In the October 6th meeting of the Pima County Board of Supervisors, election integrity was questioned again by COVE, due in part to the controversy surrounding the Oro Valley recall election. During the Call to the Audience portion of the meeting, residents demanded a hand count audit of the upcoming election.
Leaders from the COVE group (Citizens Oversight for Verifiable Elections), Audit-AZ and residents addressed the issues related to the electronic voting process and the many creative ways to cheat the system by actively changing the vote count. Proponents of a hand count audit pointed the recent Volkswagen emissions testing scandal that made national news.
In the case of Volkswagen, a program was installed into the car’s basic algorithm that allowed it to actively mask the emissions that were released by the car. The program once placed into a vehicle would allow the car to pass a basic emissions test while in reality spewing up to 40 percent more pollutants out in its exhaust. This blatant masking and cheating on the tests were admitted by Volkswagen and has resulted in nearly half a million recalls.
Those that spoke in favor of a hand count audit stated that the Volkswagen incident is clear evidence that online and electrical balloting could lead to similar issues, particularly in hacking or outright changing the vote before they are counted.
Related articles:
Pima County Supervisors Urged To Conduct Verifiable Election
Pima County Elections Integrity commissioner resigns, administrator refuses reform
While the hand count audit would be completely randomized, and would not favor one precinct over another, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckleberry claimed that State law does not allow for a hand count. Huckelberry claimed that if the Board were to approve a hand count audit process without convening with the Secretary of State, among others, it could result in a Class 6 felony charge against all those who pushed the motion forward.
Huckleberry stated that A.R.S. 16-602, Paragraph B, Sub-paragraph F supported his claimed. It reads: “The races to be counted on the ballots from the precincts that were selected pursuant to paragraph 1 of this subsection for each primary, special and general election shall include up to five contested races. After the county recorder or other officer in charge of elections separates the primary ballots by political party, the races to be counted shall be determined by selecting by lot without the use of a computer from those ballots as follows: (f) If there are no contested races as prescribed by this paragraph, a hand count shall not be conducted for that precinct for that election.”
Huckelberry insinuated that the 2015 ballot will not have any contested races and therefore they do not qualify for a hand count audit or any other process of recounting an election. The logical solution to this would be to choose one of the contested races and conduct a hand count audit. Yet Huckleberry seemed adamant about the fact that the statute created a serious liability for the Board.
The Board has tabled the issue until their October 20th meeting. John Brakey of Audit-AZ stated after the meeting, “Verifying an election is not crime.”
Huckelberry held his own private meeting with the Board’s attorney while a member of the public addressed the Board: