Thursday, March 26, 2015

William E. Doyle, the Hidden De Facto Statewide Election Director

John Brakey
The 'Doyle Anomaly'!  On December 3, 2014 after we won our Santa Cruz County Court case we received the requested public records, we learned about the role William E Doyle plays in Arizona elections. We call him the Hidden De Facto Statewide Election Director because he controls the backdoor of most of Arizona’s 15 county elections. He is able to do so by programming the county’s election databases and/or by having access to the Election Day phone modem number that’s upload precinct results to a central tabulator on election nights. In the November 2006 election all but 3 of Pima County’s 400 precincts were reloaded on election night twice within minutes of each other. That election included the Senate race between Sen. John Kyle and Peterson, $27 million was spent on that campaign. Pima County disconnected their phone modems by 2008.

So is William E Doyle the “one guy” who controls the backdoor for a “man in the middle attack” election hack system that is not supposed to exist in Arizona elections? Since 2003 he has programmed the databases for many of the 11 Arizona counties that use Diebold equipment and for Election Services & Software (ES&S) in Cochise, Graham and Pinal Counties. Doyle also assists in the statewide election system. This explains why Santa Cruz County Election Director Melinda Meek committed perjury when she claimed she did the programming in house? The programming was not done in house; it was done by William E Doyle DBA Elections Operations Services located in Glendale, Arizona.  Meek openly in court under oath said when question by JOHN HOLMAN, Esq. Answers by Melinda Meek on Wednesday, September 24, 2014

Q. Okay. If I could draw your attention to have a look side by side at Exhibit 6 and also Exhibit 1, which on page 3 identifies that the ten itemized requests made by plaintiff Brakey. The response made by the county is that the document as requested does not exist. What do you mean by that, what's meant by that?

A. The one you're referring to, is that item --

Q. Item No. 1. We're going to go down the stream. Item No. 1?

A. So it's my understanding that in the public records request, as the item was requested, it does not exist.

Q. Okay. And why is that?

A. Because there is not one.

Q. Okay. And I guess just for the Court's benefit, what was being requested was an electronic copy of the contract with the vendor who programs the central county election computer and the AccuVote memory card, and you're saying that does not exist?

A. It doesn't exist because I do that myself, it's done in house.

Q. So there is no contract, there is no vendor that would satisfy --

A. in my opinion, no.

Short video on 'Man-in-the-Middle' of Ohio Vote Rigging and how it worked:  

October 30, 2014: The Curious Business of William E. Doyle. By J.T. Waldron:

October 21, 2014 Santa Cruz Judge Kimberly Corsaro Rules in Favor of the Plaintiffs Seeking Election Records . By J.T. Waldron:  

October 13, 2014 Santa Cruz Fulfills Data Request With an Altered Election Audit Log:  By J.T. Waldron:  

History teaches us that elections without public accountability are nothing more than vote-counting in the dark, controlled by county and state government in the act of choosing itself and its cronies, while picking our pockets. Our message is simple: “We the People”, must have elections that are 100% transparent, with a documented ‘chain-of-custody’, followed by mandatory election verification! Nothing less! Government can never be the sole verifier of its own secret elections.

More on “Man in middle” The 'Connell Anomaly' Pt.1  

And BUSTING the 'Man-in-the-Middle' of Ohio Vote Rigging – “Stephen Spoonamore” explains in detail how it done:  

John Roberts Brakey of Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency, Arizona

County ordered to pay $38K for records delay. By Curt Prendergast of Nogales International:

Sunday, March 8, 2015

El Rio Deal Culminates Into a Culprit Hearing for the City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin

Last Friday, Judge Christopher Staring presided over a culprit hearing for Tucson's failure to disclose public records concerning the potential sale of  El Rio golf course to Grand Canyon University.   A culprit hearing allows a trial court to determine whether a party (The City of Tucson and City Attorney Dennis P. McLaughlin), as opposed to that party’s counsel (now Michael McCrory), is responsible for a disclosure or discovery violations.  The following summary was provided by Scott Egan, who also interviewed Plaintiff Cecilia Cruz and and Attorney Bill Risner after the hearing in the videos below: 
Not sure if my debut as a newscaster will win me any awards, but it was fun!

On the Albert Elias deposition on the GCU/El Rio Scam

In the lawsuit against the City of Tucson over access to public records regarding the sale of the El Rio public property to Grand Canyon University, a deposition was taken of Albert Elias, a long-term, top echelon entrenched bureaucrat in the City, who is supposedly being considered for appointment as the new city manager. His testimony, taken on October 14, 2014 and recorded by AuditAz ( reveals many disturbing factors swirling around Mr. Elias.

To begin with, Mr. Elias clearly takes credit for being the lead person on the GCU/El Rio deal. He states [57:34] that he and Chris Kaselemis “were the main people responsible” in the attempted sale. When attorney Bill Risner reponds “but you are above him” (Kaselemis) he answers “Yes.”

This attempt of a giant rip-off of public resources alone should disqualify him from any important position in public service, but as we have learned, in the City of Tucson such behavior is not only tolerated but awarded. In fact it seems that every bureaucrat that was involved in this corrupt deal has been either promoted or received a salary increase by the Mayor and Council.

Besides two years of blatant attempts by the City to ignore and violate Arizona state public document laws by illegally withholding public information (from both the public, the press, and the courts), another aspect of highly questionable legality concerns the phony appraisal the City had conducted in order to sell the property at below market value -- a violation of Arizona’s Gift Clause. Mr. Elias, by his own testimony, was directly responsible and “concurred” with the appraisal [38:34] which directed the appraiser to value the 100+ acres -- with hundreds beautiful trees covered in lush grass, with water and irrigation service, sewer and electric systems, a club house with a restaurant and a brand new center (built by the Conquistors for a kids program) and owned by the people of Tucson and maintained by their taxes -- this parcel the City wanted to value as a “vacant” lot to sell on the cheap. A great deal for the developers. Not so good for every other taxpayer in Tucson.

Although Mr. Elias admits that he was in charge of the City Real Estate Division and this project in particular, he claims he did not give direct instructions to low-ball the value of the land (we may never know who did), but he testifies that he was “aware” that the appraisal was based on a “hypothetical” assumption that the land was vacant. He states that he supported the appraisal because it was based on “the highest and best use of the subject property as if vacant, for future development and mixed use.” [49:48]

To which Risner says: “Of course, it wasn’t vacant.”

“Correct.” responds Elias.

Besides these troubling statements, and the numerous attempts of the city attorney representative to prevent further questioning of how the phony appraisal was initiated, Mr. Elias also (if he is telling the truth in the deposition) has extreme ignorance of the basic rules on public records and the responsibilities public service workers have to the public they are supposed to serve. Or perhaps he is just lying.

For example, Risner asks Elias [103:10] if he is “aware that when there is a request, or a lawsuit relating to records, that a legal hold is placed on those records?”

Answer: “NO.”

Riser: “So you are not familiar with the public records rule in Arizona law that if there is a litigation, while that litigation is pending the records sought would be held and not destroyed.”

Answer: “No I’m not aware of that.”

In fact, Mr. Elias, who has worked for the City for many years and held many high positions in the organization, does not seem to be aware that any records should be preserved when an employee leaves their employment with the city. (Let us hope that when Mr. Elias does eventually retire, he destroys all of “his” city-owned files in an environmentally friendly way).

Finally, Mr. Elias’ comments go even past the point of feigned or legitimate ignorance when asked about any notes that he or his staff may have taken in their meetings here in Tucson or in Phoenix with officials from G.C.U. If one is to believe him, City of Tucson staff never take any notes.

As Risner asks [1:23] “Isn’t it common for staff to take notes at meetings?”

“No,” says Elias. “That is not common.”

That must save a lot of paper. (Of course, if they never use paper they also must be on the lookout for burglars that surreptitiously enter locked council offices and steal council members computers without setting off alarms or any trace of forceable entry).

There are certainly other amazing aspects of this fascinating interview, (like the fact that the City Parks Department, who have responsibility for El Rio, were never even consulted on the deal) and I would encourage anyone who has an hour and half to spend to actually watch the whole episode.  That may seem like a long time, but if Albert Elias is selected as our new City Manager life is going to be a long, slow, and very ugly period for Tucson -- no matter how long he may survive in the position.

There is my two cents, and then some.

Scott D. Egan Chief Correspondent for ... uh, what’s the name again?
Video courtesy of John Brakey

Scott Egan's interview with Bill Risner

Scott Egan's interview with Ceci Cruz

Here is the full video of last Friday's culprit hearing:

Wednesday, February 4, 2015

Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Tuesday, December 2, 2014

Arizona Voters Sue Secretary of State Ken Bennett Over Barber/McSally Congressional Bid

J.T. Waldron

A definitive outcome of Arizona's District Two congressional race between Democrat Ron Barber and Republican Martha McSally will now depend on the Arizona Supreme Court's decision to allow a tabulation system that is accurate enough to handle the task. Citizens from a variety of political affiliations have filed a lawsuit on the first of December against Secretary of State Ken Bennett because he intends to perform a recount with the same elections systems that have a margin of error exceeding McSally's 161 vote lead over Barber. The Defendant intends to proceed with another problematic count despite Arizona state law requiring that a different program be used for the recount.

AZSOS Ken Bennett
Bennett's erroneous path was revealed on November 25th in Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry's memo shooting down the unanimous decision by his own Elections Integrity Commission (PCEIC) to recommend the use of a more accurate system for counting the ballots. The PCEIC proposed a full hand-count of the paper ballots or no-error graphic scans of the ballots as the only viable means to remove any doubt about who wins the nationally publicized Barber/McSally race. In response to the Arizona statute referring to the use of a different program for any recounts, Huckelberry states:
"We have shared the EIC memorandum with the Arizona State Election Director Christina Estes-Werther and Deputy Election Director Kris Kingsmore. They have assured us the use of a different 'program' for a the recount means only that the tabulation program will be reset to count just the CD2 race and the program as changed will be subject to a new round of logic and accuracy testing by both the Secretary of State and the County. They said it is important to use the same equipment that was used in the General Election to ensure the ballots are treated exactly the same. A statewide recount of a ballot proposition in 2010 and a recount in a Congressional District primary in 2012 were both successfully conducted in this manner by Secretary of State."
In other words, Huckelberry attempts to confuse the public by mimicking the same flawed rationale coming from the Secretary of State's office. They might as well be explaining how a law requiring that a truck be weighed again on a different scale does not really mean 'taking the truck to another scale'. Bennett's crew instead suggests that 'different scale' means that the same scale be 'zeroed' before the weight is measured a second time by that same faulty scale. Since Pima County Elections have previously undermined attempts by the PCEIC to check results with a meaningful hand-count audit, there is no effective means to identify what Huckelberry claims as a "successfully conducted" recount.

The typically divided PCEIC's unanimous request is an anomaly. So is the ideologically diverse list of plaintiffs calling for a truly adequate recount as prescribed by the law. The list includes "Desert Speaks" Host David Yetman, who served ten years on the Pima County Board of Supervisors, former Democratic State Senator Ted Downing who is now a U of A professor, former Tucson Republican Mayoral Candidate Shaun McClusky, former Green Party Candidate for Pima County Sheriff David Croteau, Bisbee writer David Morgan and former Chair of the Democratic Party's Election Integrity Commission Sandra Spangler who co-founded AUDIT-AZ with fellow plaintiff Arlene Leaf, the uncompromising elections activist who co-produced the movie "Fatally Flawed". The plaintiffs hired Attorney Bill Risner, who filed the suit yesterday in Tucson.

Bill Risner's work in election integrity includes the paramount legal victory by the Democratic party against Pima County for electronic elections data in 2007 yielding the largest release of electronic elections data in U.S. history. His appellate court victory for the Libertarian party allowing prospective relief in the Courts ultimately revealed a judicial conflict of interest as it was overturned.  Risner's continued unfulfilled quest for justice in Pima County's 2006 RTA election fraud required the State Attorney General to manage the obvious cover-up for all to see in the movie, "Fatally Flawed". Ironically, his work is the foundation for an electorate now ready to move to a more accurate, easily verifiable means introduced by the PCEIC.

In this case, the plaintiffs only had time for a "Special Action Petition for a Writ of Mandamus" asking that "the court order the Secretary of State to require that a recount be conducted with a separate program as requested by plaintiffs and required by our Legislature."

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Close Congressional Race Between Barber and McSally Presents an Opportunity to Verify with a More Transparent Optical Ballot Scanning System

J.T. Waldron

The Arizona U.S. Congressional race between Democrat Ron Barber and Republican Martha McSally was alleged by the Pima County Elections Department to be such a close contest that they require a recount to determine the winner. Martha McSally's slim margin of 161 votes over incumbent Ron Barber falls within Arizona's "one tenth of one percent" rule that requires a recount after the state canvass. Despite one provision of the law calling for a different program, recounts are typically performed with the same machines that may have an estimated margin of error of over 0.13% or 250 votes. The most convenient, compliant means for confirming an election this close is through optical scanning of ballots as demonstrated in Humbolt County and with the more refined "Clear Ballot" system.  Clear Ballot takes photographic scans of each of the ballots, reads the ballots and separates them into precincts with a level of speed, accuracy and flexibility that has never been matched by any of the current voting systems.

Mickey Duniho, a former NSA analyst and member of Pima County's Election Integrity Commission, describes the problem with Diebold scanners used by Pima County:
Using Pima County’s 2012 Presidential Primary percentage as a guide, today’s scanners may have missed as many as 250 intended votes, almost double the number separating Barber and McSally in the original count. If you rescan the same ballots with the same scanners, you are liable to get different totals with every scan simply because of the technological imprecision of the scanners.
What was the cause of this 250 vote margin of error in 2012? In Pima County's elections system, voters use a black felt tip pen to fill in the ovals on a paper ballot to indicate their preferences. Diebold scanners recognize an actual mark inside an oval only if it contains what that particular scanner determines as a sufficient mark. Crosses, checks, center dots and any other effort by the voter to mark an oval may be interpreted as blank if the voter misses a portion of the white inside the oval.

Diebold's count is further hampered by stray marks or smudges errantly interpreted as another mark when the stray ink hits another oval. Pima County's Diebold machines are calibrated on a regular basis to provide some control over how these marks are interpreted. Unfortunately, the percentage of blank votes appears to be increasing over each election since 2004. Close elections like the Barber/McSally race turns this margin of error into a 'margin of disenfranchisement'.

Bev Harris, author of Black Box Voting, recalls the birth of our current electoral quagmire:
Vendors and lobbyists leveraged the Florida fiasco to persuade well-meaning legislators to enact a sweeping election reform bill, the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), creating a gold rush to purchase new voting systems, under tight deadlines, using federal money. Vendors did not disclose to lawmakers that their optical-scan systems and touch screens had a history of glitches, bugs and miscounts, and because their computer code was kept secret and proprietary, even U.S. senators and representatives could not know about security flaws or learn just how broken the “certification and testing” system really is.
Once this federal mandate was implemented, nationwide oversight has been abandoned as all the seats in the U.S. Election Assistance Commission remain vacant. Victoria Collier, the editor of, describes the current electoral landscape as "a vast patchwork of electoral fiefdoms where laws, procedures and private-vendor technology change from state to state; even from county to county."

In the fiefdom of Pima County, effective verification is consistently undermined. In 2006, Arizona's hand count audit law saw its proposed sample size reduced to a mere one percent of early ballots thanks in part to the lobbying efforts of Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson. In 2010, Nelson circumvented Pima County's Election Integrity Commission (PCEIC) by requesting that the Secretary of State waive his requirement for Pima County to presort early ballots by precinct before they are audited. Millions of taxpayer dollars were spent by the county in an effort to prevent election transparency. The video below explains some of the concerns that PCEIC members Mickey Duniho and Jim March had about lack of substantive auditing procedures for Pima County's elections.

Ironically, a hand count audit contradicting the official tally has no bearing on the election.

According to the tallies provided by and the New York Times, over sixteen million dollars have been spent on the Barber/McSally race exceeding the cost of $70.00 per vote.
Incumbent Ron Barber's campaign asked the Pima County Board of Supervisors (PCBOS) to delay canvassing over concerns of rejected ballots, poll workers sending voters to errant polling places and at least 132 ballots thrown out due to mistakes by election officials. Pima's board supervisors have rejected far worse conditions in the past so Barber's team shouldn't be too surprised at their refusal to postpone this election's approval.

Both candidates should recognize why the winner of their nationally publicized, highly contested bid for Congress cannot be determined with certainty by the Pima County Elections Department.

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has the unique opportunity to preside over the inevitable advancement in elections technology by confirming the result of this congressional race. We would like to name Bennett among forward thinkers like Secretary of State Jim Condos in Vermont who is now using the new scanning technology developed by Clear Ballot. Condos, who recognizes that random audits are "an integral part of performing checks and balances of our voting system" provides substance to his claim "as Vermont's Chief Election Officer, I take this duty very seriously".

Arizona Revised Statute Section 16-664(A) seems to provide for Bennett to follow suite:
In the event of a court-ordered recount of votes that were cast and tabulated on electronic voting equipment for a state primary, state general or state special election, the secretary of state shall order the ballots recounted on an automatic tabulating system to be furnished and programmed under the supervision of the secretary of state.
Subsection (C) allows Bennett to use a different program:
The programs to be used in the recount of votes pursuant to this section shall differ from the programs prescribed by section 16-445 and used in the initial tabulation of the votes.
In 2009, Clear Ballot founder Larry Moore visited Tucson to talk about the level of transparency graphic ballot scanning could bring to the elections process. Here he met Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who attended his presentation at a meeting with the PCEIC. The video below shows Moore providing a brief presentation of what he learned from Humbolt County before his departing flight.

While Pima County was skirting a proper hand count audit in 2012, Larry Moore introduced his brand of election verification technology to a welcoming district in Florida. Here is a presentation by a local Fox affiliate.

Ushering in the new year with mid-term elections, Moore's development of Clear Ballot and its presentation finds larger audiences through talks like "TEDx".

For the first time in Arizona, a congressional race seems numerically impossible to resolve through our deficient tabulation systems. Ron Barber, Martha McSally and the Secretary of State have an opportunity to ensure the legitimacy of this recount by introducing a technology capable of the transparency so thoroughly eroded since the 2000 presidential election.