Wednesday, August 20, 2014

Mickey Duniho Resigns from Pima County's Election Integrity Commission

Mickey Duniho's resignation letter to Pima County Board of Supervisor Ray Carroll, the elected official who appointed Duniho to a seat in the Pima County Election Integrity Commission.

Dear Mr. Carroll,

I have spent many years at your request and that of others researching numbers of ways that elections in Pima County and the state could be made transparently honest. I have invested a great deal of research, much of it with others of the Pima County Election Integrity Commission and also with many others knowledgeable about methods of assuring the validity of elections. Six years ago I was honored by your appointment, having hopes for effective auditing of ballot counting in Pima County, and with the past experience of having witnessed apparently dishonest counts in my community. I now realize that these hopes and efforts have been wasted.

 The Election Integrity Commission in its six years has made a number of clearly sensible recommendations for improving legal and accurate processes for Pima County’s elections. Each of the Commission’s lucid suggestions to the Board of Supervisors or to the Secretary of State has been rejected outright or put off to another day when it was ultimately rejected by one or the other. The most recent recommendation, a very simple trial of an improved auditing procedure, was rejected quickly and blatantly, adding to the belief that the Pima County Board of Supervisors, the Pima County Administrator and Election Director, and the Arizona Secretary of State are engaged in the (successful) effort to block any substantive effort to improve the public auditing of ballot counting.  The only reasonable surmise at this point, considering the concerted and continued effort to prevent election reform, is that a majority of our county and state officials have a sincere stake in continued support of election fraud.

 Coming to the understanding that the Election Integrity Commission has been thwarted in its serious and sane efforts for election integrity in Pima County and the state, and that there currently seems to be no hope for election integrity in Pima County, I tender my resignation from the Commission.


 Michael A. Duniho

Duniho discusses the matter in a recent interview on the local radio show "Wake Up Tucson".  Video courtesy of John Brakey.

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Hernandez Encourages Pima County Election Integrity Commission "Don't Be Bullied, Don't Be Threatened" 

By John R Brakey

The Pima County Election Integrity Commission (PCEIC) was formed as a result of litigation surrounding the RTA election. In what appears to be a move intended to intimidate the commission and retaliate for their watchdog efforts,  Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry filed a complaint with Attorney General Tom Horne to subvert his group’s efforts. Then Huckelberry moved to have the attorney of record (who represented the RTA in election integrity trials) put on the agenda, and schedule an “executive session” for the upcoming July 11 commission meeting in an effort to discourage transparency.  What an amazing show of arrogance by Huckelberry. 

Huckelberry claims that on May 9th the PCEIC broke the opening meeting law. This after Richard Hernandez Chairman of Sunnyside Unified School District recall committee addressed the PCEIC, Hernandez, three candidates and others were asking them for their assistance to ensure a fair, honest, transparent and verifiable vote count in the Sunnyside Unified School. As seen in the video of the May 9th meeting, Hernandez and others pleaded with the commission not to count the votes five days out, but count it on Election Day

If a bureaucrat like Huckelberry wants to stop something from happening in Pima County, he forms a committee that lets some of his opposition participate. Ultimately, he controls the agenda with his team  while pushing an extreme interpretation of the open meeting laws.  After a while, it seems members are worried more about what you can’t say than what you can say. Many have stated to me that they lost their voice.   Sometimes, however, Pima County does not get its way.  Outside observers can tell when this happens by watching member Benny White's reactions.  He will usually have a temper tantrum or walk out when a majority of votes contradict the county's intentions (like in the video above).    

Pima County has a history of counting early ballots a week or two before election day, and has been accused of using early results to alter the election. That was the subject of the long-running lawsuit concerning the RTA election of 2006.

After the May PCEIC meeting, and thanks to Ally Miller, a member of the BOS, and the Arizona Daily Independent, the count was done on Election Day in only took 69 minutes to count.  

Pima County administrator Chuck Huckelberry along with Pima County supervisors Ray Carroll, Sharon Bronson, Richard Elias, and Ramon Valadez have all been previously accused in four open meeting law complaints in a four month period currently being investigated by the Arizona Attorney General’s office. 

Hernandez explained in the July 11th meeting that as an “individual - someone who lives in the city and the county,” and as a voter, he appreciated the work of the commission. Hernandez said, “The most fundamental right we Americans have is the right to vote and I'm really glad to see both sides,” engage in a robust conversation. “I don't know who's side you are on, or who has appointed you, because personally, it does not make a difference.” 

“I wish there were forty more Joe Q. Publics here, standing behind me to tell you that you are doing well,” said Hernandez. “We want you to protect us. To make sure that the process is fair.”

Hernandez urged commissioners to resist the efforts by Huckelberry to force them into an executive session and out of the public’s view at last week’s PCEIC public meeting. Some commissioners believed that Huckelberry was trying to force them into executive session backrooms away from public scrutiny, so that he could scare them into inactivity.

Pima County is the only county in the state where an unelected county administrator oversees completely the election department rather than the duly per the Arizona Revised Statutes delegates the responsibility to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) simply because these boards are  partisan  and made up of 3 to 5 persons. In Title 16 over 75 times it referees to the BOS.  

 Hernandez reminded the commissioners that they were the only entity the citizens had to protect their vote. “This it really upsets me,” he told the commissioners, “because I'm a voter, the one that you are representing and it's very important to me that you understand how what you do is so important.”

Sunday, July 13, 2014

Elections Remain Compromised

 J.T. Waldron

On May 21st of this year, the Maricopa appellate court denied the Libertarian Party's pursuit of injunctive relief for rigged elections.  Stemming from litigation over the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election in Pima County,  the Libertarian Party was well on its way towards pursuing their claim that the RTA election was fraudulent.  Once fraud was established in the courts, the Libertarian party would obtain injunctive relief for rigged elections.

Back in 2010, the Libertarian Party had won an appellate court decision for that same claim in Pima County's district. Pima County immediately requested the appellate court to reconsider its ruling,  describing the rigging of the RTA election asa discrete incident of past wrongdoing.”   The request was denied. 
Over the past four years, the promise of a resolution slowly withered as Pima County Superior Court judges kept ruling in defiance of the appellate court decision.  They refused to hear the case, so the Libertarian Party was forced to appeal for a second time.  

Pima County's next legal maneuver may have ended their eight-year war of attrition against transparent fair elections.  County operatives forced a change in appellate court venue by contriving an amicus brief through the Republican Party to develop a conflict of interest in the elections case.  As a result, Pima County's bureaucratic political machine finally achieved an appellate court decision to deny the pursuit of prospective relief for rigged elections in the courts. According to Rule 2.11 in the Arizona Supreme Court rules for judicial ethics:
A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned.
Not so for Kent E. Cattani, one of three appellate court judges who served with the Arizona State Attorney General's office until his appointment as a Maricopa appellate court judge on February 9th, 2013.  He had worked at the Attorney General's office at the time of Attorney General Terry Goddard's dubious investigation of the RTA election.

Critically fortified and influenced by the growth industry, Pima County has spent millions of taxpayer's dollars in a cover up that has soiled the Arizona Attorney General's office and the state's judicial system in an effort to prevent an authentic investigation of the 2006 RTA election.   This election authorized a two billion dollar construction project financed by a raise in the area's sales tax.

For the millions of taxpayers' dollars spent by Pima County, key evidence in the form of RTA ballots stored for eight years without a forensic exam or a meaningful comparison to precinct totals, will be destroyed.    

The money and effort spent to prevent these ballots from a simple hand lens inspection has become its own source of shame for not only the county, but for the press, for law enforcement and for the courts.

On that election day, May 16th, 2006, notable political party observers discovered suspicious activity in the tabulation room involving the manipulation of election database files. A lengthy records law suit confirmed that databases for that specific election were overwritten during the tabulation process.   Subsequent illegal summary reports were printed immediately following the overwrites and the computer operator was known to remove election data from the tabulation center and take it home with him on a daily basis.    Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, the person ultimately accountable for the elections division, is consistent in erroneously stating or implying that elections data was never taken home.   Court testimony, however, identified computer operator Bryan Crane as the individual who took home elections data and identified the type of medium taken as attributed only to elections data.  That same computer operator later made a barroom confession to a former Pima County employee who signed an affidavit with other witnesses.  The operator stated that he rigged the election on the instruction of his bosses.   Videotaped surveillance footage of the tabulation room during the key times in question were requested in litigation, stalled for an inordinate amount of time, then erased under the pretense that the requested footage was still in rotation and subject to normal recycling.   

Attorney General Terry Goddard conducted an initial investigation using a subcontractor IBeta to examine the RTA database files.  Pima County employee John Moffatt became involved with guiding the IBeta company through the investigation despite the fact that Pima County was formally named as the suspect.  Goddard was aware of this arrangement and didn't seem to mind how various inquiries suggested by Moffatt were either diversionary or irrelevant to discovering election fraud.  Goddard also chose to ignore suggestions by those who filed the initial complaint, despite their high levels of expertise drawn from University of Arizona professors, an expert from and a former NSA employee.    

IBeta concluded in its report that the Diebold computer software used by Pima County (GEMS) "exhibits fundamental security flaws that make definitive valuation of data impossible."  The suspect's influence on the outcome became evident in IBeta's second key observation that the data was tampered with, but the lack of effort in covering their tracks suggests such tampering was a mistake.  

John Moffatt was later caught absconding with key evidence from the county vault.  He had somehow managed to obtain database records from that same 2006 RTA election in violation of a court order.    Electronic data was not the only evidence potentially compromised.  Attorney Bill Risner discovered through depositions that nobody was preventing access to the RTA paper election ballots, which were being held in storage during years of litigation.  Any Pima County employee could have accessed those paper ballots or other paper records associated with that election.  

When Bill Risner's litigation team was finally set to examine individual printouts of precinct totals (called poll tapes), Terry Goddard intervened and confiscated all the paper evidence for an ostensible second examination of the 2006 RTA election.  Initially, transparency activists were hopeful Goddard was acting in good faith and finally conducting a real investigation.  Not so.  Terry Goddard had initially promised to examine the poll tapes as part of his recount of the paper ballots in March, 2008.  Once the count began, however, he refused to examine the tapes throughout his investigation.  This move would postpone Risner's examination of these printed totals for another year 

Goddard knew of John Moffatt's previous mishandling of evidence in the court vault.   He was also aware of PIma County's ability to generate ballots on demand with a specialized ink jet printer.  Despite sufficient cause, Goddard refused to perform a forensic exam of the ballots.  Instead, he and his team performed a recount of the 2006 RTA ballots behind glass.   Observers noticed major differences in paper thicknesses, which suggests a different print run was used despite the original vendor confirming a uniform thickness for all the ballots at the time of the election.  During a press conference in April, 2008, Goddard announced that the count indicated similar results to the 2006 election.  He therefore concluded that the election was not rigged.   

Attorney General Terry Goddard's investigation of the RTA election was rife with errors and missing whole precincts.  Not only did it lack a forensic exam but there was no attempt to compare precinct totals to poll tapes or poll worker reports.  One year later, Bill Risner's team was finally able to access the poll tapes for that election.   They finally understood why Goddard suddenly changed his mind.  One third of the poll tapes were missing and more didn't match their precinct totals.  In totality, this discovery called into question almost half of the precincts counted.  Those missing and errant poll tapes were closely correlated with an abnormally high number of malfunctioning memory cards detected in the electronic files won by the first records lawsuit.  That same RTA records lawsuit revealed Pima County's purchase of a tool used for circumventing normal function of those unique types of memory cards.   That tool, sold to PIma County Elections as a "crop scanner",  was designed for measuring condensation on corn but demonstrated in 2004's hit documentary "Hacking Democracy" as a handy device for altering the way a memory card records and reports elections outcome on a precinct level.     

Database tampering was only one facet of this complex task to change an election outcome.    On the paper side of the RTA election, missing and errant poll tapes were statistically significant as they correlated with memory cards exhibiting malfunctions in the electronic files won by the first records lawsuit.  Malfunctioning memory cards indicate one rub in the mix when trying to rig an election in this fashion.  Only very skillful technicians can reprogram close to 150 memory cards within a short window of time.   Pima Elections obviously did not have the time to successfully perform the arduous task which is comparable to jamming copious amounts of code into a cheap calculator, but they certainly tried,  Their failure required the Arizona State Attorney General and the entire local court system to cover their tracks.    

Pima Elections' scheme began unravelling on election night as observers from behind the glass of the tabulation room noticed an open instruction manual that is banned from use in an official election.   Quick-thinking observers used a telephoto lens to capture images that not only identified the contraband manual, but revealed the book open to the area demonstrating a key task for altering electronic database files.   That night, observers requested that Elections Director Brad Nelson make a back-up of  the elections systems, place the resulting CD into a sealed envelope and hand it over to the police until their observed violations are investigated.   Brad Nelson refused.  By ten that evening, Nelson indicated to the observers that election work was finished for the evening and that there was nothing more to observe.  Electronic data would later reveal that once observers left, Pima Elections started up again at 10:13 pm and continued to tabulate votes until three the next morning.  

Thus began eight years of litigation.   Past articles in this blog provide a detailed history that starts with the RTA issue evolving into the pursuit of prospective relief in the courts.  After seeing the movie, "Fatally Flawed" and reviewing this site's coverage of past exchanges in the courts, at public meetings and behind closed doors. you will understand why there is no reliance upon the accuracy or fairness of elections within the United States.

Monday, June 16, 2014

Southern Arizona powers-that-be don’t want you to know Bill Risner

L. Hunnicut
Arizona Daily Independent

                                       Video by John Brakey

On Friday 13, 2014, an ideologically diverse group of Tucsonans gathered to honor their friend; attorney Bill Risner. The event was years overdue.
Over the years, Risner has exposed and fought the powers-that-be in the community on behalf of the members of the community. And because of that effort, the powers-that-be have worked hard to keep community in the dark about the man who fought to shed so much light on their behalf.
From his days challenging the Viet Nam War as student body president at the University of Arizona, to just this past May when he sued City of Tucson for public records, Risner has been under the scrutiny of the powers-that-be because the powers-that-be don’t like people who bring scrutiny to them and their friends.
Over the years, despite his best efforts and those of so many others, little has changed in Southern Arizona, which is a microcosm of America’s ills. The only real change in our little world is that secret government agents have been replaced by computers that gather every shred of metadata possible in order to keep the powers-that-be and their cronies in cash and control.
Risner, a democrat, has taken on all the power brokers, in and out of his own political party. He took on Attorney General Terry Goddard and fought tooth and nail for the truth behind Pima County elections and specifically the fraudulent RTA bond election. The powers-that-be-good in the Party didn’t appreciate Risner much, but he won the admiration and loyalty of the grassroots.
That fight, Risner’s role in it, and the vastness of the County corruption earned little air time or column space. We don’t air our dirty laundry when the boys’ boxers are in the hamper.
In 1975, when investigative reporting still existed, Fred Allison of KGUN 9 News did a story about Risner and the secret agent from the Pima County Sheriff’s Office who was assigned to shadow him. It is hard to gauge the impact the report had on viewers at the time. It aired once. No relics of a follow-up can be found.
(Today, in Tucson, it would not be covered by the mainstream media, or even the tragically hip tabloids. They all crawled into bed together sometime back in the 1980’s but the citizens were the only ones who got screwed.) `

The following is an account from Risner to one of Tucson other tireless transparency advocates; John Brakey:
In the fall of 1975 on Channel 9 News had press coverage over allegations by someone that the Pima County Sheriff had wanted deputies to be on the lookout for Pima County supervisor Ron Asta in order that they might catch him in a compromising condition and stop him for a DU. Asta, an urban sprawl foe, who had earned of the wrath of developers, had not supported a larger budget for the Sheriff’s Office.
Risner ran into a television reporter while visiting the Pima County supervisor’s office. The reporter asked Risner if he knew about the Sheriff’s Office targeting anyone for political reasons. Risner said he had been targeted. The reporter asked Risner if he would agree to an interview. Risner, who is more sophisticated than the average bear, refused but suggested that he interview “his agent” who had worked for the Sheriff’s Office while targeting Risner.
Risner gave the reporter the agent’s name and telephone number. The reporter called him and the agent agreed to be interviewed for TV but only with a camera on the back of his head. Bill Risner then agreed to be interviewed for the segment.
(Back then, as it is now, if you tell a story that exposes their corruption, you will be crushed if you are the only one telling the truth. Even if you aren’t the only one telling the truth, if no one else has the nerve to tell it publically; you are toast. You can count on the cronies of the powers-that-be to line up to lie about you and marginalize you in every manner available. It’s the Tucson way.)
Bill Risner first learned that he had a “personal” agent one evening while he was visiting the Pima County Jail to see a client. A person standing behind the desk asked Risner if he recognized him. Risner said no, he did not. The man told Risner that he should he had been “his agent.” Risner said “let’s talk.”
Risner asked as they walked outside, “What do you mean?”
Risner’s agent told him that he went anywhere he thought Risner would be or where he could hear who Risner was talking to and what Risner was saying. If, for example, Risner spoke to a college class, the agent would be there pretending to be a student with a spiral notebook to take notes.
The agent then wrote weekly reports that were distributed to the Sheriff’s Office, the FBI, the State Police, the Tucson Police, and military intelligence.
Fred Allison reported it all. Both men shared their stories and Tucson continued slouching toward 1984.
In 2014, Risner is now trying to expose what many believe was a deal to sell off valuable public property at illegal below-market prices to the cronies of the powers-that-be. He represented concerned citizens who wanted to see the records of the negotiations that they, as citizens, are legally permitted to view.
Although the number of developers have dwindled, in the 8th poorest metropolitan area in the country, guys like Don Diamond still pull the strings of the elected officials on every level of government in Arizona.
A Pima County Superior court judge ruled against the City, for its failure to comply with public records requirements and awarded plaintiffs $15,800.00. The judge found, “COT’s slipshod approach to Ms. Cruz’s request, unreasonably expanded and delayed the resolution of this matter….”
That is it in a nutshell.
The powers-that-be have unreasonably delayed so many possible resolutions to so many of our community’s problems in an effort to maintain the status quo. Guys like Bill Risner don’t divide and conquer; they uncover. And given the all the information, people of good will can make the right decisions and resolutions.

Monday, May 19, 2014

Court Sanctions City of Tucson for Withholding El Rio Records and Lying About It

J.T. Waldron

Judge Christopher Staring
Judge Christopher Staring has ordered the City of Tucson to fully comply with plaintiff Cecelia Cruz's public records request by June 4th, 2014.  Judge Staring made clear in his ruling last Friday that the city lied to plaintiff Cruz and to the court about "fully responding" to the records request in a hearing on July 8th, 2013.  This misrepresentation altered the ruling and outcome of continued hearings over this matter and earned a sanction by Judge Staring against the city.   On behalf of a variety of concerned Tucsonans, Cruz sought documents and correspondence surrounding the ill-fated attempt to sell off the historic city-owned El Rio golf course to a private university. 

Last year, Tucson citizens concerned about the predicament of the historic El Rio Golf Course were surprised to discover a fast-track deal that would fork over 100 acres to a private university for a fraction of the market value.  Citizens formed a powerful well-organized grassroots campaign waged by the newly formed "El Rio Coalition II" that managed to convince the Mayor and Council to forego the sale of El Rio Golf Course.  In spite of the public scrutiny, these elected officials insist the city's offer was a good idea and refuse to revoke their original approval for selling the land to Grand Canyon University (GCU). 

This exchange warranted further investigation to determine how El Rio found itself up for grabs, who was involved and who were the true beneficiaries.   On behalf of the coalition, Cruz filed a formal request from the City Clerk for all records surrounding the solicitation and proposal to sell El Rio.   Was this deal a beneficial development for all Tucsonans or only a few wealthy players?   The presence of TREO (Tucson Regional Economic Opportunities Inc.) requiring tens of thousands of dollars for membership suggests the latter.  With Mayor Jonathon Rothschild as a board member, this corporation helped solicit GCU and worked with the city to develop incentives for an enticing offer.  A full view of the circumstances involving the sale of El Rio will always be occluded because, unlike the city, corporations are not required to show their records. 

Records that have seen the light of day indicate the need to fully understand the extent to which city officials were forfeiting valuable assets for the benefit of wealthy investors.  Using a dubious appraisal that ignored existing development and infrastructure of El Rio's land, the city's offer would have yielded a purchaser's windfall of around 45 million dollars for a quantity of land that is five times the space needed to construct the university. 

Due to the careful attention of Tucsonans like Cecelia Cruz, Tina Pacheco, Bill Risner, John Brakey and Salomón R. Baldenegro, the city couldn't seal this deal faster than the public outcry that shouted it down.  Litigation arose out of the city refusing Cruz's request for information on May 12th, 2013.

One of the more popular excuses used by city officials involved an elusive "non-disclosure agreement".  Assistant City Manager Albert Elias claimed as he met with concerned citizens that his office was prevented from discussing the El Rio proposal because of a confidentiality agreement.   Some of the records finally acquired from the city indicated that GCU formally released Tucson from the confidentiality agreement three months earlier.  Bill Risner has become frustrated with their dishonesty:

"Whose responsible for the lies?  Do we have a Mayor and Council that is responsible to the citizens?...Maybe the city manager was a cop too long and thinks that that's what you do.  You lie about everything all the time.  I don't know.  We do know that he's a party to the lies.  That we know for sure.  We know the city Clerk is a party to the lies.  We know the Mayor and Council are party to the lies."

Staring's judgment contains a provision that opens the door to further litigation should the city fail to make its deadline:

"nothing in this ruling should be construed as precluding Ms. Cruz from making additional requests for public documents pursuant to ARS 39-121, or from seeking any remedy provided for by law."

The city must certify to the Court that they have completely fulfilled Cruz's request that was made over a year ago.   Judge Staring sanctioned the city $15,800 for the false statement on July 8th to Cecelia Cruz and the Court that it had essentially fulfilled the records request and was waiting to finish processing a mere seven documents to complete the task.  The Court later discovered that there was actually more than 800 pages of documents left to provide to the plaintiffs and the city's misleading statements led litigation down an errant path. 

Few are sympathetic to the city's newfound difficult circumstance, especially if Tucson officials continue to lie and withhold information past the June 4th deadline.  We shouldn't expect any complaints from the city about its small window of time given that brief moment afforded to those who successfully challenged the El Rio giveaway.  

Plaintiff's Attorney Bill Risner discusses the ruling.
Video courtesy of John Brakey

Friday, May 16, 2014

Sunnyside Press Conference on Election Integrity 5/15/14

Dear Friends, 

Some good news Chuck Huckleberry moved the counting of ballots to Tuesday at 1PM (Chuck Memo and BOS Ally Miller are attached)

Still more work to do to make this Election Fair, Honest, Transparent and Verifiable.   Please join us at the Press Conference / Rally today at Apollo school at 6PM. Address for Apollo is 265 West Nebraska Street. Tucson, AZ

We still have 3 important issues. 
We want: 

1)  Mickey Duniho to be our Representative  Election Day inside the Election Count Room.  He is registered independent; he serves on the PC EIC since the beginning.  Mickey use to work at NSA for 37 years and he knows what to watch for.  He's done this many times before but now Brad Nelson says No.  Why? 

2)  Observer rights at Apollo School as we now have at the other two locations. 

3)  A pure random hand count of one of the 12 to 15 batches of ballots after the election.  Verifying the election within a day or two. 

How did this school get picked?   Apollo Middle School looks to be very big weak link as well as a conflict of interest.  It’s the home precinct of “Louie Gonzales” who has served 14 years on SUSD board and he is being recalled. We understand that his son works at the school.  I’ve also been told that he has some 30 family members working in Sunnyside school system.  Could this be a great place to stuff envelopes? This is why we have qualified trained observers, who if needed are in touch with trained election attorneys.   We want to know how many people go in and out and how many people vote there.  Just like any other election at any other school.   

Remember sunshine is the best disinfectant.  

At all 3 locations there will be a minimum of 3 voting booths and one DRE “Direct Recording Electronics”   except at Apollo.  Don’t these centers look more like a “voting center” than Just a “drop off ballot station?”   

The Recorder’s office and Huckelberry says we can NOT have an observer at Apollo school.  However, they will allow observers at the other two locations.  Chris Roads (recorder’s office) said that because there will be NO tabulating of votes at this site, only a ‘ballots drop of center’. When I pointed out that there was a tabulator and it’s built into the DRE “Direct Recording Electronics”.  He then advised me that he was removing the DRE from Apollo site. Preferring to violate an equal access law in order to refuse access to observers clearly demonstrates lack of pure intent.

By  removing  the DRE from Apollo , in order for the County to continue to use the site without violating Arizona statute, not only a careless disregard for the perceptions of the small Sunnyside community, but the laws which protect citizens with physical or other challenges for which a DRE provides equal access. 

Over the last 10 years I’ve learned that secure chain of custody of election materials, robust ballot accounting and equipment are prerequisites for good election and post-election audits.  
Inclosing, For a Fair, Honest, Transparent and Verifiable election the following conditions must be met: 

(a). There are strict written accounting procedures for paper records to prevent the addition, subtraction, substitution, or alteration of paper records. (b). To safeguard the ballots and audit records from loss and tampering, paper records and electronic equipment are fully secured at all times when a breach could adversely affect the integrity of the records including from the time the votes are cast until all audit or recount activity is completed and election results are finalized. (c). The audit begins as soon as possible after the random selection of audit units, which commences as soon as possible after the initial tallies recorded by the voting system are reported. (In some circumstances the audit may be conducted in phases as discussed in Best Practice. (d). There is a reconciliation to ensure that all votes from all audit units are correctly tabulated in the election totals.

John Brakey

Video courtesy of John Brakey