Attorney general: No evidence of tampering with 2006 transit election results

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard announces results of the ballot recount. To see video of his press conference, click on this story at <a href="http://www.tucsoncitizen.com">www.tucsoncitizen.com</a>.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard said Tuesday that a hand recount of votes in the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election showed no evidence of criminal tampering with the results.

Goddard said the recounted ballots matched almost exactly the results tabulated by Pima County Elections Division staffers after the election.

“The bottom line of what we’ve shown here is that there was no flip,” Goddard said.

Goddard earlier this year ordered a hand count of ballots from the RTA election, in which county voters approved two ballot items – creation of a Regional Transportation Authority and a half-cent sales tax to help fund projects to be overseen by the agency.

Voters approved a 20-year, $2.1 billion regional transportation plan and the sales tax increase by wide margins, the upheld election results show.

Four major transportation initiatives to be funded by bonds or sales taxes had been strongly rejected by voters over the previous 15 years.

Goddard was trying to determine if the vote was rigged by someone through tampering with electronic vote devices or with ballot tabulating procedures following the election.

“It appeared there was reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed” Goddard said of claims by critics of computerized vote systems that tampering did indeed take place.

Those included illegal printing of early ballot returns five days before the election, and the presence of a crop card, which is a device that can be used to alter results, in the elections division offices.

Although Goddard said the criminal investigation is closed, he would not comment on whether a grand jury has looked or is looking into the conduct of the election.

Goddard ordered the hand recount, done by the Maricopa County Elections Division earlier this month.

His office had probed the Pima County Elections Division and its use of a Diebold-GEMS electronic vote system in 2007. The systems have been widely criticized for being vulnerable to manipulation in several ways.

That probe found serious security flaws in the system and elections division, but no criminal actions.

“I think it proves we’ve been vindicated,” County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry, said Tuesday.

The case started in 2007 when the Pima County Democratic Party sought access to the county’s electronic vote databases from previous elections.

Party officials said they wanted to be able to check the reliability of electronic vote systems after widespread complaints from across the country that such systems could be hacked and the results manipulated. Pima County Superior Court Judge Michael Miller ruled in December 2007 the county must surrender some past election databases, the first such court order to a government to turn over electronic vote records.

The order omitted the RTA databases, which were released to the Democrats early last year by the Pima County Board of Supervisors. More than 120,000 ballots were recounted by Maricopa County officials.

The Associated Press contributed to this article.

An election worker prepares voting machines.

———

BALLOT RECOUNT

May 2006 RTA election results tabulated by the Pima County Elections Division compared with the Maricopa County Elections Division hand recount

Question 1

“Do you approve of the regional transportation plan for Pima County?”

Pima County election canvass:

Yes: 71,948 – about 60.05 percent

No: 47,870 – about 39.95 percent

Maricopa County Elections Division hand recount:

Yes: 71,626 – about 60.06 percent

No: 47,636 – about 39.94 percent

Difference: 556 votes

Question 2:

“Do you favor the levy of a transaction privilege tax for regional transportation purposes in Pima County?”

Pima County election canvass:

Yes: 68,773 – about 57.64 percent

No: 50,551 – about 42.36 percent

Maricopa County Elections Division hand recount:

Yes: 68,420 – about 57.63 percent

No: 50,306 – about 42.37 percent

Difference: 598 votes

Many in foothills, NW, East sides cross party lines to vote for Dem

Pima County voters crossed party lines and showed an independent streak in voting booths Nov. 4, the official precinct-by-precinct canvass of votes shows.

To find out how your precinct voted for president, Proposition 102, Congressional District 8, and your precincts voter registration, go to tucsoncitizen.com/electionmap.

In state Legislative District 26 on the Northwest Side, voters sent stalwart conservative Republican Al Melvin to the state Senate and liberal Nancy Young Wright to the state House of Representatives.

Voters in precincts across Congressional District 8 picked John McCain for president but sent Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, back to Congress for a second term.

And in an election that was about change, voters here stayed the same.

Melvin’s victory means he will take over what had been a Democratic seat. It was the only partisan switch county voters chose to make in what was a Democratic year across the country.

McCain fared no worse here than George W. Bush in 2004. Both lost by a 52-46 margin in Pima County.

But Giffords appears to have solidified her support among voters in the Northwest Side and in the lower Catalina foothills.

She beat Republican state Sen. Tim Bee in Pima County by the same 14-point margin she enjoyed in 2006 over Republican Randy Graf.

It’s what Giffords’ campaign counted on as it planned her re-election effort.

“The voters of (Congressional District) 8 vote for the person,” said Giffords campaign manager Zach Wineburg. “People in the district split their vote all over the place.”

More than 1 in 4 voters in Pima County do not belong to either major party and those were the people that Giffords went after, Wineburg said.

That’s why her campaign poured resources into the independent-minded precincts of District 26, which covers the eastern half of Marana, all of Oro Valley and the western half of the Catalina foothills.

Obama carried just one Northwest Side precinct north of Ina Road. Giffords won 44.

She also outperformed the top of the ticket in the foothills and on the East Side of Tucson.

Pima County Republican Party Chairwoman Judi White said Giffords did a good job of establishing her image with voters.

“She did a good job of selling herself as a moderate,” White said. “Even though she voted most of the time with Nancy Pelosi,” the Democratic speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Independent voters tend to vote for things they like about the person, rather than choose candidates based on a menu of issues, said Republican pollster Margaret Kenski.

And Giffords had some star power.

“She’s been in Congress for two years and she’s been highly visible,” she said. “When you ask people what they know about (Giffords), they say she’s married to an astronaut.”

That worked for Giffords, Kenski said.

She said future efforts to oust Giffords would be “an uphill battle,” in part because she has proved to be a Herculean fundraiser, raking in more than $3 million for her first re-election bid. And she still has $700,000 left over for the 2010 campaign.

“You practically need to find someone who can self-finance a race,” Kenski said.

But Democrats did not rule the day in Pima County, despite Giffords’ success.

She shared victories with Republicans Melvin and incoming state Rep. Vic Williams in District 26. Frank Antenori and David Gowan cruised to wins in Legislative District 30, encompassing the far East Side and Green Valley.

Federal races and gubernatorial battles tend to reflect voters’ studied preferences, but they decide down-ticket races by either party affiliation or name recognition, Kenski said.

That helped political opposites Young Wright and Melvin score wins from the same batch of voters in District 26, Kenski said.

Young Wright had been active in Northwest Side politics for years and Melvin had run unsuccessfully in 2006.

“You can break the tendency to vote party line when voters don’t know anything else about you by having a huge campaign budget or having name recognition,” Kenski said.

Melvin belonged to the right party. Young Wright had name recognition. Giffords had the budget to sell herself and sculpt her message.

Also, the Pima County Democratic Party devoted time and effort to the usually hostile Northwest Side, said county Democratic Party Chairman Vince Rabago.

“When you look at it geographically, it helps to have Democrats working together in certain areas,” Rabago said.

However, Rabago said he was disappointed the Republicans picked up seats in the state Legislature, when Democrats thought they could take back one or both houses.

“It seems like there were McCain coattails,” Rabago said. “The race seemed to tighten in the last days of the campaign and that drove out Republicans to the polls who would have stayed home otherwise.”

The tightening race did not inspire Democrats the same way, Rabago said.

East, W. Side voters sink TUSD override

The map is unmistakable. Voters in the central part of Tucson Unified School District voted for a budget override in the Nov. 4 general election. Voters on the East and West sides of the district opposed it.

The question is, why?

The override, which would have lowered kindergarten and first-grade class size to 18, added an award-winning fine arts program to more schools and garnered money to attract math, science and exceptional education teachers, failed by a 50.6 percent to 49.4 percent margin, or 2,055 votes out of 172,141 cast.

Neighborhoods near Rogers, Corbett and Wrightstown elementaries, schools up for closure last year, were in the huge East Side area that voted against the override.

Those schools remained open.

Community activist John Kromko, leader of the opposition to the override and a retired teacher, former legislator and president of the Pima County Taxpayers Association, said the map is just what he expected.

“Midtown has always been that way,” he said. “Midtown residents are more progressive and less concerned about the property tax.

TUSD spokeswoman Chyrl Hill Lander said that other than the Rogers and Corbett areas, she didn’t know why there was such a division of views between midtown voters and those on the East and West sides.

“I tried to look at a map of charter schools, to see if there were more in the areas against the override, but they’re all over,” Lander said.

And so are TUSD schools. “We had plenty of schools on the East Side, so it’s not like those households aren’t getting exposure to TUSD schools. And we have plenty of schools on the West Side, too.”

Ann-Eve Pedersen, a TUSD parent and one of the organizers of the override drive, said the map was similar, but not identical, to the one of the 2004 override, which was defeated by a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent.

“It looks like we did better this time in moving support farther west and east. However, the lack of support last time was also concentrated on the far west and far east,” she said.

Paul Eckerstrom former Pima County Democratic Party chairman who is spearheading the next TUSD override push, said people who live outside the city limits historically are more anti-tax. “You live outside the city limits for a reason. You want to get away from city taxes.”

Data reporter Eric Sagara analyzed the canvass and created the precinct maps for this story.

To find out the voter registration make up of your precinct, click on the link below for an interactive map.

To find out how your precinct voted on Proposition 102, click on the link below for an interactive map.

To see how your precinct voted on Proposition 403, click on the link below for an interactive map.

———

Interactive maps online

To find out how your precinct voted for president, Proposition 102, Congressional District 8, and your precincts voter registration, go to tucsoncitizen.com/electionmap.

By Blake Morlock, Mary Bustamante

Hundreds are expected to march downtown Friday in response to the passage of Proposition 102 during Wingspan’s “call to action,” a spokesman said.

Community members will join leaders and representatives of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community at 5 p.m. at El Presidio Park, 160 W. Alameda St., said Jason Cianciotto, Wingspan’s executive director.

“This event will give us an opportunity to share our frustration and sadness over Proposition 102′s impact in our state,” he said. “And we want to turn that energy into a positive source.”

On Nov. 4, Arizona voters approved Proposition 102, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Participants will march from El Presidio Park to La Placita Village, 110 S. Church Ave., where Wingspan will launch its Families You Know program.

“Through this program we want to share who we are with our neighbors so they will no longer vote against us,” he said.

The program includes videos of GLBT families in Tucson and invites people to upload their own videos on Wingspan’s Web site, Cianciotto said.

You’ll get another chance to improve our kids’ education

Thank you, Tucson. Forty-nine percent of you living within Tucson Unified School District voted for Proposition 403, the budget override to benefit our children.

The fact that this came within a whisker of winning (only 3,600 votes short) during our worst economy in decades is a testament to your generosity, wisdom and recognition that our community’s future depends on our schools’ quality.

For you 12,006 voters who skipped Prop. 403, at the bottom of a long ballot, we’ll do a better job of reaching you next time.

And, yes, there will be a next time. Our kids can’t wait.

As long as the Legislature is content with Arizona’s ranking of 49th in education funding nationwide – a standing not likely to improve during the state’s budget crisis – we will have to rely on ourselves to improve education.

Because of dismal state funding, 80 percent of all school districts in Arizona rely on overrides to provide basics that state money won’t permit, such as small class sizes.

TUSD, which educates more children than all other local districts combined, remains the only local district without an override. It hasn’t had one since the 1980s.

Wealthier districts – such as Catalina Foothills, Vail and Tanque Verde – significantly supplement their budgets with tax credits and private donations.

But in TUSD, where the majority of children live in poverty, that’s not a reliable option.

It was especially cruel for the very small cadre against 403 to target children living in poverty, who desperately need the benefit of small classes, qualified teachers and enrichment programs such as Opening Minds Through the Arts.

I didn’t see any Pima Association of Taxpayer signs opposing the Catalina Foothills override, though anti-tax man John Kromko says everyone should have to cut.

I’m very familiar with the arguments against Prop. 403: The district needs to “tighten its belt” and “prove it can manage money better before we give them any more.”

The district whacked $20 million this year because of decreased funding. Talk about belt-tightening.

It is way past the point of cutting fat; it’s cutting bone. If you doubt that, go spend a day at a school.

Critics also continually gripe that TUSD is top-heavy. An outside audit found that not to be the case, and no one is crediting new TUSD Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen for eliminating several high-level positions that were vacant when she arrived.

Too many people made this a referendum on the TUSD of the past rather than the TUSD we want for the future.

When a new president takes office, do you hold him responsible for everything that took place in the past administration? Would you refuse to pay a tax increase because you didn’t like the old administration? Of course not. Yet that’s the argument some made.

Other illogical arguments made included one saying we shouldn’t pass the override because a thief stole $30,000 from Catalina High School.

When a high-ranking sheriff’s deputy embezzled thousands of dollars in the 1990s, did citizens suddenly decide to not fund the department and thereby risk public safety? Of course not.

You prosecute the criminals. You do not punish 57,000 children for the actions of one thief.

Voters are familiar with TUSD’s flaws because of its transparency and good investigative reporting.

Unlike other districts, charter schools and private schools, TUSD is scrutinized because it is the largest district.

Do you know how your tax dollars are spent at state-funded charter schools or at private schools, which get public funds through tax credits?

If millions of dollars were embezzled from a private school that decided not to prosecute, would you ever know? No, because its records and meetings are not public though it gets state tax credit money.

Some voters said they could not afford an extra 35 cents a day. Others admitted to not liking kids, saying parents should shoulder their financial burden.

But unless you were sent to a private school or home-schooled, taxpayers supported your education. They may not have liked doing it, and they may have been on a fixed income. But they did it.

We have a social compact whereby one generation helps the next. And it’s in our interest to do so, as we will pay dearly if we raise a generation of uneducated, unmotivated children.

These kids also eventually are supposed to contribute toward your Social Security payments. Suppose they decide they don’t like older people and say parents’ adult children should provide for them? That’s not the way it works.

In the end, 49 percent of you understood that. Again, thank you.

After asking voters Tuesday to pass Prop. 403, I spent Wednesday scouring the online comments sections of both newspapers, a forum I avoid because of all the slurs slung.

Sure enough, within a post or two, I was called a “shill” for TUSD, had been “triple-dog dared” to back up a point I made and finally told to “get a life.”

There was something cathartic about correcting the reams of misinformation about Prop. 403 and TUSD so pervasive on these sites and, I’m afraid, in the community at large.

The outdated information and unfettered anger toward TUSD is a real problem, one I believe prevented victory despite the Herculean effort of a volunteer corps on a shoestring budget trying to inform 240,000 voters without advocating at PTA meetings or other school events.

I am very heartened by the 49 percent support to cut class sizes, recruit teachers in hard-to-fill positions and expand the district’s award-winning music and arts program.

In 2004, in a far better economy, the override request garnered only 43 percent support.

We’re moving in the right direction, but to succeed, this community will have to stop punishing children because of old gripes against TUSD.

This should not have been a referendum on the TUSD of the past; it should have been on the TUSD we want for the future.

Fagen is working hard to transform TUSD into a 21st-century learning environment, but she needs the community’s help.

Hamstringing her financially is not helpful. Amid huge state budget deficits, we can expect more painful cuts that hurt kids.

Of course TUSD needs to be accountable. Measures are in place to do so: a new superintendent, a citizens audit committee, results from an MGT audit on reducing overhead and a new financial team at TUSD.

As the parent of a second-grader, I have a vested interest in ensuring that the bulk of the budget goes into the classroom.

TUSD’s administrative costs get continual comment. But because of efficiencies of scale, those costs are much lower per child in TUSD than in smaller districts, such as Catalina Foothills, Vail and Tanque Verde.

Inefficiencies always can be found in large organizations, but too many people use that to rationalize refusal to pay more.

Even if TUSD was the most efficient operation in the U.S., I suspect these folks would find a reason to justify voting no.

One voter said she hates kids, and parents should pay. An online commenter agreed, adding that she was too old to reap benefits from education.

The problem is, such ducking of responsibility violates our social compact.

We all pay for public schools, Social Security and to cover other needs.

What would happen if we just decided to stop because it doesn’t directly benefit us?

If we care about our community’s economic vitality, if we don’t want to waste $36,000 a year housing every illiterate prisoner who flunked out of school, if we understand this social compact, we will properly fund education.

We’re getting there, Tucson. It was close.

The encounter from this months-long campaign that sticks with me was with a young couple after they voted at the Northwest Neighborhood Center.

They had voiced support for 403 on their way in to the poll, but they pulled up to me as they were leaving to ask one last question.

“Excuse me ma’am,” the young woman said, looking perplexed. “Why would anyone vote against this?”

Ann-Eve Pedersen is a member of the Prop. 403 Invest in Our Kids Committee and of Tucson Unified School Supporters. She is a former reporter and managing editor of the Tucson Citizen.

Isabel Skattie, 8, practices recorder during an Opening Minds Through the Arts class at Corbett Elementary School, 5949 E. 29th St., last week. Voters turned down a proposal that would have expanded the nationally renowned OMA program.

Some of you may be thinking Tucson Unified School District lost its budget override request, Proposition 403, in Tuesday’s election.

But anyone who really understands education knows Tucson residents and our city are the ones who lost.

Voters within the school district had an easy and inexpensive opportunity to beef up K-12 public education for kids in the Old Pueblo.

For just 35 cents a day, TUSD residents could have provided smaller class sizes for our littlest students: kindergartners through second-graders.

That’s a proven prescription for heightened success rates among elementary school kids.

The spare change also would have helped Tucson schools to recruit those rare teachers who are qualified to teach math, science and special education.

Such teachers are in high demand nationwide. But TUSD doesn’t stand much chance of hiring them if it can’t even match the offers made by adjacent districts.

Voters, too, could have expanded Opening Minds Through the Arts, the district’s highly successful program infusing arts into academics.

But no. By a narrow margin, voters in southern Arizona’s largest school district demonstrated that they would rather jingle their loose coins, a la captain Queeg, than support the children of our community.

That’s a very sad commentary, and it speaks volumes about our priorities.

It’s also a decision that will thwart economic opportunities in Tucson, as companies lured by our beautiful weather, scenery and ready supply of workers will be repulsed by our anti-education philosophy and second-rate school system.

TUSD, alas, is in a chicken-egg conundrum that local anti-tax and anti-kids forces like to exploit.

Which came first – the district’s academic failures or its lack of adequate funding?

Ultimately, the answer doesn’t really matter. What does matter is that without enough money now, the academic failures will continue indefinitely.

And 57,000 or so kids will be deprived of the education many of their peers are receiving.

So count your coins, people. Because the Tucson kids of today who become the cashiers of tomorrow likely won’t have the math skills to make correct change for your purchases.

But no worries. You’ll still have that precious 35 cents a day you’re hoarding.

You may not have any good doctors, bankers, scientists, researchers, artists, engineers or other professionals to keep our community going.

But you’ll have a big pile of coins, a self-satisfied smile and the certain knowledge that you’ve doomed an entire generation of children – and dimmed the future of a community. You lose.

Coping with president who breaks the mold

'Why am I glad he got elected? Because of . . . my great-granddad. He was born a slave. . . . This is all for him.'

CHARLES KENDRICK, 77

Charles Kendrick, 77, woke up Wednesday thrilled that the dream his family has held for 143 years had finally come true – a black man was elected to the highest political office in the United States.

But Republican voter Abbey Schultz, 22, woke up terrified, not of electing a black president, but of what electing this particular Democratic candidate would mean to her future.

Tuesday was a game-changer in the face of American politics and society. Years from now, for better or worse, parents will tell their children that in 2008, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya was elected the 44th president of the United States.

On Wednesday, Tucson residents who supported Barack Obama were basking in the victory while those who voted for John McCain were struggling with emotions ranging from fear to anger to reluctant acceptance.

“Why am I glad he got elected? Because of him right here,” said the 77-year-old Kendrick as he pointed to a fading photograph hanging on the wall of the African American History Museum on South Park Avenue. “That’s my great-granddad. He was born a slave. . . . This is all for him. Our family has waited 143 years for this to happen. I never thought I’d see it in my lifetime, but I’m here to see it happen.”

While Schultz appreciates the historic significance of electing the first black president, she is “terrified” of the negative impact Obama’s economic policies will have on her family, which owns a small accounting business in Ohio.

Marcia Benavidez, shares Shultz’s concern that Obama will raise taxes.

Benavidez owns Power Property, a local real state company.

“I though that Americans would go to the booths and stop to think about who they really want in the White House,” she said. “And I was wrong because I was certain it would be McCain.

“I’m very disappointed. I’m scared and shocked. I feel like something real bad is going to happen.”

Experts say the fact that McCain voters expressed more concern about Obama’s economic policies than his race demonstrates how many Americans have overcome obsessions with the social and physical characteristics of presidential candidates to focus on the issues.

“If you go back into the ’50s or so, the image of what would be the perfect presidential candidate was a white male, Protestant and happily married,” University of Arizona political science professor Barbara Norrander said.

“Gradually, each of those confining stories have been broken down, beginning in 1960 when John Kennedy was elected as the first Catholic president, moving forward to the ’70s and ’80s electing candidates who were divorced or not from large, competitive states. And then last night we have the first nonwhite male.”

Like Schultz, Justin Pierce, 25, is disappointed with Tuesday night’s results.

“This morning I felt a little bit of fear, because our elected president might be the most liberal senator yet,” he said. “Mostly because of the undertone of socialism Obama projects.”

Pierce works for a surgical supply company. He and his wife, Rachel, have two young children and are expecting a third.

Contrary to popular belief, Pierce said, his generation is on the same boat with the older Republican generation.

“Older people voted for McCain because they have experienced life and they know better,” he said. “And even though I’m young, I have a family and worry that any extra dollar taken out of my paycheck is an extra dollar I don’t have to provide the American dream for my family.”

The fact that people are fearful about Obama didn’t surprise John García, a UA professor of political science.

“There’s a debate about the tone of the campaigning,” said García, who studies minority politics. “The appeals were based on people’s fears – if that is what you are cultivating, then you reap what you sow. You tap into the worst part of people to get support . . . and it sticks with some people.”

Dana Fors, 20, said she was a McCain voter “but I’m not an angry McCain voter.”

“I voted with my party, I wasn’t really a crazy supporter for either one. I think both candidates had valuable points to make” said the UA junior, who is majoring in marketing. “I think it’s funny because on Facebook everyone’s status is like, ‘I’m moving to Canada.’ After I watched Obama’s speech last night I thought, OK.”

Garcia said Obama’s personality, the themes he chose to talk about, the current economic downturn, his use of multimedia and his focus on Americans united as one, were key to his success.

“There have been polls over time asking when will a person of color or a woman be elected president, and people will say it will happen but not in their lifetimes,” he said. “But Obama was able to realize it in concrete terms. We pride ourselves in having a system where we say anyone can do anything but (a minority as president) is a target that has been more fantasy than reality.”

Davide Ferrari, 41, pastor at Central City Assembly church, said he expected to see a black man become president during his lifetime. “But I hoped it would be a Republican,” he said.

Unity was a constant theme in Obama’s campaign and remained so during his acceptance speech, when he said he wanted to draw together young and old, black and white, gay and straight Americans.

A representative of Tucson’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community said Obama’s message of solidarity was a step in the right direction.

Jason Cianciotto, WINGSPAN executive director, said Obama’s speech was “a true mandate for change,” that reminded him that the fight for equal rights continues.

It’s a fight that homemaker Selitsa Vakalakis said Obama can win.

“For once, I think we should have somebody in office who can bridge the gap of prejudice and bias in all its forms,” she said. “In essence it’s creating something that never really happened before in our society as far as . . . how we regard people of other backgrounds and cultures.”

UA’s Garcia said he sees Obama as a “forerunner to a more multiracial society.”

“Classifying him as African- American is like the one-drop rule,” said Garcia, referring to the racial classification system that says if you have one drop of African blood in your genes you are classified black.

“His categorization as African-American shows that racially we still have that strong sentiment there, when in reality, he’s multi-racial, which is more common in our culture.”

Lydia Arambula, a UA pre-business freshman, said the election sent a very specific message to minorities.

“I think it means America’s making progress,” said Arambula, who is black. “It means a lot to my family. They grew up in the time like when they couldn’t vote and they couldn’t do things just because of their skin color.”

Lynette Cook-Francis, UA assistant vice president for student affairs and an African-American, said her mother remembered those times as well. She was at an election night party Cook-Francis hosted for people of different races.

“I was so excited to stand together and realize that (the) kind of division we often believe we have, is not necessary, that my white friends were crying tears of joy just like my mother and it transcended race,” she said. “It was about a belief in the future.”

‘I think both candidates had valuable points to make. . . . After I watched Obama’s speech last night I thought, OK.

DANA FORS, voted for McCain

‘I think it means America’s making progress. It means a lot to my family. They grew up in the time like when they couldn’t vote and they couldn’t do things just because of their skin color.’

LYDIA ARAMBULA UA freshman

‘Seeing Obama win filled me with so much hope and reminded me that the fight for equal rights continues, so the clock starts new today.’

JASON CIANCIOTTO, WINGSPAN executive director

Thought he’d see a black man elected president, ‘but I hoped it would be a Republican.’

DAVIDE FERRARI, pastor at Central City Assembly church

‘To stand together and realize that kind of division that we often believe we have is not necessary, that my white friends were crying tears of joy just like my mother and it transcended race. It was about a belief in the future.’

LYNETTE COOK-FRANCIS, UA assistant vice president for student affairs

By Fernanda Echavarri, Renee Schafer Horton

Even if Gov. Janet Napolitano (center) doesn't head join President-elect Obama's cabinet, Arizona conservatives could get a boost in the next legislative session.

Democrats swept to a solid national victory but in Arizona conservatives solidified their grip on the Legislature in a way that almost guarantees a series of showdowns with Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano.

If she stays in the job.

Republicans picked up two seats in the state House of Representatives and another seat in the Senate in a year Democrats thought they could take the four seats necessary to at least win control of the House.

Southern Arizona also lost clout in 2008. Senate President Tim Bee, R-Tucson, was forced out by term limits and will be replaced by Sen. Bob Burns, R-Phoenix, as the head of the Senate.

House Minority Leader Phil Lopes was ousted Wednesday in favor of Phoenix Democrat David Lujan.

Napolitano, meanwhile, will join President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, and that could lead to a cabinet appointment. If Napolitano takes a job in Washington, the governorship would fall to conservative Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer.

Brewer, House Speaker Jim Weiers and Senate President Bob Burns would put the state under a troika of budget-cutting conservatives.

“It would be a disaster for the state,” said state Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson. “I don’t see our universities surviving. ”

Conservatives are more than ready for Napolitano to get a promotion up and out of the way.

“If she needs a drive to the airport, I’ll be glad to give her a ride,” said newly elected conservative Sen. Al Melvin.

Melvin ran as a conservative and knocked off moderate Republican Pete Hershberger in Legislative District 26 in the primary election, then took out Democrat Cheryl Cage on Tuesday in the Northwest Side district.

Hershberger and a handful of other Republicans who forsook confrontation to work with Napolitano will no longer be available to her, Melvin said.

“We have clear conservative majorities in the Senate and the House,” Melvin said. “We have a couple weak individuals. They are insignificant because we got them outnumbered.”

Republican Frank Antenori, who was elected to the House in District 30, said GOP gains mean a stronger negotiating position on all issues, especially the budget. Last year, Napolitano managed to get a few Republicans to agree to a budget compromise. This year’s budget was passed with the votes of every Democrat and four or five moderate Republicans in each chamber.

“She won’t be able to draw a line in the sand a foot from her feet and force us to come all the way over to cross it,” Antenori said. “If she wants to legitimately meet us in the middle, OK.”

But even with gains, the GOP will have to negotiate, said Republican Jonathan Paton, who moves from the House to the Senate representing District 30, which takes in the East Side and down to Green Valley.

“We don’t have a veto-proof majority, so we’re going to have to work with the governor,” Paton said.

Democrats in 2006 picked up six seats in the House to narrow the GOP majority to 33-27. In 2008, Democrats thought they had the money and organization to finish the job.

“It’s pretty amazing that it didn’t work,” said Napolitano spokeswoman Jeanine L’Ecuyer. “You do have to look at the structural issues, like how legislative districts are drawn.”

The districts tend to be designed to protect incumbents, which makes it hard for a general election challenger to win.

Voter turnout also may have played a role. Statewide turnout appears to have been down, with some ballots not yet counted.

In Pima County, voter turnout will fall at least 13 percent short of the 2004 election.

The figures suggest Democrats did not turn out the vote like they did four years ago, despite raising much more money than Republicans and making the ground organization a priority.

Arizona Democrats did manage to re-elect U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords from formerly Republican congressional districts, get Ann Kirkpatrick elected to Congress and pick up at least two seats on the Arizona Corporation Commission.

The results foretell stronger years to come, said Democratic Party Executive Director Maria Weeg.

“I am proud of the organization. We build every cycle. We learn more every cycle,” she said.

Citizen Staff Writer B. Poole contributed to this article.

So far, more than 17,353 people cast ballots at various early voting polls across the county, said Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez.

That already shatters the record set during the 2004 election when 16,975 people voted early in Pima County.

Early voting started Oct. 2, and ends at 5 p.m. Monday.

She added that 710 people cast ballots Sunday at her office, 115 N. Church Ave. Many of them had a 25 to 30-minute wait.

Crystal Phelps, 44, and Michelle Flores, 20, both said voting early on a Sunday, when they did not have to work, fit in better with their schedules.

“I’m off Sunday, ” Flores said.

Albert Campuzan, 18, said, “I wouldn’t have had time on Tuesday.” He said the half hour wait to get into the poll was worth it.

More than 11,000 so far, not including those mailing in votes

More than 11,000 people have voted early at offices downtown and satellite polling places, Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez said Thursday evening.

“These are people walking in voting,” Rodriguez said, distinguishing those voters from those who are voting early via mail.

The heaviest walk-in early voting has been at the Recorder’s Office Annex, 6920 E. Broadway, and at the University of Arizona, she said.

Rodriguez said the polling places reported that 11,265 people have come in to vote since early voting started Oct. 2.

On Thursday alone, 2,104 voters had cast ballots at the satellite polls by 5 p.m., including 476 at the East Side annex and 429 at the UA bookstore, 1209 E. University Blvd., Rodriguez said. She said she expects the number of voters coming daily to the early voting stations to increase as the election draws nearer.

There are almost 500,000 registered voters in Pima County and about half are expected to vote early, either via mail or at satellite polling stations, Rodriguez said.

The situation in Pima County reflects what is occurring in the Phoenix area.

Waits of more than two hours were reported yesterday at some polling places in Maricopa County, where officials have seen the same early start to early voting that Pima County’s Rodriguez has observed.

There’s still time to avoid Tuesday’s anticipated crush at the polls: The satellite early voting stations will be open from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Friday.

The downtown Recorder’s Office, 115 N. Church Ave., will be open for early voting and emergency voting (for those who did not request an early ballot but can’t get to the polls Tuesday) from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. Friday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, Rodriguez said.

“After that, voters will need to go to their assigned polling location on the day of the election,” Rodriguez said.

If waiting 10 to 30 minutes in line to cast your ballot early seems onerous, it will take longer on Election Day, Rodriguez said.

“These lines will move a lot faster than on Tuesday,” she said.

———

RELATED

Big turnout, long lines expected on Election Day

Half of votes cast may be from early voting

Hundreds of Pima County election workers attend a class Monday morning taught by Brad Nelson. He shows how to take apart a touch screen voting machine

An anticipated record turnout for Tuesday’s general election nationwide may be reflected in Pima County, and officials conducting the vote and ballot tabulating are in the final days of preparing for the rush.

Election Day also will test changes the Pima County Elections Division has made to voting and ballot tabulating procedures since the general election four years ago.

Pima County has almost half a million registered voters – 499,346 to be exact – and elections officials and citizen volunteers expect to be pressed to the maximum.

“It is estimated we will have an 80 percent-plus turnout,” Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson on Monday told a class of several hundred poll inspectors and judges who will run the county’s 373 polling places Tuesday.

Even though 50 percent of the ballots cast in the elections are expected to be early ones, Election Day in the trenches promises to be one to remember, possibly for long polling place lines, high frustration levels and occasional heated tempers.

Delayed vote results have been one outcome of changes made in the county’s elections procedures in response to a successful lawsuit by the Pima County Democratic Party to obtain electronic vote databases from past elections.

The Democrats said they wanted the electronic vote records to study to see if the county’s Diebold-GEMS voting and ballot tabulation systems are vulnerable to tampering.

The county no longer transmits vote results via telephone modems from polling places to the county’s central ballot tabulating center on election nights. That was done to eliminate the possibility of a third party intercepting the results, altering them, and forwarding bogus tallies to the tabulating center.

Instead, election officials, Pima County Sheriff’s Department deputies, and observers from political parties now physically transport all vote scanners containing the electronic vote records for downloading at the county’s elections headquarters on Mission Road.

Since that practice started with the Feb. 5 presidential preference primaries, vote tallies have slowed, with the results of some close races delayed for several days.

Expect a late night Tuesday as well.

“We’ve said it will be delayed,” County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry said recently of the totals.

Huckelberry dismissed a contention by critics of the Elections Division that recent vote results have been intentionally delayed in retribution for the Pima County Democrats’ successful lawsuit.

“That’s ridiculous,” he said.

Some tweaks to procedures by election workers hopefully will speed up the ballot tallying process, Huckelberry said.

Poll workers have been instructed to get ballot scanners and touch-screen vote machines out of polling places and to the counting center faster than in recent elections, Huckelberry said.

Election workers say their efforts are necessary and vital.

“As a society, we should all pitch in and help,” Cece Stevens, a 15-year veteran of working elections, said recently. Pima County poll workers have received additional training on ballot security, including making sure that ballot scanning devices are securely transferred to election officials for vote tabulations, that ballot bags are properly sealed and required certification materials are sealed within them.

“The last time, some people did not do this properly,” polling place volunteer Gus Aguilar said recently.

Aguilar referred to a hand count audit of the Sept. 2 primary elections where more than half of the 18 ballot bags inspected were found to have been improperly sealed or did not contain proper certification materials inside.

The blue ballot bags used by the county have a plastic locking mechanism into which a security seal is attached. The seal may not be removed except in the presence of election officials and designated observers from the political parties.

“The key is to have this lock into there,” Aguilar demonstrated to a fellow poll worker Monday.

Voters must present a government-issued picture identification, or two alternate forms of identification that do not include a photo but do prove residence.

Those with questionable identification, registration status or lack of proof of residence in that polling area will be given provisional or conditional provisional ballots.

Election Day polling place inspectors such as Steve Paguaga determine when voters must use provisional ballots.

“I think it’s my duty as a citizen to see that the process is done correctly,” Paguaga, a 10-year veteran of polling places, said.

“I do my damnedest to help people to vote,” he said.

Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez is in charge of early voting and is urging those still holding ballots to turn them in before Tuesday at early voting locations.

The county has 11 early voting sites that will remain open through Friday, Rodriguez said.

Also, the Recorder’s Office main office, 115 N. Church Ave., will be open Saturday, Sunday, and Monday from 8 a.m. until 5 p.m. to receive emergency ballots. Emergency ballots are for voters who did not request an early ballot but will not be able to go to a polling place Tuesday.

Those still with mail-in ballots after Friday will need to drop them off at any polling place before 7 p.m. Tuesday.

Polls will remain open after 7 p.m. to allow voters who are in line at polling places at that time to cast ballots, Nelson said.

“Everybody in line then will be able to process through and vote,” Nelson said.

Officials of the major political parties will be concerned Tuesday night and the days following that the vote is tabulated accurately.

“We have picked certain polling places and we will have poll monitors at those places,” Judi White, chairwoman of the Pima County Republican Party, said Monday.

The Pima County Democratic Party likewise will dispatch poll watchers to certain places to monitor the vote, Vince Rabago, county party chairman, said Monday.

“The observers will be at the polling places all day long, in shifts,” Rabago said.

Libertarians won’t have much presence as poll watchers, but they will be on hand Tuesday night as observers to check for ballot and vote tabulation security, said David Euchner, chairman of the Pima County Libertarian Party.

Evelyn Bustamante (left), senior election tech, and Gus Aguilar, election assistant, check some of the ballot bags during a Pima County election workers class Monday morning.

———

Provisional ballots

Provisional and conditional provisional ballots:

If a voter has the required identification, but there is a question of voter registration or residence, they are given a provisional ballot which is placed in a separate ballot box at the precinct.

Voters who do not present the required level of identification at the polling place are given a conditional provisional ballot and must provide county elections officials with proof of identity by Nov. 12 for the vote to be counted.

voter.recorder.pima.gov/search/ballots/receiptdata.htm

———

Voting tips

• Bring the required identification to the polling place (see list on Page 7A)

• Use your sample ballot recently received in the mail to determine voting precinct and polling place

• Mark your sample ballot in advance. Use it as a crib sheet at the voting machine

• Allow yourself additional time to vote because of anticipated high voter turnout at polling places

Phone numbers for election day information:

• Pima County Elections Division: 351-6830

• Pima County Recorder’s Office: 740-4330

———

Voter ID

Acceptable forms of voter identification with photograph, name, and address of the elector:

• Valid Arizona driver’s license

• Valid Arizona nonoperating identification license

• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification

• Valid United States federal, state, or local government issued identification

Acceptable forms of identification without a photograph that bear the name and address of the elector. Two are required.

• Utility bill of the elector that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election. A utility bill may be for electric, gas, water, solid waste, sewer, telephone, cellular phone or cable television

• Bank or credit union statement that is dated within 90 days of the date of the election

• Valid Arizona vehicle registration

• Indian census card

• Property tax statement of the elector’s residence

• Tribal enrollment card or other form of tribal identification

• Recorder’s certificate

• Valid federal, state, or local government issued identification, including a voter registration card issued by the county recorder

An identification is valid unless it can be determined on its face that it has expired.

NOTE: Passports and military identifications are not valid forms of identification at the polls.

(Source: Arizona Secretary of State)

———

Who’s who at the polls

Polling place elections boards are composed of eight members:

• One inspector serves as the supervisor of the precinct election board and must be a member of the Republican or Democratic parties. The inspector rules on voter eligibility.

• Two judges: One each from both the Democratic and Republican parties. Judges inspect voting machines and ensure ballot bags are properly sealed before polling places open., and issue ballots to voters. The judge from the political party opposite the polling place inspector’s party helps the inspector close the polling place, signs unofficial results tapes and accompanies the inspector in delivering ballots and scanning devices to county elections receiving stations.

• One marshal: Either a Republican or Democrat and must be of the opposite party of the inspector. Maintains order and security at polling places, including the statutory 75-foot limit against electioneering.

• Four clerks: One keeps records in triplicate of all voters who cast ballots at the polling place. Another checks voter identification. Two other clerks are assigned to the special situation table at each polling place to assist with provisional ballots.

———

Pima County registered voters:

Total: 499,346

Democrats: 200,351

Republican: 158,381

Independents: 136,150

Libertarian: 3,262

Green: 1,202

(Source: Pima County Recorder’s Office)

———

Early voting sites

www.recorder.pima.gov/ev_sites.aspx

www.pima.gov/elections/instruct.htm

www.pima.gov/elections/polls.htm

www.pima.gov/elections/canpage.htm

www.pima.gov/elections/results.htm

www.recorder.pima.gov/

Churchgoers at Sunday’s early Mass at a Catholic parish on Tucson’s West Side heard a sermon that stressed their responsibility to vote and their right to vote their conscience.

While they were sitting in the pews, however, some anonymous person was decorating their car windshields with literature that contradicted the message, including a flier that read: “It is a mortal sin to vote for pro-abortion candidates, such as Barack Obama, Raúl Grijalva and Gabrielle Giffords, in the 2008 elections.”

At issue here – and it comes up during every major election – is whether the faithful of the Catholic Church can morally vote for candidates who support acts the church considers a direct attack on human life, including abortion, euthanasia, human cloning and destruction of human embryos for research.

For Arizona Catholics, the answer they get may differ depending on whether they live in the Diocese of Tucson or the Diocese of Phoenix.

That’s partly why the Rev. Bill Remmel, pastor at Most Holy Trinity, 1300 N. Greasewood Road, was so offended by the unauthorized distribution of the election materials at the parish, which is private property. The Rev. Bart Hutcherson, pastor of the St. Thomas More Catholic Newman Centerat the University of Arizona, also was left fuming by the appearance of similar literature on the car windshields of churchgoers attending Sunday’s 11:15 a.m. mass there.

“I get very angry, yes, because it’s sneaky,” Remmel said. “I don’t want people to sneak around. And if I say, ‘No, we don’t allow that to be distributed because that’s against the policy of the diocese,’ I would expect Catholics to respect that.”

The Diocese of Tucson doesn’t censor the readings of Catholics. But Bishop Gerald Kicanas has been specific about which voter guides and election-related materials are authorized for distribution in local parishes.

Kicanas has said they can make available only official documents of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, the Arizona Catholic Conference and his own statements.

“No one and no group have been given permission to pass out any other materials in our parishes or Catholic institutions. If they do so, it is without my permission,” Kicanas, who is in Rome, wrote me in an e-mail.

The authoritative document providing voting guidance to American Catholics comes from the bishops’ conference, of which Kicanas is vice president. It is intentionally nuanced, if a bit confusing.

Remmel explained, “What the bishops say in ‘Faithful Citizenship’ and what they are pushing, No. 1, is that abortion is considered by the Catholic Church to be an intrinsic evil, and that we can never support anyone who supports an intrinsic evil, such as abortion and racism.

“Then they go on and say, ‘However it is possible to vote for a candidate that supports something we consider to be intrinsically evil, as long as we don’t vote for them for that reason, because they support it.’ ”

In other words, Catholics can consider all the issues in deciding which candidate would do the best job overall “in upholding the values of the Catholic Church,” Remmel said.

“Point blank, (the bishops) say, ‘we are not telling Catholics how to vote.’ Point blank, they say, ‘we cannot be one-issue kinds of voters,’ ” Remmel said.

Kicanas noted in his e-mail that the “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” document clearly states that a voter should “take into account a candidate’s commitment, character, integrity, and ability to influence a given issue.”

Kicanas specifically hasn’t authorized for distribution in Tucson a second piece of literature that the churchgoers found on their windshields – the “Catholics in the Public Square” booklet written by Diocese of Phoenix Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted.

Olmsted writes that all social issues are “absolutely not” equal when it comes to choosing a candidate. Some issues – such as support of abortion rights – are non-negotiable.

The church is interested in a number of social issues, he wrote. “However, when it comes to direct attacks on innocent human life, being right on all the other issues can never justify a wrong choice on this most serious matter.”

While Kicanas did not answer my question on whether the two Arizona bishops are at odds on whether a Catholic can morally vote for a pro-choice candidate, he said each bishop bears the responsibility for teaching in his own diocese.

He and Olmsted “are of one mind on this,” Kicanas wrote.

So, what about those Tucson Catholics fearing eternal damnation should they mark their ballots for Obama, Giffords or Grijalva, or, to be fair, a flawed (by Catholic standards) Republican candidate?

Fear not, Remmel said.

Not only isn’t it a mortal sin, he said, “It’s not a sin at all.”

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

Forty-nine Oro Valley voters are getting replacement early ballots after receiving ballots that did not include a municipal bond question for the Nov. 4 general election.

The voters in Precinct 360 received early ballots that omitted Question 400 – a $48.6 million general obligation bond proposal to fund a new 200-acre park, called the Naranja Town Site, which is north of Naranja Drive between First Avenue and La Cañada Drive.

Pima County is running the election for Oro Valley. Officials blamed a “coding error” for the mailing of incorrect early ballots to the affected voters.

It was the second incomplete early ballot this fall. A voter on Oct. 10 said his ballot’s section for propositions and retention of judges votes was blank.

“In a separate ballot package, you will receive another ballot for the Nov. 4, 2008 general election,” Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez, wrote last week to those 49 voters.

Those voters should destroy the earlier ballot if they have not voted, she said.

Those voters who already filled out and returned the early ballot should call the Pima County Registrar of Voters office at 740-4330 “if you want the replacement ballot to be counted instead of the first ballot,” Rodriguez said.

Pima County Elections Director Brad Nelson said the error occurred when staffers in his office changed a code on the ballot sent to the 49 voters.

“There were two styles of ballots that were produced” for voters in the affected Precinct 360,” Nelson said.

One style was intended for voters residing in Oro Valley who are eligible to vote on Question 400. Another, minus Question 400, was for Precinct 360 voters who do not reside in Oro Valley, Nelson said.

A total 1,079 early ballots were mailed to voters in Precinct 360, Nelson said.

“We didn’t communicate well enough with the Recorder’s Office” to notify officials there of the coding change on the affected ballots, Nelson said.

Then-principal Joan Gilbert helps third-grader Ismael Doucoure perform at Howell Elementary School, 401 N. Irving Ave. in January. The school is one of several participating in the Opening Minds Through the Arts programs.

Tucson Unified School District is the institution locals love to hate – citing every failing school, administrative misstep and program they deplore.

The critics gripe if TUSD has a veteran superintendent and administration, then complain about inexperience when new leadership steps in.

The naysayers cite lots of reasons not to cough up a mere 35 cents a day to directly improve student learning in TUSD.

But they overlook the 57,540 reasons we should make that minor investment.

That’s the number of TUSD children who are longing to learn. And unless they’re given the tools to do so, we all suffer.

We’ll be hurting in ways far more painful than just the lack of a “skilled work force for a 21st-century, global economy,” as typically cited. It will be more direct, even, than the stunting of our local economy, which is a certain outcome if we continue to inadequately educate our kids.

Contemplate the real troubles we face if we’re too miserly to shell out what would amount to 35 cents per day:

• We won’t have enough good doctors, dentists, nurses and surgeons to care for us as we age.

• We’ll lack the smart economists and wise political leaders, honest bankers and stockbrokers, and visionaries needed to put our country back on track.

• We’ll witness the demise of cutting-edge scientific research, in medicine and other areas, as is being conducted today at the University of Arizona.

Perhaps worst of all, we will find ourselves surrounded by ignoramuses unable to carry on a cogent conversation, much less count out the correct change at the cash register.

TUSD, the biggest school district in Pima County, is the only local district for which voters have not authorized a budget override. Sunnyside, Marana, Amphitheater, Tanque Verde, Catalina Foothills and more know that Arizona’s per-pupil funding – ranked 49th among states – isn’t enough to educate our kids.

But TUSD voters repeatedly have refused to give our children fair and adequate educational opportunities.

Prop. 403 renews that chance with a very low pricetag. For 35 cents a day, our kids will get three educational improvements, each of which has been proven to greatly advance students’ academic achievement:

Integration of arts into core subjects (aka Opening Minds Through the Arts); small classrooms of 18 students; and qualified teachers in math, science, special education and other hard-to-fill specialty areas.

Yes, these are tough times. But for pennies a day, Tucson might just produce the child who someday finds a cure for cancer. At the very least, let’s give our kids that chance.

The Tucson Citizen endorses a “yes” vote on Proposition 403.

Tucson leaders next month may consider levying a fee on some new and existing home sales to generate funds for affordable housing. But the proposal and others like it could be derailed if voters pass Proposition 100 next month, say supporters of the ballot measure.

The Protect Our Homes initiative would create a constitutional amendment barring the state and local governments from assessing a tax or fee whenever a property trades hands. Known as a real-estate transfer tax, it would be imposed on a sale, purchase or ownership transfer of a home, commercial property or land.

No such tax currently exists in the state. But the Arizona Association of Realtors, which is financing the campaign, says tax proposals recently floated by city councils and state lawmakers raise serious concerns.

Tom Farley, the association’s chief executive, says cash-strapped governments are trying to “hit up” taxpayers for more money at a time when families are struggling to pay their mortgages, fill their gas tanks and put food on the table.

“What we’re seeing across the nation is governments overspending and then reaching out to taxpayers to enact a new tax or raise an existing tax,” Farley says. “Homeowners already pay an annual property tax. This amounts to nothing more than double taxation and is unfair.”

Opponents, including the Arizona Education Association, say Arizona’s population boom has boosted the demand for everything from school construction and new roads to law enforcement and low-income housing.

The proposition, opponents argue, would close off one potential source of revenue for state and local governments to pay for such critical services.

“For all of the no-new-tax sentiment that gets talked about by Arizona citizens, they still expect a certain level of basic services from their government,” said association President John Wright, whose union represents 34,000 school employees. “Once this passes, there will be one economic tool that is no longer available to us.”

A City Council subcommittee last month recommended the full body approve a transfer fee on any residence built by a developer who has entered into an agreement with the city. But there appears to be disagreement over whether the initiative would block the Tucson plan.

Under the proposal, a half-percent fee would be assessed when a builder sells a home to the first buyer. Every time the home is sold thereafter, the city would charge a 1 percent fee. The money would pay for home improvements, increase home ownership and expand affordable rental options for low-income, elderly and disabled residents.

City Councilwoman Karin Uhlich opposes Prop. 100, but she and other city officials don’t believe passage of the measure would have any bearing on the Tucson proposal. She calls the fee “voluntary,” just one of several options developers could agree to when discussing city-funded subsidies for roads, sewers and other infrastructure.

“A real-estate transfer tax is not being contemplated right now in Tucson,” says Uhlich, a member of the city’s Children, Families and Seniors Subcommittee, who voted to send the proposal to the full council.

Farley doesn’t see things quite the same way.

Specific language in the ballot measure says that neither the state, nor any city, town or other government entity shall impose a tax or fee “direct or indirect” on the sale, purchase or transfer of property. Farley argues that the Tucson proposal calls for indirectly taxing new and existing homebuyers.

“It’s amazing to me in these economic times, a city council is saying, ‘Let’s go enact more property taxes,’ ” he said.

In 2007, two Democratic lawmakers proposed legislation to allow urban counties to collect real-estate transfer taxes.

House Bill 2762, sponsored by Rep. Tom Prezelski and House Minority Leader Phil Lopes, never got a hearing in two committees chaired by Republicans.

Nearly all of the $4.4 million raised by the Prop. 100 campaign has come from the Realtors Issues Mobilization Fund, a political-action committee of Arizona Realtors.

The education association’s Wright said Realtors and developers have a strong financial interest in seeing voters approve the proposition.

“They are in the business of earning money from the transfer of property,” he said.

<h4>Don Jorgensen (D) </h4>

AGE: 51

CAREER: Employee assistance consultant; former executive director Tucson Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence

PUBLIC SERVICE: Community volunteer

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: None

Name one state program that you would vote to increase its funding and one you would vote to decrease or eliminate its funding? Briefly explain.

JORGENSEN: I support holding the line on education funding and public safety, and eliminating programs with no record of results, including “abstinence-only” sex education. Arizona must consider lower-cost, common-sense alternatives to incarceration for nonviolent offenders (e.g. drug treatment, electronic monitoring) rather than building more prisons.

WILLIAMS: Facing an economic downturn, Arizona should focus on freezing or reducing spending across the board whenever possible. The state budget has grown 70 percent in the past decade. With such a high rate of growth comes numerous inefficiencies. The Legislature should look to cut overhead and reduce redundancies.

WRIGHT: I would increase funding to K-12 public education. We are 48th in the United States in funding for K-12, and I believe it is harming our children and our economy. I would not entirely eliminate the funding for any one program at this time. The costs for running private vs. state prisons should also be examined.

ZERULL: I would increase funding for teachers’ pay to meet national average. Teachers in Pima County are paid less than those in Maricopa County, and we are losing good teachers. I would eliminate funding for CPS. It is redundant and ineffective. I would split its funding between sheriff’s and police departments. They could be trained to deal with these matters.

Explain the role you see the state government playing in controlling illegal immigration?

JORGENSEN: Arizona needs comprehensive immigration reform, including border security, working with the federal government to create a temporary guest worker program, and realistic employer sanctions that will hold employers who knowingly hire undocumented persons accountable. Arizona must fight for federal compensation for legal and medical costs.

WILLIAMS: Arizona should enforce immigration laws because dollars spent on enforcement will lessen the impact on our overburdened education, health services and law enforcement entities. We should develop a state-based guest worker program that ensures protection for both the workers and the employers.

WRIGHT: Arizona needs to act to secure our borders. We also need to institute a guest worker program that brings in the labor we need for agriculture and that creates a safe, humane system for the people coming here to work legally. We need more manpower, technology and certain physical barriers to secure the border.

ZERULL: We can give law enforcement personnel the right to ask people their legal or illegal status. The first step in controlling illegal immigration is to recognize who they are. We can also make it a felony if any motorist is caught without proper insurance.

What is Arizona’s education priority and how would you pay for it?

JORGENSEN: Education is about providing our children with the skills needed to become successful adults. We must raise teacher pay, though in this tight budget year I will fight for stable funding and oppose diverting public tax money to private entities. I will demand accountability for all schools receiving public funds.

WILLIAMS: Arizona must fund teacher pay to be at or above the national average. We must look to ensure that we have limited classroom sizes in kindergarten to fourth grade. To afford these changes, Arizona needs to restructure its tax and regulatory codes to be more competitive at state and international levels to continue to foster economic development.

WRIGHT: Raising teacher pay to a competitive market rate, reducing class sizes, solving the needs of our English-language learners, and revamping our AIMS test are all top priorities. I’d also advocate for state trust land reform to more efficiently release the properties that should be developed and allow preservation for sensitive areas.

ZERULL: Besides increasing teachers’ pay, I would eliminate the AIMS test. We need to let teachers teach, starting with the basics. Tests given throughout the school year will determine which children need help, possibly tutoring or student mentoring. I would encourage an “English immersion” to ensure that all children become proficient.

Which of the state ballot initiatives is the most important to you and how will you vote on it?

JORGENSEN: Tough choice with so many misleading initiatives. No on 102, 105, 200. In 25 years of behavioral health work I know the real threats to marriage are not gays, but addiction and abuse. Prop. 105 would prevent meaningful tax reform, and Prop. 200 would allow expansion of predatory lending.

WILLIAMS: Prop. 100 “No New Home Tax” represents a key issue, for we continue to tax our existing base. One of my principal beliefs is that we cannot, nor should we attempt to, tax ourselves into prosperity. It’s unfair to place the burdens on the backs of the average homeowner, who have been victims because of our lack of fiscal constraints. I will vote no.

WRIGHT: I’m voting no on all of the measures, but I believe the worst is Proposition 105, or the so-called “Majority Rules.” If this passes, it will destroy the citizen initiative process in Arizona. It will mean that a “no” vote will be counted for qualified electors who can vote but don’t, or who skip a measure on the ballot. It attacks the root of democracy. It’s clearly wrong to count nonvoters.

ZERULL: I am against the Stop Illegal Hiring initiative. This is a poorly written and misleading initiative that would, in effect, water down our current employer sanctions law that has proven very effective so far.

Vic Williams (R)

AGE: 45

CAREER: Real estate investor

PUBLIC SERVICE: Dove Mountain Rotary, Habitat for Humanity, Red Cross, YMCA

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: None

Nancy Young Wright (D)

AGE: 48

CAREER: Project manager Pima County Public Library; former executive director ArtsReach Writing Programs PUBLIC SERVICE: Member Oro Valley Neighborhood Coalition; numerous Oro Valley, Amphi schools groups POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: Amphi school board, 1996-2007; appointed to state House, 2008

Marilyn Zerull (R)

AGE: 59

CAREER: Homemaker

PUBLIC SERVICE: Math tutor, Boy Scouts of America, Community Food Bank volunteer

POLITICAL EXPERIENCE: None