The Tucson Citizen Editorial Board interviewed candidates in contested general election races. Here are summaries of our previously published endorsements.

FEDERAL OFFICES

Raúl Grijalva

Democrat, U.S. Congressional District 7

The three-term U.S. House member is well known for his attention to early childhood and public education, conservation of natural resources and our nation’s wild places, as well as his appreciation of our military and desire for an end to the war in Iraq.

Gabrielle Giffords

Democrat, U.S. Congressional District 8

The accessible, candid first-term House member embodies the bipartisan spirit needed to get things done, has an excellent understanding of issues, such as the war in Iraq, and has the experience needed to use that knowledge on Arizonans’ behalf.

STATE SENATE

Manuel V. Alvarez

Democrat, state Legislative District 25

Rural health care is a major focus for the quiet, straightforward three-time state legislator. He astutely sees illegal immigration as primarily a federal problem and wants the state to focus on drug-runners and other violent criminals who break state laws.

Cheryl A. Cage

Democrat, state Legislative District 26

A businesswoman, Cage wants Arizona to exploit its potential for solar power, believes the state must diversify its revenue sources and says the Legislature should revisit a defeated initiative that would allow state universities to partner with private businesses.

Bob Westerman

Republican, state Legislative District 27

Westerman, a senior manager at Raytheon Missile Systems, has an enthusiasm for the job of governance, an unusually deep knowledge of the troubled state budget and a passion for education that would serve the Democrat-dominated district well.

Jonathan Paton

Republican, state Legislative District 30

Two-term state legislator Paton understands government and has done yeoman’s work, distinguishing himself most recently by co-sponsoring a package of laws designed to improve children’s safety and increase transparency in Child Protective Services.

STATE HOUSE

Richard Boyer

Democrat, state Legislative District 25

Boyer, a former Bisbee magistrate, has provocative ideas: He wants property tax relief, higher teacher pay and suggests teachers get the same deal as some doctors: help with college costs if they’ll work in a rural area initially.

Patricia Fleming

Democrat, state Legislative District 25

Fleming,who retired after 24 years with the Department of the Army, says southern Arizona’ No. 1 problem is drug trafficking and illegal immigration. She questions the proposed I-10 bypass and likes the concept of a Tucson-Phoenix rail connection.

Don Jorgensen

Democrat, state Legislative District 26

Jorgensen, a health care professional, promises transparency in the budget process. He wants a dedicated funding source for education, rather than leaving it to the whims of the Legislature, which has traditionally been stingy.

Nancy Young Wright

Democrat, state Legislative District 26

Wright, in the Legislature for a year, says prison costs should be reviewed, especially in private prisons. In budgets cuts, all-day kindergarten, KidsCare and prenatal services should not be touched; they save us money in the long run.

Olivia Cajero Bedford

Democrat, state Legislative District 27

Cajero-Bedford, a legislator for six years, has a deep sense of social responsibility and tried to increase cancer research funding. She is a staunch voice for education, social services, health care and services for elderly people.

Phil Lopes

Democrat, state Legislative District 27

Lopes, Democratic leader in the House, is one of the state’s outstanding legislators. He is a strong advocate for education at all levels. He has had a major role in helping craft palatable and workable budgets the past two years.

Matt Heinz

Democrat, state Legislative District 29

Heinz, a doctor, would bring real-world knowledge and advocacy for better health care. He wants to increase middle-class access to the state health care system. Safe communities and a stable educational system also make Arizona healthier.

Daniel Patterson

Democrat, state Legislative District 29

Patterson, an ecologist, wants economic justice for South Side working families. He says further tax cuts are not a good idea given Arizona’s spiraling budget deficit. Says a higher gas tax would increase needed revenues for transportation.

Frank Antenori

Republican, state Legislative District 30

Antenori, a program manager at Raytheon, is an advocate for smaller government. He wants to preserve strong public safety, transportation, basic health services and to ensure Arizona provides “a good, solid K-12 education.”

Andrea Dalessandro

Democrat, state Legislative District 30

Dalessandro, a retired accountant, opposes vouchers and tax credits, saying they take public dollars away from public schools. She is fiscally frugal and wants to encourage more business support of schools and better health care.

ARIZONA CORPORATION COMMISSION

Marian A. McClure

Republican

McClure, who served eight years in the state House, is a passionate advocate for consumers and a fiery foe of the usurious payday lending industry. She wants to battle securities fraud to protect the elderly and help Arizona to become a leader in solar.

Bob Stump

Republican

Stump, a former legislator, says renewable energy costs will drop as our use of those sources rises. Wants to pursue all forms of cheaper, cleaner energy. Supports net metering, noting that “consumers can liberate themselves” by generating more energy than they use.

Barry Wong

Republican

Wong served six months on the ACC and helped pass and is a strong supporter of the renewable energy standard for utilities, which segues our state into less use of foreign oil. As a legislator, he worked to create tax credits and market incentives for renewable energy.

COUNTY OFFICES

Sharon Bronson

Democrat, Supervisor District 3

Bronson is knowledgeable and competent. Despite her opponent’s hollow claims, Bronson has worked to maintain essential county services during the declining economy. A strong supporter of the Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan.

Barbara LaWall

Democrat, County Attorney

LaWall, who has held office for 12 years, has reduced the trial rate while concentrating on the worst criminals. She has an excellent record in working with victims of crimes and children who have been victimized. She has stayed within her budget.

Clarence W. Dupnik

Democrat, Sheriff

Dupnik has been sheriff for 28 years and has been responsible for making the department a well-respected agency despite staff shortages. Has formed a border crimes unit to go after those who commit crimes after entering the country illegally.

Linda Arzoumanian

Republican, Superintendent of Public Instruction

Arzoumanian has held the county school job for eight years. Has efficiently served 15 of the county’s 17 school districts with oversight of bookkeeping, accounting, teacher certification and, in some cases, transportation.

———

For more information . . .

• about where to vote in Pima County, go to the Web site for the Recorder’s Office: www.recorder.pima.gov

or to the Pima County Elections Division site: www.co.pima.az.us/elections

• to see video of the candidates’ interviews with our Editorial Board, go to www.tucsoncitizen.com/election.

• In next Monday’s Citizen: a roundup of our endorsements of state and local propositions.

Masquerading as a protector for access to private medical options, the initiative actually would hinder true reform

Professor Gene Schneller of Arizona State University concludes, "Lawyers will be the major beneficiaries" of Proposition 101.

About the way health care is delivered in Arizona and the rest of the United States, one thing is certain: The system is broken.

More than 1.2 million Arizonans,

nearly 20 percent,

lack health insurance. Since 1999, the cost of premiums in the U.S. has risen four times faster than inflation.

Fewer businesses with fewer than 10 employees offered health insurance in 2007 than in 2000.

Against this backdrop comes Proposition 101, which would amend Arizona’s Constitution to prohibit laws that restrict a person’s freedom to choose private care, or to decline to be covered by any particular health system or plan.

The proposition is a bubbling petri dish of unforeseen consequences that will not improve our health care system and will hinder true reform. It should be rejected.

The broad sweep of the proposition leads many health care experts to believe it will result in endless litigation as attorneys haggle over its interpretation. Even Dr. Eric Novack,

one of two Phoenix surgeons pushing the plan, acknowledges that the right combination of attorneys and plaintiffs could result in lawsuits.

The head of Arizona’s state Medicaid program says the proposal, if challenged in the courts, could force the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System

to switch to a fee-for-service model that would cost consumers $1 billion.

Professor Gene Schneller

of Arizona State University concludes,

“Lawyers will be the major beneficiaries.”

Prop. 101 supporters like to frame it in First Amendment terms, as if the proposal were enshrining a right akin to speaking or worshipping freely.

But it does not make access to health care a right or even guarantee the right to the doctor of one’s choice.

HMOs still would be able to change at will their lists of “in-network” physicians and hospitals.

Prop. 101′s provision giving Arizonans the right to opt out of a health plan is at odds with the benefits society would obtain from mandating that all Arizonans have health insurance. The analogy to car insurance, which is mandatory in Arizona, is apt.

Mandatory car insurance benefits all Arizonans. It puts insurers, not the state, on the hook for expenses. So it should be with health insurance. When the uninsured get sick, we all pay.

Supporters of Prop. 101 argue that mandatory insurance does not work because 25 percent to 40 percent

of motorists remain uninsured. But that doesn’t mean the law’s purpose is flawed, only that enforcement must be improved.

Businesses fear the proposition. Almost all chambers of commerce in the state oppose it, because they worry it would give any employee the right to reject the company health plan and demand an alternative – the tyranny of the minority.

Legislators, both moderate and conservative, have come out against the proposition because health care coverage is a legislative, not a constitutional, issue. They realize the proposal would handcuff their ability to make real fixes to the system.

Massachusetts and other states are experimenting with universal health coverage plans. Some may fail, but others may succeed. Under the constrictions of Prop. 101, Arizona would not be able to partake of the best practices of other states. We’d be stuck with the dysfunctional status quo.

“Choice” is the mantra of Prop. 101′s supporters. But Arizonans already have choice; what they need is real health care reform, which the initiative would impede. Prop. 101 may be what some special interests and lawyers want, but it is not what the doctor ordered.

The Tucson Citizen urges voters to reject Proposition 101.

Prop. 201 would allow dissatisfied buyers of new homes to sue builders without first trying mediation.

Ballot propositions are typically put forth to fix perceived problems in the Arizona Constitution or state law.

That said, it is unclear why Proposition 201 – the so-called Homeowners’ Bill of Rights – has made its way to the ballot.

Seemingly unneeded, it would undo a portion of state law that appears to be working fairly well.

Therefore, the proposition should be rejected by voters Nov. 4.

The Arizona chapter of the AFL-CIO is behind Prop. 201. But unless the organization’s goal is to force unionization of homebuilding, as some opponents of the proposition claim, the reason for the its involvement is hazy.

Prop. 201 would require a 10-year warranty on new homes, up from the industry standard of eight years.

But its most significant provisions would change the way dissatisfied homebuyers would deal with the homebuilders.

Current law is designed to steer both sides toward a resolution with a lawsuit as a last possibility.

Today, if a buyer is dissatisfied with a new home, the buyer must give the builder a written description of the problems.

The builder then must inspect the home and tell the buyer in writing how the problems will be resolved.

There are deadlines for each step in the process. If the builder fails to meet a deadline or if no agreement is reached, the buyer may file suit.

Prop. 201 would allow buyers to immediately sue builders without first trying to resolve the issue through mediation. The proposition also would not allow builders to ask a judge to award them attorneys’ fees if they win – a departure from law governing other types of lawsuits.

Those behind the proposition say it is needed because too many shoddy homes are being built. But the 2008 New Home Quality Survey by J.D. Power and Associates find homebuyers are generally satisfied and the number of complaints has declined.

The current law was enacted in 2002 after input from homebuilders and consumer advocates. Supporters of Prop. 201 have not put forth any pressing reason to replace that law with a new one that would allow buyers to immediately rush to sue while prohibiting builders from seeking repayment of their legal fees if they prevail.

The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Prop. 201.

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.

When the Legislature passed an employer sanctions bill that was signed into law last year, it was considered legally questionable.

But the law has functioned largely as intended. So Proposition 202, which is pushed as a “fix,” is unneeded and may undermine the current law.

Under the law, business owners who knowingly hire people not in the country legally can be prosecuted. A first violation causes business licenses to be suspended for 10 days; a second violation leads to permanent revocation.

No one has been prosecuted under the law, but there are anecdotal reports that it has prompted some illegal immigrants to leave the state.

The law isn’t perfect, but it has been upheld by two federal courts. And last year, the Legislature moved to fix some problems.

Prop. 202 would do away with the current law and replace it with a new but very similar one. It would make it more difficult for prosecutors to prove illegal workers were hired knowingly and would require that all complaints be signed and in writing.

We are leery of doing away with a law that has been upheld by the courts. The new one could be overturned, leaving Arizona with no employer sanctions law. We’d rather have the Legislature continue to improve it.

The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Proposition 202.

Correction

A Thursday editorial incorrectly reported a former leadership position held by Barney Brenner, a candidate for the District 3 seat on the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Brenner is a former president of the Pima County Republican Club.

Proposition 105 is a truly strange idea – one that would empower people who don’t bother to vote.

Prop. 105 goes by the misleading name of “Majority Rules – Let the People Decide.” That seems to make sense. But what the proposition actually would do is put voters and nonvoters on equal footing when it comes to deciding some future ballot measures.

The proposition would require that any ballot initiative that imposes additional taxes or spending be approved by a majority of registered voters. That’s not by a majority of those who vote, but a majority of all voters who are registered – regardless of whether they actually cast a ballot.

That would make it virtually impossible for such initiatives to ever be approved. Someone who goes to the polls and votes “yes” on a future ballot measure would be canceled out by someone who does not vote. All nonvoters would, in essense, be counted as “no” votes.

Consider this scenario: Were 75 percent of the registered voters to go to the polls, 2 of every 3 voters who cast ballots would have to support a measure for it to pass – an unfairly high standard.

Those who support this proposition claim the state budget has ballooned because of initiatives that cost money.

There is some truth to that. Voters approved improved health care for low-income residents – a move that brought two federal dollars to Arizona for every $1 in state money spent. The Legislature didn’t want to do that, but a majority of voters did. That’s how the system works. That’s majority rules.

There’s a basic principle at work here: Those who take the time to educate themselves and vote should have their say. The act of not voting should not be the same as voting “no.”

The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Proposition 105.

Linda Arzoumanian

Pima County Schools Superintendent Linda Arzoumanian has done a fine job over the past eight years and should be re-elected to continue that work.

Even her election opponent, Tom Rogers, agrees with that assessment, saying he is running primarily to promote Libertarian and school reform ideas.

The county superintendent’s job, however, is not to make policy. Rather, it is to serve 15 of the county’s 17 school districts with oversight of bookkeeping, accounting, teacher certification and, in some cases, transportation, among other functions.

Arzoumanian, a Republican, has done that and more, such as lobbying for the local Joint Technological Educa-tion District. Her work reflects her dedication to education in our county.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Linda Arzoumanian for re-election as Pima County schools superintendent.

The home-grown Grijalva has worked to protect our public lands, environment, Indian tribes and even black bears.

Raúl Grijalva

U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva well deserves to be re-elected to a fourth term in Congress, where his hard work, deep knowledge and sound judgment have served constituents well.

Grijalva, a Democrat, is well known for his keen attention to early childhood and public education, conservation of natural resources and our nation’s wild places, as well as his appreciation of our military and desire for an end to the war in Iraq.

His dedication to southern Arizona is irrefutable and is reflected in the considerable constituent service his office provides.

That’s especially important, given that his Congressional District 7 covers more territory than New Jersey, Connecticut, Hawaii, Delaware and Rhode Island combined, stretching from Avondale to Nogales and encompassing much of Tucson.

Grijalva again faces campaign challengers this year, but neither poses any serious threat.

Perennial candidate Joseph Sweeney again is running as a Republican, no point of pride for the GOP.

Sweeney – who unashamedly spews racist and anti-gay rhetoric – also has run as a Democrat and as a New Alliance Party candidate during his repeated losing bids for Congress dating back to 1984.

Also in the race is a first-time candidate, Arizona City Libertarian Raymond Petrulsky, who runs a call center that conducts political polls.

Petrulsky wants to double the Border Patrol and let private contractors work to secure the border. In Iraq, he wants to start immediate troop withdrawals, “then claim victory.”

His lack of political experience would not serve District 7 well.

Neither would Sweeney’s bizarre and often incomprehensible rants.

District 7 is fortunate to have the Tucson-born Grijalva, who learned local issues the hard way.

Grijalva worked from 1974 to 1986 as an unpaid member of the Tucson Unified School District Governing Board, then served on the Pima County Board of Supervisors from 1988 until he went to Congress in 2002.

In Congress, he was named chairman of the National Parks, Forests and Public Lands Subcommittee, an important position for this public servant who has worked to preserve Tumacacori Highlands and pristine areas around the Grand Canyon, to name a few, while also fighting for more appropriate funding for national parks.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl Grijalva for re-election in Congressional District 7.

There are several good reasons for giving a pay raise to Arizona legislators. But there is one huge reason not to: the plunging national and statewide economy.

Legislators make $24,000 per year – the same salary they’ve received since 1999. Proposition 300 would increase that to $30,000.

Let’s be honest: The cost of legislators’ salaries is minuscule. The total amount paid to lawmakers for a year wouldn’t run state prisons for a day.

Legislators’ pay makes up about 0.022 percent of the $10 billion state budget. Increasing it to $30,000 would make it about 0.027 percent. Big deal.

They deserve it. They work hard. They have to spend a lot of time in Phoenix. And increasing the pay might increase the pool of people willing to run for the job.

But there is a lot of symbolism at work. State employees are unlikely to get a raise next year as the state struggles with a deficit. Every spare dime left in ancillary funds or couch cushions will be grabbed.

This is not the time for legislators to get a raise. The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Prop. 300.

Seventy percent of the cases taken to trial by Barbara LaWall involve dangerous, repeat offenders.

It is easy to run for political office against an established incumbent by throwing around allegations of ineffective leadership.

It is far more difficult for a challenger to put forth cogent ways in which he would do a better job.

That is the position in which Bradley Roach finds himself as he runs against Barbara LaWall, who has served as Pima County attorney for a dozen years. Green Party candidate Claudia Ellquist also is in the race.

There is no love lost between LaWall and Roach. The latter worked for the former until he left under pressure after becoming ensnared in a case in which one doctor was convicted of hiring a hit man to kill another doctor. Roach was reprimanded by the county.

Roach, a Republican, insists his run against Democrat LaWall is not personal – but his misaimed and largely vacuous litany of accusations and allegations belie his denials.

Roach says the crime rate is too high – true – and that is LaWall’s fault – untrue. Roach said LaWall could cut the crime rate by seeking longer prison terms for dangerous and repeat criminals. But LaWall says that is her focus, and Roach offers no contravening evidence.

He also claims LaWall prosecutes only cases that the media find “interesting.” But it is far more likely LaWall prosecutes the type of violent case that the media is most apt to cover.

LaWall has a good record as county attorney. We have criticized her in the past for taking too many cases to trial, causing higher costs with little return. She since has reduced the trial rate while concentrating on the worst criminals. Seventy percent of the cases taken to trial involve those who commit serious, violent crimes – often repeatedly.

She has an excellent record in working with victims of crimes and children who have been victimized. And she has stayed within her budget.

Ellquist is an avowed death penalty foe and says she would never seek death in any homicide. If she wants to work to change Arizona law, fine. But as prosecutor, she should not ignore the wishes of a majority of Arizonans.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Democrat Barbara LaWall for re- election as Pima County attorney.

Proposition 100 goes by the name “Protect Our Homes.” But what it really would do is further disable a Legislature that already operates under several handicaps.

It should be rejected.

The proposition sounds innocent: It would prohibit any government from charging any new tax on the sale or transfer of property. There are no such taxes now, and this would forever preclude them.

We don’t necessarily believe such taxes should be imposed. But we also do not believe the state constitution should be amended to permanently ban consideration of any single revenue source.

One of the reasons the recession has been so severe in Arizona is the state’s over-reliance on sales taxes. It would be fiscally prudent to reduce the sales tax and increase other taxes by an equal amount.

But that won’t happen. The state constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to increase any tax – a political impossibility.

We can’t anticipate future situations. Leave options open. The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Prop. 100.

Compare Dupnik's quiet efficiency to the bellicose circus that has engulfed the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office under Joe Arpaio.

Clarence Dupnik has been a local law enforcement officer for more than a half-century, including 28 years as Pima County sheriff.

Republican Harry Shaw offers no reason for voters to end Dupnik’s service to the Tucson community.

Dupnik started as an officer with the Tucson Police Department. He rose through the ranks and in 1977 left to join the Sheriff’s Department as chief deputy. Three years later, he was appointed sheriff and has held the position since.

It was Dupnik, a Democrat, who has been responsible for leading the department’s transformation from an organization that was deeply infected with corruption to a respected department that has the technology and deputies to provide law enforcement services to tens of thousands of people who live in the unincorporated areas of the county.

Compare Dupnik’s quiet efficiency to the bellicose circus that has engulfed the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office under Joe Arpaio.

The challenges facing the Pima County Sheriff’s Department are enormous.

The county shares a lengthy border with Mexico, meaning the smuggling of drugs and humans as well as other related crimes spill into Pima County.

And because of financial pressures, the department is understaffed, needing about 180 more deputies to reach the national average in deputies per 1,000 residents.

Dupnik cannot possibly take on the federal job of chasing down illegal immigrants while still providing law enforcement services to county residents. But he has formed a border crimes unit to go after those who commit crimes after entering the country illegally.

Shaw has worked for several law enforcement agencies, including the Department of Corrections. He now works security for Raytheon Missile Systems.

Shaw blames Dupnik for not doing more to prevent crime and says he will put more deputies on the street and “close down the border.” He says he can do that while cutting costs and providing better services to residents.

How? Shaw wouldn’t say, with the ludicrous claim that Dupnik would undercut his campaign by implementing Shaw’s plan before the election.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Democrat Clarence Dupnik for re- election as Pima County sheriff.

When it comes to elections, there is only one acceptable standard: perfection.

Every person who has the right to vote must be accommodated. Every ballot must be properly prepared and easy to understand. Every vote must be counted quickly and accurately.

Realistically, that’s not going to happen. Elections are run by human beings with varying skills and training. There will be mistakes.

So while perfection in counting votes is the goal, the perfection that really matters is getting it right. The will of the people must be accurately reflected in every contest. The people and issues declared the winners must be those who actually received the most votes.

With that in mind, Pima County, in working with local political parties, has taken needed steps to make the upcoming general election as free of questions, doubts and problems as humanly possible.

One thing has not changed since the primary election: Vote counting will be slow. In the primary, near-final results were not released until 4 a.m. the day after the election. That’s likely to be the same situation after the Nov. 4 election.

The main procedural change that slowed the process was the insistence by Pima County Democrats and Libertarians that vote totals not be sent by modem from the county’s 417 precincts to the central computer system.

The parties maintain that results could be sent instead to a third party who could alter them and send them to the county computer – a scenario the county agrees is technically possible.

So instead, ballots and scanning equipment will be taken from polling places to one of 13 collection centers. From there, they will be taken to the main vote-counting center where information will be downloaded directly.

That presents other problems, with ballots and machines traveling around town in vehicles that could be in accidents. It also is the main factor in having final results available so much later than in other areas.

The county staffs its polling places with thousands of people who work only one day and must perform a complex job to a high level of accuracy. After the primary election and again after the general, the county grades each worker to see where there are problems.

Ballots and scanning equipment are transported in bags with tamper-proof seals. There are numerous other steps being taken to make the process as secure and accurate as possible.

There still are ways for things to go wrong. But unless something unexpected emerges, questions about Pima County’s election integrity are based on fears and suspicions, not on reasonable doubts.

We have confidence that vote results in Pima County next month will accurately reflect the will of the people. And ultimately, that’s what matters.

Cajero Bedford: Has an abiding sense of social responsibility.

Lopes: Leader of House Democrats and strong advocate for education.

Legislative District 27 on Tucson’s West Side has drawn a diverse group of candidates seeking its two seats in the state House.

Two Democrats, a Republican, a Green and a Libertarian will be on the Nov. 4 general election ballot. Our endorsement goes to the same two candidates as two years ago: Democratic incumbents Phil Lopes and Olivia Cajero Bedford.

If re-elected, both Cajero Bedford and Lopes would be serving their final two years in the state House because of term-limit laws. Both have done laudable work for six years.

Also in the race are Libertarian Mark Phelps, Republican J.D. “Duke” Schechter and Kent Solberg, a Green.

Of the three, Solberg shows promise and has thoughtful ideas. Phelps and Schechter are far out of their league.

Lopes is one of the state’s outstanding legislators. His Democratic colleagues in the House have chosen him their leader for the past four years.

He is a strong advocate for education at all levels and was one of the legislative champions for state-funded, voluntary all-day kindergarten for Arizona youngsters.

Despite his position as a member of the minority party, Lopes has had a major role in helping craft palatable and workable budgets the past two years.

That experience will be even more crucial in 2009.

Cajero Bedford brings a deep sense of social responsibility to the Legislature – much of it instilled by her parents, Bernardo and Carmen Cajero, both of whom served in the Legislature.

Cajero Bedford has been a staunch voice for education, social services, health care and services for elderly people.

She introduced legislation last year that would have provided $1 in state funding for every $3 in new donations to cancer research, as both an economic boost and a way to help people with cancer. Unfortunately, her bill, like all that sought money in this down budget year, failed.

Solberg, who with his wife owns a local tool business, has long been politically active – back as far as the recall effort of disgraced then-Gov. Evan Mecham in the late 1980s. More recently, Solberg opposed the Regional Transportation Plan, which was OK’d.

He exhibits solid understanding of the depth of the state’s budget problems, saying that instead of small trimming, legislators must identify entire programs that can be lopped off.

Solberg puts education, health care and social services at the top of his priorities. He says the state should reconsider its leap into charter schools and find ways to divert people from prison as a humanitarian and financial move.

We don’t disagree with any of that, but he cannot match the experience of Lopes and Cajero Bedford.

Phelps is unclear on many aspects of state government, saying local police departments should receive more money – something legislators don’t oversee.

He also says public education should be more privatized. No thanks.

Schechter is opposed to a government-mandated minimum wage, would funnel tax money to private schools through vouchers and wants the state to establish a single-payer health insurance program. We don’t agree with any of that.

District 27 encompasses much of Tucson’s West Side, generally north of the Tohono O’odham Nation and west of Interstate 10. The district also includes much of downtown and goes north to the Ina Road area. Each voter may pick two House members.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Democrats Phil Lopes and Olivia Cajero Bedford for the two state House seats in District 27.

Robert Westerman

Jorge Luis Garcia has represented the West Side District 27 in the Legislature for three largely unremarkable terms.

Now Robert Westerman, a well-informed newcomer, has stepped up to challenge Garcia. And Westerman’s knowledge of the legislative process and state issues as well as his clear enthusiasm for the job make him the better candidate.

Clearly, it will be difficult for Westerman, a Republican, to dislodge Democrat Garcia. The district has three times as many Democrats as Republicans.

Westerman has an unusually deep knowledge of the troubled state budget and a passion for education that would serve the district well.

He is a senior manager at Raytheon Missile Systems who moved to Arizona 16 years ago and is making his first run for elective office.

Westerman calls education the primary issue facing the state, saying the state’s inadequate spending for schools hurts not only children, but also makes it difficult to attract businesses that demand a high quality of life for their employees.

He praises Garcia’s support for education funding, but says more needs to be done. Westerman says the state should have a dedicated funding source for both building and operating schools – an intriguing idea that would remove education spending from the political chopping block in times – such as now – when the budget is tight.

Westerman also says the state may have to increase fuel taxes to tackle massive transportation needs – a refreshing consideration that would take pressure off the overburdened sales tax. He also would ask the private sector to get involved, possibly by building and operating toll roads for those willing to pay to bypass more congested highways.

Garcia’s résumé is thin, despite his six years in the Senate and his two years as assistant Democratic leader. Garcia also served in the state House for four years in the 1990s.

He cites his work in helping the Arizona State Schools for the Deaf and the Blind on a couple of matters and his bill to give grandparents the first right to care for children seized by the state and kept in protective custody.

District 27 includes much of Tucson’s West Side, generally north of the Tohono O’odham Nation and west of Interstate 10. The district also includes much of downtown and goes north to the Ina Road area.

The Tucson Citizen endorses Republican Robert Westerman for the state Senate in District 27.