Related articles:

RTA offers to fund '06 election ballot recount

Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Construction
West-Press
Printing Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Health Care
Dependable Health Services
Physical Therapists Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

Instead of destroying or continuing to mothball the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election ballots, let's recount them and put the whole controversy behind us. If they cannot be recounted at this time, then they must be preserved until any controversy surrounding that election is resolved.

Pima County Treasurer Beth Ford gave notice that she can't legally keep the ballots any longer, the Star's Andrea Kelly reported Thursday. Under state law, the county treasurer is required to keep ballots for six months and then destroy them. This batch has been in storage because of legal challenges.

Ford's announcement prompted protests from those who are still alleging irregularities with the vote and county officials.

The Pima County Democratic Party sued the county last year for access to electronic databases of vote tallies after the county refused to release them under the state public-records law. A Pima County Superior Court judge ruled in the party's favor.

As evidence in the case, the ballots have been in secure storage, although they've never been inspected, Kelly reported.

"I believe the county is settled with the RTA issue," Ford said, in giving interested parties until today to submit written opposition to destroying the ballots.

Attorney Bill Risner, who represented the Democrats in the records case, told Kelly the Democratic, Libertarian and Green parties plan to oppose the ballot destruction.

Risner said the Democratic Party is stil reviewing the electronic databases released by a judge's order in January. He said if the party finds evidence of tampering in the electronic records, the only way to determine the truth will be to count the paper ballots again, Kelly wrote.

Risner cited an affidavit from Zbigniew Osmolski, a former county transportation worker, saying a county election worker he met at a bar told him the RTA election was "fixed" on orders from his bosses.

The same election worker, however, swore under oath in the recent court case that there was no deliberate improper handling of the ballots, Kelly noted.

Supervisors Ramón Valadez and Sharon Bronson wrote Ford Wednesday objecting to destroying the ballots, Kelly reported.

We absolutely agree that the ballots must not be destroyed. As long as there are any questions about the authenticity of the RTA election, the ballots should be preserved.

Continuing to store them should be no problem. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry wrote to County Attorney Barbara LaWall Wednesday asking that the ballots be kept until the Democratic Party's analysis of the databases is complete, Kelly reported.

He also asked LaWall to seek a court order to protect Ford from any liability for keeping the documents longer than the statute requires.

Richard Elías, Board of Supervisors chairman, weighed in on the controversy by telling Kelly he thinks the ballots should be recounted.

We agree with that idea. A recount would put an end to rumors and allegations.

We asked Larry Hecker, a Tucson attorney who served as treasurer of the Yes!! committee advocating the RTA, what he thinks of a recount.

"Fine," he said. "Let's just recount the ballots. Let's resolve any uncertainty whatsoever."

We're for that. But what would it cost? We don't want to advocate profligate spending during economic times as hard as these.

We asked Brad Nelson, director of the county's division of elections. He ran the numbers and came up with an estimate of $20,000 to $25,000 to recount the approximately 120,000 RTA ballots.

The question becomes: Is it worth that much to us to put this contentiousness to bed once and for all? The supervisors must thoroughly discuss that, weigh the costs and benefits and offer up a politically and fiscally prudent answer.