Other articles by Howard Fischer:

Failed legislative bill leaves public-financed campaigns in doubtBurns: Brewer bungling her job House approves boost in funding for those seeking office next year 3 recommended to Brewer to fill seat on high court AZ can enact own greenhouse gas regsRecession reins in sprawl Pet bills aplenty pouring forth from Legislature Brewer wants budget right away, but not those other, lesser bills Flat-tax plan could hit walletsRepeal of ban on sparklers nears final OK

Mechanical
Komatsu Equipment Co
Resident Field Mechanic Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION

PHOENIX — State lawmakers took the first steps Monday to ensure someone can be watching when cities and counties count election ballots.

The measure would allow representatives from both sides of all ballot measures to observe the counting process. Right now, only representatives of recognized political parties are guaranteed that right, and even then, only for partisan elections.

Former state representative Ted Downing said that means no one is guaranteed to be watching when they count votes for nonpartisan races, like school boards, or for ballot questions such as a bond election.

But Sen. Chuck Gray, R-Mesa, the sponsor of SB 1053, conceded Monday it will need work when it reaches the full Senate. As it is now worded, it could force counties to let 300 people or more into rooms sometimes designed for a dozen or less.

While the legislation would affect all elections statewide, it is a direct outgrowth of questions raised in 2006, when Pima County asked voters to approve a half-cent sales tax hike to fund transportation improvements.

Downing, then a Democratic state representatives from Tucson, told lawmakers Monday that election was fraught with problems. That includes questions of whether county election workers were reviewing the results of early ballots before Election Day and questions about whether someone was using an unauthorized computer program, one that Downing said could have altered the results.

But the real problem, said Downing, is that no one was allowed into the room where the counting was taking place because this was a nonpartisan election. And that, he said, left only the county employees to keep an eye on the process, which is the same thing that occurs in other counties that have similar votes at special elections.

"With that much money at stake in elections, it's right and fair that there be someone observing," Downing told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"There is a conflict of interest. When counties run elections, they're supervising an election of which they're a beneficiary," he continued. So there should be a right for someone else to be present.

Pima County took no position on the legislation. But Jennifer Sweeney, who lobbies for the Arizona Association of Counties, said the measure, as crafted, is unworkable.

She pointed out there were 19 separate statewide initiatives on the 2006 ballot. That doesn't count various other local questions, each of which would entitle two people to be in the room to watch.

Adding nonpartisan candidates or their representatives, such as for school board elections, would have brought the total number of issues that could have observers to more than 300 in Maricopa County alone.

"That's just too many people," Sweeney told legislators.

Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne added having that many people wandering around where the ballots are located could create a "security issue."

Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, said supporters of SB 1053 do have a point. But he said what may need to happen is the creation of a system where the various interested parties have to get together and select perhaps no more than 15 people to be the designated "monitors."

Monday's unanimous vote sends the measure to the full Senate.

The battle over the 2006 Pima County election resulted in an investigation by Attorney General Terry Goddard.

He eventually concluded there was no evidence of tampering. Goddard did find a county technician reviewed the results of early ballots prior to the date of the vote. But he said that was apparently done to ensure the optical scanners were reading ballots correctly, and the interim results were not shared with anyone.