Audit Contractor Says He Still Holds 2020 Maricopa Ballot Images, Raising Questions of Law and Custody

A contractor who participated in the controversial Arizona Senate-led review of the 2020 presidential election is claiming that he continues to possess photos of approximately 2.1 million Maricopa County ballots more than four years after the ballots were originally counted, a practice that appears to run counter to state retention laws and raises serious questions about legal custody and accountability.

The contractor, widely identified in reporting as Jovan Pulitzer, has said he is seeking nearly $400,000 to preserve and manage these images, though he has not clearly explained what the funds would be used for or whether he has legal permission to maintain these materials. Pulitzer is a controversial figure who gained attention during the 2021 election review in Arizona for promoting unproven forensic ballot analysis technology.

Arizona law requires that ballots and ballot images be securely stored by election officials and destroyed after a set retention period. That period is typically 24 months after an election, and images or physical ballots are not considered public records subject to retention outside supervised custodial settings. The apparent retention of these ballot images by a private individual well past the lawful retention period has drawn scrutiny from state officials and legal experts.

According to published reports, ideas about preserving these images have circulated for some time within election conspiracy communities. Pulitzer’s name appears historically in connection with the 2021 Maricopa County review, where state legislators hired private entities and individuals, including Pulitzer, to participate in a contentious hand count and forensic analysis of the ballots following the 2020 election. His involvement was controversial even at the time because of questions about his credibility and lack of formal election audit experience.

In a statement responding to inquiries about the retention of the images, the Arizona Secretary of State’s office said holding ballot images outside the official retention process does not conform with state law. Officials indicated that they are consulting the attorney general’s office and other legal authorities to determine whether any statutory violations have occurred.

Maricopa County election officials have acknowledged awareness of the claims but have not publicly confirmed details about how the images came to be retained by Pulitzer or whether county systems or contractors provided him copies improperly. A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors said the county is evaluating the situation but reiterated the longstanding legal framework governing ballot custody and retention.

This situation underscores systemic risks that arise when election materials are handled outside established official channels without clear legal authority, safeguards, or oversight. The original 2021 election review itself drew widespread criticism from elections experts and bipartisan groups. State and federal authorities, including the U.S. Department of Justice, raised concerns during the audit about possible violations of federal laws regarding ballot custody and voter intimidation.

Legal experts have noted that ballot images are generally treated as sensitive election materials that must be protected with the same care as physical ballots. Unauthorized possession or dissemination of such materials beyond the secure retention period could expose individuals to legal liability under state election law. Whether that would apply to images obtained during a private audit is a matter potentially for the courts to decide.

Pulitzer’s public fundraising efforts to support his claim of preservation have not disclosed any agreements with election officials that would authorize him to act as custodian of these images. Critics argue that maintaining these materials outside regulated custody undermines public trust in election integrity rather than supporting it. Supporters of robust election review may view his efforts as an attempt to hold onto evidence, though no credible, verified findings of widespread fraud have been produced from the retained images.

The ongoing debate highlights the deep divisions in public confidence around election administration in Arizona and across the United States. The retention and potential public dissemination of ballot images past the legally mandated destruction period is certain to attract legal challenges and perhaps legislative action to clarify election record retention and enforcement. For now, state officials are reviewing the claims, and election law attorneys are watching closely for developments.

For readers seeking a comprehensive examination of the 2021 Arizona election review, detailed historical context is available through records and prior reporting that document the procedures, participants, and controversies involved in that process.