Election Stunner: TIME Initiative Does Not Make Ballot

1. Here’s something interesting. I was looking up the “Time” initiative and discovered that Doug Nintzel, Jim Nintzel’s brother, is the chief spokesperson for ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation).

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_96T-h8h4s&feature=user

   ADOT is a major stakeholder in the RTA. Jim Nintzel’s coverage of the RTA election and the election integrity trial seemed awfully biased, especially when he chose to look at only 1 of 18 points made by Bill Risner in Risner’s letter to AG Terry Goddard. Nintzel appeared to be trying to create a “strawman” to discredit Risner’s other well-grounded points. And it didn’t hurt Nintzel that Bill was out of the country at the time and unable to respond.

   I’m not saying that just because Jim and Doug are brothers there is any undue influence or a shared agenda. Just because it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck…it could just as easily be a bull with feathers, right?

2. Alissa: I oversaw all of Nintzel’s coverage, and I have no conflicts. So there.

3. Alissa: I’m so busted! Yes, I must now confess–I was in on the conspiracy to fix the RTA election, along with my brother Doug, my brother Bill, my brother Chris, my mom, my dad, the Pima County Board of Supervisors, the Pima County Attorney’s Office, Chuck Huckelberry, the Attorney General’s Office, Don Diamond, Jim Click, Larry Hecker, Pete Zimmerman, Steve Farley, Lee Harvey Oswald, the Trilateral Commission, the Council on Foreign Relations and the U.N. Oh, and Kromko is in on it, too–we’re paying him to make the people trying to get to The Truth look like a bunch of loons.

   Even as I type this, I’m rolling around on piles of money that were given to me for my part in the conspiracy.

   I suppose it’s just a matter of time before this comment will be seen as further proof that the election was fixed.

4. Somebody needs to investigate whether Jim Nintzel and Doug Nintzel have ever slept together. Even if it was only some light roughhousing in Underoos, that is still mighty suspicious.

5. Seems to me that Boegle and Nintzel are just a tad defensive. Could it be because they do harbor some bias on this issue?

   The Weekly’s coverage certainly makes it seem so. Take Nintzel’s response above – he belittles Alissa’s perfectly reasonable point that perhaps he has a conflict of interest by accusing her of falling prey to a big conspiracy. Where does she espouse this conspiracy that Nintzel mercilessly mocks her for? And if Doug Nintzel is indeed his brother he ought to disclose that – any decent reporter would when writing about this issue.

   Another example: When Nintzel posted his Osmolski character assassination blog entry he made no attempt to report on the failures of Bryan Crane or Brad Nelson – each of whom has committed some serious screw-ups (or possibly worse) within their professional capacity at the Pima County Elections Department. If Nintzel were a serious reporter he could have easily found out that there are in fact individuals who witnessed Osmolski and Crane speaking that night at Boondocks (remember, Crane denied ever being there or knowing where the Boondocks is). This is journalism 101 stuff. Sadly, Nintzel has become just another tabloid style reporter. All he does is make fun of people (John Kromko in particular) and try to be clever.

   As for Boegle, he must be the world’s laziest editor. Instead of getting on top of a story which concerns our most basic freedoms, he is totally clueless and needs people to explain issues of the most obvious significance – like the perplexing fact that the Pima County Elections Department purchased a crop scanner (a device used in agriculture or for hacking elections). Why don’t the Weekly ask the Elections Department why they purchased this? Again, journalism 101.

   A long time ago the Weekly used to have better investigative reporting on local issues than the Star and Citizen. Now it’s FAR worse. Maybe Boegle and Nintzel should be out on the beat doing some real reporting instead of harassing posters on the Weekly blog.

6. Jim Nintzel: Your response to Alissa is funny and everything, but I do think she had a fair question. If you are writing a piece that favors the side of an issue that your brother is involved in, don’t you agree that might come across as a conflict of interest? At the very least it calls for full disclosure on that fact, right? I don’t think it is a conspiracy theory to at least ask about this. What do you think?

7. Jim is not his brother’s keeper.

   Or is that Doug?

8. Jim: It’s important to label me as a ‘conspiracy theorist.’ Isn’t that the current damning label – you know, like being labeled a ‘liberal’ in the nineties?
   I’ll go one further.

   Here’s Boegle’s statement in his two-week-old ditty “Descent Into Insanity” (catchy title):

   “one thing the request/lawsuit has thus far not turned up is a single shred of credible evidence that the RTA election was anything but legitimate.”

   This is deceptive.

   So what does the Tucson Weekly do when it finds itself on the wrong side of an argument? Punish those that appear to be close to the disfavored position. Especially candidates. Here’s a statement from their candidates’ endorsement article in this weeks issue:

   “Branch-Gilby is also among the Democrats who have hammered Bronson on the issue of election integrity. We salute the Pima County Democratic Party for exposing serious security problems within the Elections Division, but we fear the issue has been blown out of proportion by the conspiracy theorists who believe the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election was rigged–and we believe the campaign against Bronson has turned into a witch hunt, which we can’t get behind. Vote Bronson.”

   Maybe credibility is not a concern for the Weekly. If that’s the case, why do you think your endorsement matters?

9. The whole petition process needs to be overhauled as does the state, county and city governments. “Talkin’ Bout A Revolu…….”

10. It would be kind of cool if Jim was actually named Bob. I’ll drink a Molson in your honor. (It was a long day today, bear with my shitty sense of humor)

11. Dear Friends and Fellow Activists:

    Donna Branch-Gilby and Robert Robuck are challenging the establishment. Power and money are now striking back. The Tucson Citizen and the Tucson Weekly have endorsed the incumbents. We the people need to close ranks and do something to set the facts straight. The time is NOW as people are already voting. Everyone committed to change and returning power to the people can do something. Volunteer, write letters to the editor. Talk to your neighbors.

    Donate to Donna and Robert; whatever you can afford $5, $10, $25, $50 through web sites.
    http://www.branch-gilby2008.com/ http://www.electrobuck.com
    Here’ s what you need to know.
    Watch Donna Branch-Gilby and Sharon Bronson face off on the candidate Forum on KUAT channel 6 Arizona Illustrated Friday, August 15 6:30pm.

    In its endorsement of Sharon Bronson the Tucson Citizen misconstrued the facts. Therefore misled its readers when it did not provide context for the Board’s expensive year-long opposition to releasing electronic computer databases.

    The Tucson Weekly followed with its own endorsement of Bronson without providing context. The judge ruled that electronic databases were public records because the county was unable to prove its burden that releasing the records was a security risk. Indeed, it is true as Donna Branch-Gilby affirmed, that Bronson made a motion on January 8 not to appeal the Judge’s first order to release only two databases. However, the larger context of all of the motions made at the January 8 meeting clearly proves that Bronson’s maneuver was intended to block the release of all other databases, including the RTA, that the Democratic party had asked for. The judge’s order allowed for future release of more databases beyond the two. Bronson’s claim that that she made the motion not to appeal does not tell the story that she was the one who cited “legal impediments” to obstruct the release of the databases.

    The Fact is the Board of Supervisors is also the Board of Elections. The key to honest elections lies here in Pima County with them, not with the appointed County Manager who has known since 1996 about the Diebold election system backdoor.

    Here is a video link to what really happened at the Jan 8th BOS meeting. 20 minutes. It not like what Bronson has said. http://www.sweetremedy.tv/pages/forcedagenda.html The Clip comes from an upcoming Documentary Called “Forced Agenda: How the Growth Industry Subverts Democracy”

    Bronson and Valadez for over the 2 year fought us over the issues of transparency in elections and never voted with us until “yuppie riot” we could go to the record prove this.

    On Jan 8th I knew the only way we could win was to get Supervisor Ann Day (R) with us by putting Richard Elias on the spot. Richard never voted with us unless we lost. I knew this and got people to contact Ann Day.

    What put us over the top with Ann Day was Dr Tom Ryan meeting with her and was able to finally convince her.

    Bronson on the morning of the 8th called me and tried to play me by saying to me “you won”, ”Let’s work together again.” Then at the meeting Bronson tries to release just the two databases the judge initially ordered, which would have been useless for the purposes of analysis. To find a flip you have to have a flop. You can’t do one with out the other.

    If anyone should get credit for pushing the Jan 8th vote over the top it was Ann Day. The video link shows the clear position of Bronson and her obstruction to transparency.

    http://www.sweetremedy.tv/pages/forcedagenda.html

    Half way through the video please pay special attention to Huckleberry and Deputy County Attorney Straub celebrate when they thought they had successfully fooled the crowd into accepting one database for the Primary and one for the General Election of 2006.
    It’s important to understand that this was not edited out of context, but a recording of what occurred at the break in real time.

    However, their little celebration was premature. At the break Richard Elias tried to clear the room, before the rest of the speakers had been heard from. As the meeting starts again the “yuppie revolt” erupted to help clinch the victory. We won the vote to release all the databases by 5 to 0, including the RTA databases, thanks to Ann Day, just like I said would happen if we had her vote.
    This thanks to Ann Day, just like I said would happen if we had her vote.

    I’m not stating that the video somehow indicates RTA vote fraud, but it does provide the context of what took place. Keep in mind this was after the trial. Both Bronson and Valedez deserve to be hammered for their role in resisting disclosure of the database files.

    So friends, what do we do? Change Can’t Wait. We have to ACT NOW to elect Donna Branch Gilby and Robert Robuck to replace our DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) who have BIG MONEY and SPECIAL INTEREST on their side.

    Hope, Peace and Democracy.
    John R Brakey
    AUDITAZ@COX.net

12. Wow, Nintzel sure clammed up.

13. Nintzel is on vacation in Hawaii this week, RTP.

14. Lucky bastard.

15. You’re tellin’ me.

16. jimmy do you have any thoughts on this?
    you’re the editor right?
    is this a conflict or not?is there some biais going on?
    seems like it should have been flagged somehow.

17. There can’t be a conflict where there’s nothing to gain, and in this case, there’s nothing to gain. Jim’s brother had nothing to gain regarding the RTA passing. Didn’t affect his job or his compensation. So, in other words, this whole thing is insane.

18. Aloha, everyone! As JB has noted, I am off in Waikiki, enjoying a few days in paradise.

    But since it’s clear my many fans are eagerly awaiting my response to Ken O’Day et al, I’ll take break from my surfing lessons long enough to respond to this silliness.

    Ken, I’ve never said I don’t have a bias when it comes to the RTA. I wrote the editorial encouraging people to vote for it. I’m a columnist—I’m paid to have opinions.

    What Alyssa—and now you—are trying to do is discredit my reporting by suggesting that my bias is somehow related to my brother’s employment at ADOT—which, put bluntly, is absolute horseshit. My brother Doug and I speak maybe a dozen times a year, and it’s rarely about transportation, unless I’m asking him if the highway is clear for my drive to Flagstaff. On the few occasions I have asked him about state transportation spending in the Tucson area, he’s sent me off to talk to someone else.

    I’m far closer to other people on both sides of the RTA argument than I am to my brother Doug. He’s a terrific guy, but sharing a bloodline does not automatically create a conflict of interest. His income did not rise or fall with the passage of the RTA, and even if it did, his household income has no bearing on mine. And as a government agency, ADOT did not encourage people to support the RTA.

    Besides, if you knew anything about the Brothers Nintzel, you’d know that it’s much more likely that if Doug had wanted me to support the RTA, I would have done the opposite. Sure, we love each other and all, but that doesn’t mean we don’t fight. That’s what brothers do. This is the guy who set me on fire when I was 5 years old.

    Finally, while ADOT has a seat on the RTA board, I don’t recall anyone from the agency playing a significant role in the RTA or the transportation elections that came before it, which is why it never crossed my mind to disclose that my brother worked for ADOT. (Besides, given that he’s the PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER, I hardly think his employment there is a big secret.) I don’t recall talking to anyone from the state agency when I was writing about either election. Frankly, it seems to me—and Doug won’t like this part—that ADOT is much more interested in building freeways up in Maricopa than they are in helping us down here. (Granted, they are spending all that money on widening I-10, so maybe deep down they do care.)

    To sum it up, Ken: Your little lecture on Journalism 101 is as off-base as your arguments against the RTA in the first place. But it does illustrate a problem with your side’s thinking on this issue: You see bogus connections everywhere, as if no one could have an honest disagreement with you on the issue without somehow being corrupt or dishonest.

    My support for the RTA package came from years of reporting on transportation issues that made it clear to me that our community did not have enough money to fix crumbling infrastructure or pay for a decent transit system.

    I opposed the city’s 2002 transportation proposal because I believed that it shortchanged mass transit, wasted a huge amount on money on grade-separated intersections along Grant Road and didn’t include impact fees for new development.

    I supported the RTA election because it gave more money to transit than the 2002 plan and created what I believe to be a reasonably good plan to move cars around the region. (Plus, between 2002 and 2006, the city of Tucson established impact fees–perhaps too low, but better than nothing.) It was not a perfect plan, but politics rarely delivers perfection.

    As a member of this community, I don’t want to wait until I’m collecting Social Security to do something about fixing our roads or getting a decent bus system. I believe in investing in the community in which I live.

    Your mileage may differ—and that’s fine. But here’s your problem, Ken: You ran an amateurish opposition campaign that didn’t persuade people to see things your way and you lost. Now, since you’re bitter about losing, you want to discredit the winning side.

    You’re a sore loser, but you have mastered a rule that John Kromko explained to me last year when he was running his half-baked water initiative: When you don’t have the facts on your side, create doubt.

    As JB has noted, there’s a chance the RTA election was fixed, but the evidence that’s been produced so far is circumstantial. And I’ve already shown that one key piece that opponents of the RTA say made them suspicious in the first place—that polls showed it was losing—simply ain’t true. The pre-election surveys actually showed that the prop would pass by pretty much the same margin that it came out to on Election Day. I find it pretty darn amusing that no one on your side seems to want to acknowledge that you guys were flat wrong about that.

    Tell you what, Ken: I’ll throw out to you the same challenge I threw out to “Frank” over at ScrambleWatch.com. Who do you believe was involved in this plan to flip the RTA election? Why don’t you lay out what you believe to be the most plausible plot? Or are you afraid of my merciless mocking?

    Anyone else want to weigh in? John Brakey? John Kromko? C’mon, Kromko: You’ve told me you know how it was done. Here’s your chance to show TW blog readers exactly who was in on it. Was it Col Mustard in the drawing room with the cropscanner? Inquiring minds want to know.

    I’m all for a recount of the ballots—and maybe I’ll have to eat these words as a result. I think it’s more likely you’ll have to eat yours—but then again, the last time I spoke with Lianda Ludwig of AUDIT AZ, she told me that the county could have people filling out phony extra ballots to make sure the results went their way if there was a recount. So it seems to me that not even a recount will satisfy some folks.

    And people wonder why I think they’re conspiracy theorists…

19. Perhaps I’m naive for thinking these sorts of connections are rare at best. Media biased tends occur more often with favorable reporting in exchange for access or the actual owners of the papers insisting on an outcome of a story. Jim’s relation to Doug means nothing unless there is a factor that suggests this relationship might be significant.

    In fact, it is Jim’s overt bias that seems to be the most significant factor drawing attention to this ADOT connection. Second, of course, to the defensive response to my partner Alissa’s original post. I guess the same argument can be made for the attack on Ken.

    Brother Doug’s enrichment isn’t the only criteria for determining motivation for Jim Nintzel’s biased reporting. The question should be whether ADOT benefits from successful passage of the RTA and whether brother Doug’s organization is affected by the suggestion that the RTA election was rigged. Honestly, we don’t need a close-up of the “money shot”.

    Is there a rigorous effort by Jim Nintzel to promote the RTA in a positive light and to denigrate legitimate claims of foul play? Jim just admitted he’s not a reporter. He’s an opinion writer. Well, for my project, “Forced Agenda: How the Growth Industry Subverts Democracy”, I’ve spent some time looking through this. My biased, of course, stems from the fact I am renting from a building earmarked to be bulldozed as a result of RTA Question 1 and 2. Although I got a first-hand look at how the RTA attempted to “sneak by” by those most adversely affected, I didn’t have a feature until pre-election shenanigans combined with the intrigue of now-discovered post-election shenanigans. Let’s be clear. My project will benefit if it turns out that the RTA election was rigged. Alternately, my project will suck if we:

    1. Fail to disclose or attempt to dismiss “out of hand” evidence that is exculpatory to Pima County, Brian Crane, Brad Nelson or Chuck Huckleberry.

    2. Take the weakest argument the county has and use it to dismiss out of hand the stronger points they make on their own behalf.

    3. Single people out and either punish them or ridicule them for having an opposing opinion or are even perceivably close to those who have an opposing opinion.

    4. Dig up and report dirt on people who bear witness to events that contradict the point we’re trying to make.

    5. Make strong circumstantial evidence seem insignificant, despite the fact strong circumstantial evidence has placed people on death row.

    6. Most important, deceive the public with statements like, “there’s not a shred of credible evidence that the votes were legitimate.”

    Yes siree. If I worked to misinform the public like that, I would expect people to boycott our movie. In fact, I would expect people to boycott those that support our movie- even our sponsors.

20. J.T.: It’s people like you who give movements like this a bad name. You find dark conspiracies in places where there are none. We’ve given the election integrity debacle more honest coverage than any other media. We’ve posted documents out the wazoo on this blog. We’ve given props to the Dems for uncovering all sorts of idiot maneuvers on the part of the Elections Department. We’ve even said that, yes, it’s possible the election was flipped, even though there is not one shred of evidence it happened yet, and we refuse to make sure claims sans evidence. Where I get cranky is when you start to call the integrity of my newspaper and staff into question without a shred of evidence–on our blog, no less, a forum we created and choose not to sensor. That’s insulting, wrong and unnecessary. Nintzel and the other Weekly staffers work their asses off out of a love for journalism and Tucson. You see boogie men in places there aren’t necessary boogie men, and ignore the boogie men right in front of your face. You end up bringing further disrespect to those around you–and that’s the most pathetic part, J.T.

21. Jim, as a journalist or “columnist” or whatever you are, you seem to have a knack for not paying attention to what people actually say. If you read my post above, you’ll see that I never said you had a conflict of interest (or that your brother being ADOT spokesperson is the basis for your admitted bias). All I said is: (1) it was unfair of you to call Alyssa a “conspiracy theorist” just because she raised the possibility of a conflict of interest, and (2) that if you are writing about transportation issues and your brother is the spokesperson for ADOT, then you should disclose that fact.

    It is about the APPEARANCE of a conflict of interest. The purpose of disclosure is to allow readers to judge relevant material facts for themselves. I have no idea what your relationship with your brother is like and I don’t particularly care (based on what you’ve now said I’ll gladly accept that that is not the source of your bias). My point is that you didn’t provide your readers with the opportunity to decide for themselves, instead you took it upon yourself to decide that you had no conflict of interest. I think that’s poor journalism and I think the basic principles of journalistic integrity would bear me out on that. The NY Times policy on ethics in journalism says: “A brother or a daughter in a high-profile job on Wall Street might produce the appearance of conflict for a business reporter or editor.”

    Just like you’ve misconstrued my remarks above I think you’ve repeatedly misconstrued what many advocates for a ballot recount have been saying. I’ve never said that I’m convinced the election was fixed. All I’ve said is that there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation, including a recount of the ballots. Others may view that evidence and come to the conclusion that the election was flipped. I think it’s possible, but I’m not sure.

    Of course I would feel vindicated if it is proven that the election was flipped. I put a year of my life into opposing the RTA plan because I think it levied a tax on everyone to predominantly benefit developers and the other special interests who supported it to the tune of $1.2 million. As a political amateur I admit to running an amateur campaign. With only the help of a small group of other people against a $1.2 million campaign, I think we did a pretty good job – even if we lost. We managed to scare the heck out of the proponents and had them frantically making last minute illegal robocalls in a bid to pass the plan. My hunch is that they got more of a battle than they anticipated. I can live with the fact that I lost, but if I’m going to I’d really like to be sure that that was in fact the case.

    So, when a lot of independent people who I have no relation with and who were not involved with the RTA one way or the other have turned up evidence of improprieties surrounding the Pima County Elections Department and the RTA election in particular, I admit that it does make me curious about whether there could have been tampering or even fraud.

    Boegle says there’s not “a single shred of credible evidence” that the election was manipulated. For the editor of the Weekly to say this is just astoundingly ignorant. I suppose Bryan Crane never printed illegal summary reports, that the Pima County elections department always followed proper procedures and that they are using the crop scanner they purchased for farming, that Mark Kimble is just a crazy conspiracy theorist, and that Bill Risner made up all the “evidence” he presented in his letter to the AG. You can call the evidence “circumstantial” in your effort to belittle it, but ultimately the issue is whether there is sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation and recounting of the ballots. I think that there is sufficient evidence as do lots of other reasonable people. I guess we’ll have to see what the AG thinks.

    You say you want a recount (and I’m glad you do), but I’m not at all clear on why you say that when at the same time you keep insulting anybody who asks for a recount based on the “circumstantial” evidence (I guess your belief that there should be a recount is reasonable and other people’s is just crazy). Of course it’s your prerogative as a “columnist” who is “paid to have opinions” to say what you like, but if you are going to insult and demean people for their opinions you ought to at least get your facts straight.

22. Mr. Boegle,

    I bask in the spittle of your beet-red temper tantrum.

23. “We’ve given the election integrity debacle more honest coverage than any other media.”

    –Jimmy Boegle

    I think the editor of the Weekly has completely lost touch with reality. You’re doing a heckuva job Jimmy!!

24. John R. Brakey,

    If you are promoting big government Democrats as an alternative to existing big government Democrats (albeit DINOs), how the f is this a challenge to the establishment?

    The opposite and most direct challenge to the establishment is a small government Libertarian candidate who will balance our budget and keep us out of Georgia and Russia.

    Explain why or why not.

25. IPH
    I support good people. For County attorney I support Brad Roach.
    What makes you think I support big government? I work for honest and transparent goverment. For me this is not about the RIGHT or LEFT: its about Right, Wrong, greed and corruption.
    Did you see the video I posted above? http://www.sweetremedy.tv/pages/forcedagenda.html

26. Jim, in between surfing lessons, calling people names and than trying to marginalize concerned citizens by calling them conspiracy theorists. Could you please set us straight on these other anomalies.

    18 Anomalies Related to the RTA Election

    1. The RTA passed by a surprisingly large margin. Sales tax increases for roads had lost badly in four previous elections.
    2. Election Division staff printed unauthorized vote total summary reports after the first day of RTA early ballot scanning.
    3. Before the second day of RTA early ballot scanning, Election Division staff erased the first day’s database backup by over-writing it. This required responding to two warning messages, one from GEMS and one from Windows and then printed two election summary reports 10 minutes apart.
    4. Election systems expert Michael Shamos of Carnegie Mellon advised the AG investigator of possible RTA fraud to hand count ballots, echoing advice from local election activists.
    5. The AG Investigator lied to Shamos in an email, saying that “local naysayers” were onboard with not looking at ballots. The opposite was true and the investigator knew it, because he had engaged in a shouting argument with local naysayers about this issue.
    6. IBeta tests conducted under contract with the AG investigator of the RTA election should have included looking for possible swapping of yes and no votes, but did not.
    7. County staff directed all aspects of the IBeta testing, and led the testers to look at irrelevant items and to disregard potentially important items.
    8. A whistleblower has come forward saying in a sworn affidavit that Bryan Crane told him privately that he had “fixed” the RTA election, under direction from his bosses. Several other person have confirmed Zbig story. One saw Crane at the bar.
    9. The County Treasurer has announced a plan to destroy the RTA ballots ASAP.
    10. A Microsoft Access manual was seen and photographed in the vote tabulation room on election night. Use of MS Access on an election computer was and is illegal.
    11. Democratic Party observers were prevented from investigating cables connected to the tabulation computer after the RTA on the pretext that it was a non-partisan election.
    12. A tape of ballot layout held by the Secretary of State for use by the Attorney General in any fraud investigation was never examined during the RTA fraud investigation where it was potentially key evidence. Instead it was returned to the suspects, who “lost” it.
    13. The Pima County Board of Supervisors, through their lawyers, claimed there was a substantial risk that all election employees handling the election computer would “take the fifth” and refuse to answer questions based on a fear of criminal prosecution.
    14. The Pima County Board of Supervisors has never requested an internal investigation of the Election Division.
    15. Neither Brad Nelson nor Bryan Crane nor any Election Division employee has been reprimanded for any violations of rules or procedures.
    16. At the end of the RTA Election Day, the database was NOT backed up, as it has been in virtually every other election. The database was not backed up until three days later, after all results had been published.
    17. The Pima County Election Division purchased a “crop scanner” computer-hacking tool ten months before the RTA election. This tool had no other purpose in the Election Division than to illegally alter the programming of precinct voting machines.
    18. Jim Barry retired from his job as the County Administrator’s assistant in early 2005 and was immediately hired by the County to do a precinct by precinct study of how Pima voters had voted in bond elections, and “other duties” as assigned. Mr. Barry collected $75,000 from the County for this contract, while at the same time collecting $12,000 from a pro-RTA group for helping them with the RTA campaign.

27. It all seems bourgeois to Red Star.

28. Seriously now, Mr. Nintzel, just for a moment. Are you a journalist or a 12 year old boy? Your comment (responding to Alissa) was patronizing AND self-serving AND childish. Most of all it was a dodge.

    A paper that professes to be progressive NEEDS to protect the rights of the people to a fair election.

    And to Mr. Boegle as well: Tucsonans are not idiots, and the ones who cast votes indiscriminately are not well-served by your ‘choices’! Sharon Bronson over Donna Branch-Gilby? Ms. Branch-Gilby’s two stated main concerns for her district are RIGHT ON THE MARK and perhaps coincidentally again, she is an outspoken advocate for free and fair elections (what ALL politicians should be REQUIRED to be btw). Another quite obvious to me conflict.

    Clean up your “journalism” folks!

29. FURTHERMORE, we are not just DEMOCRATS OR REPUGNanticans or greens or libs or cons, or whatever you wish to muddy the waters with. My perfectly conservative mother is SPINNING in her grave.

    WE are the people who HIRE our representatives, since a more Capitalist way of explaining it seems to be in order. THEY WORK for US, get it?

30. Below is the letter to the Editor of the Weekly that I wrote two weeks ago. I was under the impression that it was to be published since I received a phone call asking for my permission, but apparently it was not.
    ____________________________________________________________
    The title of Jimmy Boegle’s July 31st opinion piece, “Decent Into Insanity,” insinuates that Pima Democratic House candidate John Kromko is insane. On what evidence? Well, the piece refers to the Taylor Avey-Jim Nintzel account of the July 22th debate between challenger Kromko and the incumbent Legislative District 27 Democrats. The offending line in that article seems to be “[Mr. Kromko] tells the crowd that the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election was actually rejected by voters, but a conspiracy in the Pima County Elections Division led to a flipping of the election.” That was Messieurs Avey and Nintzel’s telling, so we don’t really know the exact words Mr. Kromko actually used. But we do know exactly what Mr. Boegle wrote: “…one thing the [Pima Democratic Party’s] request/lawsuit [v. the Pima County Board of Supervisors] has thus far not turned up is a single shred of credible evidence that the RTA election was anything but legitimate.” I beg to differ. What I know to be true is that in the course of this successful civil law suit, lawyer Bill Risner (who won $228,000 in legal fees!) was careful not make such an allegation – even though he made it perfectly clear to the judge that the reason the Pima Democratic Party (with tacit support of many Republicans) was suing was to obtain election computer records that would enable all major political parties to search for evidence of election tampering by those in control the election computer. In fact, Mr. Risner, as an officer of the court, felt obliged to pass along to Attorney General Terry Goddard what he believes to be sufficient evidence to bring a criminal case against Pima Country computer operator Brian Crane, because the earlier-released computer data base for the RTA election proved that Mr. Crane had performed a series of illegal print-outs and an over-write of the RTA early-ballot tabulation, a succession of acts which correspond exactly to what one would need to do to if one’s intent were to flip this election. To my mind this is much more than the “single shred of credible evidence.”
    Readers wishing to know more about election integrity issues should read the new book edited by Mark Crispin Miller entitled Loser Take All – Election Fraud and the Subversion of Democracy, 2000-2008. As it happens, I am the author of a chapter in this book wherein I mathematically examine the 2004 Presidential Election in, yes, Arizona Legislative District 27!

31. I live in the Campbell/Grant Northeast Neighborhood bordering Grant Road. The quality of life in my neighborhood and the value of my home have already suffered because of the RTA. I was also one of those amateurs who fought against its passage, and not just because of what it will do to midtown homeowners and businesses. The fact that the RTA board is completely insulated from answering to voters was enough reason to oppose it in my opinion. So, unlike Mr. Nintzel, I bring some prejudices to this argument. But I didn’t believe the allegations of election fraud for a moment when I first heard them. I did try to follow them, though, and was frustrated at how hard it was to find out what was going on. As I dug for details, though, it soon became obvious that the Pima Elections Department had operated far outside acceptable boundaries and, rather than investigate the matter, the Pima County Attorney’s office and Pima government in general seemed to acting as defense attorneys for those accused of wrongdoing. That was why I emailed Jim Nintzel last year and suggested coverage of what seemed a number of questionable activities. I wrote to another columnist for the Weekly, as well. I got no response from either. And that, for me and most of my neighbors, is what has gradually turned us into those tinfoil hatted conspiracy nuts you so enjoy mocking. Nearly every effort we made to find out what was happening went uncovered by local press or unanswered from our city ward office or Ms. Bronson’s office. I’d still like to see someone answer all eighteen of those questions above. And then I have a few more.

    Mr. Nintzel, I know this is a really paranoid question, but humor me. You’ve seen the polls of the RTA. Are you certain they were produced prior to the election? If I had a poll stating the opposite, you’d insist on such proof from me.

    Since you are journalists, I assume you’ve seen the deposition of Bryan Crane on YouTube. I realize it contains heavy editorial comment, but let’s ignore that. Doesn’t Mr. Crane’s attitude and the length he went to avoid answering questions trouble you? And then, can you tell us whether Mr. Crane suffers from a physical or mental condition that would explain his bizarre fidgeting near the end?

    Can you explain why, at the end of a very gentle questioning by John Evans of the Attorney General’s Office, Mr. Evans felt it was appropriate to reassure Mr. Crane by saying, “…rest assured that whenever we get done, you won’t catch any sh**, I’ll be catching it all.”

    Then, please explain how iBeta’s report can be considered to have exonerated the elections department when it is prefaced by this statement: “During testing it was discovered that the GEMS software exhibits fundamental security flaws that make definitive validation of data impossible due to the ease of data and log manipulation from outside the GEMS software itself.”

    I’ve got lots more questions, but enough. You’re The Weekly. We look to you to find government mistakes and make fun of them. Instead, you’re making fun of the people who care enough to try to find out what’s going on in our elections department when you and other local media don’t seem very interested. I mean, really, how can there not have been an investigation of the Pima Elections Department after everything that came out in open court? There are a significant and increasing number of people in this community who have doubts about whether their votes counted, or will count in the future. I know you’re an alternative newspaper and it’s your job to be funny and rude, but don’t you ultimately have some responsibility to your readers and this fundamental covenant of our democracy?

32. David: Your letter is slated to run this coming week. We only have 1,200 words of letters space per week, and one issue per week.

33. Jimmy Boegle wrote: “There can’t be a conflict where there’s nothing to gain, and in this case, there’s nothing to gain.”

    True, and not true. Even without something to gain, a person can have private sympathies toward one side if there is a close association with that side. So it is better to disclose the connection than to leave it unmetioned. Just my two pennies!

34. John, my apologies. I had your viewpoint or focus of your vote completely wrong. I approached your promotion of these two Democrats as seeking to continue and promote Democrats.

    I aim my vote based on who will cost the taxpayer the least and work to absolutely balance the budget in whatever fair way is available. That’s why from observation I consider many Democrats as “big government”. (Bill Clinton is a Moderate in my view).

    Every voter has a primary focus, so don’t be alarmed or offended if I’m not focusing on what you focus on. We all think differently in swaying our candidate choices.

    This election year is so difficult — McCain will cost us more money with the war; Obama will cost us more money with enlarging government healthcare. Neither should exist as people should pay their way and America should maintain a strong defense but not eagerly take a military offense role in foreign wars. Our need to be in Iraq was already iffy after we caught Saddam and revolutionized their gov’t, not considering that we probably shouldn’t have even entered to begin with. (You might have noticed I am a quasi-Libertarian politically).

    Anyhow John, I offer you a mea culpa and apology for being so aggressive. I didn’t notice your focus and instead chose to take a potshot based on whether the candidates you chose had a (D), (L) or (R) at the end of their name.

Comments are closed.