The Hat Lady’s Reflection of the 2020 Election Process – Part II

The Hatlady’s Reflection of the 2020 Election – Part II

Disclaimer: This narrative reflects the firsthand observations, recollections, testimony, and preserved records of Linda Brickman related to Arizona’s 2020 election process. Some claims and interpretations discussed remain disputed and publicly debated.

We Still Need Sunlight to Help Restore Public Trust in Elections…

Linda Brickman was a veteran election worker, supervisor and trainer for over 20 years at the precinct level and at the Maricopa County Tabulation and Election Center (MCTEC) before becoming the Chairman of the Republican Party in Maricopa County during the 2020 Election.

It was with that background and experience that she worked at MCTEC during the 2020 Election cycle in various capacities, including Signature Verification, Adjudication, and the Duplication Rooms.

During the 2020 cycle, along with her co-workers, she experienced things she had never witnessed before.

Below are her firsthand recollections and perspectives of the 2020 Election and beyond.

In 2020, she never expected to become part of one of the most controversial elections in modern American history.

At the time, Ms. Brickman was serving as Chair of the Maricopa County Republican Committee and participated directly in multiple aspects of Arizona’s election observation and oversight process. What began as civic involvement quickly became something far more serious as questions emerged regarding election procedures, observer access, signature verification practices, and the certification of voting equipment used in Maricopa County.

For more than four years, public debate surrounding the 2020 election has largely been divided into two extremes: those who insist nothing went wrong, and those who believe the entire system was corrupted.

But lost in the middle are the firsthand witnesses — individuals who were physically present during portions of the process and who documented what they personally observed in real time.

This article is not based upon internet rumors, social media commentary, or secondhand speculation…

It is based upon those firsthand experiences, contemporaneous notes, sworn declarations, legislative testimony, official correspondence, and preserved records related to Arizona’s 2020 election process.

These materials even include communications involving public officials, election personnel, legislative bodies, and legal representatives associated with Dominion Voting Systems.

Reasonable people may ultimately reach different conclusions regarding the significance of the events described here…

However, public confidence in elections depends not only upon outcomes, but also upon transparency, accountability, procedural consistency, and the willingness to examine concerns raised by citizens who directly participated in the process.

What follows is a chronological review of documents, testimony, and firsthand observations connected to the administration of Arizona’s 2020 election in Maricopa County.

SECTION 1- 3 were in Part I

The Hatlady’s Reflection of the 2020 Election Process – PART I

SECTION 4 — THE REFUSAL TO CERTIFY

According to Brickman’s account, the decision to refuse certification of the Logic and Accuracy testing process was not made lightly.

After reviewing portions of the testing procedures and documenting concerns she believed affected the integrity and transparency of the process, Brickman signed the L&A Testing Certificate with a notation declining certification.

What followed, according to her recollection, was an unexpected confrontation.

Brickman states that shortly after indicating she would not certify the testing process, she was asked to step into a separate room away from the main tabulation area. Anticipating the seriousness of the conversation, she requested that her husband, an election lawyer, accompany her as a witness, having remained with her throughout the day’s proceedings.

According to Brickman, pressure was then applied to reconsider and reverse her decision not to certify the testing results. She maintains that she refused.

Brickman later explained that, in her view, reversing her position would have compromised the credibility of the Maricopa County Republican Committee’s Election Integrity efforts and the concerns she believed had already been identified during the process.

She further recalls responding that election officials and county leadership should have considered the potential consequences before implementing procedures and equipment that had already become the subject of growing public concern and controversy.

The exchange, according to Brickman, became “tense.”

After leaving the room, she walked back through the tabulation area where portions of the testing had occurred, exited the building, and addressed members of the public and media who had gathered outside.

Despite the controversy surrounding the moment, Brickman states that she left believing she had done what she felt obligated to do: document her concerns honestly and refuse certification based upon the observations and questions she believed remained unresolved.

That decision would soon place her at the center of an expanding public and political controversy surrounding Arizona’s 2020 election process.

The dispute surrounding the L&A testing process would later expand beyond legislative hearings and public debate. It would eventually draw legal attention from representatives associated with Dominion Voting Systems itself.

SECTION 5 — FROM INTERNAL CONCERNS TO PUBLIC TESTIMONY

What began as internal concerns surrounding election procedures soon moved into the public arena.

As questions surrounding Arizona’s 2020 election intensified, legislative hearings, public meetings, citizen testimony, and election-related investigations became increasingly common throughout the state. Maricopa County quickly emerged as the focal point of national attention as lawmakers, election officials, observers, and members of the public debated whether proper procedures had been consistently followed during the administration of the election.

Brickman would eventually testify publicly regarding the events she stated she personally witnessed during portions of the election process, including concerns involving the Logic and Accuracy testing procedures, observer access, ballot handling questions, and signature verification issues.

Additional declarations, timelines, correspondence, and supporting materials were later preserved as part of an expanding collection of records connected to those concerns. Among those materials were legislative testimony, written statements, procedural notes, and communications involving election officials and party representatives.

The controversy surrounding Arizona’s election administration increasingly divided public opinion.

Supporters of the election process argued that extensive audits, reviews, and court decisions ultimately upheld the official election results…

Critics, however, continued raising concerns involving non-Legislative changes, including, transparency, procedural consistency, chain-of-custody questions, observer limitations, and the handling of signature verification procedures under Arizona law.

Throughout that period, Brickman continued publicly defending her decision not to certify the Logic and Accuracy testing process, maintaining that the concerns she documented had never been fully addressed to her satisfaction.

As public attention intensified, so did the pressure surrounding individuals who had spoken publicly regarding the election.

That pressure would eventually take a more direct legal form.

SECTION 6 — ESCALATING NATIONAL ATTENTION

As controversy surrounding Arizona’s election procedures intensified, the issues raised in Maricopa County increasingly drew state and national attention.

Brickman’s testimony and public statements eventually expanded beyond local election discussions and county meetings. In addition to appearing before Arizona legislative committees regarding election procedures and Logic and Accuracy testing concerns, Brickman also participated in hearings connected to former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s broader examination of election-related allegations following the 2020 presidential election.

By that stage, Arizona had become one of several battleground states at the center of intense national scrutiny regarding election administration, mail-in voting procedures, ballot verification standards, observer access, and voting system certification.

At the same time, public pressure surrounding those speaking out about election concerns continued to increase.

According to Brickman, one of the most defining moments of that period came when she received a formal Cease-and-Desist Letter connected to statements she had made regarding Dominion Voting Systems.

Rather than silencing her, Brickman states the letter had the opposite effect.

In her view, the legal warning reinforced her belief that citizens who directly participated in portions of the election process had an obligation to continue speaking publicly about what they witnessed, documented, and questioned during the administration of the 2020 election.

Brickman maintains that, by that point, remaining silent was no longer an option.

The controversy surrounding the election had grown far beyond partisan politics. For many involved, including Brickman, the issue had become one of public accountability, transparency, and confidence in the electoral process itself.

SECTION 7 — THE DOMINION LETTER

As public controversy surrounding the 2020 election continued expanding nationally, legal pressure increasingly became part of the public landscape surrounding election-related claims and testimony.

Attorneys representing voting technology companies, media organizations, political figures, and private individuals began issuing legal warnings and defamation notices connected to public statements involving election systems and election administration; and they or their surrogates launched lawfare cases against conservative election attorneys who filed cases or spoke out publicly, and filed baseless ethics complaints with the State Bar, resulting in attorneys backing down, being suspended, and in some cases being disbarred!

Within that environment, Brickman received a formal Cease-and-Desist Letter associated with statements she had made concerning Dominion Voting Systems.

The letter marked a turning point.

Until that point, much of the controversy surrounding the election had centered on procedural concerns, certification questions, legislative testimony, and public debate. The arrival of formal legal correspondence introduced a new reality: individuals publicly raising concerns about election procedures could themselves become the subject of legal scrutiny and pressure.

According to Brickman, the letter did not intimidate her into silence. Instead, it reinforced her belief that citizens who directly witnessed portions of the election process had a responsibility to continue speaking openly about what they observed and documented.

By then, Brickman had already publicly refused certification of the Logic and Accuracy testing process, testified before legislative bodies, communicated concerns to elected officials, preserved extensive records connected to the events surrounding Arizona’s 2020 election, and was called to testify as a witness in election lawsuits and State Bar disciplinary actions.

She maintains that remaining silent after receiving the letter would have contradicted the very reasons she had chosen to speak publicly in the first place.

According to Brickman’s recollection, the legal warning ultimately strengthened her resolve rather than weakening it.

For Brickman, the issue had evolved beyond politics or party affiliation. In her view, the larger question had become whether ordinary citizens who participated directly in election oversight and observation could publicly raise concerns about election procedures without fear of intimidation or suppression.

The controversy surrounding Arizona’s election process continued intensifying throughout the months that followed. Legislative hearings, public testimony, media investigations, citizen audits, and legal disputes increasingly transformed Maricopa County into one of the central battlegrounds in the national debate over election integrity and public confidence in American elections.

Despite the growing controversy surrounding the 2020 election and the increasing public scrutiny directed toward election systems and procedures, Maricopa County leadership ultimately chose to continue its contractual relationship with Dominion Voting Systems, despite documentation and evidence showing serious legal problems, that Courts in Arizona refused to allow into the record.

According to public records and contemporaneous discussions surrounding the election aftermath, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors later approved the continuation of Dominion’s contract for an additional term rather than terminating the relationship.

For critics of the election process, the decision became another source of frustration and public distrust. Many individuals who had raised concerns regarding election procedures, certification questions, and voting equipment believed the renewal signaled that county leadership had no intention of reconsidering or reevaluating the systems that had become the focus of intense public controversy.

Supporters of the decision, however, maintained that election systems had functioned properly and that continuing the contractual relationship reflected confidence in the county’s election administration and certification procedures.

The disagreement further deepened an already widening divide between election officials seeking to defend the integrity of the process and citizens who continued demanding additional transparency, investigation, and accountability regarding the administration of Arizona’s 2020 election.

SECTION 8 — AN ATMOSPHERE OF ESCALATION

As the controversy surrounding Arizona’s 2020 election intensified, the atmosphere surrounding election personnel, observers, volunteers, attorneys, and party officials became increasingly tense and uncertain.

According to Brickman, complaints, disclosures, witness statements, and election-related concerns were arriving from multiple directions during the weeks and months following the election. Public scrutiny surrounding Maricopa County continued growing as legislative hearings expanded, attorneys became increasingly involved, and national attention focused heavily on Arizona’s election procedures.

During that same period, Brickman recalls additional incidents that reinforced her belief that the controversy had moved far beyond ordinary political disagreement.

Among those events was the sudden departure of an immediate supervisor connected to suspicious activities involving the signature verification process in which Brickman had participated extensively. According to Brickman’s recollection, the supervisor was called into a separate meeting and later presented with a Formal Notice for a Deposition in connection with an election-related lawsuit. Shortly thereafter, and right before her deposition was scheduled to take place, the individual reportedly resigned and left the state permanently. Brickman states she never saw or heard from the supervisor again.

At the same time, election-related complaints and disclosures were increasingly being directed toward the Arizona Republican Party, legislative officials, and attorneys associated with ongoing election litigation and post-election review efforts.

National legal teams connected to President Donald Trump’s post-election challenges also became increasingly involved in Arizona-related disputes and investigations as public scrutiny surrounding Maricopa County continued escalating.

Meanwhile, according to critics of the election process, frustration also grew regarding what many viewed as a lack of meaningful public response from Arizona’s Attorney General’s Office concerning election-related concerns and allegations being raised throughout the state.

For many individuals involved in the controversy, the atmosphere surrounding Arizona’s election aftermath increasingly felt less like an ordinary political dispute and more like an expanding legal, institutional, and public-relations battle unfolding in real time.

According to Brickman, the emotional strain surrounding portions of the election process affected individuals across political lines. She recalls that many of the working environments connected to election operations became increasingly tense, emotionally exhausting, and difficult to navigate as controversy surrounding the election intensified.

Brickman states that she remained involved because she believed the work being performed was important and hoped the atmosphere surrounding the process would improve over time. In her recollection, however, the tensions only continued escalating.

And those who continued to raise questions and speak out, were blacklisted from working at county election facilities in current or subsequent election cycles.

In one work area connected to the 2020 election operations, Brickman recalls a moment in which a Democratic-affiliated coworker became visibly emotional and expressed deep distress regarding what she believed she had witnessed during portions of the ballot adjudication process when the screen on the Dominion machines appeared to have changed ballots from one candidate to another. When Brickman and her co-worker raised the issue with their supervisor, nothing was done to either investigate or correct the changed ballots, and later Brickman was disciplined for bringing the matter up.

Brickman states the incident left a lasting impression on her because it reinforced the extent to which tensions, confusion, and distrust had begun affecting not only outside observers and political activists, but also individuals working inside portions of the election environment itself.

Regardless of political affiliation, the atmosphere surrounding the election had become emotionally charged, legally sensitive, and increasingly consumed by questions that many participants believed were never fully resolved.

After years of controversy, investigations, hearings, accusations, and public debate, many Americans still remain sharply divided regarding the events surrounding the 2020 election. Some believe every question has already been answered. Others believe many questions were never fully addressed at all.

See Ms. Brickman’s testimony after the 2020 election in front of Rudy Giuliani and the world.

Postscript from Ms. Brickman:

I understand that reasonable people may continue reaching different conclusions.

What I can say with certainty is that the events described in these pages were real to those of us who experienced them firsthand.

The meetings were real.
The pressure was real.
The testimony was real.
The documents were real.

And the decisions made in those moments carried consequences that extended far beyond politics.

I did not enter the 2020 election process expecting controversy, national attention, or legal threats. I became involved because I believed citizens had both a right and a responsibility to observe and participate in the electoral process honestly and transparently.

When concerns arose, I documented them.
When questions remained unanswered, I spoke publicly about them.

And when pressure was applied to remain silent, I chose not to remain silent.

History will ultimately decide how the events surrounding the 2020 election are remembered. My responsibility was never to determine history’s final judgment.

My responsibility was simply to tell the truth about what I personally witnessed, preserve the records I believed mattered, and leave future generations with an honest account of one of the most controversial periods in modern American election history.

It is my HOPE that the TRUTH will eventually PREVAIL!

Linda Brickman

PS: I still wear a hat every day.