Blog For Arizona

Glassman's Liberal Drinking Makes Mothers MADD

This landed in the Tucson Weekly's mailbag recently (and, judging by the list of email addresses in the 'To:' field, that of about every media outlet in southern Arizona) [all bold emphasis is mine, i.e. the underlining is original]:

April 27, 2008

SHAME on YOU MADD Pima County,

As past volunteers/board members, we question the honor of speaker at the annual Candlelight Vigil going to Mr. Rodney Glassman, Tucson City Council Member, Ward 2. Mr. Glassman has a strong association with the alcohol industry, restaurant association and has attended meetings of the Drinking Liberally Tucson Club (Promoting democracy one pint at a time.)  He does not reflect MADD’s mission to stop drunk driving, support the victims of this violent crime and to stop under-age drinking. He has never been a part of MADD Pima County.  We, as volunteers, are well aware that office politics and personal feelings probably played a part in the selection of Mr. Glassman. We feel a person who has contributed to MADD’s mission or who has been an advocate for crime victims would have been a more appropriate choice. Mr. Glassman is an unfortunate choice.

We do hope the victims who attend the Candlelight Vigil will receive the comfort, unity and support they so sorely need.

We sincerely sign this,

Sylvia Crook, Past-President, MADD Pima Co. & MADD State Board Representative
Susan K. Smith, Past-President,  MADD Pima Co.
Mary Robertson, Past-Vice-President,  MADD Pima Co & MADD State Board Representative
Isla Jacobs, volunteer photographer

Shame on them? That seems a bit strong.

I have the highest regard and admiration for the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving. They have undertaken the herculean task of changing our culture, and our public policy, to stamp out a terribly harmful and dangerous practice—and to a laudable and beneficial degree, they've succeeded. Their efforts to protect our roads and our citizens have saved countless lives and averted untold suffering. In my estimation, they deserve a Nobel Peace Prize, at the very least.

But for the members of such a righteous organization, the line between genuinely righteous and self-righteous is always perilously obscure. Allow me suggest that a few otherwise well-intentioned folks might have wandered over it here.

I don't know about all the other reasons they mention for finding Rodney "unfortunate," though I think that were we to condemn as "unfortunate" everyone associated with the restaurant industry, we would be unfairly blackening the names of many good, upstanding people. What I do know, however, is that their knock on Rodney for attending Drinking Liberally is deeply unfair and misguided.

First, Mothers, it's not Liberally as in 'Lots'—it's Liberally as in 'with Liberal people and Liberal minds.' I suppose I should be grateful that these MADD Mothers thoughtfully included our slogan, "Promoting democracy one pint at a time," but somehow I think they did so as some sort of indictment. Maybe they didn't get the memo on our implied caveat, "spaced over a reasonable period of time and always in moderation."

Let me be perfectly clear: Drinking Liberally does not promote, condone, excuse, nor tolerate driving while intoxicated. It is an issue on which we promote awareness and responsible behavior. Every communication with our members includes a reminder not to drink and drive and to use designated drivers. We promote the healthy, responsible and immoderate enjoyment of democracy, while coincidentally enjoying the responsible and moderate use of perfectly legal beverages by responsible adults.

It is sad that these particular MADD Mothers apparently see any use of alcohol, no matter how responsible and moderate, as a character defect that might make one "unfortunate,"  and unfit to give proper support to the victims of drunk drivers. I certainly don't believe that to be the case, and I don't think most people would agree with them.

It is in the nature of people engaged in a great and just crusade to see any association with their nemesis as somehow tainted or suspect. I fear that these particular Mothers have fallen prey to this vice of the virtuous. I feel quite sure that, given some actual exposure to the institution of Drinking Liberally and the values we promote and embody, they would not think so ill of us as to attempt to tar the reputation of a good man by his association with us.

Thus, I would like to invite these leading Mothers of MADD to come to Drinking Liberally, share their message and mission with our members, and in turn learn more about our organization. Perhaps in the future, they will reconsider using a perfectly innocent and responsible organization (albeit one with a fun and easily mischaracterized name) as an aspersion.

If Rodney deserves condemnation as "unfortunate" for associating with Drinking Liberally, so do a large fraction of the office-holders and politicians of southern Arizona on both sides of the aisle, including every member of the Tucson City Council (save the Mayor), who have joined their fellow citizens at Drinking Liberally—and none of whom support, promote, nor tolerate the crime of driving under the influence of alcohol. I certainly don't, and Drinking Liberally certainly doesn't, and I find it more than a little offensive that it be publicly intimated that Drinking Liberally—and by association myself— does so, no matter how obliquely.

I hope that these Mothers of MADD will accept my invitation and meet some of the hundreds of wonderful people who participate in Drinking Liberally in Tucson, not to mention the many thousands around the nation, all of whom they have unfairly maligned. Not to mention Rodney—whom I certainly hope we'll see at Drinking Liberally many times in the future.

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

Tim Bee Working to Limit Impact Fees on New Construction

Link: Home builders push to limit impact fee increases - The Business Journal of Phoenix

What ever happened to Republicans being in favor of local control and smaller, less-intrusive government?

Now, it seems that they are only in favor of doing the bidding of big business in whatever way they can, by whatever means they can, with no philosophical justification whatever.

Tim Bee is now carrying water for Home Builder's Association of Central Arizona, forcing a two year delay before any new impact fees on new construction takes effect. These fees are far too low currently, not nearly recapturing the costs of infrastructure and services to new development. But Big Stucco doesn't like these fees, especially during a new home starts and sales downturn like we're now seeing. So Timmy is riding to the rescue by sponsoring a this new bill.

Is it because he feels that new growth in Tucson is already actually paying for itself with impact fees—in which case, he needs some schoolin'—or because he really, really badly needs to raise some major money, and the construction industry is one of the biggest sugar tits around for Arizona pols—in which case, isn't he putting the needs of McMansion builders ahead of the needs of his hometown?

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...

Our LD 28 State Representatives Deserve Your Support

My State Representatives, Steve Farley and David Bradley, are two of the good guys. They do a heck of good job and are just damned good liberal Democrats with solid progressive values. I don't mind that David is obsessed with the welfare of everyone's kids and Steve with his trains; I think it's charming, in fact.

And Steve is kind of freakishly into his job. His email Farleygrams are wonderfully informative, and he has a 100% perfect attendance and voting record—David's is good, too, of course, but Steve's a legislatin' machine. We are getting every dime's worth, and then some for the pittance we pay these guys.

If you want to subscribe to Steve's Farleygrams, fill in your email:

I wish David were running clean so that I could encourage you to send him Clean Elections qualifying $5s... but he's not, so just tell him you'd like to send him a little filthy lucre... but would rather be sending him Clean money.

Steve is running Clean and is now collecting his $5s. Download Steve's Qualifying Contributions Form (PDF). You can only contribute qualifying $5s if you live in LD 28. If you don't know what legislative district you live in, you can easily find out courtesy of our awesome Democratic Pima County Recorder, F. Ann Rodriguez.

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.

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...

Students Walk Out of Valencia Middle School

by David Safier

(TASL)“We Deserve Math.” “It’s Our Right.” You gotta love those middle schoolers who walked out of school and waved those hand made signs over their heads to protest the fact that they don’t have a permanent math teacher.

And you gotta be angry at an education system that leaves 93 TUSD classrooms without permanent teachers.

And then you gotta ask if Karen Bynum, a district spokeswoman, is being honest when she says she doesn’t know why so many of the vacancies are in Southwest Side schools.

I don’t know the specific schools with vacancies, and Southwest Tucson covers a lot of ground, but am I wrong to think that many of the students are from lower income homes, and a fair proportion of them are Hispanic? If so, the students have their backpacks filled with socioeconomic and language hurdles they have to jump over if they want to succeed. It’s tough teaching in schools like that.

Let’s apply a simple economic model to the problem. We have trouble finding enough math teachers in particular, and enough teachers in any field willing to work in the schools where you find yourself struggling twice as hard to get half the results.

What would the business world do if it needed highly trained people to work in undesirable locations? I think they’d offer all kinds of salary enhancements, and maybe some job sweeteners as well.

What do we give the teachers who work in those schools? A slap on the wrist for their students’ low AIMS scores.

All teachers should be paid more, and those teaching in hard-to-fill curriculum areas and hard-to-teach schools should get extra financial incentives, along with some other non-economic benefits to sweeten the pot. Teachers aren’t in it for the money, but trust me, if there’s a way for teachers to make more money, you’ll see a line stretching out the door of teachers waiting to sign up.

AZ GOP is 'Weak' on Impeachment

Link: Tucson Citizen Editorial Board - Criticized for talking to constituents.

Mark Kimble noted the AZ GOP's press release criticizing Gabby for directing her staff to meet with constituents (including yours truly) about impeachment proceedings:

Judi White, chair of the local Republicans, criticized Giffords for asking her chief of staff to talk with a group that advocates the impeachment of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.

"There are real problems facing southern Arizona like border security, healthcare and education,” White said in a press release. “It’s hard to believe that Congresswoman Giffords would dispatch her top aide to such a frivolous event.”

The press release also said “White expressed her dismay that a taxpayer-funded government employee would entertain the views of a group so far outside the mainstream of Congressional District 8.”

Come on. People who work for a member of Congress work for the public. Can you imagine the criticism if such an employee refused to meet with a group of constituents?

Since when do people judged to be “outside the mainstream” not deserve a meeting with congressional staff members? And who will be decide if a group is inside or outside the mainsteam and thus worthy of a meeting?

This is pretty weak.

Kimble is dead right, but he stops short of naming the true motive of the GOP on this subject. The GOP certainly went on the attack about this meeting because they are 'weak'. And they know it. And they are terrified to let anyone know how exposed they feel on this topic.

Any person or organization, and most especially the modern Republican Party will react most derisively and aggressively to what they are afraid of. Frequently, such fear manifests as scorn and derision, like a child's defensive mockery.

The GOP is terrified of talking about impeachment, and so will attack and belittle anyone breaching the subject.

Why? Because they don't want to have to defend to their constituents what Bush and Cheney have done to this nation.

They don't want to have to explain to their constituents why torturing people, lying our nation into a war, wiretapping Americans without warrants, secret prisons, 'extraordinary rendition,' and the abolition of the right to be free of arbitrary and indefinite detention are good things that Americans should actively condone - not just barely tolerate through willful and selective ignorance. They want to make the election about anything but the last 8 years of misrule.

They understand implicitly what Democrats haven't figured out yet: the one debate Congressional Republicans don't want to have this cycle is why this President shouldn't be impeached. If they can scare Democrats off the subject by deriding it as fringe and frivolous, then they can sleep well at night.

Why is the danger of impeachment to the electoral chances of Republican House and Senate members so obvious to Republicans, and so lost on many Democrats who smugly assert that impeachment is irrelevant to this election? Because Republicans know how to play political hardball and win at it: most Democrats haven't a damn clue how to attack an opponent, even where he is weakest, without looking like little girls in a slap fight.

Republicans understand the psychology of anger, hate, and fear because the fundamental psychology of conservatism is based on appeals to and exploitation of those emotions. They understand why effective attacks work, and they know exactly how potent a weapon impeachment would be in the coming Congressional elections.

Ask a Republican whom you trust to be honest with you about their greatest fear (if you are lucky enough to have access to such a rare creature) and they will admit that it is the well-deserved impeachment of another Republican President. Reagan and Bush 1 both should have been, and could have been impeached over the Iran-Contra scandal, and Nixon resigned to avoid his own impeachment. Add Bush 2 to that list, and you find that every Republican President since Eisenhower, other than non-entity Ford, could have been, and should have been impeached. You think they want the American people to contemplate this damning fact?

Democrats' near-universal lack of understanding of attack politics is leading them to studiously avoid the one issue that could ensure them an even greater margin in Congress in '09 (especially in the squeaky-tight Senate, if articles of impeachment could be delivered to that chamber), and think they are being smart for doing so.

Americans are fed up with mincing around this issue. Many Americans, like me, are furious at what is being done to the America's political and legal traditions by this Administration. But Democrats haven't any clue how to use such anger politically. They seem to be afraid of using even righteous and well-founded anger as a political tool - and so they tip-toe around it, like a dog turd in the middle of the Rotunda floor.

Most Americans want the Congress to take forceful action to put this Administration in its proper place: the dustbin of history. And they desperately want Congress to act forcefully and decisively reject the abusive, illegal, and unconstitutional policies of this Administration before Bush innovations become legitimized as tools of Presidential power by their continued use.

This is real reason why Congress' approval rating is in the toilet: not because they haven't pumped out enough enlightened policy proposals, but because they are refusing to fulfill their constitutional function to check an out-of-control, royalist, dictatorial, and self-admittedly criminal President and Vice-President. And that makes Democrats look simpering and weak - because that's how they're acting. Yes, Congressional Republicans are even more despised than the Democratic majority because they are contemptible, hypocritical political hacks, but being less hated that the biggest cad on the block isn't any reason for rejoicing.

Americans have contempt for politicians who demonstrate a lack of principles. So maybe Democrats could start with going to the mat with a lame duck, failed President to uphold the primacy of our Constitution, to demonstrate that maybe they have at least one - that Congress has a rightful role and duty under our Constitution.

Now, a personal appeal to the Congresswoman:

Gabby, if you want to kick Tim Bee's ass right back up to the state senate chambers this November, make him defend Bush. It won't even be close.

Stop listening to the meat-headed consultants and smug triangulators who advise the Democratic caucus currently and are telling you not to 'change the dynamic' of the race because you are sure to win. They are full of shit and apparently haven't really listened to an average American talk about our current political situation for years.

Make Tim explain to the voters of CD 8 why everything Bush has done has been legal and ethical. Hang the rotten albatross that this Administration has become around Tim's neck and make him tell voters it's a proud American Bald Eagle with a straight face.

The GOP will bitch and moan and try to claim you are a kook for even thinking the word impeachment, because that's the only defense they have left. Derision is last tool of frightened, powerless scoundrels.

If you can't win this argument, if you can't explain to your constituents why this President must be stopped and repudiated, if you can't stand up for the majority of Americans who think impeachment of this President is justified, if you can't summon the will to stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, if you can't uphold the duties of your constitutional oath, if you can't truly lead in this time of national crisis rather than follow the facile advice of the Beltway boffins, how can you continue to use the title of Representative in good conscience?

Signing on Rep. Wexler's call for a proper impeachment investigation is literally the least you can do to honor your title and and justify the trust that your constituents placed in you to defend our Constitution and thereby safeguard our Republican traditions.

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.

 

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...

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.

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.

Arizona Wildcats Basketball

Link: Arizona Wildcats Basketball - Mahalo.

I don't even have a category on my blog for sports. Frankly, unless there is the strong possibility of injury to the participants, I really couldn't care less about sports. I like mixed martial arts, sumo, and out-takes of any sport where someone humiliates or seriously injures themselves. I know it's somewhat ghoulish, but to my mind there just doesn't seem to be any point to any sport unless someone is getting hurt doing it.

I fully understand the Roman penchant for gladiatorial combat. The closest we come in our own culture (so far) is mixed martial arts or cage fighting. They aren't issued weapons yet, but just wait...

I used to like American football quite a bit back when the Pittsburgh Steelers were a dynasty, but expansion teams and improvements in protective equipment have damped my enthusiasm. I still like the legalistic character of the game, but it really not nearly as fun as it used to be when every couple of plays would see someone carried off the field on a stretcher.

Anyhow, this has nothing to do with the link I've provided. Mahalo is sort of the web-resource equivalent of wikipedia. An attorney like myself would consider it a 'pathfinder' for a topic. It points to all the resources and key information you need on a subject, saving you all sorts of basic research time.

Above is a Mahalo link for the UofA basketball program. Though I really couldn't be arsed about the matter myself, I know that some one you will find it very useful and relevant. Never let it be said I don't care about my readers :)

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 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 to be true.

"[I]t was determined that many area residents are likely to have a favorable opinion of the Rosemont Copper Mine if they could be assured that their collective concerns were addressed, including that the mining company will:

1. Return the mining site to its current productive uses after mining operations have ceased by revegetating throughout the life of the mine.
2. Ensure that the mining site is minimally visible from Highway 83, and is not visible from Tucson or Green Valley.
3. Will use modern mining technology that is much more environmentally friendly and safer for miners than that used by previous mines.
4. Will protect the local water and air supply from pollutants.
5. Will purchase enough CAP water to guarantee a surplus of water to the area.
6. Will minimize the effects to wildlife and recreation areas.
7. Invest in local community projects and organizations unrelated to the mining project."

Those items I have highlighted in red are assertions that many area residents have serious reservations about concerning the proposed mine. If those issues are taken off the table, of course most people are in favor of the mine. Why wouldn't one be? The surprising thing is that anyone is still opposed to the mine under such conditions, not that the majority favors it.

This "poll" is not an opinion poll at all, it is the basis for a marketing strategy to manufacture consent for the mine. Much of the poll is devoted to determining what sources of information people would find to be credible sources of information for Augusta's claims about the mine. Now I wonder why they want to know that?..

The script used during the survey emphasizes Augusta's approach to nullifying any of the valid concerns of residents, which are creating resistance to the mine, prior to getting an answer (i.e. the answer they want):

"For the first question, I am going to present a situation to you and I would like you to tell me how you would respond to it. The question contains a series of factors pertaining to a proposed local mining project and I am going to ask you to suppose that all of them are true. I am not asking whether or not you think they are believable, but rather – if you could be assured that everything I am telling you is true, how would you react.

(Ask the respondent if they are clear on the instructions, and clarify if necessary)

Q1. The Rosemont Copper mine is a project that is being explored on the east side of the Santa Rita Mountain Range that has a very large mineral deposit, which may result in an open pit mine. Are you familiar with this process?

If I were to tell you that the mining operators will (1) return the mining site to its current productive uses after mining operations have ceased by revegetating throughout the life of the mine, (2) ensure that the mining site is minimally visible from Highway 83, and is not visible from Tucson or Green Valley (3) will use modern mining technology that is much more environmentally friendly and safer for miners than that used by previous mines, (4) will protect the local water and air supply from pollutants, (5) will purchase enough CAP water to guarantee a surplus of water to the area, (6) will minimize the effects to wildlife and recreation areas and (7) invest in local community projects and organizations unrelated to the mining project.

Just to ensure you understand the question, I am not asking whether or not you believe what I have just told you. But if you could be assured that everything I told you was true, how favorable would you be of the mining project?"

That, my friends, is how you shape consensus where none exists, and create polling data that you can sell as a true picture of community sentiment, when it is nothing but a fantasy.

I can't say that I'm surprised at the use of such an ethically-questionable tactic by Augusta to get their billions out of Tucson's mountains, but I am quite surprised by the cupidity (or stupidity, take your pick) of Inside Tucson Business in publishing such a misleading poll without giving such counter-intuitive results a critical look - or worse, shoving the true nature of the poll under the rug to serve their own agenda.

Even after all that effort to damp down any concerns about the mine and to astro-turf their poll, there remains a great deal of skepticism about the mine. You will note that the reporting of the poll indicates 64% approval, but doesn't bother to differentiate between strong approval and weak approval. Only 31.2% are strongly in favor, even when all controversial issues are taken off the table. 33.2% are only somewhat favorable even when Augusta warps reality to suit themselves.

Another piece of interesting data is that less than half of respondents (47%) from southeast Tucson, who would be most affected by the mine, are at all favorable toward the mine, even in the fantasy-land scenario drawn by Augusta.

Makes you wonder how many would be favorable if Augusta's assertions were all assumed false?

Pima County Election Integrity Trial Home

This post has been superseded by a new Homepage.

Latest News:

Judge Michael Miller has issued his ruling granting the plaintiffs access to the final databases for the 2006 Primary and General elections, but denying without prejudice wider access to all database files for the election in the possession of Pima County until and unless they are able to demonstrate the wider access will not compromise election security. This means that the mid-year RTA election and the backups made during the multi-day process of counting ballots remain out of reach for now.

The Board of Supervisors has put the release of limited files the court has ordered released on the agenda at their Jan. 8 meeting, which starts at 9 a.m. Board members are slated to discuss whether they will give the files up, or of they will appeal the ruling. Interested parties may want to show up and have a say.

Complete trial coverage after the flip...

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Closing Arguments

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

Bill Risner's closing arguments for the Democrats:

Click To Play

The central theme of Democrats' attorney Bill Risner throughout the trial was that the elections belong to the people, not the government. The people's political parties have a legitimate role to play in assuring the integrity of our elections, and it is not appropriate for the government to rely on security through obscurity to protect our elections. Americans want and deserve real security, based on transparency and good design. We don't want dirty little corporate secrets to be the only thing standing between our votes and those who would subvert our democratic process.

The contrasting style and substance of the opposing parties was on display in these closings, and speaks volumes about the contending philosophies that are clashing in this trial. Sparks flew, and the rhetoric was strong. The judge asked the parties to put aside the legalistic arguments and focus on persuasion. The plaintiff's attorney did so, but the county seemed unable to rise to the occasion. The simple fact is that it is not really possible to wax eloquent about keeping Diebold's dirty laundry hidden in the closet, so I wasn't really surprised.

Pima County's closing arguments footage coming soon...

The closing for the defense came first as they have the burden of persuasion, and it was delegated by Christopher Straub to Thomas "Tad" Denker. Denker claimed that Merle King was "the most authoritative expert to testify here." That might come as some surprise to Dr. Tom Ryan, Dr. Chris Gniady, Dr. John Moffatt, and 37 year veteran NSA programmer Mr. Mickey Duniho. In fact, if you actually look at King's credentials, what is notable is his lack of experience in actual computer science, programming, and information security.

Denker continued to harp on the unknown unknowns, dragging his burden-shifting sins over into the county's closing. His alarmism seemed to know no bounds, even claiming that release of the database could shut down some elections, saying, “Even the ability to conduct some of these elections could be called into question.”

Denker tacitly admitted the weakness of the county's security argument when he claimed that the “most serious risk is mayhem and chaos.” Not a specific attack, mind you, but generalized chaos of the reputational suicide attack form. I'm put in mind of the scene from Ghostbusters in which Dr. Venkman warns the mayor of dire consequences:

Dr. Peter Venkman: This city is headed for a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical"?
Dr. Ray Stantz: What he means is Old Testament, Mr. Mayor, real wrath-of-God type stuff.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr. Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.

If the dogs and casts living together is the most serious risk, I think we can maybe live with that.

Denker further tipped his hand when he made the claim that, “there are people out there who have an interest in discrediting the system, the administration, the elections, the vendors.” Just who is Denker and the county really seeking to protect? Well, look at his list. Whether by "the administration" Denker means Chuck Huckelberry, I'll leave to others to decide, but the presence of the vendors anywhere on that list is problematic, at best. And never once does Denker mention the public interest, unless perhaps one might interpret "the elections" as a proxy - even so, we come in a distant third, behind "the system" and "the administration."

At every turn it seems Denker couldn't help but undercut his own case. He said that an attack on the election “requires an insider or the MDB from the target jurisdiction.” All along in the trial his team claimed that the release of Pima's MDBs could be leveraged against other counties with less security. Now he claims you have to have an MDB of the target jurisdiction to mount an attack? Was this an attempt to deal with the fact the Alaska MDB is already "in the wild?" A slip of the tongue? I don't know. I wonder if Tad does.

Denker suggested that the information from the MDB could help elections activists put together an attack to discredit our system. Unfortunately, that's how security is improved when secrets are the only real security measure being used. He pointed to the trouble stirred up by these elections activists already, and how they ginned up an "innocent keystroke error" into an Attorney General investigation. But that investigation recognized severe security problems with the GEMS software. Is it a waste of public resources to bring such a serious problem to light?

Denker proclaimed that there is a significant risk of these systems being discredited through hacking. If hacking can discredit a system, it should be discredited. Hacking is just exploiting obscure or secret information to subvert security measures. If your security relies on secrets, you are going to get hacked. And you might even deserve it. And ultimately, if your hackers are the kind who seek a worthy goal, you might even benefit of it.

Denker repeatedly said that he thought "the court gets it." What exactly 'it' was, isn't so clear. If 'it' is the justice and rightness and preponderance of the county's case, I think Denker's touching faith in the judge's ignorance of the security issues, susceptibility to alarm, tendency to err on the side of extreme caution regardless of the cost to countervailing public values, and over-reliance on a mercenary expert like Merle King, is misplaced.

Near the end, Denker made an emotional plea, laced with a touching, though naughty, bit of vouching, on behalf of the "much maligned" Bryan Crane and the entire cast of characters who run our elections. In this process, Denker claims, "decent, honest, hard-working people have been defamed and slandered." Such a legal conclusion can be a dicey matter to be bandying about in a public forum. Denker had enough wisdom not to name any of the parties who are responsible for these torts, but the culprits are clear enough. I ask you, as did Jim March in a message typed on his laptop as he sat at the counsel's table while Merle King testified about naughty hackers, "Gee, you think he's talking about me?"

Finally, Denker finished with perhaps the greatest irony I've ever heard in a closing: he bemoaned the fact that Bryan Crane may never get the chance to clear his name. Well, in fact, if the county prevails, Denker is absolutely right; he won't. However, if the Democrats prevail and the MDB is released for forensic study, Crane will absolutely get that chance to have his name cleared and his reputation publicly restored.

In fact, objectively, a perpetual pall over the reputation of the entire county elections department is exactly what the county is fighting for. I have a lot of sympathy for Bryan Crane, not because he is unfairly maligned (though that may be true), but because his employers value whatever reasons are truly underlying their intransigence to transparency over the reputation of Bryan Crane.

Risner knew that the judge wanted a big picture, not a recap, and that's what he gave. He returned to the themes he had established in the opening: the fundamental value of democracy, the election belong to the people, the parties are the people's statutory agents to ensure fairness and accuracy in elections.

Risner reiterated that this case is not about what it seems to be about. It is not about overturning the RTA - the activities of election integrity activists all started long before the RTA. It is not about Bryan Crane - it doesn't matter what he has done, it's about what anyone in his position has the ability to do to subvert our elections.

Risner pointed out that the county claims activists want to wreck and disrupt elections, when in fact they have repeated demonstrated by pushing the county on security matters that their goal is to improve and secure our elections. The county pointed to all these methods of attack based on the information in the database files, but they can't explain how those attacks are feasible, can't point to a single instance of such things happening, and can merely charge that plaintiffs seek "mayhem and chaos." Oh my.

In his final and perhaps the most electric moment of the trial, Risner charged that the county was "coming up with slanders against the public in an effort to justify their secrecy."

Denker stood for his rebuttal and charged that the plaintiff's attorney had "lots and lots of conviction," but little else on his side.

The following is a summary and paraphrasing of the court proceedings, not a transcript. Thanks to David Safier for preparation of this summary.

Closing Arguments

Closing by Deputy Pima County Attorney Thomas "Tad" Denker.

[David was out of the courtroom for the first couple minutes]

If databases have to be recreated from scratch, the chances of error are increased, possibly disenfranchising voters.

Releasing databases poses the serious risk of mayhem and chaos. Many people want to discredit the system, the vendors and the administration. To create mayhem, you either need an insider or an outsider with a database file, who can mount an attack and discredit the system.

When Bryan Crane made an innocent keystroke error, it caused an Attorney General investigation.

Final Point: In the process, fine public servants had their names dragged through the mud. They were defamed. These are good people who deserve our thanks, not derision.

Closing by Democratic Party's attorney Bill Risner.

It has been my pleasure to represent lots of decent, caring, patriotic citizens.

The rock, the foundation of our freedoms is our ability to vote, to change course if we wish. That needs a vote and an honest count.

As I learned the facts of this case and its background, I sometimes broke into a cold sweat. What if our vote can be taken away from us? What if it has already been taken from us?

Testimony has revealed defects in a number of places in the elections system. The rock on which our freedoms are based is in jeopardy.

Arizona wants and expects an honest vote count.

We’ve heard that the only reason for the lawsuit is so we can go to the legislature. But, where do we go with our concerns? This is the place, the courtroom, in front of a judge who understands the issues.

This isn’t about the RTA election or any single election. We want now, and in the future, to get data that allows us to examine the vote count. This will improve the public’s confidence in elections.

Rebuttal by "Tad" Denker.

Risner worries about votes, and this is a legitimate concern. But in court, Risner has given little information on statutory considerations or on the balancing act.

There is no evidence that seeing the database files will give the Democratic Party any information  that would help them discover election fraud.

Risner has conviction but little else.

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Testimony of Mr. John Brakey

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

I'm not entirely sure what the county's purpose was in calling John, but they kept him dangling for days. I have to wonder if some of it was just a way to keep him out of the courtroom most of the time.

In any case, they were hoping to put a wild-eyed revolutionary on the stand to frighten the judge with, they instead got a concerned grand-dad who wants to leave a better America behind.

Please recall that the following is a condensed and paraphrased summary, not a transcript. Mucho gracias to David Safier for compiling these summaries.

Summary of testimony by John Brakey

Direct examination by Christopher Straub, Deputy Pima County Attorney.

John Brakey has no formal computer training, but is knowledgeable about computers. He is a member of local and state election integrity committees and of Audit AZ.

Brakey has no fondness for the GEMS system.

Brakey is good at recognizing patterns in databases.

He has access to a copy of GEMS software and has been working with it.

He believes most election fraud is done internally.

He has developed a simple technique to do a password switch, so a database can be given a new password and be opened in GEMS. He has published the technique to demonstrate the poor security of the GEMS software.

Asked if his involvement in the lawsuit is to generate a change in the election software, Brakey replied that his motivation is his granddaughter. He is worried about the way this country is going for her sake, and he wants to do everything he can to correct the problems he sees.

No Cross Examination.

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Testimony of Dr. John Moffatt

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

The expert testimony of Mr. Merle King set the stage, Dr. Moffatt's testimony provided the backdrop and chewed the scenery somewhat. The summary provided at the end of this post omits much of what is duplicative of King's testimony, and is thus fairly short.

I have a very high opinion of Dr. Moffatt, despite his testifying for the side I judge should lose this case. He is, after all, employed by the county; one can't blame him for presenting their position as best he can. Dr. Moffatt has been very helpful in getting important physical and procedural security measures in place to help protect the highly insecure GEMS system. For that leadership, all of Pima's voters should be thankful to Dr. Moffatt.

The bottom line on Dr. Moffatt's testimony is, however, that he was unable to make the threats the county claims are attendant to release of the GEMS databases following an election any more realistic. Again, he confirms the extreme vulnerability of the GEMS system to insider manipulation.

The following is a condensed and paraphrased (and in this instance, redacted) summary, not a transcript. Thanks to David Safier for his hard work producing summaries of testimony for this project...

Summary of testimony of Dr. John Moffatt

Direct examination by Thomas "Tad" Denker, Deputy Pima County Attorney.

John Moffatt has a background in computer science. He formed his own consulting firm that created a software company. He still has both corporations, which have clients around the world. He is Pima County’s manager of strategic technical planning.

Moffatt says Bryan Crane, the election division’s computer technician, did not take home backups of the election count totals.

Moffatt says that the database tapes sent to the Secretary of State contain the current and all the previous databases. So if we are missing the database from the RTA election, the information can be found on the tapes of following elections.

A computer bag with a laptop was entered as evidence. It contains a current copy of the GEMS software and the 2006 general election database file. These are for the judge to look over so he can better understand the databases the County does not want to turn over to the Democratic Party.

[Risner objects to introduction of the laptop, since it contains evidence the plaintiffs don’t have access to. The judge feels he has an obligation to look at the information, so he overrules the objection. (editor's note: Judge Miller is concerned about cases that have been overturned on appeal because the judge failed to make an in camera examination of the record before deciding whether or not that record was a public record.) However, he says he will not use his examination to form an opinion that is better left to the experts. He does not want to act as a witness in the case.]

In 2006, the Democratic Party gave a large binder of materials to the Board of Supervisors. That is when Moffatt became involved with the elections division. He met with members of the election integrity committee, agreed with most of their security suggestions, and implemented them. He drew the line at releasing the databases. He believes releasing the databases would create a threat. He introduced the concern about reverse engineering, which would allow someone to work backward from the database to learn about the software.

When a system uses modems to send votes from the polling places to the GEMS computer, there is the possibility of a man-in-the-middle attack, where the information is first sent to an intermediary, who changes the vote count, then sends it to the GEMS computer. However, Pima County is no longer using modems.

Other counties in Arizona and elsewhere are not nearly as secure as Pima. Release of the database could increase their vulnerability.

Cross examination by Bill Risner.

Brakey and Jim March went to other counties to help them improve security.

Duniho has created a manual to help improve security elsewhere.

Moffatt only learned of the crop scanner in Crane’s work room in 2007, and he had it removed the next day.

There is no history of outsiders hacking into voting computers.

The specific risks of giving out the database are generating ballots, generating false statements of votes cast, and generating false memory cards.

Moffatt agreed that the man-in-the-middle threats are eliminated by comparing the vote totals at the polling places with the vote totals for those precincts in the GEMS computer.

No one would be foolish enough to change a vote total after an election to create confusion, since the other parties would have the original data.

It is very difficult to get a faked ballot into the polling booth.

Judge Miller’s questions.

All election software is flawed, though the county is looking to make a change away from Diebold's.

David Safier: A Layman’s View of the Election Integrity Trial

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

I’m not a lawyer, and though I’m computer literate, I’m not a tech guy, so I'm not an expert. But I have gotten deeply involved in the Democrats’ fight to increase the transparency of our elections and the suit to gain access to past election databases from Pima County. I sat next to Mike Bryan through the four days of the trial, recording the play-by-play testimony while he did the summaries and commentaries. Here are my impressions of the four days.

It became clear to me early in the trial that the decision in this suit was going to hinge on the kind of man Judge Miller is—not so much his political leanings as his intellect and temperament.

The arguments by th