Sponsored by

Note: This story is more than 3 years old.

McSally threatens suit to stop provisional count

Thousands of ballots still to tabulate in Pima County

See this Wednesday night update: McSally pulls out 161-vote win in CD2, recount coming

See this update from Monday night: Barber picks up more votes, McSally up by 179

See this update from Monday: Judge denies McSally move, says to continue counting Pima ballots

Republican congressional candidate Martha McSally's lawyers said Sunday they may go to court to halt the processing of provisional ballots, saying they are challenging the validity of provisional ballot forms that were not signed by elections officials.

A lawyer for the McSally campaign and the Republican Party asked the Pima County Recorder's Office on Sunday to stop processing provisional ballots or sending them to be counted by the Elections Department, "pending a review of the provisional ballot forms for missing election official signatures."

County officials refused to halt processing ballots.

"We are proceeding as planned," County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez emailed in response to the challenge.

McSally's lawyers didn't state how many ballots, if any, they believe may be at issue, and did not immediately respond to questions on the challenge from TucsonSentinel.com. Comment from officials at the Elections Department wasn't immediately available.

Barber's campaign blasted the move to challenge the ballots, and slow or halt the vote count, with spokeswoman Ashley Nash-Hahn saying that it was a "clear example of McSally trying to deny Southern Arizonans our right to vote."

"Martha McSally will do anything to stop Southern Arizonans from making their voice heard at the ballot box," Nash-Hahn wrote in an email. "We've seen her tricks before, when she tried to throw out votes in Cochise County."

In an election night speech, Barber also referred to McSally's 2012 move to have ballots removed from the count in Cochise County, saying Democrats wouldn't let that happen in this election.

Support TucsonSentinel.com today, because a smarter Tucson is a better Tucson.

McSally is targeting ballots from six Pima County precincts, five of them within CD 2, Democratic Party sources with knowledge of the vote count said.

Five of those precincts voted overwhelmingly for President Barack Obama over Mitt Romney in 2012 (precincts 53, 57, 58, 100, and 113) while the precinct outside the district swung for the Republicans.

The challenge

"Page 152 of the Secretary of State’s Election Procedures Manual states that, prior to voting a provisional ballot: 'An election official or voter completes a provisional ballot form.  The voter and the election official sign the provisional ballot form,'" attorney Eric Spencer of Snell & Wilmer wrote Sunday morning in an email to elections officials.

"In response to your challenge, the Pima County Recorder’s Office will not stop processing the provisional ballots. Whether or not the poll worker signed the provisional is clearly identifiable from a simple examination of the provisional ballot form whether or not the provisional is processed by the Recorder’s Office. Therefore our processing has no bearing as to your challenge.  In other words, the fact that we processed the provisional form will not impact your ability to proceed with your challenge. The Recorder’s Office is under a statutory deadline to complete processing the provisional ballots and we will continue to proceed toward meeting that deadline," replied Deputy County Recorder Chris Roads.

In an email exchange, McSally's attorney's appeared to back off their request that the county cease processing all ballots pending a review for such signatures by elections officials, but continued to maintain that the Recorder's Office should review each provisional ballot before sending it to the Elections Office.

Roads said stopping the process because of a missing signature on the form accompanying a ballot would halt the review of votes.

"Nothing the Recorder’s Office does to the provisional ballots in any way, shape, or form impacts the identification of provisional ballots that may or may not be missing poll worker signatures," he wrote in another email to the Republicans' attorney.

"Even when we have finished processing the provisional ballots, the forms readily identify whether they were signed by a poll worker or not. Therefore there is no legal reason whatsoever for the Recorder’s Office to stop processing any forms. In our procedures, all forms from a single voting area must be handed off together. Therefore stopping processing one that may not contain a poll worker signature results in holding up all forms from that voting area," Roads wrote.

Roads told Spencer to deal with the Elections Department rather than the Recorder's Office.

"You included both and I responded for our office. I have not seen a response from the Elections Department and I do not know whether or not Brad Nelson is even sitting at his computer to monitor the emails," he said. "I will not debate you any further on this issue."

Rodriguez said 9,254 provisional ballots had been checked once, with 5,312 having been rechecked and transferred to the Elections Department for counting.

There were 693 provisionals that were classified as "non-verified" but needing a second review, she said.

Ballot review continues, new count to be released Monday

There'll be no new totals of the vote count in Southern Arizona's congressional race until Monday.

Citing the pace of verifying provisional ballots and the need to conduct an audit of the count, Pima County officials said Saturday that they would continue the ballot tally over the weekend but not release new numbers until sometime Monday.

"Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson said today that the Elections Department will work this weekend preparing ballots for counting that it receives from the Recorder’s Office this weekend and will count them all on Monday," said county spokesman Mark Evans via email.

About 2,200 of the roughly 9,000 provisional ballots were turned over by the Recorder's Office on Friday and Saturday, Evans said.

There are also about 3,000 damaged ballots that must be duplicated to be counted, Nelson said.

"That duplication is being done today and tomorrow under observation of the political parties," he said in an emailed statement. "It is a time-consuming process to transfer all votes from one ballot to another. Once that original duplication is performed by a two member board, the ballot is then reviewed for accuracy by an additional board."

A hand-count audit of returns from 10 precincts and about 10 batches of early ballots, which took from 7:30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Saturday, confirmed that "the tabulation equipment in Pima County is counting correctly," Nelson said. "That audit required members of the election office staff, along with approximately 60 auditors designated by the political parties, to be absent from the election center," he said.

If an updated count can be released sooner than Monday, "we will certainly make every effort to do so," Nelson said.

The latest count: McSally up 509

In the latest results, Martha McSally led U.S. Rep. Ron Barber by just 509 votes Friday, after being up just a few dozen votes in the count Wednesday morning. Barber picked up 455 votes in the spread as Pima County reported additional vote tallies Friday night, but the count moved in McSally's favor as Cochise County tallied another 1,000 votes.

Other close local races also hang in the balance. In one hotly contested race, incumbent Republican Ethan Orr was narrowly losing his state House seat.

The current totals in CD 2 are 105,687 for the Republican challenger, and 105,178 for the Democratic incumbent in the CD 2 race. After an additional 16,000 votes were tallied Friday, about 13,126 ballots remain to be tabulated in Pima County, with many of them potentially affecting the race.

Cochise counted about 1,065 ballots Friday, adding to the totals there. There are reportedly just 2 conditional provisional ballots left to verify there.

In 2012, Barber won by just 2,454 votes when all the votes were counted — which took days. His margin was less than one percent of the votes cast in the race.

"As expected, the vote leads continue to go up and down. Thousands of ballots remain to be counted in Pima County, where Ron is leading, and we will likely see the trend go in the direction of 2012," said Barber spokeswoman Ashley Nash-Hahn in an email Friday night. While Cochise County is a Republican stronghold, results from the more populated Pima County lean more Democratic.

McSally broke a days-long silence on the race Saturday, posting on Facebook a claim that "there are 11,000 MORE ballots left to count in Pima County than we were originally told for the past 3 days!"

"So there are now approximately 13,000 ballots left to count in Pima and zero in Cochise," she wrote. TucsonSentinel.com has reported for days that there were around 10,000 provisional ballots to verify and tabulate in the race.

McSally declined to respond to questions as to why she claimed there were additional Pima ballots she didn't know about previously.

While McSally has led Barber since early Tuesday evening, her lead has shifted as new votes totals have been reported.

In results released Wednesday morning, McSally led Barber 78,785 to 78,749. In the afternoon, as Cochise County reported results, she increased her lead to 90,345-88,267.

As Pima County tallied more votes Wednesday, McSally's overall lead fell to a 94,103-92,810 (1,293 votes) spread.

Thursday, as Pima County tabulated another 16,000 votes, Barber's deficit dropped 960 votes, to just a 363-vote spread.

Midday Friday, new returns from Cochise bumped McSally back to a 772-vote lead, but Pima County votes released at 5:48 p.m. gave Barber a few more votes, moving the difference between the candidates to 317.

An update about an hour later from Cochise increased the totals for both, but gave McSally an edge, with 509 separating the two candidates.

About 3,700 Pima ballots remain to be counted, with about another 9,400 provisional ballots to be reviewed and possibly added to the tally if they prove valid. Most provisionals reviewed thus far have been added to the count.

While it's not known how many of the outstanding ballots are from CD 2, about 10,500 of the votes added to the count on Thursday were from the district, as were 10,259 of the 16,118 processed Friday, said Evans.

An automatic recount would occur if the difference between the candidates is 200 votes or less, or less than 0.1 percent of all the ballots cast in the race.

Read more about the long count in Pima County

Thanks for reading TucsonSentinel.com. Tell your friends to follow us on Facebook and Twitter.

The last few elections to determine Southeastern Arizona's congressional representative have taken days to tally, and this one looks to be no different.

In Pima County, a complete vote count could take until next Thursday, Pima County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said. Broken election machines and a high number of difficult-to-read ballots have slowed the process, he said.

With more than 40,000 ballots left to count on Thursday morning, Huckelberry said that a "higher than average number of ballots that cannot be read by the existing scanners" and two broken ballot scanners were contributing to the long count.

Statewide, there were still nearly 134,000 ballots awaiting tabulation across the state, according to data released by the Secretary of State's Office on Friday

As of 5 p.m., those ballots included some 88,000 in Maricopa County, nearly 10,000 in Pinal County, and Pima County's remaining ballots. Most other counties had 1,000-2,000 ballots left to be tallied.

In Pima County, which is partly covered by Barber's CD 2, there were about 13,000 ballots remaining to review Friday night. In a process that can take up to 10 days, provisional ballots and early ballots handed in on Election Day must be verified before they can be counted. There were about 3,726 ballots remaining to be counted at the Elections Department, and roughly 9,400 provisional ballots still needing to be verified, Evans said.

The 16,000 votes counted Friday was higher than the figure of 14,000 ballots remaining to count "because the estimate on the number of duplicated ballots to count was too low last night," Evans said.

Not all provisional ballots will be valid. The reason for the delayed count is the process of reviewing early ballots returned on Election Day, to ensure that duplicate ballots were not cast by individual voters, and the verification of provisional ballots.

Voters can drop mail-in ballots at polling places on Election Day, so officials review the voter rolls to ensure that voters do not vote more multiple times. Otherwise, a voter could cast a mail-in ballot and also vote in person at the polls.

Provisional ballots are cast by voters who do not have the proper ID, who are not listed on the rolls of the polling place they are casting a ballot at, and for other reasons. For voters who lacked proper ID, they have until 5 p.m. next Wednesday to provide proof of their identity at the County Recorder's Office, in order for their vote to be counted.

In Yuma County, the count will be halted over the weekend, and resume Monday, according to the Secretary of State's Office.

In one of the few hotly contested local legislative races, incumbent Republican Ethan Orr was narrowly losing his state House seat in LD 9. After Friday's update, Democratic incumbent Victoria Steele had 32,053, Orr had 31,584 and Democratic challenger Randy Friese had 31,783 votes in the vote-for-two contest.

Although the Dems focused on beating Orr, whom they believed they could oust from his seat in a Democratic-leaning district, other Ds were running worse than expected in state House races in solid blue districts.

In LD 2, incumbent Demion Clinco — appointed earlier this year — trailed seat-mate Rosanna Gabaldon and GOP challenger Chris Ackerley by about 2,000 votes. In LD 4, Charlene Fernandez was up 300 votes over Republican Richard Hopkins, as updates from Yuma County shifted the race. Earlier, she had trailed, while fellow Democrat Lisa Otondo led the pack.

Read more about Cochise County's ballot troubles

Technical troubles in Cochise County — where McSally made a strong 59-41 percent showing in 2012 — again delayed a complete tally there. In a repeat of problems demonstrated in the August primary, county officials said that they delivered their early ballots to Graham County to be counted.

"Due to discrepancies between the early ballot counting machine numbers and the handwritten tally, the County's early ballots have been delivered to Graham County for tabulation," said a notice on the Cochise website Wednesday.

While Cochise officials said on their website that the early ballot count should be completed Wednesday, there were still a couple thousand left to tally on Thursday evening.

Jim Vlahovich, the interim director of the county's election department, said 2,121 early ballots and 1,161 provisionals remained to be counted.

Incomplete returns reported from Cochise showed McSally up 8,318 to 3,911 over Barber Wednesday morning, with tally that afternoon at 19,864-13,415 in favor of the Republican.

Friday morning, the count stood at 21,117 for McSally to 14,259 for Barber. Friday night, the 6:41 p.m. report showed McSally up 27,731-14,681 in the heavily GOP county.

Vlahovich said Thursday that he didn't yet have an explanation for the problems with the Cochise count.

Friday, Cochise had tallied nearly all of its votes, with just a pair of conditional provisional ballots left to verify.

Earlier

Barber campaign advisor Rodd McLeod said Wednesday that the congressman pushed Democrats to vote early in Cochise County.

"We don't think we're going to lose (the early vote) by anywhere near the numbers we lost the Election-Day ballot," he said. "All the tens of thousands of (still uncounted) Pima votes will even it out and we'll lead in the end," he said.

Team Barber continued to put out the message that they'll win, with Nash-Hahn saying Wednesday evening that, "As we expected, vote leads have gone up and gone down. Protecting the integrity of the vote is our priority. There are still tens of thousands of votes to be counted in Pima County, where Ron currently has a lead."

McSally also sounded a note of confidence, posting on her Facebook page Wednesday: "Right now, there are still many ballots to be counted and the race is too close to be called. It's critical that every last vote is counted and that all Arizonans have their voices heard."

Speaking to supporters just before 10 p.m. Tuesday night, Barber said he'd be re-elected.

Saying his campaign decided to "take the high road, rather than the low road," Barber noted his lead in the early vote count and said, "We are going to win this seat."

"We're making sure that dark money doesn't have a victory in Arizona," Barber said. "This is the third-most expensive House race in the country, because outside forces wanted to win this seat."

The vote count tightened after Barber spoke, with his lead dropping a point, to about 1,400 votes at that point.

"Man, you guys are the people who like to stay up late," said McSally to a thinning crowd of supporters around 10:30 p.m.

"We don't expect a decision tonight, so don't feel like you have to stay around late," she said.

"We have no regrets, we didn't leave anything on the table. We worked to get every vote. And we want to make sure that every last vote is counted," she said. "Looks like it's going to be another long night."

After McSally left the podium, "We are the Champions" by Queen played on the sound system.

Election results

Updated Jul. 18 5:25:39 am

Voter Turnout

Pima County: 55.04%
Statewide: 47.52%



U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 1

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
KIRKPATRICK, ANN (DEM)62,7244,28397,39152.38%
TOBIN, ANDY (REP)60,5843,38887,72347.18%
Write-in583498030.43%

U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 2

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
MCSALLY, MARTHA (REP)75,9373,487109,70449.81%
BARBER, RON (DEM)85,0553,503109,54349.73%
Write-in709421,0070.46%

U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 3

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GRIJALVA, RAUL (DEM)30,9944,17358,19255.71%
SAUCEDO MERCER, GABBY (REP)20,1302,52546,18544.21%
Write-In00790.08%


GOVERNOR

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DUCEY, DOUG (REP)232,43214,192805,06253.45%
DUVAL, FRED (DEM)202,05013,105626,92141.62%
HESS, BARRY J. (LBT)17,7761,23057,3373.81%
MEALER, JOHN LEWIS (AEL)5,15237915,4321.02%
Write-in1,119891,5740.10%

SECRETARY OF STATE

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
REAGAN, MICHELE (REP)226,24614,131779,22652.19%
GODDARD, TERRY (DEM)226,91914,382712,91847.75%
Write-in656739900.07%

ATTORNEY GENERAL

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
BRNOVICH, MARK (REP)225,34913,926782,36152.88%
ROTELLINI, FELECIA (DEM)223,31214,293696,05447.04%
Write-in789781,2120.08%

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DOUGLAS, DIANE M. (REP)225,09813,844740,27350.52%
GARCIA, DAVID (DEM)219,40814,337724,23949.42%
Write-in566678440.06%

CORPORATION COMMISSIONER (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
LITTLE, DOUG (REP)220,82712,382766,86428.78%
FORESE, TOM (REP)215,41611,953761,91528.59%
KENNEDY, SANDRA (DEM)190,62612,184576,48221.63%
HOLWAY, JIM (DEM)180,7999,458557,96320.94%
Write-in996971,4400.05%


STATE SENATOR - DIST. 2

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DALESSANDRO, ANDREA (DEM)17,65689022,90154.97%
ESTRELLA, DANIEL (REP)13,68666718,70744.90%
Write-in316540.13%

STATE REP. - DIST. 2 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GABALDÓN, ROSANNA (DEM)16,48679721,20036.49%
ACKERLEY, JOHN CHRISTOPHER (REP)14,51765819,65633.83%
CLINCO, DEMION (DEM)13,48554017,08029.39%
Write-in12281700.29%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 4

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
PANCRAZI, LYNNE (DEM)6,0142,44014,46453.74%
URIBE, CONNIE (REP)3,8441,23212,42346.15%
Write-In00290.11%

STATE REP. - DIST. 4 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
OTONDO, LISA (DEM)5,6052,11613,32435.32%
FERNANDEZ, CHARLENE (DEM)5,1112,15012,25132.48%
HOPKINS, RICHARD (REP)3,5881,06612,06331.98%
Write-In00850.23%

STATE REP. - DIST. 9 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
STEELE, VICTORIA (DEM)26,22395233,42533.51%
FRIESE, RANDALL ''RANDY'' (DEM)26,03487533,05933.14%
ORR, ETHAN (REP)23,51399332,92833.01%
Write-in219153360.34%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 10

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
BRADLEY, DAVID (DEM)26,8451,20334,33452.22%
MORRISON, MARK (REP)22,2301,04131,30747.62%
Write-in7061030.16%

STATE REP. - DIST. 10 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
WHEELER, BRUCE (DEM)25,7801,01632,73127.46%
MACH, STEFANIE (DEM)24,70798231,16326.14%
CLODFELTER, TODD (REP)21,17094629,94025.12%
WILDISH, WILLIAM (REP)18,16771325,24021.17%
Write-in8981250.10%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 11

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
SMITH, STEVE (REP)27,9591,24338,39758.99%
HOLT, JO (DEM)20,97479226,62840.91%
Write-in413670.10%


PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST 1 (SELECT 1)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
HANNA, MARK20,23471026,69851.18%
DURAN, MICHAEL19,84661425,17948.26%
Write-in187232920.56%

CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER BOARD (SELECT 4)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
MEGDAL, SHARON101,6413,563129,39722.56%
NOVAK CESARE, KAREN93,4583,530120,80721.07%
JACOBS, PAT88,0283,414114,52319.97%
TENNEY, WARREN86,1402,942110,28219.23%
MEHL, WESLEY71,6162,91794,93316.55%
Write-in2,5131583,5020.61%

TUCSON UNIFIED S.D. 1 (SELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GRIJALVA, ADELITA S.26,6051,38034,34719.48%
HICKS, MICHAEL20,72291228,70816.28%
DARLAND, JEN22,02575028,19115.99%
COTTON, DON14,11058818,94410.74%
CAMPOS-FLEENOR, DEBE12,46259417,64710.01%
PUTNAM-HIDALGO, BETT12,62456216,9279.60%
BERNAL, RENÉ12,10752315,4248.75%
CUEVAS, MIGUEL8,75354111,5816.57%
SAITTA, FRANCIS P.3,0531263,9522.24%
Write-in374425850.33%

SUNNYSIDE UNIFIED S.D. 12 (SELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
HERNANDEZ JR., DANIE4,5082635,78044.57%
CARRILLO DONG, EVA3,0591623,83229.55%
PAVEY, MALCOM R.2,5251223,26925.21%
Write-in605880.68%


PROP. 122

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
YES221,18314,170707,45151.24%
NO202,92811,273673,33748.76%

PROP. 303

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
YES338,31819,0121,111,85078.47%
NO89,3506,738304,97121.53%

PROP. 304

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
NO303,30518,101966,60567.89%
YES126,2467,833457,21632.11%
- 30 -
have your say   

Comments

There are no comments on this report. Sorry, comments are closed.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click image to enlarge

via Pima County elections webcam

Workers at the Pima County elections center, tallying ballots Saturday afternoon.

Email exchange between McSally camp and Recorder's Office

From: Spencer, Eric [mailto:espencer@swlaw.com] Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 9:47 AM

To: F. Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov

Cc: Recorder-admin; Mary.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Tweeten, Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda; jkaucher@gustlaw.com

Subject: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Importance: High

Ms. Rodriguez and Mr. Nelson,

The Republican Party/McSally for Congress campaign (collectively "the campaign") formally challenges the validity of all provisional ballots that have a provisional ballot form with a missing election official signature.

Page 152 of the Secretary of State's Election Procedures Manual states that, prior to voting a provisional ballot: "An election official or voter completes a provisional ballot form. The voter and the election official sign the provisional ballot form." After voting the ballot, "[t]he voter will return the sealed envelope to the election official, who will verify the envelope is properly filled out, signed and sealed." Id. Accordingly, the campaign respectfully requests the following immediate relief:

· The recorder's office instruct staff to not verify any provisional ballots with a missing election official signature on the provisional ballot form;

· The recorder's office cease transmitting any previously-verified provisional ballots to the elections department, pending a review of the provisional ballot forms for missing election official signatures;

· The elections department cease processing any provisional ballots or transmitting any provisional ballots for counting, pending a review of the provisional ballot forms for missing election official signatures; and

· The recorder's office and elections department collect and embargo any provisional ballots that contain a provisional ballot form with missing election official signatures, pending a final legal review and determination in conjunction with the County Attorney's office.

Given the exigency of this matter, please confirm by 10:15 a.m. that the recorder's office and elections department will immediately implement these prophylactic procedures.

Very truly yours,

Eric Spencer

Eric H. Spencer

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Office: 602.382.6573

espencer@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com/eric_spencer

From: Chris J Roads [mailto:Chris.Roads@recorder.pima.gov] Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 10:05 AM

To: Spencer, Eric; F. Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov

Cc: Recorder-admin; Mary.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Tweeten, Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda; jkaucher@gustlaw.com

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Mr. Spencer,

In response to your challenge, the Pima County Recorder's Office will not stop processing the provisional ballots. Whether or not the poll worker signed the provisional is clearly identifiable from a simple examination of the provisional ballot form whether or not the provisional is processed by the Recorder's Office. Therefore our processing has no bearing as to your challenge. In other words, the fact that we processed the provisional form will not impact your ability to proceed with your challenge. The Recorder's Office is under a statutory deadline to complete processing the provisional ballots and we will continue to proceed toward meeting that deadline.

Please note that your extremely short deadlines for responses are unreasonable. Under Arizona law we have a reasonable time to respond to public records requests and other matters. A deadline of less than 30 minutes is far less than reasonable. Both candidates have attorneys on site in our office observing our processes and tracking the work we are doing. Chris Roads

Chief Deputy Recorder/Registrar of Voters

Pima County Recorder's Office

From: Spencer, Eric [mailto:espencer@swlaw.com] Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 10:21 AM

To: Chris J Roads; F. Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov

Cc: Recorder-admin; Mary.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Tweeten, Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda; jkaucher@gustlaw.com

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Importance: High

Mr. Roads,

Thank you for your response. However, I do not believe that your response directly addressed the issues raised in our challenge. First, I would like to clarify the response time horizon. The campaign merely asked for confirmation within 30 minutes that the recorder's office and elections department intended to implement the requested protective measures. The campaign certainly did not expect the identification, collection and embargo process to be completed within 30 minutes.

Second, the campaign did not request that all provisional ballot processing cease altogether, as your response appears to assume. With respect to the recorder's office, the campaign requested:

1. That any future provisional ballot found with a missing signature be rejected as unverified, and set aside pending a legal review. This universe could end up being quite small.

2. That the recorder's office, in conjunction with political party observers, conduct a review of previously-verified provisional ballots before those ballots are transmitted to the elections department.

This strikes me as a very reasonable and limited request that will not impede your office's statutory processing deadlines. Once the ballots in question are segregated, which again – could be a quite limited universe – the parties can make a final legal determination. To confirm, the campaign is not requesting that the recorder's office cease processing valid provisional ballots.

In light of these clarifications, and in order to preclude the parties from having to unnecessarily seek special action relief in Superior Court, please confirm whether the recorder's will implement these targeted protective measures,.

Very truly yours,

Eric Spencer

Eric H. Spencer

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Office: 602.382.6573

espencer@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com/eric_spencer

From: Spencer, Eric Sent: Sunday, November 09, 2014 10:21 AM

To: 'Chris J Roads'; F. Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov

Cc: Recorder-admin; Mary.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Tweeten, Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda; jkaucher@gustlaw.com

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Importance: High

Mr. Roads,

Thank you for your response. However, I do not believe that your response directly addressed the issues raised in our challenge. First, I would like to clarify the response time horizon. The campaign merely asked for confirmation within 30 minutes that the recorder's office and elections department intended to implement the requested protective measures. The campaign certainly did not expect the identification, collection and embargo process to be completed within 30 minutes.

Second, the campaign did not request that all provisional ballot processing cease altogether, as your response appears to assume. With respect to the recorder's office, the campaign requested:

1. That any future provisional ballot found with a missing signature be rejected as unverified, and set aside pending a legal review. This universe could end up being quite small.

2. That the recorder's office, in conjunction with political party observers, conduct a review of previously-verified provisional ballots before those ballots are transmitted to the elections department.

This strikes me as a very reasonable and limited request that will not impede your office's statutory processing deadlines. Once the ballots in question are segregated, which again – could be a quite limited universe – the parties can make a final legal determination. To confirm, the campaign is not requesting that the recorder's office cease processing valid provisional ballots.

In light of these clarifications, and in order to preclude the parties from having to unnecessarily seek special action relief in Superior Court, please confirm whether the recorder's will implement these targeted protective measures,.

Very truly yours,

Eric Spencer

Eric H. Spencer

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Office: 602.382.6573

espencer@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com/eric_spencer

From: Spencer, Eric [mailto:espencer@swlaw.com] Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 10:35 AM

To: Chris J Roads; F. Ann Rodriguez; brad.nelson@pima.gov

Cc: Recorder-admin; Mary.Martinson@pima.gov; Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov; Tweeten, Carlie; Jenkins, Amanda; jkaucher@gustlaw.com

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Mr. Roads,

Furthermore, if the recorder's objection is based on a lack of personnel to conduct the inspection, the campaign requests that additional political party observers, from both political parties, be allowed to assist in the review/collection efforts (strictly for this limited purpose) in order to facilitate a more efficient review. I am willing to coordinate with Mr. Ganoa regarding the same.

Very truly yours,

Eric Spencer

Eric H. Spencer

Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. One Arizona Center Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2202 Office: 602.382.6573

espencer@swlaw.com www.swlaw.com/eric_spencer

From: Chris J Roads Sent: Sunday, November 9, 2014 10:37 AM

To: 'Spencer, Eric'; F. Ann Rodriguez; 'brad.nelson@pima.gov'

Cc: Recorder-admin; 'Mary.Martinson@pima.gov'; 'Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov'; 'Tweeten, Carlie'; 'Jenkins, Amanda'; 'jkaucher@gustlaw.com'

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Mr. Spencer,

I have already responded that we will not stop processing and the reason was clear. Nothing the Recorder's Office does to the provisional ballots in any way, shape, or form impacts the identification of provisional ballots that may or may not be missing poll worker signatures. Therefore the McSally campaign will not in any way suffer any irreparable harm from Recorder's Office continued processing. Even when we have finished processing the provisional ballots, the forms readily identify whether they were signed by a poll worker or not. Therefore there is no legal reason whatsoever for the Recorder's Office to stop processing any forms. In our procedures, all forms from a single voting area must be handed off together. Therefore stopping processing one that may not contain a poll worker signature results in holding up all forms from that voting area. Processes at the election department may well be different and that is where your request should have targeted, not the Recorder's Office. You included both and I responded for our office. I have not seen a response from the Elections Department and I do not know whether or not Brad Nelson is even sitting at his computer to monitor the emails.

I will not debate you any further on this issue.

Chris Roads

Chief Deputy Recorder/Registrar of Voters

Pima County Recorder's Office

From: "F. Ann Rodriguez"

Date: November 9, 2014 at 11:45:27 AM MST

To: "Spencer, Eric" , Chris J Roads , "brad.nelson@pima.gov" , "Barr, Daniel (Perkins Coie)" , "Gaona, D. Andrew (Perkins Coie)"

Cc: Recorder-admin , "Mary.Martinson@pima.gov" , "Daniel.Jurkowitz@pcao.pima.gov" , "Tweeten, Carlie" , "Jenkins, Amanda" , "jkaucher@gustlaw.com" , Chris Straub

Subject: RE: Challenge to Provisional Ballot Forms With Missing Election Official Signature

Eric,

I believe we have already answered you on this matter fully. I believe the emails crossed that Mr. Roads sent and then we received this email. We are proceeding as planned and explained in other emails.

I have already given the attorneys that are here representing both candidates the below report verbally on our progress for Provisional Ballots at approximately 11:30 a.m.

Completed first checks done 9,254

Completed 2nd checks done and transmitted to Elections Department 5,312.

The 5,312 includes 69 conditional provisional ballots that we treated as regular provisional ballots. So far there are a total of 693 ballots that are classified as Non Verified but some of these still need to go through the 2nd process checking.

We will be done with first check today.

F. Ann Rodriguez

Pima County Recorder

Live election results

Automatically updated

Election results

Updated Jul. 18 5:25:40 am

Voter Turnout

Pima County: 55.04%
Statewide: 47.52%



U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 1

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
KIRKPATRICK, ANN (DEM)62,7244,28397,39152.38%
TOBIN, ANDY (REP)60,5843,38887,72347.18%
Write-in583498030.43%

U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 2

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
MCSALLY, MARTHA (REP)75,9373,487109,70449.81%
BARBER, RON (DEM)85,0553,503109,54349.73%
Write-in709421,0070.46%

U.S. REP. IN CONGRESS - DIST. 3

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GRIJALVA, RAUL (DEM)30,9944,17358,19255.71%
SAUCEDO MERCER, GABBY (REP)20,1302,52546,18544.21%
Write-In00790.08%


GOVERNOR

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DUCEY, DOUG (REP)232,43214,192805,06253.45%
DUVAL, FRED (DEM)202,05013,105626,92141.62%
HESS, BARRY J. (LBT)17,7761,23057,3373.81%
MEALER, JOHN LEWIS (AEL)5,15237915,4321.02%
Write-in1,119891,5740.10%

SECRETARY OF STATE

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
REAGAN, MICHELE (REP)226,24614,131779,22652.19%
GODDARD, TERRY (DEM)226,91914,382712,91847.75%
Write-in656739900.07%

ATTORNEY GENERAL

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
BRNOVICH, MARK (REP)225,34913,926782,36152.88%
ROTELLINI, FELECIA (DEM)223,31214,293696,05447.04%
Write-in789781,2120.08%

SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DOUGLAS, DIANE M. (REP)225,09813,844740,27350.52%
GARCIA, DAVID (DEM)219,40814,337724,23949.42%
Write-in566678440.06%

CORPORATION COMMISSIONER (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
LITTLE, DOUG (REP)220,82712,382766,86428.78%
FORESE, TOM (REP)215,41611,953761,91528.59%
KENNEDY, SANDRA (DEM)190,62612,184576,48221.63%
HOLWAY, JIM (DEM)180,7999,458557,96320.94%
Write-in996971,4400.05%


STATE SENATOR - DIST. 2

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
DALESSANDRO, ANDREA (DEM)17,65689022,90154.97%
ESTRELLA, DANIEL (REP)13,68666718,70744.90%
Write-in316540.13%

STATE REP. - DIST. 2 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GABALDÓN, ROSANNA (DEM)16,48679721,20036.49%
ACKERLEY, JOHN CHRISTOPHER (REP)14,51765819,65633.83%
CLINCO, DEMION (DEM)13,48554017,08029.39%
Write-in12281700.29%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 4

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
PANCRAZI, LYNNE (DEM)6,0142,44014,46453.74%
URIBE, CONNIE (REP)3,8441,23212,42346.15%
Write-In00290.11%

STATE REP. - DIST. 4 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
OTONDO, LISA (DEM)5,6052,11613,32435.32%
FERNANDEZ, CHARLENE (DEM)5,1112,15012,25132.48%
HOPKINS, RICHARD (REP)3,5881,06612,06331.98%
Write-In00850.23%

STATE REP. - DIST. 9 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
STEELE, VICTORIA (DEM)26,22395233,42533.51%
FRIESE, RANDALL ''RANDY'' (DEM)26,03487533,05933.14%
ORR, ETHAN (REP)23,51399332,92833.01%
Write-in219153360.34%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 10

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
BRADLEY, DAVID (DEM)26,8451,20334,33452.22%
MORRISON, MARK (REP)22,2301,04131,30747.62%
Write-in7061030.16%

STATE REP. - DIST. 10 (ELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
WHEELER, BRUCE (DEM)25,7801,01632,73127.46%
MACH, STEFANIE (DEM)24,70798231,16326.14%
CLODFELTER, TODD (REP)21,17094629,94025.12%
WILDISH, WILLIAM (REP)18,16771325,24021.17%
Write-in8981250.10%

STATE SENATOR - DIST. 11

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
SMITH, STEVE (REP)27,9591,24338,39758.99%
HOLT, JO (DEM)20,97479226,62840.91%
Write-in413670.10%


PIMA COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST 1 (SELECT 1)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
HANNA, MARK20,23471026,69851.18%
DURAN, MICHAEL19,84661425,17948.26%
Write-in187232920.56%

CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER BOARD (SELECT 4)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
MEGDAL, SHARON101,6413,563129,39722.56%
NOVAK CESARE, KAREN93,4583,530120,80721.07%
JACOBS, PAT88,0283,414114,52319.97%
TENNEY, WARREN86,1402,942110,28219.23%
MEHL, WESLEY71,6162,91794,93316.55%
Write-in2,5131583,5020.61%

TUCSON UNIFIED S.D. 1 (SELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
GRIJALVA, ADELITA S.26,6051,38034,34719.48%
HICKS, MICHAEL20,72291228,70816.28%
DARLAND, JEN22,02575028,19115.99%
COTTON, DON14,11058818,94410.74%
CAMPOS-FLEENOR, DEBE12,46259417,64710.01%
PUTNAM-HIDALGO, BETT12,62456216,9279.60%
BERNAL, RENÉ12,10752315,4248.75%
CUEVAS, MIGUEL8,75354111,5816.57%
SAITTA, FRANCIS P.3,0531263,9522.24%
Write-in374425850.33%

SUNNYSIDE UNIFIED S.D. 12 (SELECT 2)

CandidateEarlyProvTotal Votes%
HERNANDEZ JR., DANIE4,5082635,78044.57%
CARRILLO DONG, EVA3,0591623,83229.55%
PAVEY, MALCOM R.2,5251223,26925.21%
Write-in605880.68%


PROP. 122

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
YES221,18314,170707,45151.24%
NO202,92811,273673,33748.76%

PROP. 303

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
YES338,31819,0121,111,85078.47%
NO89,3506,738304,97121.53%

PROP. 304

PropositionEarlyProvTotal Votes%
NO303,30518,101966,60567.89%
YES126,2467,833457,21632.11%