Pima County, Arizona supervisors have twice rejected resolutions calling for the purchase of Diebold touch screen machines. See this story (can click "proceed to story" to avoid filling out survey) for a textbook case of how the supervisors have had to deal with bogus threats of federal penalties, election officials who assume that only touch screen machines meet the disability access requirements of the Help America Vote Act (a FALSE assumption), and Diebold pressure tactics.
Here in Winnebago County, we have been told that the feds will throw fines at us if we are not compliant with the Help America Vote Act by the September primaries. Yet in the story linked above, a Department of Justice spokesman is cited as saying that the feds have not decided yet how they will handle noncompliance. "We're currently evaluating each state and each county, and the results of that evaluation will determine what actions we take," said Eric Holland, the Justice spokesman.
A disturbing part of the story deals with why Pima County cannot use the ESS AutoMark system, a voting system looked on favorably by disability advocates. Pima County, like Winnebago County, currently uses the Diebold optical scan machines. But check this out:
". . . Diebold will not allow its equipment to be tested with competitors' equipment. That means Pima County could not buy AutoMark voting machines to use with Diebold optical scanners, [Deputy Secretary of State Kevin] Tyne said."
Is this the case in Winnebago County? Will Diebold not allow its equipment to be tested with competitors' equipment? Is this why the Board chair has to this point only allowed only one vendor--Diebold--to speak at the June 14th hearing?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
This thread is not about the merits of large v. small county boards, but it's interesting that Pima County's small board cost the taxpayers over $1 million in salaries and benefits. I believe Winnebago County's 38 member board comes in at about $300,000.
Dear Tony I wanted to give you and others the heads up that the Judiciary Committee Will be meeting at 8:30 in the Community Room on the first floor at the jail site on Jackson Street.
One topic of discussion will be a Resolution on a MOU for voter equipment - the public does have an opportunity to speak and should at this point and also on June 15 and June 21.
One point to bring up how can a resolution be discussed when a similar one was defeated in May. It is not to discuss to reconsider the resolution defeated in May but to discuss "a resolution" possibly the same resolution. Could the be violating the rules ?
I'm not sure what you mean. If Winnebago County had the same population as Pima County, would the Winnebago Couny Board then get more salary and benefits?
Note to Kent Monte: see, moderating comments preserves the right to post obnoxious comments. The courageous onceanonymous found a way to take cheap shots at Mike Norton and me in one post!
I'll go even slower: if Pima County had 38 part-time supervisors, they'd be paying out $300,000 in compensation. If Winnebago had five FULL-TIME supervisors as they do in Pima, we'd be looking at a million dollar salary and benefit package. If Pima was the same size as Winnebago, they'd STILL be paying out a million bucks in compensation, just as we would be doing if we moved to 5 full time supervisors.
No, I realize that 238 county supervisors would not be practical. I believe that Wisconsin statutes allow for a maximum of 47 supervisors in counties that have 100,000 - 500,000 residents. Seems like the statute writers were shooting for representative democracy with a practical limit on the number of elected officials. That makes sense to me.
For a county the size of Pima (i.e. about 1 million residents), I would support the US Constitution formula of one representative per 30,000 residents. They should also be part-time representatives, unlike Milwaukee County (Milwaukee is the only county in Wisconsin with full time county supervisors).
I don't know anything about Arizona law, but if Pima county switched to the formula I am suggesting here they could save themselves a ton of money (the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance has shown that large county boards spend less money per capita and, as I have shown in this thread, are less expensive to run) and probably get better representation.
And while I like what the 5 Pima County supervisors did as regards voting machines, that county is legendary for being one of the most poorly managed in the nation, experiencing a terrible sprawl problem. A few months ago in this blog there was a discussion of Loudon County, Virigia; there too a small, well compensated county board presides over badly regulated growth that drains county resources.
Dear Tony, others, and especially onceanonymous(DR?) :
On : June 12Th
at : 8:30 AM
in the Community Room-First Floor
4311 Jackson Drive-Oshkosh
The Judiciary and Public Safety Committee for Winnebago County will be discussing among things a resolution dealing with a MOU's for voting equipment voting equipment.
There is time allowed for public input.
And Tony you are right this should not be a thead on the size of the County Board. maybe Onceanonymous could start one p for us in the next few weeks.
Well, the Pima County Board caved today, voting 3-2 to purchase the Diebolds:
http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/
hourlyupdate/132424.php
by Erica Meltzer in the Arizona Daily Star:
To the sound of hisses and boos from the audience, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 3 to 2 to purchase voting equipment from Diebold Elections Systems.
The county is purchasing the equipment with $2 million in federal money to comply with the Help America Vote Act, which requires that disabled voters be able to vote in private without assistance. But critics say the machines are too easy to tamper with and could open the door to election fraud.
As part of the motion made by Supervisor Ramon Valadez, county election workers will do their own tests on the machines, and the supervisors will have to vote again on whether to actually use the machines in the September primary.
Valadez said the supervisors were advised if they didn't comply with federal law, the county might be ordered to buy the same machines with county, rather than federal, funds.
He said his motion gave the county the ability to comply with the law while preserving the option to not use the machines if the supervisors are not satisfied they are secure or if a lawsuit seeking an injunction against their use is successful.
Supervisors Richard Elias and Ray Carroll voted against the purchase, saying there were too many questions about the security of the machines.
Critics of electronic voting, several of whom pleaded with the supervisors not to buy the machines, hissed as the roll was called.
Advocates for disabled voters were not happy either.
They said the county needs to make an effort to comply with federal voting requirements for the disabled, though no machine on the market today allows all voters to vote independently.
"I still don't know if we're going to have accessible voting come September," said Peri Jude Radecic, director for public advocacy for the Arizona Center for Disability Law. "The bottom line is something has to be in place, and this vote doesn't assure that."
Post a Comment