FACTS Concerning The 2006 Pima County RTA Election

We are very grateful that John Brakey, co-founder of AUDIT-AZ (Americans United for Democracy, Integrity, and Transparency in Elections, Arizona)has supplied us with a wealth of data concerning the 2006 Pima County RTA election.

Although it is a lot to digest, we hope our readers will take the time to to so.

After reading the FACTS that John gleaned with much time, effort and cost, we trust we can all make an intelligent determination as to the merits of his documentation.

We certainly hope John will pursue the facts concerning the May 2010 Oro Valley Mayoral Election, with the same steadfast diligence.

Art
*************************************************************************************

Facts we’ve learned by getting the Poll tapes for the RTA and Oro Valley election of May 16th 2006:

. There were 368 memory cards use for precincts and voting area. Pima County in the RTA had 409 precincts. We’re missing 112 poll tapes out of 368, this works out to 30.43% or if you prefer 122 poll tapes out of 409, some poll tapes are voting areas with 2 precincts.

· 85 memory cards were loaded at least twice, of those we are still missing 40 of those poll tapes that affect 50 precincts (10 of the precincts are voting areas)

· Oro Valley has 22 precincts of which 18 out of 22 poll tapes are missing. Plus 3 out of the 4 poll tapes do not match the final canvas by 34 votes that were added. One race was decided by 4 votes and had a recount which had nothing to do with this canvas. This points out that the Oro Valley ballots were counted 3 times. The 3rd count was done after this canvas on May 31st 2006.

· 50 poll tapes do not match final canvas. In all cases ballots were added and the yellow sheets indicate that the precincts optical scanners were not counting all ballots. The results of the additional ballots followed the precinct results by percentage. This is still consistent with our theory of electronic vote tampering.

· 11 Memory Card that were changed. When 086A00 changes to 086A01 this means memory card has been changed. I believe they were changed Election Day do to failure of the precincts optical scanner. They could be much more but again we’re missing 112 poll tapes that equal 122 precincts.

Added to this:

The Ellen Theisen report: http://www.votersunite.org/info/SignificantDiscrepanciesInComparisonOfRTAResults.pdf


What we learned about ballot on demanded, video, Jim March Explains the Problems of Ballot On Demand Systems: http://blip.tv/file/3154065


Additionally Anomalies Related to the RTA Election of May 16, 2006
REV JB 12/24/2008 1:07:35 AM

1. The RTA passed by a surprisingly large margin. Sales tax increases for roads had lost badly in four previous elections.

2. Election Division staff printed unauthorized vote total summary reports after the first day of RTA early ballot scanning. (5 days before election-day on May 11th)

3. Before the second day of RTA early ballot scanning, (May 11th) Election Division staff erased the first day’s database backup by over-writing it. This required responding to two warning messages, one from GEMS and one from Windows.

4. Election systems expert Michael Shamos of Carnegie Mellon advised the AG investigator of possible RTA fraud to hand count ballots, echoing advice from local election activists.

5. The AG Investigator lied to Shamos in an email, saying that “local naysayers” were on board with not looking at ballots. The opposite was true and the investigator knew it, because he had engaged in a shouting argument with local naysayers about this issue.

6. IBeta tests conducted under contract with the AG investigator of the RTA election should have included looking for possible swapping of yes and no votes, but did not.

7. County staff directed all aspects of the IBeta testing, and led the testers to look at irrelevant items and to disregard potentially important items.

8 A whistle blower has come forward saying in a sworn affidavit that Bryan Crane told him privately that he had “fixed” the RTA election, under direction from his bosses.

9. The County Treasurer has announced a plan to destroy the RTA ballots ASAP.

10. A Microsoft Access manual was seen and photographed in the vote tabulation room on election night. Use of MS Access on an election computer was and is illegal.

11. Democratic Party observers were prevented from investigating cables connected to the tabulation computer after the RTA on the pretext that it was a non-partisan election.

12. A tape of ballot layout held by the Secretary of State for use by the Attorney General in any fraud investigation was never examined during the RTA fraud investigation where it was potentially key evidence. Instead it was returned to the suspects, who “lost” it.

13. The Pima County Board of Supervisors, through their lawyers, claimed there was a substantial risk that all election employees handling the election computer would “take the fifth” and refuse to answer questions based on a fear of criminal prosecution.

14. The Pima County Board of Supervisors has never requested an internal investigation of the Election Division.

15. Neither Brad Nelson nor Bryan Crane nor any Election Division employee has been reprimanded for any violations of rules or procedures.

16. At the end of the RTA Election Day, the database was NOT backed up, as it has been in virtually every other election. The database was not backed up until three days later, (Friday at 5pm) after all results had been published.

17. The Pima County Election Division purchased a “crop scanner” computer-hacking tool ten months before the RTA election. This tool had no other purpose in the Election Division than to illegally alter the programming of precinct voting machines.

18. Jim Barry retired from his job as the County Administrator’s assistant in early 2005 and was immediately hired by the County to do a precinct by precinct study of how Pima voters had voted in bond elections, and “other duties” as assigned. Mr. Barry collected $75,000 from the County for this contract, while at the same time collecting $12,000 from a pro-RTA group for helping them with the RTA campaign.

19. The Election Department reported to the media that election night 35 precinct’s optical Scanners had failed, a memo 2 weeks later stated that 75 and now from the databases it looks to have been 149 Scanners failed.

20. The RTA databases show that several days after the Election on the 19th and 20th that 31 databases had to be reloaded for a total of 85 were loaded at least twice starting election night. Overwriting the previous precinct’s results.

John Brakey, & Co-Coordinator of Investigations Velvet Revolution http://www.velvetrevolution.us
My web site with Arizona Election Integrity News http://audit-az.blogspot.com


EDA & AUDIT-AZ’s Mission: to restore public ownership and oversight of elections, work to ensure the fundamental right of every American citizen to vote, and to have each vote counted as intended in a secure, transparent, impartial, and independently audited election process.
"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead
"Make yourself sheep and the wolves will eat you." -- Benjamin Franklin
“There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men.” -- Edmund Burke

It Seems Not All Residents Around Miller Ranch Proposed Development Are Happy

Contrary to what one of our bloggers has stated, it appears not all the residents in close proximity to the Miller Ranch proposed development are all that happy.

Below is an email from one resident sent today to council & staff. Note: I deleted the resident's name as I did not request permission to publish it.

Art
*************************************************************************************

Sent: Fri, July 16, 2010 6:47:21 AM
Subject: Re: Miller Ranch Consideration at 7/21 Mtg


Dear Council Member;


Next Tuesday, July 21, you will represent the community as the proposed development of Miller Ranch is considered for final approval.


Residents in neighborhoods adjacent to Miller Ranch have objected that the proposed Tech Park phases of the plan, as the plan now stands, violate provisions in the zoning code meant to protect us (see three references each to OV zoning code and Town Plan, below). At hastily-called official neighborhood meetings held June 15 and 22 at town hall and via emails and letters, residents have attempted to express concern about building heights and also about increased traffic noise and safety, and the possibility of other-than business-hour traffic noise/lighting on the site.


We residents believe that the proposed heights of the project's two-story buildings are not compatible with adjacent/neighboring residences (Vistoso Gateway and Vistoso Highlands across La Canada to the east are composed solely of one-story residences, the western half of the Miller Ranch parcel is zoned low-density residential, land to the north and south are residential subdivisions).

We asked that a pole study be conducted on the property to approximate the placement and height of the several two-story buildings proposed for the Tech Park in order to gauge the impact of this project upon adjacent neighborhoods and upon views along the La Canada and Tangerine scenic corridors.

Last week Oro Valley P&Z officials confirmed that "At the second neighborhood meeting on June 22, the applicant Desco Southwest, agreed to provide the poles on the property to simulate the building heights and mass of buildings. The Town notified them after the neighborhood meeting that this would need to be completed prior to the Council meeting." (underlining is added to email of 7/9, see below).

Now we learn that only two poles will be placed, and for July 16-19 only, in the approximate center of two of the proposed building locations (email of 7/15, see below).

How does a single pole represent any fair approximation of the mass of northernmost Building 13 (closest to Sunkist), a commercial office building 32-34 ft high with a gross floor area of 12,274 SF on the first floor and 10,508 SF on the second floor?

How hard would it have been to place poles in the corners of all the proposed two-story buildings to demonstrate fairly the true mass of these buildings -- and to leave these poles in place for a week or more -- so that residents and town council members might judge for themselves the visual impact of the applicant's proposed development plan?


Might I suggest that the manner in which an applicant deals with neighbors' concerns prior to approval of a project might be an indication of the manner in which this same applicant might deal with the Town after approval?

We residents adjacent to this project count on you to determine if the plan submitted by the applicant has such overriding merit and value for our town and if time is so short in the approval process that neighborhood concerns be dealt with in such a superficial manner. We believe that there are hard questions still to be asked of the developer and we hope you will ask these.


Thank You for Your Time and Consideration,
Resident's name deleted
Vistoso Gateway Resident


Back-Up Documents:
Zoning Code (ZC) 22.6. B-4, "The height, area, setbacks and overall mass… shall be appropriate to…the neighborhood and the community."

ZC 22.6 B-6, "The character proposed design shall be in harmony with and compatible to those structures in the neighboring environment and design character adopted for any given areas….

ZC 23.1.B-18, "All uses shall be of a non-nuisance type and minimal scale having a low silhouette … and compatible to adjacent residential uses …."

General Plan (GP) 2.1.4, "The Town shall require… proposals… to minimize impact on views from adjacent properties and streets... providing privacy for residents."

GP 2.1.7, "The Town shall require…proposals to incorporate means of reducing the apparent size and bulk of the buildings."

GP 7.1.1 "The Town shall strive…. to protect the integrity and aesthetic context of existing neighborhoods…"

GP 11.3.1 and 2 "View protection is to be essential" along … "scenic corridors" … of which La Canada Drive" is included. Additionally, "… new developments are to"…. maintain and/enhance the character and quality of views…. along scenic corridors" … "and especially "…discourage visually intrusive structures."