Update on Arizona Legislative Ballot Counts

Arizona Ballot 

Ballots are still being counted, especially in the case of JD Hayworth and Proposition 107. Here are the latest numbers:

CD 5 – JD Hayworth vs. Harry Mitchell – Hayworth now within 5932 votes.

Proposition 107 – Pro 107 now losing by 33,437 votes.

LD 9 – Rick Murphy vs. Sheri Van Horsen – Murphy widens lead by 130 votes.

LD 10 House – Doug Quelland vs. Jackie Thrasher – Quelland closes in to 282 votes.

LD 11 House – Don Hesselbrock vs. Mark Desimone – Hesselbrock still behind but now by 859.

LD 17 House – Laura Knaperek vs. David Schapira – Knaperek narrows gap to 1662 votes.

LD 18 House – Russell Pearce vs. Tammie Pursley – Pearce widens lead to 1413.

LD 21 House – Warde Nichols vs. Phil HettmanspergerNichols overcomes Hettmansperger by 198 votes!

LD 23 House – Frank Pratt vs. Barbara McGuire – Pratt is now down by 174 votes.

LD 25 House – Jennifer Burns vs. Pat Fleming – Burns increases lead to 466 votes.

LD 26 Senate – Al Melvin vs. Charlene Pesquiera – Melvin inches to 146 votes from Pesquiera

LD 26 House – David Jorgenson vs. Lena Saradnik – No change at 4294 votes.

And the counting continues…


  1. Mike Triggs says

    Shane – Why did 107 go down? At what point do you think Len, Cathi and the folks at CAP are going to admit they made a mistake trying to stick it to the folks that shack-up? Had they pushed a straight “ONE MAN ONE WOMAN” constitutional amendment I’m sure it would have passed. AZ voters saw it for what it was – MEAN.

  2. It wasn’t “mean”, it was wholly protective of marriage.

    In short, it protected marriage by ensuring that the state and its sub-organs couldn’t draft marriage-like entities out of whole cloth. Kinda stunning when you think of it that way — your governmental bodies created marriage-like arrangements with no vote or will of the people — they just thought it was a good idea and that you should have no say

    107 would not have prevented those cities from allowing benefits to pass to say, one adult beneficiary. Indeed, the lawyers who drafted it recommended that the benefit schemes be changed to do so. But yes on 107 had no cash to get this message out, and thus got swamped by the opposition’s ads which were less than true.

  3. Thanks so much for doing this blog! I was searching and searching for some news about the continued counting of ballots, and stumbled upon the Sonoran Alliance. I appreciate your good analysis and insights – very relevant for Arizona citizens. Keep up the good work – we’ll be following your blogs on through ’08.

  4. My adamant recommendation is to get back on the horse and run the “one man – one woman” definition again. Or, go out and raise 2 million dollars and run the same initiative again but this time define your opponents as the extreme.

  5. Sonoran Truth Squad says

    They spent money on early ballot applications. We got them at our house… We also got three from the State GOP Party. Seemed like a waste of money to do something that the State GOP was already doing. What else did they misspend their money on?

  6. Charlene Pesquiera and Al Melvin is also ‘NO CHANGE’–just like Saradnik and Jorgensen. The difference has been 146 for several days.

  7. redcardphreek says

    Good post, I had been looking for the updates and this is the only place with them.

    A straight “marriage is between a man and a woman” would pass easily in Arizona.

    The fundies went too far in crafting the bill and a slim majority of people saw through it.

  8. Same amendment passed by 18 pts in Wisconsin.

Speak Your Mind


judi online bonanza88 slot baccarat online slot idn live situs idn poker judi bola tangkas88 pragmatic play sbobet slot dana casino online idn pokerseri joker123 selot slot88