`One editor keeps trying to remove references and accounts about the Arizona election.  Indeed, there are thousands of references to this election on google, and most of the key facts are not in dispute.    One editor keeps trying to ``wipe it out`` of Wikipedia, making the excuse that since the Arizona Democratic Primary in March of 2000, was financed by the Democratic Party (as opposed to using tax payer funds), and administered by a contractor (as opposed to government employees), that the election was thus a ``Priavte`` election, and thus irrelevant.  However, these facts are not in dispute: 1. The election was binding. 2. The election was lawful, and was upheld in the courts despite at least one lawsuit trying to stop it. 3. The election was extremely scrutinzed, as evidenced by the massive media coverage, and professional analysis, which is cited in the references and obvious from google. 4. Voter turnout increased by a factor. 5. There were no documented security breaches. Certainly internet voting will be controversial for some time.  It certainly offers the potential to materially increase voter participation, and fundamentally alter the power structure of our country, and to dislocate the economic interests of many.  Nonetheless, one cannot deny that internet voting does exist, and that something happened in Arizona in March of 2000 that attracted tens of thousands of television and newspaper accounts around the world at that time.  Those who challenge facts about the election, should feel free to point out that the election was financed by the democrats themselves, and administered by a contractor, but simply calling it a ``Private Election`` is fundamentally misleading to the public, as office for which this binding election was for was President of the United States, clearly a public office.    `