Friday, Jan. 11, was the deadline for Pima County to hand over the election-database files that the Board of Supervisors voted to turn over at the drama-filled Jan. 8 supes meeting.
The best decision the board made that morning–no matter your opinion on this public-records case–was not to hold the discussion and vote on the Pima County Democratic Party lawsuit appeal in executive session. The week prior to the meeting, the Pima County Web site listed the lawsuit topic under “executive session” on the meeting agenda.
Media coverage of the meeting focused on John Brakey shouting to let more people speak; he almost got himself kicked out. The result was 60 voices chanting in unison. But according to Jim March, who assisted Democratic Party attorney Bill Risner with the Demo lawsuit, getting the supes to vote on letting the Dems have all the files happened after March told the supes there was no security risk in giving the Dems all the files, rather than just one of each from the 2006 primary and general elections.
Once John Moffatt, Pima County’s IT director, reluctantly agreed that was true, the supes unanimously voted to release all the 2006 general and primary files, as well as all of the Regional Transportation Authority election files, according to March.
Some election-integrity activists said they were worried the turnover wouldn’t happen until the following week, and others were concerned the files would come from hard drives in the Elections Division office. Prior to the lawsuit, the Democrats had Judge Michael Miller lock a hard drive with all the database files in a courthouse vault. Risner told the county that’s where they wanted to retrieve the files.
Risner went so far as to write a letter to Pima County Attorney Chris Straub outlining a protocol the Democrats preferred in handling the transfer of the database files to maintain security. Risner and crew felt that Moffatt’s plan to hand over the files was too risky. The county said it would use a sheriff’s deputy escort to transfer the files from the Election Division office and then transfer the data onto county-owned used laptops.
Risner told Straub the Dems preferred to download the data directly onto a new laptop they would provide straight from the store box, and they wanted to videotape the transfer, even though Moffatt said no cameras would be allowed.
According to Risner, the transfer of the files happened exactly as the Democrats wanted on Friday, although they didn’t leave the building until 10:30 p.m. that night.
While the party waited for the files, the Democratic Party reached out to elections and database experts around the country to begin building a computer program that can run an analysis of the database files. Risner says you just can’t eyeball the files; you need a computer to check the results. Once the program is completed and proves successful, it could potentially be posted on the Internet for other election-integrity activists around the country to download for their own database analysis.
Risner says the program will have to be Diebold-specific, but most elections offices throughout the U.S. use Diebold systems in any case.
So, the fight for access to public records is over, right? Well, no. Risner says they are going to request the remaining election files that go all the way back to 1996.
“They’re all public records,” Risner says. “And we want them.”
This article appears in Jan 10-16, 2008.
Why do the Mari’s posts get none to few comments? She seems to do the good job, Red Star thinks. Frazzled and MEGO’d by micro and macro? Feeling the end is nigh? No fear, check out “Climate Debate Daily” at:
http://climatedebatedaily.com
Yes, of course there is a UA connection having, we think, nothing to do with Lute Olson (scroll to bottom) and remember: you learned of it here first, from Red Star, not from Lupita Murrrrilllllo!
I figure a windfall of posts will happen Wednesday.
.
As for the Dem/Supes fight, interesting but I suppose it feels like a conspiracy issue and not a “wow did they really fudge the polls” thing to me — it’s there, but even though I am a voter it doesn’t really feel impacting to my life. I suppose since I am a centrist independent, I don’t feel as hurt as I might if I was a diehard Democrat (“They deliberately threw out votes against my party!!”).
.
If voter machine fraud like this impacts votes cast for Ron Paul in the 2008 primary, then my interest might become fierce. (There’s a whole conspiracy that Ron Paul is being silenced by the GOP majority because of his politics.)
.
Personal opinion, is all.
.
I want to see more reax to the State of the State address. Free University tuition for all high schoolers who get a 3.0 or better? What do the finances look like for that?
Hey, IPH: It’s actually free community college tuition to high-school kids who maintain a 3.0 (and “stay out of trouble”). Not that there won’t be price tag attached to that…
Jim, I heard Napolitano say free community college or university. The quote from the transcript says, “Let’s agree that any eighth grader who pledges to stay out of trouble and maintains at least a “B” average in high school will be guaranteed free tuition at any of our community colleges or state universities.” ( http://www.azgovernor.gov/dms/upload/GS_2008%20SOS%20Address.pdf )
.
I don’t want to editorialize on this (Read: I’m about to do so), but: I realize the free tuition deal is a method of retaining good students to the UA, ASU and NAU, however I’m really wondering how the state can afford to do this. AFAIK, AZ resident tuition for the UA is $5,048 per academic year, so for every 100 students that this tuition price is waived, you quickly run up a bill of $500k per 100 students. 200 students waived in to the UA and you’re looking at $1 million that would not be claimed under Napolitano’s suggested plan.
.
College finances is a tricky situation: Bush has cut down some forms of student aid during his two terms in office and the cost of college has outpaced the cost of living (IIRC). However, to throw around free tuition to the state’s above-average high schoolers… hmmmm. Perhaps I am working off an optimistic assumption we regularly have a big boatload of high schoolers passing above a 3.0 GPA – I just am not sure how the finances will work.
.
The only way I could think of paying for it is the old “let the dopey rich kid in” method: counterbalance big scholarships by allowing some less-than-gifted students in if they pay a hefty full price. Don’t laugh, I’ve seen it happen.
.
Of course, I might be thinking small scale without consideration that a plan like this could fall back on the big ol’ moneypile called the State of Arizona… if they can find the money through state revenue, they can make it happen.
.
Then again all of this commentary of mine is just hijacking the topic of the Dems and Supes. Errrr…
* clarification on the math : that math might look faulty because it doesn’t consider federal grants, scholarships and the like. However, as I understand it, the money from those grants and scholarships becomes money to the school from the government in lieu of the student paying that share directly out of pocket. If I’m wrong, definitely feel free to correct because my understanding is loose on this.
IPH: I stand corrected! You’re right–that’s a pretty expensive notion.