A thorough case study of the pursuit of justice once an election has been compromised. Arizona is the most corrupt state in the nation. Pima County has the added distinction of the highest paid county administrator in the nation. What could go wrong? Fatally Flawed can answer that.
"I've been an activist all my life . . . but I've never done anything more important than what I've done now" (John Brakey)
"Every data point assured that the election was rigged" (Bill Risner)
"This is a third-world standard of justice" (Jim March)
J. T. Waldron's 2009 documentary Fatally Flawed: The Problems Are Inside, The Solutions Are Outside is (I can't say it better) "not only a character driven cinema verite but a moving journey of triumph and heartache in the face of monolithic government opposition."Ultimately, the Democrats succeeded in gaining the release of all of the election 2006 databases--the largest release of such files in U.S. history up until that time. But unfortunately this is hardly the end of the story.
Set in Pima County, Arizona, it begins innocuously enough with a situation posited for a primary election referendum: In Tucson, Grant Road, a six-lane highway, narrows down to a four-lane highway, causing a bottleneck. The six-lane width needs to continue beyond this point to improve traffic flow, from Swann Road to Oracle Road. This process will involve gutting homes and businesses. At least one nearby neighborhood association is understandably worried. There is no thought about their plight as the project moves forward; it's "Get them out of the way and then we'll make it better," says one local resident. [Click here to read more]
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.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Duniho
Duniho discusses the matter in a recent interview on the local radio show "Wake Up Tucson". Video courtesy of John 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.”
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.
Pima County Superior Court Judge Kyle Bryson has taken under advisement the matter of whether Pima County’s alleged voter fraud in the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election on May 16, 2006 will be heard in Court. The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a previous decision by Judge Harrington that his court did not have jurisdiction and remanded the case. Judge Bryson was assigned the case late last year.
A packed courtroom listened as attorney Bill Risner respectfully told the Judge Bryson that the previous judge had made a mistake, and “now is your chance to fix it.” The judge will most likely decide whether to fix the mistake or not within the next 30 days. Plaintiffs do not expect a ruling before the current Primary Election is over.
At the time of the RTA bond election, questions arose regarding the election results almost immediately. They persist in this lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court.
County races, including large bond elections are currently exempted from a hand count of the votes, which increases the concern about election fraud.
The stated goal of a lawsuit filed in Arizona Superior Court by Tucson attorney Bill Risner on behalf of the Libertarian Party is “to protect the “purity of elections” in the future, starting with the 2012 elections. According to attorney Bill Risner, the lawsuit is based on two facts; “At the present time it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge a rigged election.”
The lawsuit alleges that “Pima County, through the direction and control of its county administrator C.H. “Chuck” Huckleberry, has systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections. The elimination of those controls has permitted county management to take advantage of the ability to cheat presented by defects in our computerized election system.”
The central allegation in the suit is that “county management fraudulently rigged the Regional Transportation Authority election.”
The Pima County Democratic Party had previously taken on the issue. It was through the Discovery process in that effort, that the current suit bases its allegations. In papers filed with the court, lawyers claim that from “three other lawsuits involving the Pima County Democratic Party and Pima County,” a path was provided “for future discovery that must be followed in this lawsuit.”
The Libertarian Party argues that “The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of challenging any specific election requires court intervention in order to protect the purity of elections and ensure that we will have free elections.” They cite three Arizona Constitution sections as the basis of their claim, including Arizona Constitution Art. 2 § 21, which requires all elections to be “free and equal.”
Plaintiffs say that the most important legal and factual building block of this lawsuit is the agreed upon fact that it is very easy to cheat with our election computer software. In the suit, it is alleged that “the ease of cheating may be counterintuitive, especially among those least familiar with computers, but it is a fact. The ease of cheating may be a surprise even to those who are familiar with computers but whose familiarity was derived from securely developed programs. Our election computer system has quite simply been built to cheat and, at least for that goal, it has succeeded.”
Both conservative and liberal activists hold that the goal of the lawsuit is to make elections a transparent process by removing Pima County’s ability to cheat undetected. They have fought for over six years of litigation for the courts to decide they indeed have jurisdiction to ensure clean elections.
This week Pima County administrator Chuck Huckleberry claimed that a law forward by State Representative Terry Proud and signed by the Governor, HB2408, was retaliatory. The law calls for an audit of the Pima County Bonding disbursements. Huckleberry and an editorial in the newspaper, the Arizona Daily Star, argued that if Proud wanted the information, all she had to do was ask for it.
However, for over 4 years, various interests have asked Huckleberry for information regarding the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election on May 16, 2006. At the time of the election, questions arose regarding the election results almost immediately. They persist in the form of a lawsuit in Arizona Superior Court.
The stated goal of a lawsuit filed in Arizona Superior Court by Tucson attorney Bill Risner on behalf of the Libertarian Party is “to protect the “purity of elections” in the future, starting with the 2012 elections. The lawsuit is based on two facts; “At the present time it is easy to cheat using our election computers and impossible to challenge a rigged election.”
The lawsuit alleges that “Pima County, through the direction and control of its county administrator C.H. “Chuck” Huckelberry, has systematically subverted critical controls required to protect the purity of elections. The elimination of those controls has permitted county management to take advantage of the ability to cheat presented by defects in our computerized election system.”
The central allegation in the suit is that “county management fraudulently rigged the Regional Transportation Authority election.”
The Pima County Democratic Party had previously taken on the issue. It was through the Discovery process in that effort, that the current suit bases its allegations. In papers filed with the court, lawyers claim that from “three other lawsuits involving the Pima County Democratic Party and Pima County,” a path was provided “for future discovery that must be followed in this lawsuit.”
The Libertarian Party argues that “The ease of cheating when matched with the impossibility of challenging any specific election requires court intervention in order to protect the purity of elections and ensure that we will have free elections.” They cite three Arizona Constitution sections as the basis of their claim, including Arizona Constitution Art. 2 § 21, which requires all elections to be “free and equal
Lawsuit highlights:
It Is Easy To Cheat With Pima County’s Computerized Election System
The most important legal and factual building block of this lawsuit is the agreed upon fact that it is very easy to cheat with our election computer software. The ease of cheating may be counterintuitive, especially among those least familiar with computers, but it is a fact. The ease of cheating may be a surprise even to those who are familiar with computers but whose familiarity was derived from securely developed programs. Our election computer system has quite simply been built to cheat and, at least for that goal, it has succeeded.
Almost five years after the RTA election, a group of activists keeps fighting for election integrity
Bill Risner: "We want an order to keep them from cheating
in the future. This court does have jurisdiction to see
that the Constitution is followed in Arizona."
Tucson attorney Bill Risner stood before a Pima County Superior Court judge earlier this month and asked the court to take another look at the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election.
Risner said there was enough apparent foul play involved for the court to change how ballots are counted in the county.
Yes, folks: The election-integrity battle rages on.
In the May 2006 RTA election, voters approved a 20-year, $2.1 billion transportation plan funded by a half-cent increase in the sales tax, with 60 percent of voters supporting the plan, and 58 percent supporting the half-cent sales tax.
Risner and other critics questioned the results when the plan passed, citing conflicting polls and precinct reports, and pointing out that the growth lobby had a lot to gain in a $2.1 billion plan to pay for roads and improvements.
Among other things, activists asked the state Attorney General's Office to look at anomalies detected in computer software that the county used to track votes. The anomalies issue led to a successful public-records lawsuit in 2010 that gave the Pima County Democratic Party access to the computer database for the RTA election.
The next legal challenge: asking the court to allow the public to look at the RTA ballots and other elections materials still in storage. Before that hearing ended, then-Attorney General Terry Goddard had the ballots inspected and counted, and determined there was no foul play. Critics, however, contended that a forensic analysis of the ballots should be done, and that key election reports were missing.
In Tucson, Arizona, today's hearing had two remarkable features. First, the lack of substance behind Pima County's motion to dismiss and, second, Bill Risner's argument reaffirming the purpose and significance this court case has for future elections. Here's is Bill Risner's argument on behalf of the trial itself:
The whole point of the appeal won by the Libertarian party was that courts do have jurisdiction to issue orders to ensure fair, transparent elections when the legislative branch and the executive branch fail to do so. In an obvious stall tactic, Pima County decided to make the same arguments that were lost in the appellate court decision.
"You don't have subject matter jurisdiction for that" argued Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm in reference to ballot scans, a remedy proposed by the Libertarian party. Currently practiced in Humbolt County, California, ballot scanning is the measure making optical scans of the ballots available for public perusal. Fickbohm continued to argue against the appellate court decision by insisting that proposed remedies can only be handled by the legislature. The Libertarian party already established the failure of the legislative branch to offer a timely remedy and won the appeal based on that argument.
Additional points made by Pima County seemed to involve technicalities where none really existed. Ronna Fickbohm makes the argument that the plaintiff doesn't "say there's an ongoing problem of election fraud in the future." The judge may not appreciate this argument given the fact that removing Pima County's ability to cheat was the basic, implicit underpinning of the case for prospective relief.
Finally, Pima County attempted to rewrite recent history by suggesting that previous statements recorded in their last records trial are taken out of context and never meant to indicate that their software system was a security issue.
Here is Pima County Attorney Chris Straub (replaced by the pricier private counsel, Ronna Fickbohm) clearly making the argument on behalf of the plaintiff. You can decide whether it's taken out of context:
Editor's Note: This crucial court case is currently experiencing a media blackout among local Tucson press. This includes the Arizona Daily Star and the Tucson Weekly. This case is a textbook example of a battle waged by the growth lobby against the will of the population. The reason why the county is using such extreme measures to stop this trial is that the plaintiff, the Libertarian Party, may conduct discovery which includes a forensic exam of the RTA ballots to demonstrate to the courts that the 2006 RTA election calling for a two billion dollar twenty-year sales tax hike was rigged. This is the prerequisite for the courts to grant prospective relief for rigged elections.
If they felt they would be exonerated, Pima County would welcome the scrutiny. Instead, it appears that Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry is pushing his attorneys to use all conceivable tactics to delay and obstruct the procedure, which would ultimately benefit the nation as a precedent-setting court case aimed at improving election integrity.
THE INITIAL DISCLOSURE STATEMENT FILED BY PLAINTIFF ON 1/12/12 IS A GREAT COMPREHENSIVE STATEMENT OF FACTS: http://tinyurl.com/LPFiling
PROTECTING THE PURITY OF ELECTIONS
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
THE STATE OF ARIZONA IN AND FOR
THE COUNTY OF PIMA
CASE NO. C20085016
HEARING ON JAN 30, 2012 2:30 PM
COURT ROOM OF THE HON. KYLE BRYSON
RAW FOOTAGE RUNS 37 MIN
Defendant Pima County's Attorney Ronna Fickbohm, files and gets "emergency hearing" based on false certification to request the court to stop deposition of Pima Co’s Election Director Brad Nelson. UPDATE: DEPOSITIONS GET GREEN LIGHT FROM JUDGE TO GO FORWARD.
Plaintiff's attorneys, Bill Risner and Ralph E. Ellinwood file Motion to Strike and Sanction Pima County for misleading the Court, filed:1.27.12: http://tinyurl.com/7krbr4c
Plaintiff also filed a motion in response to Defendant Motion for Protective Order filed 1.30.12: http://tinyurl.com/83qk3mq
Pima County is doing everything possible to stop this case from going forward including filing motion based on deception. http://tinyurl.com/7krbr4c
The case is as fundamental as it gets. What we're seeking "prospective relief" so they cannot cheat in the future. ANDREA WITTE "THE CONNECT THE DOTS LADY" has connected the dots into a 10-Point Quick Summary of The Fact pattern in this gripping saga of power and deceit. And we propose a remedy that is easy, inexpensive and doable. Link to Flyer: http://tinyurl.com/7amy6ff
Since our saga began over five years ago, more and more people across America are becoming aware of the serious security flaws in computerized voting systems. They are systems designed to cheat, and they are everywhere. As the political scene heats up with the Presidential election, all eyes will be on Tucson as ground zero for exposing these flaws in open court and proposing reasonable checks and balances in the system. We must protect the purity of elections and public confidence in election results — a cornerstone of our democracy. That's what this case is ultimately about. http://fatallyflawedelections.blogspot.com/
BACKGROUND: AUDIT-AZ, the Pima County Libertarian Party and other interested citizens of multiple parties for years have been investigating election processes in Pima County. In previous actions, the Democratic Party took the lead in winning public records lawsuits and revealing the extent of the problems, including poor security practices on "designed to cheat" systems, election results that consistently did not add up, missing or falsified paper, and election officials and staff who continuously flout the law.
AUDIT-AZ will be running the pool camera and if you can't make it to court you can watch the proceeding on our AUDITAZ's Channel on YouTube the next day: http://www.youtube.com/user/AUDITAZ/featured
Whether they are denying statements made in a hearing four days ago or they are claiming that the Libertarian party's motivation for prospective relief is to "make a movie", Pima County appears to be in a state of panic. After the Arizona Libertarian Party won their appeal for prospective relief for rigged elections, last week's initial hearings were prolonged by the county's absurd arguments against rudimentary measures to protect evidence and to learn how evidence was previously handled.
The evidence in question rests in cardboard boxes at an Iron Mountain storage facility, which is holding poll tapes, summary reports, ballots and other paperwork involving the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election.
Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm claimed last Friday, "Pima County has never said, 'we object to simply asking Beth Ford to get a certified statement from Iron Mountain listing who's accessed the records since the day they came to them and show it to you.'" Fickbohm contradicts her own testimony from the previous Monday. Bill Risner, an attorney working with the Libertarian party, promptly reminded Judge Kyle Bryson last Friday, "At the last hearing, where we were talking about deposing Iron Mountain and Ronna Fickbohm was arguing, Pima County was arguing against that. Her argument talked about how 'in front of Judge Borek, she was successfully able on behalf of Pima County to prevent us from obtaining information about what happened to those boxes. '"
Pima County's other private lawyer assigned to represent Treasurer Beth Ford, John Richardson, introduced a procedure making Beth Ford an inextricable part of the process designed to protect the ballots. Rather than making ballot custody an impartial process by removing all parties and leaving any orders to the judge, both Richardson and Fickbohm presented arguments about how such a court order could potentially implicate Beth Ford by suggesting there is good cause to protect the ballots.
As Bill Risner states last Friday, "The good cause is that it's important evidence that needs to be protected. That's the good cause...it was stunning what was done with this court's vault, which simply heightens the need for it to be clear to Iron Mountain...much better than a complicated order that relies on Ford's communication ... They repeatedly say that 'Gee, Ford's done this really great job', but if she did such a great job, how come Iron Mountain says 'No one ever told us'."
On May 18th, 2007, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry (who sets the county treasurer's budget) issued a memorandum instructing his legal team about the need to secure all evidence involving the 2006 RTA election. Later testimony confirmed, however, that no actual action or enforcement was implemented. According to testimony by an Iron Mountain employee, no specific instructions concerning the handling of the ballots were delivered to Iron Mountain. Pima County's private attorney Ronna Fickbohm goes to great lengths to dispute Bill Risner's reference to the memo as a press release. She says, "It wasn't a press release. It wasn't directed to Mr. Risner somehow Mr. Risner got a hold of it. It doesn't matter. It wasn't a big secret."
Fickbohm is correct in stating that it wasn't a big secret because that 'memo' was released to the local press at the end of the day. Reading the memo, the public's last impression comes from the final sentence, "We need to take action to ensure that all documentation, ballots, electronic files and other information sources are secured so they cannot be altered, tampered with or destroyed as I am sure an accurate independent review of this material will verify that the allegations made by Mr. Risner are absolutely untrue." This document can formally be labelled a memo, but it was clearly an exercise in public relations.
Initially, Pima County's refusal to disclose electronic public records for the RTA election sparked a lawsuit by the Democratic party. Pima County spent over one million dollars in their failed attempt to prevent public disclosure of election data, which eventually was released to the Democratic party.
This release, however, was marred by Pima County employee John Moffatt's violation of the court order requesting the transfer of the data to both parties at the same time. Moffatt managed to gain possession of the data from the county vault prior to the Democratic party finding out about the order. This acquisition occurred with no signature or paper trail.
In the following trial for prospective relief, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard grabbed the boxes of ballots the moment it was established that the Democratic party would gain access to the poll tapes that are included in the boxes. The Democratic party had experts ready to examine them for fraud. In addition to grabbing the poll tapes, Goddard's apparent purpose was to count the ballots in an attempt to vindicate Pima County. At this point, the Democratic Party abandoned their legal pursuit of prospective relief, but continued to fight for access to the poll tapes.
The Libertarian Party remained and succeeded in obtaining a precedent-setting ruling on behalf of prospective relief for elections so the court can intervene once there is a failure of existing laws and law enforcement (Goddard's investigation) to protect election integrity.
In the previous records case, Pima County admitted that software security is so bad, altering the outcome of an election is easy. In fact, the county is estopped from arguing otherwise in this current case for prospective relief. The county may eventually find itself in a similar position if they continue to make statements inferring that the RTA election was not rigged.
The Libertarian party intends to get a forensic examination of the RTA ballots to determine whether the cardboard boxes have been 'stuffed' with ballots generated by an ink-jet ballot-on-demand printer owned by Pima County. Terry Goddard refused such an examination despite the fact he was aware of the incident with John Moffatt and the Pima County vault. Another peculiar omission in Goddard's very public recount of the ballots behind glass was his refusal to incorporate basic auditing procedures. No sufficient audit took place because there was no comparison of the ballot totals to the precinct totals or poll tapes.
The Democratic party battled on for another year of litigation to gain access to the poll tapes. Over one third of the tapes were missing. Another 10% of the the poll tapes do not match the precincts they were supposed to match. The missing and errant poll tapes correspond to the precincts that had problems with memory card uploads. Problems with memory card uploads indicate attempts to reprogram the cards using an industrial farmer's crop scanner, a device that the Pima County Elections Division possessed during the RTA election.
"What this is really about, Judge, is the creation of new film footage for their commercial enterprise." said Ronna Fickbohm to Judge Bryson last Friday, "If you go online and Google fatallyflawedthemovie.com you will see a documentary that Mr. Brakey had asked you to film today put together starring Mr. Risner that was commercially available over the internet for twenty bucks a pop and it was even screened at the Loft."
John Brakey of CARE and AUDITAZ was operating the camera for the press pool footage of last Friday's hearing embedded at the end of this article.
Edited together with no narration or talking head interviews, the completed documentary, "Fatally Flawed" enables its audience to relive the experience of those who cared about the integrity of elections in Pima County. It has proven to be an important tool for the public interest to help educate viewers about what transpired between Pima County and election integrity advocates in pursuit of election transparency. It also contains important video evidence, like the footage of John Moffatt's county court shenanigans. This type of documentation makes the revision of past events much more difficult.
In addition to what's in the movie, there is footage of an array of tables behind glass at Goddard's recount.
Continuous running footage of one table's entire process of counting the RTA ballots shows identically sized cardboard boxes filled to the top edge with approximately 1600 ballots. Additional footage shows another table's complete count filling the same-sized box to the same level with approximately 1000 ballots. One of the crucial specifications in any print job is the paper thickness, especially when ballots are involved. This could be a troublesome dilemma for any last minute attempts at 'correcting the situation' by accessing the boxes a second time and replacing ballots for the purpose of passing a forensic exam. A successful switch would require ballots of the same quantity of different sizes to fit in the same number of equal sized boxes in exactly the same way they were filmed during Goddard's recount.
Referring to the boxes of evidence, Bill Risner tells Judge Bryson, "Whatever's in them needs to be protected. We certainly can't trust Pima County. The games in terms of that sort of stuff need to stop... It's hard to have faith, really, in any storage in view of what Pima County did to the vault of this court. That is out of my comprehension that someone can simply walk in and walk out, but they did it and that was a demonstration of incredible authority and power within the system. Demonstration of who's in control. Phenomenal. "
Pima County's desperate measures will not distract from the Libertarian party's primary goal behind this litigation - to ensure fair transparent elections for the future and prevent cheating by Pima County in upcoming elections. This case for prospective relief through the courts is a major milestone that could help with election transparency across the nation. Hopefully, Pima County will abandon or exhaust all delaying tactics and approach a timely outcome within this election year. There is far too much at stake.
Precedent setting court case could improve election transparency in the United States.
The Libertarian party's pursuit of a remedy against Pima County's criminality and incompetence can have nationwide implications for disenfranchised voters throughout the country. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled favorably on behalf of the Libertarian party, who argued that the courts must intervene when there is a failure of existing laws as well as a failure to enforce existing laws designed to keep elections transparent and accurate.
Today's press conference marks the beginning of the Libertarian party's request through the courts for changes to Pima County's election procedures, which have been found to be woefully inadequate.
Like most voting districts throughout the country, Pima County uses electronic voting machines now infamous for their numerous security flaws and errant outcomes. Unique to Pima County is the mounting evidence of election fraud surrounding one specific election that took place in 2006. This was a taxpayer-funded road construction measure worth two billion dollars. This Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) initiative contained two "yes/no" questions which was part of a simple ballot design that contained only a total of four "yes/no" questions. Part of the initial suspicion was fueled by this simple ballot initiative's unusual number of anomalies and malfunctions during the tally process, which was unmatched by any of the other more complex ballots counted in Pima County.
Bill Risner helped set the foundation for
prospective relief in this case.
The means, motive and opportunity for election fraud was clearly established by a previous court case over an electronic records request by the Democratic party. Pima County refused to release the electronic database files for the 2006 RTA election. Their resistance cost taxpayers approximately 1.5 million in legal fees in its failed effort to prevent the legal transfer of public records to political parties. The Democratic Party eventually lost interest in the pursuit of prospective relief for election integrity once it became apparent that Democratic gubernatorial hopeful Terry Goddard was complicit in the criminal investigation of the 2006 RTA election. Fortunately, the Libertarian party continued with the lawsuit to win the appeal over prospective relief.
This case eventually demonstrated the failure of existing state laws to enable a timely challenge of election results due to a five day limit. This problem seemed to be complemented by the failure of law enforcement, which was highlighted by the incompetent criminal investigation conducted by Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard.
In short, Terry Goddard refused to conduct an audit by comparing one set of numbers (the ballots) to another set of numbers (the precinct totals or the poll tapes). Goddard's team refused to conduct a forensic check of the ballots (which are still in existence) despite the suspects' (Pima County's) access to them throughout the period of litigation.
Today's press conference is marked by the filing of the Libertarian party's initial disclosure statement, which contains the most comprehensive and comprehensible list of facts, legal theories and evidence surrounding the rigged 2006 RTA election.
Additional discovery will take place in this suit to complete the picture of election fraud and to further understand the shortcomings of existing election procedures in Pima County. Apparently, Pima County is offering stiff legal resistance to the plaintiff's request for a list of people who visited the storage facility for access to the ballots in question during the period of litigation.
Since HAVA (Help America Vote Act) election fraud is rampant throughout the United States. The Libertarian party's victory in obtaining prospective relief through the courts means that a court can issue orders that effect the transparency and accuracy of elections. This case is precedent-setting and may be applicable to other election court cases throughout the country.
J.T. Waldron
Here is the press release info (which has a livestream link):
Press Conferences: The Pima County Election Fraud Case Heads to Back to Court
Just released; will be filed Thursday morning. “Statement of Facts” Election Fraud Pima County: http://tinyurl.com/76lgzvy
Contacts: John R. Brakey, 520 339 2696 AUDITAZ@cox.net, Bill Risner 520 622 7495, bill@risnerandgraham.com, Jim March, 1.jim.march@gmail.com
When: Thursday January 12th, 2:30 pm
Where: Armory Park Senior Center
220 S. 5th Avenue, 220 S. 5th Avenue, Tucson AZ
Tucson, AZ: Since our saga began over five years ago, more and more people across America are becoming aware of the serious security flaws in computerized voting systems. They are systems designed to cheat, and they are everywhere. As the political scene heats up with the Presidential election, all eyes will be on Tucson as ground zero for exposing these flaws in open court and proposing reasonable checks and balances in the system. We must protect the purity of elections and public confidence in election results — a cornerstone of our democracy. That’s what this case is ultimately about.
BACKGROUND: AUDIT-AZ, the Pima County Libertarian Party and other interested citizens of multiple parties for years have been investigating election processes in Pima County. In previous actions, the Democratic Party took the lead in winning public records lawsuits and revealing the extent of the problems, including poor security practices on "designed to cheat" systems, election results that consistently did not add up, missing or falsified paper, and election officials and staff who continuously flout the law.
The Democratic and Libertarian Parties jointly filed suit years ago to ask a court to order reforms to the process. One local judge decided that his court was unable to do so no matter how obvious the problems might be. After that, the Democratic Party dropped out. The Libertarian Party did not: They appealed and won. Pima County appealed that decision to the AZ Supreme Court and lost. The courts have now ruled that if it can be proven that elections are being handled poorly, a local judge can indeed order Pima County to institute reforms.
IT’S GAME TIME: So after years of effort, we are “game on.” We plan to prove wide-ranging abuses of basic election security in Pima County Arizona and to obtain court-mandated improvements in the election process that could serve as a national model for how to do electronic voting properly and securely.
We have connected the dots into a 10-point quick summary of the fact pattern in this gripping saga of power and deceit. And we propose a remedy that is easy, inexpensive and doable. Let us share that and more with you. We promise a very interesting time.
If you can’t make it you can hopefully watch on line: starting at 2:30pm tomorrow you'll be able to watch it online at: Occupy Rigged Elections Tucson: http://www.livestream.com/occupyriggedelections
You may have to sit through one short ad first, after that we're on.
Hope, Peace and Occupy with C.A.R.E. Care stands for Citizens Against Rigged Elections
1) Neither the Arizona Daily Star nor local TV news has demanded to know who is responsible for the hundred million dollars missing from “Rio Nuevo” projects.
2) Neither the Arizona Daily Star nor local TV news has mentioned Superior Court case # C 20085016 where Pima County admitted under oath to wrongdoing and security lapses in the two billion dollar Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election.
3) No media outlet has bothered to mention how Brian Crane, chief computer tech for Pima County Elections, admitted buying “election flipping” software, called Crop Scanner, prior to the largest, most expensive bond election in Pima County History.
4) No one reported when Pima County affirmed in testimony that the RTA election was a, "discrete incident of past wrongdoing” (Ford v. Dem. etc, 2010).
5) No one questioned Attorney General Goddard who first had “sufficient cause to investigate” but changed his mind a week later. Not one reporter wants to know why Attorney General Horne, “…declines to initiate another (?) investigation”.
Our Constitution protects press freedom. Shield laws in 30 states protect journalists from compelled production of confidential/unpublished information. The press is protected. What about the press’s duty to protect the public with information?
Garry Duffy, the Citizen reporter who
actually did report about the missing data
tape at Pima Elections.
And newspapers knew about the corruption back in 2007. Garry Duffy, reported for the Tucson Citizen: “No one seems to know what happened to a computer tape record of the May 16, 2006 (RTA) election… The county elections director made the revelation in his testimony Wednesday in a Pima County Superior Court trial... The case goes to the heart of the democratic process – the security of voting and vote counting…” (Duffy, 2007)
Advertisement
The Citizen is gone. The “heart of democratic process” story is forgotten. Not a printed peep now about an ongoing civil suit and Pima County’s admissions of “wrongdoing”. Nothing is reported about a two billion dollar fraud on the taxpayers of Pima County.
Two billion is how much from each county taxpayer?
Do local TV and newspapers have a duty to inform their public when millions and billions of tax dollars are lost, or when official corruption occurs? Are the news media in Tucson malingerers? Are they willfully blind, or have they just taken sides against taxpayers?
Duffy, G. (2007. Tucson Citizen. Record of votes in ’06 RTA election missing.
Frequent commenter J.T. Waldron has this to say about the poll tapes from the RTA election:
The Tucson Weekly has afforded me this opportunity to post on The Range about the missing RTA poll tapes. What are poll tapes and why do they matter? Poll tapes are receipts that are printed in each precinct at the end of the election night. They contain the vote totals that indicate the results for that particular precinct. Once printed, election workers verify the authenticity of the poll tape and its totals by signing the bottom of each poll tape. For this reason, poll tapes could serve an important auditing function, especially in conjunction with examining the ballots.
Earlier posts and national media news sources report that a number of poll tapes from the 2006 RTA election are missing. Here are the actual numbers:
Out of 368 memory cards representing 409 precincts, there are 112 poll tapes missing, which represent 122 precincts. This is approximately 30 percent of the precincts counted.
102 additional supporting documents (yellow sheets) are missing.
50 of the polltapes that were found do not match the final canvas.
Why is this significant? Because it utterly discredits Attorney General Terry Goddard's investigation, it renders the RTA investigation incomplete and it underscores the lack of confidence in Pima County's elections.
Attorney General Terry Goddard contradicted himself numerous times over activities involving the RTA poll tapes.
Bill Risner said that prior to Goddard swooping in to take the ballots out of Pima County last year in advance of the hand-count, he had explained to him the significance of reviewing the poll tapes. "We told the attorney general's office that if we look at the poll tape, there would be clues on it that would tell us whether they had used the machines to fraudulently program [the election]. ...That's when he grabbed the ballots."
During the course of this investigation by Goddard's staff, the Democratic Party repeatedly requested that Terry Goddard examine the poll tapes, because they would provide a valuable “precinct snapshot”. In addition, they can easily be identified as fake or regenerated, and so would have evidentiary value. Election integrity activists and the Democratic party were assured by the AG's office that Terry Goddard's investigation would include examination of the poll tapes. This was not done.
Contradicting himself again, Terry Goddard reveals in his press conference following the hand count that he had not examined the poll tapes and saw no value in examining them. At the time of the press conference, Terry Goddard knew of the significance of the poll tapes. His statement "Why would we count a poll tape? I mean, I don't see how they are relevant to the hand-count." is either disingenuous or a flat-out lie.
Once Goddard finished his hand-count debut with the RTA ballots, he packed them up with the poll tapes and passed them back to the Iron Mountain Storage facility in the custody of Treasurer Beth Ford. This move saddled the Democratic party with another year of litigation, seeking access to the poll tapes, which is why the missing poll tapes are being reported one year later.
What is known is that the ballots and poll tapes had been stored at various times at unknown locations in Maricopa County, Maricopa Elections Division and the Iron Mountain storage facility.
Testimony in the most recent poll tape litigation established that Iron Mountain was not a secure facility when it came to the RTA ballot boxes. Despite evidence at trial that the County Manager had instructed the County Attorney to tell Iron Mountain that no one could approach those boxes, the Iron Mountain representative stated under oath that "no one ever told us that, and our customers, the county, could always come in to these boxes."
The fact that the County had access to those poll tapes at the Iron Mountain facility at all times makes forensic analysis of the ballots imperative. After all, anyone from the County could apparently have been granted access to those ballot boxes. Yet, during the press conference, when questioned by Jim March, Goddard said he had no cause to perform the nondestructive no-cost forensic examination of the ballots.
Shortly after the press conference, Terry Goddard was a guest on the John C. Scott radio show reiterating once again his contention that the hand count established that the RTA election results were proper and there was no need for further probing. I called in to the show and asked Terry Goddard if he was aware of the problems with custody of the hard drives that were in the Pima County Vault. I was referring to the Sept. 14, 2008 discovery that despite a court order for release of unaltered election data to the Pima County Democratic Party, the designated Democratic Party's database containing the hard drive had gone missing from the Pima County vault. It was only upon Bill Risner's visit to the County Clerk's office that the box of hard drives reappeared: in the hands of John Moffat, who had only a garbled explanation for why he was illegally in possession of the hard drives. Goddard replied: "Well I meant that's part of what I'm talking about. I was aware that that had happened...those are part of the very disturbing combination of events which ultimately said let's not depend upon as we did initially in our first past to review the electronic records."
If he didn't believe there was cause to examine the ballots for their authenticity then, there is definitely cause now. This investigation is incomplete.
Probably the most disturbing aspect of the missing poll tapes is the blow to the already poor confidence in the Pima County Elections Division. Despite efforts to improve procedures, issue self published report cards and oversee a hand-picked Election Integrity Commission, nothing can distract the public from the fact that the same people are operating within the elections division with impunity.
Now we have a recent mayoral election in Oro Valley sporting very peculiar numbers.
For this Oro Valley race, vote by mail consisted of 66.68 percent of the total vote. Within the 66.68 percent of the mail-in votes, Mike Zinkin was ahead by approximately 53 percent to Satish Hiremath's 47 percent. Within the remaining 33.32 percent of the votes, Hiremath was in the lead by 55.87 percent to Zinkin's 43.77 percent.
This makes the spread between vote-by-mail and all the rest of the votes as large as 9 percent. A spread that has never been seen before in Pima County's election history. With this difference, Hiremath won the Oro Valley Mayoral race.
Is an anomaly just an anomaly? Given what I and many others know about the Pima Elections Division, there's likely more to this story
Note: Read AUDIT AZ's Statement about early ballot counting here.
Not only did Pima County employees have access to the RTA ballot boxes, it appears that the Democratic party was mislead by Pima County about the records being protected. In the Democratic Party's most recent Motion for Deposition of Iron Mountain Company, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry is quoted as follows:
In addition, we need to protect, secure and seal any information related toDivision of Elections actions regarding not only the November 2006 election, butalso the May 2006 RTA election. Even thought the ballots/returns for the RTAelection are eleigible for destruction puruant to A.R.S. 16.-624, please ensure thatall ballot and election returns for this election now stored at our contract recordsmanagement facility are retained, with specific instructions not to destroy thesedocuments. Further, since the allegations are against an official of the Division ofElections, it would be appropriate to ensure that there are very specificinstructions approved by the County Attorney to the contract records managementfirm that Division of Elections personnel, including you as the Director, andmyself as your immediate supervisor, are not granted any independent access to said records without independent oversight and supervision. This will ensure thatCounty Administration and the Division of Elections cannot be accused of havingindependent access to the ballots and altering same.
Mr. Huckleberry concluded:
We need to take action to ensure that all documentation, ballots, electronic filesand other information sources are secured so they cannot be altered, tamperedwith or destroyed as I am sure an accurate and independent review of this material will verify that the allegations are made by Mr. Risner are absolutely untrue.
As Bill Risner puts it:
In spite of Pima county's strong statement that "all documentation" and "other information sources" would be secured and Iron Mountain would be so instructed based upon "specific instructions approved by the County Attorney" the Iron Mountain manager testified that such instructions were never made.
At the moment that Terry Goddard and his men took possession of the ballots and poll tapes, workers at the Iron Mountain facility could have been asked about who had access to the boxes containing the RTA election materials. What they would have learned at this moment should have been enough to inform them of the need to forensically check the ballots to determine if they are genuine.
AZ Attorney General Terry Goddard's actions surrounding the poll tapes involves Bill Risner's letter to Terry Goddard informing him of the Democratic Party's pending agreement to obtain the poll tapes from the RTA election. In this letter, Bill Risner informed Terry Goddard that the poll tapes would be inspected by an expert who can easily detect a specific type of foul play. This form of cheating involves the reprogramming of flash memory cards. Each precinct recorded their specific result onto their own flash memory card. The Pima County Elections Division is suspected of reprogramming a portion of the cards to create results that reflect something different than actual results of their corresponding precinct's vote totals. When this form of cheating is successful, poll workers would simply print out the corresponding poll tape and sign the tape for verification without suspecting any foul play. An expert with a hand lens, however, can detect imperfections attributable to a reprogrammed flash memory card. Once the poll workers have finished, the flash memory card is then delivered to the main elections office for the central tabulator. At this point, it's important to note that even when the flash card reprogramming is unsuccessful, end of day poll tapes would still be generated at the precincts.
Remember, the Pima County Elections division is suspected of reprogramming these flash memory cards for three main reasons (out of at least 20):
1. Electronic data won by the records lawsuit indicate that many flash memory cards had to be re-uploaded numerous times at the central tabulator's office. Reprogramming a flash memory card can be difficult and the typical errors that occur involve problems in uploading to the central tabulator. It is estimated that up to 140 cards had to be re-uploaded to the central tabulator and a large portion were re-uploaded repeatedly. These problems are symptomatic of poorly programmed flash memory cards and provide stark contrast to 2004's election in which only 4 cards were re-uploaded. When such a massive number of failures occurred in the 2006 RTA election, the Pima County Elections Division chose not to inform their vendor of these issues.
2. During the 2006 RTA election, Pima County was found to be in possession of the precise, obscure tool used to reprogram the very type of flash memory cards used in Pima County's election machines. The excuse by the County for having such contraband was that the computer technician wanted to find out whether such reprogramming of flash memory cards was possible with that specific device. This explanation contradicts Pima County's contention that security threats can only come from outside of the elections division.
3. A whistleblower has come forward with a sworn affidavit testifying that Bryan Crane told him privately while at the Boondocks Lounge that he had “fixed” the RTA election under direction from his bosses. Two additional people signed affidavits placing Bryan Crane at the Boondocks Lounge at the time of this confession, despite Crane telling the Arizona Daily Star that he'd never heard of the Boondocks Lounge.
Attorney General Terry Goddard's decision to take the poll tapes with the ballots appears to have been made after it became clear to him that the Democratic Party was close to obtaining the poll tapes and that an expert could detect foul play by looking at those poll tapes. This is logical behavior for somebody wishing to prevent the discovery of foul play through the poll tapes.
Another new piece to this puzzle is evidence that Terry Goddard's office was made aware of the legal struggle that the Democratic Party would be forced to endure if the Attorney General's office did not inspect the poll tapes and/or made them inaccessible again by putting the poll tapes back in the ballot boxes. Terry Goddard had the specific choice to examine the poll tapes or to participate with the Democratic Party and allow their experts to inspect the poll tapes. His choice was to keep interested parties from inspecting the poll tapes, to prevent access to the poll tapes, and to saddle the Democratic Party with another year of litigation to obtain access to the poll tapes. Again, this is logical behavior for somebody wishing to prevent the discovery of foul play through the poll tapes.
There is very strong circumstantial evidence that Terry Goddard is an accessory to the crimes likely committed by Pima County's elections division during the 2006 RTA election. Terry Goddard clearly had a choice to follow the straight and narrow in his investigation and examine all of the evidence. Instead, he opted to perform an exercise in public relations by presenting the illusion of an investigation. Why else would a seasoned white collar crime investigator go to the trouble of counting ballots behind glass and announcing his "findings" to the public yet leave so many stones left unturned?
