Every election cycle, a lot of attention is paid to elected officials attempting to move up a level.
Look at the amount of coverage that Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords received during their moves from the state lege to the U.S. Congress in 2006, or that Ann Kirkpatrick received while making the same move in 2008. Even this year, some of the most covered candidates are those like Jonathan Paton, Pam Gorman, Jim Waring, and Sam Crump, all of whom are attempting the same move. In addition, due to term limits (both in the lege and in statewide offices), a number of legislators (and other "big names" politically) are trying to move to statewide offices - Verschoor, Huppenthal, Leff, Thomas, Lujan, Garcia and more.
Perhaps lost in the clutter this year is the number of legislators looking to step "down" a level (though to be fair, many observers think that the AZ lege is so low, any move away from it is a step "up").
- State Sen. Jay Tibshraeny (R) is running for mayor of Chandler
- Rep. Ben Miranda (D) (or someone with the same name at the same address) is running for constable in the South Mountain Justice Precinct
- former State Rep. Mark Anderson (R) is running for Justice of the Peace in West Mesa
- State Sen. Meg Burton Cahill (D) is running for Justice of the Peace in the University Lakes justice precinct (aka - East Tempe)
- State Sen. Ken Cheuvront (D) is running for Justice of the Peace in the Encanto Justice Precinct
- Radio and internet talk show host Jeff Farias is running for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct
- And in a blast from the recent past (non-lege genus), Daniel Washburn, the pro-tem Justice of the Peace who gave John Huppenthal, then a state senator and now a candidate for state superintendent of public instruction, a complete walk on political sign tampering and misdemeanor theft charges is running for a Superior Court judge position in Pinal County. Reading his campaign finance reports should be interesting. Fun, even, especially if the name "Huppenthal" (or anyone affiliated with Huppenthal) appears on his list of contributors.
This should be an interesting year with some interesting stories, and not just in the high profile races. Stay tuned...
Most candidate status info courtesy the unofficial list of candidates published by the Maricopa County Recorder's Office; more info gathered from the list of candidates published by the Pinal County Recorder's Office. Many (but not all) of the other counties in Arizona have similar lists up, but I didn't notice any really familiar names on those.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Sunday, May 30, 2010
Supporters of SB1070 showing their true colors
From AZFamily.com -
The video at the story link shows that the vocal fan of Hitler quoted in the story is someone familiar most readers of this blog - J.T. Ready, neo-Nazi and friend of the author of SB1070, Russell Pearce.
Rallies were held for supporters on both sides of Arizona's immigration law on Saturday. The "National Day of Action against SB 1070" rally took place in downtown Phoenix Saturday morning. And the "Stand with Arizona" pro-SB 1070 rally was held at Tempe's Diablo Stadium Saturday evening.
Both events were peacful, passionate gatherings of like-minded individuals in support of their respective positions. However, a few supporters of Arizona's new immigration law were also on-hand at the anti-SB 1070 rally.
Two men carrying loaded weapons and waiving a confederate flag said they were there to support SB 1070. One man was carrying a loaded shotgun and wearing a White People's Party shirt. The other said he was a big fan of Hitler, calling him a "great White civil rights leader."
The video at the story link shows that the vocal fan of Hitler quoted in the story is someone familiar most readers of this blog - J.T. Ready, neo-Nazi and friend of the author of SB1070, Russell Pearce.
The coming week...
As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, except where noted, and subject to change without notice.
...At the federal level, both the U.S. House and Senate are on a break. They'll be back in session next week.
...Back here in Arizona...
- The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any regular meetings scheduled, however they will be travelling to gather public comment on specific issues.
-- On Wednesday at 1 p.m., they will be holding a special meeting in Tucson to solicit public comments on line extension policies for Arizona utilities.
-- Later on Wednesday, they will hold two public meetings in Nogales. The first will start at 6 p.m. and will concern Rio Rico Utilities rates; the second is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. and will concern Valle Verde Water Company rates.
-- The ACC's hearing schedule is here. Most of this week's hearing activity involves Arizona American Water (a name near and not-so-dear to Scottsdale readers :) ).
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. It's a special meeting with one topic - a settlement with the Department of Labor over MCSO's forcing detention officers to work unpaid overtime. AZ Republic coverage of the matter here.
- The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will have a busy week.
-- On Tuesday at 1 p.m., there will be a meeting of the Project ADD Water group.
-- On Thursday at 9 a.m., the Board's Public Policy Committee will meet.
-- After the committee meeting, the full Board with hold a regular meeting. The highlights of this meeting will be the setting of property tax and service rates.
- The Tempe City Council isn't meeting this week; the Council Calendar of events is here.
- The Scottsdale City Council also isn't meeting this week; the City of Scottsdale's Community Meeting Notice is here.
Note: When memorial service arrangements for late Councilman Tony Nelssen are announced, an update will be posted.
Not meeting this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Arizona Board of Regents
...At the federal level, both the U.S. House and Senate are on a break. They'll be back in session next week.
...Back here in Arizona...
- The Arizona Corporation Commission doesn't have any regular meetings scheduled, however they will be travelling to gather public comment on specific issues.
-- On Wednesday at 1 p.m., they will be holding a special meeting in Tucson to solicit public comments on line extension policies for Arizona utilities.
-- Later on Wednesday, they will hold two public meetings in Nogales. The first will start at 6 p.m. and will concern Rio Rico Utilities rates; the second is scheduled to start at 7 p.m. and will concern Valle Verde Water Company rates.
-- The ACC's hearing schedule is here. Most of this week's hearing activity involves Arizona American Water (a name near and not-so-dear to Scottsdale readers :) ).
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will meet on Tuesday at 11:30 a.m. It's a special meeting with one topic - a settlement with the Department of Labor over MCSO's forcing detention officers to work unpaid overtime. AZ Republic coverage of the matter here.
- The Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project will have a busy week.
-- On Tuesday at 1 p.m., there will be a meeting of the Project ADD Water group.
-- On Thursday at 9 a.m., the Board's Public Policy Committee will meet.
-- After the committee meeting, the full Board with hold a regular meeting. The highlights of this meeting will be the setting of property tax and service rates.
- The Tempe City Council isn't meeting this week; the Council Calendar of events is here.
- The Scottsdale City Council also isn't meeting this week; the City of Scottsdale's Community Meeting Notice is here.
Note: When memorial service arrangements for late Councilman Tony Nelssen are announced, an update will be posted.
Not meeting this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System, Arizona Board of Regents
In any other state...
In any other state, would a candidate for state treasurer tout the endorsement of someone who is fighting an investigation into the fiscal mismanagement of his department?
Just one question - do Verschoor's signs in other counties contain the part about the endorsement, or is that a Maricopa-only phenomenon?
Scottsdale's election picture comes into focus
With the passage of Wednesday's deadline for submitting nomination petitions, the ballot for this fall's City Council election has been set.
There had been 10 candidates with open committees for the race for the three open seats, and six candidates will appear on the ballot.
Of the other four, incumbent Tony Nelssen passed away earlier this week, businessman Bill Crawford ended his candidacy months ago, attorney Jose Luis Penalosa, Jr. has since set his sights on the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic incumbent Ed Pastor in CD4 (as "Joe Penalosa"), and Sean Shepherd..well, I don't know. He didn't turn in sigs and won't be on the ballot, otherwise I don't know anything about him.
The candidate list in Scottsdale, courtesy the City of Scottsdale's website -
Note: The way that I read the section of the City Charter related to the filling of a vacancy on the Council, the remaining members will vote to appoint someone to serve out the remainder of Tony Nelssen's term, which expires at the end of the year. I'm not sure who is likely to get the spot, or even likely to apply for the job, but it seems unlikely that the Council will appoint one of the current candidates for election - doing so could unfairly give that candidate an advantage this fall.
Note2: Petitions could still be challenged, so it is possible that one or more of the candidates above won't be on the fall ballot, but that seems unlikely at this point.
When candidate forums are organized and announced, the schedule will be posted here.
There had been 10 candidates with open committees for the race for the three open seats, and six candidates will appear on the ballot.
Of the other four, incumbent Tony Nelssen passed away earlier this week, businessman Bill Crawford ended his candidacy months ago, attorney Jose Luis Penalosa, Jr. has since set his sights on the Republican nomination to challenge Democratic incumbent Ed Pastor in CD4 (as "Joe Penalosa"), and Sean Shepherd..well, I don't know. He didn't turn in sigs and won't be on the ballot, otherwise I don't know anything about him.
The candidate list in Scottsdale, courtesy the City of Scottsdale's website -
Wayne Ecton
Ecton for City Council
Phone: (480) 488-1033
Email: elect@wayneecton.com
Website: www.wayneecton.com
Bob Littlefield
Vote Littlefield
Phone: (602) 288-9145
Email: bob@boblittlfield.com
Website: www.boblittlefield.com
Linda Milhaven
Milhaven for Scottsdale
Phone: (480) 295-3275
Email: Linda@MilhavenforScottsdale.com
Website: www.MilhavenforScottsdale.com
Ned O'Hearn
Committee to Elect Ned O'Hearn
Phone: (480) 661-1314
Email: Ned@NedForCouncil.com
Website: www.NedForCouncil.com
Guy Phillips
Committee to Elect Guy Phillips
Phone: (480) 560-6124
Email: guyrphillips@gmail.com
Website: www.electguy.intuitwebsites.com
Dennis Robbins
Robbins for Council 2010
Phone: (480) 994-0302
Email: azdrob@aol.com
Website: www.votedennisrobbins.com
Note: The way that I read the section of the City Charter related to the filling of a vacancy on the Council, the remaining members will vote to appoint someone to serve out the remainder of Tony Nelssen's term, which expires at the end of the year. I'm not sure who is likely to get the spot, or even likely to apply for the job, but it seems unlikely that the Council will appoint one of the current candidates for election - doing so could unfairly give that candidate an advantage this fall.
Note2: Petitions could still be challenged, so it is possible that one or more of the candidates above won't be on the fall ballot, but that seems unlikely at this point.
When candidate forums are organized and announced, the schedule will be posted here.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Perhaps we should judge SB1070 by what it *doesn't* contain
Much of the furor over the passage of SB1070 (and its modifier, HB2162) has been rooted in fears that the new law creates a legal cover for ethnic profiling and discrimination on the part of Arizona officialdom.
Defenders of the measure try to deflect such concerns by citing the line in SB1070 that reads -
That clause *does* sound good, until you compare it to the other clauses in the measure, the ones that have caused so much angst across the country and across the globe.
- There are the commandments (explanation of the use of the word "shall" by David Safier at Blog for AZ here) for all police officers and other government officials, no matter their level, to enforce immigration laws and to verify the immigration status of any member of the public with whom they have contact, followed by the section that allows any resident of AZ to sue if he or she doesn't think that an official/political subdivision is enthusiastic enough in toeing the nativist line -
There are civil fines created to serve as punishments for entitities, with the monies collected and reserved for anti-immigrant activities by the Department of Public Safety.
- There are also a myriad of felony and misdemeanor violations created for various acts and missteps by immigrants (failure to carry the proper paperwork at all times, roadside solicitation of unemployment, etc.) and anyone who attempts to aid one in any way (even taking an injured undocumented immigrant to the hospital is a crime), each of which comes with its own punishments.
So what does the measure *not* have?
Any sort of penalties for the violation of the "no profiling" clause, or for falsely arresting someone for a violation, or incorrectly deporting someone, or...
Why do I not think that this particular omission was an accident?
Defenders of the measure try to deflect such concerns by citing the line in SB1070 that reads -
A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE MAY NOT SOLELY CONSIDER RACE, COLOR OR NATIONAL ORIGIN IN IMPLEMENTING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS SUBSECTION EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY THE UNITED STATES OR ARIZONA CONSTITUTION.Sounds good, doesn't it?
That clause *does* sound good, until you compare it to the other clauses in the measure, the ones that have caused so much angst across the country and across the globe.
- There are the commandments (explanation of the use of the word "shall" by David Safier at Blog for AZ here) for all police officers and other government officials, no matter their level, to enforce immigration laws and to verify the immigration status of any member of the public with whom they have contact, followed by the section that allows any resident of AZ to sue if he or she doesn't think that an official/political subdivision is enthusiastic enough in toeing the nativist line -
A PERSON WHO IS A LEGAL RESIDENT OF THIS STATE MAY BRING AN ACTION IN SUPERIOR COURT TO CHALLENGE ANY OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE THAT ADOPTS OR IMPLEMENTS A POLICY OR PRACTICE THAT LIMITS OR RESTRICTS THE ENFORCEMENT OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAWS TO LESS THAN THE FULL EXTENT PERMITTED BY FEDERAL LAW.
There are civil fines created to serve as punishments for entitities, with the monies collected and reserved for anti-immigrant activities by the Department of Public Safety.
- There are also a myriad of felony and misdemeanor violations created for various acts and missteps by immigrants (failure to carry the proper paperwork at all times, roadside solicitation of unemployment, etc.) and anyone who attempts to aid one in any way (even taking an injured undocumented immigrant to the hospital is a crime), each of which comes with its own punishments.
So what does the measure *not* have?
Any sort of penalties for the violation of the "no profiling" clause, or for falsely arresting someone for a violation, or incorrectly deporting someone, or...
Why do I not think that this particular omission was an accident?
Friday, May 28, 2010
Response from decertified Clean Elections candidate
Earlier this week, I posted about a Republican candidate for state senate in LD7, Robert Green. He was decertified as a Clean Elections candidate and fined due to some rules violations.
Green contacted me later in the week and asked for an opportunity to explain his position on what happened.
As I firmly believe in fairness, I agreed to put publish a brief statement written by Mr. Green.
I take no position on the correctness CCEC's decision or Mr. Green's response, other than to say he was very civil when we spoke and deserves a chance to have his take on the matter heard.
From an email -
Green is still running for Republican nomination for the state senate in a four-way race against Nancy Barto, Ray Barnes, and Brad Buch.
I have emailed the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to offer them the opportunity to put forth a statement on this. I don't expect them to do so, but will publish their response if they send one.
Later...
Green contacted me later in the week and asked for an opportunity to explain his position on what happened.
As I firmly believe in fairness, I agreed to put publish a brief statement written by Mr. Green.
I take no position on the correctness CCEC's decision or Mr. Green's response, other than to say he was very civil when we spoke and deserves a chance to have his take on the matter heard.
From an email -
In March, I turned in 265 Clean Election Qualifying forms. Of those, approximately 75 were gathered by employees that I hired from Craigslist to do temp work for my business. Since they were well paid, 3 of them agreed to volunteer to help get signatures. The initial report back from the County Recorder said 136 signatures were invalid. After a visual inspection of each one, I filed 2 appeals to have the signatures reviewed. Before the 2nd appeal, I was informed that CCEC was doing an investigation and felt that all 136 were invalid. Due to my efforts, about half of those have since been ruled valid. Many of the remaining were ruled to be invalid, all of those gathered by 2 of the volunteers. The forms were turned in to me without a signature from the solicitor; my error in judgment is that after verifying the voter registration, I signed the forms and turned them in, making me responsible.
Prior to being informed of an investigation, I turned in another 160 CCEC forms of which over 140 were valid, putting my final total of valid forms to be approximately 340, well over the 220 minimum requirement.
While I do respect the CCEC decision on decertification, I do feel it was excessive and punitive; I am responsible for the volunteers and signing forms that I should not have, however, there is no way for a candidate to check signatures prior to submission to the Secretary of State - we can only check if voter registration and address is valid. I did not falsify any information or break any CCEC rules.
I will file an appeal, however, given the late date, it is unlikely that a decision in my favor would come in time to help my campaign. I will continue to campaign with a very limited budget and hope that voters will consider my experience, knowledge, and desire to help Arizona recover when it is time to vote in the primaries.
Bob Green
Green is still running for Republican nomination for the state senate in a four-way race against Nancy Barto, Ray Barnes, and Brad Buch.
I have emailed the Citizens Clean Elections Commission to offer them the opportunity to put forth a statement on this. I don't expect them to do so, but will publish their response if they send one.
Later...
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Wow. There are going to be a *lot* of primaries in AZ this year
Based on a quick perusal of the Secretary of State's webpage of candidates, which isn't necessarily final, depending on successful challenges to petition sigs (rare, but not unheard of) or successful write-in candidacies (rare to the point of being unheard of).
However, the primary ballots for all of the parties has pretty much taken shape, and there are some surprises.
Quick takes on some of the aforementioned primaries -
- Democratic, US Senate - Five weeks ago, Rodney Glassman looked like a shoo-in, as he was the only active D candidate (Rudy Garcia had formed a committee, but that may have been the high point of his campaign, as he didn't even file sigs.) Then John McCain started looking very vulnerable against JD Hayworth, and suddenly there were three other D candidates gathering signatures, and they all filed - Cathy Eden, Randy Parraz, and John Dougherty all submitted sigs.
For now, Glassman remains the favorite because he has had feet on the ground for months, but that hardly assures his victory.
- Republican, CD1, U.S. Congress - Nine, count 'em NINE, Republicans are running for the chance to oppose incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. I've got no idea who will come out of the primary here, but the most familiar names are Sydney Hay, the mining industry lobbyist who was the R nominee in 2008 and former legislator Rusty Bowers.
- Republican, CD3, U.S. Congress - There are TEN Republicans who filed sigs in this race to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg. If any of them receive over 30% of the vote, it will be considered a landslide victory. Democrat Jon Hulburd awaits the winner of what is expected to be a brutal primary campaign.
- Republican, CD5, U.S. Congress - A mere six Rs have filed sigs in this race to face Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in November. This one will probably come down to David Schweikert and Susan Bitter Smith, like it did in 2008.
- Republican, CD7, U.S. Congress - Five (huh?) Rs have filed to go up against Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva. I'm not sure why. I'm sure I don't care.
- Republican, CD8, U.S. Congress - Five Republicans have filed to challenge Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The highest profile R candidate here is former state senator Jonathan Paton, a supporter of SB1070 and the payday loan industry.
- Libertarian, Governor - Everyone has been aware of the primary on the R side of the ballot (six filed sigs, with unelected incumbent Jan Brewer as the current favorite), but FOUR Libertarians have filed. ????
- There are primaries on one or both sides of the ballot for most of the statewide offices. Nothing unexpected though, so I'll cover those in a later post.
- The same with state lege, though I will mention a few of the more interesting ones here -
- Republican, LD5, State Senate - Sen. Sylvia Allen and Rep. Bill Konopnicki are going at it here. Allen is a darling of the flat Earth/Tea Party contingent; Konopnicki would be considered a right wing whackaloon almost anywhere else, but since he actually proposes a few decent, "good government" pieces of legislation each session in the House, he is considered a RINO (Republican in name only). No idea who will win this one.
- Democratic, LD13, State Senate - Former state representative Steve Gallardo is challenging incumbent Martha Garcia. Don't know the district or either candidate personally so I don't have a clue about this one.
- Republican, LD30, State Senate - Appointed incumbent Frank Antenori and former legislator Marian McClure face off here in what could challenge LD5 for primary of the year (legislative edition). Antenori is a part of the southern AZ contingent of hardcore nativists/Tea Party types in the lege and has a tendency to spout off threateningly to the Board of Supes, media, other legislators, or anyone who crosses him. McClure is overwhelmingly conservative, but civil and thoughtful.
She could be electoral roadkill this year.
- In Maricopa County, the biggest race will be the R race to serve out the last two years of Andrew Thomas' term as County Attorney. He resigned to pursue the greener pastures of the state Attorney General's race.
Three Republicans have filed - Boyd Dunn, mayor of Chandler, Bill Montgomery, 2006 R nominee for AZAG, and Rick Romley, former CA and current interim CA. I expect it will come down to Romley (anti-Arpaio) and Montgomery (pro-Arpaio) but those two could slice each up enough to give Dunn a shot at this one.
More this weekend when I have time to go into more depth on a couple of the races...
-
However, the primary ballots for all of the parties has pretty much taken shape, and there are some surprises.
Quick takes on some of the aforementioned primaries -
- Democratic, US Senate - Five weeks ago, Rodney Glassman looked like a shoo-in, as he was the only active D candidate (Rudy Garcia had formed a committee, but that may have been the high point of his campaign, as he didn't even file sigs.) Then John McCain started looking very vulnerable against JD Hayworth, and suddenly there were three other D candidates gathering signatures, and they all filed - Cathy Eden, Randy Parraz, and John Dougherty all submitted sigs.
For now, Glassman remains the favorite because he has had feet on the ground for months, but that hardly assures his victory.
- Republican, CD1, U.S. Congress - Nine, count 'em NINE, Republicans are running for the chance to oppose incumbent Democrat Ann Kirkpatrick. I've got no idea who will come out of the primary here, but the most familiar names are Sydney Hay, the mining industry lobbyist who was the R nominee in 2008 and former legislator Rusty Bowers.
- Republican, CD3, U.S. Congress - There are TEN Republicans who filed sigs in this race to replace the soon-to-be retired John Shadegg. If any of them receive over 30% of the vote, it will be considered a landslide victory. Democrat Jon Hulburd awaits the winner of what is expected to be a brutal primary campaign.
- Republican, CD5, U.S. Congress - A mere six Rs have filed sigs in this race to face Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell in November. This one will probably come down to David Schweikert and Susan Bitter Smith, like it did in 2008.
- Republican, CD7, U.S. Congress - Five (huh?) Rs have filed to go up against Democratic incumbent Raul Grijalva. I'm not sure why. I'm sure I don't care.
- Republican, CD8, U.S. Congress - Five Republicans have filed to challenge Democratic Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. The highest profile R candidate here is former state senator Jonathan Paton, a supporter of SB1070 and the payday loan industry.
- Libertarian, Governor - Everyone has been aware of the primary on the R side of the ballot (six filed sigs, with unelected incumbent Jan Brewer as the current favorite), but FOUR Libertarians have filed. ????
- There are primaries on one or both sides of the ballot for most of the statewide offices. Nothing unexpected though, so I'll cover those in a later post.
- The same with state lege, though I will mention a few of the more interesting ones here -
- Republican, LD5, State Senate - Sen. Sylvia Allen and Rep. Bill Konopnicki are going at it here. Allen is a darling of the flat Earth/Tea Party contingent; Konopnicki would be considered a right wing whackaloon almost anywhere else, but since he actually proposes a few decent, "good government" pieces of legislation each session in the House, he is considered a RINO (Republican in name only). No idea who will win this one.
- Democratic, LD13, State Senate - Former state representative Steve Gallardo is challenging incumbent Martha Garcia. Don't know the district or either candidate personally so I don't have a clue about this one.
- Republican, LD30, State Senate - Appointed incumbent Frank Antenori and former legislator Marian McClure face off here in what could challenge LD5 for primary of the year (legislative edition). Antenori is a part of the southern AZ contingent of hardcore nativists/Tea Party types in the lege and has a tendency to spout off threateningly to the Board of Supes, media, other legislators, or anyone who crosses him. McClure is overwhelmingly conservative, but civil and thoughtful.
She could be electoral roadkill this year.
- In Maricopa County, the biggest race will be the R race to serve out the last two years of Andrew Thomas' term as County Attorney. He resigned to pursue the greener pastures of the state Attorney General's race.
Three Republicans have filed - Boyd Dunn, mayor of Chandler, Bill Montgomery, 2006 R nominee for AZAG, and Rick Romley, former CA and current interim CA. I expect it will come down to Romley (anti-Arpaio) and Montgomery (pro-Arpaio) but those two could slice each up enough to give Dunn a shot at this one.
More this weekend when I have time to go into more depth on a couple of the races...
-
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Sad day in Scottsdale
From guest writer John Washington, on his friend Tony Nelssen -
Good night...
On a bright, clear morning in Scottsdale that was so dry the desert sky couldn’t conjure up a cloud—let alone a tear—a giant has fallen. Councilman Tony Nelssen passed away at his home this morning, after a brief and valiant battle with cancer. Even after Tony told us about his diagnosis, I could not bring myself to believe it was possible he might not survive. It is difficult to imagine Scottsdale without Tony.
If anyone deserved the description “larger than life,” it was Tony. Had he lived a thousand years ago, he would have been a Viking warrior. Tony was a big man, but because of his quiet presence you would never know that if you had not stood next to him or shaken his hand. That stoic Scandinavian nature did not incline him to talk of how he suffered with arthritis in the last few years, nor the pain of his disease for the last few weeks.
Always a voice for the residents and the natural beauty of our community, Tony fought for us for twenty-five years. With almost a century-and-a-half of family history in the Valley, Tony’s legacy knowledge of this area was unmatched and irreplaceable. Tony never sought fame or personal gain from his position. He sacrificed thousands of hours of his time to try to keep Scottsdale special.
Tony also worked tirelessly to help others see what he valued. As a photographer, Tony tried to capture the essence and beauty of our community to share with those who could not experience it directly, and for those who might have otherwise missed it. As a photography instructor, he tried to help each student interpret that beauty in their own way.
Tony’s family was with him this morning, along with two childhood friends who’d come to help during Tony’s convalescence. Tony’s wife Marg, son Ian, and daughter Hannah are grateful for all your support over the years, and during this trying time.I miss my friend. Adios, Tony.
Arrangements are pending.
John Washington
Good night...
Tony Nelssen, Scottsdale City Councilman, passes away
From a press release on the City of Scottsdale's website -
Councilman Tony Nelssen passes away
The City of Scottsdale is deeply saddened by the passing of Councilman Tony Nelssen on Wednesday, May 26, and extends its sincere condolences and deepest sympathy to the Nelssen family. “This is a great loss for Scottsdale,” said Mayor Jim Lane. “Tony Nelssen was a passionate and dedicated citizen who was truly devoted to improving our community. He was a great colleague and friend, and he will be missed greatly.”Councilman Nelssen began his service on the Scottsdale City Council in June 2006. He was active in civic affairs for more than two decades prior, serving on a variety of city commissions and advisory groups, as well as neighborhood and civic associations.
In 1996 he founded The Great Sonoran, a group advocating innovative, site specific and climate sensitive architecture suited to the Sonoran Desert. Scottsdale derived much of its sensitive design guidelines from those developed by The Great Sonoran.
He was a member of the Scottsdale Planning Commission for two and one half years, and the city’s Parks and Recreation Commission for six years. On the state level, Councilman Nelssen was a member of the Arizona State Heritage Fund Public Advisory Committee.Tony Nelssen was a strong equestrian advocate who was named Horse Hero of the year in 2002 in the Town of Cave Creek. Nelssen also taught computer graphics and digital photography at Paradise Valley Community College, and had taught courses at Arizona State University, Phoenix College and Scottsdale Community College.
He is survived by his wife Marg, son Ian and daughter Hannah.
In lieu of flowers, the family requests donations to the Scottsdale Police Department’s Mounted Unit in Councilman Nelssen’s name. Donations may be made payable to the Scottsdale Police Department Mounted Unit and mailed to police headquarters at 8401 E. Indian School Road, Scottsdale, AZ, 85251.
I barely knew Councilman Nelssen, having met him only once or twice. While we were almost never in agreement politically, no one who met him could ever question his deep love for Scottsdale.
My condolences go out to Tony Nelssen's family and many friends.
Arizona Republic news coverage here; memorials from AZRep columnist Laurie Roberts here and AZRep editorial writer Cindy Hernandez here.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Signature deadline tomorrow in AZ
As nominating petition season draws to a close, most campaigns have submitted their sigs already or have made plans to do so tomorrow before the close of business. A few, such as University Lakes JP John Ore, have announced their retirement.
Note: Ore gained some notoriety late last year after he was outed as the judge who signed a batch of search warrants for Joe Arpaio as part of Arpaio's jihad against other county officials.
Normally, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and the Arizona Secretary of State update their websites to indicate which candidates have submitted their petitions at the end of the business day, but they haven't done so as of this writing (the SOS' page is here; the link to Maricopa County's is here).
Through yesterday however, there weren't any serious surprises - there are seven R candidates with submitted petitions in CD1, five Rs in CD3, six Rs for LD8 State Rep, five Ds for LD27 State Rep, five Ds for LD28 State Rep, and all still counting. Given the rancor that has suffused politics at all levels in recent months, the number of people interested is somewhat surprising, but then, the number of people who want to change things isn't.
A bigger surprise is the number of independent candidates running so far - Harley Meyer in CD7, Ted Downing and Dave Ewoldt for LD28 State Senate (2?!?) and Gene Chewning for LD27 State Rep.
There must be something in Tucson's water. :)
OK...I've taken so long writing this post, the SOS' office has updated its website.
Turns out I was wrong a few weeks ago when I predicted that none of the late entries into the race for the D nomination for U.S. Senate would make it on to the ballot - both Cathy Eden and John Dougherty submitted their sigs today. In addition, there are now 8 Rs running in CD1; 8 Rs in CD3; 5 Rs in CD5; 4 Rs in CD7; 3 (count 'em, 3!) Libertarians running for Governor; 6 Rs for LD7 State Rep.; 5 Rs for LD22 State Rep.; 6 Ds for LD27 State Rep.
I'll do a more complete post once things are finalized. And once Maricopa County updates its website.
Later....
Note: Ore gained some notoriety late last year after he was outed as the judge who signed a batch of search warrants for Joe Arpaio as part of Arpaio's jihad against other county officials.
Normally, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office and the Arizona Secretary of State update their websites to indicate which candidates have submitted their petitions at the end of the business day, but they haven't done so as of this writing (the SOS' page is here; the link to Maricopa County's is here).
Through yesterday however, there weren't any serious surprises - there are seven R candidates with submitted petitions in CD1, five Rs in CD3, six Rs for LD8 State Rep, five Ds for LD27 State Rep, five Ds for LD28 State Rep, and all still counting. Given the rancor that has suffused politics at all levels in recent months, the number of people interested is somewhat surprising, but then, the number of people who want to change things isn't.
A bigger surprise is the number of independent candidates running so far - Harley Meyer in CD7, Ted Downing and Dave Ewoldt for LD28 State Senate (2?!?) and Gene Chewning for LD27 State Rep.
There must be something in Tucson's water. :)
OK...I've taken so long writing this post, the SOS' office has updated its website.
Turns out I was wrong a few weeks ago when I predicted that none of the late entries into the race for the D nomination for U.S. Senate would make it on to the ballot - both Cathy Eden and John Dougherty submitted their sigs today. In addition, there are now 8 Rs running in CD1; 8 Rs in CD3; 5 Rs in CD5; 4 Rs in CD7; 3 (count 'em, 3!) Libertarians running for Governor; 6 Rs for LD7 State Rep.; 5 Rs for LD22 State Rep.; 6 Ds for LD27 State Rep.
I'll do a more complete post once things are finalized. And once Maricopa County updates its website.
Later....
Monday, May 24, 2010
That didn't take long: R candidate "decertified" by Clean Elections
A Republican candidate for the Arizona Legislature from LD7 has run afoul of Clean Elections and his name is *not* David Burnell Smith.
From the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription and login required) -
Now, this decertification doesn't kick Green off of the ballot, it just affects his campaign financing.
Of course, given that Green submitted his nominating petitions on March 8th, weeks before anyone else, my guess is that a few of the other candidates in the R primary are busy at work, checking to see if Green cut a few corners there, too. They'll verify if Green submitted enough valid sigs to be on the primary ballot (submitted: 570; required: 482; difference: 88).
I understand that the typical AZ Republican despises even the mere idea of Clean Elections, but if a candidate (D, R, or whatever) wants to take CE funding, he or she has to follow the rules associated with running a Clean campaign. Period.
From the Arizona Capitol Times (subscription and login required) -
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission decertified a Senate candidate after finding that dozens of his $5 contribution forms had been allegedly forged. The commission voted at its May 20 meeting to decertify Robert Green and fine him $20,000.The agenda for that meeting is here.
Now, this decertification doesn't kick Green off of the ballot, it just affects his campaign financing.
Of course, given that Green submitted his nominating petitions on March 8th, weeks before anyone else, my guess is that a few of the other candidates in the R primary are busy at work, checking to see if Green cut a few corners there, too. They'll verify if Green submitted enough valid sigs to be on the primary ballot (submitted: 570; required: 482; difference: 88).
I understand that the typical AZ Republican despises even the mere idea of Clean Elections, but if a candidate (D, R, or whatever) wants to take CE funding, he or she has to follow the rules associated with running a Clean campaign. Period.
JD Hayworth, channelling his inner John Belushi
I had resolved not to pay much attention to the brouhaha among the Republicans over the Senate seat. Whether their eventual nominee is John McCain or JD Hayworth, Rodney Glassman is a far better choice to represent Arizona in the United States Senate.
However, this one is too good to pass up.
:)
Last week, Hayworth spoke to a group of Republicans, and started expounding on history. Specifically, he claimed that the U.S. never declared war against Nazi Germany.
Now, perhaps I am being too hard on good ol' JD. He's hardly the first famous person to get WW2 history wrong.
When John Belushi spoke about Germany "bombing Pearl Harbor" and when JD spoke about the US never declaring war on Nazi Germany, neither one was citing facts.
The difference being that when Belushi spoke, was just acting. Hayworth actually believes what he spouted.
Of course, they do have one thing in common - whether we are talking about Belushi's classic bit in Animal House or Hayworth's pontifications, hearty laughter is the result.
The McCain campaign may be learning the same lesson that Harry Mitchell learned in 2006 when he defeated Hayworth - the best way to beat JD is to let him be himself.
BTW - to anyone who may be thinking that Hayworth was correct - after an address by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, which was followed by Germany and Italy declaring war on the U.S., which was then followed by the U.S. declaring war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.
However, this one is too good to pass up.
:)
Last week, Hayworth spoke to a group of Republicans, and started expounding on history. Specifically, he claimed that the U.S. never declared war against Nazi Germany.
Now, perhaps I am being too hard on good ol' JD. He's hardly the first famous person to get WW2 history wrong.
When John Belushi spoke about Germany "bombing Pearl Harbor" and when JD spoke about the US never declaring war on Nazi Germany, neither one was citing facts.
The difference being that when Belushi spoke, was just acting. Hayworth actually believes what he spouted.
Of course, they do have one thing in common - whether we are talking about Belushi's classic bit in Animal House or Hayworth's pontifications, hearty laughter is the result.
The McCain campaign may be learning the same lesson that Harry Mitchell learned in 2006 when he defeated Hayworth - the best way to beat JD is to let him be himself.
BTW - to anyone who may be thinking that Hayworth was correct - after an address by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Congress declared war on Japan on December 8, 1941, which was followed by Germany and Italy declaring war on the U.S., which was then followed by the U.S. declaring war on Germany and Italy on December 11, 1941.
Arizona's STO/Tax Credit Law Headed To The Supreme Court
It might surprise some observers that Arizona's school tuition tax credit law made it to the Supreme Court before Arizona's police-state anti-immigrant law, but the STO law has been around for better than a decade while the immigration law has been on the books for less than a month.
From Education Week -
The STO law has been the subject of scrutiny in recent months, as two competing legislative committees held hearings on the law.
One, chaired by State Rep. David Schapira, heard testimony from people like NAU professor Larry Mohrweis on the almost total lack of transparency and oversight of STOs and their use of redirected tax revenues.
The other committee was an expensive rubber stamp created by House Speaker Kirk Adams for the purpose of expanding the law while shielding the STOs from serious oversight, including the largest STO in the state, which just happens to be run by a fellow Republican legislator (Steve Yarbrough).
Guess which committee's recommendations were embraced by the R majority in the lege?
But I digress... :)
The case will be heard during the next session of the Court.
SCOTUSBlog has coverage here, including links to petitions, briefs, and opinions in the case.
From Education Week -
The U.S. Supreme Court today agreed to weigh the constitutionality of a 13-year-old Arizona program offering tax credits for donations made to organizations that provide scholarships for children to attend private schools.
A federal appeals court ruled last year that Arizona's tax credit program impermissibly advances religion in violation of the First Amendment's prohibition against any government establishment of religion. It found that the majority of those scholarships go to students attending religious schools, and that some of the "school tuition organizations," or STOs, restrict their scholarships to that purpose.
The STO law has been the subject of scrutiny in recent months, as two competing legislative committees held hearings on the law.
One, chaired by State Rep. David Schapira, heard testimony from people like NAU professor Larry Mohrweis on the almost total lack of transparency and oversight of STOs and their use of redirected tax revenues.
The other committee was an expensive rubber stamp created by House Speaker Kirk Adams for the purpose of expanding the law while shielding the STOs from serious oversight, including the largest STO in the state, which just happens to be run by a fellow Republican legislator (Steve Yarbrough).
Guess which committee's recommendations were embraced by the R majority in the lege?
But I digress... :)
The case will be heard during the next session of the Court.
SCOTUSBlog has coverage here, including links to petitions, briefs, and opinions in the case.
Sunday, May 23, 2010
The coming week...
As usual, all info gathered from the websites of the relevent political bodies/agencies, except where noted, and subject to change without notice.
These schedule posts have become intermittent, due in part to the lack of interesting tidbits to cover, as well as election year deadlines in Arizona (sigs are due Wednesday!) cutting into available blogging time. However, this week, there will be a *lot* of budget-related action and other interesting matters up for consideration, especially in D.C. and with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Stuff that is definitely post-worthy.
On to the important stuff...
On the federal level -
- The U.S. House will be handling a number of bills this week as they get ready for the holiday break next week. The highlight this week will be H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (CRS summary here). There will be a massive amount of election-year posturing over this one, whether of the "fiscal responsibility" or the "I'm a patriot" variety. Still, it's only an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, and they all will want to make the earliest possible flights out of town on Friday. The posturing will be loud, but efficient.
Also on the agenda: Consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 (most current CRS summary here); H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act (CRS summary here - it's designed to limit corporate control of election campaigns); and further consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (previously blocked by the House GOP when the measure came to the House floor under "suspension of the rules," requiring a 2/3 majority to pass, it's coming back in a way that will require only a simple majority to pass).
- The U.S. Senate will be doing, you know, "Senate" stuff this week. That includes a committee schedule with hearings on the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, impacts of consolidation on the airline industry, and more (lots of executive branch nominations). There will also be floor consideration of H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010.
...Back here in Arizona -
- The Arizona Corporation Commission will be holding a public comment session in Prescott Valley on Tuesday. The subject will be
The Commission's regular hearing schedule is here.
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a busy and "colorful" week on tap.
-- Monday's Informal meeting is dedicated to budget matters, including the tentative adoption of next year's budget.
-- Later on Monday, the Supes will be holding a Special meeting dedicated to a financial review of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This one could include a contempt hearing over Sheriff Joe Arpaio's refusal to turn over financial records for the review. There is some question about the procedures for the contempt hearing, so the hearing schedule may yet be changed or be cancelled entirely. More AZ Republic coverage here. This one could be the most interesting event of the week, or it could fizzle completely.
- - On Wednesday, the Supes have a Formal meeting scheduled. The agenda is a long one.
- The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System will be holding an executive session on Monday (relating to legal matters and contracts - the agenda items are rather vague, intentionally so, I think) and a regular meeting on Wednesday (highlight: budget-related stuff). MIHS' Legislative summary will also be on the agenda. Like most of us, their primary focus is on the state's budget situation.
- The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, agenda here. It looks pretty mundane thus far, though there is an item to change the length of the terms of the Board President and Secretary from one to two years. After the regular meeting will be an executive session regarding employment of the Chancellor of the District, Rufus Glasper. There have been issues of contention between the Chancellor and certain board members, so this particular exec session could be one that most MCCCD observers wish was a public session. Look for public fallout from this meeting to reach an agenda in June.
- The City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale aren't scheduled to hold regular meetings this week, though Tempe will hold a special meeting on Friday to accept the results from last week's election. Tempe's Council Calendar is here; Scottsdale's Community Meetings Notice is here.
Not scheduled to meet this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona Board of Regents, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project
Later...
These schedule posts have become intermittent, due in part to the lack of interesting tidbits to cover, as well as election year deadlines in Arizona (sigs are due Wednesday!) cutting into available blogging time. However, this week, there will be a *lot* of budget-related action and other interesting matters up for consideration, especially in D.C. and with the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.
Stuff that is definitely post-worthy.
On to the important stuff...
On the federal level -
- The U.S. House will be handling a number of bills this week as they get ready for the holiday break next week. The highlight this week will be H.R. 5136, the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 (CRS summary here). There will be a massive amount of election-year posturing over this one, whether of the "fiscal responsibility" or the "I'm a patriot" variety. Still, it's only an authorization bill, not an appropriations bill, and they all will want to make the earliest possible flights out of town on Friday. The posturing will be loud, but efficient.
Also on the agenda: Consideration of a Senate amendment to H.R. 4213, the American Workers, State, and Business Relief Act of 2010 (most current CRS summary here); H.R. 5175, the DISCLOSE Act (CRS summary here - it's designed to limit corporate control of election campaigns); and further consideration of H.R. 5116, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (previously blocked by the House GOP when the measure came to the House floor under "suspension of the rules," requiring a 2/3 majority to pass, it's coming back in a way that will require only a simple majority to pass).
- The U.S. Senate will be doing, you know, "Senate" stuff this week. That includes a committee schedule with hearings on the massive BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, impacts of consolidation on the airline industry, and more (lots of executive branch nominations). There will also be floor consideration of H.R. 4899, the Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010.
...Back here in Arizona -
- The Arizona Corporation Commission will be holding a public comment session in Prescott Valley on Tuesday. The subject will be
Public Comment in the Matter of the Application of the Commission’s, Docket No. E-00000J-10-0044, inquiry and potential rulemaking regarding line extension policies of electric utilities, including but not limited to, alternative rate designs related to apportionment and rate recovery of cost of construction and installation of electric utility line extensions, the use of free footage and/or dollar allowances in line extension tariffs, the treatment of proceeds associated with line extensions as contributions in aid of construction (CIAC) and/or revenue, and the ability for third-party vendors to contract to install line extensions for electric utilities.The ACC will be holding a regular "Utilities" meeting on Wednesday and Thursday, agenda here.
The Commission's regular hearing schedule is here.
- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a busy and "colorful" week on tap.
-- Monday's Informal meeting is dedicated to budget matters, including the tentative adoption of next year's budget.
-- Later on Monday, the Supes will be holding a Special meeting dedicated to a financial review of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. This one could include a contempt hearing over Sheriff Joe Arpaio's refusal to turn over financial records for the review. There is some question about the procedures for the contempt hearing, so the hearing schedule may yet be changed or be cancelled entirely. More AZ Republic coverage here. This one could be the most interesting event of the week, or it could fizzle completely.
- - On Wednesday, the Supes have a Formal meeting scheduled. The agenda is a long one.
- The Board of Directors of the Maricopa Integrated Health System will be holding an executive session on Monday (relating to legal matters and contracts - the agenda items are rather vague, intentionally so, I think) and a regular meeting on Wednesday (highlight: budget-related stuff). MIHS' Legislative summary will also be on the agenda. Like most of us, their primary focus is on the state's budget situation.
- The Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District is scheduled to meet on Tuesday, agenda here. It looks pretty mundane thus far, though there is an item to change the length of the terms of the Board President and Secretary from one to two years. After the regular meeting will be an executive session regarding employment of the Chancellor of the District, Rufus Glasper. There have been issues of contention between the Chancellor and certain board members, so this particular exec session could be one that most MCCCD observers wish was a public session. Look for public fallout from this meeting to reach an agenda in June.
- The City Councils of Tempe and Scottsdale aren't scheduled to hold regular meetings this week, though Tempe will hold a special meeting on Friday to accept the results from last week's election. Tempe's Council Calendar is here; Scottsdale's Community Meetings Notice is here.
Not scheduled to meet this week: Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona Board of Regents, Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project
Later...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)