Related articles:

Pima County is ordered to release data on elections Pima County Judge orders election databases released County ordered to pay Dems' attorney fees

Other articles by Erica Meltzer:

County staff in $100K club up 87% since 2006Supervisors fret about Kino money, to file brief in Phoenix garage casePima weighs new, less-complicated system of building feesPima plans to buy 4 parcels for open spacePima County set to spend $12.8 million on land purchases Major data firm drops plan for S. Ariz. site amid power concerns Firm's input on Kino Hospital shushed Off-road track at center of Court of Appeals challenge Gate near river is cut, restored County gets role in Rosemont mine study

Trades/Construction
RANCHO RESORT
MAINTANANCE POSITION Construction
West-Press
Printing Finance and Accounting
Charles E. Gillman Company
Accounting Specialist Health Care
CENTRAL ARIZONA COLLEGE
DIRECTOR OF HEALTH INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Administrative & Professional
Tucson Urban League
CEO/President Sales and Marketing
Everready Glass
Sales Reps Administrative & Professional
Jorgensen Brooks Group
Counselor

Pima County will release elections databases going back to 1998 to the political parties and pay $228,000 in legal fees to the attorney for the Democratic Party, which sued the county to force the records' release.

The Democratic Party of Pima County sued Pima County in April 2007 to obtain past elections databases. Party members were concerned about Elections Division handling of computer databases, and also argued that in an era of electronic record-keeping, examining computer files is part of the oversight duty of political parties.

Pima County Superior Court Judge Michael Miller ordered the release of the 2006 primary and general-election databases in December.

The Board of Supervisors also voluntarily released records from the Regional Transportation Authority, and Miller subsequently ordered the release of electronic databases from all past and future elections, and ordered the county to pay the party's attorney's fees.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously Tuesday not to appeal the decisions after a closed-door session to hear from its attorneys.

Elections-integrity activists applauded the decision.

That brings an end to a legal battle that included a five-day trial and a second set of hearings in which the county fought not to release the databases because their release would represent a security risk.

The county will release all computer files from elections going back to 1998.

The supervisors also voted that files be stamped with an electronic fingerprint, called a "HASH mark," before their release.

Elections-integrity activist John Brakey said the Democratic Party does not object to the files being hashed, but there are a few details to work out.

As is common in public-records lawsuits, Pima County was ordered to pay $228,000 to attorney Bill Risner, who represented the Democratic Party.

The databases from past elections are scheduled to be released Monday. County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said databases for future elections will be made available at the time of the canvass.

Brakey said his group is working with a computer expert from Ohio to develop a program to analyze the past databases for irregularities.

The focus now shifts to making sure there is no way to tamper with future elections.

Huckelberry has recommended changes to the way the Elections Division is run, many of them backed by or first suggested by the Democratic Party.

Also, the Board of Supervisors has voted to put scanned copies of ballots online so citizens can do their own recount, though there are logistical and legal challenges to overcome.

John Moffatt, a technology expert with the county, said he is working on a way to do a public analysis of the election after the polls close that can be observed by anyone.

"What we're trying to do is restore the information flow so they can see all the steps and people can draw their own conclusions," Moffatt said.

The Board of Supervisors decided not to appeal a state Court of Appeals decision that found Tucson Botanical Gardens should not have to pay property tax on its gift shop and other moneymaking activities.