[backpacker_c]

A couple of corrections -

the tweeted comment “The machines should have been programmed for 19.” By Maricopa County’s own testimony, there is no such thing as an 20″ ballot,” Lake’s campaign team wrote. “Yet somehow machines in 61% of their polling centers still printed a 19″ inch ballot on a 20″ paper. Deliberate sabotage targeted at Republican turnout.”

is wrong. maricopa testified there were only 20" ballot templates, so it should be - 'programmed for 20.” By Maricopa County’s own testimony, there is no such thing as a 19″ ballot'

the pre-printed ballots were 20" images on 20" paper.

the ballots being printed at polling places were 19" images on 20" paper, which caused the problems.

it was testified by an expert witness that printer controls for the ballots were coming from an elections department controlled server, so there could not have been an accident the settings got changed.

[knarf]

" . . . it was testified by an expert witness that printer controls for the ballots were coming from an elections department controlled server, so there could not have been an accident the settings got changed. "

[backpacker_c]

It has been reported that there were 19" ballots used before by maricopa. However, in yesterday's testimony by the state witness, maricopa said they only used a 20" image and paper for the november election, and the tabulators were setup to read timing marks from a 20" ballot image.

Also, there are some statements in some of the articles on TGP that aren't clear, and some that are wrong, about what came out in testimony today, which is also causing confusion with what is being reported - for instance, they are reporting the 19" ballot images caused jamming, when they were reported as rejected.

[MtnClimber]

Thanks for that correction. It was confusing to me too. There could not be two different paper sizes, it had to be two slightly different image sizes, both printed on the same size paper. The difference was in the size configuration in the print settings.