Only a couple of challenges remain unresolved, but most of the "big" ones have been adjudicated -
- Augustus Shaw, Republican House candidate in LD17, is OFF the ballot for a minor technicality - he lives in LD20. OK, so that's not so minor. :)
- John Huppenthal, Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is ON the ballot after a judge found that even though the applicable law states that a candidate must form a campaign committee before collecting nomination signatures, the fact that Huppenthal collected sigs under only an "exploratory" committee is not a violation.
- Democrat Ken Cheuvront, a term-limited state senator (LD15) and candidate for Justice of the Peace in the Encanto justice precinct in Phoenix, is OFF of the ballot for using non-partisan petitions to gain the ballot in a partisan primary. His removal from the ballot leaves only incumbent Encanto JP C. Steven McMurry on the ballot.
There are a couple of challenges remaining; once those are heard next week, the final list of ballot-qualified candidates will be available.
Friday, June 18, 2010
Thursday, June 17, 2010
BP's Brown Water bringing out GOP's Brown Nosers
Ummm...BP pollutes thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and devastates the economies of states from Texas to Florida, and Republican Congressman Joe Barton, of *TEXAS*, apologizes to BP?
Why would he do something that jaw-droppingly dumb?
Best guess: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
BTW - Barton has received over $16K in direct contributions from BP's PAC since 1997, and that number doesn't include money laundered donated to various GOP campaign committees (RNCC, RNC, etc.)
Barton's very public genuflection to the paymasters at BP should be worth a hefty payoff contribution this cycle.
Later...
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Shaw campaign (D17) in more trouble
As if the challenge to his candidacy based on residency wasn't bad enough (hearing scheduled for downtown Phoenix on Thursday), the Augustus Shaw is facing the possiblity of thousands of dollars in fines arising from campaign finance law violations stemming from his failure to file campaign finance reports for his 2004 run for the Tempe City Council.
From the Phoenix New Times -
Stay tuned for results from tomorrow's hearing...
From the Phoenix New Times -
Augustus Shaw, a Republican running for State Legislature, failed to close out a political action committee he started when he ran for Tempe City Council in 2004, officials say.Oops.
Because of state campaign-finance laws, Shaw should have either terminated the PAC or filed finance reports each a year.
Because he's done neither since 2005, Tempe officials tell New Times, Shaw is on the hook for thousands of dollars in penalties.
Stay tuned for results from tomorrow's hearing...
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
And Scottsdale wept...
Forbes.com has an article up, one discussing the movement of the wealthy around the country.
From the article -
Upshot of it all:
Even with some of the lowest taxes and nicest weather in the country, Scottsdale and Maricopa County don't make the cut.
And given that the economic development "plan" here is "find people who have made a bundle elsewhere, entice them to move here, and then to spend as much of their bundle here before they kick", something isn't working.
Something's working in Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Montana, and Idaho, but not here.
Something is working all over the eastern seaboard, but not here.
It's even working in parts of California (now that's something that runs counter to the AZGOP's no taxes/no regulation orthodoxy), but not here.
Perhaps it's time to consider Plan B. Plan A isn't working.
From the article -
Surprise: America's wealthy like warm weather and low taxes. That's the takeaway from IRS data, analyzed by Forbes, on moves between counties. We looked for counties that the rich are moving to in big numbers.A slide show of the top 35 counties for the inflow of wealth is here.
Topping the list: Collier County, Fla., which includes the city of Naples. Tax returns accounting for 15,150 people showed moves to Collier County from other parts of the country in 2008, the latest year for which IRS data is available. Their average reported income: $76,161 per person--equivalent to $304,644 for a family of four.
Upshot of it all:
Even with some of the lowest taxes and nicest weather in the country, Scottsdale and Maricopa County don't make the cut.
And given that the economic development "plan" here is "find people who have made a bundle elsewhere, entice them to move here, and then to spend as much of their bundle here before they kick", something isn't working.
Something's working in Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Montana, and Idaho, but not here.
Something is working all over the eastern seaboard, but not here.
It's even working in parts of California (now that's something that runs counter to the AZGOP's no taxes/no regulation orthodoxy), but not here.
Perhaps it's time to consider Plan B. Plan A isn't working.
Tony Nelssen's widow Marg appointed to finish out his term
...I can't say "the fix was in" (at this point in time, I don't have any evidence that tonight's events were other than above-board and honest) but her public comment before the selection process even took place sounded a lot like a victory speech.
Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.
It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.
The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."
Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."
Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.
In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.
During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -
Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale
Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner
Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen
Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.
Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).
After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.
However, four votes were needed to win the seat.
As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.
Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.
Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -
If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?
Later...
Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.
It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.
The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."
Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."
Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.
In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.
During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -
Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale
Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors
Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner
Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen
Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.
Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).
After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.
However, four votes were needed to win the seat.
As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.
Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.
Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -
If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?
Later...
Candidate challenges: updates
Update to the update at the end of the post...
There were a number of challenges to state-level candidates filed last week, and they are starting to be heard in court.
The complete list of challenges, from the Secretary of State's office, here.
Going down the list -
Tom Gordon, GOP candidate for Governor - withdrawn
Joe Penalosa, GOP candidate in CD4, challenged by another GOP candidate - challenge overruled. He will appear on the primary ballot. Coverage from the Phoenix New Times here.
Anna Maria Brennan, GOP candidate for state senate in LD11 - withdrawn.
John Kowalski, GOP House candidate in LD6 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
William Wallace, Democratic House candidate in LD26 - hearing scheduled for today, then rescheduled for tomorrow. A call to the number on his website brought forth a statement that he is withdrawing from the race.
Augustus Shaw, GOP House candidate in LD17. Hearing scheduled for Thursday. Said he was thinking of withdrawing before vowing to fight the good fight. Grab some popcorn for this one.
Bob Thomas, GOP Senate candidate in LD15 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
Anthony Goshorn, Green House candidate in LD17 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
W. John Williamson, Democratic House candidate in LD8 - hearing scheduled for Friday.
Sharon Spane, Democratic House candidate in LD21 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
John Huppenthal, GOP candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction - hearing scheduled for Friday. He will probably stretch this out to the very end, but his credibility as a candidate for the state's top educator is cratering. More popcorn for this one. Lots more.
Scott Bergren, GOP House candidate in LD21 - withdrawn.
Joseph Sweeney, GOP Congressional candidate in CD7 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor - hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for State Mine Inspector - hearing scheduled for next Monday.
Dave Ewoldt, Independent State Senate candidate in LD28. This one is in Pima County Superior Court, and I couldn't find any info online.
Complete list of withdrawn/removed candidates, courtesy the AZSOS' website, here; write-in candidates here.
More updates as they become available...
Note: I attempted to link to the actual case info where possible from the Maricopa County Superior Court's website, but apparently their website isn't designed with static addresses for their online documents. Apologies.
Edit to update the update: W. John Williamson, Democrat in LD8, has withdrawn; the cases against Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor, and Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for Mine Inspector, have been dismissed and those candidates will be on the ballot.
There were a number of challenges to state-level candidates filed last week, and they are starting to be heard in court.
The complete list of challenges, from the Secretary of State's office, here.
Going down the list -
Tom Gordon, GOP candidate for Governor - withdrawn
Joe Penalosa, GOP candidate in CD4, challenged by another GOP candidate - challenge overruled. He will appear on the primary ballot. Coverage from the Phoenix New Times here.
Anna Maria Brennan, GOP candidate for state senate in LD11 - withdrawn.
John Kowalski, GOP House candidate in LD6 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
William Wallace, Democratic House candidate in LD26 - hearing scheduled for today, then rescheduled for tomorrow. A call to the number on his website brought forth a statement that he is withdrawing from the race.
Augustus Shaw, GOP House candidate in LD17. Hearing scheduled for Thursday. Said he was thinking of withdrawing before vowing to fight the good fight. Grab some popcorn for this one.
Bob Thomas, GOP Senate candidate in LD15 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
Anthony Goshorn, Green House candidate in LD17 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
W. John Williamson, Democratic House candidate in LD8 - hearing scheduled for Friday.
Sharon Spane, Democratic House candidate in LD21 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
John Huppenthal, GOP candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction - hearing scheduled for Friday. He will probably stretch this out to the very end, but his credibility as a candidate for the state's top educator is cratering. More popcorn for this one. Lots more.
Scott Bergren, GOP House candidate in LD21 - withdrawn.
Joseph Sweeney, GOP Congressional candidate in CD7 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.
Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor - hearing scheduled for Wednesday.
Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for State Mine Inspector - hearing scheduled for next Monday.
Dave Ewoldt, Independent State Senate candidate in LD28. This one is in Pima County Superior Court, and I couldn't find any info online.
Complete list of withdrawn/removed candidates, courtesy the AZSOS' website, here; write-in candidates here.
More updates as they become available...
Note: I attempted to link to the actual case info where possible from the Maricopa County Superior Court's website, but apparently their website isn't designed with static addresses for their online documents. Apologies.
Edit to update the update: W. John Williamson, Democrat in LD8, has withdrawn; the cases against Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor, and Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for Mine Inspector, have been dismissed and those candidates will be on the ballot.
Monday, June 14, 2010
McCain moving farther right as the campaign wears on
To follow up on his joining JD Hayworth on the nativist train, now McCain is partying with noted anti-Semites.
Pics courtesy Blue Virginia -
The highlight here is the name of one of the "hosts," Fred Malek.
Many years ago, Malek was an operative in the Nixon-era White House. One of his more eye-opening raisons d'etre while there was to count (and purge?) Jewish employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
The appearance with Malek isn't much of a surprise - Malek was a big part of McCain's unsuccessful bid for the Presidency. Still, this move, drinking for dollars with noted anti-Semites like Malek (as well as Governor Bob "slavery wasn't part of the Confederacy" McDonnell), only serves to remind voters that McCain has far more in common with J.D. "worship Nazi Henry Ford" Hayworth than he has to separate himself from Hayworth.
Washington Post coverage of the fundraiser (taking place in just a few hours) here.
Later...
Candidate debates start this week
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission will begin holding debates for candidates who have chosen to accept campaign funding from the CCEC. Participation in the debates is a condition of accepting the funding.
"Traditional" candidates are invited to the debates, though they are under no obligation to attend. Most choose to do so, especially in races where the traditionally-financed candidate(s) aren't the favorite, such as in the race for the Republican nomination for Governor.
Note: A phone call to Buz Mills' campaign HQ confirmed that he is planning to participate in the debate, as is Matt Jette, the dark horse candidate on the R side of the ballot.
It appears this year that the CCEC debates for statewide candidates won't be open to the public as they will be televised on KAET's Horizon.
The R Governor's candidate debate will air on June 15 (tomorrow) at 7 p.m.
Up next week: the Attorney General debates, with the Republican debate airing June 22 (next Tuesday) and the Democratic debate airing the following evening (both at 7 p.m.)
The complete schedule for statewide candidates can be found here; legislative candidate debate schedule here. Many do *not* have a primary period debate because there is no contest in the primary.
Up this week in legislative debates:
LD11:
June 14, 2010 (tonight!!)
Republican Candidates Senate and House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Embassy Suite Paradise Valley
4415 E Paradise Village Parkway South
Phoenix, AZ 85032
LD19:
June 15, 2010
Republican Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Country Inn and Suites
6650 E Superstition Springs Blvd
Mesa, AZ 85206
LD23:
June 16, 2010
Republican Senate Candidates
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Holiday Inn Casa Grande
777 N Pinal Ave
Casa Grande, AZ 85122
LD13:
June 17, 2010
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
11460 W Hilton Way
Avondale, AZ 85323
"Traditional" candidates are invited to the debates, though they are under no obligation to attend. Most choose to do so, especially in races where the traditionally-financed candidate(s) aren't the favorite, such as in the race for the Republican nomination for Governor.
Note: A phone call to Buz Mills' campaign HQ confirmed that he is planning to participate in the debate, as is Matt Jette, the dark horse candidate on the R side of the ballot.
It appears this year that the CCEC debates for statewide candidates won't be open to the public as they will be televised on KAET's Horizon.
The R Governor's candidate debate will air on June 15 (tomorrow) at 7 p.m.
Up next week: the Attorney General debates, with the Republican debate airing June 22 (next Tuesday) and the Democratic debate airing the following evening (both at 7 p.m.)
The complete schedule for statewide candidates can be found here; legislative candidate debate schedule here. Many do *not* have a primary period debate because there is no contest in the primary.
Up this week in legislative debates:
LD11:
June 14, 2010 (tonight!!)
Republican Candidates Senate and House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Embassy Suite Paradise Valley
4415 E Paradise Village Parkway South
Phoenix, AZ 85032
LD19:
June 15, 2010
Republican Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Country Inn and Suites
6650 E Superstition Springs Blvd
Mesa, AZ 85206
LD23:
June 16, 2010
Republican Senate Candidates
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Holiday Inn Casa Grande
777 N Pinal Ave
Casa Grande, AZ 85122
LD13:
June 17, 2010
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
11460 W Hilton Way
Avondale, AZ 85323
Sunday, June 13, 2010
Residency issues threaten candidacy of Republican in LD17
From the Arizona Capitol Times -
In spite of Shaw's protestations, it appears that his "move" was a paperwork-only one, done to establish his residency in LD17.
According to the Arizona Guardian article on this topic, Shaw was observed walking his dog and going to stores in the neighborhood of his LD20 home, but was never at the LD17 address listed on his campaign paperwork.
Oops.
This isn't exactly the first time that Shaw has been accused of being a little lax in his ability to follow the basic rules of professionalism or even simple honesty.
In 2006, he was reprimanded by a judge for overstepping the bounds of decorum (and fact!) in his communications with a homeowner/member in an HOA that he represented. More on Shaw's activities here, courtesy the Phoenix New Times.
In 2004, he ran for Tempe City Council. He gained access to the ballot then by persuading local Democratic activists to circulate his nominating petitions. After his petitions were completed, he changed his partisan registration to Republican.
Not exactly the sort of thing that endears a candidate to voters of any political persuasion - Shaw eventually lost to long-time Republican Hut Hutson in the (officially, anyway) non-partisan race.
By 2008 however, he had convinced the AZGOP of his R bonafides, winning election to the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman position.
Which brings us to something else that further strains the credibility of Mr. Shaw.
The bylaws of the AZGOP are a closely-held document (at least, they aren't available on the AZGOP's website or anywhere else that I could find online, while the Arizona Democratic Party's bylaws are available on the ADP's website), and could vary significantly from the ADP's, but it seems likely that there will be similarities between the bylaws of the organizations, at least in basic structure.
In the ADP, one must be a precinct committeeman (PC) before becoming a member of the State Committee, and be a member of the State Committee before becoming an officer of the State Committee.
If a PC moves from his/her precinct, they lose their PC slot, and if a state committee member moves from the district he/she was elected from, they lose their position on the state committee.
Augustus Shaw has claimed to do both, move from his original precinct (Tempe 60) and his legislative district (LD20).
Yet apparently, the AZGOP is convinced that he remains in good standing as a Republican PC from LD20, because he is still listed as the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman.
BTW - It's the practice in the ADP for a party officer to resign their position if they choose to run for public office, partly out of concern that the necessarily focused self-interest of a candidate could conflict with the broad duties of a party officer.
Apparently2, the AZGOP doesn't take issue with such potential conflicts of interest.
Anyway, the challenge to Shaw's candidacy is scheduled to be heard on Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Caveat to the above: The GOP's bylaws could be more flexible than the ADP's in this regard. If anyone has a .pdf copy of the most recent AZGOP bylaws, feel free to forward them to me. Thank you.
Later...
Sixteen challenges were filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against candidates’ nominating petitions, including allegations that Sen. John Huppenthal collected thousands of invalid signatures and that House candidate Augustus Shaw lives in wrong legislative district.In the Cap Times article, Shaw went on to rationalize the "move" as done to help his autistic son. He claimed that the "move" has been in the works for nearly a year and that he has already moved in with his in-laws (the LD17 address listed on his paperwork).
{snip}
The challenge against Shaw, a Republican seeking a District 17 House seat, claims he is ineligble for office in that district because he actually lives in District 20. A private investigator hired by the law firm Perkins, Coie, Brown & Bain, which is closely associated with the Arizona Democratic Party, reported that during three days of surveillance he witnessed Shaw at his home in District 20, but never at the District 17 home where he lists as his address.
District 20 takes in Ahwatukee, west Chandler and southwest Tempe, while District 17 is comprised of north Tempe and south Scottsdale.
In spite of Shaw's protestations, it appears that his "move" was a paperwork-only one, done to establish his residency in LD17.
According to the Arizona Guardian article on this topic, Shaw was observed walking his dog and going to stores in the neighborhood of his LD20 home, but was never at the LD17 address listed on his campaign paperwork.
Oops.
This isn't exactly the first time that Shaw has been accused of being a little lax in his ability to follow the basic rules of professionalism or even simple honesty.
In 2006, he was reprimanded by a judge for overstepping the bounds of decorum (and fact!) in his communications with a homeowner/member in an HOA that he represented. More on Shaw's activities here, courtesy the Phoenix New Times.
In 2004, he ran for Tempe City Council. He gained access to the ballot then by persuading local Democratic activists to circulate his nominating petitions. After his petitions were completed, he changed his partisan registration to Republican.
Not exactly the sort of thing that endears a candidate to voters of any political persuasion - Shaw eventually lost to long-time Republican Hut Hutson in the (officially, anyway) non-partisan race.
By 2008 however, he had convinced the AZGOP of his R bonafides, winning election to the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman position.
Which brings us to something else that further strains the credibility of Mr. Shaw.
The bylaws of the AZGOP are a closely-held document (at least, they aren't available on the AZGOP's website or anywhere else that I could find online, while the Arizona Democratic Party's bylaws are available on the ADP's website), and could vary significantly from the ADP's, but it seems likely that there will be similarities between the bylaws of the organizations, at least in basic structure.
In the ADP, one must be a precinct committeeman (PC) before becoming a member of the State Committee, and be a member of the State Committee before becoming an officer of the State Committee.
If a PC moves from his/her precinct, they lose their PC slot, and if a state committee member moves from the district he/she was elected from, they lose their position on the state committee.
Augustus Shaw has claimed to do both, move from his original precinct (Tempe 60) and his legislative district (LD20).
Yet apparently, the AZGOP is convinced that he remains in good standing as a Republican PC from LD20, because he is still listed as the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman.
BTW - It's the practice in the ADP for a party officer to resign their position if they choose to run for public office, partly out of concern that the necessarily focused self-interest of a candidate could conflict with the broad duties of a party officer.
Apparently2, the AZGOP doesn't take issue with such potential conflicts of interest.
Anyway, the challenge to Shaw's candidacy is scheduled to be heard on Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Caveat to the above: The GOP's bylaws could be more flexible than the ADP's in this regard. If anyone has a .pdf copy of the most recent AZGOP bylaws, feel free to forward them to me. Thank you.
Later...
Saturday, June 12, 2010
The melodrama continues in Scottsdale politics
When Councilman Tony Nelssen succumbed to cancer, he left a vacancy on the Scottsdale City Council.
The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.
This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.
The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.
In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.
I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.
If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.
If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.
As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.
Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.
Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.
Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)
See you there...
The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.
This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.
The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.
In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.
I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.
If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.
If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.
As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.
Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.
Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.
Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)
See you there...
"Defending Arizona" - Congressman Harry Mitchell on border and immigration issues
From an email to the Congressman's constituents -
Mitchell's statement on the introduction of H.R. 5357 can be found here in the Congressional Record.
Our state continues to pay a heavy and unfair price for the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and fix our broken immigration system. The federal government has a responsibility to act – it simply hasn't done so – and Arizona continues to shoulder the burden.
As you know, illegal immigration affects Arizona more than it does any other state – more than half of all illegal crossings over the U.S.-Mexico border happen here in Arizona. Specifically, here in the Valley, this has enabled smugglers and Mexican drug cartels to set up vast networks of drop houses, which operate as gateway stations for their illegal activities. The crime and violence associated with these drop houses is tragic and completely unacceptable. Upon being elected to Congress, I asked for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into federal efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens and combat drop houses. This has been a multi-year investigation, of which we expect the results to be presented this summer.
This is also why last month I introduced a bill with Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher of California to help secure our border. H.R. 5357, The Deploy National Guard Troops to the Border Act, would immediately deploy a minimum of an additional 3,000 National Guard troops to Arizona's border.
The National Guard has successfully assisted with border security in the past. Operation Jump Start, which concluded its mission in 2008 proved remarkably effective. Border-wide, the National Guard helped seize more than 1,080 vehicles used to transport drugs and/or illegal immigrants, more than 300,600 pounds of marijuana, and 5,060 pounds of cocaine.
I thought the National Guard was drawn down too quickly in 2008 and urged President Bush to extend the deployment of National Guard troops – to no avail. At the time, I offered legislation at the time to stop the draw down from happening, but it was defeated. I’ve also urged President Obama on multiple occasions to send additional National Guard troops to the border and teamed up with Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray of California last year to secure millions of dollars in additional funding for security improvements at the border.
While I welcome the President’s recent announcement that he will be sending an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, I believe we need much more. That is why I hope Congress will take the next step by passing our bill while working on a more comprehensive, permanent fix.
Arizonans should have their voices heard in this debate and recent action taken by the state reflects Arizonans’ ongoing frustration with the federal government’s failure to enact tough, realistic immigration reform. The situation cannot wait simply because this is an election year, while folks in Washington choose to play politics rather than provide solutions. This is an urgent threat to our national security, and I believe the federal government must act.
A broken and ineffectual immigration system is a burden Arizonans should not have to continue to bear alone.
Sincerely,
Harry
Mitchell's statement on the introduction of H.R. 5357 can be found here in the Congressional Record.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Huppenthal petitions challenged: I *love* being able to say "I told you so"
Yes, I'm a bad man, but I really enjoy it when something I more or less predicted (more than a year ago!) starts looking like it will come to pass.
From my post a from a year ago -
Now, there is no guarantee that the challenge will be successful - we *are* in Maricopa County, Arizona, where somedays it seems as if the principle of "the rule of law" has been replaced by the principle of "IOKIYAR*".
However, the law seems clear - he had to change his exploratory committee to a candidate campaign committee *before* collecting sigs. He amended his campaign paperwork on January 14; he submitted his petitions on January 20.
I'm guessing that he didn't collect 11K sigs in 6 days.
Anyway, the complete list of challenges received by the Secretary of State's office is here; the current list of withdrawn candidates is here.
*IOKIYAR = "It's OK If You're A Republican
Later...
From my post a from a year ago -
Hi. Your snarky (but oh-so-friendly and helpful) neighborhood liberal blogger and Democratic activist here. I don't normally write for you folks, but this one is for you.So check out this AZ Republic story today -
Some of you have signed nominating petitions for one John Huppenthal for next year's race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.
{snip}
Under the laws of Arizona and the rules from the Arizona Secretary of State, a candidate must form a committee (file paperwork with the state formally declaring the candidate's interest in a particular office).
From the Secretary of State's candidate handbook (page 29 of the .pdf) (emphasis mine) -
4. Statement of Organization OR $500 Threshold Exemption Statement.
A Statement of Organization registering the candidate’s campaign committee OR a $500 Threshold Exemption Statement must be filed before making any expenditures, accepting any contributions, distributing any campaign literature or circulating any petitions. If the candidate has an exploratory committee open at the time of filing, then the candidate, chairman and treasurer must file an amended Statement of Organization to change the committee to a candidate’s campaign committee.
So far, Huppenthal has only formed an "exploratory" committee - filer ID 201000065, formed and last amended on March 16, 2009. As such, any signatures he has collected to date are invalid.
John Huppenthal, a Republican state senator vying for his party's nomination as state superintendent of public instruction, is being challenged by the state Democratic Party on the basis that many of his 11,000 petition signatures were gathered before he had formally entered the race.Yessss!
His case is scheduled for a June 18 hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court.
Now, there is no guarantee that the challenge will be successful - we *are* in Maricopa County, Arizona, where somedays it seems as if the principle of "the rule of law" has been replaced by the principle of "IOKIYAR*".
However, the law seems clear - he had to change his exploratory committee to a candidate campaign committee *before* collecting sigs. He amended his campaign paperwork on January 14; he submitted his petitions on January 20.
I'm guessing that he didn't collect 11K sigs in 6 days.
Anyway, the complete list of challenges received by the Secretary of State's office is here; the current list of withdrawn candidates is here.
*IOKIYAR = "It's OK If You're A Republican
Later...
Wednesday, June 09, 2010
Candidates dropping already
Tomorrow (June 10) is the last day to file challenges to try to remove candidates from the August ballot, but candidates are already being knocked off or simply withdrawing to avoid the embarrassment of being removed.
In Maricopa County -
- Democrat Israel Correa has withdrawn from the race for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct, leaving Democrats Jeff Farias and Armando Gandarilla (incumbent) as the only two candidates.
- Democrat Bruce McDougall has withdrawn from the Manistee JP race, leaving incumbent Republican Gary Handley as the sole candidate on either side of the ballot.
- Democrat Jeffrey Brown has been removed from the ballot due to a challenge in the race for Encanto Constable, leaving Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell as the only candidate on the ballot.
In state-level offices -
- Republican candidate for governor John Munger (he of the low single digit support in recent polling) withdrew a week ago because he said that he felt that he couldn't outspend Clean Elections candidates who would receive matching funds. Funny, but he didn't jump back in after the Roberts Supreme Court stopped payment of matching funds for this cycle.
- Democrat Martha Garcia withdrew as a candidate for the LD13 State Senate seat because her petitions weren't going to stand up to a challenge. That leaves former State Rep. Steve Gallardo as the only candidate.
- Republican Wyatt Brooks has withdrawn as a candidate for LD3 House. I couldn't find a reason listed anywhere, but it could be related to the fact that while his campaign organized with a Kingman address (in LD3), the SOS' website now has shows an address of a P.O. box in Hualapai (in LD2, or maybe LD1, but almost definitely not LD3). His withdrawal leaves three candidates in the race, all Republicans - Ray Cullison II, Doris Goodale, and Nancy McLain. Goodale and McLain are incumbents.
In "getting into the race, sort of" news, a few folks have declared their write-in candidacies (primary here, general election here) -
- William Koller of Tucson filed for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate
- Richard Grayson of Apache Junction has filed as a Green for the Congressional seat currently held by Republican Jeff Flake in CD6. As no other Green candidates have yet filed for the seat, Grayson needs 221 votes in August's primary to qualify for the general election ballot (221 is the number of sigs he would have needed to appear on the primary ballot)
- Sydney Dudikoff of Tucson has filed as a general election candidate for U.S. Senate
As of this writing, the only non-legislative originated ballot question to qualify is the Medical Marijuana Act. Other citizen-originated questions have until July 1 to submit their petitions, so that list may grow (though that seems unlikely at this point.)
Later...
In Maricopa County -
- Democrat Israel Correa has withdrawn from the race for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct, leaving Democrats Jeff Farias and Armando Gandarilla (incumbent) as the only two candidates.
- Democrat Bruce McDougall has withdrawn from the Manistee JP race, leaving incumbent Republican Gary Handley as the sole candidate on either side of the ballot.
- Democrat Jeffrey Brown has been removed from the ballot due to a challenge in the race for Encanto Constable, leaving Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell as the only candidate on the ballot.
In state-level offices -
- Republican candidate for governor John Munger (he of the low single digit support in recent polling) withdrew a week ago because he said that he felt that he couldn't outspend Clean Elections candidates who would receive matching funds. Funny, but he didn't jump back in after the Roberts Supreme Court stopped payment of matching funds for this cycle.
- Democrat Martha Garcia withdrew as a candidate for the LD13 State Senate seat because her petitions weren't going to stand up to a challenge. That leaves former State Rep. Steve Gallardo as the only candidate.
- Republican Wyatt Brooks has withdrawn as a candidate for LD3 House. I couldn't find a reason listed anywhere, but it could be related to the fact that while his campaign organized with a Kingman address (in LD3), the SOS' website now has shows an address of a P.O. box in Hualapai (in LD2, or maybe LD1, but almost definitely not LD3). His withdrawal leaves three candidates in the race, all Republicans - Ray Cullison II, Doris Goodale, and Nancy McLain. Goodale and McLain are incumbents.
In "getting into the race, sort of" news, a few folks have declared their write-in candidacies (primary here, general election here) -
- William Koller of Tucson filed for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate
- Richard Grayson of Apache Junction has filed as a Green for the Congressional seat currently held by Republican Jeff Flake in CD6. As no other Green candidates have yet filed for the seat, Grayson needs 221 votes in August's primary to qualify for the general election ballot (221 is the number of sigs he would have needed to appear on the primary ballot)
- Sydney Dudikoff of Tucson has filed as a general election candidate for U.S. Senate
As of this writing, the only non-legislative originated ballot question to qualify is the Medical Marijuana Act. Other citizen-originated questions have until July 1 to submit their petitions, so that list may grow (though that seems unlikely at this point.)
Later...
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Republican candidate for Governor proposes concentration camps for undocumented immigrants
No word if he wants to put "Work will set you free" above the entrance to his proposed facilities...
From AZCentral.com -
This proposal is guaranteed to get him some, though he may not like the kind of attention he receives.
From AZCentral.com -
State treasurer and gubernatorial candidate Dean Martin is calling for the immediate deployment of National Guard troops to the border at Arizona's expense.Martin has been an also-ran in the attention department during his campaign, getting lost in the shadows of Jan Brewer's "incumbent Governor" pulpit and "Buz" Mills' TV ads funded by his own deep pockets, so Martin has been looking for some way to gain attention.
He's also calling for a statewide "tent city" jail modeled after Sheriff Joe Arpaio's jail in Maricopa County to house arrested illegal immigrants at low cost.
This proposal is guaranteed to get him some, though he may not like the kind of attention he receives.
Ignorance and apathy: not just for Arizona any more
...though there *is* hope for Arizona, dim though it may be...
And this is *not* a diatribe on SB1070, though with that title, it certainly could be...
From the Los Angeles Times -
The author, an environmental author and activist, was shocked to find that no one in her group of activists could answer that question.
The author's mistake was surveying people who were only interested in "big" issues, not the nitty-gritty of local races.
As someone who is an activist and has had many discussions with friends and neighbors, I can state unequivocally that most people have no clue about state politics, their legislative representatives (both state and federal), and candidates for the job. Most can name the president and maybe the governor, but the farther down the political org chart the elected official is, the less likely that the typical resident is going to know who the elected official is, or what he or she does.
Nor is that phenomenon limited to the progressive community mentioned in the LA Times piece.
Two years ago, while attending a community meeting, I struck up a conversation with a local couple, a pair of long-time elected precinct committeepersons for the Republican Party, people who had done much the same thing (walking, talking, calling friends and neighbors) as I have (only for the wrong party :) ).
In short, they were the epitome of the "local activist".
Yet even they couldn't name the six ballot-qualified candidates for the R nomination in the CD5 race.
*I* could (Schweikert, Bitter Smith, Ogsbury, Anderson, Gentry, and Knaperek, and I still can recite that list from memory), but I'm a blogger - I write about this stuff.
Of course, even I'm not perfect in this regard. Until Ed Hermes, a friend of mine, ran for Maricopa County Supervisor in 2008, I couldn't name my representative on the Board of Supes (Fulton Brock. Hiss, Boo. :) ).
The supes rarely address issues that I care about, so I didn't pay attention to them.
Historically, this tendency toward not knowing or caring about elected officials or candidates has favored Republicans in Arizona. With a decided advantage in voter registration totals, and a tendency for self-identified Republicans to blindly vote for any candidate listed as a Republican, ignorance and apathy has led to the election of some supremely unqualified candidates.
This year, that may change (at least, I hope it does).
People are angry over the incredibly poor job that the current crop of state-level elected officials have done at managing the state. The SB1070/immigration issue may have distracted a lot of folks for the time being, but the fundamental dissatisfaction with the performance of Arizona's legislature and statewide officials remains both deep and profound.
On top of that, the number of independent voters in Arizona has risen compared to the percentage of voters who identify a party preference (less than 25% in 2004 compared to more than 30% as of last month). These are folks who, for the most part, don't care about a candidate's partisan affiliation.
The utter incompetence and complete unprofessionalism of the legislature and Jan Brewer has broken through the normal apathy - people care about the job their elected officials are doing.
Now the task is to break through the normal ignorance, to let people know who their elected officials are and the part that each of them played in steering Arizona's ship of state into the rocky shoals of fiscal insolvency and societal ridicule.
...Later...
And this is *not* a diatribe on SB1070, though with that title, it certainly could be...
From the Los Angeles Times -
Quick, don't Google, just answer: Who represents you in state government?
This is the question I roamed about asking at a party in my diverse and politically progressive neighborhood of Venice. The room was filled with people who worry openly about the water they drink, the fuel in their cars, the contents of their compost. Some of them had canvassed for Barack Obama or written checks to his campaign. Others were busy trying to overturn Proposition 8, the 2008 ballot initiative that banned gay marriage in California. They were unanimously baffled by what's happening in Arizona, where Gov. Jan Brewer recently signed a bill requiring "suspicious" people to prove their citizenship if stopped by police.
The author, an environmental author and activist, was shocked to find that no one in her group of activists could answer that question.
The author's mistake was surveying people who were only interested in "big" issues, not the nitty-gritty of local races.
As someone who is an activist and has had many discussions with friends and neighbors, I can state unequivocally that most people have no clue about state politics, their legislative representatives (both state and federal), and candidates for the job. Most can name the president and maybe the governor, but the farther down the political org chart the elected official is, the less likely that the typical resident is going to know who the elected official is, or what he or she does.
Nor is that phenomenon limited to the progressive community mentioned in the LA Times piece.
Two years ago, while attending a community meeting, I struck up a conversation with a local couple, a pair of long-time elected precinct committeepersons for the Republican Party, people who had done much the same thing (walking, talking, calling friends and neighbors) as I have (only for the wrong party :) ).
In short, they were the epitome of the "local activist".
Yet even they couldn't name the six ballot-qualified candidates for the R nomination in the CD5 race.
*I* could (Schweikert, Bitter Smith, Ogsbury, Anderson, Gentry, and Knaperek, and I still can recite that list from memory), but I'm a blogger - I write about this stuff.
Of course, even I'm not perfect in this regard. Until Ed Hermes, a friend of mine, ran for Maricopa County Supervisor in 2008, I couldn't name my representative on the Board of Supes (Fulton Brock. Hiss, Boo. :) ).
The supes rarely address issues that I care about, so I didn't pay attention to them.
Historically, this tendency toward not knowing or caring about elected officials or candidates has favored Republicans in Arizona. With a decided advantage in voter registration totals, and a tendency for self-identified Republicans to blindly vote for any candidate listed as a Republican, ignorance and apathy has led to the election of some supremely unqualified candidates.
This year, that may change (at least, I hope it does).
People are angry over the incredibly poor job that the current crop of state-level elected officials have done at managing the state. The SB1070/immigration issue may have distracted a lot of folks for the time being, but the fundamental dissatisfaction with the performance of Arizona's legislature and statewide officials remains both deep and profound.
On top of that, the number of independent voters in Arizona has risen compared to the percentage of voters who identify a party preference (less than 25% in 2004 compared to more than 30% as of last month). These are folks who, for the most part, don't care about a candidate's partisan affiliation.
The utter incompetence and complete unprofessionalism of the legislature and Jan Brewer has broken through the normal apathy - people care about the job their elected officials are doing.
Now the task is to break through the normal ignorance, to let people know who their elected officials are and the part that each of them played in steering Arizona's ship of state into the rocky shoals of fiscal insolvency and societal ridicule.
...Later...
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)