Additional review has found further contacts with prominent election deniers and activists conducting canvassing operations, as well as new information about costs and the election review’s reach in other states.

Included in the documents is information regarding audit payments as well as communications that audit officials and legislators exchanged with outside parties, including election conspiracy activists, members of Trump’s legal team, and others.

The ruling upholds the Superior Court’s order to produce records by Aug. 31, and comes as the “audit” team prepares its draft report to submit to the Senate.

On Wednesday, an Arizona judge again ordered the state Senate to release by Aug. 31 records in its possession related to its partisan “audit” of Maricopa County’s election results.

While the limited stay is another delay in much-needed transparency over the so-called audit, the expedited deadline is an important acknowledgment that the case centers on a matter of enormous public interest.

Minute entry from the Superior Court of Arizona in Maricopa County denying a motion to stay requested by the Arizona Senate in American Oversight's litigation seeking documents related to the "audit" of 2020 election ballots. The court had previously ordered the Arizona Senate to immediately release records to American Oversight. The Senate sought a stay of that order, and that request was denied.

An Arizona judge again rejected the Arizona Senate’s argument that records held by the firm Cyber Ninjas could be shielded from public release.

Order from the Arizona Superior Court compelling the Arizona Senate to produce records to American Oversight in litigation concerning the “audit” of the November 2020 presidential election results in Maricopa County, Ariz.

Notice of proposed order and proposed order filed by American Oversight in litigation initially filed on May 19, 2021, against the Arizona Senate seeking the release of records concerning the "audit" of the November 2020 presidential election results in Maricopa County, Ariz.

"It is difficult to conceive of a case with a more compelling public interest demanding public disclosure and public scrutiny," wrote the judge.