Tort "Reform": Rearing its ugly head in Arizona

This is what happens when holiday boredom sets in so I have time to surf sites I don't get to as often as I should...

A little light reading over at the website of PublicCitizen.org twigged a memory of something on the AZ lege's website, so I checked it out.

As noted before this, members of the lege have already started filing bills for the session starting in January. Two of them, SCR1003 and SCR1006, are proposed amendments to the Arizona Constitution.

SCR1003 would repeal Article II, Section 31, a section that bars enacting laws that limit "the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person."

SCR1006 would repeal that section as well as Article XVIII, Section 6, a section that states "[t]he right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation."

If passed by both chambers of the lege and by the voters at the ballot, either measure would open the door to caps on medical liability awards, among other things. (Though SCR1006 would do a more comprehensive job of it)

It's telling that the sponsors of these measures are among the "worst of the worst" members of the lege when it comes to protecting the best interests of their constituents. The list of sponsors includes Sen. Jack Harper (not a surprise that his name is attached to both measures), Rep. Judy Burges, Sen. Russell Pearce, and Sen. Chuck Gray. They are all known for sacrificing the needs of their constituents on the altars of political dogma and expediency.

If those measures gain a hearing this year, and they just might as it is an election year and incumbent legislators will be trolling for PAC money for their campaigns, their supporters will be certain to tout them as a way to increase accessibility to health care and to reduce costs for Arizonans. They will likely cite the example of Texas, which has enacted its own medical liability caps, and say that such things are needed to decrease malpractice insurance premiums for medical providers and increase accessibility to medical care for patients.

The problem with that? That rationale is almost totally false.

From Public Citizen's report on the effects of tort "reform" in Texas (a press release with a brief summary here) -

Since the liability laws took effect:

• The cost of health care in Texas (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) has increased at nearly double the national average;
• spending increases for diagnostic testing (measured by per patient Medicare reimbursements) have far exceeded the national average;
• the state’s uninsured rate has increased, remaining the highest in the country;
• the cost of health insurance in the state has more than doubled;
• growth in the number of doctors per capita has slowed; and
• the number of doctors per capita in underserved rural areas has declined.

The only improvement in Texas since 2003 has been a decline in doctors’ liability insurance premiums. But payments by liability insurers on behalf of doctors have dropped far more than doctors’ premiums. This suggests that insurers are pocketing more of the savings than they arepassing to doctors.

In short, instead of improving Texas' health care system for all, as promised, award caps have improved things mostly just for insurance companies.

I recommend that all Arizona legislators and their constituents read the Public Citizen report before forming an opinion on SCRs 1003 and 1006. When the rhetoric starts flying around as the Rs in the lege and their ALEC puppeteers try to get this stuff on the ballot, the citizens of Arizona will need some defenders armed with facts.

Stripping constitutional protections from all Arizonans doesn't improve anything for the residents of Arizona, just for profiteers from Big Insurance.

Later...

The Arizona Legislature: 2010 preview

The next session of the Arizona Legislature is shaping up to be a lot like the last session, only more so.

...One of the harbingers of the discord took form last December, even before the session started. In a major surprise, the House Republican caucus deposed Jim Weiers as Speaker, installing Mesa Republican Kirk Adams in his place. According to the R blog Sonoran Alliance, there's a possibility that Weiers is going to try to return the favor, but don't hold your breath. It will probably be a year, and by then, the Democrats will be in charge. (Hey, I freely admit I put the "partisan" in "partisan hack." :) )

...Adams pledged to have a "transparent" process. Yet by the end of his first few weeks in his new position, the pattern had already been set - GOP leadership (Adams, Senate President Burns, Governor Brewer) would nestle themselves behind closed doors and negotiate budget packages that catered to the whims of their own caucus' membership while ignoring the input and ideas of Democratic legislators and even average constituents. Then they would present those packages for a public vote, passing them with only Republican votes and no real public hearings (Approps committee hearings with minimal notice don't qualify a "real." No matter how loudly the Rs claim that they do.)

By the time the Fifth Special Session of the lege rolled around in December of this year, they weren't even bothering with the pretense.

And still not getting the job done.

Anyway, to sum up the 2009 legislative session: Things started off badly, and went straight downhill from there.

First, some summaries of the 2009 session of the lege that are more neutral and dispassionate than mine -

Arizona School Boards Association



Arizona Capitol Times



Arizona Catholic Conference (OK, these folks are less "dispassionate" and more "really, really, really conservative)

Arizona Municipal Water Users Association

(State of) Arizona Land Management Department

A tax law firm's summary for CPAs

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Arizona Department of Health Services



Arizona Department of Revenue



Arizona Department of Insurance



Arizona Department of Transportation



Grand Canyon Chapter of the Sierra Club





Now that the "neutral" part of the post is over, on to the more partisan part - the 2010 predictions...


2009 Legislator of the Year, Arizona Capitol Times version: Rep. Ray Barnes (R-LD7)

2009 Legislator of the Year, County Supervisors Association of Arizona version: Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-LD5)

2010 Legislators of the Year, Random Musings version, or "Legislators who should stay away from cameras if they want a chance at being repeat winners of more mainstream awards" - Ray "Bisexual Principals" Barnes and Sylvia "5000 Years" Allen.

Not to be confused with the Legislative Loon Award, which is based on bill filings, this one is based on crazy utterances. While other contenders are certain to step up (Russell Pearce, John Kavanagh, Jack Harper, et al,) those two seem to have a lock on the award.


Most likely area of contention: What else? The budget. They haven't finished the current year's budget, which will take up the first few weeks of the new session, and hopefully no more than that. After that, they will start work on the FY2011 budget, which looks to have a deficit that's even larger than this year's. And most of the one-time fixes will have been used up already.


Bad bill most likely to make a comeback, non-revenue category: Guns in schools. A version directed at universities and community colleges has already been filed for next year's session, so a K-12 version can't be far behind.

Bad bill most likely to make a comeback, revenue category: Repeal of the equalization tax. The Rs have made it clear that they want to destroy public education in Arizona; getting rid of a dedicated revenue source for public education is a step in that direction.

Good bill most likely to pass: None. There may be a few "harmless" bills ("technical corrections" and the like), but nothing good is expected to come out of next year's legislative session...making it a lot like this year's session.


Institutional memory, elected/insider category: Rep. Jack Brown (D-LD5). First entered the lege in 1963, before many of his colleagues were potty-trained (and in more than a few cases, before they were born) and has served continuously since 1987. Has more knowledge and wisdom than most of the rest of the lege combined. Norman Moore, Chief Clerk of the House, was in contention for this one, but after three decades of service, he has retired to go into the private sector as a lobbyist.

Institutional memory, "outsider" category: Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. He *is* Capitol Media Services, working as its sole employee. Every media outlet in the state uses his stories. Has been covering the Capitol for more than a quarter century. "Outsider" is in quotes because with his longevity, he isn't really an outsider, but he doesn't work for the lege, so he falls into this category.


Legislator most likely to piss off his own caucus: Who else could it be, but Sen. Ron Gould? With his stomping out of his own party's Governor's speech and spending the spring, summer, and fall working to scuttle any balanced budget deals, he's had this one sewn up for months. The runner up, and the House's "winner": Rep. Sam Crump. A second-termer, he was briefly stripped of a committee chairmanship early in the 2009 session for trying to out-harsh his own Speaker, Kirk Adams. He had been "exploring" a run for AG, challenging State Superintendent of Public of Instruction Tom Horne and (rumored) Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas. He has announced that he is seeking reelection to the House, however. Democrat Jack Brown could gain some traction in this category because he is easily the most conservative Democrat in the legislature, but there is so much respect and affection for him that no one really objects when his votes don't always gibe with his caucus-mates'.

Legislator most likely to piss on the other caucus: One could make a case for most (though not all) of the Rs in this category, but the hands-down winner in this category is our old friend, Sen. Jack Harper. A complete list of his credentials for this award would take up the rest of the post, but the highlight of his year was when he equated legislative Democrats with a pre-Iraq War Saddam Hussein and the ruling Sunnis in Iraq.

Legislator most likely to claim at one point to only follow the "will of the voters" while at another point to claim that the "will of the voters" is meaningless: Russell Pearce. Basically, it all matters if he agrees with the "will of the voters." If the matters under discussion are nativist measures approved via referendum, he believes that the voters are brilliant; if the matters under discussion are voter-mandated social spending, he thinks they are misguided, or worse, and seeks to overturn the Voter Protection Act so that he can kill all social spending in AZ.

And the race is on...

...for the most coveted annual award in blogdom, the Random Musings Legislative Loon Award...

Perhaps the challenge of upstart Legislative Loon candidate Judy Burges has served to inspire previous winners Jack Harper and Russell Pearce, but they are getting an early start on their efforts to regain the title (last year's award went to the entire Republican caucus).

They've teamed up on a couple of pretty rancid pieces of "legislation."

One is SCR1006, a proposed amendment to the AZ Constitution to repeal the right of folks to sue to recover damages in the event of death or injury. This is the localized AZ expression of the GOP's obeisance to the insurance industry.

AKA the "their constituents aren't as important to them as are big business lobbying groups" act.

The other is SB1011, a bill to complete the "turning Arizona into an armed encampment" trifecta that they started last year. Last session they passed guns in cars and guns in bars. Next session, they will be trying for guns in schools. Specifically, SB1o11 would allow faculty members to carry concealed weapons on the campus of their university or community college.

If this one passes, students should duck if they show up to class late... as should Appropriations chairs who visit the campuses of the universities whose budgets they are gutting.

In normal years, this kind of nuttiness would barely rate a line, much less an entire post, but given the train wreck of a session this past session and the obvious lack of focus on the parts of Pearce and Harper and the other GOPers on addressing the state's worsening fiscal crisis in the coming session, the complete fiscal insolvency of Arizona looms ever more likely.

That's our Jack...

What was the most colorful bit of news today?

...President Obama's speech to the VFW Convention in Phoenix?

Nah. That went off without a hitch. AZ5's own Congressman Harry Mitchell even rated a prominent mention in the speech.

...A dozen protesters carrying guns outside his speech, including one with an assault rifle?

Closer, but nope. Under the watchful eyes of the police, Secret Service, and the other citizens assembled outside the Phoenix Convention center, the firearms enthusiasts (see? I don't *have* to use loaded words like "gun nuts". :) ) actually behaved themselves.

...The White House apparently abandoning real health care reform because of opposition from industry lobbyists and their lackeys in Congress (from both parties)?

Nope. It's bad, but not "colorful."

...Texas mandating a Bible curriculum in its public schools, starting this fall?

Well, no. Like "Manny being Manny" (that's a baseball reference for the heathens among you :) ), that's just "Texas being Texas." Let the lawsuits and late-night punch lines begin.

...Tom Delay moving from dancing around ethics laws to dancing around the ballroom floor on Dancing with the Stars.

Actually, that one *is* pretty colorful, but it doesn't top a local politico.

...I'm not even talking about Rep. Bill Konopnicki standing on the floor of the House and accusing the State Senate of deciding to raise taxes.

Of course, he neglected to mention (or even consider) the fact that Article 9, Section 22 of the Arizona Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the lege to increase or create a tax.

Or that no such vote has taken place.

While it is an outright lie on Konopnicki's part, at least it fits in with the GOP theme that the soon-to-expire suspension of the equalization property tax from a few years ago is actually a new tax.

In other words, he may be lying, but he is far from the only member of his caucus to engage in it. As such, his coloring blends in, not stands out.

...Nope, the most colorful bit of news today came from (who else? :) ), State Senator Jack Harper (R-OK, this isn't really much of a Surprise! anymore).

From AZCentral.com's Political Insider -

State Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, likened the behavior of legislative Democrats during budget talks this year to that of Sunnis who ruled Iraq with an iron fist for more than two decades.

The minority Sunnis, led by dictator Saddam Hussein, long controlled Iraq and its majority Shiite population through a mix of intimidation and brute force. Torture and murder at the hands of Hussein and his goon squads were commonplace.

Damn! For the first time in months, I went to the lege figuring all of the best action (and quotes) would be in the House. Hence, I spent most of my time there and missed this.

Let's see - Harper's statement was ignorant, inflammatory, and bigoted, all in one sentence.

That's our Jack.

The Special Session of the lege is starting to take shape

It's early yet, but there are already some moves at the lege regarding the special session starting on Monday.

On the lege's website, there have already been 12 bills posted for the special session, SB1001 thru SB1012 (though only the text for SB1001 hase been posted so far). Right now, they're all vehicle bills, placeholder "technical correction" bills meant to be amended into whatever budget "compromise" is worked out between the Governor and the Republicans in the lege.

I say "Republicans" because there is no evidence as yet that she is willing to even meet with the Democratic caucus, much less actually negotiate with them.

No calendars, floor or committee, have been posted so far, but that will probably change by the end of the weekend.

In an interesting development, SB1001 was dropped under Jack Harper's name. It's interesting because he was *not* a major part of this week's last minute negotiations between the Governor and legislative leadership (at least, he was wandering around the Senate floor while Burns and the rest were with the Governor on Tuesday.)

Next week could be interesting...

Harper making up for lost time

Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) may have started slow this year, but now he is delivering his usual pearls of nuttiness on a regular basis.

From AZCentral.com -

The Senate today narrowly rejected a bill that would have banned text messaging while driving.

The bill would have carried a $50 fine for sending or reading text messages while driving, and a $200 fine if the driver had been involved in an accident while texting. It failed by a 14-15 vote.

{snip}

Others saw it as a personal rights issue, according to Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, who voted against the bill.

“We believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility, and we're not going to dictate every aspect of people's lives," Harper said. “People need to take responsibility for their own lives.”

Ummm...Senator Harper? The bill was *not* about regulating behavior that has the potential to harm only the participant. The bill was about regulating behavior that has been shown to endanger non-participants.

"Individual liberty" doesn't protect activities that can injure and even kill others. If it did, then the victims of drunk drivers would be the ones going to jail (perhaps for daring to splatter their blood on the cars of their killers?).

If somebody wants to bungee jump off of a 100-foot tower with a 101-foot bungee cord, that's their problem; if somebody wants to do the same over some innocent bystanders, that's society's, and the legislature's, problem to deal with.

Of course, if you can see the big picture, today's defeat of the texting ban can be combined with the "guns in cars" bill (a measure that Harper also supports) to make a perfect "people need to take responsibility for their own lives" measure.

Logically, given the rationales expressed for both bills, the laws of AZ should be changed to allow drivers to shoot other drivers who are texting while driving.

I mean, it only makes sense - drivers who are texting are endangering those around them, and if those other, armed, drivers are expected to take personal responsibility for activities that they themselves aren't engaged in, they should be able to do what they need to do in order to protect themselves.

Call it "Road Rage as public policy."

Overheard at the lege...

Sometimes you can learn a lot just by sitting quietly and looking like you aren't listening...

With all of the usual caveats about rumors...

The strange thing today was that while I was imitating a fly on the wall at the lege, most of the talk concerned the Governor.

1. Jan Brewer is strongly leaning against running for a full term as Governor; the unrelenting confrontations with the lege have her thoroughly disgusted with the whole thing.

2. If she was male, the lege leadership wouldn't be so passionately hostile to her.

3. Everybody expects the lege leadership to transmit their budget to the Governor at the last possible moment, forcing her to sign their budget or shut down the state government. (Yeah, that isn't exactly breaking news. :) )

4. She's not backing down.

4. People seemed to think that any shutdown would be a short one - Senate President Bob Burns has a vacation (to Europe?) scheduled for early July, and the annual meeting of the conservative organization, the American Legislative Exchange Council is taking place in the middle of the month. The expectation seems to be that any situation would be cleared up before Burns leaves the country.

5. Apparently that striker taking money from Camp Navajo's operations fund isn't the first time that Harper has gone after them. According to gossip, he wants the camp to accept mercury for storage. There is a lot of money in it.

Mercury is an incredibly toxic substance.

What wasn't made clear (I wasn't exactly in a position to ask for clarification) is who would benefit financially from exposing northern AZ and its resident to mercury - the AZ government and/or National Guard, or Harper himself.

Later...

Lesson for the day: always keep an eye on Jack Harper

You know, other than a letter to the editor published in the Arizona Capitol Times that displayed more than a little contempt for poor and working people who have been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn in AZ, state Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) has been rather quiet this year.

However, as I've learned, "quiet" is not synonymous with "well-behaved."

On Wednesday at 1:30 p.m., Harper will chair a meeting of the Senate Veterans and Military Affairs Committee in SHR2. Part of the agenda for that meeting is a hearing on Harper's strike-everything amendment to SB1055. The striker would create a "homeland security force" of anti-immigrant vigilantes operating under the auspices of the state government.

As bad as that sounds (and I've made it clear before - I think this is a *really* bad idea), the part of Harper's proposal that caught my eye in this year of fiscal crisis is how he plans to pay for it.

From the striker (amended language in BLUE AND CAPITALIZED) -

Sec. 2. Section 26-152, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read:

{snip}

E. A camp Navajo fund is established for the operation, maintenance, capital improvements and personal services necessary for the national guard to operate a regional training site and storage facility at Bellemont. The fund consists of monies received from storage of commodities and services provided as approved by the adjutant general, EXCEPT THAT THE ADJUTANT GENERAL SHALL ACCEPT ANY NONNUCLEAR COMMODITIES OFFERED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR STORAGE. MONIES RECEIVED FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOR STORAGE OF THESE COMMODITIES SHALL BE ACCOUNTED FOR SEPARATELY IN THE CAMP NAVAJO FUND AND SHALL BE TRANSFERRED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY FORCE FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 26-128.

As shown above in the unamended language, the current section of law (ARS 26-152) stipulates that all monies received for the storage of commodities Camp Navajo shall be used for the operation and maintenance of Camp Navajo.

Camp Navajo is a DOD facility located near Flagstaff that is designed for and used for the storage of various "commodities." Though specific items aren't listed, the list of their customers suggests that the site contains (but is not limited to) ammunition, rocket propellants, and missile components. Least bad: Toys for Tots.

Though something tells me that they wouldn't be so concerned for safety and security (it *is* a military base, after all :) ) if all that was stored there were excess Tickle Me Elmos and the like.

Harper's proposal begs a few questions -

Does his specific citing of *nonnuclear* commodities, which is not part of the current law, mean that he wants Camp Navajo to accept all commodities up to and including chemical and biological "commodities" to pay for his team of vigilantes?

Does the change in the language mean that Camp Navajo doesn't currently accept commodities of a nuclear, biological, or chemical nature, and this would now allow the Camp Navajo to do so?

If so, does Harper plan to hold public hearings in northern AZ so that the folks most likely to be exposed to danger from this scheme (in the event of an accident) can weigh in on the matter?

How much money would Harper's amendment siphon away from Camp Navajo's operations in order to subsidize his vigilantes?

Would the loss of that money impact the safety of operations at Camp Navajo? Safety is a concern here, because even if the commodities that are stored at the camp aren't of the nuclear, biological, or chemical variety, the items that are stored there tend to go "boom." Hell, most of them are *designed* to go boom.

Does Harper realize that, regardless of the nature of the commodities stored at Camp Navajo, most of us would never have heard of it until he decided to use it to funnel money to his vigilante force? And that any uproar from this is his own fault?

And does Harper want to start a statewide campaign as the guy who reduced funding for a National Guard operation to fund one of his pet projects?

Right now, I have more questions than answers.

Calls to Camp Navajo and an AZ National Guard PIO didn't clear up much in terms of these questions. I got the impression that the PIO had never been asked questions about the financing of operations. I also got the impression that he hates political questions (he wasn't rude or anything, but military officials have to tread a fine line when discussing the activities of the civilian authorities who oversee military operations.)

A message left at the office of Sen. Harper hasn't been returned yet.


Another lesson for the day - always read the fine print. I almost skipped the payment part of the striker after reading what I thought were the "guts" of the proposal.

Later...

The coming week, legislative edition

As with last week, the calendar of the AZ legislature is so full that it merits its own post.

Note: This post doesn't even come close to being a comprehensive listing of all of the bad (and not-so-bad) bills that the lege will consider this week. If you have a specific area of interest, I strongly recommend determining which committee covers that area, and perusing that committee's agenda.


There's all sorts of noise over the budget - a deal is imminent, they're not even close, the Governor is making plans to shut down the state, a budget is going to the Governor this week, etc.

We'll know that the budget is done when it is done.

Of course, it won't actually be done at that point - anything produced by this legislature is likely to end up in court anyway, so even after the governor signs a budget, we're going to have to wait until a few judges have their say.

Until then, however, both chambers of the lege have shifted into overdrive, trying to cram five months of legislative work into three weeks.

Over in the Senate this week, so far only the floor schedule (specifically, a Third Read, aka Final Passage, calendar) for Monday is posted so far. Lowlights here include SB1113 (Guns in Bars), SB1175 (requires all government officials to enforce federal immigration laws and makes trespassing by an undocumented immigrant a crime), SB1280 (making harboring an undocumented immigrant a felony) and SB1444 (allowing the lege to seize and reappropriate non-custodial federal monies granted to entities in Arizona). This is *not* a complete list by any means; if you are interested, I recommend reading the entire calendar linked above.

In Senate Committee action...

...On Monday at 1:30 p.m., the Committee on Natural Resources is meeting in SHR109. The agenda includes a striker to SB1118 from Sen. Sylvia Allen (R-"mining companies are our friends") that would ease some construction-related pollution standards; SB1147, barring state agencies from adopting fuel economy or greenhouse gas emission standards; and a striker to SB1256 from Sylvia Allen that looks like it could be ok, though since it has to do with mining, I could be missing some of the nuances. They have placed some House bills on the agenda tentatively, pending processing (passage by the House, and Senate First Read, Second Read, and assignment to committee).

...Also on Monday at 1:30 p.m., the Judiciary Committee is meeting in SHR1. Gems on that agenda include State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne's Sen. Jonathan Paton's striker to SB1069 that would outlaw ethnic education courses (wanna-be AG Horne is targeting some Mexican studies courses in Tucson with this. Apparently, he is trying to appeal to the neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and other nativists in his party.); SCR1025, a proposal by Paton and Sen. Steve Pierce to end Clean Elections' public financing of elections (aka the "return to wholesale corruption act."); and SCR1026, the Republican caucus' proposed anti-Employee Free Choice Act amendment to the AZ constitution.

...On Tuesday at 8:30 a.m. (or upon adjournment of the Joint Committee on Capital Review), the Government Institutions committee will meet in SHR1. That agenda has already been discussed.

...On Tuesday at 1:30 p.m., the Commerce Committee will be meeting in SHR1. As would be expected from a committee chaired by everyone's favorite nativist winger Russell Pearce, this agenda is chock full of chunks of rancidness. The committee will be considering HB2103, a bill to exempt the State Treasurer from having to use the Attorney General's office for legal services. AKA the "Republican Dean Martin doesn't like Democrat Terry Goddard" bill; an anti-immigrant striker to SB1024 from Russell Pearce. Also, Pearce striker to SB1038 relating to revenue sharing with Native American tribes; and a slate of proposed amendments to the AZ constitution that have one thing in common - if enacted, they would have the effect of making Arizona a slightly worse place to live. They include SCR1006, a proposal to inflict some TABOR-like limits on AZ government, SCR1009, the lege's attempt to break the protections of the Voter Protection Act; and SCR1031, the anti-affirmative action measure championed by Ward Connerly.

...On Wednesday at 8:30 a.m., the Public Safety Committee will be meeting in SHR3. On the agenda: HB2610, the lege's plan to protect manufacturers of police equipment from product liability issues; and two measures from Cap'n Al Melvin that look almost (I can't believe I'm saying this :) ) responsible legislation. His SB1440 would ban smoking in a vehicle if there are minors in the vehicle and his SB1443 would ban texting or use of a cell phone (without a hands-free device) while driving.

...On Wednesday at 9:00 a.m., the Healthcare Committee will meet in SHR1. Carolyn Allen chairs this committee, so the agenda looks to be free of the little nuggets of rancidness that Pearce brings to his committee.

...On Wednesday at 1:30 p.m, the Veterans Committee will meet in SHR2. The highlight here is a Jack Harper amendment to SB1055 relating to the creation of a Homeland Security Force. No text available online as yet, but if this is anything like his previous proposals in this area, he is trying to create an anti-immigrant vigilante force and have it chartered (and armed!) by the state.

...On Wednesday at 1:30 p.m., the Finance Committee will meet in SHR3. This agenda includes a striker to SB1321, related to "job training tax suspension" (no text available as yet).

...On Wednesday at 1:30 p.m., the Education Committee will meet in SHR1. The ugly here includes SB1172, Pearce's proposal to compel school districts to monitor the immigration status of their students. There are a number of other bills on this agenda, but some of them are awfully technical and I don't understand the nuances of those bills.

...On Thursday at 8:00 a.m., the Government Committee will meet for the second time during the week, again in SHR1. The agenda includes Pearce's SB1173, another one of his anti-immigrant bills; Ron Gould's SB1348, making it a class one misdemeanor to knowingly give false information to a public official, commission, or board; and Steve Pierce's SB1269, making it more difficult for citizens of an area that is the subject of a proposed rezoning to object to that rezoning.

...On Thursday at 9:00 a.m., the Retirement Committee will be meeting in SHR3. Any committee meeting chaired by Ron Gould (R-Flies a Confederate flag on July 4) is certain to have some color, and this one is no exception. Among other items, they'll be considering Gould's SCM1003, a letter to the U.S. Congress begging them to let AZ out of the U.S. interstate highway system.


Over in the House, things look to be quieter. So far, anyway.

Monday's third reading calendar appears to be pretty mundane; the only item of interest thus far should be HB2369, to allow the lege to appropriate non-custodial federal funds.

Tuesday's COW calendar (and here) is similarly quiet so far. The only seriously controversial measure appears to be HB2099, which would force cities and towns to treat charter schools in the same way as public schools for zoning purposes.


Later...

Sen. Pam Gorman: working to sell off/out Arizona

Perusing next week's committee schedule and agendas at the AZ lege, I came across this gem. Normally, I would wait until the weekly schedule post to cover this, but this one is worthy of a post of its own.

There's a bill, SB1466, on two separate Senate Government Institutions Committee agendas (they must *really* want to push this one through!) with the rather innocuous-sounding title of "council on efficient government."

That couldn't be too bad, right?

At least, that's what I thought at first.

Then I saw the names of the sponsor (Pam Gorman) and cosponsor (Jack Harper).

Those two don't merely drink far-right wingnut Kool-Aid; they mainline it.

Note: for those of you who aren't up on the latest writing techniques, that "mainline it" reference is a metaphor. I do not mean that Gorman and Harper inject actual substances into their bodies.

Turns out the title is the only "innocuous" thing about it.

SB1466 would create a Council on Efficient Government, an entity whose function would be to drive the privatization of government and public services.

This bill starts ugly and goes downhill from there.

...It defines the composition of the council as 1 government agency head appointed by the Governor, and six private business people, with the Governor, President of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House appointing two each.

Nothing like stacking the deck there, folks.

...It requires the council to review privatization of a good or service at the request on a government agency head or a private enterprise.

...What it doesn't require is for the council to hold public hearings on privatization proposals, using the word "may" (as opposed to "shall") in regard to public hearings.

...The council will always work from the perspective that government providing a service or good is bad, and that private enterprise providing a service or good is always good.

...The language of the proposed law would define any government agency competition with a private enterprise as a violation of the act. At least in regards to complaints from private businesses about government agency competition, public hearings are required ("shall" instead of "may.")

...Requires state agencies to support a proposed outsourcing with a business case, and that business case cannot be protested or challenged.

Must stifle dissent. Must stifle dissent. MUST STIFLE DISSENT.

...Sets a sunset date for the council of July 1, 2019.

Apparently, Gorman and Harper plan that within 10 years, there won't be any part of Arizona's government left to privatize.

Of course, if we don't elect some responsible people to the lege (i.e. - not the Gormans and Harpers of the state), there won't be any Arizona left to govern.


What's sad here is that this could have been a decent bill - efficient government actually is a laudable goal.

A more balanced council (perhaps three agency heads appointed by the Governor, and four private business folks, one each to be appointed by the Speaker, Senate President, House Minority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader), tasked to look into the best way to provide a good or service, not to reflexively privatize, would be a good start.

However, given the nature of this year's lege, "good" is something we shouldn't expect in anything the lege produces.

State Sen. Jack Harper - Kool-Aid drinker extraordinaire

Ahhhh...Jack Harper...the GOP's gift to every writer in the state...

From AZCentral.com's Political Insider -

When it comes to cutting the budget, tax credits have been the domain of the Democrats. Why, they've even offered up one of their own, so to speak, proposing a suspension of the after-school tax credit which goes to fund extracurricular activities in the public schools. Of course, they also add on the credit for contributions to school tuition organizations, which provide scholarships for low-income students to attend private schools.

Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, wants to take the suspension one step further and eliminate the after-school credit as well as the credit for donations to programs that assist the working poor. But not the STO credit.

Harper claims that his support for the STO tax credit is because it funnels students away from the public schools that the lege has to help pay for.

The fact that at least one of his legislative colleagues has found a way to profit from funnelling students (and taxpayer monies) away from public schools and into private schools and STOs has *nothing* to do with Harper's zeal to protect STOs, right?

Yeah, sure. {said with a tone of cynical sarcasm}

Oh, and the shot at the working poor? Protecting businesses and attacking the poor is just gravy for almost any Rep in their legislative caucus...

Later!

Bob Burns: Don't let the voters decide, because they might not make the decision I want them to make

Bob Burns, the Republican State Senate President, has announced that he is hesitant to put any proposal for a tax increase to fund public services to the ballot because he is worried that the voters might approve it.

From a Howard Fischer story in the EV Tribune -

The top Senate Republican is shying away from putting two measures on a special ballot this spring, at least in part because he fears voters will not decide the issues the way he wants.

Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria, said Monday he has a “gut feeling” that a proposal for a temporary tax hike would turn into a one-sided campaign, with his personal position against the increase on the losing side.

In addition, he is opposed to letting the voters decide whether or not to open up voter-protected mandates (both spending and taxes) to legislative "re-appropriation,"

From the same article -

Burns also is balking at putting any plan to let lawmakers tinker with measures previously approved by voters on the same ballot, for the same reason: It might actually fail, which he does not want.

The right wing blogosphere is all over this one, siding with Burns in their open contempt for voters. (Sonoran Alliance)

My prediction is still that the Reps will hem, haw, scream, breast-beat, pull their hair out (OK, so it's too late for that in Burns' case there - see the pic at the Trib article :) ), and all other kinds of showboating before "reluctantly" giving their approval of referring a sales tax increase to the ballot.

And, citing the state's dire fiscal situation, not so reluctantly referring an override of the Voter Protection Act to the ballot.

Oh, and don't be surprised if they look for a way to tie the enactment of a tax hike, even a regressive one, to the lifting of Prop 105 protections on education funding, healthcare for the poorest Arizonans, and Clean Elections public financing for campaigns.

Other notes, but definitely related:

This weekend I was talking to a friend and regular reader who observed that I haven't been picking on State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise) as much as I have in the past. I responded by saying that there are too many targets this year to devote much time to Harper, and that he seems to have toned down his "shoot from the lip" brand of lunacy this year, probably because he is running statewide next year.

What a difference a day makes.

Tedski at R-Cubed has an email that Harper sent out to supporters that contained part of a commentary that Harper wrote for the AZ Capitol Times.

Quoting Harper from Ted's post (I don't subscribe to the Cap Times, and their website is subscriber-only access) -

I do not speak for the entire Republican caucus, and certainly not the minority party, but I hope to summarize this with a broad view of what to expect in the next budget for the under-employed or over-expectant.

If you are relying on any services from the state that are not mandated by the federal government, I advise you that those services may end June 30, 2009.

If you have children that require expensive experimental treatment or therapy that is not provided by the federal government, I advise that the state will not have the money for it after June 30.

If you have been laid off from your job and are not willing to take a job that is available, unemployment benefits, food stamps and AHCCCS for health care are going to fall short of what you could make by being employed.

Arizona will not follow the country into socialism. If you feel you need greater assistance and are not able to move to another state, please turn to your local churches and give them the opportunity to show their generosity and love.

It seems that Harper (and Burns, and the rest of the AZ chapter of the Flat Earth Society) are actually gleeful at the near-bankruptcy of the state and the prospect of ending all but federally-mandated public services for the people of Arizona.

Harper, Burns, et. al. have made it clear that they have no intention of doing their jobs of serving their constituents unless their arms are twisted.

The two main ways of twisting their arms are federal law and the Voter Protection Act.

And they want us to override the Voter Protection Act.

As painful as the 20 months are going to be here in AZ, we're better off leaving the VPA alone and waiting until November 2010 to kick the nihilist ideologues to the curb.

Later...

2009 Legislative Loon Award

It's been tough finding a "winner" of this year's Legislative Loon Award. The problem hasn't been a dearth of candidates, because the rightward lurch of the GOP caucus in the lege has created a surfeit of them. (And so ends this blog's Thesaurus sentence of the year :) )

As in previous years, the likes of State Sens. Russell Pearce and Jack Harper were frontrunners for this award, as was Representative John Kavanagh. In addition to their nativist enthusiasms, Pearce and Kavanagh are the chairs of their respective chambers' Appropriations Committees, and have the influence to further the more radical parts of their ideology. Harper is, well, *Harper,* the man who never met a bill or utterance too outlandish or ignorant for him to put his name to it.

In a normal year, there would be no more than one or two others in serious contention (Trish Groe will be missed...OK, not really.)

But this year, a huge percentage of their colleagues have given free rein to their inner whackjob, in ways that go beyond the usual "appeal to the wingers back home" bills that go nowhere, and were never meant to.

Before we even enter into a discussion of some of the horrific bills proposed this session, there's the "colorful" utterances of some of the legislators to consider -

- Rep. Frank Antenori, a resident of Tucson and elected to represent part of Tucson, expressed objections to newspapers designating him as "R-Tucson." Apparently, he has a problem with the "hippies" that run the city.

- Sen. Pam Gorman, from her blog, on the prospect of devastating budget cuts for education and the rest of the state's budget (emphasis mine) - "Essentially, we will get to sit around in small groups brainstorming on ways to cut government spending instead of the normal nauseating disputes about how to spend more. Yippee! Now, where’s my party hat? "

- Sen. Jack Harper, responding to a story that Arizona, the rate of people applying for food stamps is rising at twice the pace of the U.S. as a whole (from Seeing Red AZ) - "One of the reasons so many people are signing up for welfare is due to so many welfare offices being opened up by the state and making it easy:," followed by a listing of all DES offices in the state.

No acknowledgement that maybe the reason that more people are applying for food stamps and other assistance is that more people *need* the assistance.

- Rep. John Kavanagh, speaking gleefully on the effects of cuts to the state's universities - "Since our cuts are going to send ASU back to the Middle Ages, the question is how many monks will they need?"

And that's just skimming the surface.

Then we move on to the transparency of the budget process (and balancing the state's budget in the face of the current fiscal crisis), something that the wingers complained about on an annual basis, when the moderate Republicans in the lege worked out a budget with then-Governor Napolitano and were able to garner enough support for it on both sides of the aisle to pass it. So what do the wingers do now that they've ousted most of the moderates in the Republican caucus and have fellow traveller Jan Brewer in the Governor's office?

Determine which programs to cut, and how savagely, behind closed doors.

They've even made their blog, Capitol Ideas (http://azhousegop.blogspot.com/), available to "invited readers" (i.e. - "true believers" in their view, "fellow Kool-Aid drinkers" in mine) only.

And then there are the bills.

In addition to their now-annual moves to repeal the state's equalization property tax, a dedicated funding source for education (SB1107, among others) or moves to repeal other taxes (HCR2034, et. al.), they've got the bills with the usual nativist pablum (with Russell Pearce lending his name to at least 16 of them), the anti-choice screeds (such as HB2564), and, of course, the gun fetish bills (SB1270, HB2171, and others).

But wait, there's more -

- The myriad bills against the use of photo radar, the most colorful of which may be Rep. Andy Biggs' HB2124, which won't allow photo radar to be used to issue tickets for going less than 35 mph in a school zone or less than 85 mph on a freeway. (Thanks to blogger Mike McClellan at AZCentral.com for the heads-up on HB2124)

You know, I can understand the 85 mph requirement in the rural portions of the state, where the speed limit is 75 mph, but 35 mph in a school zone? If there is one area that calls for strict enforcement of speed limits it's school zones.

- Sen. Ron Gould's SB1359, which would allow cities and towns to "construct, operate and finance the construction of toll roads within the corporate limits of the city or town."

- Sen. John Huppenthal's SB1393, a measure written so broadly that it would turn the public school system into a religious school system.

- Rep. Warde Nichols' scheme to disband the Arizona Board of Regents, HCR2002.

- SB1123, a Republican move to make Tucson's municipal elections non-partisan, mostly because Democrats win in Tucson.

- SB1147, which would bar state agencies from adopting any rules or policies regarding greenhouse gases or fuel economy without the express direction of the lege. The same lege that is run by Republicans who think that scientific evidence regarding global warming and human impact on the environment is a fraud.

There are more, but the point is made - Pearce, Kavanagh, and Harper have a LOT of company this year down on West Washington.

As such, the winner of this year's Legislative Loon Award is...


The entire Republican caucus of the Arizona Legislature.


God help us all.


Note: to be fair, I should note that there are still a few members of the Rep caucus who take the idea of public service seriously, however, most of them have to keep silent or face a primary challenge from hardliners. And in today's AZ Republican Party, the reality is that few of them are safe from such a challenge.

Jack Harper up to his usual mischief - Updated

Proposals like the one covered in this post won't put him over the top for the Legislative Loon Award (though it won't hurt his chances there, either! :)) ), but they will certainly help him win the Republican nomination for Secretary of State in 2010...

Now he wants to give political action committees the ability to disenfranchise voters at will.

From Howard Fischer, published in the Arizona Daily Star (emphasis mine) -

A state lawmaker who represents an area with a lot of elderly people wants the ability to report registered voters who are dead.

The legislation by Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, would require the secretary of state to set up a place on the Web where political candidates could report when they "have reason to believe that a registered voter is deceased."

Any political action committee could file a similar report.

The bill in question is SB1109. The relevant section would amend ARS 41-121 thusly -

13. PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL COMMITTEES THROUGH THE SECRETARY OF STATE'SWEBSITE IF THOSE CANDIDATES AND POLITICAL COMMITTEES HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A REGISTERED VOTER IS DECEASED. ON RECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM A WEBSITE SUBMITTAL, THE SECRETARY OF STATE SHALL FORWARD THE INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY RECORDER FOR THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY.

Hell, the only way to make this more perfect for Republicans looking to stem the rising tide of Democratic voter registrations would be if he wrote the bill so that only Republican candidates and committee could use it. Of course, since any reports filed under this proposal would be filtered through the Republican-run Secretary of State's office, such a provision could prove to be redundant.

As it is written, all it would take is a campaign worker knocking on a Democrat's door or calling their phone number and not getting an answer to start the disenfranchisement process.

SB1109 is sponsored or co-sponsored by a Republican rogues' gallery - State Sens. Linda Gray, Sylvia Allen, Ron Gould, John Huppenthal, Al Melvin, Jonathan Paton, John Nelson, and Thayer Vershoor.

Paton and Nelson have been known to do some professional work in the lege (though there may not be much of that from them in light of the new, harsher, Republican legislative caucus), but the rest?

As much interested in partisan gamesmanship as genuine public service.

Anyway, I've got an email out to the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice inquiring if this proposal would violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Under its provisions, any changes to voting in Arizona is subject to DOJ approval (a map of all such affected jurisdictions is here.)


Wouldn't it be ironic if a Secretary of State wanna-be was behind a federal civil rights violation even before his campaign officially started?


Later!

Update on 17 January -

Scot Montrey of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice emailed a reply to some of my questions concerning this proposal. He couldn't determine if this ploy has been attempted elsewhere, but he did say this regarding my query about whether voter registration/unregistration policies were subject to DOJ review -

"Because the entire state of Arizona is covered under Section 5 of theVRA, any changes to systems or practices in election systems require pre-clearance."

Mr. Montrey also pointed me toward a possible resource for research here (FOIA). We'll see what's available via that route of inquiry.

End update...

That's our Jack.

State Sen. Jack Harper is up to his old tricks, and the lege isn't even in session yet.

Now he's seeking to add barriers to the path to becoming an elected official.

He's filed SB1053, a bill to require candidates for public office to prove their citizenship at the time that they submit their nomination petitions.

At first glance, that would seem to be just another one of a long line of nativist measures that Harper has sponsored or co-sponsored all through his years in the lege.

This one is meant to "solve" the non-existent problem of undocumented immigrants running for office.

In other words, the bill is part of Harper's normal pre-session "preen and posture" warmup routine.

The proposal will get a little attention from political geeks like me (the ones that consider C-SPAN and Arizona Capitol Television to be high Comedy), but not much else unless it looks like the bill will actually pass the lege.

What's really fun about it though (and what people should be paying attention to) is that it highlights how Harper is utterly unqualified for the Secretary of State's job that he is aspiring for in 2010.

Somebody should tell Jack that ARS Title 16, Chapter 4, Sections 301 and 341 require that candidates for office be "qualified electors." In addition, Title 16, Chapter 1, Section 121 defines "qualified elector" as "A person who is qualified to register to vote pursuant to section 16-101..."

And from 16-101, the first listed requirement for a registered voter (emphasis mine) -

A. Every resident of the state is qualified to register to vote if he:
1. Is a citizen of the United States.

To sum up, candidates for office already must be citizens, and that documentation is taken care of at the registration step (and at the voting step too.)

In other words, the man who would Secretary of State, the state's chief election officer, isn't familiar with even the most basic election laws.

That's our Jack. :)

And the first one out of the gate is...

More than a month before the next session of the AZ lege starts and legislators are already starting to drop bills.

The "honor" of the first bill with a number goes to Sen. Jim Waring's SB1001, a bill to compel all levels of government and schools in AZ to purchase web and video conferencing software.

Umm...pardon my cynicism, but it may be appropriate to check into Waring's ties to vendors of web and video conferencing software.

Waring also has a few other gems among the first bills assigned numbers - SB1002 would bar elected officials from using public funds in communications campaigns that refer to themselves or their employees; SB1003 amends the state's DUI laws. Current law has an exemption for certain lawfully prescribed medicines. Waring's bill would create an exemption to the exemption for methadone.

I don't know the chemical properties of methadone so there may be a valid reason for this, but this could just be a way to attack recovering addicts in a socially acceptable manner (socially responsible for Republicans, anyway).

Waring has a couple of other bills up already (he wants to shorten the period between primary elections and general elections), but the capper thus far isn't one of Waring's bills, it's one of Sen. Jack Harper's (R-the man who would be SOS).

In the face of what is considered the worst budget shortfall in the country, he has proposed to...wait for it...just a little longer...

Cut state revenues.

Of course.

His SB1007 would repeal the state equalization property tax, $250 million dollar source of revenue dedicated to funding education.

So not only does Harper get to claim that he is a tax-cutter (appealing to the Club for Growth wing of the Republican Party), he gets to hamstring public education in the process (appealing to social conservative wing of his party.) While officially he is only "exploring" a 2010 run for Secretary of State, moves like this show that the exploratory part of his campaign committee is only a sham - he is already starting his campaign for statewide office.

And yes, Harper is already staking out his spot as a contender for the annual Legislative Loon award, to be given out in late January.

Thus far, the House doesn't have any bills up on its website, but that should change in a few days.

Later...

We're waiting for you, Jack.

From PolitickerAZ -

Harper first to file for 2010
By Wally Edge

State Senator Jack Harper (LD-4) is the first candidate to form an exploratory campaign for 2010. Inside Edge has learned Harper has formed a committee to look at running for Secretary of State.

Current Secretary of State Jan Brewer is finishing her second term and is expected to run for Governor in 2010.

Ummm...if it looks like the hyper-partisan Jack Harper will end up as the Rep nominee for Secretary of State, Democrats from all over the state will jump at the chance to face him and kick his ass.

As one interested bystander observed upon hearing the news, "Harper is just a nail begging to be whacked. A lot."

Moves like his bill last session to open up Democratic primaries to Republican voters or his Senate rule-skirting bullying tactics last session or his contempuous demeanor toward people testifying before his committee's hearings or...well, all that can be saved for the campaign.

One person who might like the move (besides Harper himself) - the current AZSOS.

Harper is one of the few people who can make Jan "sure I'm the chair of Bush reelection campaign in AZ, but you can still trust me to count the votes fairly. Really. [wink]" Brewer look unbiased and professional.

Which is a perception that she will need when she campaigns for governor in two years.

BTW -the "exploratory" committee concept needs to have a time limit on it, perhaps 120 or 150 days. Fourteen months? Waayyyy too long for a legitimate exploration of a run for a particular office.

Right now, all "exploratory" means is "I don't want to resign from my current office."

I am *so* going to miss Jack Harper

...after Robert Boehlke wins the LD4 Senate seat in November...


Being an active blogger, I'm on about half a zillion mailing lists. Yesterday, I received a press release from Solutions Through Higher Education, an organization created to educate people on the value of higher education to our economy and country.

They sent out a survey to each candidate for a seat in the legislature. 23 candidates responded, including State Senator Jack Harper (R-Surprise!).

The question asked in the survey was "As a member of the Arizona Legislature, just how would you address the higher education challenges facing both our state and nation?"

Most of the candidates talked about prioritizing, tuition costs and funding sources (for example, Sylvia Allen, Russell Pearce's friend from LD5, wants to dig up education $ by mining more copper).

The answers given tended to range from mind-numbingly generic campaign pap to deeply involved and well-thought out treatises on the subject. However, wherever particular answers fell within that range, they addressed the question.

Then I read Jack Harper's response.

Harper's response -

"Thank you for the opportunity to answer, but I completed every survey up to August 1st. Then I decided that I was finished. I hope to have your survey earlier next election.

He is *so* reliable.

He faced a strong primary challenge. He is facing a daunting general election challenge. And even if he does successfully retain his seat, he is facing the possibility of being in the minority party in the Lege.

Yet good ol' Jack can still find the time and energy to be unprofessional, arbitrary, and even simply snotty.

Since the rather "loquacious" JD Hayworth (meaning he never shut up :) ) was sent to the electoral showers in 2006 by Harry Mitchell, occasionally I had trouble coming up with material for this blog.

Jack was always there to bail me out. :))

Perhaps it was his habit as chair of the Senate Government Committee of berating witnesses who disagreed with his predetermined position on a bill.

Perhaps it was his days of criticizing U.S. Congressman Harry Mitchell for the conditions at the *state* veterans' home.

Maybe it was his violations of the Senate's written rules of procedure and written and unwritten rules of decorum to kill Democratic measures or railroad through Republican ones.

Perhaps it was even ideas such as his bill to open up all primaries to registered Republicans while limiting voters registered in other parties to their own party's primary.

Whatever form it took though, Jack could be depended on to sweep away any writer's block.

Robert Boehlke will be a rational, professional and dedicated legislator for LD4; unfortunately, he won't provide anywhere near as much as subject material.

My loss. LD4's gain.


Later!

"It was a whitewash."

tuesday afternoon, the dogs and ponies were on full parade on West Washington as the Senate Ethics Committee held its hearing on the ethics complaint against Sen. Jack Harper.

Before I get into some of the gory details, here's the summary - the Senate Ethics Committee, by a strict party-line vote, dismissed Sen. Ken Cheuvront's ethics complaint against Sen. Jack Harper.

There was no surprise there - no Republican-dominated ethics committee is ever going to hold a fellow Republican responsible for his actions, no matter how craven.

This was my first chance to see Harper in action up close. He lived down to expections, and what's more, he brought one of the few half-decent Senate Republicans down to his level. Sen. Jay Tibshraeny of Chandler. Tibshraeny is very conservative, usually numbering among the most conservative in the body. However, he has a reputation for conducting himself with intelligence and professionalism.

Tuesday's hearing changed that - he obviously places base partisanship ahead of professionalism these days.

Anyway, the hearing had an interesting dynamic to it - if somebody who wasn't aware of the particulars of the hearing had walked in during the first hour, they'd have thought that Sen. Cheuvront was the one facing an ethics inquiry. Republicans Robert Blendu and Barbara Leff grilled him mercilessly, expending most of their energies with inquiries into and criticisms of Cheuvront's actions on the night in question.

While they eventually did ask Harper a few questions, those questions were softballs. I'm not sure if it's related, but there were a number of moments when the woman who was sitting with Harper walked over to consult with Blendu and/or Leff (sorry, but I didn't get her name.)

It should be said now that for his part, Harper did apologize.

For his part in the "divisiveness" of the last few days of the Senate's session and for his "less than stellar acting" when he pretended that his cutting off the mics was a mistake.

He didn't actually apologize for the actions that precipitated Tuesday's hearing.

Note: in her coverage of the hearing, Amanda Crawford of the AZ Republic's Political Insider said that Harper apologized for his less than stellar "actions." Watch the video archive - he said "acting." That video should be posted here within a day or two.

He excused his own actions by saying that he was "following the advice of counsel," counsel who had informed him that the the Democrats didn't have the right to retain the floor.

That "counsel" was Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor. Not exactly an impartial observer there.

Among the other highlights of Tuesday's performance -

- Harper opined that that ethics committee complaints are only for those senators "who enrich themselves" financially (as opposed to those who shame the Senate professionally)...

- Harper derided EqualityAZ emails to its supporters, asking them to lobby committee members, categorizing the emails as "attempts to intimidate"...

- When asked direct questions by Democratic members Sen. Martha Arzberger and Sen. Richard Miranda, he spouted off on other subjects. For instance, when asked why he didn't simply warn Cheuvront that he felt the debate was off topic, he answered that he wasn't required to recognize points of order from the floor.

Huh???

- Harper admitted that he listens to EqualityAZ Radio, offering a recording to anyone who wanted one.

- When he was asked a direct question, Harper waited until Tibshraeny, the committee's chair, officially recognized him. Harper said that Senate rules require that Senators not speak until specifically called upon by the Chair. The first couple of times he did this, it was cute, even a little funny.

After two hours of it, it was just downright annoying.

- Of course, that was nowhere near as annoying as Harper's habit of refering to senators by district number, not name.

A habit he continued even when Blendu asked him to use names.

- During the explanation of his vote, Blendu brought up offshore oil drilling.

Huh (squared)??

Senator Cheuvront summed up the day's proceedings thusly -

It was a whitewash.

Overall impressions of Harper, Leff, Blendu, and to a lesser but still definite extent, Tibshraeny -

Schoolyard bullies in three piece suits.


Zelph at AZNetroots has coverage here.

Later!

Events and other election stuff (and an Ethics Committee hearing into Jack Harper's behavior)...

...Tuesday, August 12 - As chronicled by Zelph at AZNetroots, the hearing by the Senate Ethics Committee, putatively to investigate the actions of Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!) is scheduled to take place at 1 p.m. At the end of the Senate session in June, Harper abused his power as the chair of the Senate meeting to cut off Democratic Senators Paula Aboud and Ken Cheuvront. He was trying to railroad an anti-same sex marriage constitutional amendment on to the November ballot; they were working to prevent that. When Harper arbitrarily shut off the Dems' microphones, he violated Senate rules.

However justified the hearing may be, it's nothing but a sham as two of the three Republican members of the five-member committee, Sens. Barbara Leff and Robert Blendu, have already announced that they don't think that Harper committed any violations. Still, it could be interesting to watch the hearing; while the outcome is all but determined, some of the nuances and shadings of the proceedings could be fun (like who shows up to watch, how long they make Harper squirm before giving him a free pass, etc.) Video should be available here.

...Tuesday, August 12 - The LD17 Democrats will hold their monthly meeting at the Pyle Center in Tempe (SW corner of Baseline and Rural). The special guest speaker will be Congressman Harry Mitchell. Other highlights include Adralyn Wendel from the coordinated campaign office, campaign updates, and T-SHIRTS!

...Tuesday, August 12 - Rebecca Schneider and Chris Gramazio, Democratic challengers to Congressman Jeff Flake (R-CD6), will hold a debate at the main branch of the Chandler Library, 22 S. Delaware St.

...The Ed Hermes for County Supervisor campaign will be holding phone banks on Tuesday and Thursday evenings, and canvassing in LD20 on Sunday, August 17. For more details, contact the campaign at 480-626-8100 or stop by the campaign HQ at 7305 W. Boston St., Chandler.

...Friday, August 15 - There will be an open house at the coordinated campaign office in Tempe (123 E. Baseline - SE corner Mill and Baseline). Stop by from 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and meet Congressman Harry Mitchell, LD17 State Senator Meg Burton-Cahill, and LD17 State Representatives Ed Ableser and David Schapira as well at Ted Maish and Rae Waters (LD 20 Candidates), Phil Hettmansperger (LD 21 Candidate), Tammy Pursley and Judah Nativio (LD 18 Candidates), and Ed Hermes (County Board of Supervisors Candidate).

...In "non-event but still pretty informative (and funny) news, the AZ Democratic Party has launched ShadeggforSenate.com, dedicated to the future political aspirations of Congressman John Shadegg (R-Calgon, take me away!). It's a sharp needle aimed toward the balloon of Shadegg's career in D.C., but it has a tough act to follow in the Maricopa County Democratic Party's Joe'sGotToGo.com, aimed at Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

Later!