Link: Tucson Citizen Editorial Board – Criticized for talking to constituents. Mark Kimble noted the AZ GOP’s press release criticizing Gabby for directing her staff to meet with constituents (including yours truly) about impeachment proceedings: Judi White, chair of the local Republicans, criticized Giffords for asking her chief of staff to talk with a group … Read more
The following is based on allegations and purported evidence contained in the US Attorney’s indictment, not personal knowledge. Renzi and others named in the indictment are considered by the law to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law – but that’s lawyer-blather for "he’s guilty as sin, we just gotta get 12 folks to see what’s plain as day."
There are two major conspiracies at the heart of the case against soon-to-be-former Representative Rick "Dick" Renzi: how he stole from his own insurance clients to buy his way into Congress in the first place and then lied repeatedly to try to cover it up, and how he then abused his office to bully legitimate businesses into a shake-down and kick-back land deal to cover his own debts and then lied to cover that up, too.
Continue reading about what the indictment means after the click…
And so it ends, not with a bang, but with a whisper of data flowing between two computers. The Democratic Party and it’s staunch allies, the Republicans (try to get used to that idea, at least on this issue…) and the Libertarians, and a great number of Independent active citizens, have prevailed in the battle … Read more
The Pima County Supervisor’s regular meeting on January 8th at 9am is swiftly approaching this Tuesday. If election integrity matters to you, you should be there. Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to be at the Board’s Chambers by 9am. One of the best … Read more
Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.
Judge Michael Miller, in a carefully reasoned and balanced opinion, today ordered the release of the final MDB and GBF database files for the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections. The judge denied without prejudice access to every MDB and GBF file for the 2006 elections, which would include the RTA election, until and unless the plaintiffs can address remaining security concerns which might arise from that larger release.
For background and commentary on the case and why it is critical to election integrity, please see my earlier posts cataloged on the trial’s home post.
The immediate goal of the Democratic party – to be able to look closer at the final election databases – is satisfied by the ruling. But the broader goal of being able to look at a time series of backups for discrepancies or discontinuities that could indicate manipulation of the RTA election specifically is stymied for the moment. John Denker has some very useful additional commentary on the judge’s apparent strategy.
It is still unclear whether the judge will grant on-going injunctive relief to turn over the final database files from every election going forward. The denial of access to the entire series of database files indicates that the court may still need to be satisfied as to any remaining concerns about security resulting from on-going and multiple disclosures of this type of data before granting such an injunction.
The ruling will allow the Democratic party to perform the forensic analysis required to search for any evidence of wrong-doing. It will also allow the experts for the Democratic party to begin to more closely address the unquantified and unspecified potential security threats from the public disclosure of the data in these files claimed by the County. This access will be crucial in satisfying the court that there is little or no practical threat to elections integrity posed by this information being in the public domain. Once that task is
complete, broader public access to these files (the entire backup history of the election and that of future elections) can be secured.
There is no doubt that the factual findings of the court and this ruling are an resounding and unqualified victory for transparency in our elections process. However, there are further battles that must be fought: to access the entire time-series of backup database files, and to gain permanent injunctive access to the files of future elections without having to litigate each time.
As I digest the ruling and get feedback from the principals in the case, I will continue to update this post.
Here is Judge Miller’s ruling in PDF format: Download MillerRuling.pdf
UPDATE:
Having had a chance to digest the ruling fully and consult with Bill Risner, I have a few additional comments.
The bottom line is that the public will get access to the final databases in the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections and all future elections, though the timing of future releases remains indeterminate.
The possibility for getting all database versions throughout the election process remains open pending further demonstration that there is no security issue. To my mind, the judge has adopted the County’s burden shifting standards of ‘plausible’ or ‘possible’ security harms, when the legal standard requires that the County demonstrate a specific probable harm attendant to the release of a public record. However, I don’t think this final reservation will long stand in light of the factual findings the court announced in this ruling.
A question that comes up often is whether this ruling will be appealed by the Board of Supervisors. I think there is really only one person who know that answer to that question: Chuck Huckelberry. My recommendation is that if you are concerned about his decision whether to appeal, you should call his office and let him know how you feel about that possibility.
Detailed analysis of Judge Miller’s Under Advisement Ruling after the flip…