By Fallan Patterson
Staff Writer

Armando Ramirez, who is suing Osceola County Supervisor of Election’s Office Supervisor Mary Jane Arrington, was ordered by the court Tuesday to finish copying documents at the office by Thursday after the office’s attorney argued Ramirez’s team was inefficient.

Ramirez is suing Arrington and the Nov-ember 2010 county canvassing board, which includes County Commissioner Fred Hawkins Jr. and Osceola County Circuit Judge Hal Epperson, claiming a fraudulent outcome of the Nov. 2 County Commission district 2 election, which was won by sitting Republican Commissioner John Quiñones. Ramirez ran as a Democrat.

“They’re copying as fast as things can be copied, given what they’ve got,” R. Steven Miles Jr.,  Elections Office attorney, said of Ramirez’s personal copy machine during the emergency hearing Tuesday in front of Circuit Court Judge Jeffrey M. Fleming. “Given the volume of material they’ve asked for, we may be here until Aug. 24 (the final hearing day) with two clerks tied up.”

Beulah Farquharson, an intervener in the case on behalf of Ramirez, shot back at Miles, accusing the Elections Office of failing to provide information electronically when possible – disks of information cost $15 – and naming documents differently in order to hide them.

“They have given us some documents but the crucial ones, somehow there are stumbling blocks,” Ramirez said. “I honestly believe that we were precluded from receiving the electronic data requested due to the SOE’s state of fear from being embarrassed. Apparently, since the electronic data leave behind a trail of recorded information of ‘electronic tracking,’ the SOE was trying to remove any possibility of our team finding any election anomaly helping our discovery process.”

Those roadblocks include voting machine audit tapes, which record information from the machines. An undated and unsigned letter to Ramirez, which was printed on Elections Office letterhead, states the data in at least two audit tapes, specifically from precinct 61 and 134, was lost.

“This happens when the cards are stored for long periods of time,” the letter states, adding that the sealed report of the tapes is available.

“(Arrington) is the custodian of the records,” Farquharson said. “Every single item given to us is half given to us. Half the stuff they do not have available.”

Arrington added in a Thursday phone conversation from the Florida State Association of Supervisors of Elections in Ft. Lauderdale that the memory cards’ batteries often deplete while in storage, resulting in a loss of information on the machines.

Arrington has maintained that the close election results, with Quiñones beating Ramirez by just 56 votes, were accurate. The vote was not close enough, however, to trigger an automatic recount.

Fleming’s ruling added two more days to the six days Ramirez’s team had already spent copying since June 8. After the two days are up, Election’s Office staff will then copy any additional requested documentation at 15 cents per page.

“You will be charged the standard rate that they charge,” Fleming said.

Farquharson expressed her outrage to the judge on his ruling, saying she has little faith in the Elections Office copying the documents and the process is taking time because Election Office staff is “mandating every single piece of paper.”

“We are poor plaintiffs and we took our own copying machine,” Farquharson said. “We shouldn’t be shortchanged.”

Arrington said her staff is trying to protect the integrity of the original documents.

“We have to watch you and make sure you don’t stick something in your pocket,” she said about the public copying election records.

Miles also asked Fleming to restrict the documents Ramirez has requested to district 2 and suppress the information about poll workers to protect them from possible harassment.

Ramirez has requested “thousands and thousands” of documents, many of which are not available electronically, Arrington said, including the more than 10,000 absentee ballots, which she said Ramirez has yet to review.

With all the information requested, “I don’t see how we can meet the court’s deadlines,” Miles said.

Farquharson said all the information requested is relevant and “entitled.”

“We can go line item by line item,” she said.

Fleming told both parties he would not delay the Aug. 24 final hearing and outlined the final discovery deadlines as July 6 for requesting documents and Aug. 11 for receiving information, adding he is “mindful of the time constraints.”

“They’re going to have to be more efficient with their time,” Arrington said. “We still have to carry on the responsibilities of (our) office.”