Showing posts with label 2014 campaign. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2014 campaign. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2014
Fairness: Terry Goddard's ground-breaking ad
Terry Goddard is running for Arizona Secretary of State, facing Republican Michele Reagan.
As a state senator, she supported and voted for the infamous SB1062, which would have granted legal protections to those who discriminate against LGBT folks (and others) and who base their bad behavior on religious citations. The bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brewer at the behest of the business community (Brewer has no more use for the intended victims than Reagan, but she listens to folks with the deepest pockets).
Goddard showed his stance, and backbone, on the issue, by having an actual same-sex couple from Arizona star in his campaign ad on the issue.
To the best of my knowledge, this is the first example of this in any AZ political ad, and may be the first time a non-LGBT candidate has run such an ad in the country.
No matter what, though, it hits Reagan right in her weakest area - the hate that she has wholeheartedly embraced as part of her pursuit of statewide support in the R primary.
Saturday, September 27, 2014
With Friends Like These... : Diane Douglas' multiple albatrosses
...As if her attempt at a stealth campaign wasn't bad enough...
One of the staples of any election season is the endorsement. Organizations and individuals "endorse", or recommend voting for, specific candidates.
Generally speaking, when an organization endorses a candidate, it does so because it believes that the candidate will be supportive of the organization's agenda; individuals do so for similar reasons. Most of the time, the endorsers believe the endorsees are "fellow travelers" on whatever ideological road they're all on.
Most of the time, endorsements are viewed as a "good" thing in some way, usually serving as a quick way of lending insight into a candidate's positions and even the general attitude that they would bring to the office that they are seeking.
However, as the example of of Diane Douglas (AZGOP nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction) illustrates, that's not always actually beneficial.
From the blog website of the Maricopa County Republicans -
Hmmm...let's look at the sort of people think that Douglas is a good choice to run Arizona's schools -
State legislator Judy Burges - Arizona's Queen Birther
State legislator David Farnsworth - The "chicken in every backyard" guy
State legislator Rick Murphy - alleged child molester* (* = no charges were filed)
Former state legislator Frank Antenori - the anti-everything,"don't make me mad" guy
Former state legislator Jack Harper - there are many facets to this jewel of craziness, but we going to with just one (in the interests of brevity), so how about "The 'Democrats are just as bad as Saddam Hussein" guy"?
Former state legislator Lori Klein - also has many facets to her brand of crazy, but let's go with "read a bigoted anti-Latino letter on the floor of the Arizona State Senate"
Former state legislator Thayer Verschoor - possibly the least nutty of this bunch; main claim to fame is as anti-civil society Grover-crat
State legislator Adam Kwasman - Goes around proudly intimidating children
State legislator Darin Mitchell - elected to represent a district he didn't actually live in
State legislator Carl Seel - Arizona's Crown Prince Birther
Not on this list, but possibly the most significantly bad endorsement, is that of disgraced former state legislator Russell "poor women should be sterilized" Pearce.
Endorsements are supposed to speak well of the recipient, but that's apparently something that Douglas and her supporters don't understand.
Douglas has been campaigning by being all-but-invisible, appearing in public only when she is legally obligated to do so, or when the crowd is considered to be a completely safe (and deep-pocketed) R crowd.
That approach reduces the possibility of general election voters seeing the real Diane Douglas.
It's too bad for her that her supporters have such well-documented track records.
One of the staples of any election season is the endorsement. Organizations and individuals "endorse", or recommend voting for, specific candidates.
Generally speaking, when an organization endorses a candidate, it does so because it believes that the candidate will be supportive of the organization's agenda; individuals do so for similar reasons. Most of the time, the endorsers believe the endorsees are "fellow travelers" on whatever ideological road they're all on.
Most of the time, endorsements are viewed as a "good" thing in some way, usually serving as a quick way of lending insight into a candidate's positions and even the general attitude that they would bring to the office that they are seeking.
However, as the example of of Diane Douglas (AZGOP nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction) illustrates, that's not always actually beneficial.
From the blog website of the Maricopa County Republicans -
Hmmm...let's look at the sort of people think that Douglas is a good choice to run Arizona's schools -
State legislator Judy Burges - Arizona's Queen Birther
State legislator David Farnsworth - The "chicken in every backyard" guy
State legislator Rick Murphy - alleged child molester* (* = no charges were filed)
Former state legislator Frank Antenori - the anti-everything,"don't make me mad" guy
Former state legislator Jack Harper - there are many facets to this jewel of craziness, but we going to with just one (in the interests of brevity), so how about "The 'Democrats are just as bad as Saddam Hussein" guy"?
Former state legislator Lori Klein - also has many facets to her brand of crazy, but let's go with "read a bigoted anti-Latino letter on the floor of the Arizona State Senate"
Former state legislator Thayer Verschoor - possibly the least nutty of this bunch; main claim to fame is as anti-civil society Grover-crat
State legislator Adam Kwasman - Goes around proudly intimidating children
State legislator Darin Mitchell - elected to represent a district he didn't actually live in
State legislator Carl Seel - Arizona's Crown Prince Birther
Not on this list, but possibly the most significantly bad endorsement, is that of disgraced former state legislator Russell "poor women should be sterilized" Pearce.
Endorsements are supposed to speak well of the recipient, but that's apparently something that Douglas and her supporters don't understand.
Douglas has been campaigning by being all-but-invisible, appearing in public only when she is legally obligated to do so, or when the crowd is considered to be a completely safe (and deep-pocketed) R crowd.
That approach reduces the possibility of general election voters seeing the real Diane Douglas.
It's too bad for her that her supporters have such well-documented track records.
Saturday, September 06, 2014
Arizona Election 2014: Ballot questions
This year, this is going to be a simple post - there are only three state-level ballot questions*, and none were proposed through the petition process, In contrast, in 2006, there were 18, with only six of the questions referred to the ballot by the legislature.
* = In many jurisdictions, there will be local-level questions (school district overrides, city charter updates, etc.). However, there are only three questions that will be every ballot in the state.
Voting decisions on two of the questions will be very easy:
- Proposition 122, referred by the lege in 2013 as SCR1016. If passed, it would allow the AZ legislature to ignore any federal law, regulation, or rule that it doesn't like, and to bar any official in the state from supporting/enforcing said law, regulation, or rule.
This probably isn't legal anyway, but passing it would send a message to late-night comedians everywhere that they can continue to count on Arizona for a steady stream of punchline material.
In other words, HELL NO.
- Proposition 304, a proposal from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers to raise the annual legislative salary from $24K to $35K.
As with most things in life, you get what you pay for. And we pay our legislators crap.
$35K isn't great, but it's better than $24K, and it might attract a better quality of candidates for the lege. Which is something that Arizona needs.
This one is a Yes.
- The tough one is Proposition 303, referred by the lege in 2014 as HCR2005. If passed, it would create a section in AZ law called "The Patients' Right To Try Act". It *sounds* "warm and fuzzy" good - it would allow eligible patients to make use of "investigational" drugs and medical therapies if such is made available by a manufacturer of such. Basically, desperate patients could take a chance on unproven treatments, if they so desire and a possible treatment is made available.
Sounds good, until you realize that the measure is being proposed by the Arizona legislature in a way that cannot be corrected or repealed by a future legislature (because of the Voter Protection Act)...and the next time that the members of the Arizona legislature support an idea that is beneficial for the average Arizonan will be the very first time for the majority of them.
Cynicism now thoroughly piqued, further examination of the measure is warranted.
Upon which one finds a few interesting facts about the proposal -
1. In this context, "investigational" means "not approved by the FDA". In essence, this would allow Big Pharma (and its relations) to use desperate patients as guinea pigs for untested medical therapies.
2. The proposal does NOT require a manufacturer to make available untested medical therapies, only provides them legal cover if they do so.
3. It would bar state regulators from penalizing physicians or health care facilities that administer those therapies.
4. The legislative intent section clearly states that the act applies to all patients, not just those with terminal illnesses (the language of the act states that eligible patients must have a terminal illness).
5. The proposal would allow a manufacturer to pass on to the patient the cost of manufacturing an untested medical therapy. If a specific therapy hasn't reach the "economies of scale" part of its existence, that number is going to be huge.
6. This proposal (or something similar) is popping up in legislatures all over the country - Michigan, New Jersey,and Colorado, among others. That kind of coordination indicates that this idea has some deep-pocketed supporters.
7. The political committee formed to support the measure reeks of "dark money" - the largest single contributor is the
Since GI's sources of money are secret and the word "reimbursements" is so all-encompassing yet vague, this committee has effectively anonymized both its contributions and expenditures. They've made sure that no one can follow the money trail here.
To sum up: this proposal was shepherded to the ballot in a way that circumvents the already minimal oversight provided by the normal legislative process, looks to be designed more to enhance industry profits than to enhance patient outcomes, and has deep-pocketed supporters who wish to remain in the shadows.
In the final analysis: this is a No vote.
As seems to be normal for AZ elections, the questions referred by the legislature merit a no vote, while the question referred to the ballot by something other than the lege merits a yes vote.
Note: more on a similar drug proposal that was implemented in Colorado from a contributor to Forbes.com here.
Monday, September 01, 2014
Race for the AZ Legislature: a general election primer
While the races for Arizona's statewide offices garner the most attention, both from the MSM and the general public, the race for the control of the state legislature is at least as important - this state has a "weak executive" form of government where most of the real power rests with the legislature. Statewide office holders run their areas of the state government, and the governor can act as a bit of a check on the legislature by utilizing the veto, but if the majority of the lege wants it, the state government works *against* the people of Arizona, not *for* us.
The chambers of the Arizona legislature are comfortably under the control of of the Republicans (Senate: 13 Ds, 17 Rs; House: 24 Ds, 36 Rs). Some observers believe that the Democrats will gain control, or at least 15/15 parity in the Senate this year and gain ground in the House.
I don't believe gaining control of the Senate is going to happen for the Democrats, this year anyway, but gaining ground in both chambers is possible.
Too many things would have go right for the Ds for Senate control to change this year, but with a little luck and a lot of hard work, things will improve this year.
The races for the legislature are set. Most are over (no challenger) or unofficially over (challenger(s) present but the particular district is so slanted in terms of partisan registration or electoral history that minority party candidates aren't viable).
However, a few merit interest.
- The race for the state senate seat in LD6.
The Republican incumbent, Chester Crandell, was not being challenged by a Democratic candidate.
However, an Independent candidate, former legislator (and former Republican) Tom O'Halleran will be on the ballot in November.
The race was going to be interesting no matter what, but then Crandell passed away suddenly in August.
O'Halleran will now face Sylvia Allen. Allen was selected by LD6's Republican PCs to replace Crandell on the ballot. Allen is a former legislator with a long record of outlandish statements and controversy.
This race will become the most-watched legislative race in Arizona - Andy Biggs' senate presidency may depend on the outcome.
His hold on the R caucus is so tenuous that the mere loss of one vote within the caucus, even if it doesn't become a Democratic vote, could cost him the office.
As such, expected a *lot* of IE and PAC (aka - "dark") money to pour into this race supporting Allen.
- LD8 State Senate - Democrat Barbara McGuire holds the seat now and the Democrats have a slight registration advantage. However, turnout/results is a different issue, as the district currently sends two Republicans to the state house.
This is the senate seat that most concerns the Democrats.
- LD9 State House - Republican Ethan Orr holds one of the seats in this Democratic leaning district, and his schizophrenic voting record reflects a desire to show the voters of his district that he's a "moderate" while proving to his caucus mates that he's anything but. Democrat Randall Friese may be able to pick up this seat.
- LD28 House - Democrat Eric Meyer is one of the incumbents in this Republican-leaning district. His seat is always vulnerable, but he has held on to it, in part, by campaigning his ass off. This time around, the Republicans have nominated Shawnna Bolick, wife of Goldwater Institute bigwig Clint Bolick, in an attempt to wrangle the seat away from him. She will have lots of money behind her, but it remains to be seen if her ties to GI will help or hinder her efforts.
- LD26 Senate - Currently held by Democrat Ed Ableser. While the district is not overwhelmingly Democrat in terms of registration, in terms of results, it is. The area hasn't elected a Republican since 2004, when (most of) it was still LD17. So the Rs have gotten cute here.
Their candidates are running as "we're not really Republicans" Republicans. Their sole House candidate has taken to putting up signs that have his partisan affiliation crossed out and replaced by "Arizonan". Their Senate candidate is running as an Independent (to be fair, it may be because he believes that Arizona Republicans are too liberal). The most noteworthy aspect of his campaign it that he has signs that are so sturdy that if they were any more permanent, they may fall under commercial sign codes, not political sign codes.
- LD18 Senate and House - Registration here says this is a "red" district, but recent results say it is "purple" (see 2012 presidential election results). Democrats Janie Hydrick (Senate) and Mitzi Epstein (House) have an uphill battle here but a very real chance of taking not just one of the district's three legislative seats here, but *two*.
- LD23 Senate - an "open" seat, but the R candidate here, John Kavanagh, is a sitting legislator looking to move across the quad at the state capitol. Registration numbers and electoral track record show that this is an overwhelmingly Republican district. However, Kavanagh may be too extreme for the chamber of commerce types that dominate the Republican electorate in this fairly affluent district and the Democratic candidate, Paula Pennypacker, is a businesswoman and a former Republican who may be more palatable to them. Not predicting an upset here, but if I was a betting man, this would be one that I would consider making a "long shot" bet on.
Predictions:
The Senate breakdown will be 14 Ds, 16 Rs, with Andy Biggs losing his job as Senate President.
The House breakdown will be 26 Ds, 34 Rs, with someone other than Andy Tobin in the Speaker's chair (that part of the prediction is safe, because Tobin is termed out and not running for reelection to the House).
Best case (IMO): Senate 14-15-1; House 28-32
Worst case (IMO): Senate 12-18; House 23-37
A quick and not particularly comprehensive look at the state's legislative races:
Keys to the information below:
LD(x) = Legislative district
R: = Republican candidate
D: = Democratic candidate
"R +..." or "D + ..." a number indicates the voter registration leader in that district, based on the major parties' relative registration numbers (for example, a voter registration breakdown of 40% party A, 35% Independents, and 25% party B would be shown as "A + 15%"; interestingly, in every district, voters registered as "Other", Arizona's word for Independents, come in as the first or second place group in terms of registration figures)
* = incumbent
** = current legislator who is a candidate for the other chamber
"Summary" meanings:
- over = no major party challenger
- all over but the shouting = overwhelming registration or history advantage
- likely = strong registration or history advantage for the district's majority party. A minority party pick up here is within the realm of possibility, but highly unlikely
- leans = solid registration or history advantage, but close enough that a couple of mistakes by the majority party candidate(s) and a well-run campaign by the minority party candidate could result in an upset
- Toss up = just that; could go either way. The coloring (light blue or light red) indicates a possible lean to the race but is not a prediction
Note: the "summary" evaluations are not scientific, and in a few instances, are based as much on "feel" as numbers. In other words, do your own due diligence when evaluating a specific race.
The chambers of the Arizona legislature are comfortably under the control of of the Republicans (Senate: 13 Ds, 17 Rs; House: 24 Ds, 36 Rs). Some observers believe that the Democrats will gain control, or at least 15/15 parity in the Senate this year and gain ground in the House.
I don't believe gaining control of the Senate is going to happen for the Democrats, this year anyway, but gaining ground in both chambers is possible.
Too many things would have go right for the Ds for Senate control to change this year, but with a little luck and a lot of hard work, things will improve this year.
The races for the legislature are set. Most are over (no challenger) or unofficially over (challenger(s) present but the particular district is so slanted in terms of partisan registration or electoral history that minority party candidates aren't viable).
However, a few merit interest.
- The race for the state senate seat in LD6.
The Republican incumbent, Chester Crandell, was not being challenged by a Democratic candidate.
However, an Independent candidate, former legislator (and former Republican) Tom O'Halleran will be on the ballot in November.
The race was going to be interesting no matter what, but then Crandell passed away suddenly in August.
O'Halleran will now face Sylvia Allen. Allen was selected by LD6's Republican PCs to replace Crandell on the ballot. Allen is a former legislator with a long record of outlandish statements and controversy.
This race will become the most-watched legislative race in Arizona - Andy Biggs' senate presidency may depend on the outcome.
His hold on the R caucus is so tenuous that the mere loss of one vote within the caucus, even if it doesn't become a Democratic vote, could cost him the office.
As such, expected a *lot* of IE and PAC (aka - "dark") money to pour into this race supporting Allen.
- LD8 State Senate - Democrat Barbara McGuire holds the seat now and the Democrats have a slight registration advantage. However, turnout/results is a different issue, as the district currently sends two Republicans to the state house.
This is the senate seat that most concerns the Democrats.
- LD9 State House - Republican Ethan Orr holds one of the seats in this Democratic leaning district, and his schizophrenic voting record reflects a desire to show the voters of his district that he's a "moderate" while proving to his caucus mates that he's anything but. Democrat Randall Friese may be able to pick up this seat.
- LD28 House - Democrat Eric Meyer is one of the incumbents in this Republican-leaning district. His seat is always vulnerable, but he has held on to it, in part, by campaigning his ass off. This time around, the Republicans have nominated Shawnna Bolick, wife of Goldwater Institute bigwig Clint Bolick, in an attempt to wrangle the seat away from him. She will have lots of money behind her, but it remains to be seen if her ties to GI will help or hinder her efforts.
- LD26 Senate - Currently held by Democrat Ed Ableser. While the district is not overwhelmingly Democrat in terms of registration, in terms of results, it is. The area hasn't elected a Republican since 2004, when (most of) it was still LD17. So the Rs have gotten cute here.
Their candidates are running as "we're not really Republicans" Republicans. Their sole House candidate has taken to putting up signs that have his partisan affiliation crossed out and replaced by "Arizonan". Their Senate candidate is running as an Independent (to be fair, it may be because he believes that Arizona Republicans are too liberal). The most noteworthy aspect of his campaign it that he has signs that are so sturdy that if they were any more permanent, they may fall under commercial sign codes, not political sign codes.
- LD18 Senate and House - Registration here says this is a "red" district, but recent results say it is "purple" (see 2012 presidential election results). Democrats Janie Hydrick (Senate) and Mitzi Epstein (House) have an uphill battle here but a very real chance of taking not just one of the district's three legislative seats here, but *two*.
- LD23 Senate - an "open" seat, but the R candidate here, John Kavanagh, is a sitting legislator looking to move across the quad at the state capitol. Registration numbers and electoral track record show that this is an overwhelmingly Republican district. However, Kavanagh may be too extreme for the chamber of commerce types that dominate the Republican electorate in this fairly affluent district and the Democratic candidate, Paula Pennypacker, is a businesswoman and a former Republican who may be more palatable to them. Not predicting an upset here, but if I was a betting man, this would be one that I would consider making a "long shot" bet on.
Predictions:
The Senate breakdown will be 14 Ds, 16 Rs, with Andy Biggs losing his job as Senate President.
The House breakdown will be 26 Ds, 34 Rs, with someone other than Andy Tobin in the Speaker's chair (that part of the prediction is safe, because Tobin is termed out and not running for reelection to the House).
Best case (IMO): Senate 14-15-1; House 28-32
Worst case (IMO): Senate 12-18; House 23-37
A quick and not particularly comprehensive look at the state's legislative races:
Keys to the information below:
LD(x) = Legislative district
R: = Republican candidate
D: = Democratic candidate
"R +..." or "D + ..." a number indicates the voter registration leader in that district, based on the major parties' relative registration numbers (for example, a voter registration breakdown of 40% party A, 35% Independents, and 25% party B would be shown as "A + 15%"; interestingly, in every district, voters registered as "Other", Arizona's word for Independents, come in as the first or second place group in terms of registration figures)
* = incumbent
** = current legislator who is a candidate for the other chamber
"Summary" meanings:
- over = no major party challenger
- all over but the shouting = overwhelming registration or history advantage
- likely = strong registration or history advantage for the district's majority party. A minority party pick up here is within the realm of possibility, but highly unlikely
- leans = solid registration or history advantage, but close enough that a couple of mistakes by the majority party candidate(s) and a well-run campaign by the minority party candidate could result in an upset
- Toss up = just that; could go either way. The coloring (light blue or light red) indicates a possible lean to the race but is not a prediction
Note: the "summary" evaluations are not scientific, and in a few instances, are based as much on "feel" as numbers. In other words, do your own due diligence when evaluating a specific race.
| LD1 | R + 29% | |
| Senate: | R: | Steve Pierce* |
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | Karen Fann* |
| Noel Campbell | ||
| D: | Frank Cuccia | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD2 | D + 16% | |
| Senate: | R: | Daniel Estrella |
| D: | Andrea Dallessandro* | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | John Ackerley |
| D: | Demion Clinco* | |
| Rosanna Gabaldon* | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD3 | D + 19% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Olivia Cajero-Bedford* | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Sally Gonzales* | |
| Macario Saldate* | ||
| summary: | over | |
| LD4 | D + 15% | |
| Senate: | R: | Connie Uribe |
| D: | Lynne Pancrazi* | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Richard Hopkins |
| D: | Charlene Fernandez | |
| Lisa Otondo* | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD5 | R + 19% | |
| Senate: | R: | Kelli Ward* |
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | Sonny Borrelli* |
| Regina Cobb | ||
| D: | Joe Longoria | |
| Beth Weisser | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD6 | R + 11% | |
| Senate: | R: | Chester Crandell* |
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | Interesting possibilities here. | |
| House: | R: | Brenda Barton* |
| Bob Thorpe* | ||
| D: | Lanny Morrison | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| LD7 | D + 33% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Carlyle Begay* | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Jennifer Benally | |
| Albert Hale* | ||
| summary: | over | |
| LD8 | D + 5% | |
| Senate: | R: | Irene Littleton |
| D: | Barbara McGuire* | |
| summary: | Toss up | |
| House: | R: | Frank Pratt* |
| TJ Shope* | ||
| D: | Carmen Casillas | |
| summary: | Likely R, but a possible poach for the Ds | |
| LD9 | D + 4% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Steve Farley* | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | Ethan Orr* |
| D: | Victoria Steele* | |
| Randall Friese | ||
| summary: | Poachable; Orr is an R incumbent running in a D-leaning district | |
| LD10 | D + 3% | |
| Senate: | R: | Mark Morrison |
| D: | David Bradley* | |
| summary: | Leans D | |
| House: | R: | Todd Clodfelter |
| William Wildish | ||
| D: | Stephanie Mach* | |
| Bruce Wheeler* | ||
| summary: | Leans D | |
| LD11 | R + 12% | |
| Senate: | R: | Steve Smith** |
| D: | Jo Holt | |
| summary: | Leans R | |
| House: | R: | Mark Finchem |
| Vince Leach | ||
| D: | Holly Lyon | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| LD12 | R + 27% | |
| Senate: | R: | Andy Biggs* |
| D: | Scott Glover | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Eddie Farnsworth* |
| Warren Petersen* | ||
| D: | DJ Rothans | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD13 | R + 17% | |
| Senate: | R: | Don Shooter* |
| D: | Terri Woodmansee | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Darin Mitchell* |
| Steve Montenegro* | ||
| D: | Steve Hansen | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD14 | R + 12% | |
| Senate: | R: | Gail Griffin* |
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | David Gowan* |
| David Stevens* | ||
| D: | James Burton | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD15 | R + 21% | |
| Senate: | R: | Nancy Barto* |
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | Heather Carter* |
| John Allen* | ||
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| LD16 | R + 16% | |
| Senate: | R: | David Farnsworth* |
| D: | Scott Prior | |
| summary: | Likely R. | |
| House: | R: | Doug Coleman* |
| Kelly Townsend* | ||
| D: | Cara Prior | |
| summary: | Likely R. | |
| LD17 | R + 12% | |
| Senate: | R: | Steve Yarbrough* |
| D: | Kristie O'Brien | |
| summary: | Leans R | |
| House: | R: | JD Mesnard* |
| Jeff Weninger | ||
| D: | Danielle Lee | |
| summary: | Likely R. | |
| LD18 | R + 8% | |
| Senate: | R: | Jeff Dial** |
| D: | Janie Hydrick | |
| summary: | Leans R, but race to watch | |
| House: | R: | Jill Norgaard |
| Bob Robson* | ||
| D: | Mitzi Epstein | |
| summary: | Leans R, but race to watch | |
| LD19 | D + 21% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Lupe Contreras | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | Sophia Johnson |
| D: | Mark Cardenas* | |
| Diego Espinoza | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD20 | R + 9% | |
| Senate: | R: | Kimberly Yee* |
| D: | Patty Kennedy | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| House: | R: | Paul Boyer* |
| Anthony Kern | ||
| D: | Amy Schwabenlender | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| LD21 | R + 10% | |
| Senate: | R: | Debbie Lesko** |
| D: | Carolyn Vasko | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| House: | R: | Rick Gray* |
| Tony Rivero | ||
| D: | Esther Lumm | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| LD22 | R + 23% | |
| Senate: | R: | Judy Burges* |
| D: | Arky Muscato | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | David Livingston* |
| Phil Lovas* | ||
| D: | Bonnie Boyce-Wilson | |
| Larry Woods | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD23 | R + 24% | |
| Senate: | R: | John Kavanagh** |
| D: | Paula Pennypacker | |
| summary: | Likely R, but a race to watch | |
| House: | R: | Michelle Ugenti* |
| Jay Lawrence | ||
| D: | n/a | |
| summary: | over | |
| LD24 | D + 15% | |
| Senate: | R: | Bill Follette |
| D: | Katie Hobbs* | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Lei Lani Cortez |
| D: | Ken Clark | |
| Lela Alston* | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD25 | R + 25% | |
| Senate: | R: | Bob Worsley* |
| D: | Steven Zachary | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Justin Olson* |
| Rusty Bowers | ||
| D: | David Butler | |
| Sheila Ogea | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD26 | D + 6% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Ed Ableser* | |
| summary: | Likely D, but the Rs are trying to get cute here. | |
| House: | R: | James Roy |
| D: | Juan Mendez* | |
| Andrew Sherwood* | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD27 | D + 32% | |
| Senate: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Catherine Miranda** | |
| summary: | over | |
| House: | R: | n/a |
| D: | Reginald Bolding | |
| Rebecca Rios | ||
| summary: | over | |
| LD28 | R + 11% | |
| Senate: | R: | Adam Driggs* |
| D: | Kelli Butler | |
| summary: | Likely R | |
| House: | R: | Kate Brophy McGee* |
| Shawnna Bolick | ||
| D: | Eric Meyer* | |
| summary: | Leans R, but one to watch – Meyer is multiple term incumbent in an R-leaning district | |
| LD29 | D + 18% | |
| Senate: | R: | Crystal Nuttle |
| D: | Martin Quezada** | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Aaron Borders |
| D: | Cece Velasquez | |
| Richard Andrade | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| LD30 | D + 16% | |
| Senate: | R: | Gary Cox |
| D: | Robert Meza* | |
| summary: | all over but the shouting | |
| House: | R: | Michael Gidwani |
| John Lyon | ||
| D: | Jonathan Larkin* | |
| Debbie McCune-Davis* | ||
| summary: | all over but the shouting |
Sunday, August 31, 2014
Fun with campaign signs: Spell check edition
It's unusual here in AZ, but on occasion, when a major party candidate runs in a district that favors the other major party, the candidate facing a steep partisan headwind is a Republican.
One of the favorite tactics in such a situation is to minimize their partisan affiliation.
James Roy is the Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD26 (Tempe, west Mesa, Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community). In terms of voter registration, it's not an overwhelmingly Democratic district; in terms of results it is.
As such, it has become difficult for the Republicans there to recruit candidates. This year, Mr. Roy is the sole R candidate for two House seats in the district.
I don't know if he a "warm body" candidate or if he deliberately was recruited to "take one for the team" in an almost unwinnable district while learning to run a campaign.
If the second one is the reason behind his candidacy, well, he has a lot to learn.
One basic lesson: read proofs before giving approval to the printer.
.jpg)
"Rebuplican"? Really?
On the sign, Roy talks about getting "the job done".
The meaning of that phrase is rather vague, but one thing is clear, the "job" doesn't include checking spelling.
On the plus side, at least he spelled "Arizonan" correctly.
Wouldn't want to run for office as an "Arinozan"...
One of the favorite tactics in such a situation is to minimize their partisan affiliation.
James Roy is the Republican candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD26 (Tempe, west Mesa, Salt River Pima/Maricopa Indian Community). In terms of voter registration, it's not an overwhelmingly Democratic district; in terms of results it is.
As such, it has become difficult for the Republicans there to recruit candidates. This year, Mr. Roy is the sole R candidate for two House seats in the district.
I don't know if he a "warm body" candidate or if he deliberately was recruited to "take one for the team" in an almost unwinnable district while learning to run a campaign.
If the second one is the reason behind his candidacy, well, he has a lot to learn.
One basic lesson: read proofs before giving approval to the printer.
"Rebuplican"? Really?
On the sign, Roy talks about getting "the job done".
The meaning of that phrase is rather vague, but one thing is clear, the "job" doesn't include checking spelling.
On the plus side, at least he spelled "Arizonan" correctly.
Wouldn't want to run for office as an "Arinozan"...
Thursday, August 28, 2014
No matter how the November election turns out, there will be some MAJOR changes in AZ's political landscape...
As a result of Tuesday's primary election, there will be a slew of new faces in many of Arizona's highest profile elected offices.
Statewide offices, where every holder of an office that's in a "line of succession" office (in line for the governor's office) will be new to the office:
Also new at the Capitol in January: The AZ House of Representatives will have a new speaker as the current Speaker of the House, Rep. Andy Tobin, is term-limited and running for Congress (his primary there is still considered too close to call, though he is ahead by 346 votes).
Others:
Arizona's CD7, long held by the soon-to-be retired Ed Pastor, will have a new face. Ruben Gallego emerged from the Democratic primary. He faces an Independent candidate and a Libertarian in the general election.
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors District 5, long held by Mary Rose Wilcox, who resigned to run for CD7, will have a new member - Steve Gallardo, a state senator won the D primary in the race to serve out Wilcox' term on the BOS. Note: for a low profile (but *very* powerful) board that almost no one pays attention to, the MCBOS has undergone a huge upheaval: Of the five people elected to it in 2008 - Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Max Wilson, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Andy Kunasek - four are gone. The reasons are varied, but the bottom line is that all but Kunasek are done.
Tempe's city council has three seats up for election, with two of the incumbents, Robin Arredondo-Savage and Shana Ellis, running to retain their seats. However, only one of them will return as on Tuesday, newcomers (to the city council, not politics or community activism) Lauren Kuby and David Schapira won seats outright. Arredondo-Savage and Ellis will face off in November for the third seat.
Mesa, AZ's third-largest city, will have a new mayor as the person who was last elected to the job, Scott Smith, resigned to run for governor. On Tuesday, John Giles rolled to an easy victory by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.
- And none of this even begins to cover the legislature, where there are new faces every cycle.
Come January, one really will need a scorecard to keep track of the new players...
Statewide offices, where every holder of an office that's in a "line of succession" office (in line for the governor's office) will be new to the office:
| Office | Current holder | Reason for vacancy | Contenders (D/R) |
| Governor | Brewer | Term limits | Duval/Ducey |
| SOS | Bennett | Term limits | Goddard/Reagan |
| AG | Horne | Primary loss | Rotellini/Brnovich |
| Superintendent | Huppenthal | Primary loss | Garcia/Douglas |
| Treasurer | Ducey | Running for governor | DeWit ® |
Also new at the Capitol in January: The AZ House of Representatives will have a new speaker as the current Speaker of the House, Rep. Andy Tobin, is term-limited and running for Congress (his primary there is still considered too close to call, though he is ahead by 346 votes).
Others:
Arizona's CD7, long held by the soon-to-be retired Ed Pastor, will have a new face. Ruben Gallego emerged from the Democratic primary. He faces an Independent candidate and a Libertarian in the general election.
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors District 5, long held by Mary Rose Wilcox, who resigned to run for CD7, will have a new member - Steve Gallardo, a state senator won the D primary in the race to serve out Wilcox' term on the BOS. Note: for a low profile (but *very* powerful) board that almost no one pays attention to, the MCBOS has undergone a huge upheaval: Of the five people elected to it in 2008 - Don Stapley, Fulton Brock, Max Wilson, Mary Rose Wilcox, and Andy Kunasek - four are gone. The reasons are varied, but the bottom line is that all but Kunasek are done.
Tempe's city council has three seats up for election, with two of the incumbents, Robin Arredondo-Savage and Shana Ellis, running to retain their seats. However, only one of them will return as on Tuesday, newcomers (to the city council, not politics or community activism) Lauren Kuby and David Schapira won seats outright. Arredondo-Savage and Ellis will face off in November for the third seat.
Mesa, AZ's third-largest city, will have a new mayor as the person who was last elected to the job, Scott Smith, resigned to run for governor. On Tuesday, John Giles rolled to an easy victory by a nearly 3-to-1 margin.
- And none of this even begins to cover the legislature, where there are new faces every cycle.
Come January, one really will need a scorecard to keep track of the new players...
Monday, August 25, 2014
For at least one race, tomorrow is the equivalent of the general election
And then I realized that it may be arrogant...but it is true in his race.
From the candidate listing on the AZSOS' website -
With all due respect to Mr. Davis and his write-in candidacy, this one *is* over after the primary.
None of the three R candidates, DeWit, Hallman, or Pullen seem to be the type to be good, or even potentially good, public servants, so we are left with hoping R primary voters choose the least bad candidate.
Given Arizona's recent history, we know how unlikely that is.
Saturday, August 16, 2014
Former state legislator Sylvia Allen angling for a return to the lege
...And here I was, thinking that Arizona's Republicans were implacably opposed to recycling... :)
From the Arizona Daily Sun, written by Suzanne Adams-Ockrassa -
Crandell died on August 4 as a result of a fall from a horse.
As a sitting elected official who has more than one year remaining in her term of office, Arizona's much-ignored resign to run law would apply here, assuming that she becomes to GOP nominee for the seat.
Note: I am pretty sure that the law would not apply until (and if) she becomes an official candidate for the legislature.
Note2: As of this writing, no campaign finance filings for her (desired) candidacy are on the AZSOS' web site.
General info:
From a letter to elections officials in Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai counties (parts of each fall within Legislative District 6) from the AZSOS regarding the filling of Crandell's seat and his spot on the ballot:
From the Arizona Daily Sun, written by Suzanne Adams-Ockrassa -
Navajo County Supervisor Sylvia Allen might find herself back in the Arizona Senate before the end of the year.
And if she does, it would be under eerily similar circumstances to her first stint in the Legislature.
According to the Arizona Capitol Times, Allen announced she wanted to be the designated Republican nominee for Sen. Chester Crandell’s seat in the Nov. 4 general election.
{snip}
Allen has plenty of experience working with the Arizona Senate. According to the Arizona Republic, she was appointed to the Senate in June 2008 to fill the remainder of Sen. Jake Flake’s term.
Flake died from a heart attack after falling off his horse. Flake was also running for re-election unopposed.
Allen then ran for the District 5 Senate seat in 2008 and won. She served in the Senate until 2012, when she ran for and was elected to the Navajo County Board of Supervisors.
Crandell died on August 4 as a result of a fall from a horse.
As a sitting elected official who has more than one year remaining in her term of office, Arizona's much-ignored resign to run law would apply here, assuming that she becomes to GOP nominee for the seat.
Note: I am pretty sure that the law would not apply until (and if) she becomes an official candidate for the legislature.
Note2: As of this writing, no campaign finance filings for her (desired) candidacy are on the AZSOS' web site.
General info:
From a letter to elections officials in Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai counties (parts of each fall within Legislative District 6) from the AZSOS regarding the filling of Crandell's seat and his spot on the ballot:
Sunday, August 10, 2014
Will tea party types/Republicans succeed in turning the governing board of Maricopa County's community colleges into a bigger version of the governing board of Gilbert's public school district?
Yesterday, I wrote a bit about some of the school board races here in Maricopa County; today, the subject is one of the other low-profile races here.
It isn't news (to observers in AZ, anyway) that the governing board of the Gilbert Public Schools District has been taken over by tea party types and what was once one of the few crown jewels of public education in Arizona has been devastated.
With the damage done there, the tea party types have set their sights on a bigger target -
The governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD):
- At-large seat, five candidates for two seats (pending litigation; the board's membership was expanded by the Republicans in the legislature who were looking to make this board more "Republican". The move was so brazen that a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law that created the new seats is winding its way through the court system)
Candidates:
- Augustine Bartning, Republican, ran for LD24 state senate in 2012 (lost). Interesting note: 1000 signatures are required on nominating petitions for this office. He turned in 1074. If his petitions are challenged, that probably isn't enough of a buffer to survive a challenge.
Note: he may not be part of the takeover attempt; in LD24 in 2012, he seemed to be an almost reasonable human being.
Note2: he also may have been toning it down for the audience in a moderate, D-leaning district.
- Mario E. Diaz, Democrat, a well-respected (and well-connected) political consultant
- John Heep, Republican, also running for the Sun City West fire district board
- Tracy Livingston, Republican, wife of hardcore winger state legislator David Livingston
- Eddie Tiggs, don't know much about him
Assuming that the board's expansion survives the court challenge, the candidate receiving the most votes will serve a four-year term while the candidate receiving the second-most votes will serve a two-year term. Future elections will be for four-year terms.
District 3, three candidates for one seat:
- Johanna Haver, whole-hearted RWNJ (pretty much an "English first, last, and only" type; that characterization may be oversimplified a bit, but only a bit)
- Reyes Medrano, Sr., don't know much about him.
- Fred Zook, don't know much about him.
District 4, two candidates for one seat:
- Randolph Lumm, incumbent, and a good one
- Jean McGrath, former legislator and current perennial candidate. Highlight of her legislative stint: she ran a bill that would have barred overnight visits by the opposite sex in the dorms of Arizona's public universities
District 5 (two-year term; the others are four years), two candidates for one seat:
- Rick Eastman, don't know much about him
- Alfredo Gutierrez, noted author and incumbent. Appointed to fill a vacancy.
Normally, I refrain from engaging to too much commentary in posts like this one (this started out as a strictly informative post), but it sure looks like that there is a low-profile but concerted effort to turn the MCCCD governing board into a countywide version of the governing board of the Gilbert school district.
And with the likes of Livingston, Heep (maybe), Bartning (maybe), McGrath, and Haver, they aren't being subtle about it.
General information on the MCCCD board here.
It isn't news (to observers in AZ, anyway) that the governing board of the Gilbert Public Schools District has been taken over by tea party types and what was once one of the few crown jewels of public education in Arizona has been devastated.
With the damage done there, the tea party types have set their sights on a bigger target -
The governing board of the Maricopa County Community College District (MCCCD):
- At-large seat, five candidates for two seats (pending litigation; the board's membership was expanded by the Republicans in the legislature who were looking to make this board more "Republican". The move was so brazen that a lawsuit seeking to overturn the law that created the new seats is winding its way through the court system)
Candidates:
- Augustine Bartning, Republican, ran for LD24 state senate in 2012 (lost). Interesting note: 1000 signatures are required on nominating petitions for this office. He turned in 1074. If his petitions are challenged, that probably isn't enough of a buffer to survive a challenge.
Note: he may not be part of the takeover attempt; in LD24 in 2012, he seemed to be an almost reasonable human being.
Note2: he also may have been toning it down for the audience in a moderate, D-leaning district.
- Mario E. Diaz, Democrat, a well-respected (and well-connected) political consultant
- John Heep, Republican, also running for the Sun City West fire district board
- Tracy Livingston, Republican, wife of hardcore winger state legislator David Livingston
- Eddie Tiggs, don't know much about him
Assuming that the board's expansion survives the court challenge, the candidate receiving the most votes will serve a four-year term while the candidate receiving the second-most votes will serve a two-year term. Future elections will be for four-year terms.
District 3, three candidates for one seat:
- Johanna Haver, whole-hearted RWNJ (pretty much an "English first, last, and only" type; that characterization may be oversimplified a bit, but only a bit)
- Reyes Medrano, Sr., don't know much about him.
- Fred Zook, don't know much about him.
District 4, two candidates for one seat:
- Randolph Lumm, incumbent, and a good one
- Jean McGrath, former legislator and current perennial candidate. Highlight of her legislative stint: she ran a bill that would have barred overnight visits by the opposite sex in the dorms of Arizona's public universities
District 5 (two-year term; the others are four years), two candidates for one seat:
- Rick Eastman, don't know much about him
- Alfredo Gutierrez, noted author and incumbent. Appointed to fill a vacancy.
Normally, I refrain from engaging to too much commentary in posts like this one (this started out as a strictly informative post), but it sure looks like that there is a low-profile but concerted effort to turn the MCCCD governing board into a countywide version of the governing board of the Gilbert school district.
And with the likes of Livingston, Heep (maybe), Bartning (maybe), McGrath, and Haver, they aren't being subtle about it.
General information on the MCCCD board here.
Saturday, August 09, 2014
Maricopa County school board races are set, and some familiar names are running
The races for the governing boards of the various school districts in Maricopa County are set*.
* = Pending challenges, write in candidacies, and election cancellations due to an insufficient number of candidates.
There are 182 candidates running for 146 seats, meaning that there are some uncontested, and soon to be cancelled, races.
As the races are putatively non-partisan, there is no primary. What races there are will be decided in November's general election.
Historically, school board seats are low profile, attracting mostly candidates that are interested in local schools.
However, there are a few folks who also know that winning and keeping a school board seat gives them the kind of grass roots/neighborhood exposure that stands them in good stead when seeking higher office. (Note: Many of the folks who hold, or hold aspirations to, higher office also choose school board work because they truly care about their local communities; there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of some of the practical political benefits of the job while trying to do some good works.)
Folks such as -
- Lydia Hernandez, state legislator, one of three candidates running for two seats up for election on the Cartwright Elementary District board
- Ron Bellus, well-connected R (former press secretary for Evan Mecham, former GM of Arizona Capitol Television [the AZ lege's version of C-SPAN], and current director of broadcast services for the AZ Corporation Commission), one of five candidates for two seats on the massively troubled Gilbert Unified governing board
- Patty Kennedy, candidate for LD20 state senate, one of three candidates running for two seats up for election on the Glendale Unified HS board
- Martin Quezada, state legislator, one of three candidates for three seats on the Pendergast Elementary District board
- Laura Pastor, Phoenix City Council member, one of six candidates for five seats on the Phoenix Union HS board (note: that board is divided into "wards", and she is the only candidate for her ward's seat)
- Judah Nativio, former candidate for the legislature, one of three candidates for three seats on the Queen Creek Unified board
- Brandon Schmoll, current constable in the Kyrene Justice Precinct, one of five candidates for two seats on the Tempe Union HS board
Notes:
- Hernandez, Kennedy, Quezada, Pastor, and Nativio are incumbents.
- Hernandez and Quezada may be running for different school boards, but they are both also running for the same legislative office: LD29 state senate
- Districts with fewer candidates than seats up for election -
Aguila Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
Avondale Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
Buckeye Union HS - 1 candidate, 2 openings
Laveen Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Littleton Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Madison Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Morristown Elementary - 1 candidate, 2 openings
Paloma Elementary - 0 candidates, 3 openings
Saddle Mountain Unified - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Sentinel Elementary - 0 candidates, 2 openings
Union Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
West-MEC (districts) - 4 candidates, 6 openings
In the cases where no candidate declares for a seat (and write ins are still possible, so the above list is NOT final), the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools, Don Covey, can appoint someone to fill the seat.
- The full list of seats up for election, as well as the full list of candidates, can be found on this page.
* = Pending challenges, write in candidacies, and election cancellations due to an insufficient number of candidates.
There are 182 candidates running for 146 seats, meaning that there are some uncontested, and soon to be cancelled, races.
As the races are putatively non-partisan, there is no primary. What races there are will be decided in November's general election.
Historically, school board seats are low profile, attracting mostly candidates that are interested in local schools.
However, there are a few folks who also know that winning and keeping a school board seat gives them the kind of grass roots/neighborhood exposure that stands them in good stead when seeking higher office. (Note: Many of the folks who hold, or hold aspirations to, higher office also choose school board work because they truly care about their local communities; there's nothing wrong with taking advantage of some of the practical political benefits of the job while trying to do some good works.)
Folks such as -
- Lydia Hernandez, state legislator, one of three candidates running for two seats up for election on the Cartwright Elementary District board
- Ron Bellus, well-connected R (former press secretary for Evan Mecham, former GM of Arizona Capitol Television [the AZ lege's version of C-SPAN], and current director of broadcast services for the AZ Corporation Commission), one of five candidates for two seats on the massively troubled Gilbert Unified governing board
- Patty Kennedy, candidate for LD20 state senate, one of three candidates running for two seats up for election on the Glendale Unified HS board
- Martin Quezada, state legislator, one of three candidates for three seats on the Pendergast Elementary District board
- Laura Pastor, Phoenix City Council member, one of six candidates for five seats on the Phoenix Union HS board (note: that board is divided into "wards", and she is the only candidate for her ward's seat)
- Judah Nativio, former candidate for the legislature, one of three candidates for three seats on the Queen Creek Unified board
- Brandon Schmoll, current constable in the Kyrene Justice Precinct, one of five candidates for two seats on the Tempe Union HS board
Notes:
- Hernandez, Kennedy, Quezada, Pastor, and Nativio are incumbents.
- Hernandez and Quezada may be running for different school boards, but they are both also running for the same legislative office: LD29 state senate
- Districts with fewer candidates than seats up for election -
Aguila Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
Avondale Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
Buckeye Union HS - 1 candidate, 2 openings
Laveen Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Littleton Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Madison Elementary - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Morristown Elementary - 1 candidate, 2 openings
Paloma Elementary - 0 candidates, 3 openings
Saddle Mountain Unified - 2 candidates, 3 openings
Sentinel Elementary - 0 candidates, 2 openings
Union Elementary - 1 candidate, 3 openings
West-MEC (districts) - 4 candidates, 6 openings
In the cases where no candidate declares for a seat (and write ins are still possible, so the above list is NOT final), the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools, Don Covey, can appoint someone to fill the seat.
- The full list of seats up for election, as well as the full list of candidates, can be found on this page.
Friday, August 08, 2014
Fun with campaign signs - placement edition
I've helped place enough campaign signs to know that there are a few unwritten rules; not legal requirements, not "official" in any way, and certainly not absolute, but usually followed by most campaigns -
1. Don't mess with the signs of other campaigns (every cycle, this one gets ignored by a few people, yet, in a funny way, those few exceptions illustrate how the vast majority of campaigns follow this one. There is a bit of disincentive here in the sign tampering law, but violations earn just a wrist slap; more effective are the principles of "do unto others..." and "what goes around, comes around").
2. Don't block the signs of other campaigns (this one gets tougher as the cycle grinds on, but mostly because so many signs go up that it becomes almost impossible to find a spot with clean sight lines; physics, not malice, at work).
3. Don't block non-political and permanent signs (the reason for this post).
I live in Scottsdale, a place that is so "special" that every couple of years, there is a movement to ban "unsightly" political signs as being detrimental to the image of Scottsdale.
Some call the idea "good", some call it "incumbent protection".
Most people with more than three active brain cells call it "unconstitutional" on free speech grounds.
Political signs have been restricted for safety reasons (none in medians, no blocking of sight lines at corners, etc.), but that's it.
Still, you'd think that candidates running to represent all or part of Scottsdale would at least be aware of the tender sensibilities.
You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.
At the NW corner of Pima and Chaparral roads in Scottsdale -
OK, this doesn't look too bad, right? There's a least four feet of clearance between the "Auerbach for City Council" sign and the "Welcome To Scottsdale" sign.
From a perspective of someone who can get close and analyze the signs (like a pedestrian), not bad at all.
However, signs aren't placed at busy intersections to catch the eye of pedestrians (and in most of Scottsdale, that would be a waste of time and effort anyway); they're put there to be seen by people passing by in cars.
So, the same corner, from across the intersection, viewed more as a driver than a pedestrian -
Hmmm.
"Welcome To"..."Auerbach"?
The situation regarding the "Welcome To Scottsdale" signs is even worse at other intersections. For example: NW corner of Pima and Indian Bend -
There's a reason that the anti-sign movement in Scottsdale never goes away. This ---- is one of the reasons for that.
Note to readers: Some sharp-eyed folks may notice the absence of signs of Democratic candidates in the pictures above. That's not deliberate on my part; there just aren't any at these intersections. Also, it's Scottsdale - other than the statewide candidates and the LD24 candidates (which stretches into Scottsdale south of Oak), there's only one D on the ballot, Paula Pennypacker for State Senate.
Even the most "moderate" candidates in the (allegedly) non-partisan city council race are pro-developer/chamber of commerce Republicans who are or have been members of the AZGOP's state committee.
Note2: The unwritten rules only apply to not *messing* with other candidates' signs; there's no requirement to *help* other candidates (especially opposition candidates) either -
I didn't take down the Tom Horne sign and don't know anything about who did, but sure as hell didn't do anything to put it back up either.
1. Don't mess with the signs of other campaigns (every cycle, this one gets ignored by a few people, yet, in a funny way, those few exceptions illustrate how the vast majority of campaigns follow this one. There is a bit of disincentive here in the sign tampering law, but violations earn just a wrist slap; more effective are the principles of "do unto others..." and "what goes around, comes around").
2. Don't block the signs of other campaigns (this one gets tougher as the cycle grinds on, but mostly because so many signs go up that it becomes almost impossible to find a spot with clean sight lines; physics, not malice, at work).
3. Don't block non-political and permanent signs (the reason for this post).
I live in Scottsdale, a place that is so "special" that every couple of years, there is a movement to ban "unsightly" political signs as being detrimental to the image of Scottsdale.
Some call the idea "good", some call it "incumbent protection".
Most people with more than three active brain cells call it "unconstitutional" on free speech grounds.
Political signs have been restricted for safety reasons (none in medians, no blocking of sight lines at corners, etc.), but that's it.
Still, you'd think that candidates running to represent all or part of Scottsdale would at least be aware of the tender sensibilities.
You'd think that, but you'd be wrong.
At the NW corner of Pima and Chaparral roads in Scottsdale -
OK, this doesn't look too bad, right? There's a least four feet of clearance between the "Auerbach for City Council" sign and the "Welcome To Scottsdale" sign.
From a perspective of someone who can get close and analyze the signs (like a pedestrian), not bad at all.
However, signs aren't placed at busy intersections to catch the eye of pedestrians (and in most of Scottsdale, that would be a waste of time and effort anyway); they're put there to be seen by people passing by in cars.
So, the same corner, from across the intersection, viewed more as a driver than a pedestrian -
Hmmm.
"Welcome To"..."Auerbach"?
The situation regarding the "Welcome To Scottsdale" signs is even worse at other intersections. For example: NW corner of Pima and Indian Bend -
There's a reason that the anti-sign movement in Scottsdale never goes away. This ---- is one of the reasons for that.
Note to readers: Some sharp-eyed folks may notice the absence of signs of Democratic candidates in the pictures above. That's not deliberate on my part; there just aren't any at these intersections. Also, it's Scottsdale - other than the statewide candidates and the LD24 candidates (which stretches into Scottsdale south of Oak), there's only one D on the ballot, Paula Pennypacker for State Senate.
Even the most "moderate" candidates in the (allegedly) non-partisan city council race are pro-developer/chamber of commerce Republicans who are or have been members of the AZGOP's state committee.
Note2: The unwritten rules only apply to not *messing* with other candidates' signs; there's no requirement to *help* other candidates (especially opposition candidates) either -
Wednesday, August 06, 2014
Early ballot time: 2014 primary edition
Well, it's another even-numbered year, which means that it's another election year, and unless you have been living under a cactus (hey, it's Arizona, I get to use Arizona-centric metaphors :) ), you know that.
One of the characteristics of an election year is voting, and in Arizona, early ballots have started hitting mailboxes, including mine. (Note: residents of Maricopa County can request an early ballot here; in other counties, visit your county recorder's website or call their office for details.)
Being a Democrat living in south Scottsdale, my ballot is a little sparse on the contested races front, but there are a few.
First up: A three-way race for two nominations for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD24. The candidates -
Lela Alston, incumbent
Rich Bauer, challenger
Ken Clark, challenger
(note: the other incumbent, Rep. Chad Campbell, is term-limited and isn't running for another office this year.)
While only two of the candidates can earn a vote in the primary, leading to the possibility that the candidate who doesn't get my vote in the primary will be one of the nominees for the general election, I can state unequivocally that I will have no problem supporting (and voting for) any two of the three in the general.
Having said that, it's time to pick two.
The first one is easy.
Lela Alston is the incumbent and she has earned another term in the legislature. She brings a civil and professional demeanor and a strong work ethic to the legislature, as well as being a strong voice for the district and for public education (not a surprise for a retired teacher).
The other choice was a little more difficult because I am not active in LD24 circles and I don't personally know either Clark or Bauer. However, while that is not ideal, it places both on equal footing when it comes to considering their candidacies.
Under normal circumstances, I am not someone who cares about endorsements; organizations endorse the candidates who they believe will best support their organizational agendas. Even when I agree with a particular organization's agenda, my support goes to the candidate who I believe will best work for the people the candidate is running to represent.
However, this time around, endorsements are pretty much all I have to go on as both Bauer and Clark look to be strong candidates. Their strengths may be *different*, but they're strengths nonetheless.
Bauer has the endorsement of a laundry list of organizations and "big names", some that I wholeheartedly respect and support (Planned Parenthood of Arizona, a couple of unions and union locals) and some that I'm rather cynical about (Central AZ Home Builders, Multihousing Association, various chambers of commerce).
Clark has no "big" endorsements that I know of. What he does have, though, is the endorsements of people that I've worked phone banks or walked precincts with.
People that I know, like, and respect and who speak from and vote their hearts carry more weight with me than organizations that look to their profit margins before speaking.
Clark gets the primary election vote.
Next up: State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Two candidates for one nomination -
David Garcia
Sharon Thomas
As with the LD24 race, both D candidates are stellar candidates; either one is worthy of general election support.
As good as both candidates are, I can only vote for one, and that one is David Garcia. Of the four candidates running (2 D, 2 R), he would serve as the best advocate for public education in Arizona, and for the state's students.
And while the incumbent, Republican John Huppenthal, believes and behaves to the contrary, that *is* the basic duty of the holder of this particular office.
Finally: Scottsdale City Council.
Eight candidates for three seats.
Michael Auerbach
Bill Crawford
Cindy Hill
Kathy Littlefield
Linda Milhaven
Jennifer Petersen
Dennis Robbins
David Smith
Where in the LD24 race I think all of the candidates are strong and worthy of vote (though I can vote for only two), in this race, I cannot bring myself to vote for even one, much less three.
I'm either familiar with them and would never vote for them, or I'm unfamiliar with them and had to do some research - some are pure tea party types, or blame public employee unions for all that ails Scottsdale, or ("political kiss of death time", from my perspective anyway) have been endorsed by Joe Arpaio.
There are a couple of candidates who fall into the "less bad" category, but this being Scottsdale, "less bad" is still "very bad".
While I reserve the right to change my stance for any runoff election in November, for now I am not casting a vote for any of the candidates.
Note to all D and non-partisan campaigns: My ballot's in the mail. Go ahead an take me off of all of your call, mail, and canvass lists.
Note to other readers: I wish it was that easy. :) Seriously, it *will* happen, but it will take close to a week, allowing time for the US Postal Service to do its job, and the staff at the county elections office to process the ballot, record its return, and for the various campaigns to get the official word.
One of the characteristics of an election year is voting, and in Arizona, early ballots have started hitting mailboxes, including mine. (Note: residents of Maricopa County can request an early ballot here; in other counties, visit your county recorder's website or call their office for details.)
Being a Democrat living in south Scottsdale, my ballot is a little sparse on the contested races front, but there are a few.
First up: A three-way race for two nominations for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD24. The candidates -
Lela Alston, incumbent
Rich Bauer, challenger
Ken Clark, challenger
(note: the other incumbent, Rep. Chad Campbell, is term-limited and isn't running for another office this year.)
While only two of the candidates can earn a vote in the primary, leading to the possibility that the candidate who doesn't get my vote in the primary will be one of the nominees for the general election, I can state unequivocally that I will have no problem supporting (and voting for) any two of the three in the general.
Having said that, it's time to pick two.
The first one is easy.
Lela Alston is the incumbent and she has earned another term in the legislature. She brings a civil and professional demeanor and a strong work ethic to the legislature, as well as being a strong voice for the district and for public education (not a surprise for a retired teacher).
The other choice was a little more difficult because I am not active in LD24 circles and I don't personally know either Clark or Bauer. However, while that is not ideal, it places both on equal footing when it comes to considering their candidacies.
Under normal circumstances, I am not someone who cares about endorsements; organizations endorse the candidates who they believe will best support their organizational agendas. Even when I agree with a particular organization's agenda, my support goes to the candidate who I believe will best work for the people the candidate is running to represent.
However, this time around, endorsements are pretty much all I have to go on as both Bauer and Clark look to be strong candidates. Their strengths may be *different*, but they're strengths nonetheless.
Bauer has the endorsement of a laundry list of organizations and "big names", some that I wholeheartedly respect and support (Planned Parenthood of Arizona, a couple of unions and union locals) and some that I'm rather cynical about (Central AZ Home Builders, Multihousing Association, various chambers of commerce).
Clark has no "big" endorsements that I know of. What he does have, though, is the endorsements of people that I've worked phone banks or walked precincts with.
People that I know, like, and respect and who speak from and vote their hearts carry more weight with me than organizations that look to their profit margins before speaking.
Clark gets the primary election vote.
 |
| Lela Alston, courtesy her campaign website |
 |
| Ken Clark, courtesy his campaign website |
Next up: State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Two candidates for one nomination -
David Garcia
Sharon Thomas
As with the LD24 race, both D candidates are stellar candidates; either one is worthy of general election support.
As good as both candidates are, I can only vote for one, and that one is David Garcia. Of the four candidates running (2 D, 2 R), he would serve as the best advocate for public education in Arizona, and for the state's students.
And while the incumbent, Republican John Huppenthal, believes and behaves to the contrary, that *is* the basic duty of the holder of this particular office.
 |
| David Garcia, courtesy his campaign's Facebook page |
Finally: Scottsdale City Council.
Eight candidates for three seats.
Michael Auerbach
Bill Crawford
Cindy Hill
Kathy Littlefield
Linda Milhaven
Jennifer Petersen
Dennis Robbins
David Smith
Where in the LD24 race I think all of the candidates are strong and worthy of vote (though I can vote for only two), in this race, I cannot bring myself to vote for even one, much less three.
I'm either familiar with them and would never vote for them, or I'm unfamiliar with them and had to do some research - some are pure tea party types, or blame public employee unions for all that ails Scottsdale, or ("political kiss of death time", from my perspective anyway) have been endorsed by Joe Arpaio.
There are a couple of candidates who fall into the "less bad" category, but this being Scottsdale, "less bad" is still "very bad".
While I reserve the right to change my stance for any runoff election in November, for now I am not casting a vote for any of the candidates.
Note to all D and non-partisan campaigns: My ballot's in the mail. Go ahead an take me off of all of your call, mail, and canvass lists.
Note to other readers: I wish it was that easy. :) Seriously, it *will* happen, but it will take close to a week, allowing time for the US Postal Service to do its job, and the staff at the county elections office to process the ballot, record its return, and for the various campaigns to get the official word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)