Goddard: Hand Count of RTA Ballots Affirms Election Results

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

David Safier has faithfully chronicled the goings on in the RTA ballot recount, but since he is on vacation it falls to me to fill you in on the latest news.

On Tuesday, The Arizona Attorney General’s Office announced that its hand count of the ballots cast in the May 2006 Pima County Special Election affirmed the results of the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) election of 2006. According to the AG press release:

The RTA election consisted of two separate questions. The first asked voters to indicate yes or no in response to the question, “Do you approve the regional transportation plan for Pima County?” The official election canvass recorded a total of 119,818 votes cast in response to this question. Of those, 71,948 (or 60.05%) were “yes” votes and 47,870 (39.95%) were “no” votes. The examination of the ballots found a total of 119,262 votes cast in response to this question. Of those, 71,626 (60.06%) were “yes” votes and 47,636 (39.94%) were “no” votes.

Part two of the RTA election asked voters to indicate yes or no in response to the question, “Do you favor the levy of a transportation privilege (sales) tax for regional transportation purposes in Pima County?” The official election canvass recorded a total of 119,324 votes cast in response to this question. Of those, 68,773 (57.64%) were “yes” votes and 50,551 (42.36%) were “no” votes. The examination of the ballots found a total of 118,726 votes cast in response to this question. Of those, 68,420 (57.63%) were “yes” votes and 50,306 (42.37%) were “no” votes.

The difference of +/- 0.01% in each category of votes cast was due to the presence of ballots with inconclusive markings. Among the inconclusive ballots, investigators do not know precisely which ballots the optical scanner was capable or incapable of reading. Therefore, ballots that did not contain clearly readable yes or no votes were not included in the examination totals…

The official canvass of the May 2006 Pima County Special Election recorded 120,821 ballots cast in the RTA election. In its examination, the Attorney General’s Office hand counted 120,888 physical ballots. The difference of 67 additional ballots counted by the Attorney General’s Office was due to the presence of unused excess ballots among those examined.

* * *

The examination of the ballots was conducted between April 6 and April 15 by the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office’s Elections Division staff under the supervision of Attorney General’s Office investigators, sworn peace officers in the state of Arizona. The procedure for examining and counting the ballots was typical of a hand count of election ballots with additional protocols necessary for handling criminal evidence.

Absent any evidence of criminal wrongdoing, the investigation is now closed.

I had been advised by several of the observers who were in attendance at the hand counting of the RTA ballots that they believed the number of physical ballots present was substantially short of the total cards cast count in the official canvas of the vote. They stated this publicly in the press and on election integrity activists blogs.

I have not yet received an explanation from these observers as to why their calculation of the total number of physical ballots was so far off the mark. (In fairness, the rules imposed by the AG did not allow observers to possess any writing materials or to maintain a tally of the vote or of ballots counted.)

Goddard was trying to determine if the vote was rigged by someone through tampering with electronic vote devices or with ballot tabulating procedures following the election. RTA: Regional Transportation Authority

"It appeared there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed" Goddard said of claims by critics of computerized vote systems that tampering did indeed take place.

Those included illegal printing of early ballot returns five days before the election, and the presence of a crop card, which is a device that can be used to alter results, in the elections division offices.

Although Goddard said the criminal investigation is closed, he would not comment on whether a grand jury has looked or is looking into the conduct of the election.

The Pima County Democratic Party is glad the intense scrutiny of elections has led to a better election system here, said Jeff Rogers, party chairman. Ballots in RTA vote show fair election

"Our executive committee voted unanimously to back the RTA (in 2006), I'm glad it's been vindicated and all suspicions laid to rest," Rogers said.

Rogers is confident in the hand-count results because the party observer who watched the count in Phoenix was impressed with the thoroughness, he said.

"I think it might be the end of the RTA questions," although there may continue to be questions about the openness of Pima County elections, Rogers said.

Andrea Kelly of the Arizona Daily Star further reports:

Goddard said his investigation is nearing its end but would not say it is finished.

"It's the end of our investigation based upon the facts brought to my attention. To say it's the absolute end would be premature," he said. "It is my hope that we can wrap this totally up in a short amount of time."

The ballots will be returned to Pima County, where the County Division of Elections will return them to secure storage, said Donald Conrad, chief council in the criminal division of the Attorney General's Office.

A court case is still ongoing in Pima County about the future of the ballots. The Pima County treasurer is required to destroy the ballots six months after the election, but they remain longer because of court cases about the election. County Treasurer Beth Ford has asked a Superior Court judge for a court order to either keep the ballots or to destroy them.

The court case referenced is a public records lawsuit for the poll worker yellow sheets and the precinct poll tapes filed by the Pima County Democratic Party. The AG was requested to make copies of these public records during its hand count audit of the RTA ballots, at the expense of the plaintiff and for the convenience of all the litigants, but the AG refused this reasonable request. The Pima County Superior Court retains jurisdiction over the ballots and other materials which will remain in storage until an appeal from an interlocutory order in the case is resolved by the Court of Appeals, or the litigants otherwise reach a settlement of the case.

Terry Goddard has been highly critical of the severe security risks documented to exist in the Diebold/Premiere voting system used in Pima County and twelve other counties in Arizona. I would suggest to Mr. Goddard that he follow the lead of the Secretaries of State of California and Ohio and sue the manufacturer of these voting systems for ripping off Arizona's counties by selling them a defective product that does not meet federal election standards for security and certification. Goddard should sue to recover the money paid by Arizona counties to the manufacturer for this defective election equipment, and seek a court order requiring the manufacturer to provide the counties with replacement election equipment that actually does meet federal standards for both security and certification.

By the way it was Jan Brewer, who was Secretary of State at the time, who not only certified the Diebold/Premiere voting system in Arizona but required the several counties to purchase this defective election equipment. So much for Jan Brewer's oversight of elections in Arizona.