Yesterday, the Tucson Weekly received a copy of a letter sent Monday by the Attorney General’s Office to Jeff Rogers, chairman of the Pima County Democratic Party, regarding AG Terry Goddard’s next steps in the recount of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority ballots as part of his ongoing RTA criminal investigation. The letter is from Donald E. Conrad, division chief counsel of the AG’s Criminal Division.
The letter confirms an examination of the ballots will begin on April 6, and will take place over the course of five days. It also confirms that the AG’s office has arranged for the count to be done by the Maricopa Elections Department.
The letter is part of an invite going out to the Pima County Democratic Party, Republican Party, Green Party and Libertarian Party, to each nominate three people. The AG will then select one person per party to be a witness to the examination process in the room with the ballots.
The AG just doesn’t want names, however; the AG also wants birth dates and Social Security numbers to do a background check on each person. Nominations need to be in the AG’s office by March 30. Other restrictions include no cameras, cell phones, pens or pencils, or audio and video equipment.
Some election integrity activists aren’t too pleased with the fact that they can’t bring in paper and pencil in case they want to document information. But for others, it’s a more practical matter: How do you find three people that can commit five days in Phoenix?
“I’m happy the AG took control of the ballots, and it appears to be very transparent. They’ve taken great steps to assure this is done in a very transparent manner,” says Bob Westerman, chair of the Pima County Republican Party.
“As far as the process, I find it a little odd that we have to submit three names, and that they pick the one out of three. I don’t see how it would matter who it is? It is an extra step I don’t understand. And for me as a chairman it makes it tough to find three people qualified, but can also spent five days in Phoenix. I have basically a week now to find these people and they in turn have less than two weeks to make plans to be there.”
I tried to reach Rogers, but was told he is in Phoenix. We’ll keep trying to find out how he decided to respond to Conrad’s letter and who he plans to send over as a rep for the Pima County Democratic Party.
If you would like to go to Phoenix to watch the process, the AG will have an area set up to accomodate a limited number of people interested in watching the process through a glass partition. And Maricopa Elections has made arrangments to put the process on the Internet through live streaming video.
Those addresses, or how to get access to the glass partition viewing area are forthcoming from the AG’s office, according to the letter.
This article appears in Mar 19-25, 2009.
Your posts are too long. You’re becoming verbose.
Your comments are too short. Are you arthritic?
Hi,
Seems the word “recount” was used in the above text.
Lets hope the AG uses the phrase “investigative count”.
Just my opinion that the word “recount” has significant election
law import.
This count should focus on counting the YES marks and NO marks as
a voting machine will detect and count. “Voter intent” will have
to take a back seat for this particular count.
The original count of May ’06 and the pending AG investigative
count should be the same result (plus or minus a small percentage).
Thanks and Good Luck
Frank Henry
Cottonwood, Arizona
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com
The Republican Party may not understand why the bizarre “we pick one of your three” rules, but I assure you the Democratic and Libertarian Parties understand all too well what’s up.
The AG’s office wants the ability to eliminate critics of their department on a discretionary basis.
It’s disgusting.
Mari, you concluded in your March 4 blog, “RTA Mysteries Resolved in April”:
“Before we can call it close to quits, we need the AG’s office to do this right, and that means talking to the Pima County Democratic Party, following chain-of-custody and other security measures as suggested, and making sure everyone is on board with the final procedures before that first hand touches that ballots. If not, it never ends.”
We still know nothing about the chain-of custody. Maricopa’s Elections Department has a worse reputation for security than Pima’s. No one is talking to the Pima County Democratic or Libertarian Parties–the people who pushed this investigation and gathered the evidence from the beginning. None of the Pima County political parties seem to be on board with what little we know about the procedures. Finding qualified observers who can spend five days in Phoenix only to have no way to record improprieties if they see them and to be subject to hand and metal searches before entering or leaving the counting room won’t be easy. Under such stringent constraints, why can’t the parties pick any observer they wish? Sad to say, but so far the AG’s approach seems destined to insure this will remain a never ending controversy.
Frank, you are absolutely right. This isn’t an election matter, but an investigation. Thanks for the note.
“How do you find three people that can commit five days in Phoenix?”
Enlist retirees who live in Phoenix?
Thanks for the update.
In a civil case, election observers ride with the cop car when transporting ballots or data (in this case a truck) to and from their locked down locations. There is no conceivable reason why this didn’t happen in this particular criminal case. Well, there is, of course, one obvious reason why the Attorney General insists that the handling of the RTA ballots be done in secret with “managed” public scrutiny allowed at a few choice moments. Here are some of the ways the Attorney General demonstrated bad faith surrounding the RTA investigation:
A. Allowing the suspects to select the tests to be used for the I-beta report (documented).
B. Lying (in writing) about the desires of the Democratic Party to inspect the ballots during the period of the I-beta report.
C. Refusing to provide the public document (I-beta report) to those who filed the initial complaint, but allowing the suspects to look it over (documented).
D. Instructing the suspects not to allow the plaintiffs to receive a copy of the I-beta report, which is a public document. (documented).
E. Publicly stating that the I-beta report clears the county of any criminal activity when, in fact, it does not. (I-beta report/documentation)
F. Refusing to examine critical data, then simultaneously reassuring Democratic fundraisers that there is “nothing there” concerning evidence of RTA vote rigging (at least 5 witnesses).
G. Reassuring the public that “our votes count as far as the RTA election is concerned” during the same event that established how Goddard had not received the information necessary to conduct a proper investigation into the RTA (documented on video).
H. Snatching up the poll tapes along with the ballots at the very moment Bill Risner explains to Terry Goddard that he has an expert in Norway willing and capable of examining the poll tapes for their authenticity. (Bill Risner, video and documents)
I. Moving ballots without outside observation to a location riddled with security flaws (documented/Maricopa court transcripts).
J. And, of course, limiting access and observation of the count itself.
To me it seems that the battle to find out precisely what happened with the RTA election finished the moment we discovered the ballots were whisked away to Maricopa without outside observers. Others are more hopeful and think Goddard is going to “do the right thing”. How will we know if the value of the ballots as evidence may be compromised?
Time for a federal prosecutor?
Your comments are too short. Are you arthritic?
Comment by Mari Herreras — March 25, 2009 @ 4:51 pm
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Not yet. You?
Red Star – Well, you know I hate to admit when you’re right. So in this case maybe not arthritic, but my wrist is a little sore.
Mari Herreras – Or, as beloved Mrs. Red Star put it in a spoken statement to Red Star some years ago, “You are all thumbs, with these unhappy women so after you all the time with their acting out their girl things!”
To which Red Star sincerely replied, “Red Star is not getting married again!”
Etc., meh, blah…
Thumb-sorely,
Red Star