Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Voters: Here are issues you'll be asked to decideAt least 11 measures likely to be on ballot Low cost to state aim of points-free photo radar tickets Group seeks easing of Arizona law targeting employers of illegal immigrants Appeals court: State can seize wire transfers Backers of tax boost for roads squabble over funds, petitions School vouchers OK for now, but funds aren't there Initiative to scuttle affirmative action faces court challenge New homes could get new warrantiesAz voter initiative would require 10-year new-home warranty

Production and Manufacturing
Pioneer Landscaping
Crushing Crew Trades/Construction
Pioneer Landscaping
Yard Person/Loader Operator Trades/Construction
Paragon Electric
Electricians General
Prestige maintenance USA
Custodian Trades/Construction
Wentz and Patrick Construction
Carpenters & Helpers Health Care
FRONT OFFICE Trades/Construction
Lectra-Serv, Inc
Electricians & Helpers

PHOENIX — So you think you know who will win today's election? Don't bet on it.

It could get you into trouble.

A little known law makes it a crime to even offer to wager on the outcome of an election. Violators could end up serving up to four months in county jail and paying a $750 fine.

And should you think that no one ever gets prosecuted, think again. A couple of 70-year-old men found themselves in court more than a decade ago.

Jack Bird and Loft Hollamon had bet $100 on each of five council races in Camp Verde. The pair said they hoped the attention — they even put an ad in the local paper — would help publicize the election.

Well, it got the attention of the Yavapai County Attorney's Office, which filed charges.

Superior Court Judge Richard Anderson threw the case out as "patently unconstitutional." He called gambling the "favorite national pastime."

But the state Court of Appeals, in a 1995 ruling, concluded otherwise. Appellate Judge Sarah Grant ruled that the state is legally entitled to prohibit wagering "to maintain the integrity of the electoral process."

Grant said prohibiting wagering did not improperly suppress either man's freedom of expression. And Grant rejected charges of selective prosecution, saying county attorneys have "broad discretion" in deciding whether to file charges.

Charles Hastings, the Yavapai County attorney at the time, said he eventually dropped the charges. By the time the case was sent back to Justice Court, he said, the two men had probably spent some $30,000 on legal fees, "far more than any fine would have been."

Hastings said one reason he brought the charges was that the pair had taken that newspaper ad, urging voters to come out and support each man's picks so that man would win.

"For obvious reasons, you should not be voting to help people win a bet," he said.

State Elections Director Joe Kanefield said the law appears to contain no exceptions. He said even social bets between friends could land participants in legal hot water, though he knows of no such cases in the eight years he has been handling election law issues.

The House of Representatives voted 49-9 in 1996 — a year after the appellate court ruling — to repeal the law. But the measure died after it was held by the Senate leadership.