Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.
This group of plaintiff’s witnesses seeks to illustrate for the judge that the elections division is unworthy of public trust, is marked by maladministration, persistent errors of judgment, and flaws and neglect in their security procedures. The purpose of this testimony is to give the judge specific reasons why the public interest would be better served by public scrutiny of those records that would allow confirmation of the integrity of the election process than by keeping those records confidential.
One consistent theme in the testimony is that summary reports, which contain current vote totals, were frequently printed before elections were closed and handled somewhat casually.
Sharing of vote totals with persons outside the elections department, if done with the intent to affect the outcome of an election, could constitute a crime. I don't think the plaintiffs had any intent to demonstrate that such a crime was committed, merely to show that security procedures around this sensitive information were sufficiently lax that committing such a crime could have been accomplished fairly easily given the handling of this sensitive information.
Indeed, handling of summary reports was reformed in response to the concerns of the Democratic party; the elections division now uses the 'cards cast' report recommended by the GEMS operations manual instead, which does not contain vote totals. Some of the details of this testimony, such as the stamp kept in the computer room to mark summary reports, belie the thrust of Bryan Crane's claims regarding these reports in his testimony, which will be published tomorrow as court adjourned today right before his cross examination.
Another consistent theme was Bryan Crane's practice of taking home computer data backups for the remarkably consistent purpose of protecting the data should the building burn down. This despite the presence of the fire-proof safe in the computer room.
The County maintains that Crane was only transporting data backups of the administrative computers, not of the separate elections system. However, it seems well established that the administrative computers used a tape backup system and the elections computer used a CD for backups. A number of times witnesses indicated that they saw, or Crane displayed, CDs and referred to them as backups. Mr. Evan's testimony indicated that the data Crane was taking home was certainly election data on a CD, and as Crane's assistant, it would seem likely that he would know the difference.
Again, there is no evidence presented that taking such backups home constituted malfeasance, only that it is a rather too trusting approach to handling such sensitive elections data, especially when there seems to be adequate provision in the form of a fire-proof safe. Be that as it may, it is another example of flawed operational planning.
The following is my summary of the thrust of these witnesses testimony. For a fuller appreciation of the nuances of their testimony, you should read the full summaries presented after the flip.
Isabel Ariza is an administrative specialist in the elections division of Pima County. Her testimony established that almost $600K worth of ballots were purchased in violation of procurement regulations, and that a crop scanner (which could be used to program memory cards to hack an election, as well as to test for vulnerability to said hack) was also purchased in a manner inconsistent with the normal procurement practices. She confirmed the Bryan Crane printed summary reports (which contain actual current vote totals) prior to the election's closing, and that he also took home data backups over the weekends “in case the building burns down,” despite the existence of a fire-proof safe in the computer room. She also testified that it was common knowledge around the office that Mary Martison and Brad Nelson were having a close personal relationship and were teasingly called “the Nelsons” and “Ozzie and Harriet” by officemates. It was general sentiment in the office that Mary Martinson was given preferential treatment by Mr. Nelson.
Robert Evans, Jr. is the supervisor of the elections warehouse and was the assistant to Bryan Crane at the time of the RTA election of 2006 and was trained in use of the central tabulation computer. He testified that Bryan Crane (the head elections programmer) would regularly print summary reports showing current vote totals during elections before the elections were closed. Crane regularly printed and requested such reports and took them out of the computer room. He testified that Bryan Crane took home backups of specifically election data on CDs regularly “in case the building burns down.” He personally saw the town clerk of Oro Valley given summary reports by Bryan Crane before an mail-only election was closed.
Chester Martin Crowley was employed at the elections warehouse. He saw summary reports in Bryan Crane’s office often. Also saw the town clerk of Oro Valley given summary reports. He also saw Bryan Crane taking home backup discs “in case the building burns down.”
Romi Romero is an administrative assistant in the elections department handling public liason and supervision of the provisional board. During the 2006 RTA election she participated in going through ballot bags at a polling place looking for write-in ballots with elections office manager Mary Martinson with no party observers present.
Mary Martinson is the office manager for the elections department. Given some of the earlier testimony, many were prepared for a bombshell of testimony, but disappointed when Martinson presented as a pleasant and unassuming figure whose testimony was fairly unremarkable. Her account was mainly just consistent with other testimony, though she did contest the characterization of some procurement practices as irregular, though the Board of Supervisors held hearings on the incident.
For full summaries read on...
Special thanks to David Safier for assistance with preparation of these summaries. His diligent assistance with these summaries makes this project possible. Please keep in mind these are paraphrased and condensed summaries, not transcripts.
Summary of testimony by Isabel Araiza:
Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.
Isabel Araiza is a senior administrative specialist. She has been with the Elections Division for 27 years. She does procurement and budget and has been the equal employment officer for ten years.
In July, 2005, Bryan Crane, the computer technician for the division, purchased a crop scanner for the division without informing Araiza of the purchase. He can purchase something under $1,000 without authorization, but she is usually informed of purchases.
Mary Martinson orders the ballots. Before the Regional Transit Authority election, Martinson didn’t run the ballot order through Araiza, which is not a violation of any rules or procedures. Brad Nelson, director of the elections division, violated county procedures by not completing a requisition in a timely manner.
On February, 2006, security was increased in the vote counting room. Only a few people were allowed in, including Brad Nelson, Bryan Crane and Mary Martinson.
Araiza was aware Crane was taking backup copies of the database with the election count totals home with him on a regular basis, saying he was taking the data with him in case the building burned down. At the time, there was a safe in the building, approximately 3 feet by 3 feet, that at one point held petty cash. It was large enough to hold a CD. Araiza told Nelson she was concerned about Crane taking home the CD. She asked, what if there were a fire at Crane’s house? She didn’t mention the security issues about the database leaving the elections building.
Crane printed summary reports of election totals prior to the closing of the polls at 7pm on a regular basis. He would walk out of the computer room with the reports and give them to Nelson in Nelson’s office.
As the equal employment officer, she received complaints from employees about the relationship between Crane and Martinson and the favoritism he showed her. They were concerned, because she was made the office manager who everyone had to report to. Nelson invited Martinson to movies and to his home. People in the office referred to the two of them as “The Nelsons,” or “Ozzie and Harriet.”
Cross examination by Deputy Pima County Attorney Christopher Straub:
Crane talked about taking the CD home with him in Araiza’s presence, but he wasn’t talking directly to her. She hadn’t seen the actual CD. He took the backup tapes home every night.
Araiza did not have access to the computer room. She can’t say she saw Nelson be handed a summary report.
Araiza was present when Nelson invited Martinson to the movies and to his home.
Summary of testimony of Robert Evans:
Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.
Robert Evans currently works in the Elections warehouse. He has worked for the county since 1995. He worked at the vote counting computer facility starting in 2000 and was trained to use GEMS. He was the designated assistant to Bryan Crane, the Election Division’s computer technician.
Crane printed summary reports of elections (vote counts for all races to that point) on a regular basis before the polls were closed to check to make sure the ballots were being counted properly by the computer. The reports were stamped, “Unofficial, Unaudited” with a special rubber stamp kept in the computer room for that purpose.
Brad Nelson, Elections Director for Pima County, took summary reports out of the room. He usually took them to his office. Evans personally never saw an elected official go into Nelson’s office after vote counting began.
Crane took backups from the election computer home during every election, saying it was a backup of the system. Crane said he took them home in case the building burnt down. Crane normally took them home on Fridays.
For the May, 2002 and March 2003 elections, Evans was the primary computer operator, because Crane was out for health reasons. He conducted the tabulation on the May, 2002, Oro Valley election. While the counting was going on and before 7pm on election day, the Oro Valley city clerk, Kathy Cuvelier, was in the counting room. She asked Evans to print a summary report for her. He refused, because the counting wasn’t over. Cuvelier left and came back with Nelson, who was new at the job. Nelson asked Evans for an explanation, then accepted the explanation, and the summary report was not printed.
Cuvelier had been there during other Oro Valley elections, in possession of summary reports. When the elections used polling stations where people cast their ballots, she came in after 7pm, when the polls had closed. When there was an all-mail election, she got there before 7pm. She said she wanted to see how the election was going.
Cross examination by Deputy Pima County Attorney Christopher Straub.
The Oro Valley elections when Evans was the primary computer operator were all-mail elections. Someone called Cuvelier to tell her when they began counting votes, and she came in during the counting.
Evans never saw the data on the backup CDs Crane took home with him.
Redirect by Bill Risner.
Oro Valley voters who don’t put their ballots in the mail can drop them off at the elections office until 7pm.
Summary of testimony by Chester Martin Crowley
Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.
Chester Crowley works at the elections warehouse and has been a full time employee for 19 years. He does quality control of early ballots, inventories supplies and does troubleshooting in the field. He went into the vote counting room from time to time.
Summary reports were printed on election day before the polls closed. He observed the printing of summary reports. He saw summary reports in Bryan Crane’s office prior to the close of elections. The reports were longer than one page.
The desk in Crane’s office is about 15 feet east of the vote counting room. He doesn’t know if Crane’s computer was hooked to the central computer.
Kathy Cuvelier, Oro Valley city clerk, was in the vote counting room prior to 7pm on election day.
Crane showed Crowley the CD of the backups. Crane said he was taking them home in case of fire. He never said he was going to work on them at home.
Cross Examination by Deputy Pima County Attorney Thomas "Tad" Denker.
Crowley is not familiar with the election counting computer. He does not know about backup formats. He knows there are two computers, the election counting computer and the administrative computer. He never inspected the information on the CDs.
Summary of testimony by Romi Romero
Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.
Romi Romero has worked for the Elections Division for 19 years. She is an administrative specialist. She supervises provisional boards.
A few days after the 2006 elections, she was working with the ballot bags containing the counted ballots from individual precincts. She opened bags to retrieve information for use in the elections. She doesn’t know if observers from political parties were notified that the sealed bags were being opened.
At that time, she was registered “No Party.”
Cross Examination by Deputy Pima County Attorney Thomas "Tad" Denker.
She was opening the sealed ballot bags to reconcile ballots with write-ins . She has never altered a ballot.
Further Questioning (not redirect) by Bill Risner
The shredder in the Elections Division is about 15 feet away from the vote counting room.
Summary of testimony by Mary Martinson
Direct Examination by Bill Risner, attorney for the Pima County Democratic Party.
Mary Martinson began permanent employment in the Elections Office in 1987. Now she is senior elections technician and office manager.
In her 2007 deposition, Martinson said she didn’t know backups were done. She doesn’t know county procedures.
The tape used for backups is smaller than a cassette tape and has a metal jacket. It doesn’t look like a CD.
Martinson saw Bryan Crane, the computer technician, put backups in his bag.
She has been ordering ballots for 13-14 years. She normally lets Isabel Araiza know when an order has been sent out.
Martinson says she did not go out of procedures when she ordered RTA ballots. She is aware that the Board of Supervisors had a meeting about the procurement procedure for the RTA election. Nelson did not tell her the procurement procedure was improper.
Martinson was trained in running the vote counting computer by Diebold. She may have known the password to the computer.
Martinson keeps track of early ballots coming into the elections division. Since 2006, Crane has been using “cards cast reports” to tell her how many ballots have been read at a given point, so she can check if all the ballots have been read. A “cards cast report” lists the number of ballots counted, but it does not give the totals for the individual elections. She doesn’t remember if Crane ever handed her a cards cast report. He told her the numbers, and she wrote them down. She had seen Crane print summary reports to give her the number of ballots, and for other reasons. When he was finished with the reports, he folded them in half and put them into the shredder.
She and Romie Romero opened ballot boxes some time after the 2006 elections. The political parties weren’t notified before they were opened.
Cross Examination by Deputy Pima County Attorney Christopher Straub.
The only time Martinson had seen questionable conduct was in 1994 when a precinct’s votes were erased from the computer. The professionalism of the Elections Division has increased over the years she has been there.
The reason she opened the ballot bags after the 2006 elections was to look for write-in ballots that were mixed in with the other ballots.
She has never altered a ballot to change voter intent.
Redirect by Bill Risner.
Martinson understands that the purpose of party observers is not to be accusatory, but to assure that the votes are being counted accurately.
Recent Comments