Candidate appearances this week: Mine Inspector edition

Earlier this week, I sent an email to the various Democratic campaigns for statewide offices, offering to post their candidates' appearances for the upcoming week. 

The first to respond was the campaign for Manny Cruz, Democratic nominee for State Mine Inspector.  Here's the list of public events:


Wednesday 9/8 - Yuma Democratic HQ Grand Opening - 6 to 9pm - 2450 S. 4th Ave. #15, ground level, Crescent Center, Yuma, AZ



Saturday 9/11 - Navajo Nation Parade - Window Rock, AZ - 9am to 1pm


Other stops in Manny's quest to become Arizona State Mine Inspector can be found here, on his campaign website's calendar page (caveat: some of the events listed there may not be open to the public, such as the Mine Safety Professionals' meeting).

Later...

Oopsie - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting to correct "official" primary results

Given recent developments, it isn't a surprise that this involves a Green write-in candidate, but thus far this appears to be less "targeted fraud" and more "general screwup."  I'll update if that changes.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors have called an "emergency" meeting for Tuesday morning at 9:00 a.m.  They've posted a one-item agenda.

That item:

Amend the official canvass of the August 24, 2010 Primary Election regarding Green Party candidate, Deborah Odowd -- candidate for State Representative, Legislative District 6. The write in vote for Deborah Odowd should be recorded in Legislative District 6, not in Legislative District 17 as initially reported. The official canvass will be amended to include the following correction: "2010 Primary Election Official Write In Results for the Green Party in Legislative District 6, State Representative: ODOWD, DEBORAH, 1 vote."

Note: I've left the incorrect spelling of O'Dowd's name intact (it's capital "O", apostrophe, capital "D", not the way that they have spelled it).

The most recent list of write-in results is here (courtesy the Maricopa County Recorder's Office).  The list reflect's O'Dowd's single write-in vote in LD6, but it was last updated on September 3.

The incorrect original canvass was approved unanimously by the Board on September 1, hence the need for Tuesday's emergency meeting.

Note2: There is a special meeting of the MCBOS scheduled for Wednesday, but no agenda has been posted as yet.

New Brewer video parody from the Arizona Democratic Party

It's based on the movie 28 Days Later, a movie characterized as "a terrifying zombie movie and a sharp political allegory."

The movie was frightening, and so is this video. 

The movie was frightening for its harrowing depiction of "what could be."

The video is frightening because it is so close "what is" the harrowing reality in Arizona.

AZGOP/Green candidate scandal coverage goes national

...It's made it all the way to the east coast now, and not in just a weekly or suburban daily that no one outside of its base market reads.

From the New York Times -

Benjamin Pearcy, a candidate for statewide office in Arizona, lists his campaign office as a Starbucks. The small business he refers to in his campaign statement is him strumming his guitar on the street. The internal debate he is having in advance of his coming televised debate is whether he ought to gel his hair into his trademark faux Mohawk.

{snip}

Mr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats.

{snip}

...Steve May, the Republican operative who signed up some of the candidates along Mill Avenue, a bohemian commercial strip next to Arizona State University, insists that a real political movement has been stirred up that has nothing to do with subterfuge.


“Did I recruit candidates? Yes,” said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. “Are they fake candidates? No way.”

Mr. May can insist from now until November that the "candidates" that he recruited are real, but they didn't even vote for themselves.

The article contains a number of pictures of May and the faux-Green candidates together along Mill Ave. in Tempe.  Here's a pic of May and one of the candidates, Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, from last week's LD17 Clean Elections debate.  Goshorn was scheduled to appear during the Senate half of the debate, but he declined to do so, because according to the NYT article, he felt a "bad vibe."

Pic below of Goshorn (left) and May, from the night of the debate.

Later...

When is age a factor in a candidate's viability? If you ask Republicans, only when the candidate is a Democrat

Has Greg Patterson of Espresso Pundit started working directly for the Schweikert campaign (if he has, it's not obvious from the campaign's most recent filings with the FEC)?  Or has he chosen to turn his blog into a Schweikert campaign press release outlet? 

I, and most Democratic bloggers, for that matter, happily republish campaign press releases, but when I do so, I always clearly identify them as such.

Patterson never publishes such a disclaimer.

Earlier this week, he published a post declaring the race over in CD5 based on the results of what was essentially a third party-funded internal poll.  This suspect poll declared Schweikert ahead in the race by 5 percentage points.  Patterson focused only on the percentages, not the questionable methodology of the company that conducted the poll.

He also rather blithely ignored the fact that in late October 2006, a SurveyUSA poll showed then-Congressman JD Hayworth ahead of Mitchell by three percentage points.

Mitchell ended up winning the race by slighly more than 8000 votes.

He backed that one up with a post published on Sunday.  Perhaps he was simply regurgitating Schweikert campaign's wishful thinking, or perhaps he is doing his part to add a little reality to some of the lies that the Rs spewed about health care reform last year, but he took the initiative to become a self-designated "death panel."

He placed a "Do Not Resuscitate" directive on Harry Mitchell and his political career.

His primary concern was Harry's age, 70.

Perhaps Patterson *is* correct in his insinuation, and Mitchell is too old for public service, but then that would then bring up another point -

Harry Mitchell, date of birth: July 18, 1940

John McCain, date of birth: August 29, 1936

Guess which one is running for a six-year term, and which one is running for a two-year term?

For the week of September 6, 2010: Upcoming debates

From the website of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission (note: there aren't any CCEC debates for statewide candidates scheuled for this week) -

District 06

September 07, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
1940 E Pinnacle Peak Rd
Phoenix, AZ 85027


District 16

September 08, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:30 PM
ASU Mercado
Room C145
502 E Monroe Street
Phoenix, AZ 85004



District 15

September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Radisson City Central
3600 N 2nd Avenue
Phoenix, AZ 85013


District 27

September 09, 2010
Candidate Debate
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
West Campus Student Lounge
2202 W Anklam Rd
Tucson, AZ


And for a non-Clean Elections legislative debate

District 8

September 7. 2010
Scottsdale Republic candidate debate
6:00 p.m.
City Hall Kiva
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.
Scottsdale, AZ


And for a non-legislative debate

Scottsdale City Council candidate forum
McDowell Sonoran Conservancy
September 8, 2010
7:00 p.m.
Granite Reef Senior Center
1700 N. Granite Reef Rd.
Scottsdale, AZ

Later...

About the recent CD5 poll numbers (and CD1 and CD8)

Serving to fill in the deafening silence from the RW blogs (zero posts and counting so far) regarding Jan Brewer's performance has been the recently released poll numbers purporting to show that the R candidates in CDs 1, 5, and 8 are head of or tied with the Democratic incumbents in those districts.

What the R blogs haven't mentioned in their crowing about the poll are the partisan biases of the groups behind the poll.

The poll was commissioned by a 501c(4) group called the American Action Network (AAN).  It's part of an organization of different groups created to serve as a Republican advocacy effort "independent" of the Republican Party in its quest to regain control of the federal government.

Among those involved with AAN -

Rob Collins, president of AAN, and former chief of staff to Eric Cantor, Minority Whip in the U.S. House of Representatives

Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of American Action Forum (one of the related groups mentioned above) was a senior adviser to John McCain during his unsuccessful 2008 presidential campaign

Norm Coleman, CEO of AAN, a Republican former U.S. Senator (lost to Al Franken.  YES!)

Fred Malek, an AAN board member, was a Nixon administration operative who has become a big fundraiser for the Republican party (and John McCain)

Haley Barbour, an AAN board member, is the Republican Governor of Mississippi and head of the Republican Governors Association

The polling was conducted  by the firm Ayers McHenry, a company that openly, even proudly, proclaims that it is partisan and supportive of Republican candidates and causes.  Not that reading their website's list of clients isn't a dead giveaway.

The polling data has been released through AAN's affiliate group, American Action Forum (AAF).

I'm not qualified to discuss the technical aspects of the way that the poll was conducted, but there seem to be issues with the methodology of the poll - a small sample size, a universe that seems to be skewed toward self-identified conservatives out of proportion to their presence in the population as a whole, and questions, that if not quite of "push poll" quality, definitely look to be designed to elicit certain desired responses.

All of which serve to undermine the credibility of the results, making it seem likely that the "poll" is less "scientific research" and more "messaging research" or even "wishful thinking."

At best, this should be considered to be a third party-funded "internal poll."  As the Parraz campaign (and I) learned in the just-completed primary cycle, internal polls have a tendency to match the spin that is placed on them and not to reflect real sentiment.

To be sure, the Democrats in question - Ann Kirkpatrick (CD1), Gabrielle Giffords (CD8), and Harry Mitchell (CD5) - have tough races ahead of them.

Giffords and Mitchell both face significant Republican registration advantages in their districts (~18K in CD8, ~ 40K in CD5).  Kirkpatrick has a Democratic advantage (~ 20K) to work with in CD1, but her district is heavily rural and as recently as 2006 elected a [corrupt] Republican (Rick Renzi).  It's a district that has been able to elect conservative Democrat Jack Brown and (relatively) moderate Republican Bill Konopnicki to the Arizona House of Representatives (LD5, each).

In short, all three knew early on, even before their first races for the seats in Congress that they now occupy, that they would *never* have easy paths to reelection, and have been running intelligent, energetic campaigns ever since.

Caveat:  I have volunteered for the Mitchell campaign in the recent past, and will again in the near future.

When more reputable and independent polling organizations, such as Gallup or Behavior Research Center (aka - Rocky Mountain Polls), weigh in on AZ's congressional races, those results will have much more credibility than a glorified internal poll.

"Gee, ya think?" headline of the day

After spending the last two days running from journalists and serving as the target of national ridicule for her performance during the Clean Elections debate on Wednesday, Jan Brewer has finally come clean about her oft-repeated claim that there were headless bodies in the Arizona desert.

From the Arizona Republic -

Brewer says she was wrong about beheadings

Now, lest a reader think that she issued a full "mea culpa" over her repeated attempts at fearmongering, here's the money quote -

"That was an error, if I said that," Brewer said about beheadings occurring in Arizona.

"If"?!?

Here's the vid -



The relevent spouting starts at around the 37 second mark.

In her statement, she claimed to be pointing out that there was violence across the border with Mexico that could spill over and didn't mean that there was any in Arizona.

Read the article, and watch the interview she gave to Fox News.  She was completely unequivocal when she claimed that there were headless bodies found in Arizona.

Vote for Terry Goddard for Governor.

In case anyone has did forget

New pic of the day...hell...new pic for the next two months -

Recap of the LD17 Clean Elections debate

On Wednesday night, the Citizens Clean Elections Commission held its debate for the candidates in the LD17 races for state senate and state representative.

While only one candidate in each race is a Clean Elections candidate, all of the candidates were invited.  Most, but not all, took advantage of the opportunity to speak to the approximately 200 voters in attendance.

As pure theater, the senate debate was boring - only one candidate, State Representative David Schapira, showed up.

Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, the faux-Green write in candidate, was expected (the CCEC went so far as to print up a name tent for him) but he didn't appear at the forum.  He was in the audience, however. (working on obtaining pics) 

Republican candidate Wendy Rogers was a complete no-show, not even bothering to attend to watch the debate and meet with interested voters.

She put up a message on her Facebook page saying that "Voters OVERWHELMINGLY tell me they appreciate a candidate on their doorstep rather than having to take time to attend a forum to view a candidate from a distance."

I don't know what "distance" she is talking about - one could meet and greet any of the candidates present before and after the forum.

Of course, Rogers could have been pinned down and asked to explain her answer on this questionnaire from the Center for Arizona Policy.

When asked if she supported or opposed "Prohibiting abortion except when it is necessary to prevent the death of the mother," not only did she circle "Support," she expanded upon that answer by adding "Honestly, I do not support abortion even to prevent the unfortunate death of the mother."

Ummmm...yeah.  That one doesn't even fit in with the mainstream of her own party, much less the mainstream of Tempe and south Scottsdale.

In any event, the candidate "debate" became a conversation between Schapira and Russ Knocke, the moderator of the event (See above pic)

Schapira used his time to lay out his political resume and past accomplishments and his vision for the future.

His trademark issue and political passion, both historically and in his future plans, is protecting and strengthening Arizona's education system.

Calling the Republican majority in the legislature "pennywise and pound foolish," a line that he borrowed from Republican John Kavanagh, chair of the House Appropriations Committee, he sharply criticized the way that the Rs have [not] handled the state's fiscal crisis, particularly in regards to education funding (Arizona has a "terrible model on how to run an education system") and health care (the lege has "raised the bar" on AHCCCS eligibility when ever-more people need its safety net).*

* - Don't fret R readers, Kavanagh is still drinking the Kool-Aid - within days of urging during a committee meeting that the state not to be "pennywise and pound foolish" he voted to cut education funding, close state parks that were a net revenue generator, and end KidsCare.

The House debate was far livelier.  Six candidates - Democrats Ben Arredondo and Ed Ableser, Republicans Don Hawker and Steve May, Green Gregor Knauer, and Libertarian Damian Trabel - were there, though only Ableser has accepted Clean Elections funding.

While Knauer and Trabel laid out their respective positions well (or not-so-well, depending), the debate became focused on the differences between the Democratic and Republican candidates.

Even at that, most of the open animosity was between Ableser and May.

Hawker spent most of his time piping up to blame all of AZ's (and the country's) ills on abortion and "unbridled liberalism" and Arredondo spent his time focusing on Arizona's devastated education system and "jobs, jobs, jobs."

I'll give Hawker credit for one thing - he may be a one-issue candidate, but he is focused enough on that one issue to turn any answer to any question into a diatribe against abortion.

And "diatribe" is the right word too - when CCEC puts up the video recording of the debate, watch it.  He uses lines like "scissors removing the brains of babies" and does so with a straight face.

Ben Arredondo spent his time on one thing, too - talking about what he will do in office if elected.  Like Schapira (and Ableser, too), the career teacher and public servant will be focused on education.  He also pledged to work "across the aisle" for the benefit of the district, teaming up with Republicans on issues that they can agree on.  That is something that Arredondo may be uniquely qualified to do, as the former school board and Tempe City Council member, and former Republican, has a long history of working for real world solutions for real world problems.

However focused those two were, the featured attraction in the House debate was Steve May constantly lobbing rhetorical bombs (and personal insults) at Ed Ableser.

Apparently, May must believe that Ableser is the one who uncovered his involvement with the burgeoning AZGOP/sham Green candidates scandal,

I don't really know who did figure out May's involvement, but since May wasn't exactly hiding his involvement with some of the suspect candidates, his involvement could have been uncovered by almost anyone.

Anyway, May started right in on Ableser, claiming that Ableser's biggest failing as a legislator is his unwillingness to work for "with" the Republican majority in a bipartisan manner.

Ummm - I can state unequivocally that the R caucus doesn't want any Democrats to work with them.  During 2009's budget dust-up when the Rs couldn't get enough votes from their own caucus to pass a budget, attempting to "work with" Democrats meant that the Governor, President of the State Senate, and Speaker of the State House met in the Speaker's office and proceeded to call in each member of the D caucus to *tell* them to vote for their budget.  It didn't work.

May kept taking his shots at Ableser, until he was not-so-subtly schooled by Ben Arredondo, who, to the approval of most of the audience members, pointed out that he was there to talk about his vision and candidacy, not to take swipes at the other candidates.  After that. May cut back (but didn't cut out) the direct attacks.

According to May, the best reason to vote for him is that he is a Republican, and would be part of the majority party. 

Seriously, that was the best he had to offer.

Ableser took his time to point out his record of accomplishment and advocacy for the district. 

Among other things, he supports broadening the state's tax base (the sales-tax centered model currently used by Arizona is "very archaic"), using incentives to push entrepeneurship in Arizona, especially around "green" and solar technology, and, of course, buttressing the state's education system.

Finally, a curious thing occurred after the forum was over -

From the stage, May started barking at fellow blogger Randy, the author of Dry Heat Democrat.  Not sure why.  Randy barked back (a little) in response, but it didn't escalate beyond that.  I'll leave it to him to tell the story on his blog.  It should be up in a day or two.

Interested voters can go to the website of the Clean Elections Commission to view the debate online (once the CCEC posts the video record)

More pics from the forum -

Left:  The House candidates (L to R): Ableser, Arredondo, Hawker, Knauer, May, and Trabel.

Left:  The crowd, pic taken during the break between the two debates, when everybody could stand and stretch their legs.

Later...

Note: apologies for the formatting of this post.  Apparently Blogger doesn't like it when you put multiple pics into one post...

Goddard wins debate over Brewer

...And not just on content of his positions (yeah, I'm biased, so I'm not getting into those, too much). 

Tactically, the debate was a solid win for Goddard, and not just because Brewer did such a horrible job ("we has did"!! YES!).

Like many folks, my opinion on the race is already well-defined (GO GODDARD!).  He did a good job on Wednesday night, but even if he had turned in a mediocre performance he'd still have my support.

Likewise, Brewer supporters would still support her even if she had just stared into the camera and drooled (which might have been an improvement over the performance she turned in, but I digress...)


The Citizens Clean Elections Commission must really have had it in for me when they scheduled both the LD17 and Governor's debates for the same time.

Thank God for the wonders of technology.

Went to the LD17 debate at ASU and watched the debate between the candidates for governor via DVR.

In addition, the debate can be found on the website of KAET, the PBS affiliate in Phoenix, and on YouTube (the YouTube video is embedded below).



After viewing the debate, and pondering Brewer's grammatical gaffes (i.e. - "we have did what was right for Arizona.." at the 4:45 mark), deflections (i.e. - blaming unions and SB1070-inspired boycotts for Arizona's long-cratered economy and the decades of damage to Arizona's education system wrought by the decades of unrelenting attacks on it by Republicans in the legislature) and outright lies (Brewer at the 39:00 mark:  "We have balanced the budget!"), one clear observation emerges -

As bad as Brewer did during the debate, the Rs' biggest tactical mistake was allowing their faux-Green candidate, Larry Gist, anywhere near a camera and microphone.

His positions of "privatize prisons" and "health care reform violates states' rights" and more, he gave strong evidence that he's nothing more than a Republican plant in the race.

Any Green party voters watching that debate would have realized that if they vote for Gist, they'll just be allowing themselves to be used by cynical Republican operatives like Derrick Lee.

According to the Secretary of State's latest voter registration count, there are 4585 registered Greens in Arizona.

Most of those voters were almost certainly pushed into the Goddard column by the debate.

Pics from the LD17 Clean Elections debates

Will do a more complete recap tomorrow (I need to get some sleep now), but here are a few pics...

Ed Ableser and Ben Arredondo, Democratic candidates for LD17 House, prior to the debate

David Schapira, Democratic candidate for LD17 State Senate, prior to his "debate" (more on that in a minute)...

Schapira and his opponents Wendy Rogers (R) and Anthony Goshorn (G*), with Rogers and Goshorn disguised as empty chairs.  Seriously, neither one showed up.  Apparently Rogers notified organizers prior to the event, even though originally she was expected to appear, but Goshorn was a pure no show (check out the name tent next to Schapira's). 

Well, not a *pure* no show - he was in the audience.  Just not on the stage.

All of the House candidates who appeared at the debate.  From left to right: Ed Ableser, Ben Arredondo, Don Hawker (R), Gregor Knauer (G), Steve May (R), and Damian Trabel (Libertarian)

Arredondo making a point.

Later...

Don't serious candidates at least vote for themselves?

Steve May, the former Republican legislator who is running in District 17 (Tempe/south Scottsdale) for state representative, has been insisting that the Tempe homeless folks that he recruited to run as Green Party write-in candidates are *serious* candidates who deserve the Arizona Green Party's support.



From the blog of Luisa Evonne Valdez, a legitimate Green candidate in LD15, a Facebook "conversation" she had with May -

Steve May

Luisa, i can't speak for all of them....but the five guys I helped were not Republicans. They are legitimate candidates and will be wonderful assets to your party. You guys should be supporting them.

Well, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office has posted both the summary vote totals for "official" write-in candidates as well as the precinct-by-precinct totals for each of those candidates.
 
The summary page just lists the net vote totals in Maricopa County for each candidate.  Among the suspect "Green" candidates, the leading vote-getters were Thomas Meadows (running for State Treasurer) at 21 votes and Michelle Lochmann (Secretary of State) at 17.  Most of the other candidates received between 1 and 4 votes.
 
What was interesting was the way the precinct totals broke down.  While the specific names of those voters who cast their ballots for the faux-Greens cannot be divined from the precinct-by-precinct totals, one can tell who *didn't* vote for them.
 
- Ryan Blackman, a write-in for CD5, and Clint Clement, LD17 State Rep, same committee address which is the voter registration address for Clement.  That address is located in the Salt River precinct in south Scottsdale.
 
Grand totals of their votes from their own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, write-in candidate for LD17 State Senator, registration address in the Paiute precinct in Scottsdale.
 
Grand total of votes for him from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Drew Blischak, write-in candidate for LD20 State Rep, registration address in the Bullmoose precinct in Chandler.
 
Grand total of votes from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Benjamin Pearcy, write-in candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission, registration address in the Tempe 25 precinct.
 
Grand total of votes from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
A number of the candidates gave an unclear address, meaning that the address of 420 S. Mill Ave. is considered an "invalid address" by the "district locator" function of the Maricopa County Recorder's Office's website.   However, looking at a map of the district, that address will be in either the Tempe 5 or Tempe 6 precincts.
 
Grand total of votes for the faux-Greens in those precincts -
 
0.
 
 
May and the Republicans can issue all the protestations of innocence that they want, but it's becoming ever clearer that most of the candidates that they enticed to run as Greens not only don't take being a member of the Green Party seriously, they don't take their own candidacies seriously.
 
Nor do they even take basic civic responsibilities, like voting, seriously.

President Obama's address on the combat mission in Iraq

Shamelessly copied and pasted from the White House's website -



The text of the speech, also courtesy of the White House's website -

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.


I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war. We’ve endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest -- it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who -- under the command of General David Petraeus -- are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.

As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -- including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example -- to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -- a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars -- post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury -- while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II -- including my grandfather -- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq -- the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade -- journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations -- war -- and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

Later...

AZGOP election fraud scandal: The letter asking for the investigation

Courtesy Ballot Access News (The text in italics is footnoted in the text of the letter; bolded text is bolded in the original.  Since the table in the letter couldn't be copied-and-pasted as a table, that text is set aside by using the Trebuchet font.)-

August 30,2010


VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable Terry Goddard
Arizona Attorney General
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

The Honorable Richard Romley
Maricopa County Attorney
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

The Honorable Dennis Burke
U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Re: Request for Investigation of Possible Voter Fraud

Dear Mr. Goddard, Mr. Romley, and Mr. Burke:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Arzona Democratic Party to request that your offices conduct an investigation into possible voter fraud perpetrated by individuals affiliated with the Arizona Republican Party who have conspired to have Republicans reregister as members of the Arizona Green Party and then fie as write-in candidates for that party when, in fact, they do not adhere to the Green Party's platform, have no intention of representing the Green Party, and have the explicit intent of deceiving voters and taking votes away from legitimate candidates. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure the election of Republican candidates. The evidence of this conspiracy is compellng, and given the impending ballot printing deadlines for the November 2,2010 general election, urgent action by your offices is required.

The Arizona Green Party

The Arizona Green Party filed petitions in 2008 to become a "recognized political party" pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-803, but it failed to obtain the requisite number of votes in the 2008 general election to be entitled to "continued representation" as a political party. See A.R.S. § l6-804(A). Consequently, the Arizona Green Party was required to petition for recognition again for the 2010 elections.

On April 14, 2010, in response to the petitions submitted by the Arizona Green Party pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-803, the Secretary of State certified the Arizona Green Party as a "recognized political party," allowing it access to the statewide ballot. Such recogntion does not, however, entitle the Arzona Green Party to "continued representation" on the ballot. Rather, the Arzona Green Party must obtain at least 5% of the votes cast for governor in the upcoming general election to qualify for continued representation on the ballot. See A.R.S. § l6-804(A).1

The 2008 Experiment

Durng the 2008 election, several individuals filed as Arzona Green Party candidates but refused to participate with the Arizona Green Party, to represent its values and platform, or to campaign on issues important to the Arizona Green Party.

For example, one candidate, Dr. David Corl, originally a registered Republican, filed as a candidate for the state legislature as a Green Party candidate. Before reregistering with the Green Party, Dr. Corl had no ties to or relationship with the Green Party. To say that Dr. Corl put minimal effort into his campaign would be an

1 In the alternative, a new political party is entitled to continued representation on the ballot "if, on November 1 of the year immediately preceding the year in which the general election for state or county officers . . . such party has registered electors in the party equal to at least two-thrds of one per cent of the total registered electors in such jursdiction." A.R.S. § l6-804(B).

overstatement. In fact, Dr. Corl failed to gather enough valid signatues to even appear on the ballot, and when a legal action was filed challenging his petitions, Dr. Corl quickly withdrew his candidacy. Luckily, Dr. Corl's efforts to infuence the results of the 2008 election were short-lived and yielded little success.

Another candidate, however, did succeed in influencing the 2008 election by mounting a fake campaign designed to deceive voters and to take votes from legitimate legislative candidates. Margarite Dale ran as a Green Party candidate in Legislative District 10 and was the subject of media scrutiny because of her close ties to the Republican Party and its candidates and elected officials. Speculation arose that she ran as a Green Party candidate at the suggestion of the Republican Party in order to draw votes away from the Democratic Party's nomiee, the incumbent legislator Jackie Thrasher, in Legislative Distrct 10. See Mary Jo Pitzl, Dems See Red as Republicans Run as Greens, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Oct. 11, 2008, http://www.azcentra1.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/l0/l1/20081011greenparty101l.html; Sarah Fenske, The Dirty Truth About "Clean" Elections, PHOENIX NEW TIMES, Apr. 2, 2009, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-04-02/news/the-dirty-truth-about-clean-elections (both attached hereto). Ms. Dale's campaign succeeded in causing the Democratic Party's nominee to lose in the general election. Ms. Dale received 2,358 votes, while Ms. Thrasher lost her seat by just 553 votes.

This year, following the success of the experiment in 2008, more "former" Republicans and a few others have fied as Arizona Green Party candidates without having any ties to the Green Party and without espousing its fundamental beliefs. Unlike in 2008, however, there is clear evidence that these individuals have conspired to defraud the voters of a fair and honest election.

The 2010 Conspiracy

Because the Arizona Green Party does not have continued representation on the ballot, it is subject to a different scheme for write-in candidates than that which applies to the other major parties in Arzona. Under A.R.S. § l6-645(D), a write-in candidate for a party that lacks continued representation on the ballot must obtain only a plurality of the votes cast for that party for the office sought by that candidate. That means an individual who runs unopposed as a Green Party write-in candidate need obtain only one vote in order to become the Green Party's official nominee and to appear on the general election ballot as such.

In contrast, an unopposed major-party candidate must obtain write-in votes equal to "the same number of signatues required by § 16-322 for nominating petitions for the same office." A.R.S. § l6-645(E). This statutory provision for major-party candidates helps ensure that the write-in candidate has a fair amount of support from his own party or independents in order to obtain that party's nomination and appear on the general election ballot. For example, a Republican statewide candidate must have gathered 5,609 signatures on his nominating petitions or the same number of write-in votes in the primary in order to gain access to the general election ballot. A Green Party candidate for a statewide office, on the other hand, must have gathered 1,231 valid signatures on his nominating petition in order to obtain a place on the primary ballot, see http://www.azsos.gov/election/20l0/Info/GreenSigReq.htm. while an unopposed Green Party write-in candidate for a statewide office needs to obtain only one write-in vote in  order to become the party's nominee. This statutory provision appears to have inspired these individuals to file as shame [sic] Green write-in candidates.

Arizona law, thus, has created a perfect opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of a system designed to foster access to and participation in the electoral process. Unfortunately, certain individuals-many of whom were recently registered Republicans-appear to have developed a scheme to gain easy access to the general election ballot under the Arizona Green Party's name and have filed as write-in candidates for a variety of statewide and legislative offices. There are 15 Green Party write-in candidates, and of those, only two have been endorsed by the Green Party. Based on information obtained from the Maricopa County Elections Department, the following are the names of the Green write-in candidates who claim to be affiliated with the Green Party but have not garnered the Green Party's endorsement nor are involved with that party, and the dates on which they switched their party affiliation to Green:
 
Candidate Name Party and Date of Re-registration Office Sought


Ryan Blackman Original registration July 13,2010 Congress Distrct 5


Richard Grayson Date unown (previously Republican) Congress Distrct 6



Chrstopher Campbell July 15,2010 (previously Republican) State Senate District 10


Gail Ginger July 15,2010 (previously Republican) State Senate District 10


Anthony Goshorn May 17,2010 (previously Libertarian) State Senate District 17


Mattew Shusta June 1,2010 (previously Democrat) State Senate District 23


Clint Clement July 13,2010 (previously Republican) State House District 17


Drew Blischak July 13,2010 (previously Republican) State House District 20


Tim Hensley July 5, 2002 (currently Republican) State House District 22


Michelle Lochmann July 15,2010 (previously Republican) Secretary of State


Thomas Meadows July 15,2010 (original registration) State Treasurer


Theodore Gomez July 15, 2010 (original registration) Corp. Commissioner


Benjamin Pearcy July 14, 2010 (previously Republican) Corp. Commissioner
 
 
As noted in the table above, of the thirteen Green write-in candidates, none was a member of the Green Party more than a few days before becoming a Green Party candidate and none is endorsed by the Arzona Green Party.2 Additionally, nine  individuals filed as Green Party candidates for the primary election and collected nominating petition signatures in order to qualify for the ballot. In stark contrast to the write-in candidates, the Arzona Green Party endorsed seven people who filed nominating petitions as Green candidates. The remaining two unendorsed candidates are: Larry Gist, candidate for governor, and Justin Dahl, candidate for State Representative in District 12.3

Evidence of Intent to Commit Voter Fraud

While it is patently suspicious for so many individuals-many of whom were recently registered Republicans-to have filed as Green Party write-in candidates, as well as Mr. Gist who filed as a regular candidate, despite having no ties to the Green Party nor seeking to establish those ties, this information alone would not be sufficient to allege fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud. The evidence, however, does not stop there. There is much evidence pointing to the conclusion that members of the Republican Party have conspired to run fraudulent Green Party candidates in an effort to deceive voters and take votes away from the Democratic nominees in the November election.

Legislative District 10

In Legislative District 10, there are two Green write-in candidates for State Senate, neither of whom has been endorsed by or is known to the Green Party: Chris Campbell and Gail Ginger. It appears that Ms. Ginger may have tried to file as a candidate for the State House. Her $500 threshold exemption statement lists "office sought" as State Representative - District 10, but her Nomination Paper indicates that she is a candidate

2 Mr. Goshorn originally filed as a Green Party candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives for District 17, and thus registered with the Green Party on May 17, 2010. But following a legal challenge to his petition signatures, he withdrew as a House candidate and later filed as a write-in candidate for the State Senate in District 17.

3 The Arizona Green Party has indicated that it is considering endorsing Mr. Dahl but has not done so as of the date of ths letter. See http://azgp.org/content/arizona-greenparty-azgp-announces-endorsed-candidates-2010-elections.

for State Senator - Legislative District 10. It is currently unknown whether the Secretary of State's office considers her a candidate for the senate or house.

It is certain, however, that Mr. Campbell is a candidate for State Senate in District 10. Until the day he filed as a Green Party write-in candidate, he was a registered Republican. He wil be facing incumbent Republican Linda Gray and Democrat Justin Johnson in the general election. Mr. Campbell has admitted that he was approached by members of the Republican Party to run as a Green Party candidate in Legislative District 10 with the specific intent to take votes away from the Democratic nominee, not to actually win the election or to promote the Green Party's values or platform. He admits to knowing Senator Gray, and he lives with the daughter of former house speaker, Republican Jim Weiers. As noted above, until the day Mr. Campbell filed as a Green Party write-in candidate-which was also the last possible day to file as a write-in candidate-he was a registered Republican. Below is an excerpt of a phone conversation between Mr. Campbell and a registered Independent whom Mr. Campbell did not know and to whom he had not spoken previously.

Caller: Okay, so this will help Linda Gray, then?

Chris Campbell: Yes, it will. The likelihood of me even winning is incredibly small. You know, basically one in a million, all right . . .. But just having my name on the ballot is going to take votes away from the Democrats.
...

Chris Campbell: Okay, I was approached by Republicans to basically say, hey do you mind running to get your name out even if you aren't Green Party. Because honestly, I'm more Libertarian than I am Green, period. But I'm just trying to get, more or less I'm taking votes away from the Democrats.4

4 The entire transcript, as well as an electronic copy of the phone conversation, are enclosed herewith.
 
Mr. Campbell's admission provides concrete evidence that he has registered as a  member of the Arizona Green Party and filed as a write-in candidate with the explicit intent to defraud Arzona voters who may believe he adheres to the Green Party platform and is running as a bonafide Green Party candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Campbell has sought to put his name on the general election ballot as par of a conspiracy designed to ensure that Senator Gray is reelected and Mr. Johnson is defeated.

Likewise, it appears that Gail Ginger, the other candidate in Legislative District 10, was also approached by members of the Republican Party to become a member of the Green Party and to fie as a write-in candidate in order to deceive voters into voting for her rather than the Democratic Party's nominee. Her candidacy is part of the concerted effort to re-elect Senator Gray, or perhaps the incumbent house candidates. In a brief phone conversation, Ms. Ginger implicated prominent Republican Party members Representative Jim Weiers and John Mills as individuals with knowledge of ths scheme, and gave the caller Mr. Mills' cell phone number. Ms. Ginger explained that John Mills works for the Republican caucus at the State House of Representatives.5

Legislative District 17

Additionally, it appears that several Green write-in candidates with residences in Tempe have been recruited by members of the Republican Party to defraud voters in Legislative District 17, as well as across the State. District 17 is known to be a competitive legislative district, and if these Green candidates pull votes away from the Democratic nomiees, the Republicans may win these seats. These Green candidates are Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, Thomas Meadows, Theodore Gomez, and Benjamin Pearcy. As noted above, none of these candidates is endorsed by the Green Party nor have they expressed any interest in participating in the Green Party's activities or espousing its platform and beliefs. They, too, appear to be pawns in the Republican Party's scheme to defraud voters and change the election results.

Further, the handwriting on each of the candidates' Nomination Papers appears the same, and it appears to match that of Steve May, Republican write-in candidate for Legislative Distrct 17 and a former Republican member of the Arizona House of

5 A transcript and electronic copy of this phone conversation is attached hereto.
 
Representatives from another district. See candidate nomination and financial disclosure documents enclosed herewith. The media has reported that Mr. May "had been pushing Anthony 'Grandpa' Goshorn" for the Green Party's nomination for the House seat in Distrct 17, and following Mr. Goshorn's and Republican Augustus Shaw's withdrawals from that race, Mr. May filed as a Republican write-in candidate for that office. See Mary Jo Pitzl, Former Rep. Steve May Seeks Return, POLITICAL INSIDER, Jun. 29, 2010, http://www.azcentra1.com/memberslBlog/PoliticalInsider/87954; see also attached screenshot of Steve May's Facebook page showing a pictue of Mr. Goshorn and Mr. May when Mr. Goshorn filed as a candidate. Moreover, Goshorn, Pearcy, Meadows, and Gomez use the same P.O. Box address for their campaigns' mailing address, and all but Goshorn use an address for a Starbucks in downtown Tempe as their campaigns' filing address (420 S. Mill Avenue). Republican candidate May, and Green candidates Goshorn, Pearcy, and Gomez filed their write-in nomination papers at the exact same minute: 11:43 on July 15, 2010. Each of the four also used the same notary for his nomination papers.

Violations of Arizona Criminal Laws

There are several provisions in Title 16 that define crimes involving elections and crimes against the elective franchise, but those provisions are not the exclusive remedies when an individual has taken action that theatens the legitimacy of the electoral process. See A.R.S. §§ 16-1001-1021; State v. Jones, 222 Ariz. 555, 562-63, 218 P.3d 1012, 1019-20 (Ct. App. 2009) (affirmng dismissal of criminal charges against legislator for filing nominating petitions with false verifications but noting that other criminal statutes may be applicable to cases in which a false statement is included in a written instrument).

The activities outlined above may fall under several Arizona, as well as federal, statutes. For example, by filing as Green write-in candidates and presumably voting for themselves on early ballots, the individuals listed above may have marked early ballots "with the intent to fix an election for (their) own benefit or for that of another person." A.R.S. § 16-1005. Additionally, there may be a violation of A.R.S. § l6-1006(A)(1), which prohibits an individual from knowingly attempting to influence a voter in casting his ballot by any corrupt means or to defraud a voter "by deceiving and causing him to vote for a different person for an office or for a different measure than he intended or desired to vote for," id. § (3). Here, the Green write-in candidates have attempted to influence general election voters who wil be deceived into believing that a vote in favor of these candidates is actually for someone who supports the Green Party platform, when in fact, the candidates do not espouse those beliefs at all and are only running with the intent to pull votes away from Democratic nomiees. If those Green candidates run under their actual party affiliations, such as Republican or Libertaran, they would be less likely to garner the votes of those who support the Green Party's platform.

A further investigation into these activities may reveal that valuable consideration has been provided to the write-in candidates, thereby implicating A.R.S. § l6-l0l4(A), which makes it unlawful for an individual to knowingly give valuable consideration to or for a voter or other person to induce the voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election for any paricular person.

Arzona's general criminal statutes may also apply in ths situation. For example, A.R.S. § 13-2002 defines forgery as falsely making or completing a written instrument or offering or presenting an instrument that contains false information. Here, the Green write-in candidates appear to have completed their voter registration and candidate forms with false information regarding their actual affiliations with the Green Party and their intent to run as bonafide Green Party candidates. Likewise, A.R.S. § 13-23l0(A), which proscribes fraudulent schemes and artifices, makes it unlawful for an individual "who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions." The Green Party write-in candidates have obtained a benefit-placement on the general election ballot-by deceiving Arizona voters into believing they are actually Green Party adherents, when in fact their intent is only to take votes away from the Democrats.

Because the Green Party write-in candidates have submitted paperwork to both county and state governent offices, they appear to have violated A.R.S. § 13-2311, which applies to "any matter related to the business conducted by any department or agency of ths state or any political subdivision thereof' and makes it unlawful for anyone to conceal a material fact or make any false writing or document knowing that such document is false or contains a fraudulent statement. Finally, A.R.S. § 13-2407(A) establishes a class 6 felony for tampering with a public record. That crime involves the making, completing or filing of a written instrment that is a public record, such as a voter registration form and candidate filing paperwork, "knowing that it is falsely made."
 
Violations of Federal Criminal Laws


Because federal candidates wil appear on the general election ballot, federal jursdiction is established. Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 6, May 2007, available at htt://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin ("In such cases (in which both state and federal candidates appear on the ballot), the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment."). "Every voter in a federal primary election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes." Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211,227 (1974).

Federal law, like that in Arizona, includes penal provisions related to elections and voter fraud. For example, it is unlawful to intimidate a voter or to interfere with the voter's abilty to choose the federal candidate of his choice. 18 U.S.C. § 594. If anything of valuable consideration were involved in the recruitment of these individuals to vote for themselves as Green wrte-in candidates, both the candidates and their recruiters would have violated 18 U.S.C. § 597, which makes it unlawful to make or accept an expenditure to any individual to either vote or abstain from voting for or against any candidate. See also id. § 600.

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it unlawful to knowingly falsify or make materially false or fraudulent statements, and 18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unawful for two or more people to conspire to injure or threaten a person's constitutional rights, including those related to the elective franchise. See United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Exparte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).

Federal law also provides criminal penalties for those who engage in fraud in the voter registration process: 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) prohibits an individual from knowingly providing false information on a voter registration form and from conspiring with another to vote illegally.
 
Conclusion


Based on the evidence presented above, I request that your offices investigate the possible voter fraud that has been commtted by the sham Green candidates as well as the Republican officials whom they have identified as recruiting and organizing them in an effort to deceive voters in the general election. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

Very truly yours,

Rhonda L. Barnes

RLB/kdl

 
Unlike most legal letters that I've read, this one was actually informative (meaning that I learned some facts that I didn't already know or at least suspect.  Among other things, my research didn't uncover the fact that some of the paperwork had the same handwriting (Steve May's), the same notary, or was submitted at the exact same time as that of other suspect candidates.
 
Notes:  Ms. Barnes is an attorney with Perkins, Coie, Brown & Bain, and there was a problem with the "copy and paste" function when I copied this letter.  A large number of typos were added to the text and I've tried to correct them all, though I might have missed a few.  There was one spelling error in the original, and that is marked by "[sic]".  Any other errors are mine.
 
Later...