Donna Branch-Gilby recalls fateful meeting.

Other articles by Erica Meltzer:

County incentive for Flowing Wells: from blight to bright economy, jobsPima County's breaks for small business may growIf D-backs leave, Sox will payIllegally bladed land vacant months laterCounty to cut 23 workers in planning, permit areaD-backs looking to leave here; Rockies, too County elections praised as well-run County accepts $5M for White Sox to leave cityPima County accepts White Sox buyout offerWhite Sox offer $5M to break Tucson deal

General
CORT
Warehouse Supervisor Health Care
Rio Salado College
PA's/Online Instructors General
CORT
WAREHOUSE/DRIVER Construction
Komatsu Equipment Co
Mechanic Education
Assessment Technology, Inc
Social Studies Content Writer

Donna Branch-Gilby describes the moment she decided to run against Pima County Supervisor Sharon Bronson as an epiphany.

After Branch-Gilby and other activists had battled the county more than a year for the release of voting databases, a Pima County Superior Court judge ordered the release of databases from the 2006 primary and general elections.

The Board of Supervisors was set to decide whether to appeal that decision at its Jan. 8 meeting, and Branch-Gilby was there, along with dozens of Democratic Party and elections-integrity activists, to ask the board not to prolong the fight.

Branch-Gilby already had been considering a run against Bronson, but doing so would mean resigning her position as vice chair of the state party and a superdelegate to the Democratic National Convention.

As Branch-Gilby tells it, when she heard Bronson say the county should appeal, she thought, "Oh no, I'm going to have to give up my seat at the convention."

But Bronson noted that she never said the county should appeal, and the minutes of the meeting back her up.

"I know what I said. I know what I did. I stand by that. I did not vote to appeal. I voted to comply," Bronson said.

Meeting minutes show Bronson made the motion to not appeal and to comply with the judge's decision.

What she didn't do, at first, was agree to the release of the Regional Transportation Authority voting databases, as proposed by Republican Supervisor Ray Carroll.

Branch-Gilby said she understands the record does not match her memory, but she stands by her version of events.

"That's my memory of it and the memory of my neighbor who was sitting next to me," she said.

"It was quite a shock. And by that time, I had learned all of these other things about what the board wasn't doing, like really looking at water and land use.

"I wouldn't have given up that opportunity (to be a superdelegate) if I didn't feel that I needed to run," she added.

Branch-Gilby, who is challenging Bronson in the Sept. 2 Democratic primary in supervisory District 3, said her problems with the way the county dealt with concerns about elections integrity go beyond just one vote.

If she had been in office, she said, she wouldn't have bought the Diebold touch-screen voting machines that so concern activists.

And she would have sought a substantial audit of the RTA election, which imposed a half-cent sales tax to pay for a 20-year, $2 billion transportation plan.

"This could have been taken care of last year, without all the attorney's fees," Branch-Gilby said.

She also would have re- examined the county attorney's advice after the judge first ordered the release of documents, she said.

A week after she voted not to appeal, Bronson voted to fight the release of any more voting databases and to oppose paying attorney's fees to the Democratic Party.

Under state law, a party that sues successfully for public records is entitled to attorney's fees, but in the case of the Democratic Party lawsuit, the county argued the voting databases were not public records, but rather computer programs.

"I would have looked carefully at who was giving the advice, and the first time the judge said this is a public record, I would have re-evaluated the basis on which the county attorney said it wasn't," Branch-Gilby said.

If elected, Branch-Gilby said she would push for better management and training in the elections division and seek a director who had more computer knowledge.

Bronson said she continues to be concerned about the security risk of releasing the databases, but she wants to move forward.

"We complied with nine out of 10 requests made by the Democratic Party," Bronson said.

"The sticking point was whether the voter files were public. We indicated from the beginning we share the concerns of the Democratic Party. The ultimate solution lies at the state and federal level, with legislative changes."

How Pima County Supervisor Sharon Bronson voted:

• A $2.1 million contract to buy touchscreen voting machines appeared on the Board of Supervisors' consent agenda on May 2, 2006. Consent agenda items are voted on en masse because they are routine items, but elections-integrity activists contend the touchscreen voting machines are too easily hacked.

Bronson had the item removed from consent and voted to continue it to get more information.

• The supervisors held a closed session to receive legal advice before voting to go ahead with the purchase on June 6, 2006. Bronson, who seconded the motion and voted with the majority, said she feared not buying the voting machines would put the county in violation of the Help America Vote Act, which required local governments to buy equipment that would allow disabled voters to vote without assistance.

• When the Pima County Democratic Party sued to force the county to turn over elections databases, Bronson voted to fight the lawsuit. After the supervisors came out of closed session June 19, 2007, to get legal advice, she made the motion to authorize the county attorney to take actions to prevent the release of the information.

• In December 2007, a Pima County Superior Court judge ordered the release of databases from the 2006 general and primary elections, but not from the Regional Transportation Authority election from that same year.

• The Board of Supervisors met Jan. 8, 2008, to decide whether to appeal the lawsuit.

Bronson said the supervisors should stay in open session rather than go into closed session, as they were legally entitled to do. She made a motion to not appeal the decision, meaning the records would be released. She did not accept an amendment from Supervisor Ray Carroll to also release the RTA records.

"I think there are some legal impediments at this time and statutory issues," she said. "I think that that's eventually where we all want to be, but I think those have to be resolved before we can can do that."

After a raucous debate in which elections-integrity activists said they were "disgusted" with having to "beg for records," Supervisor Richard Elías made a motion to reconsider, then a motion to release the RTA databases as well. Bronson seconded the motion, and the board voted unanimously to release the records.

• A week later, Bronson voted to oppose an effort by the Democratic Party to get the remainder of old elections databases released, as well as a request to pay the Democratic Party's attorney fees.

• The Superior Court judge ordered the release of the remainder of the databases and told the county to pay attorney's fees. Bronson voted not to appeal after a closed session on June 3, 2008.

• On July 1, 2008, Bronson voted in favor of a series of changes to elections procedures. Activists from the Democratic Party supported many of the changes but continue to have concerns.