Primary Vote '96 Wasn't Very Pretty...The Voters Got Pole-Axed. By Emil Franzi WITH THE 1996 general election coming up November 5, and in the interests of safeguarding that most precious of American traditions, our democracy, we believe it appropriate to point out exactly what went wrong with the recent Pima County primary election. How bad was it? One can get a hint from the formally bound primary canvass, the official documents that contain the vote count certifying the candidates. On the cover, in big letters, it says, "Primary Election, Sept. 10, 1995." Etter's canvass contained 402 precincts, while County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez, Etter's supposed boss, oversaw an election with 407. The year, of course, is 1996--an indisputable fact, unless one happens to be among those dithering Pima County officials whose errors and misjudgments in this matter are numerous. So numerous, in fact, that in our attempt to achieve completeness, we're forced to present a bare-bones enumeration of the follies. To wit: 1. Pima County Elections Director Mitch Etter committed five major errors: a) He split precincts without formal approval of the Board of Supervisors. Etter is legally entitled to do this, although the law does not allow him to formally divide one precinct into two new ones. Etter says he was trying to make it easier for voters by cutting waiting lines--somewhat ironic given the low voter turnout for the primary. Etter could have simply doubled the voter boards and added more machines in those precincts where he expected a crowd, but he chose the complicated route. Fortunately, he was able to create extra polling places in only five of the big precincts. Unfortunately, three were heavily GOP and in Supervisorial District 3, where Ann Holden and Vicki Cox-Golder were battling in a close race. b) Etter decided to rotate the names on the ballot in these five "split" precincts. Names are rotated from precinct to precinct so that no one candidate has the advantage of consistently appearing at the top of the ballot. c) Unfortunately, Etter forgot to tell the computer programmers the names had been rotated; thus, a vote for Holden was counted for Cox-Golder, and so on down the ballot. d) Etter failed to adequately inform hundreds of voters their polling places had been moved. Besides a tiny blurb on the sample ballot voters received in the mail, they also received a post card notifying them of the switch. Unfortunately, most of the cards arrived on election day, or shortly thereafter. e) Etter presented a badly screwed-up canvass to the Board of Supervisors. Even a cursory glance would have revealed something was amiss: None of the precinct totals added up to the final numbers. For example, one small precinct, with only two registered Democratic voters, scored four votes for Sheriff and reported a 200 percent turnout. However: 2. No one--not F. Ann Rodriguez, and certainly not the supervisors--gave Etter's canvass even a cursory glance. But before we carry through with this thread of incompetence, we should point out: 3. Rodriguez, some months earlier, on her own initiative, had selected a separate system to count absentee ballots. She'd picked the so-called "bubble card" system of Global Technologies, an Albuquerque firm, to replace the county's antiquated punch card system. The supervisors earlier had refused to employ the bubble system for the entire election, saying it was too costly. According to state law, counties must count all votes on the same system. Unfortunately: 4. Arizona Secretary of State Jane Dee Hull failed to notice Pima County's ballots were counted on two different systems. Let's face it, although the law says catching this sort of crap is her responsibility, Hull has neither the budget nor the personnel to act as an elections watchdog. Why is this important? Because: 5. No one had yet figured out how to merge the two systems' vote counts. Votec, the San Diego firm charged with doing the final tally, either wasn't notified in time or was simply technologically unable to merge the counts, thus contributing to the wrong numbers on the canvass. Furthermore: 6. Rodriguez handled Etter's "split" precincts as new precincts--well, sort of. While Etter didn't consider them as new precincts, Rodriguez apparently did--for a while, anyway--and thus she numbered the "new" precincts in sequence with Pima County's other 402 precincts, giving us 403 through 407. But: 7. Schizophrenically, Rodriguez then decided the precinct splits were only temporary. So she chose not to send voters new ID cards containing those new precinct numbers; nor did she feel compelled to notify voters in any other manner. Thus folks who showed up at their original precincts found they weren't on the roster; instead, they were told they could go vote elsewhere, or vote what's called a "questioned ballot" at their original polling places. Not a good idea, because: 8. Rodriguez threw out the questioned ballots. Her reasoning, if it can be called that, is that these people were voting outside of their assigned precincts! Odd behavior from a woman who puts up campaign signs reading, "Just vote!" You'd think she'd want to count 'em when people go to the trouble, especially in light of the state statute which indicates the intent of the voter should be the first consideration when ballots are questioned. Meanwhile: 9. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry had chosen Primary Election Day to leave town. Huckelberry was assigned the task of overseeing elections after then-Supervisors' Board Clerk Jane Williams blew the job in 1994. And Huckelberry's assistant, Jim Berry, to whom Etter supposedly reports, was strangely absent from any of the proceedings. At least neither Huckelberry nor Berry can be accused of micro-management. Anyway: 10. Once the supervisors unanimously voted for a recount of all votes, the Pima County Attorney's Office flatly declared there was no way to justify one under existing statutes; the Arizona Attorney General concurred. Basically, under Arizona law, if the bureaucracy says the vote count is correct, it's correct--reasonable doubt be damned. And the burden of proof is on those seeking a recount. But because the bureaucrats admitted to blowing only five precincts, possible evidence--including computer source coding--that might have revealed serious errors occurring across all precincts was unobtainable. Furthermore: 11. The supervisors' request for a total recount was not only adamantly opposed by the Pima County Attorney's Office, its representative took the unique position of representing Etter in presenting to the court arguments against a total recount. Think about it--this move was in complete opposition to Etter's employers, the supervisors, whose attorney of record is...the County Attorney. IN SHORT, OUR primary election was badly compromised through incompetent bumbling. At the very least, Etter and Rodriguez should be disciplined, and the entire voting system must be changed. Otherwise, we voters can have no faith in the process as it's conducted in Pima County. In the meantime--See ya at the polls, suckers!

		© 1995-97 Tucson Weekly . Info Booth