Uploaded by AUDITAZ on Dec 16, 2011
Among the serious legal and security violations specific to Pima County was proof that the county elections officers and staff had been "peeking" into "who is winning and losing" days or in some cases over a week prior to election day. This was improper at best and illegal as hell if those early results "leaked". In a different 2006 election (Sept. primaries) we could see from the voting system logs that an illegal "peek" into the results occurred approximately three hours before a badly slanted "robocall" hit 5,000+ voters in the most closely contested race. We cannot prove that the "peek" resulted in a "poke", but that is the absolute appearance.
The next phase of the court actions in Pima County is get court-mandated improvements to the election process and with any luck, personnel changes. In the opening phase of the current case calling for reforms, the judge washed his hands of it two years ago saying that he had no ability to order reforms and closed our case. This despite Pima County admitting that the security of their Diebold-based voting system is "fatally flawed" in open court in the previous public records case. The AZ Supreme Court just overruled the trial court, saying that courts can control election processes and behaviors -- less than a month ago. So we're back before a Pima County judge, probably a different one which means it's "game on" as far as discovery goes. We now have a chance to both prove outright fraud happened, and get court-mandated reforms such as graphic scanning of paper ballots allowing "we the people" to do truly effective oversight for the first time in AZ since the first voting machines showed up in the 1960s.
We call this lawsuit a "two-fer" because we have a tremendous opportunity to investigate existing fraud and clean it up -- in a single court action that can be heard by a jury. And the Arizona Supreme Court just ruled that the trial court has the jurisdiction to do so -- this is not going to be bounced on a technicality! Here's the appelate court decision that the AZ Supremes just upheld: http://www.apltwo.ct.state.az.us/Decisions/CV20100001Memo.pdf