Arizonans Respond to Database Release Order

Arizonans Respond to Database Release Order
A Pima County Superior Court judge has ordered county officials to release a series of elections database records requested by the Democratic Party more than a year ago.

Reader response published in the Arizona Star

1. Comment by Fulana M. FulanaM) — May 23,2008 @ 11:28PM

What a win! Finally, transparency, integrity and justice with respect to our vote. Excellent job attorney Risner and thanks to all the people who helped out from all sides of the political spectrum.

2. Comment by Amber B. — May 24,2008 @ 12:16AM

If the RTAtax actually failed, how do we get our refund checks??

3. Comment by Ted D.(Downing) — May 24,2008 @ 12:23AM

Arizonans of all political flavors, take pride in open government, open records and responsive elected officials and government employees. This suit was a victory for ALL voters, not just Democrats. Well done, Pima County Democrats.

4. Comment by Sam P. (brown) — May 24,2008 @ 2:37AM

If the RTA HAD actually passed, there wouldn't have been all this fuss.

It would have been, "You want the data? Sure, why not, we have nothing to hide."

5. Comment by shelby m.(Maggie2) — May 24,2008 @ 4:42AM

The Pima County Democrats had to be the ones to file this lawsuit, if the Republicans had they would had been seen as sour grapes because they lost.I don't see this as Democrats leading the way, or Republicans standing in the shadows not able to do anything about this, I see this as some Americans sensing something not adding up and these Americans did some thing about it.

Thank you to the judge and thank you to these Americans who did something about it. Makes me feel like Arizona isn't becoming part of Mexico where voter fraud is commonplace.

6. Comment by Wes S. (#1) — May 24,2008 @ 4:57AM

"I think the people spoke through the Democratic Party..."

Right. Then why didn't the Democrat-controlled Board just do it in the first place?

Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll said the Democratic Party's victory extends to any concerned citizen.

He said he would have released the records in the first place,and has voted for releasing the records.

7. Comment by John H. (#4523) — May 24,2008 @ 5:31AM

I am absolutely amazed Chuckleberry hasn't straightened this judge out, pointing out how it is his decision as to what gets released. We all know that since this is a county judge he must be beholden to King Chuckleberry.

Good job judge Michael Miller but beware of Chuckleberry, the King doesn't forget.

8. Comment by Roger W. (rawlaw) — May 24,2008 @ 5:33AM

Well No. 6, maybe you should ask Ann Day who was a consistent vote to not
disclose the election records. Had she followed Ray Carroll's lead, there would have been 3 votes to disclose the records and no need for a lawsuit.

Sharon Bronson and Ramon Valadez will have to answer to voters in their Democratic primary races.

9. Comment by shelby m. (Maggie2) — May 24,2008 @ 5:49AM

Maybe Ann Day will have to answer to voters too.

Thank you #6 for bringing us that informmation.

Einstein said if you keep doing what you have been doing, you will get the same results. I'm no genius but I think if we keep electing the same people for any political position we will keep getting the same results, you think?

10. Comment by ralfie 1. (ralfie12)

I don't know who would object to releasing rsults back to the 1950s. Give Tucsonans a good look at their government.

11. Comment by fernando s. (mando1) — May 24,2008 @ 6:23AM

so.... rid us of from these crooks. recall anyone????? i
remember thinking the rta would never pass, corruption?????

12. Comment by d.t. o. (obrien)— May 24,2008 @ 6:38AM

Maybe this judge could help Ray get the budget numbers he wanted. Ray is
absolutely the only one on this board with any real concern for transparency and the citizenry, and man it must be lonely and discouraging sometimes.

We are behind you Ray, keep fighting the good fight.

13. Comment by Norma R. (#1721) — May 24,2008 @ 7:18AM

Well, I recall being at the hearings and Richard Elias was also very helpful
to the cause of transparency. And lets not forget the years of work, the countless hours of work of the attorney, the tech savvy witnesses from all over the place and the brave witnesses from inside the County who dared tell the strange goings in from within that office. Someone taking ballots home for safekeeping, as if that is somehow safer than a safe? This was a tough battle with plenty of intimidation to go around.

14. Comment by Susan S. (#2667) — May 24,2008 @ 7:37AM

Congratulations to the Pima County Democratic Party for bringing this courageous
lawsuit. All voters should be wary of an elections division that blocked open access, despite reported iiregularities. Attorney Bill Risner is an elections integrity hero.

15. Comment by Jake S. (JakeS) — May 24,2008 @ 8:19AM


Lets turn on the lights and she if any roaches run to the shadows...

16. Comment by Mike H. (#3533) — May 24,2008 @ 8:47AM

Imagine--elections actually decided by voters instead of the secret machinations of Chuck Huckelberry and his Pima County Elections Department.

17. Comment by Wayne B. (rain) — May 24,2008 @ 9:08AM

In court, the county said releasing the records could put the county elections department at risk of a security breach.

So the record denier's story is that they were the ones protecting election integrity. Why didn't the story contain more information about why they think releasing the records would compromise security?

Doesn't seem as simple as "election integrity vs imperialistic overlords" to me. What were the security concerns? The reporter either didn't find that out or wouldn't deem to tell us.

* * * * *

"Completely absent from his [Defendants' expert witness] declaration, however, was any indication that the release of the 2006 databases compromised the integrity of future elections. . . . At the most, the experts inferred in response to deposition questions that release of the 2006 databases had no impact."
--From the Under Advisement Ruling of Judge Miller [commentary by EDA editor].