Monday, September 28, 2009

More Huckelberry Propaganda

Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said on Arizona Illustrated Friday Roundtable newsmaker:

“Our point is enough is enough. We recounted this election um…basically innumerable times electronically, physically and recounted it once by the Attorney General, the answer is the same…”

Well, if we take the man's word: we recounted this election um… basically innumerable times electronically, physically We’re only aware of 1 time the RTA election was recounted legally; and that was done in a completely nontransparent investigation by the attorney general office.

How many times is innumerable times”?Electronically?Physically?

Run time: 02:10 - 9/25/09

Sunday, September 20, 2009


We had a Great Showing / Attendance for "Fatally Flawed" at the Loft Cinema in Tucson on Wednesday, September 16th, 2009 and below are video link of discussions following premiere.

Attorney Bill Risner Is Presented A Surprise Award For His Work For Election Integrity.

Jody Gibbs, from Voices of Opposition, join by Pima County Democrat Donna Branch-Gilby in presenting a plaque provided by the election integrity groups in Pima County, Arizona.

Video of Full Discussion after Tucson Premiere Showing of "Fatally Flawed"

Attending the Q&A session after the movie were Attorney Bill Risner, John Brakey, Jim March, Mickey Duniho and director J.T. Waldron.

Also the day of the Tucson Premiere Showing of "Fatally Flawed" Ellen Theisen of released a Preliminary report on Pima County Election, May 16, 2006: Regional Transportation Authority Question 2.

Tilted: Significant Discrepancies Between the County's Canvass and the Attorney General's Hand Count Require Futher Investigation.
For the complete report: Click Here

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Bill Risner Discusses Judge Harrington's Decision on the John C. Scott Show

John C. Scott interviews Bill Risner after Judge Harrington's decision that courts cannot offer prospective relief when an election is rigged. The rational is that the executive and legislative branches offer adequate remedy- even if the elections placing candidates in the executive and legislative positions are rigged.

Thursday, September 3, 2009

Jim March Interview on KFNX news in Phoenix 9/3/09

Good recap of Pima County Elections for the Phoenix audience.

Clarifying some facts Jim mentioned, here's some additional information from the Attorney General (AG) hand count of the RTA ballots.

Looking at the numbers in the AG Excel spread sheet we can see that:

• 4 precincts are missing. Was this a mistake, or were the numbers so messy they needed burying forever? Why didn't the AG's report these facts?

• 285 out of 409 precincts are out of balance; this comes to 69.68% with the RTA official Canvas report.

• Under Federal Guide lines the accuracy is expected to be 1 mark in 10 million.

However we didn’t expect to see an error rate of:

• 159 precincts are missing 1541 ballots
• 126 precincts have 389 ballots to many
• 1,152 ballots are missing

The AG press conference (Video) April 21, 2008 and their PowerPoint presentation, last page states:

“Pima County official canvass ballot count: 120,821”
“Ballots counted in examination: 120,888”
“Difference: 67”

How is it possible to have 67 extra ballots when you're at least missing 1,152 ballots in the precincts count?

Vote by Mail "Early Ballots" are clearly marked "Early Ballots on each ballot.

Additionally, there are unresolved questions about why would one box hold 1,200 ballots and another exact same size box hold as much as 1,600 ballots. Are there two types of ballot thicknesses?

Do to the error rate being so high, wouldn’t it have been prudent to use the poll tapes and also check the ballots forensically to verify that these were the original RTA ballots?

From Tuesday, September 1, 2009, see what else the AG is up to: Evidence that Attorney General Goddard Ignored and Why the RTA Case Still Matters"

More information coming soon.

Tuesday, September 1, 2009

Evidence that Attorney General Goddard Ignored, and Why the RTA Case Still Matters

By Dan Ashby, Director, Election Defense Alliance and John Brakey, Co-Coordinator Investigation for Election Defense Alliance

September 1, 2009

In its completely nontransparent investigation into the RTA election -- which included a hand-recount of what are purported to have been the actual RTA ballots, but under conditions precluding meaningful public observation -- the Arizona attorney general’s office declined to examine the poll tapes and certification evidence.

The attorney general's investigation also removed the poll tapes and certifications beyond the reach of election integrity investigators, who were pursuing those records in court when the attorney general intervened.

Legal action to get access to those records will continue, but at present, the RTA poll tapes and certification reports are boxed along with the RTA ballots and are at risk for destruction, depending on Judge Herrington's decision.

Poll tapes are records of the precinct election results printed out by the voting machines at the close of polls and signed by the pollworkers. End-of-day certification reports are statements also signed by the pollworkers attesting that the poll tape vote totals reconciled with the number of voters who cast ballots in the precinct.

Reconciling ballots with the signed poll tapes is standard auditing procedure that helps verify that votes being recounted are the same that were cast on election day. Conducting a "recount" without reconciling ballots, poll tapes, and certification reports, is a rubberstamping endorsement of unverified election results.

The suspect Pima County Elections Department owns a ballot printing machine. It is known as the “ballot on demand” system. That machine can immediately print any ballot for any precinct in the RTA election, or in last fall's primary or general election, or in any other recent election. It can do so because the “GEMS” election computer database retains the printing instructions known as “ballot definition files.”

The original ballots were printed on an offset press by the Runbeck Company in Glendale, Arizona.

The unused RTA ballots were reportedly destroyed by Runbeck in June of 2006. If Pima County wanted to print new ballots, they could most easily print them using their own ballot printing machine. Pima County's machine uses a laser printer. That printer is simply a computer with GEMS instructions connected to an Okidata laser printer.

In a personal experiment, Jim March used a microscope and noted that the offset printed ballots from Runbeck had “clean” margins on the printed material while laser-printed material had observable “toner spray” on the margins. He showed, therefore, that by simply putting a ballot under a microscope one can determine if it was printed on an offset press or a laser printer.

Jim March photographed samples of each type of printed ballot and sent copies of the photographs to the attorney general's office with a description of what to look for. He requested that they look at the ballots as he had demonstrated. Jim brought a microscope with him to Phoenix and kept it available for such an examination in the observation room on the other side of the glass window to the counting area.

Bill Risner, attorney for the Democratic Party, also sent a written request asking the attorney general's investigators to either conduct a forensic examination of the ballots themselves, or permit the citizen observers to do so.

In a highly unusual and significant vote, the entire executive committee of the Pima County Democratic Party requested the attorney general's office to conduct such an examination, or permit citizen observers to inspect the ballots under a microscope.

These requests were all denied by the attorney general's officers in charge of the recount.

Was the attorney general's recount a cover-up of insider election fraud? That question can only be answered through direct public access to the actual RTA ballots, poll tapes, and certification reports.