The owner of a Cadillac SUV (SRP for 2010 base model: $62,495; compare to a 2008 median US household income of $52.029) is ticked off at Barack Obama?
Works for me....
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Legislative Republicans put anti-union measure on the ballot, again
From the AZ Republic -
The two Democrats who voted in favor were Sen. Amanda Aguirre and Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, both from Yuma (is there something in the water there?)
Sen. Aguirre received the primary endorsement of the Arizona AFL/CIO earlier this summer. I don't know if/how today's vote affects that.
It should be noted that neither Aguirre nor Pancrazi is likely to be hurt or helped politically by today's vote - Aguirre faces only token opposition for her seat (no D opponent, 1 Libertarian, and 1 write-in Republican) and Pancrazi is in a three-way race for the two House seats (1 other D, 1 R, and the R is an incumbent who voted for the measure too).
Silver lining time: As bad as this lobbyist-written (and -paid for?) measure is for Arizona's working families, there is one good thing to come out of it.
It's not an issue that will turn out the Republican base (witness the lack of supporters chiming in at the legislature).
It is, however, an issue that will turn out a significant part of the Democratic base, a part that may not have been totally energized before this blatant attack by Big Business and their pets, the AZGOP.
For that, we should all thank the AZGOP and their unswerving loyalty to their real constituents, corporate lobbyists and CEOs.
While the Governor, her staff, and the GOP caucus of the lege enthusiastically answered the call when the lobbyists called for a special session on the anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution, thus far she and they have completely ignored the calls for a special session and hearings to looking into the security issues at Arizona's privately-operated prisons.
Brewer et. al. aren't even making public an already-completed security review (2nd-to-last paragraph of linked article.)
They're probably hoping that the remaining escapee doesn't kill anyone else and that the story goes away.
I sincerely hope that no one else dies for the Rs never-ending quest to siphon public monies into corporate coffers, but there is no way that they should be allowed to skate on this.
BTW - Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor, issued the following statement on this week's developments -
The Legislature Wednesday squeezed one more measure onto the fall ballot, approving a bill that asks voters whether the right to a secret ballot should be preserved in union elections.The votes were 18 - 11 - 1 absent in the Senate and 36 - 19 - 5 in the House. The final version passed was SCR1001.
The vote was almost entirely on party lines. Two Yuma Democrats broke with their party and joined Republicans to refer the matter to the Nov. 2 ballot.
The two Democrats who voted in favor were Sen. Amanda Aguirre and Rep. Lynne Pancrazi, both from Yuma (is there something in the water there?)
Sen. Aguirre received the primary endorsement of the Arizona AFL/CIO earlier this summer. I don't know if/how today's vote affects that.
It should be noted that neither Aguirre nor Pancrazi is likely to be hurt or helped politically by today's vote - Aguirre faces only token opposition for her seat (no D opponent, 1 Libertarian, and 1 write-in Republican) and Pancrazi is in a three-way race for the two House seats (1 other D, 1 R, and the R is an incumbent who voted for the measure too).
Silver lining time: As bad as this lobbyist-written (and -paid for?) measure is for Arizona's working families, there is one good thing to come out of it.
It's not an issue that will turn out the Republican base (witness the lack of supporters chiming in at the legislature).
It is, however, an issue that will turn out a significant part of the Democratic base, a part that may not have been totally energized before this blatant attack by Big Business and their pets, the AZGOP.
For that, we should all thank the AZGOP and their unswerving loyalty to their real constituents, corporate lobbyists and CEOs.
While the Governor, her staff, and the GOP caucus of the lege enthusiastically answered the call when the lobbyists called for a special session on the anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution, thus far she and they have completely ignored the calls for a special session and hearings to looking into the security issues at Arizona's privately-operated prisons.
Brewer et. al. aren't even making public an already-completed security review (2nd-to-last paragraph of linked article.)
They're probably hoping that the remaining escapee doesn't kill anyone else and that the story goes away.
I sincerely hope that no one else dies for the Rs never-ending quest to siphon public monies into corporate coffers, but there is no way that they should be allowed to skate on this.
BTW - Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor, issued the following statement on this week's developments -
"Jan Brewer is wasting time and money on a special session that is nothing but a political sideshow. This special session will not produce one Arizona job or do anything to deal with a budget that is $1.7 billion out of balance. It does not fix our prisons. It does not fix our schools.Later...
Arizonans are reeling, our unemployment rate has gone straight up since Brewer assumed office. She should be focused on restoring lost jobs, not playing political games.
I call on Jan Brewer to start dealing with the real problems facing Arizona: a dangerous prison system, a horrifying budget deficit, a bottom-of-the pack educational system and a badly broken economy. There is too much serious work to do to be wasting the Legislature's time on this political game."
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
And the train kept a rollin'...
Quick update from the special session...
The Republican railroad squeaked a little today, but their drive to put an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution on November's ballot is still on track.
Today, they held the Committee of the Whole, or COW, sessions on the matching bills that are before the House and Senate. COW is where bills can be amended from the floor and actual debate takes place. During the final vote (aka "Third Read") on a bill, no amendments are allowed and the only "debate" is various members "rising to explain" their votes.
During today's Senate COW session on special session SCR1001, Senator Meg Burton Cahill proposed an amendment to the SCR that would have guaranteed workers the right bring someone with them when an employer tries to "discuss" union activity with the worker. It would have prevented the one-on-one intimidation by employers that usually takes place during workplace organizing efforts.
When her amendment was voted down (sad to say, but not a surprise there), Sen. Burton Cahill tried to request a roll call vote on the matter. During COW, a roll call vote is allowed (upon request)* but is not required. Generally, all matters are decided by a voice vote.
In contrast, all Third Read votes are required by the state constitution to be roll calls.
*Technically, a roll call vote on a COW matter takes place immediately after COW when the legislative body is back in regular session, but I'm trying not to get too technical here. :)
Perhaps recognizing that such a recorded vote could only hurt their members, the Senate's Republican leadership (if it really can be called such) used the time-dishonored tactic of pretending to not see the request.
Even though Sen. Burton Cahill had pushed the call button on her desk, notifying Senate President Bob Burns that she wanted to speak.
Even though the Senate Democrats' attorney was at the dais to make sure that they knew that Sen. Burton Cahill had something to say.
At first, I thought perhaps the Rs' move was intended to hide the fact that they didn't have the necessary 16 votes present needed to pass anything, but a call to the Senate's Rules Attorney confirmed that the 16-vote threshold only exists during Third Read votes. All other roll call votes require just a majority of the members present.
While not all of the Rs were present (Antenori, Tibshraeny, and Carolyn Allen, and possibly one or two others were out), they still had a majority of members present. Since no final passage votes were going to take place today, the lack of 16 votes didn't impact anything.
It looks like today's lack of transparency, like yesterday's refusal by House Commerce Chair Rep. Michele Reagan to read the names of those who signed in in support of/opposition to the proposed amendment (and Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Chuck Gray did so in the Senate only after being shamed into by the Democratic members of the committee), was all about minimizing public attention and political damage to the R members of the Senate over their activities on behalf of Big Business and their lobbyists.
Most of the public activity is completed for the day, though there will be a meeting of the Joint Committee on Capital Review at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109. It is a regular meeting, not associated with the special session.
Edit to add...
Just received a press release from the AZ Senate Democrats.
From the press release -
Later...
The Republican railroad squeaked a little today, but their drive to put an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution on November's ballot is still on track.
Today, they held the Committee of the Whole, or COW, sessions on the matching bills that are before the House and Senate. COW is where bills can be amended from the floor and actual debate takes place. During the final vote (aka "Third Read") on a bill, no amendments are allowed and the only "debate" is various members "rising to explain" their votes.
During today's Senate COW session on special session SCR1001, Senator Meg Burton Cahill proposed an amendment to the SCR that would have guaranteed workers the right bring someone with them when an employer tries to "discuss" union activity with the worker. It would have prevented the one-on-one intimidation by employers that usually takes place during workplace organizing efforts.
When her amendment was voted down (sad to say, but not a surprise there), Sen. Burton Cahill tried to request a roll call vote on the matter. During COW, a roll call vote is allowed (upon request)* but is not required. Generally, all matters are decided by a voice vote.
In contrast, all Third Read votes are required by the state constitution to be roll calls.
*Technically, a roll call vote on a COW matter takes place immediately after COW when the legislative body is back in regular session, but I'm trying not to get too technical here. :)
Perhaps recognizing that such a recorded vote could only hurt their members, the Senate's Republican leadership (if it really can be called such) used the time-dishonored tactic of pretending to not see the request.
Even though Sen. Burton Cahill had pushed the call button on her desk, notifying Senate President Bob Burns that she wanted to speak.
Even though the Senate Democrats' attorney was at the dais to make sure that they knew that Sen. Burton Cahill had something to say.
At first, I thought perhaps the Rs' move was intended to hide the fact that they didn't have the necessary 16 votes present needed to pass anything, but a call to the Senate's Rules Attorney confirmed that the 16-vote threshold only exists during Third Read votes. All other roll call votes require just a majority of the members present.
While not all of the Rs were present (Antenori, Tibshraeny, and Carolyn Allen, and possibly one or two others were out), they still had a majority of members present. Since no final passage votes were going to take place today, the lack of 16 votes didn't impact anything.
It looks like today's lack of transparency, like yesterday's refusal by House Commerce Chair Rep. Michele Reagan to read the names of those who signed in in support of/opposition to the proposed amendment (and Senate Judiciary chair Sen. Chuck Gray did so in the Senate only after being shamed into by the Democratic members of the committee), was all about minimizing public attention and political damage to the R members of the Senate over their activities on behalf of Big Business and their lobbyists.
Most of the public activity is completed for the day, though there will be a meeting of the Joint Committee on Capital Review at 1:30 p.m. in SHR109. It is a regular meeting, not associated with the special session.
Edit to add...
Just received a press release from the AZ Senate Democrats.
From the press release -
“In the Senate, we have rules of procedure and these rules should be abided by in order to keep the process fair and diligent,” said Burton Cahill. “By ignoring the light, the Senate President circumvents the stated rules of procedure. I verbally asked to be recognized and was still denied the opportunity to make a motion. If it was a matter of the Senate President overlooking the light, he should have taken corrective action and allowed me to speak. If he saw the light and ignored it, that action is an abuse of our own rules.”End edit...
Later...
Monday, August 09, 2010
9th Special Session: proceeding according to the script
I thought about doing some live-blogging from the lege today, but that thought was dispelled rather quickly, once I realized that was more effort than this "special" session merits.
Perhaps the highlight of the day was Rep. David Schapira's (D-Tempe) introduction of his and his wife Rosemary's new baby daughter, Elliot (9 lbs 15 oz, 22 inches). At the pre-session press conference, she commanded the most attention from the reporters in attendance, and on the House floor, at least half of the Representatives stopped by Schapira to meet the state's newest Democrat. At one point, Rep. Schapira joked that he and Rosemary would name their next baby "Kyrene" and the one after that "Broadway."
If you are familiar with Tempe, you'll understand the references. Yes, the line was funnier in person than here, and even there it was more "cute" than "funny,"
It was still part of the highlight of the day.
Otherwise, the day was relatively uneventful.
Labor, in the person of Rebekah Friend, Executive Director of the Arizona AFL-CIO, weighed in on the "misplaced priorities" of the Governor and the ultimate ineffectiveness of the measure.
From an emailed press release -
From the House Dems' press release -
That point was proven by the Republicans themselves -
- A "rally" put on by the North Phoenix Tea Party had maybe 20 people in attendance, including 4 or 5 candidates speaking and 2 or 3 more who walked by to see what was going on (like me). Pic below.
- Before the House Commerce Committee met to rubberstamp HCR2001, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Russell Pearce with a Noo Yawk accent), looked at the nearly empty gallery in the meeting room and joked sarcastically about the large amount of public interest in the anti-card check amendment.
Rep. Chad Campbell kept up his criticism of the special session during the committee meeting, questioning whether all of the energy could go for naught, as federal law will trump anything the state implements.
He actually got committee staff and Clint Bolick of theindustry front group "non-partisan research and advocacy group" Goldwater Institute to admit that yes, federal law will trump anything that the state enacts, but only after litigation. In addition, even if they get totally smoked in a court battle (something AZ should be used to by now), the amendment will still impact those who aren't covered by the National Labor Relations Act.
Like public sector and agricultural employees.
Like cops, teachers, firefighters, and farm workers.
The meeting and its counterpart in the Senate (Judiciary) were both marked by one thing in common -
The Republicans on both committees proudly proclaimed that they were there to protect business, and the only people there who talked about protecting *people* were the Democratic members.
Of course, the Rs could have been pandering to their audience.
Prodded by the Democratic members of the committee, Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Gray (R-East Mesa) read the complete list of those who had signed in to the lege's system in support of/opposition to the new language.
EVERY single person who signed in in support was a lobbyist representing a large corporation or industry association.
And every single person who signed in in opposition was either an individual (like me) or represented a group of working men and women. And in an unusual development, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, aka PLEA, normally as thick as thieves with the likes of nativist Senator Russell Pearce, came out in opposition. They support the secret ballot part of the language, but have reservations about other parts of the language that may require them to have union organizing elections for every contract cycle, which is every two years.
Hypocrisy alert: The aforementioned Russell Pearce pontificated from the dais during the Judiciary meeting that they were simply referring the measure to ballot to let the "people" speak on the matter, and that nothing was more important than the "will of the people."
Funny, but he doesn't have much respect for the "will of the people" - when they approve programs that he doesn't approve of himself.
BTW - Assuming that the new ballot language is, in fact, passed by the Republicans in the lege and placed on the ballot, the Secretary of State's office will accept pro/con arguments on the question from the moment the lege adjourns the special session sine die (expected to be sometime Wednesday) until 5 p.m. Monday. There is a fee of $100 per argument submitted. Any arguments submitted for the previous language cannot be transferred to the new language, but can be resubmitted for the new ballot language. A new fee must be submitted at the same time as the new argument.
The SOS' office will not return the fees for those arguments submitted for the previous ballot language, but expressed gratitude for the money. Ken Bennett's crew - what nice folks. Really.
BTW2 - In case anyone is wondering why appointed SOS Bennett has so enthusiastically held open the ballot for the special session - the absolute, final, no exceptions, drop dead date for ballot question language was supposed to be tomorrow.
He needs to repay the largesse of various industry lobbyists and corporations. Even though he has run as a "Clean" candidate, most of his "seed money" (max: $140/contributor) and many of his qualifying 5s came from lobbyists and CEOs. (Check out his most recent campaign finance report here)
Not exactly in keeping with the Clean Elections goal of candidates having to get out and meet voters.
Only in AZ can the Rs find a way to make "Clean" look a little "dirty."
Anyway, I'll be busy tomorrow, so I will miss the Committee of the Whole "discussion", but I will try to be down at the lege on Wednesday.
Perhaps the highlight of the day was Rep. David Schapira's (D-Tempe) introduction of his and his wife Rosemary's new baby daughter, Elliot (9 lbs 15 oz, 22 inches). At the pre-session press conference, she commanded the most attention from the reporters in attendance, and on the House floor, at least half of the Representatives stopped by Schapira to meet the state's newest Democrat. At one point, Rep. Schapira joked that he and Rosemary would name their next baby "Kyrene" and the one after that "Broadway."
If you are familiar with Tempe, you'll understand the references. Yes, the line was funnier in person than here, and even there it was more "cute" than "funny,"
It was still part of the highlight of the day.
Otherwise, the day was relatively uneventful.
Labor, in the person of Rebekah Friend, Executive Director of the Arizona AFL-CIO, weighed in on the "misplaced priorities" of the Governor and the ultimate ineffectiveness of the measure.
From an emailed press release -
“As the state faces historic levels of unemployment and crowded classrooms, I find it unbelievable that Governor Brewer would call a special session simply to take a swipe at unions,” said Rebekah Friend, Executive Director of the Arizona AFL-CIO. “The top concern of Arizonans right now is putting food on the table and having a good job, and this special session will do nothing to address those needs. This whole charade shows the truly misplaced priorities of Governor Brewer and Republican leadership.The Democrats, led by House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell, zeroed in on the fact that Governor Jan Brewer called the special session to attack workers and their ability to organize their workplaces, all while ignoring the widening budget deficit, failing schools, rising unemployment rate in Arizona, or the immediate threat to public safety posed by the lax oversite of privately-run prisons.
“This referendum, even with the ‘fix’ proposed, is still clearly superseded by federal law and will have no effect whatsoever. The truth is, this referendum is not about what’s best for the citizens of Arizona. Rather, Governor Brewer is carrying the water of big business groups who want to promote some national political agenda. Unfortunately for Arizona’s taxpayers, this special session and the inevitable court challenge to this unnecessary referendum will only cost the state at a time of limited resources.”
From the House Dems' press release -
“Arizona is at risk, and we want Gov. Brewer to use this special session to call an investigation into how three murderers were able to escape from a private prison in our state, then reportedly kill a couple in New Mexico over the weekend,” said House Democratic Whip Chad Campbell. “These security breakdowns resulted in people dying, and we need to do something now to ensure public safety and that no others are killed because of the irresponsible decisions of the administration.”Rep. Eric Meyer noted that in all of the walking and knocking he has done this year, none of his constituents have expressed their belief in a pressing need to inhibit the ability of workers to join unions.
That point was proven by the Republicans themselves -
- A "rally" put on by the North Phoenix Tea Party had maybe 20 people in attendance, including 4 or 5 candidates speaking and 2 or 3 more who walked by to see what was going on (like me). Pic below.
- Before the House Commerce Committee met to rubberstamp HCR2001, Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Russell Pearce with a Noo Yawk accent), looked at the nearly empty gallery in the meeting room and joked sarcastically about the large amount of public interest in the anti-card check amendment.
Rep. Chad Campbell kept up his criticism of the special session during the committee meeting, questioning whether all of the energy could go for naught, as federal law will trump anything the state implements.
He actually got committee staff and Clint Bolick of the
Like public sector and agricultural employees.
Like cops, teachers, firefighters, and farm workers.
The meeting and its counterpart in the Senate (Judiciary) were both marked by one thing in common -
The Republicans on both committees proudly proclaimed that they were there to protect business, and the only people there who talked about protecting *people* were the Democratic members.
Of course, the Rs could have been pandering to their audience.
Prodded by the Democratic members of the committee, Senate Judiciary chair Chuck Gray (R-East Mesa) read the complete list of those who had signed in to the lege's system in support of/opposition to the new language.
EVERY single person who signed in in support was a lobbyist representing a large corporation or industry association.
And every single person who signed in in opposition was either an individual (like me) or represented a group of working men and women. And in an unusual development, the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, aka PLEA, normally as thick as thieves with the likes of nativist Senator Russell Pearce, came out in opposition. They support the secret ballot part of the language, but have reservations about other parts of the language that may require them to have union organizing elections for every contract cycle, which is every two years.
Hypocrisy alert: The aforementioned Russell Pearce pontificated from the dais during the Judiciary meeting that they were simply referring the measure to ballot to let the "people" speak on the matter, and that nothing was more important than the "will of the people."
Funny, but he doesn't have much respect for the "will of the people" - when they approve programs that he doesn't approve of himself.
BTW - Assuming that the new ballot language is, in fact, passed by the Republicans in the lege and placed on the ballot, the Secretary of State's office will accept pro/con arguments on the question from the moment the lege adjourns the special session sine die (expected to be sometime Wednesday) until 5 p.m. Monday. There is a fee of $100 per argument submitted. Any arguments submitted for the previous language cannot be transferred to the new language, but can be resubmitted for the new ballot language. A new fee must be submitted at the same time as the new argument.
The SOS' office will not return the fees for those arguments submitted for the previous ballot language, but expressed gratitude for the money. Ken Bennett's crew - what nice folks. Really.
BTW2 - In case anyone is wondering why appointed SOS Bennett has so enthusiastically held open the ballot for the special session - the absolute, final, no exceptions, drop dead date for ballot question language was supposed to be tomorrow.
He needs to repay the largesse of various industry lobbyists and corporations. Even though he has run as a "Clean" candidate, most of his "seed money" (max: $140/contributor) and many of his qualifying 5s came from lobbyists and CEOs. (Check out his most recent campaign finance report here)
Not exactly in keeping with the Clean Elections goal of candidates having to get out and meet voters.
Only in AZ can the Rs find a way to make "Clean" look a little "dirty."
Anyway, I'll be busy tomorrow, so I will miss the Committee of the Whole "discussion", but I will try to be down at the lege on Wednesday.
Sunday, August 08, 2010
Arizona's Prison Escapees Highlighting Brewer's Failures As A Leader
Tracy Province, John McCluskey, the violent escapees from one of Arizona's privately-run prisons, and their accomplice, and Casslyn Welch, are doing their part to prove the theory that the private sector can always do things better than the public sector can.*
*OK, not really. More the opposite.
Aside from their escape, from a facility intended for prisoners convicted of DUI violations, and jaunt across Arizona, their escape is a testament to family values, evidence of the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts in AZ's private prisons, a travelogue of western U.S. tourism, and a primer in international cooperation.
AKA - Three prisoners convicted of murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and more, escaped, carjacked someone to gain possession of a vehicle for their move across the state, got some assistance from family (resulting in the arrest of one of their mothers), possibly killed an Oklahoma couple visiting New Mexico, are possibly hiding out in Yellowstone National Park and planning to take their escape/crime spree to one of the U.S.'s greatest allies, Canada.
A statement from Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor:
One can't help but think that if the escapees had Hispanic names, the likes of Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, and the rest, would be raising a deafening uproar over the threat to decent "Amurricans" from those dastardly brown people.
The only thing that has been deafening has been the silence pouring forth from the pro-SB1070/anti-Mexican crowd.
But it must be OK, because Jan Brewer's closest advisers were/are/will be again? lobbyists for private prison firms.
Apparently, crime is bad, especially if brown people are involved. And just as apparently, profiting from crime is good, especially if politically-connected Republicans are involved.
*OK, not really. More the opposite.
Aside from their escape, from a facility intended for prisoners convicted of DUI violations, and jaunt across Arizona, their escape is a testament to family values, evidence of the effectiveness of the rehabilitation efforts in AZ's private prisons, a travelogue of western U.S. tourism, and a primer in international cooperation.
AKA - Three prisoners convicted of murder, attempted murder, aggravated assault, and more, escaped, carjacked someone to gain possession of a vehicle for their move across the state, got some assistance from family (resulting in the arrest of one of their mothers), possibly killed an Oklahoma couple visiting New Mexico, are possibly hiding out in Yellowstone National Park and planning to take their escape/crime spree to one of the U.S.'s greatest allies, Canada.
A statement from Terry Goddard, Arizona's Attorney General and a candidate for Governor:
These dangerous inmates should have never been at a facility intended for DUI offenders. Now they are suspected of killing an elderly couple in New Mexico. I fervently hope they are caught soon, before they commit any more crimes. I urge Governor Brewer to take a long, hard look at her corrections priorities. Recent reports show that some of her closest advisers are paid advocates for private prisons. This kind of personal interest must never trump public safety.One of the intriguing aspects of this mess has been the absence of statements from the "law and order" wing of the AZGOP.
Upon learning about the escape, Charles Ryan, director of the Department of Corrections and a Brewer appointee, was quick to blame staff for the disaster. Instead of blaming staff, the Brewer administration should carefully examine their management and prisoner classification failures that allowed for these dangerous prisoners to be in a lower-security prison. Even faced with a difficult budget, public safety must never be jeopardized.
From 2005-2009, the Corrections budget increased about $77 million each year. Under Brewer's watch, however, the Corrections budget instead was cut almost $68 million, leaving the agency $145 million dollars behind where it should be.
These violent offenders were not an exception in the privately run Kingman facility. Recent reports indicate that 117 inmates at that facility are serving life sentences, with either first or second degree murder charges.
Last year, Brewer signed into law HB 2010, which privatized most of our correctional system and signed SB 1028, which permitted private vendors to operate one or more of Arizona's state prisons. SB 1028 was to include a 50-year contract and an up-front payment of $100 million. Brewer signed the bill, despite a letter from Corrections Director Ryan pleading with her not to. In the letter he wrote, "Undoubtedly, a private company would pay its employees significantly lower wages and provide them lesser training to realize cost savings. This would lead to higher staff turnover, low morale and place public safety at risk."
Yet Brewer still signed it. The Brewer administration has consistently promoted private over public prisons, in spite of the public safety risk. The escape of these two violent offenders makes it clear how dangerous this policy has been. Governor Brewer's priorities are wrong for Arizona.
One can't help but think that if the escapees had Hispanic names, the likes of Russell Pearce, Joe Arpaio, Andrew Thomas, and the rest, would be raising a deafening uproar over the threat to decent "Amurricans" from those dastardly brown people.
The only thing that has been deafening has been the silence pouring forth from the pro-SB1070/anti-Mexican crowd.
But it must be OK, because Jan Brewer's closest advisers were/are/will be again? lobbyists for private prison firms.
Apparently, crime is bad, especially if brown people are involved. And just as apparently, profiting from crime is good, especially if politically-connected Republicans are involved.
Saturday, August 07, 2010
See? Democrats and Republicans *can* work together on something...
...Too bad the "something" isn't something truly substantive and meaningful in the day-to-day lives of average Americans.
On anything "substantive and meaningful," the Republicans are still the "Party of NO!"
From the Washington Post -
Of course, once the rank-and-file Rs find out that something was worked out in concert with the Ds, look for the members of the RNC who voted for the proposal to be denounced as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and purged from their party.
Later...
On anything "substantive and meaningful," the Republicans are still the "Party of NO!"
From the Washington Post -
The Republican National Committee adopted a new schedule for the 2012 presidential primaries Friday, agreeing to a plan worked out in concert with Democrats and designed to delay the start of the campaign season.The adoption of the new primary schedule is contingent on the Democratic National Committee also adopting the proposal later this year.
{snip}
The new schedule is designed to make it difficult for a candidate to rack up an insurmountable number of delegates early in the process, forcing candidates to campaign across the country.
Under the new schedule, no state would hold a primary or caucus before the first Tuesday in February 2012, in attempt to avoid a repetition of 2008, when the Iowa caucuses were held Jan. 3.
Iowa and New Hampshire would retain their status as the nation's first contests, held in February, joined by South Carolina and Nevada.
Of course, once the rank-and-file Rs find out that something was worked out in concert with the Ds, look for the members of the RNC who voted for the proposal to be denounced as "RINOs" (Republicans In Name Only) and purged from their party.
Later...
New language for the anti-union ballot question
As everyone who pays attention to such things already knows, the Arizona Legislature will start a special session on Monday, one that is devoted not to balancing the budget (which is *balanced* right now, if you consider wishful thinking to be a proper budgeting practice), backfilling AZ's woeful K-12 education funding, or even doing something to alleviate Arizona's unemployment (infrastructure projects, anyone?), but instead to the campaign contribution magnet of an anti-union amendment to Arizona's Constitution.
The special session is motivated by a court ruling earlier this week that threw a similar question off of November's ballot for violating the "one subject only" rule for amendments to the AZ Constitution.
Originally, many observers, including me, thought that there wouldn't be enough time for such a "special" session, as they take a minimum of three days, and the "drop dead" date for submitting ballot language to the Secretary of State's office is Tuesday.
However, Republican SOS Ken Bennett came to the rescue of his fellow GOPers, pledging to hold the ballot open long enough to allow for the special session.
On Friday, the proposed new language was posted on the lege's website in the form of HCR 2001.
The new language, from the bill -
rubberstamped considered in the House Commerce Committee on Monday at 3:15 p.m. in HHR5.
It's likely that the Senate will consider and pass an identical version, and one version will be swapped into the other to expedite matters.
While the language hasn't been posted as yet, a bill numbered SCR1001 will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.
I'm not a lawyer, so there are probably legal and constitutional issues with the new language that I don't understand, but I *do* see a tactical issue.
"Card check" hasn't actually passed both chambers of the U.S. Congress and been signed into law. By passing this now (and for the sake of this post, I am assuming that the lege puts this back on the ballot and it passes the voters), the Arizona lege will allow the people in Congress behind the Card Check bills to adapt their bills to the industry-sponsored language that the lege is putting on the ballot.
Having said all that, my guess is that union lawyers are lurking in the tall grass for this one, and if the language is anything less than perfectly bulletproof, it'll get thrown off of the ballot again.
More as the special session gets closer...
Edit to add the comment I submitted to the lege opposing HCR2001 and SCR1001 -
The special session is motivated by a court ruling earlier this week that threw a similar question off of November's ballot for violating the "one subject only" rule for amendments to the AZ Constitution.
Originally, many observers, including me, thought that there wouldn't be enough time for such a "special" session, as they take a minimum of three days, and the "drop dead" date for submitting ballot language to the Secretary of State's office is Tuesday.
However, Republican SOS Ken Bennett came to the rescue of his fellow GOPers, pledging to hold the ballot open long enough to allow for the special session.
On Friday, the proposed new language was posted on the lege's website in the form of HCR 2001.
The new language, from the bill -
Be it resolved by the House of Representatives of the State of Arizona, the Senate concurring:HCR2001 is scheduled to be
1. Article II, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 36 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
36. Right to secret ballot; employee representation
SECTION 36. THE RIGHT TO VOTE BY SECRET BALLOT FOR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION IS FUNDAMENTAL AND SHALL BE GUARANTEED WHERE LOCAL, STATE OR FEDERAL LAW PERMITS OR REQUIRES ELECTIONS, DESIGNATIONS OR AUTHORIZATIONS FOR EMPLOYEE REPRESENTATION.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
It's likely that the Senate will consider and pass an identical version, and one version will be swapped into the other to expedite matters.
While the language hasn't been posted as yet, a bill numbered SCR1001 will be considered by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday.
I'm not a lawyer, so there are probably legal and constitutional issues with the new language that I don't understand, but I *do* see a tactical issue.
"Card check" hasn't actually passed both chambers of the U.S. Congress and been signed into law. By passing this now (and for the sake of this post, I am assuming that the lege puts this back on the ballot and it passes the voters), the Arizona lege will allow the people in Congress behind the Card Check bills to adapt their bills to the industry-sponsored language that the lege is putting on the ballot.
Having said all that, my guess is that union lawyers are lurking in the tall grass for this one, and if the language is anything less than perfectly bulletproof, it'll get thrown off of the ballot again.
More as the special session gets closer...
Edit to add the comment I submitted to the lege opposing HCR2001 and SCR1001 -
Of all of the problems that Arizona is facing right now, an anti-union ballot measure is the one that is considered important enough to merit a special session?
Where is the special session to address inadequate education funding, crumbling infrastructure, or even the lax oversight of the operations of private prisons (remember the escaped murderers running free across the state?).End edit...
Enough. This was a bad measure in its original form, and it is still bad.
No matter what the industry lobbyists tell you, workers are not the root of all that ails the state or even their businesses.
Vote against this resolution, and focus on actually doing something *for* Arizonans.
Friday, August 06, 2010
Harry Mitchell vs. GOPer challengers: Public Service vs. Mudslinging and Politics As Usual
Keeping up with the compare and contrast theme of yesterday's post on the call for a special session of the legislature...
First up, an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell on the boring, but near and dear to the lives of CD5 residents, subject of home foreclosures -
- Perennial candidate David Schweikert is the subject of yet another FEC complaint, this one over a hit piece that was mailed to CD5 R voters. It doesn't have enough of a color contrast between the background and the "paid for by" disclaimer for that disclaimer to be readable.
- Tea Party-type Chris Salvino has sent out a similar hit piece, this one targeting Schweikert. While the "paid for by" clause is pretty clear, it has other problems, as Greg Patterson at the Republican blog Espresso Pundit points out in this post.
From Patterson's post -
- Ward himself is also sending out hit pieces, as Patterson pointed out in this post from July (Hey, I'm a registered Democrat. I don't get the good stuff because I'm not on their mailing lists... :) ). His piece was an attack on Schweikert in the "let's throw lots of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" school.
- Susan Bitter Smith, an industry lobbyist when she isn't moonlighting as a candidate for Congress, is the owner of a "consulting" firm that is working to override the concerns of Scottsdale residents regarding the height and density of buildings in downtown Scottsdale. Either she has given up on winning the R nomination (a possibility) and doesn't mind alienating voters during an election year, or she figures that the campaign contributions she can wheedle out of developers will outweigh any lost votes.
During last month's Republican Congressional candidate forum sponsored by the Arizona Republic, something struck me as odd at the time, but I couldn't put specific words to it at the time, so I didn't write about it then. (The archived broadcast can be found on this page.)
Watching the mudslinging and disregard for the needs and opinions of the residents of CD5 emanating from the R candidates brought it into focus.
The few times that the candidates spoke about Mitchell directly or about what they had heard voters say about him, they said something in a pitying tone, along the lines of "his heart is in the right place" but he isn't conservative enough.
The idea of a public official being a public servant seemed antithetical to their visions for themselves if they actually went on to win in November.
They've got no time or respect for people who view public service as an end in itself, not as a means to pursue an ideological agenda and personal aggrandizement.
Compare and contrast that with Mitchell's long career in public service, from nearly three decades as a high school teacher, through his terms on the Tempe City Council and as Mayor of Tempe, on to his four terms of service as the State Senator for Tempe and South Scottsdale, cuminating with his election to Congress in 2006.
Any questions on who I think people should vote for in November?
First up, an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell on the boring, but near and dear to the lives of CD5 residents, subject of home foreclosures -
Dear [cpmaz],Contrast Congressman Mitchell's efforts on behalf of his constituents with the antics of the various GOP "contenders" for a spot on November's ballot -
Our housing crisis is real; it is widespread; and it has reached deep into our economy, affecting us all. Inaction is not a responsible option.
Last weekend, I hosted my second Home Foreclosure Assistance Workshop in Ahwatukee. Arizona continues to have one of the worst foreclosure rates in the nation. One out of every 189 housing units in Arizona received a foreclosure notice during the month of June. That means that over 14,000 homes in Maricopa County alone went into foreclosure last month and gives us the third-highest foreclosure rate in the country.
Arizona Republic: Homeowners facing mortgage woes seek help at seminar.
I have heard far too many stories from people who are experiencing financial trouble, and their mortgage servicers will not take their calls until they are at least three-months behind on their payments. They feel like they are getting the run around and they want someone to help answer their questions. They feel like there is no one on their side.
That’s why I’ve been working hard with my colleagues in Congress to address foreclosures head-on. At the center of most home foreclosures is a house that has lost a lot of value, so I’ve proposed new tax incentives for homebuyers to help stimulate the housing market here in Arizona and across the country. I’ve also backed legislation that would make it easier for folks to get loan modifications when they are upside-down on their mortgage, or to refinance even if they have little-to-no equity in their home.
Foreclosure Prevention & Survival Resource Center: Online center providing links to housing, financial and consumer protection agencies.
But there’s more to be done. I believe we need more extensive tax cuts to help spur home sales and a plan that will avoid rewarding bad actors.
I will continue to fight, tackling foreclosures and decreasing home values head on. I welcome you to call my office with any questions, concerns and to see if our caseworkers can help. As always, please feel free to contact my office by clicking here or by calling (480) 946-2411.
Sincerely,
Harry
- Perennial candidate David Schweikert is the subject of yet another FEC complaint, this one over a hit piece that was mailed to CD5 R voters. It doesn't have enough of a color contrast between the background and the "paid for by" disclaimer for that disclaimer to be readable.
- Tea Party-type Chris Salvino has sent out a similar hit piece, this one targeting Schweikert. While the "paid for by" clause is pretty clear, it has other problems, as Greg Patterson at the Republican blog Espresso Pundit points out in this post.
From Patterson's post -
The piece is simple; it contains one fact that leads to one conclusion. Schweikert runs a vulture fund that preys on people, so he's wrong for Arizona. That's it.Court record regarding Salvino's bankruptcy/fraud issues here, and like the link to the hit piece above, courtesy Espresso Pundit.
There are only two problems with the piece and--unfortunately for Salvino--they are pretty big problems. First, the one fact on the piece is wrong. Schweikert operates a fund that buys properties--from BANKS. Hmm, that's not nearly as ominous. In fact, it ruins the entire point of hit piece. Dude, if you build a hit piece around ONE fact. That fact had better be true.
But that's not the real problem with this piece. The real problem is that Dr. Chris Salivino has no business mentioning investors or housing. That's because he opens the door for Schweikert to point out Salvino's disastrous financial history...bankruptcy, fraud, eviction notices and tax liens.
- Ward himself is also sending out hit pieces, as Patterson pointed out in this post from July (Hey, I'm a registered Democrat. I don't get the good stuff because I'm not on their mailing lists... :) ). His piece was an attack on Schweikert in the "let's throw lots of stuff against the wall and see what sticks" school.
- Susan Bitter Smith, an industry lobbyist when she isn't moonlighting as a candidate for Congress, is the owner of a "consulting" firm that is working to override the concerns of Scottsdale residents regarding the height and density of buildings in downtown Scottsdale. Either she has given up on winning the R nomination (a possibility) and doesn't mind alienating voters during an election year, or she figures that the campaign contributions she can wheedle out of developers will outweigh any lost votes.
During last month's Republican Congressional candidate forum sponsored by the Arizona Republic, something struck me as odd at the time, but I couldn't put specific words to it at the time, so I didn't write about it then. (The archived broadcast can be found on this page.)
Watching the mudslinging and disregard for the needs and opinions of the residents of CD5 emanating from the R candidates brought it into focus.
The few times that the candidates spoke about Mitchell directly or about what they had heard voters say about him, they said something in a pitying tone, along the lines of "his heart is in the right place" but he isn't conservative enough.
The idea of a public official being a public servant seemed antithetical to their visions for themselves if they actually went on to win in November.
They've got no time or respect for people who view public service as an end in itself, not as a means to pursue an ideological agenda and personal aggrandizement.
Compare and contrast that with Mitchell's long career in public service, from nearly three decades as a high school teacher, through his terms on the Tempe City Council and as Mayor of Tempe, on to his four terms of service as the State Senator for Tempe and South Scottsdale, cuminating with his election to Congress in 2006.
Any questions on who I think people should vote for in November?
Terry Goddard Reveals K-12 Plan
From Goddard's campaign website -
Attorney General Terry Goddard today presented the K-12 education plan he will implement as Arizona's next Governor. The comprehensive plan, "Making Arizona Schools Work," is a road map for moving Arizona schools from the bottom ten to the top ten nationally in the next ten years.Stabilize funding for schools? No legislative micromanaging of public education into ineffectiveness?
Making Arizona Schools Work calls for:
* Revamping the state's out-of-date school financing system and ending tax giveaways that rob education funding.
* An end to the rigid, scripted, micromanaged approach to education that is currently in use in too many state schools.
* Early education including full-day kindergarten at every neighborhood school statewide.
* Accountability for educators and administrators.
* Rational academic standards that don't dumb-down test scores but instead prepare students for post-secondary education (including trade school, community college or university study) and high-paying jobs that will drive Arizona's economic engine.
{snip}
[Goddard said] "There is no question we have poked way too many holes in the bucket of money we should be spending on education, and we will plug those holes. That's step one, but it is not a magic pill. We need to quit messing around in the margins, stop the decades-long argument about classroom procedures and take action to apply the techniques and programs we already know work, and work well."
Goddard added, "For example, we know all-day kindergarten and early education works. We know post-secondary training not only works, it's essential to helping our kids find well-paying jobs. An agreed-upon set of academic standards works. Empowering school districts, school boards, teachers and especially parents to use the best local approaches for their own schools works."
My God! Terry Goddard wants to move Arizona's education system into the latter half of the 20th Century!
Seriously, expect Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and the rest of the Arizona Chapter of the Flat Earth Society to complain that Goddard's plan is too "radical."
Also known as too "responsible" or "professional."
Thursday, August 05, 2010
Special Session on Monday
...In any beginning composition class in AZ (English 101 in the Maricopa County Community College District curriculum), this one would be a great topic for a "compare and contrast" essay...
Well, it's official - the Governor has called a special session of the Arizona Legislature (the ninth! of this particular session of the lege) to "fix" the anti-union ballot question that, earlier this week, was thrown off of November's ballot because it violated the "one topic only" rule for amendments to the AZ Constitution.
Legislators were notified by email earlier this evening to expect a session that will last 1 - 3 days - though the only ways it will last only one day are if the Democrats roll over for the Rs and agree to suspend the "three-day" rule or if the Rs fail to get a quorum for the session. Neither circumstance seems likely at this point.
The Governor's call for the special session:
The U.S. House is scheduled to meet on Tuesday. Aside from the bill to help the states, there will be a privileged/showboat motion from a Republican to block any "lame duck" sessions after the elections in November on the theory that the Ds will lose control of the House and he doesn't want them to be able to pass bills that the Republicans don't support.
The Rs probably don't expect that their motion will pass (as well they shouldn't!), but that probably isn't the purpose of the motion.
As a "privileged" motion, it takes precedence over pretty much everything else, and nothing else (including the funds that so many states need in order to open schools on schedule this fall) can be considered until the motion has been considered and disposed of (passed, defeated, or referred to committee).
They'll try to extend debate on that motion as long as possible in order to block the funding that so many states need in order to continue functioning.
Evidently, there isn't much of a contrast between Arizona Republicans and federal Republicans.
Both groups are more interested in screwing over working people and the poor than in doing their jobs.
Later...
Well, it's official - the Governor has called a special session of the Arizona Legislature (the ninth! of this particular session of the lege) to "fix" the anti-union ballot question that, earlier this week, was thrown off of November's ballot because it violated the "one topic only" rule for amendments to the AZ Constitution.
Legislators were notified by email earlier this evening to expect a session that will last 1 - 3 days - though the only ways it will last only one day are if the Democrats roll over for the Rs and agree to suspend the "three-day" rule or if the Rs fail to get a quorum for the session. Neither circumstance seems likely at this point.
The Governor's call for the special session:
Governor Jan Brewer has issued a special session call to the Arizona Legislature for Monday, August 9, 2010, at 3:00pm. The special session will exclusively address a ballot referral measure amending the Arizona Constitution to protect secret balloting for Arizona employees. No other items are planned for the special session.
“The right to cast your vote without fear or intimidation is a fundamental tenant of our democracy,” said Governor Jan Brewer. “I believe that Arizona voters should be provided the opportunity to support and protect the constitutional right to a secret ballot for Arizona employees.”
The special session is expected to last 1-3 days.Contrast this, a *special* session intended to attack the ability of working Americans to join unions with the U.S. Congress' equivalent - calling members back from their summer district work period to address Medicaid, education funding and other money to cash-strapped states (money that AZ's budgeters planned for when they put together the FY2011 budget). The money will help keep teachers working and poor people receiving medical care .
The U.S. House is scheduled to meet on Tuesday. Aside from the bill to help the states, there will be a privileged/showboat motion from a Republican to block any "lame duck" sessions after the elections in November on the theory that the Ds will lose control of the House and he doesn't want them to be able to pass bills that the Republicans don't support.
The Rs probably don't expect that their motion will pass (as well they shouldn't!), but that probably isn't the purpose of the motion.
As a "privileged" motion, it takes precedence over pretty much everything else, and nothing else (including the funds that so many states need in order to open schools on schedule this fall) can be considered until the motion has been considered and disposed of (passed, defeated, or referred to committee).
They'll try to extend debate on that motion as long as possible in order to block the funding that so many states need in order to continue functioning.
Evidently, there isn't much of a contrast between Arizona Republicans and federal Republicans.
Both groups are more interested in screwing over working people and the poor than in doing their jobs.
Later...
Familiar names running for school boards...
The Maricopa County Recorder has a list of candidates who have submitted petitions for non-partisan races on November's ballot, and I'll cover that at a later date (15 candidates and counting for the 5 seats on the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project!)
The Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools has a list of 177 candidates for spots on the various school boards across the county. There are a few familiar names on the list.
- Clark Silver, one of four candidates for the Agua Fria Union High School District, is mounting a primary challenge to Republican State Senator John Nelson in LD12, on the platform that Nelson isn't conservative enough.
- Lydia Hernandez, a member of the Cartwright Elementary District board running for re-election, was briefly a candidate for the Democratic nomination for state representative in LD13.
- Steve Gallardo, a candidate for Cartwright Elementary, is also the Democratic candidate (FYI - he's the only candidate) for LD13 state senate. (He's also a former legislator.)
- Venessa Whitener, a candidate for re-election to the Higley Unified board, is also a candidate for the Republican nomination for state representative in LD21.
- Sue Dolphin, a candidate for the Nadaburg School District board, is also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for state senate from LD4.
- Martin Quezada, a candidate for the board in the Pendergast Elementary District, is a Democratic candidate for the House seat from LD13.
- Dr. George B. Brooks Jr. is a candidate for Ward 2 of the Phoenix Union High School District. In 2006, he was a candidate for the CAP Board of Directors (aka - CAWCD).
- Laura Pastor, a candidate for Ward 4 of the Phoenix Union High School District, is the daughter of Congressman Ed Pastor and a former candidate for Phoenix City Council.
- Jim Munoz Jr., a candidate for re-election to the Roosevelt Elementary board, is one of six Democratic candidates for state representative from LD16.
- Victor Contreras, also a candidate for the Roosevelt Elementary board, is a Democratic candidate for the state senate in LD16.
- David Schapira, a candidate for the Tempe Union High School District, is a Democratic state rep from LD17 and is running for the senate seat from LD17.
- Dave Wells, also a candidate for the Tempe Union board, is the husband of Rochelle Wells, a member of the Tempe Elementary board. Dave Wells is a frequent contributor to the Arizona Republic and is the driving force behind the blog "Make Democracy Work".
More later...
The Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools has a list of 177 candidates for spots on the various school boards across the county. There are a few familiar names on the list.
- Clark Silver, one of four candidates for the Agua Fria Union High School District, is mounting a primary challenge to Republican State Senator John Nelson in LD12, on the platform that Nelson isn't conservative enough.
- Lydia Hernandez, a member of the Cartwright Elementary District board running for re-election, was briefly a candidate for the Democratic nomination for state representative in LD13.
- Steve Gallardo, a candidate for Cartwright Elementary, is also the Democratic candidate (FYI - he's the only candidate) for LD13 state senate. (He's also a former legislator.)
- Venessa Whitener, a candidate for re-election to the Higley Unified board, is also a candidate for the Republican nomination for state representative in LD21.
- Sue Dolphin, a candidate for the Nadaburg School District board, is also a candidate for the Democratic nomination for state senate from LD4.
- Martin Quezada, a candidate for the board in the Pendergast Elementary District, is a Democratic candidate for the House seat from LD13.
- Dr. George B. Brooks Jr. is a candidate for Ward 2 of the Phoenix Union High School District. In 2006, he was a candidate for the CAP Board of Directors (aka - CAWCD).
- Laura Pastor, a candidate for Ward 4 of the Phoenix Union High School District, is the daughter of Congressman Ed Pastor and a former candidate for Phoenix City Council.
- Jim Munoz Jr., a candidate for re-election to the Roosevelt Elementary board, is one of six Democratic candidates for state representative from LD16.
- Victor Contreras, also a candidate for the Roosevelt Elementary board, is a Democratic candidate for the state senate in LD16.
- David Schapira, a candidate for the Tempe Union High School District, is a Democratic state rep from LD17 and is running for the senate seat from LD17.
- Dave Wells, also a candidate for the Tempe Union board, is the husband of Rochelle Wells, a member of the Tempe Elementary board. Dave Wells is a frequent contributor to the Arizona Republic and is the driving force behind the blog "Make Democracy Work".
More later...
Wednesday, August 04, 2010
Everybody's Gotta Have Priorities, And The AZGOP Has Got 'Em
...Unfortunately for the people of Arizona, the GOP's priorities are (more than) slightly skewed in favor of Big Business and in opposition to the interests of the people of AZ...
There are many reasons that the Republican leadership of the Arizona Legislature might get the Governor to call a special session of the legislature.
They could do it to address the woefully inadequate funding of the state's K-12 education system. But they won't...
They could do it to address the state's crumbling and hazardous infrastructure. But they won't...
They could do it to address the lax oversight of privately-operated prisons in Arizona. But they won't...
They could do it to address the removal of an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution from November's ballot. But they...hold on! While failing schools, bursting dams, and escaped murderers roaming Arizona aren't worthy of their attention, the union-busting efforts of their corporate masters may just be the inspiration for them to gather in downtown Phoenix in early August.
From the article (linked to "gather" above):
Not so fast. They have a rather "flexible with the rules" kind of Secretary of State operating at their beck-and-call.
From later in the story -
There are many reasons that the Republican leadership of the Arizona Legislature might get the Governor to call a special session of the legislature.
They could do it to address the woefully inadequate funding of the state's K-12 education system. But they won't...
They could do it to address the state's crumbling and hazardous infrastructure. But they won't...
They could do it to address the lax oversight of privately-operated prisons in Arizona. But they won't...
They could do it to address the removal of an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution from November's ballot. But they...hold on! While failing schools, bursting dams, and escaped murderers roaming Arizona aren't worthy of their attention, the union-busting efforts of their corporate masters may just be the inspiration for them to gather in downtown Phoenix in early August.
From the article (linked to "gather" above):
Republican legislative leaders are planning a special session beginning Monday in a last-ditch bid to put an anti-union measure on the November ballot.Of course, even if they pull off the special session starting Monday, it will take three days to legally pass anything, and the deadline for final ballot language is Tuesday, so no worries, right?
House Majority Leader John McComish said Wednesday there appear to be enough GOP lawmakers both available and willing to support the measure for a three-day session beginning Monday. The goal would be to fix the wording of Proposition 108 to correct flaws that the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Tuesday make it illegal to put to voters.
Not so fast. They have a rather "flexible with the rules" kind of Secretary of State operating at their beck-and-call.
From later in the story -
Secretary of State Ken Bennett said the deadline for putting something on the ballot is actually Tuesday.Something tells me that if it was the Medical Marijuana question that was thrown off of the ballot, the Rs wouldn't be so enthusiastic about a special session...
The Arizona Constitution requires that all measures be read on three separate days, making Wednesday the earliest day for final action for a session set to begin Monday after lawmakers return from a conference in San Diego.
Those rules can be waived with a two-thirds vote of both the House and Senate. But with every Democrat opposed to the plan — and Republicans not controlling that many seats — they have to take the full three days.
Bennett said, though, he can reserve space if it’s clear on Tuesday that there are the votes for final approval next Wednesday.
Judge rules; anti-union question off of November's ballot
From a Howie Fischer story in the East Valley Tribune:
It was referred to the ballot on party-line votes (Senate here; House here)
A lower court ruled that the measure violated the "only one subject" rule concerning amendments to the state constitution. As this fact sheet prepared by the lege itself clearly shows, this measure violated that rule.
A summary of the AZ Supreme Court record related to the case can be found here.
The court decision is probably a huge disappointment to its industry and legislative supporters - they've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign to pass the measure, including $135K just last week (7/26).
As discussed in Fischer's article, there is still a chance for the lege to fix their union-busting measure so that it is properly crafted for the ballot, but that would take a special session of the legislature, and it would have to be completed by Tuesday, the "drop-dead" date for ballot language to be submitted to the Secretary of State's office.
I contacted a state rep about the possibility of that happening and was informed that they (the Democrats) hadn't heard anything about a special session this week. A call to the Governor's elicited little info and a referral to Paul Senseman, the Governor's spokesman. An email has been sent to him (he is out of the office) and I'll update if any new info becomes available.
Edit to include Senseman's response:
From his reply to my email inquiry about whether or not there is a plan to call a special session -
End edit...
However, as of this writing, a special session on this issue seems unlikely.
Later...
Arizonans won't be able to vote in November to make it harder for unions to organize, at least not unless legislators fix it -- and quickly.The measure, which would have been Proposition 108 on the ballot, began its existence as SCR1026 during the 2009 session of the legislature. Jonathan "Payday Loan" Paton was the originating sponsor of the measure while 37 of the remaining 52 members of the R caucus signed on as sponsors or cosponsors of it.
Without comment, the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Proposition 108 is illegally crafted. That order signed by Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, which is not appealable, bars the Secretary of State's Office from putting it on the ballot.
It was referred to the ballot on party-line votes (Senate here; House here)
A lower court ruled that the measure violated the "only one subject" rule concerning amendments to the state constitution. As this fact sheet prepared by the lege itself clearly shows, this measure violated that rule.
A summary of the AZ Supreme Court record related to the case can be found here.
The court decision is probably a huge disappointment to its industry and legislative supporters - they've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign to pass the measure, including $135K just last week (7/26).
As discussed in Fischer's article, there is still a chance for the lege to fix their union-busting measure so that it is properly crafted for the ballot, but that would take a special session of the legislature, and it would have to be completed by Tuesday, the "drop-dead" date for ballot language to be submitted to the Secretary of State's office.
I contacted a state rep about the possibility of that happening and was informed that they (the Democrats) hadn't heard anything about a special session this week. A call to the Governor's elicited little info and a referral to Paul Senseman, the Governor's spokesman. An email has been sent to him (he is out of the office) and I'll update if any new info becomes available.
Edit to include Senseman's response:
From his reply to my email inquiry about whether or not there is a plan to call a special session -
"Governor Brewer is very interested in allowing the voters of Arizona the opportunity to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. She will be anxious to hear from the House Speaker and the Senate President regarding their Member’s [sic] availability and interest to act."
End edit...
However, as of this writing, a special session on this issue seems unlikely.
Later...
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Bounty on Arpaio's head? Real threat or convenient timing?
Stories are being reported (heavy exposure on Fox News and Drudge Report, and other rightwing outlets) that Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is the subject of a bounty put up by Mexican cartels. The alleged offer was for $1 million to whoever could kill Arpaio.
Now, the threat may be real, but the timing seems to be more than a little convenient.
- As this piece from the Phoenix New Times points out, it comes at a time when Pinal County Sheriff (and fellow nativist) Paul Babeu's rising publicity star may be eclipsing Arpaio's.
..And if the threat is "convenient", it has worked - Arpaio was all over national cable news today, pledging that the "threat" won't deter him from doing his job of hunting down undocumented immigrants.
- This post from Tucson Progressive points out that the text message that allegedly contains the threat also contains a large quantity of spelling and grammatical errors. More than can be explained by the normal exigencies of texting.
- Of course, if the "threat" is a hoax, as posited by Tucson Progressive in the above-linked post, the purpose may have been preemptive. Instead of seeking to overshadow Babeu, it could have been intended to distract from news that broke earlier today.
From the AZ Republic -
Or maybe it was targeted at this report of how Arpaio's deputies arrested a Hispanic activist, Salvador Reza, twice in two days. The first appears to be part of a planned act of civil disobedience where arrest was expected, even part of the plan. The second, however, seems to be little more than a bit of attempted intimidation. Reza has since been released and the County Attorney has declined to prosecute the "charges" stemming from the second arrest. However, the damage to the credibility of the MCSO as a law enforcement agency has been done.
Of course, if the threat really is a hoax, the intent could be one of multitasking - overshadowing Babeu while, at the same time, distracting Arizonans and Americans from Arpaio's misdeeds.
Now, the threat may be real, but the timing seems to be more than a little convenient.
- As this piece from the Phoenix New Times points out, it comes at a time when Pinal County Sheriff (and fellow nativist) Paul Babeu's rising publicity star may be eclipsing Arpaio's.
..And if the threat is "convenient", it has worked - Arpaio was all over national cable news today, pledging that the "threat" won't deter him from doing his job of hunting down undocumented immigrants.
- This post from Tucson Progressive points out that the text message that allegedly contains the threat also contains a large quantity of spelling and grammatical errors. More than can be explained by the normal exigencies of texting.
- Of course, if the "threat" is a hoax, as posited by Tucson Progressive in the above-linked post, the purpose may have been preemptive. Instead of seeking to overshadow Babeu, it could have been intended to distract from news that broke earlier today.
From the AZ Republic -
The U.S. Justice Department will sue Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio if he continues to refuse to cooperate with a civil rights investigation, according to a letter obtained by The Arizona Republic.Or maybe it was targeted at this report from the New Times, documenting how Arpaio, in a fit of unexpected honesty in 2008, admitted proudly that his Tent City jail is like a "concentration camp."
The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division since March 2009 has been investigating Arpaio's operation for alleged discrimination and for unconstitutional searches and seizures. Arpaio has said he believes the investigation is politically motivated.
In a letter sent to Arpaio today, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez gave the Sheriff's Office until Aug. 17 to cooperate with the investigation, and to turn over documents requested last year for an inquiry into claims of discrimination based on national origin.
"MCSO's refusal to cooperate fully with the Division's investigation makes it an extreme outlier when compared with other recipients of federal financial assistance, which have uniformly recognized their obligation to cooperate with the Division's investigations of alleged discrimination," Perez wrote.
Or maybe it was targeted at this report of how Arpaio's deputies arrested a Hispanic activist, Salvador Reza, twice in two days. The first appears to be part of a planned act of civil disobedience where arrest was expected, even part of the plan. The second, however, seems to be little more than a bit of attempted intimidation. Reza has since been released and the County Attorney has declined to prosecute the "charges" stemming from the second arrest. However, the damage to the credibility of the MCSO as a law enforcement agency has been done.
Of course, if the threat really is a hoax, the intent could be one of multitasking - overshadowing Babeu while, at the same time, distracting Arizonans and Americans from Arpaio's misdeeds.
Press Release of the Day
And amazingly enough, it doesn't involve Russell Pearce, Jan Brewer, or any of Arizona's other nativists masquerading as public officials.
From the website of PR Newswire, a press release from the "Campaign for Working Families" -
The biggest item of interest was the "Campaign for Working Families" part. It made me wonder if the GOP has finally caught on to the fact that their ideology/policy of striving to protect and serve only large corporations and the wealthiest Americans is limiting their long-term viability as a political force in this country.
Then there is this line later in the press release (emphasis mine) -
Among the many beneficiaries of its largesse over the years (according to FEC records):
Michele Bachmann, current Congresswoman and noted loon - $16K
Trent Franks, current Congressman and embarrassment to Arizona - almost $20K
Sydney Hay, industry lobbyist and Congresscritter wannabe - $6500
James Inhofe, current Senator and climate change denier - $10K
Rick Renzi, former Congressman and current indictee - $7500
Tom Tancredo - former Congressman and hardcore nativist - $13500
Not a lot of support for working families on that list, or among the hundreds of other candidates/officials that CWF has supported.
I'd call CWF an "astroturf" group, but other than the name, there is relatively little deception going on here - they've made it clear that they only support "working" families that are rich, white, conservative, Christian and don't actually need to work.
CBS News coverage of the Norton race in Colorado here.
From the website of PR Newswire, a press release from the "Campaign for Working Families" -
Former presidential candidate Gary L. Bauer on Tuesday endorsed former Lt. Gov. Jane Norton in the GOP Senate primary in Colorado, calling her a "committed conservative who will unapologetically defend the commonsense values of the American people."In and of itself, there's nothing particularly newsworthy there - Bauer is a far-right GOPer endorsing another far-right GOPer in a race that doesn't even involve Arizona (though Colorado is a "four corners" state, so it's one of our neighbors).
The biggest item of interest was the "Campaign for Working Families" part. It made me wonder if the GOP has finally caught on to the fact that their ideology/policy of striving to protect and serve only large corporations and the wealthiest Americans is limiting their long-term viability as a political force in this country.
Then there is this line later in the press release (emphasis mine) -
The Campaign for Working Families (CWF) exists for the express purpose of supporting candidates who will proudly promote conservative values, such as the defense of the traditional family, the sanctity of human life and the promotion of individual liberty and free enterprise.Turns out that the only place CWF expresses any concern for "working families" is in its name.
Among the many beneficiaries of its largesse over the years (according to FEC records):
Michele Bachmann, current Congresswoman and noted loon - $16K
Trent Franks, current Congressman and embarrassment to Arizona - almost $20K
Sydney Hay, industry lobbyist and Congresscritter wannabe - $6500
James Inhofe, current Senator and climate change denier - $10K
Rick Renzi, former Congressman and current indictee - $7500
Tom Tancredo - former Congressman and hardcore nativist - $13500
Not a lot of support for working families on that list, or among the hundreds of other candidates/officials that CWF has supported.
I'd call CWF an "astroturf" group, but other than the name, there is relatively little deception going on here - they've made it clear that they only support "working" families that are rich, white, conservative, Christian and don't actually need to work.
CBS News coverage of the Norton race in Colorado here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)