Blog For Arizona

Al Melvin Throws Down in Pima County

"It's like Hitler just invaded France," said a source in the moderate wing of the Pima County Republican Party of Joe Higgin's likely primary challenge of Ann Day for Supervisor in District 1.

That's not just Godwin's law in effect; my source only meant that a war that everyone knew was coming, and that many have been reluctant to fight, had finally arrived.

The war analogies kept coming, "what has been a cold war in the Party just went hot," said my deep throat.

As my source sees it, Al Melvin has just declared war on the establishment, pro-business, moderate Republicans with Higgin's entry into the race. Higgin is understood among Republican circles to be merely a stalking horse for Melvin with no hope of actually winning, but plenty of potential to make some joyful noise.

The newly declared war is for control of the Republican Party in Pima County. The establishment has been suffering the guerrilla attacks of the uber-conservatives for years now—taunting RINO hunts, primary challenges, a burgeoning far-right blog swarm, Graf's campaign against Kolbe and eventual nomination upon his retirement (and Kolbe's and the RNC's refusal to support that GOP nominee against a Democrat)—have all been skirmishes in the smoldering range war for the soul of the GOP in Pima and Arizona, more broadly.

Melvin's recruiting a movement conservative to challenge a GOP institution like Day was the last straw—or, more aptly, the assassin's bullet that set off a total war.

But perhaps Melvin has finally overplayed his hand. While Melvin is obviously hoping that a primary contest in the overlapping Supervisory District 1 will help stir his own base in his primary fight for Arizona Senate in LD 26 against moderate Republican Pete Hershberger, it could also finally prompt the establishment into a full scale counter-assault that could undermine Republican efforts to retake lost ground in LD 26.

If the GOP's civil war starts getting major press coverage, which a primary against Day is almost certain to attract, it could make what has been a quiet internal vendetta into a fully-fledged public feud. That could possibly distract or disgruntle voters in unrelated races where there is no primary challenge, like Bee's bid to retake CD 8 for the GOP.

Back to the military analogies: it's hard to take your objective without strategic unity of force. The Republican party nationally, state-wide, and now locally, is more divided against itself than it has been in recent memory as the cresting force of movement conservatism smashes into an establishment that has been willing to tolerate them only so long as they were winning elections.

And the movement conservatives haven't been winning, prompting movement conservatives to attack moderates even more vociferously in a zealous attempt at ritual purification of the Party to bring back the favor of the electoral gods. In reality, America is just fed up with the discredited anti-government politics of the far Right, even as anti-government dogma has become unquestionable in the GOP.

Voters' disgust plus a bewildering and vicious civil war in the Republican Party adds up to strategic advantage for Democrats at all levels. Most especially, Melvin's sneak attack on Ann Day (and by proxy the establishment of the Pima GOP) bodes well for the merry band of Democrats seeking to hold gains in LD 26.

Mule Train Mail: Mickey Duniho Writes an Open Letter to C. Huckelberry on Elections Security

Mr. Huckelberry:

I got wind of your latest memo on election security [pdf download] by reading about it in a Tucson Citizen article. Given that you mentioned my name in the memo, I would have expected to receive a courtesy copy of the memo. Maybe my copy went astray.

On page 14 of your memo you said that the Pima County Democratic Party Election Integrity Committee “has failed to provide a number of items that it agreed to provide in response to County requests”, including a copy of an election integrity manual that I drafted for the party. [Download ei_manualcomplete.doc ]

I don’t know about requests to the committee, but I provided a copy of the draft manual to the County as part of my deposition in November 2007. I think the manual was an exhibit at the trial in December 2007. John Moffatt was present at the November 2007 deposition, so I assumed that he got a copy of the manual at that time. To avoid having your copy of the manual get lost again in the County bureaucracy, I am sending it directly to you as an attachment to this email. I want to point out that this is a draft that has not yet been officially adopted by any part of the Arizona Democratic Party.

Your memo contains a number of good ideas for improving election integrity in Pima County, particularly your recommendations to improve procedures for chain-of-custody control of ballots, doubling the number of ballots to be hand counted, and adding the hand-count audit process to non-partisan elections. If you would also require sorting early ballots by precinct before hand counting them, it would greatly improve your recommended hand-count process.

Unfortunately, doubling the number of early ballots hand counted in the recent Presidential primary would not be an improvement. There were no Democratic ballots included in the hand count audit and a ridiculously minuscule number of Republican early ballots: 1 batch of the four percent of the ballots that had been set aside for hand counting. When I complained about this omission to Brad Nelson, he claimed he was following the Secretary of State’s manual. He did not read the manual correctly, and the writer of the manual did not read the statute (ARS 16.602.C.3) correctly. I hope that you will remedy this defect in future elections.

I am also attaching a file containing the 22 suggestions I offered to you in December 2007 in response to your call for public comment on election integrity. You recommended in your memo adopting two of these suggestions and part of a third. I have highlighted the adopted suggestions in green and key parts of the other suggestions in yellow. I hope you will reconsider your omission. All of these ideas are already operational procedures in Tucson City elections and would be excellent improvements to the County’s procedures.

Mule Train Mail: Mickey Duniho on the Hand County Audits in Pima County

by Mickey Duniho

When SB1557 was first passed in 2006, Pima County’s attorney told the Board of Supervisors that it would be illegal for them to do a hand-count of the September Primary Election because the new law had not been completely approved by the US Justice Department. Despite a last-minute plea the day before the primary election, the Board of Supervisors voted not to do a hand count audit of that election.

Two days after the primary, we discovered that Maricopa County was doing a hand count audit of their primary on an informal basis, in anticipation of the approval by the US Justice Department of the new law. As events developed, it became obvious that Pima County’s Elections Department was aware of the Maricopa hand count at the time that they told us they could not do it. We also learned that Pima County had been doing hand counts of a single precinct in every election for the past twelve years, with the full approval of the County Attorney’s office.

Under pressure from the people, the Pima County Board of Supervisors finally agreed to do an informal hand count. When they did the count, they delivered to the volunteer counters stacks of ballots that had been removed from their secured containers and neatly stacked up. This violated chain-of-custody rules for the hand count. They also interpreted the law to require the counting of only one race in each precinct, violating the clear wording in the law. Their lawyer backed them up on this erroneous interpretation.

During the period between the primary and the general elections, Bill Risner proposed asking a judge to clarify the meaning of the law. The County attorney immediately caved to our interpretation of the law: counting four races in each precinct as stated in the law.

In November 2006, the Pima Election Director and his lawyer tried to go back on their agreement and interpret the law to allow a single race per precinct hand count, but we then had a memo signed by Huckelberry saying that they would adopt the four races per precinct interpretation. When we showed them the memo, they again caved and agreed to count four races per precinct.

In the 2008 Presidential Preference Primary (PPE), Pima County first announced that they would delay scanning early ballots until Election Day so that they could sort the ballots before scanning them. Then they announced that they would start scanning ballots on Sunday before the election. Then they announced that they would start scanning early ballots on Election Day. We sent observers to the central count facility on Election Day morning, and nothing happened all day. When I asked Bryan Crane about this around 6 pm on Election Day, he said no one had told him to scan any ballots on Election Day.

In the evening of PPE Election Day, Bryan announced that they would select the batches for the early ballot hand count audit and scan them that evening and then count the rest of the early ballots starting the next day. We randomly selected batches of ballots to be scanned and hand counted in the amount of four percent of the expected number of early ballots. These were scanned and set aside. The next day, no early ballots were scanned. Only one of the eight batches selected was hand counted – with Brad Nelson claiming that that batch was far in excess of one percent of the early ballots scanned before the close of polls on Election Day. But the law says that one percent of the early ballots RECEIVED by the close of polls on Election Day will be hand counted.

When the hand count of ballots began, Brad Nelson announced that they would only count one of the two presidential races, in accordance with the new Secretary of State Procedures Manual. The law says all the presidential preference races are to be counted, not just one, and the new procedures manual is contrary to the law. The hand count of early ballots counted approximately one sixth of one percent of the early ballots received – one sixth of the number that should have been counted. Also, since the “randomly selected” ballots were removed from the boxes and counted separately from the rest of the early ballots, their selection was no longer random relative to the rest of the ballots.

It is apparent that Pima County’s Elections Director will continue to game the system whenever he has the chance, and will not follow the law unless forced by legal pressure. In every election since the hand count audit law was enacted, he has tried first one thing and then another to avoid following the clear language of the law.

Pod For Arizona: Oro Valley's Elections with Bill Garner and Salette Latas, and Blogger Art Segal

Recently, I had the opportunity to have a nice conversation with newly-elected Oro Valley Councilpersons Bill Garner and Salette Latas.

We discussed their astounding primary victories in which both of them managed to net over 60% of the primary vote, placing both of them directly on the Council from the primary: a first for an Oro Valley town election. In doing so, they beat three incumbents, knocking one of them out of the race and leaving the final two playing musical chairs for the final seat in the June general election.

We were joined in our discussion by Art Segal, the Bloggitor (my neologism of blogger/editor, like it?) of the Let Oro Valley Excel, or LOVE, blog. Art is something of a blog hero in my book: he stood up to legal threats and some fairly slimy political intimidation tactics by the Oro Valley Board through their Town Attorney before and during the town's election.

We discussed the many land-use, development, budget, tax, and water issues facing many of the swift-growing cities and towns of the desert Southwest. The conversation runs about an hour. Here is a chronology in case you are only interested in particular parts of our discussion:

1:00 What’s Happening in Oro Valley?
5:00 Motivation for Change
7:00 Transparent Government Popular Uprising
9:00 The Strategic Campaign Plan
13:00 The Vestar Tax Scam
17:00 Citizens Organize to Fight Back
18:00 The Online Campaign
20:00 The Coming General Election
25:00 The Issues the Next Council Will Face
28:00 Arroyo Grande
43:00 Zoning Hi-Jinks
45:00 Naranja Mega-Park
54:00 Growth Politics in Arizona (sorry, some brief audio difficulties)

Download OroValleyPolitics.mp3

Fact Checking John Munger

Posted by: AZBlueMeanie

How many readers actually watch the monthly "Face Off" segment between John Munger and Vince Rabago on Arizona Illustrated on KUAT?  Yeah, that's what I thought.  Just a handful of political junkies.  In case you missed the April segment, you can catch it on line at http://tv.azpm.org/kuat/segments/2008/4/14/kuat-the-face-off/

I feel oddly compelled to watch Arizona Illustrated just to see how my tax dollars are at work at PBS.  I am also curious to see what the legendary host Bill Buckmaster deems to be the most important political topics of the day.  I am often disappointed.

It has become difficult to watch the "Face Off" segment because of the disingenuous responses of John Munger and the physically hyperactive antics he engages in while ticking off the GOP talking points of the day that he has barely memorized well enough to do the segment.  Sometimes it looks as if his head is going to explode when he really gets agitated.  Calm down and take a deep breath, John.  You are demonstrating to the viewers that you lack the right temperament and emotional stability to serve as our next governor.

Munger habitually ticks off the GOP talking points of the day and self-proclaims them to be "just the facts."  Since no one knows in advance what wild-eyed craziness Munger is going to say before he actually says it, both Bill Buckmaster and Vince Rabago are at a disadvantage to challenge him on his alleged "facts" in real time. Munger's antics have undermined the intended purpose of the "Face Off" segment, i.e., a thoughtful and intelligent discussion of the political issues of the day.  The viewers are left misled or confused by the bogus "facts" cited in the disingenuous responses of Munger.

So as a public service to the political junkies who actually watch the "Face Off" segment, I will endeavor to provide you with a fact check of John Munger after each monthly segment.

Let's go to the video... 

The Star Fosters Discussion on Tucson's Future Growth

The Arizona Daily Star has recently filled a real vacuum in local civil society by encouraging Tucsonans to take a closer look at what kind of place they want to live in the future. I have quibbles, of course, but they are to be commended for acting as a catalyst and resource for a community faced with some serious choices. There are deep divisions about our future course between those who seek to manage growth (either more or less) and those who believe the facts indicate that we are far past their point where we can just grow smarter, we need to stop growing.

The Star certainly provided some interesting raw data to chew on from their survey earlier this month. Admittedly, some of the questions were intolerably leading and biased, or just plain dopey. But there is some gold in there. I found some insights into Tucsonans' attitudes toward water, transportation, and development.

Read more about what I see—and failed to see—in the data...

The Cost of Spring Training Baseball in Tucson

Any time a wealthy special interest wants the help of local politicians to pick the tax-payer's pockets, they'll seek to justify it by touting the wonderful economic impact their conspiracy will have on the community. The standard method is a figure out a multiplier reflecting how the stolen money will ramify through the community. Then figure out all sorts of tenuous possible impacts that the project, or the lack of it, could have on the local community. Brew it all up and put it in a glossy flier, and you have a prospectus for bilking the taxpayers.

Thus a $10 or $20 million dollar 'gift' to the special interest will be sold as having ultimately a $31 million impact on the economy. Wow! We get 31 million of economic activity in exchange for tolerating a theft of just $20 million? What a deal!

The unspoken assumption is, of course, that there isn't an opportunity cost. That there aren't programs and policies which that money could have financed that would have an even greater economic impact, or even be better used on non-economic values and priorities. Simply put, what else would $20 million buy and what could we have spent it on instead of... baseball?

This is the standard grift being run on taxpayers by supporters of spring training seeking to shake down Pima County for '$10 to $20 million' in improvements to local baseball facilities. The claimed impact of the spring training is claimed to be (you guessed it) $31 million on the local economy by a recent, and despicably uncritical, piece in the Star.

In the United States, the total profit of professional sports is almost exactly equal to the amount to tax preferments and subsidies that industry receives. Since their existence as profitable enterprises depends on it, the professional sports industry has become very, very good at rent-seeking, and pedaling it to the public and their officials as a public good.

The economic benefit isn't their only appeal, however, the mouthpieces for the baseball industry would have you believe that Tucson would be psychologically crippled if MLB leaves town, and other towns will despise us and call us names. Well, that's not exactly what they claim, but it's not far off.

I sure hope our Pima County Supervisors put a little more critical thought into the decision before actually forking over any taxpayer money to this purpose. They need to have a lot better reason than a sense of nostalgia for baseball, as Pima County Supervisor Ramon Valadez expresses in the article. Nor is a 'surge' in public interest, indicated by a 13.7% increase in attendance at spring training games, which Valadez also cites, a good reason to spend the money.

I count 29 events on the Tucson spring training schedule for 2007, if you combine double-headers into a single event. With a total attendance at all games of just over 270K (even with that 'surge' Valadez says we must maintain), that might equate with as few as 10K real fans regularly attending these events in Tucson. If Pima County ponied up $20 million for the facilities improvements MLB is demanding, that's about $2,000 per fan. Good entertainment deal? For those fans, you bet! For the rest of us and for Tucson as a whole? Not so much.

What the MLB boosters don't address, of course, is the opportunity cost of investing public money in baseball facilities while crying needs during an economic down-turn go wanting. I can think of a dozen things that money could be used for that have as much, or more, economic impact in Pima County (including just giving it away!) and dozens more that would be a better use of public funds than tarting up some facilities for fickle suitors like the MLB boys. How about you? Can you think of a better way to spend $10 to $20 million of taxpayer funds?

Buy your own goddamn stadiums, boys. They aren't public assets, they are rich boys toys and the tools of corruption capitalists for extracting wealth from the communities that support them. You want to leave town for greener pastures? Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

Sheila Tobias on Donna Branch-Gilby for Pima County Supervisor

Sheila Tobias, a well-known educator and activist here in southern Arizona recently has been circulating her endorsement of Donna Branch-Gilby over incumbent Sharon Bronson in the Democratic primary for District 3 Pima County Supervisor. I thought it really well done, and worth a read for anyone trying to understand why Donna is challenging an incumbent Democrat:

Dear Friends:

A Board of Supervisors election rarely generates the passion and excitement of a presidential primary; or a congressional race; or even the contest for Mayor and City Council.

But, once you think about the power exerted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors over everything that matters, from plugging potholes to budgeting and managing the libraries, from juvenile detention to solid waste land fills, from ensuring the integrity of elections to waste water treatment, county property assessments and taxing, and approving (or rejecting) rezoning requests for homes and business development, you will realize, as I have come to realize: that the upcoming election to the Board of Supervisors matters very much to all of us who live here in the County.

The five supervisors sometimes appear to be a permanent body. With two of the Supervisors in their (well-paid by the way) positions for 12 and 10 years, a third for 8 and a fourth ensconced for six, I am supporting a challenger, Donna Branch Gilby, former Pima County Chair of the Democratic Party, most recently Vice-Chair of the State Party, because Donna is committed to voter integrity (see below) and balanced growth. She’s already been endorsed by the Election Integrity Committee of the Pima County Democratic Party.

Donna has explained to me the arcane workings of the Board of Supervisors – which we voters cannot alter; all we can do is to change the “cast of characters.”

Donna is running against a Democrat in a district that includes north Tucson and extends from the West side of Tucson to the Yuma County line and south to the Mexico border and includes the Tohono O’odham Nation. If you’re wondering why a Democrat would oppose another Democrat (and two of the other Democratic Supervisors are likely to be challenged by members of their own party this year as well), the reason resides in yet another responsibility that the Supervisors have, namely, determining voting modalities, and certifying elections. 

State law charges political parties with performing oversight of the election process; this includes monitoring the vote counting process.  When Donna chaired the Pima County Democratic Party, she spoke numerous times on this before the Board of Supervisors.  Her opponent in this election was the leading obstructionist.  Even after a 3½ day trial in December 2007, when Judge Michael Miller ruled that political party officials could examine the databases of the 2006 elections, Supervisor Bronson was calling for an appeal of the judge’s ruling.

With friends like these (on voter integrity), you don’t need enemies.

About Donna:

• Donna is a 40-year resident of Tucson with a Master’s in Public Administration from the U of A.  She taught supervisory and management skills to Dept of Economic Security staff for 20 years.  Was a member of AFSCME.

• Served as Chair of the Pima County Democratic Party in 2006 and then as 1^st Vice Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party in 2007

• Founder of the Arizona Women’s Political Caucus; served as a Director on the Boards of Tucson Peace Center, Planned Parenthood, Open Inn and as a Commissioner on the Tucson Human Relations Commission for 8 years. 

• She lives with her husband Bob Gilby at Milagro Cohousing - a Community in Balance with Nature, which they co-founded in 2001. She is the mother of Michelle Williams, MD, Tucson, and Toby Branch, AIA, Denver.

Donna’s priorities – including voter integrity – are ours:

• Balanced growth – to ensure that the population of Pima County doesn’t exceed our water supplies – employing the Board’s power over

  •      zoning,

  •      building  codes,

  • impact fees,

  • determining where sewer lines will go

  
  Thus, the Board could communicate to developers that in-fill rather than sprawl is a Pima County priority; and make that ruling stick!

• Transportation –through the budgeting process,

• Election process – through funding and supervision over the County Elections Division

• Open Decisions – Openly Arrived At

• Taking more leadership so that the professional County Administrator (who has also been on the job a long time, directing policy from behind the scenes) implements Board policy rather than his own.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors is required by law to hold open “Study Sessions” at which upcoming decisions (not laws – they do not legislate) are supposed to be publicly aired. But  for the past several years, these “Study Sessions” have been routinely canceled. Donna wants to bring in the kind of experienced people who invite input, criticism, and other (better) ideas when appropriate to a discussion or a decision.

Donna is likely to be opposed in her bid to unseat Supervisor Bronson (in office since 1996) by the Arizona Home Builders, Realtors, and others who have come to benefit from her long incumbency.

Once you meet Donna Branch-Gilby, you will know that she would make the Board of Supervisors more responsive to the views and the needs of people like us.

What you can do?:

• Offer your support publicly, by adding your name to a list of supporters.

• Volunteer, especially to do research on the impact of the Board’s actions/inaction on the utility service delivery boundary.

• Make a financial contribution. County elections are not part of “Clean Elections,” so candidates must raise funds traditionally – by asking. The maximum allowed contribution is $390 per person each election cycle.  Checks to “Branch-Gilby 2008” may be sent to P.O. Box 85781, Tucson, AZ 85754 

• Join me at a Meet the Candidate party at the home of

Bob and Joan Kaye Cauthorn
Wednesday, April 2,  5:30 – 7:30 pm
30 N Camino Espanol
One block North and East of Broadway and Country Club.

Graf Resignation Not Prelude to New Campaign... not for office, anyhow

by Michael Bryan

After Arizona 8th reported that Randy Graf resigned from the Pima GOP Executive Committee, there was some speculation that perhaps Graf was getting ready to mount a campaign.

There had been rumors in the past that Graf was considering a run for Pima County Supervisor in District 4, challenging incumbent Ray Carroll. I never gave it much credence as the post hardly seems political enough for Graf. Given that the most obvious motivation for a run was Graf's present support of Election Integrity activists seeking the release of public elections records, running against Carroll (the Board's most staunch critic on the issue) wouldn't make much sense. But who can fathom the mind of the movement conservative? So maybe?

But no.

I spoke to Graf, and he denied that he would stand for any office in 2008. He resigned purely to focus on personal and professional matters. He did leave the door open to 2010 and beyond however. I'm glad. I don't know what Democrats would do without Graf to kick around.

But what is Graf's new gig that forces him to resign from party leadership? Hmmm... lobbyists can't be party officers, can they?

Graf attended a recent public meeting in Green Valley about Augusta's controversial   proposed Rosemont mine in the Santa Ritas, and spoke in favor of the mine:

One member of the audience, Green Valley's Randy Graf, noted that mining was a major reason much of the American Southwest was settled and developed.

He said mining production is much more modern and less destructive than in the 19th century, and said it was good people “were here learning about the process.”

He said, “I don't think people should dismiss it without” a better understanding.

Maybe Randy's getting a job with Augusta? I can certainly see Augusta buying up some local political muscle in their fight to open the Rosemont mine. And Randy can't do that job while a member of the Executive Committee...

Augusta wasn't above shipping outside ringers in for the Forrest Service's public meeting in Green Valley who were promised a free meal and thought they were going to learn more about new high-paying jobs.

[Ray Carroll] was critical of how Augusta on the previous night attracted proponents to the hearing by offering them a free meal and a bus ride to the site.

Wednesday, Jamie Sturgess, an Augusta vice president, issued an explanation of the incident, saying apparently some of those who turned out thought it was “an opportunity to learn about jobs.”

Sturgess wrote in a memo, “Rosemont provided a setting for project supporters to gather at a local restaurant and provided transportation to those who requested it to the Forest Service scoping meeting,” in Tucson.

His memo acknowledged that some may have come hoping to learn about high-paying jobs, and he said, the company “is very encouraged by the high level of interest in the 500 new jobs Rosemont Copper will be hiring.”

Read the Sturgess Memo (PDF)

If Rosemont is willing to blatantly stack a community meeting with ringers, why not hire a local political gun like Graf to help with the PR in a certain segment of the electorate and to help ease the process (i.e. lobby) with government officials, many of whom Graf knows?

If this isn't the plan, I strongly encourage Augusta and Graf to get together for a chat: it could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Election Integrity Issues Spark a Republican Civil War in Pima County

For someone who claims "I don't speak for the Republican Party" Benny White sure has a lot to say about election integrity. Benny is the political wife of Republican Party chairwoman Judy White (herself given to unilateral pronouncements as to what is legitimate or illegitimate subjects for political discourse). Benny was appointed to the Pima County Logic and Accuracy Committee, which oversees the pre-election testing of voting equipment, and he has an opinion as to how elections should be administered in Pima County, and how they should not be.

There have been some recent murmurings about the Board of Supervisors yanking the Elections Division away from direct supervision by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and placing it under the direct supervision of the Board of Supervisors, or even giving it to the Recorder's office. After the raft of embarrassing and troubling revelations about the Elections Divisions' operation in the recent trial and on-going legal tussle, I can certainly understand if some Supervisors have lost confidence in CHuckelberry's supervision of the division.

In response to some of those murmurings, Benny felt the need to speak his mind via email to all and sundry on the subject, and to critique any such plan as potentially making the situation far worse by making elections a direct report to a partisan body (especially one not controlled by his own party, presumably...).

I think Benny's got some excellent points. Maybe, as he suggests, the County Registrar is the natural home of the Election Division, since their functions are so closely coordinated, and that is the way Maricopa County has structured their elections system bureaucracy (though, of course, the argument "that's what Maricopa does" carries much less weight with me than it apparently does with Benny).

Unfortunately, Benny stomped on one particular toe by making a disparaging allegation as to one of our County Supervisor's responsiveness to him on this issue.

Benny opined:

"I was opposed to the release of the database and requested that the Board of Supervisors appeal the legally flawed order from Judge Miller. The Board of Supervisors chose to ignore me. As a matter of fact, Ray Carroll would not even return phone calls to discuss the issue. Well, I am still waiting for the benefits the Democrats promised Judge Miller they would provide." [emphasis added]

Well, that didn't sit too well with Sugar Ray, as it simply wasn't true, according to him. He also didn't much appreciate Benny, who is not a licensed attorney in Arizona, let alone an expert on Arizona elections law (other than perhaps in his own mind), criticizing a well-respected judge like Michael Miller, even if Benny claims he doesn't speak for the Republican Party.

Ray invited Benny to keep the Carroll name out of his damn mouth, thank you very much. He made it very clear that he didn't appreciate being talked about in such a manner, nor that Benny should presume to have any authority to speak for the Republican Party on this matter, despite his rather disingenuous disclaimer to the contrary.

I don't know if the source of Ray's annoyance is just Benny's casual smear on Ray's reputation, or if Ray also doesn't appreciate any challenge for leadership on election integrity within the Pima Republican Party that some might imagine Chairperson White's wife speaking up on the issue implies. In either case, Ray made it very clear that he's more than willing to take the case to the grassroots and let the PCs decide who should be leading the Pima County party, if the Whites don't step off.

Them's fightin' words, as they say. Ray is clearly sending a shot across Benny's, and by extension his husband Judy's bow. If Judy and Benny don't trim their sails, Ray seems quite ready to un-mast them, or put one below the waterline.

Asked if he had anything nice to say about the Whites, Ray deadpanned, "They're not the Clintons."

Massive Victories in Oro Valley!

DANKWERTH, HELEN		3021	14.79%
GARNER, BILL		5091	24.92%
GILLASPIE, BARRY		3246	15.89%
LATAS, SALETTE		5400	26.43%
PARISH, TERRY		3599	17.62%

Latas and Garner are elected outright in the primary with this result, an unprecedented occurrence and a true mandate from voters for Latas and Garner. Dankwerth's showing sends her back to the dugout in shame. Incumbents Gillaspie and Parish are left playing musical chairs for the remaining seat.

When I first spoke to Salette about her campaign almost a year ago now, she told me that her vote target was 5,500 votes. It was more than any Oro Valley candidate had ever gotten. I thought she was overly optimistic—especially given the strong Republican advantage—but she damn near hit her wildly-ambitious target.

I asked Latas what her first priority will be in her new office. She didn't hesitate: she said she's going to be hitting the books hard to learn the city charter and rules backwards and forwards so that she can stop the sloppy and anti-democratic practices of the current Mayor and Council. She's attends the meetings all the time and has been repeatedly stunned and sickened by the blatant disregard for and ignorance of the rules she observes. Her top priority is to insist on proper order, adherence to the rules, and making sure the public isn't shut out of running their city any longer.

I hope that the Tucson-area major media will give this outcome the attention it deserves. This isn't an just an election; Latas and Garner have pulled off a revolution by electing a Democrat and an Independent to the Council in a more the 2 to 1 Republican jurisdiction. Their election demonstrates the power and resonance of the anti-tax farming agenda that Salette Latas pushed to the top of voter's priorities with her canny and long-term campaign plan.

I fully expect to be disappointed by how the media covers this election, however. For a front-line, on-the-barricades view of developments, make sure to stop by the LOVE blog. I've already extended an invitation to Latas and Garner to sit down and talk about the issues and their campaigns in a pod-cast. I have a strong suspicion that they'll be taking me up on the offer, so stay tuned...

Sharon Bronson's Promise to SEIU

Service Employee International Union won the right to represent County employees when the Board of Supervisors unanimously approved their representation last April. Nearly a year on and the County Administrator has continually dragged his feet on a 'Meet and Confer' process, throwing up numerous procedural roadblocks and legal hurdles in an effort to avoid direct talks with SEIU that would lead to a Memoradum of Understanding on working conditions and wages.

On the 28th of February, SEIU held a forum for Pima County Supervisor candidates to give them a chance to get behind the union's goals, and specifically the 'Meet and Confer' process with an eye toward determining which candidates, if any, the union would endorse. All of them expressed strong support for the union, even the two Republicans on the Board were very supportive of SEIU's goals.

So why, more than a year after SEIU was authorized by the Board, hasn't the county Administration yet begun a 'Meet and Confer' process with SEIU? How can it be that all 5 board members are fully in support of SEIU, but they have been unable to produce meaningful consultation and good-faith negotiation with the Administration? Who's in charge here, after all?

One board member who is up for re-election this year, Sharon Bronson, has drawn a primary challenge from former Pima County Democratic Party Chairwoman Donna Branch-Gilby. Faced by a challenge from a well-known, well-connected, and well-liked Democratic woman, Bronson has surely got to be very nervous about her prospects for re-election.

Bronson spontaneously promised SEIU that if CHuckelberry didn't move forward with 'Meet and Confer' within 10 days, she would place the matter on the agenda and force him to do so.

That was the 28th. By my generous reckoning, CHuckelberry has until next Monday, March 10th, to sit down with SEIU before Bronson lays down the law for him. That is, if she actually meant what she told SEIU. We'll see if Bronson has the brass to push CHuckelberry into doing something he obviously has no desire to do.

I certainly don't see any reference to the matter in the agenda as yet...

GOP Goes Nuts Over Giffords Talking with Constituents About Impeachment of Bush/Cheney

Upon learning that Rep. Giffords sent her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli to meet with DFA/Tucson about impeachment, the Pima County GOP issued a press release which stated:

"Gabby Giffords' Chief of Staff Maura Policelli tonight will be the special guest at a meeting of the Tucson chapter of Democracy for America, a far left-wing activist group bent on seeing that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached.

"'There are real problems facing southern Arizona like border security, healthcare and education,' Pima County Republican Party Chair Judi White said. 'It's hard to believe that Congresswoman Giffords would dispatch her top aide to such a frivolous event.'

"According to the agenda posted on the group's Web site, Policelli will participate in a discussion over topics relating to impeachment, including H. RES. 799, a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Vice President introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich."

Yet at the meeting with Policelli, the Congresswoman's Chief of Staff told the crowd that Giffords agreed with the view that this Administration is out of control, and further that Giffords would be in favor hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to determine if acts of Bush Administration officials might constitute impeachable offenses. Giffords did vote to refer articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Policelli indicated that the Congresswoman takes her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution quite seriously. Video of the conversation between Policelli and constituents favoring impeachment will be available online soon.

DFA/Tucson leaders were very pleased by the common ground they found with Giffords' Chief of Staff and the Congresswoman's views, and are excited to continue working with Rep. Giffords to hold the Administration to account according to Dr. Ray Graap and Dick Kaiser, two of the organizers of the impeachment movement in Tucson. They are looking forward to Gifford's response to their letter suggesting that she sign on to Rep. Wexler's petition to begin just such an inquiry.

As to criticism from the GOP of Giffords for sending her staff to meet with community leaders on the issue of impeachment, such rhetoric is certainly not unexpected from a party so badly out-of-touch with Pima County's voters. But Chairwoman Judy White's characterization of citizens who are insisting that impeachment be considered by the Congress as the sole means of countering this Administration's abuses of power as "far left-wing" and "frivolous" is deeply undercut by the caliber and ideological disposition of those who are leading advocates of impeachment inquiries nationally. Serious legal professionals such as the American Lawyers Defending the Constitution support enforcing the rule of law through impeachment inquiries. Prominent conservative legal experts, such as Reagan Administration Justice Department official Bruce Fein, strongly support impeachment from a principled, conservative constitutionalist viewpoint. Apparently, these upstanding citizens are all frivolous and far left-wing in White's estimation. No wonder the GOP keeps losing ground in Pima County.

The Pima County GOP's characterization of use of Founder's cure for an over-reaching Executive as a marginal, left-wing issue only illustrates how out-of-touch with even their own electorate they have become. A swiftly growing minority of their own party members are alarmed by the Bush Administration's abuses of our civil rights and the rule of law, and many are becoming reconciled to position that impeachment is the only way to restore the balance of power in the federal government before what looks likely to be a Democratic President takes power in 2009. Nationally, a strong and growing minority of self-identified Conservatives (33%) and Very Conservatives (28%), and self-identified Republicans (23%), would support impeachment for wiretapping of Americans' telecommunications without a warrant according to Zogby polling. Apparently, a quarter of her own party members are frivolous far left-wingers according to White.

Members of DFA/Tucson would surely welcome (considering that they tried to invite representatives of an anti-impeachment viewpoint to their recent forum, and found no takers) an opportunity to discuss the impeachment issue with leaders of the Republican Party rather than merely engaging the shallow rhetoric and divisive politics that has led the current Administration so badly astray and relegated their party to minority status nationally, and near irrelevance locally.

 

Arizona Democrats in the News: AZ Rep. Steve Farley on CPS

I am inaugurating a new series here on Blog For Arizona. There is a lot of really great media coverage of Arizona's Democrats and the issues that our party members and elected officials are speaking out about. I've decided my little blog will do its little bit to help get those messages out there.

You can help by sending me clippings of good coverage of Arizona Democrats speaking out about important state and local issues. I want newspaper articles, television appearances, and radio spots. If you are a media coordinator for a candidate, office-holder or a party organ or committee, I want to hear from you. I don't want press releases, I want clippings, video and audio from press coverage.

We of the liberal Arizona blogs have an opportunity to do more to help the Democratic message get heard, and an opportunity to help shape that message.

Here's one of my own state representatives Steve Farley on Horizon (which airs in Phoenix, but not in his district in Tucson) discussing up-coming CPS public records reform legislation. Steve supports fellow Southern Arizonan Pete Hershberger's bill, HB 2765, which is scheded for hearing in Human Services (which isn't problematic, as Hershberger is the Chair) and Government Committees (where Kirk Adams, Steve's opposite on this issue, is chair, so some encouraging words to Adams would help).

Adam's competing bill on this subject,  HB 2454, allows "any person" to access the CPS records of a child victim when there is a fatality, only allowing withholding of records if CPS demonstrates a "specific, material harm" to a party by the release, but provides no standard of proof, nor any clear indication of what constitutes a "specific, material" harm. Such language sounds good to a layperson, but when I hear such ringing generalities, I hear the 'cha-ching' of prolonged litigation to figure out what that phrase means.

 

Tucson Weekly's White House Stunt Slows Hand Count Audit of Primary in Pima County

Jimmy Nintzel must have thought it would be a cute PR stunt for his paper that would widen voter participation and engagement with the primary election, but the Weekly's Project Whitehouse turned out to be a big waste of time for the volunteers who performed the hand count audits of the election returns. It may have been cute, irreverent, obnoxious, silly, creative and iconoclastic (all adjectives I strongly support), but it had real world consequences that need to be acknowledged.

Almost 50 vanity candidates, publicity hounds, and outright wackadoodles were placed on the primary ballots of both parties with the help and encouragement of Nintzel and and Weekly - far more of that ilk than normally populates presidential primary tickets.

The result was an appreciable amount of volunteer time burned needlessly by the counting and recounting of ballots because of these dead-weight candidates.

Secretary of State Jan Brewer, who seems to be hostile to any citizen involvement in or oversight of our elections, issued ridiculously obtuse guidelines this year for the hand count audit procedures that seemed designed to annoy, harass  and waste the time of anyone involved in the process; even the County Attorneys involved with the count took a "don't shoot the messenger" attitude toward the SoS's procedure. The result was that the sampled precincts' ballots had to be counted and re-counted multiple extra times because of all the minor candidates added to the ballot by The Weekly's stunt.

Next time, Weekly, consider the poor poll workers, elections employees, and audit volunteers whose time and resources are wasted by stupid and extravagant PR stunts with our elections that don't produce any public good whatsoever.

Well, maybe not quite no public good at all; the Project did demonstrate how ridiculously lax ballot access rules in the Presidential primary actually are. We should probably ensure that Nintzel and his band of merry pranksters can't do this again in 2012.

Lena Saradnik Passes the Torch

Lena sent a letter to her supporters in LD 26. It included the news that Cheryl Cage will be seeking a seat on the Oro Valley Marana town council in the May 2009.

Full text after the jump...

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Nancy Young Wright: Second Choice of LD 26, First Choice of CHuckelberrians

UPDATE 12pm: The Board voted 4-1 (Ray Carroll being the dissenter, as he so frequently is) to select Nancy Young Wright as the new State Representative for LD 26. Interestingly, even though Jorgenson got the most support among the PCs of 26 (not to mention Lena's) the Board nominated Nancy immediately, and Ray Carroll couldn't get a second when he suggested that Don deserved an up or down vote on the record before considering Nancy. Nancy is going to file papers to run today, so she will definitely be seeking re-election. She also said that she will be resigning her current job with the county, as she was a direct employee, not a contractor. Don Jorgenson and Cheryl Cage were both in attendance at the Board's meeting and were very supportive of Nancy once the vote confirmed what everyone expected. Don is certainly still running as Nancy's running mate. I don't know whether Cheryl Cage will also run, or if she will return to running the LD 26 campaigns. I will be sitting down with Nancy as soon as her schedule allows to give everyone a feel for her priorities for this and future sessions.

The Nominees to Fill Lena Saradnik's LD 26 Legislative Seat

This Friday, 1/18, at 10 a.m., the Pima County Board of Supervisors will meet to select the new State Representative for LD 26 to replace Lena Saradnik, who recently resigned for health reasons. By Monday a new Representative will be driving up to Phoenix to join the budget battle.

The elected LD 26 PCs tonight selected the slate of three nominees from which the Board will select that new Representative. The PCs preference, and that of Lena Saradnik, couldn't have been any more clear: they want Don Jorgenson as their new Representative.

The Candidates Seeking to Fill Lena Saradnik's LD 26 Legislative House Seat

The meeting to fill Lena Saradnik's open seat in the state legislature may be more lively than I expected. More candidates have entered the ring and there will be interesting maneuvering over the weekend as hopefuls try to line up PC support. I expect every elected PC in LD 26 will be getting several hopeful calls from candidates and their supporters.

The Meeting:
Tuesday, Jan. 15th, 2008
7 p.m. sharp (registration and credentials from 6-7 p.m.)
Pima Community College, Northwest Campus
Building A, Room 207
7600 N. Shannon Rd., Tucson (between Ina and Magee)

The Candidates (so far, there may be additional nomination from the floor):

Rolande Diane Baker - An elected PC in LD 26. If anyone has further info, please leave comments.

Cheryl Cage - Cheryl had been considering a run for the legislature before Lena's resignation. She is likely to run for one of the seats in LD 26 either way. Cheryl was the political architect of Lena's and Charlene's victories in 2006 - something of a Democratic Karl Rove for LD 26. She's generally very well thought of, and would be a strong campaigner. I met her when she was a special guest at Tucson's Drinking Liberally.

Tom Cuevas - I've met the 2nd Vice Chair of LD 26, Tom Cuevas, once or twice at political functions. He ran a foreign automotive parts import business, is now in commercial real estate, and has been a Tucsonan for at least 50 years.

Imelda Cuyugan - An Assistant Vice Chancellor a Pima Community College, she has a background in educational administration. Withdrawn from consideration because she would have to resign her position as a college administrator to hold office.

Margaret DiFrank - A former investigator for the County Attorney's office and former employee of current Clerk of Court Patti Noland, now a private investigations business owner, DiFrank has challenged Noland for Pima County Clerk of Court for the past two elections. She seems to be just a little infamous for a poorly-judged robo-call. Apparently wasn't actually interested in the position.

Dr. Don Jorgensen - Don is currently running for election to the House in LD 26, and was to have been Lena's running mate. Everyone in LD 26 immediately goes into gush mode when talking about Don. Business owner, father of adult children and a grandfather to reportedly beautiful grandchildren, handsome, ready for a public service commitment. I've never met him personally, but I'm guessing he's a heck of a guy.

Fred Koch - Retired educational lobbyist and a relative of Fritz Mondale. If anyone has further information, please leave comments.

Nancy Young Wright - An interesting addition to the field, Wright served 10 years on the Amphi School Board where she fought against corruption in land acquisitions and stopped the environmental impacts of expansion. Prior to that she was a leader on the Oro Valley parks commission, working for public amenities and open space protection including Honey Bee Canyon. Recently, she challenged OV Mayor Paul Loomis, ending up suing the town just to win the right to advertise her political beliefs and effectively campaign. Nancy brings a strong electoral background as a reformer to the table.

My View:

I don't have a dog in this fight - nor a vote. From a look at the bios, and having spoken to a number of folks active in LD 26, I would guess that Don Jorgenson will definitely get a nomination. The other two slots could go to anyone, potentially, but the most likely nominees seem to me to be Cheryl Cage and Nancy Young Wright. Both have a great deal of campaign experience and popular support. Both are of the right gender for those concerned with the under-representation of women in our legislature; especially important because the nominee will replace a woman. Of the two, Nancy Young Wright has the greater record of achievement in public service. Indeed, she laps the entire field in that department.

All three of these potential nominees were likely going to run for the legislature in any case. I think one of them is likely to arrive sooner than expected. Any of them is well-qualified and ready to do the job, the question is which one will be able to secure the support of a majority of the Board of Supervisors?

Pima County Election Integrity Standoff Ends

And so it ends, not with a bang, but with a whisper of data flowing between two computers. The Democratic Party and it's staunch allies, the Republicans (try to get used to that idea, at least on this issue...) and the Libertarians, and a great number of Independent active citizens, have prevailed in the battle for the databases.

Pima County activists have won an absolute first: the first ever complete time-series GEMS databases of multiple elections in progress. This is a national treasure for the election integrity movement. Now, of course, comes the hard work of analyzing that which has been won, fully understanding the architecture of the normal data operations of an honest election, and building tools to sniff out signs of fraud. A team of top experts from across the political spectrum is assembling from across the county and they are calling themselves: The Royal Purple Team.

They are setting up a wiki to collaborate on analysis of the data and the tool building and distribution. Let the word go forth to the world, Pima County has the map to the Diebold fortress of security through obscurity, and we fully intend to take over the fortress and replace their silly, increasing etiolated topiary maze with real security measures and millions of citizens' eyes on the prize which that fortress protects: our democracy.

Huzzah!

Pima Couny Election Integrity Goes Back to the Board of Supervisors

The Pima County Supervisor's regular meeting on January 8th at 9am is swiftly approaching this Tuesday. If election integrity matters to you, you should be there. Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to be at the Board's Chambers by 9am.

One of the best things you can do is to contact the Supervisor's offices and let them know that is a critical issue for you. Sources near the case indicate a belief that the Board will vote to appeal unless Ann Day decides to vote with Ray Carroll. She should be the target of heaviest lobbying. Ray Carroll is already in support of election integrity; call and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Ann Day, District 1
(520) 740-2738      

Ramón Valadez, District 2
(520) 740-8126   

Sharon Bronson, District 3
(520) 740-8051      

Ray Carroll, District 4
(520) 740-8094

Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5
(520) 740-8126

The County Attorney has filed an apparently unauthorized notice of appeal, presumably purely on the word of County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry or on the initiative of County Attorney's office itself. Only the Board has the right to make a decision as to whether to appeal the court's ruling, and they haven't yet met and made any decision on the matter. See the Democrat's Motion to Strike (Download Mot_to_Strike.pdf) for more details.

The Democrats have also taken issue with several of Judge Miller's findings of fact as not supported by the testimony, and some of his conclusions of law as erroneous. See Democrats Motion to Amend (Download Mot_to_Amend.pdf) for more details. I will take a closer look at this when and if the County Attorney responds. In my first reading, however, Bill Risner make a powerful case that Judge Miller would be hard-pressed to ignore that the Judge quite simply got several points wrong in his under-advisement opinion.

Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll Endorses Salette Latas for Oro Valley Town Council

Today, Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll announced his support for Salette Latas in the race for one of three seats on the Oro Valley Town Council.

This may be the beginning of a much-needed non-partisan alliance against the profligate give-away of our local tax base in the name of "economic development" in Arizona's communities. Carroll, a Republican, and Latas, an Democrat, both quite obviously get it, and aren't respecting party labels in supporting others who also get it. Such a non-partisan, issue-based focus is a perfect fit for the non-partisan Oro Valley race.

 

Carroll's statement announced, “Salette Latas is a champion of local businesses and residents of Oro Valley. She will listen to the community, and work with all members of the Council to do what is best for Oro Valley's residents, not what special interests tell her to do.”

 

“At a time when economic growth is slowing, adding more burden on taxpayers makes no sense,” stated Carroll in his announcement. “After over $50 million in tax subsidies were given to out-of-town developers, and after passing a utility tax in 2006, Oro Valley’s Council members are now advocating further tax subsidies for a foreign corporation and pushing for a new property tax. The people of Oro Valley deserve a fiscally responsible Council that will stop tax subsidies to special interests.”

 

Earlier this month, Supervisor Carroll was awarded the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers’ first-ever Local Hero Award (http://www.aztaxpayers.org), for dissenting when the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to increase its budget by 14.3 percent and increase property tax levies by $34 million, and also for leading the successful resistance to imposing a new half-cent county sales tax.

 

Following Carroll’s announcement, Latas stated “I truly appreciate the support from an Arizona Taxpayers’ Hero. It’s time to end subsidies to corporations at the expense of taxpayers. Supervisor Carroll understands that this trend must stop. I will fight to represent the public interest and locally owned, independent business over the special interests of out-of-town corporations.”

Dan Spahr is a Jingo

Many of you probably don't even know who Dan Spahr is. That's a symptom of his less-than-memorable campaign for Ward 4 City Council against Shirley Scott.

Once he was quite-predictably crushed at the polls, I never expected to give him another thought, unless he got it into his head to take on another kamikaze political mission in the future.

But then, driving down 1^st Avenue on my way home from work, I spotted a not-yet-removed Dan Spahr bumper sticker. I hadn't seen any of these during the campaign, so for all I know, I just got lucky and had stumbled across Dan's own car.

But what stuck me was the slogan:

Support Our Troops
www.DanSpahr2007.com

Yes, the font sizes are a reasonably accurate reflection of the ratio of the font sizes on the sticker. And on his web-site you'll note the prominence of the American flag - not the Arizona flag, nor the Tucson city flag.

Just what office did Dan think he was running for? The City Council has no power to support or undermine our troops, except in a purely symbolic way. The issue is completely irrelevant to the a race for City Council.

Then I realized it: in Dan Spahr's mind, a City Council race has everything to do with supporting the troops, because Dan Spahr is a jingoistic idiot. And his campaign was focused on appealing to jingoistic idiots, which might have something to do with why he lost.

Now, I will allow that perhaps some misguided jingoistic idiot supporter of Dan Spahr maybe went off the reservation and created his own asinine jingoistic bumper sticker that really had nothing to do with Dan Spahr's doomed campaign. But that doesn't seem likely.

What seems much more likely is that Dan Spahr, at a loss for anything actually relevant to politics or policy in the city of Tucson with which to define his campaign, reached immediately for the last refuge of scoundrels. Thus was born the "Support Our Troops" city council race bumper sticker.

So if you remember nothing else about Dan Spahr -- and it seems very unlikely that you would -- remember this: he's a jingoistic idiot. And that's really all you need to know.

How To Paint 'A' Mountain White

Now that Democrats have unquestionable control of the Tucson City Council, it is time to take a stand against allowing facile public displays of patriotism to substitute for the real thing.

It is time to end the hijacking of a cherished symbol of community unity and pride inspired by academic and athletic achievement to advertise a false unity behind an unethical, foolish, illegal, and increasingly genocidal occupation.

It is time to stop allowing a vocal and self-righteous minority to shove an enduring symbol of the failed policy in Iraq into the faces of every Tucsonan who doesn't support continuation of the occupation of Iraq.

It is time to stop using public resources to subsidize a controversial political viewpoint.

The city counsel must now gather up their courage and remove the A on the mountain from the field of partisan political play.

The A must be repainted white immediately. And any time public funds or personnel are used to repaint it due to wear or vandalism, it must be painted white.

The city code already requires the A be painted white. We have only to follow the law. No more tacit acquiescence to vandalism, no matter how patriotically inspired it may be.

I have had enough. I'm sure you have had enough. I'm even confident that the members of the City Council and the Mayor have had enough. It's time to call, or walk-in and visit with your council member and your Mayor and let them know that you are sick and tired, and you're not going to take it any more: you don't want a symbol of your city used as a jingoistic advertisement for war; you want the law to be followed; you want your 'A' to be white again.

Let's make this return to normalcy one of the first priorities of the new Council. Let's make the de-politicization of a symbol that is meant to represent our entire community a small local step toward healing this nation of the failed and curdled politics of the Bush era.

Pima County Election Integrity Public Hearings

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

Pima County held some public meetings following the trial to which the public was invited to express their views and make suggestions. Interestingly, the public hearings were set during the pendancy of Judge Miller's verdict. I wonder how much of the motive for these hearings is sincere desire for public input, and how much is purely public relations management? The Board's credibility on this issue is running pretty thin at this point. How much weight will be given this public input is an open question that only the Board of Supes can answer, but I suspect I know that answer.

Here is some footage of two of the paladins of election integrity speaking their truth to power.

AuditAZ co-founder John Brakey:

Pima Democrats' trial lawyer Bill Risner:

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Judge Miller Orders Release of 2006 Primary and General Election Databases, But Not RTA Election

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

Judge Michael Miller, in a carefully reasoned and balanced opinion, today ordered the release of the final MDB and GBF database files for the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections. The judge denied without prejudice access to every MDB and GBF file for the 2006 elections, which would include the RTA election, until and unless the plaintiffs can address remaining security concerns which might arise from that larger release.

For background and commentary on the case and why it is critical to election integrity, please see my earlier posts cataloged on the trial's home post.

The immediate goal of the Democratic party - to be able to look closer at the final election databases - is satisfied by the ruling. But the broader goal of being able to look at a time series of backups for discrepancies or discontinuities that could indicate manipulation of the RTA election specifically is stymied for the moment. John Denker has some very useful additional commentary on the judge's apparent strategy.

It is still unclear whether the judge will grant on-going injunctive relief to turn over the final database files from every election going forward. The denial of access to the entire series of database files indicates that the court may still need to be satisfied as to any remaining concerns about security resulting from on-going and multiple disclosures of this type of data before granting such an injunction.

The ruling will allow the Democratic party to perform the forensic analysis required to search for any evidence of wrong-doing. It will also allow the experts for the Democratic party to begin to more closely address the unquantified and unspecified potential security threats from the public disclosure of the data in these files claimed by the County. This access will be crucial in satisfying the court that there is little or no practical threat to elections integrity posed by this information being in the public domain. Once that task is complete, broader public access to these files (the entire backup history of the election and that of future elections) can be secured.

There is no doubt that the factual findings of the court and this ruling are an resounding and unqualified victory for transparency in our elections process. However, there are further battles that must be fought: to access the entire time-series of backup database files, and to gain permanent injunctive access to the files of future elections without having to litigate each time.

As I digest the ruling and get feedback from the principals in the case, I will continue to update this post.

Here is Judge Miller's ruling in PDF format: Download MillerRuling.pdf

UPDATE:

Having had a chance to digest the ruling fully and consult with Bill Risner, I have a few additional comments.

The bottom line is that the public will get access to the final databases in the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections and all future elections, though the timing of future releases remains indeterminate.

The possibility for getting all database versions throughout the election process remains open pending further demonstration that there is no security issue. To my mind, the judge has adopted the County's burden shifting standards of 'plausible' or 'possible' security harms, when the legal standard requires that the County demonstrate a specific probable harm attendant to the release of a public record. However, I don't think this final reservation will long stand in light of the factual findings the court announced in this ruling.

A question that comes up often is whether this ruling will be appealed by the Board of Supervisors. I think there is really only one person who know that answer to that question: Chuck Huckelberry. My recommendation is that if you are concerned about his decision whether to appeal, you should call his office and let him know how you feel about that possibility.

Detailed analysis of Judge Miller's Under Advisement Ruling after the flip...

The Rosemont Mine's Rose-Colored Polling

Augusta Resource Corporation commissioned a survey by Market Intelligence of Tucsonans about their proposed Rosemont Mine. Surprise! The survey, the results of which were quickly - and uncritically - reported by Inside Tucson Business, shows that about two-thirds of Tucsonans are in favor of the mine.

Or at least it does until you peek under the hood and look beyond the headlines. Take a look for yourself: Download rosemont_mine_survey1130.pdf.

The bottom line is that the survey does not report how Tucsonans feel about the proposed mine; it reports how they feel if everything Augusta says about the mine is assumed