov/files/electoral-college/2020/ascertainment- michigan. pdf (last accessed December 2, 2020) 2Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2253 Filed 12/02/20 Page 11 of 13 time — jurisdictions count ballots until they are finished counting ballots. Second, although unofficial totals are generally reported all at the same time,’ those totals are the product of ballots that have been counted throughout the day. For example, an absent voter counting board in Kent County could have been counting ballots since 7 a.m. on November 3, but not finish until 3 a.m. on November 4, at which point totals would be reported reflecting all ballots counted since 7 a.m. 19. Plaintiffs’ various insinuations that large numbers of ballots were illegally counted or altered in Detroit are easily dismissed by a cursory review of election data reported from Detroit. Compared to 2016, turnout in Detroit increased from 247,369 to 256,514, an increase equivalent to 3.7 percent of 2016 turnout (substantially lower than the statewide increase of 15.4 percent). If a large number of ballots were illegally counted, one would expect turnout to be substantially higher. Donald Trump increased his vote share in Detroit from 3.1 percent in 2016 to 5.0 percent in 2020. If Trump votes had been altered or discarded, one would not expect his vote share to have increased. Additionally, there were approximately. 174,000 absent voter ballots tabulated at the TCF center. The difference between the number of absent voter ballots tabulated and names in the poll books was under ° It is possible to provide interim unofficial results before all ballots have been tabulated (for example, Detroit provided interim unofficial totals for AV counting boards at several times on Wednesday, November 4), but most jurisdictions wait until all ballots in a precinct have been tabulated until unofficial results are reported. 10Case 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2254 Filed 12/02/20 Page 12 of 13 150 (less than one tenth of one percent of all ballots tabulated), and there were fewer ballots tabulated than names in the poll books. If ballots had been illegally counted, there would be substantially more, not slightly fewer, ballots tabulated than names in the poll books. 20, In addition to the false statements shared by Plaintiffs as described above, it is notable that: a. Plaintiffs also misconstrue MCL 168.765a, which requires the presence of “at least 1 election inspector from each major political party” at an absent voter counting board to perform official duties (such as delivering materials, signing statements of votes, ete.), a8 a requirement that at least 1 election challenger from each party be present to observe the count. Plaintiffs compound their error by alleging, without support, that ballot counting can only occur if at least one challenger from each major political party is present. First Amended Complaint, 214-216, 231 b. Plaintiffs falsely declare that “Wayne County used the TCF Center in downtown Detroit to consolidate, collect, and tabulate all of the ballots for the County, The TCF Center was the only facility within Wayne County authorized to count the ballots.” First Amended Complaint, $58. In fact, absent voter ballots from the City of iCase 2:20-cv-13134-LVP-RSW ECF No. 31-3, PagelD.2255 Filed 12/02/20 Page 13 of 13 Detroit were the only ballots processed and counted at the TCF Center on November 2-4, 2020. ©. Plaintiffs erroneously claim that issuing and receiving an absent voter application and/or ballot on the same day is “anomal[ous,]” if not “impossibl[e,]” when in fact the Michigan Constitution requires clerks to issue absent voter ballots on demand when voters request one in person. MI Const. Art. 2 §4(f)}-(g), First Amended Complaint, ${]16(4), 123. Plainly, same-date transactions are evidence of individuals applying for, completing, and returning a ballot in a single visit d. Contrary to Plaintiffs’ insinuation, the Secretary of State is not directly involved in the operations of boards of canvassers, and does not control the access of individual challengers to absent voter counting boards. First Amended Complaint, 49194, 226-227, 18. This declaration is based on personal knowledge. If called as a witness, T can testify competently to the facts stated in this declaration. yi Jonathan Brater Director of ElectionsExhibit 306-BSTATE OF MICIIGAN JOCELYN BENSON, SECRETARY OF STATE DEPARTMENT OF STATE LANSING Audits of the November 3, 2020 General Election April 21, 2021 In November 2018, Michigan's voters passed a referendum to guarantee citizens of Michigan the right to have the results of statewide election audited, in order to ensure the accuracy and integrity of elections, Michigan's system of statewide post-election audits system, which has been in place for many years, is now enshrined in Article Il, Section 4 the Michigan State Constitution As the state’s chief election officer, the Michigan Election Law provides the Secretary of State with the authority to prescribe the procedures with which audits will be conducted across the state, Statewide audits reflect the decentralized nature of Michigan's election system. Running of elections is a local responsibility held by Michigan’s 1,520 city and township clerks, along with their staff, volunteers and poll workers (election inspectors) they have hired to work in polling places and perform other election functions. Auditing of elections, which includes review of the city and township clerks who ran the elections, is performed by county and state officials. Audits occur following completion of the post-election canvass process and any requested recounts, if epplicable. Audits cannot occur until these processes are complete because the materials needed for audits—voting machines, ballots, ballot containers, and other election day materials—are required by the Michigan Election Law to be secured until these processes are complete. The majority of post-election audits are conducted by Michigan’s 83 county clerks. County clerks do not administer elections direcily on election day, but they do serve several critical election functions including the programming of election equipment and printing of ballots. The remainder are conducted by the Michigan Bureau of Elections on behalf of the Secretary of State. The November 3, 2020 election in Michigan involved several competitive statewide contests, including races for U.S. President and U.S. Senate. The general election, which was conducted in the midst of the global COVID-19 pandemic, was also the first general election held following the implementation of Proposal 2018-3 in the state, In addition to the constitutional right to statewide audits described above, the proposal also amended the state constitution to introduce same-day voter registration, automatic voter registration, and no-reason absentee voting in Michigan. Despite the pandemic, 2020 shattered state records for voter turnout, with more than 5.5 million total ballots cast (the previous record was 5 million, set in 2008). Approximately 3.3 BUREAU OF ELECTIONS RICHARD H. AUSTIN BUILDING * 1ST FLOOR = 430 W. ALLEGAN * LANSING, MICHIGAN 4a818 Mishigan.gox’Eloctions + 617-338-9234 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0020 BRATER.00020million of ballots cast were absentee ballots, also a new state record; by comparison, the 2016 election, with an overall turnout of 4.8 million, saw 1.3 million voters cast absentee ballots. The combination of the COVID-19 pandemic, a set of new election rules, highly contested elections, record-breaking voter turnout, and a shift from majority in-person voting to majority absentee voting posed an unprecedented set of election administration challenges for local officials. Same-day registration at clerks’ offices requires local election officials to ensure that these offices are adequately staffed with experienced workers. The manyfold increase in absentee ballots — more than double the number cast in the 2016 presidential election—required updates to training, procedures, equipment, and staffing allocation to allow for the processing of both absentee applications and ballots, along with tabulation of large numbers of ballots, under the strict timelines required and allowed by law. Many experienced clerks, staff, temporary staff, and election inspectors—groups that include significant populations in age groups more at risk from COVID-19—were unable to work before and on clection day because of health conczras,syuarantines, or exposute. In-person and staffing of election offices and polling places was marie more difficult because ofthe need to ensure social distancing and capacity limits on the auitorium or classroom-style settings in which training is typically offered. In spite of these and many other challenges, Michigan’s local election officials administered the November 2020 election exceptionally well. There were few reports of crowding or long lines, either at polling places or at clerk offices used for same-day voter registzaijon, Largescale community spread of COVID-19 connected with the November elecise'svas not reported. Despite the massive increase in absentee ballots, none of which could be tabulated until 7:00 a.m. on election day, the vast majority of ballots statewide and within each jurisdiction had been tabulated and reported by Wednesday, November 4, with a small percentage of ballots in some larger jurisdictions completed on Thursday. This was well ahead of the Bureau of Elections expectation that tabulation and reporting could continue for up to a week after Election Day, as occurred in some states. The increased strain on the election system caused by COVID-19, high turnout, increased absentee voting, new and inexperienced workers, and the need for clerks to divide their attention among polling places, same day registration, and absent voter counting board locations did contribute to administraiive and procedural errors, several of which are discussed in this report, As has been the case in all recent elections, some election jurisdictions were unsuccessful in “balancing” all of their election precincts—determining that the number of names in the poll book (in a polling place) or list of absentee voters (in a counting board) matched the number of ballots tabulated exactly (or that an explanation could be found for the imbalance). In 2084, 2 sue was primarily a problem at in-person voting precinets. In 2020, a greater share of balancing problems occurred at absent voter counting boards where AV ballots are tabulated, and fewer problems occurred at in-person precincts. ‘There were also several instances of errors in the reporting of unofficial “election night results.” Election results that are reported shortly alfsi She polls close, or alter AV ballots have been 2 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0021 BRATER.00021counted on Election Day, are not the official results. Official results are not determined until after county and state canvass and certification (and, if applicable, recounts). In an effort to provide a rapid report of initial results to media and the public, election officials publish unofficial election results based on the election-night canvass of precinct returns, Many members of the public may regard these as the “results,” they are often corrected or adjusted after being, published or during the county canvass. Unofficial results can be incorrect because of a variety of human errors that may occur Unofficial results may fail to report or “double-report” individual precincts, or clerks may make programming errors that lead unofficial results to be incorrectly reported even though ballots ‘were properly counted. These errors are more likely to occur late on election night or after multiple days of continuous work, when election workers are extremely fatigued. Unofficial result reporting errors were not new to 2020 but received substantial attention when they were amplified to support other false claims about election results Beginning on Wednesday, November 4, several inaccurate claims were made about the conduct of the 2020 Election. In general, these claims were either entirely fabricated, based upon misunderstanding of election processes, or the result of incorrect inferences that human errors were intentional misconduct. Post-election audits conducted by the Bureau of Elections and county clerks found no examples of fraud or intentional misconduct by election officials and no evidence that equipment used to tabulate or report election results did not function properly when properly programmed and tested Post-election audits were not conducted with the goal of disproving the entire myriad of false claims made about the election in Michigan and elsewhere, although one county audit was conducted specifically to provide additional assurance in light of misinformation in that county." Instead, these audits focused on confirming that election procedures were properly followed and election equipment functioned properly, and to identify areas for focus and improvement in future elections. However, in some cases audit findings did provide further confirmation that various false claims about the administration of the 2020 election were without merit * Both the Michigan Secretary of State’s "SOS Facicheck Page.”, available at s/w i 0 4670,7-127-1633_ 100423102534 102535--,00.himl,, and the federal (Cybersecurity and Infrastricmire Agency's “Rumor Control page, available at hiips//www cisa.gov/nimorcontral are regularly updated sites that debunk false claims made about the 2020 election, 3 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0022 BRATER.00022Post-clection audits of the 2020 general election were the most extensive in Michigan’ s history? Three types of audits were conducted: «Precinct Procedural Audits. These audits were conducted primarily by county clerks, and involved the review of more than 200 in-person voting precincts across the Sify, They are designed to ensure that election officials and poll workers followed theeyaat procedures in conducting elections in these precincts, that required pre-election requirements were fulfilled, and that required records were maintained. The audits also included a full hand count of paper ballots cast in the U.S, Senate race in each of these precinets. + Absent Voter Counting Board Audits New for 2020, the Bureau of Flections worked with city and county election officials to review records and procedures in absent voter counting boards in four large jurisdictions. The audits focused on determining how many absent voter counting boards were out of balance and could have been reconciled with additional review, and identifying the reasons why counting boards were out of balance. + Risk-Limiting Audits. The state conducted a risk-limiting audit exercise of the presidential election statewide. Approximately 18.000 ballots were randomly selected from more than 1,300 local jurisdictions statewide, and the results of the randomly selected ballots were compared to the statewide tabulated sotg!. he Bureau of Elections also conducted a full hand-count audit of all presidentia County. § 2 A complete list of 2020 audits is included as an appendis to this report 4 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0023 BRATER.00023I. Precinet Procedural Audits Procedural audits of precincts are primarily the responsibility of county clerks, although the Bureau of Elections also audits certain precincts each year. Procedural audits are conducted following the canvass and certification of election results (and any recounts, if applicable). They focus on the in-person voting precincts in polling places at which voters cast ballots on election day Procedural audits provide an opportunity to conduct an in-depth review of the proper procedures for preparing and using election day equipment and materials. They also include a 100 percent hand count of all the paper ballots cast in one statewide race in each audited precinct, which ‘ensures that the tabulators used in the precinct calculated ballots accurately. Precinct procedural audits provide an additional check and verification by allowing the county or state official who ‘conducts the audit to review the work of the city or township clerk, who conducts the election. Because they are extremely in-depth, it is not practical to conduct an audit of this nature for the entire state, but a substantial number—at least 200 are conducted including at least one in each county, covering roughly 1 in 2S precincts in the entire state. Selection Following the election, the Bureau of Elections randomly selects at least 200 precincts to be audited by county clerks in addition to precincts that the Bureau will audit, and selects the statewide contest that will be reviewed during the paper ballot hand count segment of the audit The selection process ensures that at least one precinct in each county is selected for a procedural audit. Following the selection of precincts for audit, the county clerk or the Bureau, as appropriate, contacts selected jurisdictions to schedule the conduct of the audit, Although audits are not meetings of public bodies, they are open to the public and jurisdictions may publish audit schedules or a livestream of the audit. For example, Kent County published their audit schedule on the County website,* while Ottawa County posted a livestream on the ‘county Facebook page." Audit Process Procedural audits verify that pre-election notices were published, proper steps were taken on lection day, and correct documents and equipment were used and maintained before, on, and afier election day. Auditors review local records and equipment to examine the following issues More detail on the specific procedures reviewed is in the state audit manual.‘ lerkRegister. ‘ocumentsisos/Post Election Audit Manual 418482 7 5 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0024 BRATER.00024Posting of Pre-election Notices Notice of Registration (MCL 168.498(3)) Notice of Election (MCL 168,653a) Public Logic and Accuracy Test (MCL 168.798(1)) ‘Weekend hours on which clerk’s office is open the Saturday or Sunday prior to the election (MCL 168,761b). # Election inspectors appointment meeting/appointment/training (MCL 168.674, 677, 683). Security and Testing Protocols © Electronic pollbooks and flash drives were sufficiently encrypted and updated * Logic and accuracy testing was completed for voting tabulators, and all required records were created and maintained securely # Voter assist terminals were properly tested and used on election day Absent Voter Record Maintenance * Applications for military and overseas voters were retained (review of records and ‘matching poll book) * Affidavits of voters not in possession of picture ID were recorded © Posting was made of number AV ballots distributed and received Election Day Records and Paperwork * Flection day receiving board checklist was properly completed * Pollbook paperwork was properly completed and maintelaét). # All items required to be included in the envelopes of effslbd ies were transmitted to receiving boards Provisional Ballot Forms * Provisional ballot numbers in poll book and envelopes matched # Proper procedures were followed in issuing envelope provisional ballots Ballot Comainer * Proper, certified ballot containers were used * Containers were properly sealed * Container certificate was completed and retained Spoiled and Duplicated Ballots © Number of spoiled ballots méiches potl box © Duplicate and original ballots properly maintained) + Ballots were duplicated propesty 6 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0025 BRATER.00025Hand Count Procedural audits also include a hand count of all votes cast in the precinct for a statewide race In 2020, the U.S. Senate race was selected for hand count. To complete the hand count, auditors review every paper ballot in the precinct and make a hand tally of votes for the selected race (in this case, U.S, Senate), The total is compared to the number tabulated using the voting machine. After hand counts conducted in more than 200 randomly selected precincts, county clerk auditors did not report instances in which hand counts differed substantially from machine-tabulated totals.® ‘Completion Status ‘The Bureau of Elections received confirmation that all procedural audits were completed by ‘county clerks. There were no reports of intentional misconduct of fraud by election officials Counties are not required to publish detailed reports on their audits but may choose to do so. ‘Ottawa County released a report detailing the audit process, findings, and recommendations for improvement,” I. Absent Voter Counting Board Audits ‘The 2020 General Election saw 3.3 million absent voter ballots cast, more than doubling the previous record for absentee ballots cast in an election. The increase in ballots was not accompanied by an increase in time allowed to tabulate ballots, however. Although voters begin returning absent voter ballots more than a month prior to the election, the Michigan Election Law provides that absent voter ballots, regardless of when they are received by a local election jurisdictions, cannot be tabulated until 7 a.m. on election day when the polls open. In past general election years, the lower number of absent voter ballots meant that it was usually possible to complete tabulating absent voter ballots in roughly the same time frame as polling places were closed. With the more than two-fold increase in AV ballots, this was no longer the case. In other states, such as Florida and Ohio, election officials may begin tabulating AV ballots prior to election day, which allows for reporting election night results much earlier on election day In August 2020, the Michigan Legislature enacted legislation (for November 2020 only) to. allow election jurisdictions to undertake certain “preprocessing” activities for absentee ballots — including removing absent voter ballots from the ballot return envelope (but not secrecy sleeve), but this was allowed only for a 10-hour period on the Monday before election day and tabulation. still could not begin until the polls opened on Tuesday. ‘The volume of absent voter ballots, coupled with the limited time to tabulate ballots and the pressure to count ballots and release totals as quickly as possible, placed considerable strain on © As explained in more detail inthe risk-limiting audit section, it is not unusual for hand count to differ from a ‘machine-tabulated count by a small number of votes. tps:/wo miottawa ony/Departments/County Clerk/Flections/pot/ Audit-Report-November- 2020 pdVutm_medium=cmail&utm source=govdelivery. 7 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0026 BRATER.00026absent voter ballot counting focations on Election Day. The vast majority of election jurisdictions — especially large cities and townships—count absent voter ballots at absent voter counting boards, which are special precincis created to count only absentee ballots. This is usually the most efficient method of counting absent voter ballots in large jurisdictions, because they must otherwise be tabulated at polling places while voters are casting ballots in person Clerks must establish a counting board for each in-person irecinet in a jurisdiction (with the exception of Detroit, which is permitted to combine multiple precincts into a single counting board).* Counting boards allow shared equipment and space to be used to count AV ballots for multiple precinets, In particular, they may facilitate the use of high-speed ballot scanners, which can be used to count ballots for multiple precincts. Absent voter ballot counting board processing differs from in person voting in some respects, but still requires the counting board to balance—the number of ballots should match the number of voters who are recorded as having returned absentee ballots for that counting board, unless there is an explanation, If an absent voter counting board does not balance at the end of election night, the board of county canvassers attempt to balance it or find an explanation for the imbalance In November 2020, several jurisdictions completed their elections with a substantial percentage of absent voter counting boards out of balance. Conversely, there were relatively few in-person precincts out of balance. This change corresponded with tie change in voting pattems between ‘November 2016 and November 2020, when the percentage of votes cast absentee more than doubled Precincts out of balance, whether in person of at absent voter counting boards, are typically the result of human error in making or retaining records on election day. They do not necessarily mean that ballots have been improperly counted or improperly tabulated, However, out-of balance precinets have negative consequences for the ability to recount precincts if a recount is requested. Out-of-balance precincts sometimes cannes be recounted under the Michigan Election Law. Often they can—an out-of-balance precinct can still be recounted if the number of ballots in the ballot container matches the number of ballots tabulated according to the voting machine’s tabulator tape—but this often is not determined until the recount begins. To gain a better understanding of why absent voter counting boards were out of balance and identify areas for improvement and focus to reduce instances of out-of-balance precinets in future elections, the Bureau of Elections examined absent voter counting boards in four cities with a large number of AV ballots and a significant number of AV counting boards out of balance. Selection In selecting absent voter counting boards for audit, the Bureau of Elections selected four large cities with a substantial number of absent voter counting boards out of balance. ‘The Bureau also MCL 168.765a, !MCL 168.871 8 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0027 BRATER.00027took into account the need to assess absent voter counting boards in different counties to get a better cross section of local voting practices and procedures. The four cities selected for absent voter counting boards were Sterling Heights, Livonia, Detroit, and Grand Rapids. Audit Process To attempt to identify explanations for why absent voter counting boards did not balance, Bureau of Elections auditors, with the assistance of municipal and county clerks and their staff, performed a series of reviews First, BOE staff reviewed county canvass reports to verify that any issues corrected during the canvass were accurately reflected on the canvass report and that canvass report tallies, from which balancing numbers were determined, were accurate.'° Next, the auditors spoke with clerks and staff to determine if any issues or explanations for out of balance precincts had been identified by reviewing clerk records following the completion of the canvass If counting boards could not be balanced or explained based on review of canvassing or clerk records that were subsequently validated by the Bureau, the auditors proceeded to review ballot containers, absent voter lists, and absent voter ballot envelopes. Auditors reviewed the following, records and procedures, as necessary, (0 determine why a counting board was reported out of balance: «Review of the AV lists used at the AV counting board aind doutity clavate, 40 decermine if written remarks on the AV list explained any imbalances * Hand count of all ballets in the ballot container, to detesnins:if the ph ballots in the ballot cortainer matched the number of naraes in txe AY I © Review of duplicated ballots, to determine ifezro¥s in Pailot dubl-eation of baltor duplication accounting occured e * Comparison of AV envelopes used for the prbeidist, to Wetsammiiae tag AV eayslopes matched the list of voters or the number of #alicls th the aallorichiiainer, ¢ contained the names of voters that were not entered correctly into QVP or chianged address and were listed on an AV list for the wrong precinct in the jurisdiction © Comparison of multiple AV counting boards, to determine whether ballots had been stored in the wrong ballot container Review of any additional records or materials that may have explained the imbalance ‘ital boot of ‘Swerall, all four cities reviewed did an excellent job of performing the core function of absent voter counting boards—counting all AV ballots cast by, and only by, eligible voters who timely delivered ballots. In aggregate, the counting boards processed approximately 317,000 ballots " Imsome cases county canvass reports contain erors. County boards of camvasser often have litle time to ‘complete reports prior to meeting for cenification and sending reports to the Bureau of Elections 9 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0028 BRATER.00028with a net difference of 21 more names than ballots cast."! The boards also moved with impressive speed and efficiency, completing the vast majority of counting by Wednesday afternoon and all counting by Thursday morning This process was completed during an ongoing pandemic, and the need to preserve social stancing complicated election procedures that are typically done in close quarters. Additionally, many new staff members and election inspectors needed to be trained to work in an AV counting board for the first time because of both the increase in AV ballots and the need to replace workers unavailable because of the pandemic. Many of the challenges identified in the audit started well before the processing of AV ballots on election day, the process of sending out and receiving AY ballots was complicated by the substantial increase in AV voting. Clerk offices needed to process and track \wo to three times as many AY hallois.as they hac in past general elections, increasing the possibility that a voter might be sent the wrong ballot, aot be sent a ballot, might return a ballot that was not correctly entered imo the uslified Voter File (QVF) as received, or might submit a ballot this was not timely sorted for processing on tection day Clerks also reported a substantial increase in AV ballots that were “spoiled” and reissued dbocause a voier zoquestet to change their vote or wished to receive an AV ballot at a clerk’s office after having heen previously mailed a ballot. This occurred at large scale due in part to ‘widespread concerns about mvt delivery, Additionally, many voters requested to have their AV ballot “rejecied” and not counted so thai they could vote in person at a precinct on Election Day In light of these challenges, without sufficient and redundant controls to ensure AV applications and ballots were tracked and sorted daily (or with even greater frequency), counting boards were already set up to be in a difficult position to balance completely on election day. Once counting began, the myriad challenges and opportunities for error facing AV counting board election inspectors left little margin for error. The limited time for county canvasses to complete their work and the difficulty in timely reviewing all records needed to balance precincts limited the ability to correct these issues before certification. As a result, a large number of absent voter counting boards did not balance either on election night or after certification. Auditors identified several reasons that contributed to absent voter counting boards being able to completely balance on election night or during the canvass. Although the audit was focused on counting board procedures and balancing rather than debunking misinformation about the conduct of the counting of ballots on election day, the very close correspondence in rooords—betwcento the umber of vores on each absent voter lis, tho number af returned AW envelopes. and the smumber of ballots tabulated —disproves claims that large numbers of ballots were somehow added to tabulators or uproperyincinded in cous 1f tat ed been the cas, the mumber of tao tabulated would far execed is ‘numberof names on absent ster isis o he number of AV envelopes each jurisdiction recived, which wane ‘case. * * 10 08102022 Brsier Response to Subpoena 0029 BRATER.00029AY ballots physically recetved, but not scanned into QV Auditors identified several instances in which the number of ballots did not match the number of names on the.absent voter list generated from the Qualified Voter File, but did match the number of absent voter envelopes for that counting board, When clerks receive absent voter ballot envelopes, they physically mark the envelope to indicate it was received on time and the signature matched the signature on file."? When AV envelopes are hand marked as received by election day, it indicates that the AV envelopes were timely delivered by voters and received by 8 pm on election day and the ballot should be counted. In these scenarios, clerks had appropriately received, delivered, and counted all AY ballots, but had not accurately established the list of voters by entering all envelopes as received in QVF, thereby adding the name to the voter list. If the clerk staff had failed to enter the AV ballot as received in QVF, the voter’s name did not appear on the AV list used on clection day (which is printed from QVF) and the counting board would appear to have one more ballot than voters on the list. This error could occur for two reasons. First, the step of entering the ballot as received in QVF could simply be missed, which may have occurred in the rush to transmit ballot envelopes to counting boards on Election Day. In other cases, clerk staff may have attempted to mark a ballot as received in QVF but failed to do so, for example by exiting the software application without clicking “SAVE”. Ensuring consistent QVF entry was complicated by the fact that many clerks received AV ballots on Election Day at multiple locations—for example, a clerk’s office, a satellite office, and a drop ‘box—resulting in multiple personne! being needed to perform intake in QVF on these ballots. Although procedures for physically receiving and hand marking the envelopes were effective at all of these locations, QVF entry was less consistent. In some cases, these errors were corrected on election day; if an AV envelope that had been timely received but not entered into QVF was identified at the counting board, it could be sent to 4 QVF terminal to be properly entered. These issues were also sometimes identified and corrected during the canvass, but some were not. Those that were not corrected resulted in an apparent imbalance between the number of ballots and AV vorers that was actually attributable to data entry error, when the number of ballots tabulated and ballots received actually did match Ratlots placed in the weer somainers after tabulation Auditors identified instances in which tabulated ballots were placed in the ballot container for the wrong counting board following tabulation, This can be more likely to occur at counting boards, because the same Niyjs qpeed scesmers are used to count ballots for multiple different counting boards. The. seaances re } dkejetned to count the ballot for the correct precinct, so ballots being — Ua j » Signatory yobs hard fa toe emctps ae delivered to the counting board, Counting board workers very i a ‘sgeaqee ‘ewed by the clerk, but they do not review the signature to determine if Fane vee apes onub 4 esas WL 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0030 BRATER.00030mixed between precincts in batches that are scanned through tabulators does not necessarily cause a tabulation error. Howeves. the ballot being placed in the wrong container after tabulation can complicate efforts to balatie% 6 resolve the precinot if the precinct was out of balance. Container-sorting errors were also more likely to occur becssse jurisdictions experienced a shortage in ballot containers when trying to order equiprient for the November 2020 election ‘The COVID-19 pandemic and increased demand caused stresses on the supily chain, with the result that demand for ballot containers nationwide could not always be met by ballot container vendors, Auditors did find that workers at AV counting boards were diligent iivsing only approved ballot containers, and ballot containers were properly sealed. This indicates that attention was duly paid to ensuring ballots were securely stored in a” approved container with a verifiable seal. Errors occurred in some cases in placing ballots in the correct approved container for the counting board. Combining multiple precincts or counting boards in the same ballot container is permitted as Jong as the ballots are segregated within the container, but combining multiple precinets or counting boards in a container increases the risk of intermingling of ballots, particularly given the time pressure and the need to ensure ballots are stored in a secured location in an active AV counting board environment. Issuing incorrect ballots In some instances, AV- Ballot polling involves comparing. a random sample of individual ballots selected statewide with the official results statewide. In previous pilots, BOE and loca clerks practiced ballot comparison audits, in which ballots are compared to how individual abulators tabulated the ballot. Because in Michigan tabulators do not currently store a “cast vote record” for individual ballots, some pilots utilized a batch comparison method in which a large number of ballots from individual tabulators are compared to how the tabulator counted that group of pilots. This method has ‘not yet been attempted statewide in Michigan Tn some cases the state worked dirccily with local jurisdictions to establish the ballot manifest. = The total number of ballots cast exceeds the numberof votes for president because some voters did not cast a vote for any presidential candidate. Ballots without votes for president were included in the random selection © Amoxplanation of the Arlo Software and RLAS is available her: hitps./oting. works/ish-limiting-audit 2 For an explanation of risk limits and how they are used in audits, see Knowing ft's Right, Part One (More) available at https iw 1020/06/2019 DE Know eht Pant pal 29 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0048 BRATER_00048Local clerks recorded ballot contents using a tally sheet. Clerks could indicate if the ballot included a vote for Biden, Trump, another candidate, or no candidate, alternatively, clerks could indicate that the ballot could not be retrieved. Clerks then either entered the ballot contents on the Arlo software or submitted their tally sheet to a county clerk or the Bureau of Elections, who would enter the tally sheet into the Arlo software. Ballot retrieval began on XXX date. Clerks were instructed to retrieve and report ballots by January 22; clerks who needed time extensions (for example, if'a clerk was out of town) were given additional time More than 99 percent of ballots were retrieved. ?* Out of 18,162 ballots selected for review, 18,804 were either retrieved or randomly selected for review multiple times.®* The following 21 local jurisdictions failed to retrieve ballots after receiving multiple reminders and offers of assistance: ‘Township ‘County Maple Ridge _ | Alpena Blue Lake Kalkaska Boardman. Kalkaska Clearwater Kalkaska Coldsprings | Kalkaska Excelsior Kalkaska Garfield Kalkaska Kalkaska Kalkaska Yates Lake Ellsworth Lake Larkin Midland Greenwood | Oscoda Bridgehampton | Sanilac. Elmer Sanilac Flynn Sanilac Moore Sanilac Watertown Sanilac Berlin StClair Grant St Clair Kenockee St Clair Lynn StClair 25-The full results are available here: hip//michis uments/sos/udit-report-November-3-2020-Gé Election-2021-04-21T11_$100 00 722796 7.esv 25 The random selection ballot selection process involved ballots being selected one-by-one, meaning thal some ballots could be selected multiple times in the random sample, The total number of distinct ballots reviewed was 18,051 ballots out of 18,129 unique ballots selected for review 30 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0049 BRATER.00049Despite the overwhelming participation of local clerks statewide, nonparticipation in the audit by these jurisdictions interfered with the ability to calculate the risk limit, therefore, the risk limit was not calculated and the RLA is considered an exercise *” Although the data collected could not be used to calculate a risk limit, it nevertheless provides strong evidence that the result of the presidential election as calculated by tabulators was correct. In the sample of ballots reviewed, President Biden received 50 percent of ballots cast wi former President Trump received votes in 48 percent of ballots cast, closely correspon their percentages of votes received in the official results calculated by voting tabulators.”* On a percentage point basis, the ballots reviewed in the sample were 49.7/48.0 percent in favor of Biden, compared with 50.3/47.5 percent in the tabulated total. The closer margin on a percentage point basis corresponds to the fact that the random sample included a relatively high percentage of ballots from counties that voted in favor of Trump (in other words, the random. sample pulled more ballots from Trump-leaning counties, as opposed to Biden-leaning counties, than the median randota szgizle would). On a county-by-county basis, the margins in the ballots retrieved corresponded exireinely closely with the tabulated totals, especially in the largest counties which had the fiignest number of ballots retrieved Ballows Official | Sample | Official | Sample County | Sampled | Bide Biden Trump | ‘Trump Wayne 2.789 68.0 678 30.1 307 Oakland 2,484 56.0 56.6 42.0 413 Macomb 1,601 451 44) 531 53.7 Kent 1,230 SLT SLs 456 46.3 Smaller counties had larger differences in percentages between sampled and tabulated results, as would be expected with a small number of ballots sampled. For example, Keweenaw County, only had 5 ballots retrieved, making it impossible for percentages to be particularly close to the county's 55/43 official margin in favor of Trump (all 5 ballots retrieved happened to be for Biden), In the 20 counties with the highest number of 2020 voters, none saw substantial The initial source of the unofficial reporting error was quickly identified. Iwas more fully explained ina subsequent expert review by Univesity’ of Michigan Computer Science & engineering Profesor J. Alex Halderman Inips:/www michigan govidecuments/sos/Antrim 7206237 pd. * At statewide seale, setting the risk limit at zero is often impractical and undermines the efficiency value of an RLA because ofthe large numberof ballots that have to be counted. To review one county with a relatively smaller imumber of votes, hoever, this could be accomplished in one day * The full results are available here: Ips michigan gov/doo /AntimCouny Presidential Rage Full Hand Count Novernher2020 71 27 Tal © One precinct (Star Township. precinct 1) accounted for a net gain ofS votes for iden and 6 votes for Tramp, larger differences than were seen in other precincts This may have been a result of Inman errr in counting ballots 32 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0051 BRATER.00051jurisdictions to open ballot containers and review ballots demonstrates that clerks are transparent and open to having their elections reviewed. Between the RLA exercise and other audits, more than 1,300 of Michigan’s 1,520 local clerks participated in at least one type of post-election au The Bureau will explore additional methods of both ensuring 100 percent compliance or adjusting auditing methodologies to account for the small minority of clerks that did not participate. In the absence of a pandemic and the need for social distancing, it may be easier to enforce 100 percent participation al « county-by-county level. The complete hand count of alt ballots in Antrim County provides additional confidence in the presidential election, evets if the process is not easily replicable statewide: for Antrim County alone, a full hand count took a fd day Additional options that will be explored in future RLAs include: + Senpfinig a larger number of ballots in initial rounds of ballot polling audits. + Recvsivating ballot comparison or batch comparison methods thal are more likely to resuit in a complete sample even if'a small number of jurisdictions do not participate * Incorporating risk-limiting audits into other audit procedures or county canvass processes (che latter would require a legislative change), to allow ballots to be retrieved more efficiently when containers are already open and unsealed * Additional consequences for nonparticipation Ultimately PSAs eveptesetpbvieded strong evidence that the outcome of the presidential lection ws Seyse% apd) Lubp-laseag that tabulators did count ballots properly were without basis. any widisypreat’sstazes jnvalving allot tabulators existed (despite the extensive pre-election testing tabalizoyedntengn), 2fyetieen sample of 18,000 ballots would likely have differed se Mia hdd een significant} sige} id Agwitied eb¥d, and it did not. : ‘Conclusion Election officials successfully conducted the November 2020 election, a remarkable achievement given the many challenges officials across the state faced in conducting the election. After the most extensive audits in slate history, no evidence of intentional misconduct of fiaud by election officials was discovered. Flection officials should improve training and procedures to ensure better documentation of ballots received and tabulated, particularly in absent voter counting boards to reduce the number of precincts out of balance. Improvements in training, as well as use of the Qualified Voter File applications, requires a joint effort with local, county, and state officials, and will be a point of emphasis in training, and application design for the Bureau of Elections in the current election cycle. © Conducting a full hand recount or full hand count audit statewide would require thousands 3f sat wieiebers, The fee for mequesting a statewide recount (more than 5,000 precincts) of the presidential or U.S. Sengce eixckons would have exceeded $600,000, MCL 16882702) 33 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0052 BRATER.00052Several statutory requirements hinder the ability of election officials to conduct elections efficiently and in a way that allows full documentation and review of election conduct, particularly with regard to absent voter ballots. Strict “recountability” requirements hinder the ability of out-of-balance precincts to be reviewed during recounts, and should be reconsidered. Elections would be run more efficiently and smoothly, with more opportunity to review, if clerks ‘were given more time to tabulate absent voter ballots and boards of county canvassers were given more time to complete the canvass 34 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0053 BRATER.00053List of Jurisdictions and Precincts Audited (November 2020 Election) couNTY JURISDICTION PRECINCT ___status ALCONA COUNTY HAWES TOWNSHIP 1 Complete ALGER COUNTY _MUNISING CITY 1 Complete | ALLEGAN COUNTY LEIGHTON TOWNSHIP z complete ‘ALLEGAN COUNTY SALEM TOWNSHIP 2 Complete ALLEGAN COUNTY OTSEGO TOWNSHIP a Complete ALPENA COUNTY _LONG RAPIDS TOWNSHIP. 1 _Complete ANTRIM COUNTY CUSTER TOWNSHIP a Complete ‘ANTRIM COUNTY ‘ALLJURISDICTIONS All (Ballot Audit) Complete ‘ARENAC COUNTY _ARENAC TOWNSHIP 1 Complete BARAGA COUNTY LANSE TOWNSHIP. 1 Complete BARRY COUNTY CASTLETON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete | BARRY COUNTY HASTINGS CITY 3 “Complete | BARRY COUNTY _ WOODLAND TOWNSHIP a “Complete BAY COUNTY BAY CITY CITY 44 Complete BAY COUNTY MONITOR TOWNSHIP 6 Complete BAY COUNTY PINCONNING TOWNSHIP 1 Complete -BENZIE COUNTY _JOYFIELD TOWNSHIP [a Complete BERRIEN COUNTY BENTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP z Complete BERRIEN COUNTY BRIDGMAN CITY 1 Complete BERRIEN COUNTY BUCHANAN CITY 1 Complete BERRIEN COUNTY PIPESTONE TOWNSHIP 1 Complete BERRIEN COUNTY STJOSEPH CHARTER TOWNSHIP 4 Complete BRANCH COUNTY BRONSON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete BRANCH COUNTY | CALIFORNIA TOWNSHIP 1 Complete BRANCH COUNTY COLDWATER CITY (4a | Complete CALHQUN COUNTY BATTLE CREEK CITY 48 Complete CALHOUN COUNTY CLARENDON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete CALHOUN COUNTY BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP a Complete CALHOUN COUNTY EMMETT TOWNSHIP 3 Complete CALHOUN COUNTY ‘MARSHALL CITY 1 Complete CASS COUNTY CALVIN TOWNSHIP a Complete CASS COUNTY DOWAGIAC CITY 2 “Complete CASS COUNTY _LAGRANGE TOWNSHIP 1 | Complete | CHARLEVOIX COUNTY EVANGELINE TOWNSHIP 5 Complete CHEBOYGAN COUNTY _-BEAUGRAND TOWNSHIP. 1 Complete 38 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0054 BRATER.00054| CHEBOYGAN COUNTY NUNDA TOWNSHIP {a Complete, | CHEBOYGAN COUNTY WILMOT TOWNSHIP ja Complete CHIPPEWA COUNTY RUDYARD TOWNSHIP 1 Complete "CLARE COUNTY WINTERFIELD TOWNSHIP 1 Complete CLINTON COUNTY EAGLE TOWNSHIP 1 Complete CLINTON COUNTY ‘GREENBUSH TOWNSHIP 1 Complete CLINTON COUNTY STJOHNS CITY 2 Complete | CRAWFORD COUNTY (GRAYLING CITY [i Complete DELTA COUNTY BRAMPTON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete DELTA COUNTY ESCANABA TOWNSHIP pe “Complete DELTA COUNTY FORD RIVER TOWNSHIP 1 Complete DICKINSON COUNTY BREITUNG TOWNSHIP. Ks Complete EATON COUNTY (CHARLOTTE CITY 44 Complete EATON COUNTY __| CHESTER TOWNSHIP = i Complete EATON COUNTY DELTA CHARTER TOWNSHIP 6 Complete EATON COUNTY GRAND LEDGE CITY 3 Complete EATON COUNTY ROXAND TOWNSHIP 1 Complete | EMMET COUNTY HARBOR SPRINGS CITY 1 Complete | EMMET COUNTY PETOSKEYCITY [a _ Complete _EMMET COUNTY WEST TRAVERSE TOWNSHIP a Complete (GENESEE COUNTY CLAYTON TOWNSHIP z Complete (GENESEE COUNTY _| cuio city 1 Complete GENESEE COUNTY DAVISON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete (GENESEE COUNTY FENTON CITY 5 Complete ‘GENESEE COUNTY FLINT CITY 41.3 (State Precinct Audit) Complete GENESEE COUNTY FLINT TOWNSHIP 5 Complete GENESEE COUNTY GAINES TOWNSHIP 1 Complete GENESEE COUNTY GENESEE TOWNSHIP 6 Complete ‘GENESEE COUNTY GRAND BLANC TOWNSHIP 6 Complete (GENESEE COUNTY MOUNT MORRIS TOWNSHIP 9 Complete GENESEE COUNTY THETFORD TOWNSHIP | 1 (State Precinct Audit) Complete GENESEE COUNTY VIENNA TOWNSHIP 4 Complete | GLADWIN COUNTY GRIM TOWNSHIP 1 Complete GOGEBIC COUNTY BESSEMER TOWNSHIP 1 Complete | GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY | BLAIR TOWNSHIP [3 | Complete GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY | GARFIELD TOWNSHIP la Complete |_GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY | GREEN LAKE TOWNSHIP [2 Complete ‘GRATIOT COUNTY 'ARCADA TOWNSHIP 1 Complete ‘GRATIOT COUNTY HAMILTON TOWNSHIP 1 Complete 36 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0055 BRATER.00055GRATIOT COUNTY NORTH STAR TOWNSHIP Complete HILLSDALE COUNTY ‘AMBOY TOWNSHIP Complete HILLSDALE COUNTY —_| LITCHFIELD TOWNSHIP Complete | HILLSDALE COUNTY READING CITY Complete HOUGHTON COUNTY —_| CALUMET TOWNSHIP ‘Complete HOUGHTON COUNTY HANCOCK CITY Complete HOUGHTON COUNTY HANCOCK TOWNSHIP Complete "HURON COUNTY HURON TOWNSHIP Complete "HURON COUNTY _| SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP Complete HURON COUNTY SHERMAN TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY ALAIEDON TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY ‘AURELIUS TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY DELHI CHARTER TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY | EAST LANSING cITY Complete INGHAM COUNTY LANSING CITY Complete INGHAM COUNTY LANSING TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY LESLIE CITY Complete INGHAM COUNTY MERIDIAN TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY _VEVAY TOWNSHIP Complete INGHAM COUNTY WILLIAMSTON CITY Complete “IONIA COUNTY EASTON TOWNSHIP Complete WACOUNTY | KEENE TOWNSHIP Complete IONIA COUNTY ODESSA TOWNSHIP Complete 1OscO COUNTY TAWAS TOWNSHIP Complete LIRON COUNTY CRYSTAL FALLS CITY Complete ISABELLA COUNTY BROOMFIELD TOWNSHIP Complete ISABELLA COUNTY ROLLAND TOWNSHIP Complete ISABELLA COUNTY UNION TOWNSHIP Complete JACKSON COUNTY LEONI TOWNSHIP Complete JACKSON COUNTY __| RIVES TOWNSHIP Complete JACKSON COUNTY SANDSTONE TOWNSHIP Complete JACKSON COUNTY SPRING ARBOR TOWNSHIP Complete JACKSON COUNTY. SUMMIT TOWNSHIP Complete. KALAMAZOO COUNTY BRADY TOWNSHIP Complete KALAMAZOO COUNTY CHARLESTON TOWNSHIP. Complete KALAMAZOO COUNTY COOPER TOWNSHIP Complete KALAMAZOO COUNTY GALESBURG CITY Complete KALAMAZOO COUNTY | KALAMAZOO CITY Complete KALAMAZOO COUNTY OSHTEMO TOWNSHIP Complete KALAMAZ00 COUNTY PAVILION TOWNSHIP 3 Complete 37 08102022 Brater Response to Subpoena 0056 BRATER.00056.