AlterNet: Arizona Lawsuit a Crystal Ball Into 2008 Presidential Vote Count

[marmar]

Arizona Lawsuit a Crystal Ball Into 2008 Presidential Vote Count

By Steven Rosenfeld, AlterNet. Posted December 3, 2007.

Democrats and others say access to electronic voting records may prove fraud. But local officials say releasing the data will show hackers how to rig votes.




Whether Americans will be able to verify electronic vote counts in 2008's presidential election will vary from state to state, as underscored by a little-noticed lawsuit that goes to trial this week in Pima County, Ariz., where Tucson is located.

There, in a fast-growing region, the local Democratic Party is suing the Pima County Board of Supervisors -- including its three Democratic members -- to release the complete electronic records of a 2006 election that included a ballot question on raising taxes for a $2 billion transportation bond. The measure, favored by developers, won even though it lost in prior elections and was trailing in pre-election polls.

The county's Democratic Party and local election integrity activists believe pro-growth local officials may have tampered with the electronic vote count to win. They have sworn evidence a long-time county employee who tallies the electronic vote totals took home backup tapes of the 2006 vote and accessed those vote count files before the official election results were announced. It is seeking the complete electronic voting record to determine if vote count fraud occurred.

"We are asking to get a database," said William Risner, attorney for the Election Integrity Committee of the Pima Democratic Party. "It is not our goal (in this trial) to attempt to prove that anything has happened. We want the data that would help us show that. What we are trying to do is establish our right to get the data and do an analysis. And certainly the fact they are fighting tooth and nail suggests that they have something to hide."

Pima County officials say the election records are not public documents and releasing them could actually reveal ways for partisans or the public to alter future vote counts. .....(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/rights/69418/

[LiberalFighter]

1. Not public documents?

Let's see...
They are public officials.
The devices were paid with public money.
The ballots were created under state law therefore public.
The devices were paid for the purpose of voters casting their votes.
The data compiled by the machines were the result of voters casting their votes. (Unless, the results were created by illegal criminal activities.)
The machines were transported to and from the voting locations by public employees.
The election and machines are supervised by public officials.
The election is a public election.


How could partisans or the public alter the future vote counts unless their records were already altered showing how it was done?

[LiberalFighter]

2. It appears that the pima county board of supervisors is 3 D - 2 R

What gives?