It is unknown why Pima County administrator Cuck Huckelberry ordered the compilation of data generated by the failed 2015 Bond Election, but the numbers show clearly that supervisors Ray Carroll, Sharon Bronson, and Ramon Valadez have lost influence with the voters.
Carroll, Bronson, and Valadez campaigned in favor of the multiple bond measures, yet the voters in their respective districts voted in opposition to the bonds. Few expected the results due to the narrative that has been forwarded by Huckelberry’s crack public relations team. That narrative includes the implication that the supervisors are only engaging in highly questionable practices at the behest of their constituents.
In his 13 page memorandum and report, which appears to have consumed many manpower hours, Huckelberry acknowleges that the “areas that opposed the majority of the bond propositions have no common majority political party.” As a result, it is clear the the loss of confidence in the current Board is bipartisan.
Supervisors Richard Elias and Ally Miller appear to have represented the will of their constiuents. Their constituents votes align with their position on the bond.
Despite having outspent opponents to the bond, experts say that it was the relationship the supervisors have with the people in their districts that determined the outcome.
Bond Propositions Results by Board of Supervisor District
| BOS District | Supervisor | Prop. 425 Roads Yes % | Prop. 426 Economic Develop. Yes % | Prop. 427 Tourism Yes % | Prop. 428 Parks, Rec. Yes % | Prop. 429 Health, Safety, etc. Yes % | Prop. 430 Natural Areas, Historic Yes % | Prop. 431 Flood Control Yes % |
| 1 | Ally Miller | 48.49% | 37.28% | 33.21% | 40.91% | 39.00% | 38.13% | 47.21% |
| 2 | Ramon Valadez | 43.76% | 40.05% | 33.90% | 41.70% | 43.27% | 38.08% | 45.21% |
| 3 | Sharon Bronson | 44.11% | 37.60% | 32.13% | 39.98% | 40.32% | 37.52% | 45.19% |
| 4 | Ray Carroll | 41.70% | 33.98% | 28.48% | 36.42% | 35.20% | 32.07% | 41.98% |
| 5 | Richard Elias | 53.92% | 49.95% | 43.56% | 51.92% | 53.38% | 48.94% | 54.12% |
| TOTALS | 45.98% | 38.43% | 33.15% | 41.05% | 40.57% | 37.73% | 46.06% |