Senate President, Ken Bennett, R-1, finds it “troubling.” Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas says he is “concerned” and has “serious questions about legality and ethics.” From the portentous rhetoric, a person could not be blamed for fearing that organized crime may have seized control of Arizona’s government, which millions in public funds have gone missing, or that some other major calamity has befallen us.

It should come as a great source of relief to discover that all this hyperventilating is over the efforts of Sen. Jack Harper, R-4, to investigate a voting irregularity from the 2004 election.

In the 2004 District 20 Republican primary, Anton Orlich appeared to have narrowly edged-out John McComish for a spot on the November general election ballot. Naturally, with a race so close, a recount was undertaken. During this recount, 489 additional votes turned up and reversed the outcome.

Karen Osborne, Maricopa County Elections director, attributed the discrepancy to voters using improper pens to fill out their ballots. She speculates that the writing may have been too faint to be read by the original voting machines, but were picked up by the more sensitive devices used in the recount.

Whether the marks detected by the more sensitive devices were legitimate additional votes or merely stray marks and whether the voting machines used in the various precincts are working properly would seem to be reasonable questions. Elections provide for a peaceful means of determining who will take office and make the laws. It is essential that the vote counting be accurate.

Answering these questions and confirming the accuracy of the election process is the focus of Sen. Harper’s investigation. It seems fair enough. What’s the fuss all about≠

Well, apparently, Sen. Harper has shown too much initiative. The analysis of the ballots and the machines costs $3,000. The senator’s request for funding from the Legislature was rejected by Sen. Bennett. A New Times staff member instead helped to fund the investigation.

Douglas Jones, a computer expert from the University of Iowa has been hired to conduct the investigation. Mr. Jones has had previous experience as an election observer in Eastern Europe. Thus far, he has begun examining the voting machines, but Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert has denied him access to the ballots. Mr. Schweikert says he will wait for a court to order him to provide access to the ballots. Sen. Harper’s subpoena isn’t good enough.

Sen. Harper’s intent is worthy. His ingenuity in pursuing a solution that does not require the use of public funds is commendable. The participation of the New Times ensures full disclosure of whatever results are derived from the investigation. Why is he being harassed≠

The best that can be said for his detractors is that they may be motivated by petty concerns over turf. Sen. Bennett may be miffed that a lower ranking colleague hasn’t simply taken “no” for an answer from him. The county attorney may view investigations as his prerogative.

Sen. Harper has done no harm. He may have done some good. Use of a word like “unethical” to describe his actions is a smear. Too often differences of opinion over whether something ought to be done or how it should be done degrade into assaults on someone’s character. This is not the way to run a government.

John Semmens

Chandler