Bottom line... Hobbs was in charge... Queston... Who ordered paper that was too small for the printers oto print the ballots (or ordered it ordered)
Maricopa Cty
The database of various ballots in use at various precincts is a collection of PDF files contained in a laptop connected to each ballot-on-demand printer. Presumably the scripts for setting up the printers were on the same laptop.
The problem on election day was some of the ballot-on-demand printers at the polling locations were printing a reduced size image, namely 19".
The slightly smaller image size shifted the registration marks on the ballots sufficiently to make it hit-or-miss for a given ballot to be recognized by the tabulator scanners.
One theory for why is that somehow the "shrink to fit" setting was invoked in some printers, rather than the option for "no scaling".
According to the IT expert who testified, the printer settings were supposed to be locked into a script programmed in by the county. But I did not hear anything further about the script or if it has been examined.
To me the most damming testimony so far has been about the absence of chain-of-custody compliance, especially on election day. It appears there were one or more opportunities for ballots to be added or removed with no paper trail.