Catherine Miranda is back. Sort of.

I went to E-Qual to see if there were any new candidate petitions for me to sign, and, lo and behold, there were some new ones, and one of those has a familiar name.

I didn't actually sign any of them - it may have shown up on my list. but while I haven't moved, since redistricting, I no longer live in LD27.

Having said that, Miranda is an infamous name in AZ Democratic politics.

She endorses Republicans.

She's anti-choice.

When she has run for office, it seemed like most of her money came from PACs, lobbyists, CEO/executive types, and lawyers.

{edit on 2/14 to add (I'm not sure what happened here, but I DID type/upload this stuff originally)] -

I couldn't find an open committee for her, but she tends to file her reports late anyway:

[/end edit]

There WAS a pattern to the lateness - the reports that filed on time tended to have few, if any, individual contributions.

Of course, she hasn't been completely out of politics since 2017 - she was thoroughly trounced in the 2018 Congressional primary by Ruben Gallego.

More on her from Planned Parenthood AZ here.

Republicans aren't concerned with being popular with voters, which is fair, because voters aren't popular with them

Pointed to the top item by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

From FiveThirtyEight -

Why The Republican Party Isn’t Concerned With Popularity

After Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential election, the Republican National Committee published what became known as the “GOP autopsy report,” an effort to identify and address the party’s ongoing political weaknesses. But eight years later, after losing another close race, the GOP appears wholly uninterested in reviewing or reforming its agenda. In fact, despite capturing the presidency, the Democratic Party has been far more interested in developing an attractive issue agenda. “There is only one political party that is terrified of losing an election because it looks too extreme,” said Seth Masket, a FiveThirtyEight contributor and political scientist at the University of Denver. “There’s a huge party asymmetry.”

But despite the fact that the GOP is quite unpopular and that much of its current agenda — such as overturning the Affordable Care Act or advancing restrictive immigration policies — does not appeal to a majority of voters, the party is in an enviable position heading into the 2022 midterm elections and beyond. What is to make of this glaring disconnect?

Mission accomplished.

From Bob Christie of  the AP, published in the Arizona Capitol Times -

Republicans eye repealing, replacing huge Arizona tax cuts

Arizona Republican lawmakers who pushed through a nearly $2 billion income tax cut in the last session are looking to repeal it and replace it with a new version, a move that would end a voter referendum that has stopped the tax cut law from taking effect.  

The acknowledgement to The Associated Press from Rep. Ben Toma and Sen. J.D. Mesnard, key architects of the flat tax proposal and bills that sidestep a tax on the wealthy that voters approved in 2020, comes a week after a judge rejected a challenge to the referendum. 

The bill mentioned by Toma and Shope has not been introduced as of this writing.

The court case mentioned in the article was CV2021-011491.

A name from the past, one with credibility issues

I generally don't cover individual school board races, but sometimes there should be exceptions to that personal rule.

Dennis Dowling, husband of indicted former Maricopa County School Superintendent Sandra Dowling, is running for a spot on the Litchfield Elementary School District Governing Board.

His organizational paperwork states that he is a "retired educator".

His LinkedIn profile states that he is an "educational consultant".

Not a big discrepancy, in and of itself - many retirees become consultants in their area of expertise.

Nope.  That's not it.

The job title of educational consultant makes him sound like an employee, but records at the Arizona Corporation Commission indicate that he is the agent of the corporation that he "consults" for, The Learning Tree, LLC, and that the only member of that corporation is Sandra Dowling.

Oh, and his alma mater for his doctoral degree, Berkley University, has "problems".  To put it mildly.

From the East Bay Times in 2005 and updated in 2016 -

‘Berkley’ university online diplomas just a tad bogus

The real University of California, Berkeley, is a world-renowned research institution where annual tuition will set you back about $7,000 a year and earning a diploma takes years of dedicated study.

But an Internet search and $5,000 can net you a diploma from the “University of Berkley” with “no studies,” “no attendance” and credit granted for “life experience.”

Except the Pennsylvania Attorney General says the “University of Berkley” is fake, and its Pennsylvania-based owner has made millions from an online diploma mill that is an obvious attempt to capitalize on UC Berkeley’s prestige.

The voters in the district have a choice to make.

State Senator Rick Gray seems to believe that corruption should be constitutionally protected

Does Pinnacle West pay its water carriers via check or brown paper bag?

From Jeremy Duda at the AZMirror -

Lawmaker takes aim at Corp Comm policy on campaign contributions by utilities

Legislative attorneys believe a Corporation Commission policy intended to restrict campaign contributions by regulated utilities violates the Arizona Constitution, and the lawmaker who requested that opinion is hoping it will persuade the commission to change course for next year’s election.

Sen. Rick Gray, R-Sun City, asked Legislative Council to review the commission’s 2019 code of ethics. Specifically, he wanted the council’s opinion on whether a policy that prohibits commissioners from taking campaign contributions from regulated utilities, their employees and their lobbyists violates either the Arizona or U.S. constitutions.

The ACC's code of ethics is here.

According to the article, the lawyers for the Republicans in the state legislature have already determined that the ACC's code of ethics is in violation of the AZ Constitution, US Constitution, and decisions rendered by the US Supreme Court.

APS is a subsidiary of Pinnacle West, is regulated by the ACC, and, at least seven times since 2018, Pinnacle West has given money to Gray.

Openly; Gray has been known to take money from entities that take money from Pinnacle West, like the Arizona Leadership Fund.

From Gray's 5th Report (2018) -

From ALF's 6th Report (earlier in 2018) -

Sinema teaches students about her first love - getting money from rich people

At least she's qualified for this one; it's not as if she could teach courses on public service, or listening to constituents.

Pointed to this by Taegan Goddard's Political Wire.

From The Intercept -

SEN. KYRSTEN SINEMA IS LITERALLY TEACHING A COURSE ON FUNDRAISING

ALL STUDENTS HOPE to learn from the top experts in their field. Graduate students at Arizona State University have an unusual opportunity this fall to do just that, where Sen. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Ariz., is teaching a course on getting rich people to give you money.

The course, titled “Developing Grants and Fundraising,” is one of two classes Sinema is teaching this fall at Arizona State University’s School of Social Work. The syllabus, which was obtained by The Intercept, says students will “learn diverse fundraising strategies” for nonprofits as well as “how to cultivate donors,” including “large individual donors,” by leveraging resources like “opportunistic fundraising,” “finding supporters for major fundraising events” — and, well, “asking for money.”

Betcha ASU doesn't have a professional integrity policy for their instructors; just one for their students.

From the syllabus (courtesy The Intercept) -

One question.  Is she a hypocrite for not attending work when students are expected to attend class?

I think she is one, but at least she skipped out on work to raise money from rich folks and/or corporate lobbyists.

Also from the syllabus -

"Leadership PAC" is another way of saying "questionable use of money"

From Election Law Blog -

“Scores of lawmakers’ leadership PACs spent vast sums on luxurious dining, lodging, and travel, new Issue One and Campaign Legal Center report shows”

From the report:

New research from Issue One and Campaign Legal Center shows that scores of lawmakers are not using the bulk of the money they raise in their leadership PACs to assist other candidates, political groups, or their parties — the intended purpose of leadership PACs when they were approved by the Federal Election Commission more than 40 years ago.

While most members of Congress primarily use their leadership PACs to make political contributions, Issue One and Campaign Legal Center found that the leadership PACs of 120 members of Congress spent less than 50% on politics between January 2019 and December 2020 — roughly one of every five members of Congress….

Note: The report doesn't include Senator Mark Kelly, who, at that point, hadn't been a member of the Senate during most of the covered period of time.

From the report, Arizona's Congressional contingent, listed alphabetically by last name - 

The worst offenders by percent spent on politics - 

Ordered by amount of money spent -

Notice a pattern?

The only time that Senator Kyrsten Sinema is near the bottom of the list is when it's presented alphabetically.

Otherwise, she spent far and away the most money from her leadership PAC and she is tied for lowest percentage spent on politics.

Of course, of the only three Arizona members under 50% there, one was unelected and is no longer a member of Congress (McSally), one is, ahem, "ethically challenged" (Schweikert). and Sinema, who, even when she was in the AZ lege, was notorious for not helping other Democrats.

Refilling the money coffers may be one of the reasons that she's hobnobbing with business groups today.

Supreme Court Justice Thinks That Criticism Of The Court Constitutes "Intimidation"

From The National Review via Yahoo! News - 

Alito Defends Supreme Court’s Texas Heartbeat Ruling in Defiant Speech

Justice Samuel Alito rebutted Thursday what he called “unfair and damaging attacks” on the Supreme Court over its emergency adjudication of politically-charged cases, such as the Texas heartbeat law, which recently went into effect after the bench declined to block it.

Responding to criticisms that the conservative-dominated court has been strategically rushing into hasty decisions to advance a secret political agenda, Alito objected to the media’s use of the term “shadow docket” as a misnomer, and claimed such an accusation erodes the legitimacy of the federal judiciary.

From The Guardian (UK) -

Alito hits out at ‘intimidation’ in defence of supreme court’s Texas abortion ruling

[snip]

“The catchy and sinister term ‘shadow docket’ has been used to portray the court as having been captured by a dangerous cabal that resorts to sneaky and improper methods to get its ways,” Alito said at Notre Dame, referring to increasingly common emergency applications that come before the justices outside regular sessions.

“This portrayal feeds unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court or damage it as an independent institution. There was nothing new or shadowy about the procedures we followed in those cases. It’s hard to see how we can handle most emergency matters any differently.”

In many ways, he's echoing a fellow justice, Amy Coney Barrett.  From the Louisville Courier-Journal - 

Justice Amy Coney Barrett argues US Supreme Court isn't 'a bunch of partisan hacks'

In the wake of a controversial decision on abortion rights, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett told a crowd of more than 100 here that she doesn't believe the highest court in the land is politically driven.

“My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks,” she told the guests at a Sunday celebration of the 30th anniversary of the opening of the McConnell Center at the University of Louisville.

Maybe Alito would have more credibility if he wasn't such a snowflake who ignored the stacking of the federal judiciary (not just the Supreme Court) with legally unqualified but ideologically pure Trumpkins.

And maybe Barrett would have more credibility is she didn't give her speech at an event named after the person who used politics to grease/facilitate her appointment to the USSC.

Ducey follows the GOP playbook: puts fox in charge of henhouse security

In case you missed it...

This has all of the hallmarks of a financial scandal waiting to happen.

From KTAR -

Arizona Gov. Ducey appoints new Liquor Licenses and Control director

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey announced Thursday a new director for the state’s Department of Liquor Licenses and Control.

Tracy Uffelman replaces John Cocca, who resigned from his post in April. Arizona Department of Public Safety Director Col. Heston Silbert has been serving as the interim director.

[snip]

Uffelman held numerous positions working at Alliance Beverage from 1990 to 2013, including general manager, director of sales, hotels and resorts as well as vice president of legislative and community relations, according to the release.

Prior to that, he was the western regional manager for William Grant and Sons from 1991 to 2001, a family-owned company that sells whisky and other spirits to almost 200 markets.

[snip]

Uffelman became a partner of TBK Partnership LLC. after his time with Alliance Beverage, according to the release.

From the website of the Arizona Corporation Commission -

From the website of the AZ Department of Liquor -

TBK looks to have gone bankrupt but the actual docs are available only on PACER (the document system for the federal court system) and they want money to access the docs.  Something that isn't in the blogging budget :) .

From the Inforuptcy website -

Ducey's press release bragging about the appointment is here.

Ducey allegedly tries to deplete the state's budget to aid an ally

Why isn't this a bigger story here?

From KJZZ (it's a USA Today story, and I'd link to that one, but the USA Today story is behind a paywall) - 

USA Today Investigation Links Ducey With Efforts To Extract $100M In Tax Refunds

Gov. Doug Ducey has long been seen as having ambitions beyond the Governor’s Office, perhaps even for the United States presidency. And to get there, he would need powerful and wealthy allies.

In his latest piece, Craig Harris, a reporter with USA Today who formerly worked at the Arizona Republic, investigated why Ducey and a handful of his top staffers supported a multi-year effort by a powerful Texas businessman and Republican donor to extract millions of dollars in tax refunds from Arizona’s Department of Revenue, despite alleged conflicts of interest.

The Urban Institute has a pretty good backgrounder on Arizona's budget here.

Some of the illustrations a quite eye-opening.

GOP tenet -"When the 'Big Lie' no longer works, go with intimidation"

 

From HuffPost:

Cyber Ninjas Now Aims To Pound On Arizona Voters’ Doors To Grill Them Over 2020 Ballots

The long-running audit of Arizona presidential votes could become

more confrontational now that the head of Cyber Ninjas, the

company in charge of the recount, is demanding it be allowed to go

to voters’ homes to grill them about their ballots.

The audit of Maricopa County’s 2.1 million votes, launched by state

Senate Republicans and arranged by Cyber Ninjas, a little-known

company with partisan ties, was supposed to be completed by May 14. 

But there has been no report on the operation, and the company still

appears to be scrambling for information.

From the AZ Mirror -

Senate indicates more election review subpoenas are likely

The Arizona State Senate might issue more subpoenas related to an ongoing review of the Maricopa County 2020 election, which has been going on since late April. 

During a nearly two-hour hearing in the Senate Thursday morning with Senate President Karen Fann and Sen. Warren Petersen, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, contractors for the audit as well as the audit’s liaison, former Secretary of State Ken Bennett, said they wanted more materials that the county hadn’t yet provided. 

Guessing that Fann and Petersen (and the other GOPers in the AZ Senate) aren't planning on writing subpoenas targeted to Cyber Ninjas.

They probably do plan on using the subpoenas to intimidate other, county-level, electeds, into acquiescing to their wishes.

It seems that hurtful and hateful are both GOP characteristics

"Hurtful"?   Taking the life of someone else.

"Hateful"?  Desecrating a memorial to that person.

From  KJZZ -

Scottsdale detectives have found probable cause to file charges against Paradise Valley Town Councilman Paul Dembow for theft, according to police.

Dembow was allegedly caught on camera stealing a cross from a memorial made for a man killed after being struck by a car in 2015. 

The car was driven by then-Vice Mayor Dembow’s daughter, who was never charged with a crime because the act was ruled an accident.

While I suspected that he was a GOPer (being from PV and that contemptuous of human life and civil society), I couldn't prove it.  Then I found this - 

According to the website of the Maricopa County Recorder, he was a Republican Precinct Committeeman as of 6/4/3021, elected to that position in 2020.

.He's up for reelection in 2022.

Dear PV: 

Don't vote for him.

For the record, I am NOT accusing Paul Dembow of killing someone.  I DO want to see if he skates on this matter (which would be Scottsdale PD tanking the case or him receiving a light or no sentence if he's convicted), though, because of his position.

"Dark money" doesn't always mean bribing elected officials; sometimes it means buying them while they are still only candidates

Normally, I am loath to comment on any primary race, even a Republican primary race - the "lesser of two evils" is usually still pretty evil.

However, I will make an exception when the observation that I make is about the conduct of the candidate, and not the content of his/her positions on the issues*.

* - An exception to that exception: When a candidate self-identifies as a Democrat but holds positions or exhibits an attitude toward the public that says "Republican".

Then, they're fair game...



The race that is the subject of this post is actually a three-way race for two seats (AZ House of Representatives), but the principle is still applicable.

In Legislative District 1, centered around Prescott, there are three candidates running for the two Republican nominations to the House -

Noel Campbell, an incumbent (the other House incumbent there, Republican Karen Fann, is running for the AZ Senate seat there; she's unopposed in both the primary and the general)

Chip Davis, a long-time Yavapai County supervisor

David Stringer, a businessman


This isn't about any of the positions on issues (suffice it to say, I wouldn't vote for any of them).


Nope, it's about one of them.

Campbell, the incumbent, is running as a "Clean" candidate.  In the two campaign finance reports that he has filed this year, he reports raising $2070 from individual contributors, and making $0 in loans to his campaign. (Note: to run as a Clean Elections candidate for a seat in the legislature one has to obtain $5 contributions from at least 250 voters in the district)

Davis reports raising almost $43K from individual contributors and $10K in a loan to his own campaign.

Stringer reports raising $0 from individual contributors and loaning his own campaign more than $89K. (Relax - he's got the money to afford this; his financial disclosure statement indicates that he has more than $1 million in cash and assets available)

Stringer *has* accepted at least one outside contribution for his campaign -

Thanks to the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting for shining a light on this

"American Federation for Children" sounds good in an "Awww shucks, they're for kids" sort of way.

However, a little research turns up the fact that AFC is an "astroturf" (fake grassroots) group that exists to push for the privatization (and profitization) of education in the U.S.

From SourceWatch -

The American Federation for Children (AFC) is a conservative 501(c)(4) advocacy group that promotes the school privatization agenda via the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and other avenues. It is the 501(c)(4) arm of the 501(c)(3) non-profit group the Alliance for School Choice.  Former Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Scott Jensen, who was charged with multiple crimes stemming from abuse of his office, is on staff at ASC as Senior Advisor to its Government Affairs Team.

In the organization's own words, ASC is "a leading national advocacy organization promoting school choice, with a specific focus on advocating for school vouchers and scholarship tax credit programs."

The anti-public education bent isn't something that's new to Stringer.

From his own campaign website -

Stringer became especially active when he helped spearhead the campaign that lead to the defeat of the 2013 PUSD school bond and budget override. 

The Maricopa County Recorder's Office isn't telling the truth to Spanish-speaking voters? It must be a day ending in "y",,,

Arizona has a "special" election coming up for the voters to consider two ballot propositions placed before them by the legislature (which, for most observers, should be definitive evidence that both are bad for Arizonans - this *is* the Arizona legislature that we are talking about here).

Proposition 123 would allow the legislature to continue to shirk its duty to properly fund education in Arizona by letting it tap into the state's land trust at a faster pace than is currently allowed.

Proposition 124 would reward the legislature for it habitual underfunding of the pension system for public safety employees by placing more of the financial burden of the system on those public employees.


Early ballots have started reaching mail boxes this week, and there are already problems.

And to the surprise of almost no one, the problems are in Maricopa County.

Of course.

From KNXV-TV, written by Melissa Blasius -

ABC15 has learned thousands of early ballots mailed in Maricopa County this week have a major mistake in the Spanish translation of Proposition 124.

Proposition 124 is a proposal to make changes to police and firefighter pensions.  However, the boldface short title of the proposition in Spanish indicates it’s about education funding.  The wording in the title for Proposition 124 appears identical to Proposition 123, which is also on the ballot.

Beneath the incorrect title for Proposition 124, there is a more lengthy explanation that appears to appropriately describe the pension reform ballot measure.

Spokespeople for both the Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder say they were unaware of the problem until ABC15 brought it to their attention Friday morning.

They, meaning Michelle Reagan (Arizona Secretary of State) and Helen Purcell (Maricopa County Recorder), respectively, the overseer of elections in the entire state and the overseer of elections in the state's most populous county, want people to believe that this is a minor mistake that can be corrected by reprinting the ballots to be used for in-person voting and sending post cards to the recipients of early ballots.

Which might be an adequate response...if there weren't problems with all elections in Maricopa County.

Most of the time, Purcell, Reagan, et al. place the blame for problems with elections square on the shoulders of the people they seem to despise most - the voters.

Apparently, certain elected officials are surprised when voters actually vote in elections that don't have those specific elected officials on the ballot.

Of course, there are a few examples of official malfeasance/sustained incompetence that even they can't blame on the voters; when caught, they just "pooh-pooh" (minimize) the impact of their bad acts on the voters.

Like they have in this situation.


Full disclosure time: I have already voted "No" on both propositions and returned my ballot.  My reasons for voting against Prop 123 have been stated before this.  As for Prop 124, while a number of people that I wholeheartedly respect actually support the measure, I cannot bring myself to support of anything that the legislature puts on a ballot.

Somewhere...someday...the modern Arizona legislature may spawn an idea that actually benefits all Arizonans, and not just their deep-pocketed masters.

When (if!) that comes to pass, the related post will have a title that starts with "Well, there's a first time for everything".


Anyway, a few pictures of my ballot, to illustrate the problem -

Prop 123; please note the Spanish language short title.

Prop 124; please note the Spanish language short title.

Prop 124's Spanish language short title, magnified:

A translation, courtesy Google Translate (probably not necessary in Arizona, but it makes a great visual :) ):

Maricopa County Election Fiasco: Was it an exercise in "Two Birds, One Stone" or was it an exercise in "All Politics Is Local"?

...Or maybe it was an exercise in "it's not what you know, it's *who* you know"...

Ya know, maybe Maricopa County Elections, in the persons of Helen Purcell (County Recorder) and Karen Osborne (Purcell's Director of Elections) didn't deliberately set out to disenfranchise minority and lower-income voters last week (something that they are still claiming they didn't do).

They have claimed that they determined the geographic distribution of the county's 60 polling places based on cost.

However, looking at some other data suggests that at least one factor, aside from cost, may have been part of the considerations involved.

This analysis from Phoenix' channel 5 points out the one that most people have already noted - the areas with the most polling sites tended to be whiter and more affluent than those areas with a dearth of polling sites.

Having said that, I'm not going to go there.

Well, not *too* much :)

Turns out that in addition to having the money to buy bigger houses and whiter neighbors, the residents of the areas looked upon with favor by Purcell et. al. have the money to buy themselves some neighbors that hold elected office.

To whit:

Of the 13 county-level elected officials*, both county-wide and board of supervisors (who are elected to represent districts), only three live more than four miles (by road, not "as the crow flies").

Don Covey, county school superintendent

Andy Kunasek, District 3 on the Board of Supervisors

Michael Jeanes, county clerk of courts

* = In Maricopa County, justices of the peace and constables are elected from 26 districts; for the sake of brevity, they aren't included here. They are "county-level elected officials" but there are too many of them.  Plus, as important as they are to general public in terms of day-to-day life, in terms of Maricopa County politics, the local PTB don't give them much more regard than the PTB give to the general public.


Of those three, two (Covey and Kunasek) are retiring.  Jeanes may be an elected official, but he is as low profile as low profile gets here.  For most people, *not* being able to name the clerk of courts is a good thing (I can, but I'm a political geek; you make the call about whether or not that's a "good" thing :) ).

Of the rest...

...County Sheriff Joe Arpaio lives less than three miles from not one, but two (2!) polling places (Fountain Hills and Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation)

...County Supervisor Denny Barney (District 1) lives just over two miles from his nearest polling place in Gilbert (as a bonus, Senate President Andy Biggs lives just over a mile from the same polling place; not a "county" official, but one with some influence nonetheless)

...County Attorney Bill Montgomery lives just two miles from his nearest polling place, also in Gilbert

...County Supervisor Clint Hickman (District 4) resides 3.3 miles from the nearest polling site in Goodyear

...County Assessor Paul Petersen resides less than a mile from the nearest polling place in Mesa (as a bonus, his predecessor Keith Russell, now a justice of the peace, lives even closer to the same polling place)

...the previously mentioned Andy Kunasek lives a little less than 4.5 miles from his closest polling place in Paradise Valley.  He's retiring, though.  On the other hand, County Supervisor Steve Chucri (District 2) resides a little more than a mile from the same polling place.  And he's not retiring.

...The soon-to be-retired Charles "Hos" Hoskins, Maricopa County Treasurer, resides a little less than 3.5 miles from his nearest polling place in Peoria

...County School Superintendent Don Covey, himself soon to be retired, "wins" this round (not that this is really a competition that anyone wants to win), living in far north Phoenix over 8 miles from the nearest polling place

...County Supervisor Steve Gallardo (District 5), the lone Democrat on this list, lives a shade under three miles from the nearest polling place

...County Clerk of Courts Michael Jeanes resides just over 4 miles from the nearest polling place in north Phoenix (not as far north as Covey, though)

...County Recorder Helen Purcell, the center of the uproar surrounding last week's fiasco (ya didn't think I was going to forget her, didja? ) lives all of 1.4 miles from the closest polling place to her in Phoenix


...Bonus time: Michele Reagan, Arizona's Secretary of State (and chief elections officer), lives 6.3 miles from the polling site in Phoenix nearest to her home in Scottsdale, which doesn't sound too bad.

Except for the fact that her father Michael, an elected official in his own right (justice of the peace) resides all of 1.6 miles from the closest polling place in north Scottsdale.


Now, I expect that most, if not all of the "dignitaries" listed above are on the Permanent Early Voters List (PEVL) and voted by mail in last week's election.

However, all but one of them live in mostly white and relatively affluent areas, and have mostly white and relatively affluent neighbors.

Meaning that not only do their neighbors get special treatment because of their skin color and the size of their bank accounts, they are accorded special treatment because of who they live near.

It's a bit of a "chicken or egg" question - do those folks live near elected officials because they (and the electeds) are affluent, or do the affluent like living near electeds?

Either way, the average Maricopa County resident ends up with the short end of the stick on Election Day...and every other day of the year.



My nominees for the two most questionably placed polling stations:

Pinnacle Peak Public Safety Substation, 23100 N. Lake Pleasant Road in Peoria and Cross of Glory Evangelical Lutheran Church, 10111 W. Jomax Road, also in Peoria.

Why?

Both sites are located in the same precinct, Lake Pleasant.*.

If the "cost" excuse was the truth, why waste money by having two polling locations in such proximity?

* - Actually, the recorder's website's district locator function indicates that the police substation is in the Zuni Hills precinct and that the church's address doesn't exist, but maps published by the recorder indicate that both are located in the Lake Pleasant Precinct (which is immediately north of Zuni Hills).


Notes:

All distances above are based on Googling the addresses.

All addresses are based on public record filed by the electeds in question.

Is Doug Ducey the governor of Arizona, or Andy Tobin's "goombah"?

...Either that or we should change the name of the office of the governor to that of the protector of Andy Tobin's Employment Security...

From KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) (emphasis added) -

Former Arizona House Speaker Andy Tobin has been appointed to the Arizona Corporation Commission to fill the seat vacated by Susan Bitter Smith.

The appointment by Gov. Doug Ducey was announced Wednesday.

{snip}

Tobin is currently the director of the Arizona Department of Insurance and the interim director of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions. He will leave both positions when he joins the Commission, said Ducey.

Before that, he was the director of the Arizona Department of Weights and Measures.

Mitch M. at Arizona' Politics observes that Tobin will take a significant cut in pay when he takes the job on the ACC.

However, I will observe, that given the behavior of the ACC and its members, that we need not worry about Tobin.

Only his *official* pay will be cut.

And the first "WTF?" bill of the 2016 session of the Arizona Legislature is...

... HB2003.

A couple of weeks ago, the Yellow Sheet Report, a publication of the Arizona Capitol Times, reported on the first bill proposal for the upcoming session of the Arizona Legislature (HB2001, from Rep. J.D. Mesnard).  That one is a (relatively) mundane correction to Arizona's "revenge porn" law, a law that has been blocked due to a court challenge.

Less mundane is HB2003.  It is sponsored by Rep. Mark Finchem (R-LD11) and numbers among its primary and cosponsors a rogues' gallery of members of the tin foil hat brigade of the R caucus.

From the measure -

A.  A person is eligible for election as county school superintendent if the person holds a basic or standard certificate to teach in the schools of this state baccalaureate degree in any subject or an associate degree in business, finance or accounting.

Ummm...really?

OK.  We're in Arizona - legislative hatred of teachers here is well-documented, so the part about not requiring county school superintendents to be able to teach in a public school classroom isn't much of a surprise.

It's unconscionable, but, with this bunch, it is something that should be expected.


But mandating that possessing an associate's degree in business, etc., means that one is as qualified to run a county school department as someone with a bachelor's degree in education (or anything else)?

That seems rather crazy...unless you see this proposal as so specific as to likely be a favor to someone in particular.

Looking into it, but anyone with insight into this is welcome to reach out to me, via email or a comment...

AZSOS Michele Reagan to Clean Elections Commission: "Do as I do, not as I say"

...In her case, what she says is all about transparent and honest elections; what she *does* is most assuredly not about about transparent and honest elections.

Oh yeah - as Arizona's Secretary of State, she is the state's chief elections officer.

Then-Senator Reagan in 2011, speaking in Scottsdale against the redistricting process

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl, dated 21 August 2015 -

The turf war between the Arizona Secretary of State and the Clean Elections Commission is continuing, but on a slower timetable and with softer, yet stern, rhetoric.

On Thursday, Secretary of State Michele Reagan told the five commissioners to “tread lightly” as they consider a rule that could force disclosure of so-called “dark-money” contributors.

“I believe you have noble intentions,” Reagan said. “You want to be able to rein in groups if they corrupt our election system.”

But, she continued, the way the commission is trying to do that would set a precedent that she called “extremely troubling.”

Now, when Secretary Reagan was "Senator Reagan" and only a candidate for AZSOS, she talked a good game (OK, it was an "alright" game, and then only if you didn't listen too closely...but I digress).


From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl, dated 31 October 2014 -

Reagan, as chairman of the Senate Elections Committee, sponsored a bill this year that would have required disclosure of the "identifiable contributors" who are the original source of money for an independent-expenditure committee. This would have cut through the layers of intermediary groups that have merely passed along campaign cash to the committee. Senate Bill 1403 also would have required all political ads, signs, brochures and other materials to list the top three contributors.

The bill passed her committee on a unanimous vote, then never surfaced again.

That last part, the "never surfaced again" part, was a distinct pattern for Reagan during her time in the state senate - not only did 2014's SB1403 "mysteriously" die in committee, so did a slew of her election "reform" bills in 2013.

Her "reforms" were almost all about voter suppression and while Reagan's bills died, the voter suppression clauses were folded into the now-infamous HB2305.

She wasn't listed as one of the sponsors of the bill (plausible deniability?), but she was one the conference committee members that help to turn a previously (relatively) innocuous bill into a true nugget of ugly.

That bill was passed and signed into law by then-Governor Jan Brewer.

It was then subject to a petition effort to refer it to the 2014 ballot to be overturned (or upheld) by the voters.

The petition drive was successful, more or less.

Enough signatures were gathered to freeze implementation of the measure and refer it to the ballot.

The lege, still having a few active brain cells under their tin foil tricorner hats and realizing that having on the ballot something that would serve to highlight GOP voter suppression efforts would be very bad (for them, anyway), promptly repealed HB2305 during the early days of the 2014 session, rendering the petition drive/ballot referral moot.


Reagan's conflict with the Citizens Clean Election Commission seems to rise from the fact that they aren't willing to be paper tigers, unwilling to do anything to upset the dark money-fueled gravy train that so many at the state capitol so enthusiastically ride.

Maybe if, instead of just talking a good game, Reagan was interested in doing her job conscientiously and honorably, it wouldn't be necessary for the CCEC to intervene.