We wrote late last week, in some detail, about Arizona AG Terry Goddard’s long overdue hand-count of paper ballots from the dubious 2006 Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) bond special election in Pima County (Tucson). The count of all 120,821 paper ballots from the election begins today in Phoenix as part of a criminal investigation, following years of allegations and court cases, in which a trans-partisan group of Election Integrity advocates in Tucson have sought transparency and public oversight following indications that Diebold tabulator databases may have been manipulated by election insiders.
Goddard’s restrictions on political party observers — just one per party, selected by the AG, not by the parties themselves — was the cause of criticism by all of the involved parties (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, etc.). But a letter [PDF] late last week from the AG’s office indicated, at least, that a live, eight-camera video feed would be available on the Internet.
“Eight cameras will stream live video of the examination proceedings to the internet courtesy of the Maricopa County Elections Department,” the AG promised. And, as the count began this morning, that feed is now up and running here.
Unfortunately, unlike Minnesota’s recent, very transparent hand-count of 2.9 million ballots from the state’s still-contested U.S. Senate race, the video from the Maricopa County Ballot Tabulation Center (BTC) is all but worthless, as critics had previously worried, in determining if counts are being carried out accurately.
Here are screen shots from this morning, as counting began, from all eight camera-views — only two of which show any actual counting at all, while six of them are focused on different areas in the Phoenix counting facility (click a photo to see the live streaming shot)…
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
As you can tell, the Internet streams are completely worthless as far as observing the accuracy of the ballot count in any way. The two that do manage to be in the room where counting is going on, are far enough away that it’s impossible to actually overseen any of the counted ballots themselves.
Goddard had previous specified that there would be strict rules for AG-selected party observers, ensuring that it would be impossible for them to take any notes or document the counting in any way shape or form. “[N]o cameras, no cell telephones, no writing instruments, and no audio or video recorders of any kind will be permitted within the examination room,” Deputy AG Donald E. Conrade wrote to all four party chairs in his March 23, 2009 letter [PDF]. Along with additional restrictions, the AG noted: “No representative will be permitted to communicate with anyone outside of the examination room while present in the examination room by signal, voice or other sign.”
A limited number of observers would be allowed outside the counting room, supposedly able to view the tabulation through glass windows. However, based on the photos from the live streaming cams, as seen above, it’s difficult to figure out where an observer outside of the room would be able to determine if counting was, in any way, being done accurately.
“It’s a joke,” one of Pima County’s tireless election integrity advocates John Brakey, of Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections AuditAZ, told us this morning as the counting began.
Though he traveled 120 miles from Tucson to Phoenix for the counting, Brakey, one of the most vociferous of the local leaders in trying to bring transparency to Pima’s 2006 election, was barred by the state AG from the counting room.
While Goddard’s office had earlier explained that “this is a criminal investigation, not an elections process controlled by applicable Arizona election laws,” it’s difficult to fathom what the point is in even streaming Internet video feeds at all, if the AG-selected “observers” are unable to document anything in any way, observers outside the glass are blind to the actual counting, and what’s seen above is all that will be made available to the rest of the world.
So much for transparency or public oversight in AG Goddard’s ballot count, brought about due to the years-long demand for transparency and public oversight of the disputed 2006 special election.
As more breaks…if it breaks…and as we’re able to learn it from our sources at the counting facility in Phoenix…we’ll do our best to keep you abreast with what’s going on…
Recently related:
• Ballots from ‘Fixed’ Arizona Election Finally to be Counted in Criminal Investigation by State AG
Eventually, scum like this AG will be removed.
OT
I’m thankful about this article, but really I just want to say…we are now at a defining point …people still do count…we have something to stand up and define!
Hi,
Am thankful we are having this investigative
count. “Voting laws” and “voter intents” will
have to take a back seat for this investigative
count.
Let’s hope the following is considered:
1. The May 06 Ballots had 4 questions in 409
precincts.
2. The May 06 ballots had an Council race in
Oro Valley at 23 precincts.
3. The investigative count should hand count
every position on every ballot cast in the
princincts indicated in 1 and 2 above. This
should also include all cast early and
provisional ballots.
4. The workers at this count should be instructed
to count for YESs, NOs, BLANKS, and OVERVOTES
as the voting machines will see the marks on
the ballots. These 4 catagories should be
recorded and the original elections numbers
(catagories) should also recorded on the same
page of the report for comparison and further
review if required. A possible 5th catagory
mmight be needed if one of the above four
catagories can not be determined by the
workers. Further the council race should
be hand counted and compared to the May ’06
results.
Thanks and Good Luck
Frank Henry
Conttonwood, Arizona
Tel: 928-649-0249
e-mail: fmhenry4@netzero.com
Frank – In regard to the above, speaking with folks at the counting facility today, my understanding is that they are counting the first and second items — the RTA initiative questions only — at this time.
Today they were separating ballots into piles of YES and NO for each of those questions. Unfortunately, the sources I spoke to were concerned because there seemed to be no precinct based reconciliation, at least not that they were instructive of, and communication about what was going on was terrible.
Some complaints were made, and things MAY improve tomorrow, but we’ll see.
Leaving these general thoughts in comments here (rather than as full report, or even UPDATE to the story above), as I’m hoping to get more info from more sources and firm things up before posting any of it as a full news item. But just wanted to give you a sample of what I understand is going on, since you clearly had a keen interest and understanding of what that election was about.
More OT,
And pray tell, why do the israeli’s get to step so far outside our Christian Decency box? War is not peace…duh!
Comment #5…
Brad, thanks for your info. We are all keeping
an open mind on this invetigative count.
Frank
(Comment #3)
I am in complete agreement with Frank that the count needs to be completed at the precinct level. Let’s assume that there was electronic manipulation of the vote. The perpetrators might also attempt to manipulate the physical evidence by adding YES votes and removing NO votes to get the total votes to match. Doing this at the precinct level is more difficult (though not impossibly so) and might present an opportunity to discover an anomaly. If the AG’s count fails to look at the precinct level that is a serious failing and would just support that this is more an effort to put the issue to rest than to conduct a real investigation.
Brad is that really you answering Frank?
There is no such thing as a “yes” on 1 ballot that can be stacked away from the same ballot that might contain a “no” on 2. I wish this was so. As Frank mentions there is no accounting for intent if we don’t know how many people voted yes on both. It would not of been hard for observers to keep a running count of how many such ballots they encountered– it is a single running number. I am very dissappointed with the delay and the possibility that the ballots themselves won’t be available to be counted for a few bucks in a machine we can trust to document more then has so far supposedly been documented.
I’m not annoyed as much as surprised by the delay and lack of leaks about the result. It is the public that needs to inspect this evidence if not any accused. Yet unless they prosecute the ballots will never been publically known and if they do prosecute it will be interesting to see what public access the evidence is given. This count occured as if the criminal defense counsel had already negotiated it to there satisfaction.
Every day this draws out, especially now, is destroying our credibility more then ever before, unless…..
The last two buses I caught left quite late from there beginning. First RTA corrupted driver had to finish his pack of cig’s-, second didn’t want to stop reading and was late for several timepoints after despite no chairlifts. Supposedly (google) the citizen has a sense of humor:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EARMARKS_EXPENSIVE_BUS?SITE=AZTUC&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2009-04-17-13-21-17
Am I ever going to find out how many people supported the RTA with TWO yes votes?