EXHIBIT A

1 Mary R. O’Grady, 011434 Joshua D. Bendor, 031908 2 Emma J. Cone-Roddy, 034285 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A. 3 2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor Phoenix, 85012-2793 4 (602) 640-9000 [email protected] 5 [email protected] [email protected] 6 Attorneys for Secretary of State 7

8 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF ARIZONA 9 IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF MARICOPA 10 KATIE HOBBS, in her official capacity as Arizona Secretary of State No. CV2021-006646 11 Plaintiff, 12 COMPLAINT vs. 13 KAREN FANN, in her official capacity as (Assigned to the Honorable 14 President of the ; WARREN Daniel G. Martin) PETERSEN, in his official capacity as 15 Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; KEN BENNETT, in his official 16 capacity as the liaison of the Arizona Senate; and CYBER NINJAS, INC., a 17 Florida corporation, 18 Defendants. 19 20 Arizona Secretary of State Katie Hobbs (the “Secretary”), in her official capacity, 21 states her complaint against Karen Fann, President of the Arizona Senate, Warren 22 Petersen, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee; Ken Bennett, liaison of the 23 Arizona Senate; and Cyber Ninjas, Inc., a Florida corporation, as follows: 24 PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE 25 1. The Secretary is Arizona’s Chief Elections Official. She brings this action 26 in her official capacity. 27 2. Defendant Karen Fann is a state senator and the President of the Arizona 28 Senate. President Fann is named in this action in her official capacity.

1 3. Defendant Warren Peterson is a state senator and the Chairman of the 2 Arizona Senate Judiciary Committee. Senator Peterson is named in this action in his 3 official capacity. 4 4. Defendant Cyber Ninjas, Inc. is a Florida corporation that has been hired 5 by the Arizona Senate to audit Arizona’s 2020 General Election in Maricopa County 6 (the “Audit”). 7 5. Defendant Ken Bennett is an Arizona resident and the Arizona Senate’s 8 liaison for the Audit. 9 6. This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-123, 12-1831 and the 10 Arizona Constitution. 11 7. Venue is proper pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-401. 12 BACKGROUND 13 8. As Arizona’s Chief Election Officer, the Secretary is charged with 14 promulgating rules “to achieve and maintain the maximum degree of correctness, 15 impartiality, uniformity and efficiency on the procedures for early voting and voting, 16 and of producing, distributing, collecting, counting, tabulating, and storing ballots.” 17 A.R.S. § 16-452. These rules carry the force of law, and are recorded in the Elections 18 Procedure Manual (“EPM”) which was most recently published in 2019. 19 9. In addition to this authority, federal and state law requires ballots to be 20 retained and preserved for at least 22 months after an election. 52 U.S.C. § 20701; 21 A.R.S. § 16-624(A). And state law requires that equipment used to define, cast, or count 22 ballots be federally tested and certified and certified by the Secretary of State. A.R.S. § 23 16-442. 24 10. On November 3, 2020, Arizona conducted a free and fair election that 25 complied with Arizona’s election laws, as has been recognized by the courts and by 26 elected officials affiliated with both the Democratic and the Republican party, including 27 Governor and the Secretary. 28

2

1 11. In Maricopa County, the election was conducted by both the Maricopa 2 County Board of Supervisors, whose majority then and now is made up of members of 3 the Republican Party, and in part by the then-County Recorder, a Democrat. 4 12. In both Arizona and Maricopa County, both parties were victorious in 5 some elections, and less successful in others. 6 13. There is no credible evidence of fraud in the Arizona elections or in 7 Maricopa County. 8 14. Nevertheless, the Arizona Senate has decided to “audit” the Maricopa 9 County election, and subpoenaed Maricopa County in order to take possession of every 10 ballot cast (more than 2.1 million physical ballots), as well as Maricopa County’s 11 election equipment, voter data, and other election materials. 12 15. As Arizona’s chief election officer, the Secretary was and is deeply 13 concerned that the Senate lacked the experience or expertise to safely store, handle, and 14 maintain the ballots of Maricopa County’s voters and Maricopa County’s voting 15 equipment. 16 16. In this spirit, on March 3, 2021, the Secretary reached out to President 17 Fann and offered to help the Senators identify a qualified contractor who could conduct 18 any sort of legitimate audit the Senate might desire. 19 17. The Secretary also urged the Senate to develop and make public criteria 20 for selecting an auditor, including as to their qualifications and independence, and to 21 establish and abide by detailed procedures for ensuring the security, integrity, and 22 reliability of any audit conducted. 23 18. The Senate chose instead to hire Cyber Ninjas. On information and belief, 24 Cyber Ninjas has never conducted an audit of any election anywhere approaching the 25 scale of the November 3, 2020 General Election in Maricopa County. 26 19. Moreover, Cyber Ninjas’ founder and CEO has an extensive history of 27 spreading unfounded conspiracy theories regarding the 2020 General Election. 28

3

1 20. Cyber Ninjas has never made available the procedures it is using to 2 conduct the audit, including for securing the ballots and machines that belong to 3 Maricopa County and ensuring its count produces a reliable and trustworthy result. 4 The Audit 5 A. Pre-Audit Issues 6 21. On April 20, 2021, the Maricopa County Elections Department announced 7 it would begin transferring the ballots and voting equipment responsive to the Senate 8 subpoena to Veteran’s Memorial Coliseum (the “Coliseum”) on April 21. 9 22. On April 21, 2021, Sambo (Bo) Dul, the State Elections Director in the 10 Secretary’s office, emailed Defendant Bennett and President Fann and requested that the 11 Senate allow the Secretary and national nonpartisan organizations to designate experts 12 to observe the audit. 13 23. Ms. Dul also urged Defendant Bennett to reduce restrictions on media 14 observers, so that they could fully report on the audit. 15 24. By phone, Defendant Bennett expressed openness to these requests, and 16 the Secretary’s office coordinated with two independent experts, Ryan Macias and 17 Jennifer Morrell, who the Secretary intended to designate as observers. 18 25. To date, Defendants have not authorized or permitted the Secretary or 19 anyone else to designate expert observers. 20 26. Nor has Cyber Ninjas provided the Secretary or any other independent 21 observer any details regarding the procedures it will use, including for counting ballots 22 and securing the ballots. What information has come to light raises concerns that the 23 Senate and Cyber Ninjas are conducting their audit in a manner that violates state and 24 federal statutory law as well as the Arizona constitution, and with a startling disregard 25 for the security of the ballots and voting equipment in their possession. 26 27. One document that has been made public is Cyber Ninjas’ Statement of 27 Work, signed by Defendant Fann. 28

4

1 28. The Statement of Work indicates that Cyber Ninjas will deploy a 2 “Registration and Votes Cast Team” which will “identify voter registrations that did not 3 make sense, and then knock on doors to confirm if valid voters actually lived at the 4 stated address.” Cyber Ninjas has not provided any details about who is on this team, 5 how they are trained, what processes they are using to identify registrations that do not 6 make sense, or what processes they will use to question voters. 7 29. The Statement of Work also indicates that Cyber Ninjas intends to work 8 with “[p]rovisional ballots which still have signatures attached to them,” without 9 detailing who will be handling these ballots, how they will be trained, or what steps will 10 be taken to ensure the confidentiality of voter information, including signatures. Further, 11 Cyber Ninjas does not appear to understand that provisional ballots that are verified for 12 tabulation cannot be distinguished from other tabulated ballots, and provisional ballot 13 envelopes that were not verified for tabulation are prohibited by A.R.S. § 16-584(E) 14 from being opened. 15 30. Several additional concerns first arose on Thursday, April 22, 2021. The 16 first was media reports of significant physical security lapses at the Coliseum. In 17 particular, one investigative reporter reported that his team was able to enter the 18 Coliseum four days in a row, including accessing the main floor and approach the 19 ballots and voting equipment, without a security check. Similarly, Mr. Macias observed 20 inadequate security when he was at the Coliseum on April 22. 21 31. At a press conference that same night, Cyber Ninjas also indicated it 22 planned to image and potentially publish every single ballot. 23 32. A.R.S. § 16-625 prohibits the publication of “electronic or digital images 24 of ballots . . . including the unauthorized copying,” and requires “that all security 25 measures [for such ballots] are at least as protective as those prescribed for paper 26 ballots.” 27 33. Experienced election administrators know that voters often place 28 identifying marks on their ballots, and that images of ballots could contain identifying

5

1 marks. It is unclear what, if anything, Cyber Ninjas plans to do to ensure the right to a 2 secret ballot is protected in all circumstances. 3 34. Cyber Ninjas also indicated they had no intention of ensuring that ballots 4 were handled by bipartisan teams, as required by Arizona law. 5 Issues Observed During Audit 6 35. Cyber Ninjas is storing election equipment in an unsecured, open area of 7 the Coliseum. The EPM requires that these be “stored in a locked, secured location that 8 prevents unauthorized access.” EPM Chapter 4, § III(A). 9 36. Cyber Ninjas appears to be using uncertified, untested systems that are 10 unrecognized by election technology experts. Arizona law requires that all components 11 of electronic voting systems used to define, cast, or count votes be federally tested and 12 certified and certified by the Secretary. 13 37. Maricopa County’s voting machines could lose their certifications if they 14 are inadequately secured and tampered with, or improperly used in connection with 15 Cyber Ninjas’ uncertified equipment. 16 38. Though Cyber Ninjas has since corrected this issue, a reporter who signed 17 up as a Cyber Ninjas volunteer observer reported that Cyber Ninjas was planning to 18 mark ballots with blue pens. 19 39. Blue pens are readable by tabulation machines. As a result, marking a 20 ballot with a blue pen during an audit would destroy the validity of the audit and violate 21 ballot preservation requirements under state and federal law. This is why the EPM 22 prohibits the use of black and blue pens when paper ballots are being handled and hand 23 counted. 24 40. Likewise, Cyber Ninjas appears to be shining ultraviolet (“UV”) light on 25 ballots. UV light degrades and destroys both ink and paper, which could eliminate the 26 ability to preserve ballots. 27 41. Cyber Ninjas continues to refuse to allow expert observers into the audit 28 or disclose its processes.

6

1 42. Given Cyber Ninjas’ inexperience, apparent ignorance of applicable law 2 and practices, and secrecy, it is unknown what else Cyber Ninjas and the Senate may be 3 doing that might damage ballots that must be preserved under state and federal law, risk 4 the security of certified voting equipment, or threaten voters’ right to a secret ballot. 5 COUNT I 6 (Declaratory Judgment) 7 43. All previous paragraphs are re-alleged as if set forth herein. 8 44. The Election Procedures Manual has the force and effect of law in 9 Arizona and binds any person who handles, stores, collects, or counts ballots and 10 controls election equipment to the extent applicable. 11 45. On information and belief, the Senate believes neither it nor Cyber Ninjas 12 need comply with applicable Arizona law for the handling, collecting, or counts ballots, 13 or controls election equipment. 14 46. The Arizona Constitution protects the right to the secret ballot. Ariz. 15 Const. art 7 § 1. 16 47. State and federal law, from which neither the Senate not Cyber Ninjas are 17 excepted, requires that the ballots from the November 3, 2020 General Election be 18 retained and preserved for two years. 19 48. On information and belief, Cyber Ninjas lacks the knowledge and training 20 to ensure the security and integrity of the ballots and election equipment the Senate has 21 entrusted to it. 22 49. President Fann and Senator Peterson are not acting to ensure that Cyber 23 Ninjas handles the ballots and election equipment in accordance with state and federal 24 law. 25 50. An actual and justiciable controversy exists as to whether the audit, as 26 conducted, is violating state and federal law and threatening voters’ rights to a secret 27 ballot. 28

7

1 COUNT II 2 (Injunctive Relief) 3 51. All previous allegations are re-alleged as if set forth herein. 4 52. As set forth above, Defendants and their agents are conducting the audit in 5 a manner that violates numerous state and federal laws. 6 53. Defendants will continue to do so unless and until the Court enjoins them. 7 54. The failure of Defendants to publish their procedures or allow 8 independent observers, and the ongoing discovery of additional violations, raises 9 concerns that the Defendants are violating the law in additional ways the Secretary has 10 not yet discovered. 11 55. As Arizona’s Chief Election Officer, the Secretary is harmed by the 12 Defendants’ ongoing violations of state and federal election laws. 13 56. The balance of hardship and public interest tip sharply in favor of the 14 Secretary, who seeks to ensure the ballots and election equipment are handled in 15 accordance with Arizona and federal law. 16 WHEREFORE, the Secretary requests the Court enter a judgment: 17 A. Declaring that the EPM and state and federal law binds Defendants while 18 they have custody of Maricopa County’s ballots and election equipment; 19 B. Enjoining Defendants from continuing with the audit until they establish 20 and publicize procedures that the Court finds are consistent with state and federal 21 statutory and constitutional law and the EPM, including with respect to the security and 22 integrity of ballots and election equipment; 23 C. Enjoining Defendants to allow independent observers, including 24 independent experts designated by the Secretary, members of political parties, and 25 members of the press, to effectively observe the audit; 26 D. Awarding the Secretary her reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 27 E. Awarding any other relief as may be appropriate.

28

8

1 DATED this 27th day of April, 2021.

2 OSBORN MALEDON, P.A.

3 By /s/ Joshua D. Bendor Mary R. O’Grady 4 Joshua D. Bendor Emma J. Cone-Roddy 5 2929 North Central Avenue, 21st Floor Phoenix, Arizona 85012-2793 6 Attorneys for Secretary of State Katie 7 Hobbs

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9

1 THE FOREGOING has been electronically filed this 27th day of April, 2021: 2 COPY of the foregoing e-served through AZTurboCourt 3 this 27th day of April, 2021 and emailed to:

4 Roopali H. Desai D. Andrew Gaona 5 Kristen Yost Coppersmith Brockelman PLC 6 2800 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 7 [email protected] [email protected] 8 [email protected]

9 James E. Barton II Jacqueline Mendez Soto 10 Barton Mendez Soto PLLC 401 West Baseline Road, Suite 205 11 Tempe, Arizona 85253 [email protected] 12 [email protected] 13 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

14 Kory Langhofer Thomas Basile 15 Statecraft PLLC 649 North Fourth Avenue, First Floor 16 Phoenix, Arizona 85003 [email protected] 17 [email protected] 18 Attorneys for Karen Fann, Warren Petersen, and Ken Bennett 19 Alexander Kolodin 20 Christopher Viskovic Kolodin Law Group PLLC 21 3443 North Central Avenue, Suite 1009 Phoenix, Arizona 85012 22 [email protected] [email protected] 23 Attorneys for Cyber Ninjas, Inc. 24

25 /s/Karen Willoughby

26 27 28

10