AZ: Lawmakers reject hand count of votes

[Wilms]

Lawmakers reject hand count of votes

Capitol Media Services
Tucson, Arizona | Published: 02.14.2006

PHOENIX — State lawmakers won't mandate a manual check of election results despite questions about the accuracy of voting machines.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee refused Monday to adopt legislation requiring a hand count of ballots cast in at least 5 percent of all precincts in the state, to be compared to the count of those same ballots by optical scanners.

If there were a significant disparity between the tallies, a full hand recount would have been required.

snip

State law requires a recount when the results are within certain margins. But that law spells out that the recount, like the original vote, is done with scanners.

In this case, the machine recount turned up nearly 500 additional votes, changing the outcome of the race.

Most Judiciary Committee members were swayed by arguments about the proposal's practicality.

snip

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/115771

[hvn_nbr_2]

1. "swayed by arguments about the proposal's practicality"

Verifiable democracy is not practical. Trust me. :puke:

[JimDandy]

2. Arizona Election Activists File Citizens Initiative to Audit Elections

Hopefully, that will be tomorrow's headline! SB 1557 was amended when it passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Would someone who was there please post a brief synopsis of the committee proceedings? What, specifically, did the committee members find impractical?

[JimDandy]

3. Impotent Bill

The Arizona Daily Sun gives more details on the now impotent version of SB 1557 created by the Judiciary Committee:

Committee nixes hand count of votes

By HOWARD FISCHER
Capitol Media Services
02/14/2006

PHOENIX --

snip

As crafted, SB 1157 would have spelled out that if this sample disparity
exceeded a certain number, then the entire race would have to be recounted by
hand. And that hand count -- rather than the one by machine -- would have
become the official result.

Instead, committee members adopted a watered-down version that requires
only a much smaller sample. More to the point, even if that hand count diverged
from the one recorded by the machine, the machine count would remain the
official result.

snip

Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, said that pointed up problems with the machinery
and even the possibility of tampering.

"Voter confidence demands that citizens be assured that votes are accurately
counted," she said.

"A speedy count by computers which may give faulty or inconclusive results is
a disservice to the citizens of Arizona," Johnson continued. "The mandate is for
accurate elections, not speedy elections."

snip

Karen Osborne, Maricopa County's elections director, said some other states
do hand sampling. But she said this is designed simply to check on the
machinery, not to determine the outcome of the election.

Osborne said the now-amended bill would do the same thing in Arizona: If there
is a disparity with the machine count, that would be reported to the Secretary of
State who would use the information to determine if the equipment should be
"decertified" for use in Arizona. But the machine count would remain the official
count.

http://www.azdailysun.com/non_sec/nav_includes/story.cfm?storyID=124998

[Wilms]

4. Does Karen Osborne believe what she says?

She's also involved with the election scandal there. She's referred to in an article.

"...Elections Director Karen Osborne-D, of whom Dr. Jones reported, "Election officials appear to lack fundamental knowledge of how their election machinery operates . . .""

http://www.pdamerica.org/articles/chapters/az-2006-01-19.php