Tuesday, September 28, 2010

Apathy: Arizona's real third party

...and unfortunately for Arizona, it may have more adherents than any of the more formally organized political parties.  In a reality where most people by necessity have to focus on day-to-day "trivialities" like keeping a roof over their heads and finding adequate health care for their families, most don't have the available time and energy for public service.


A week-and-a-half ago, I wrote a post detailing how a number of fire district boards in Maricopa County had their elections cancelled due to a lack of competition or a lack of candidates.  Out of 17 boards on the ballot this year, 11 saw their elections cancelled.  Two districts had no candidates at all, while five of the others had a few candidates, but an insufficient number to fill out the board.  Those seats will be declared vacant and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will appoint people to fill them (I think)

In addition, the elections for two seats on the Maricopa County Special Health Care District (aka - board of directors of the Maricopa Medical Center and the county health clinics) were cancelled because there is only one candidate for each seat.

Now, the Arizona Republic has published a story highlighting how more than half of all school board races in the county have been cancelled for the same reason.

From the article -
School-board elections were canceled in 32 of the 57 Maricopa County school districts because dozens of races had no candidates or competition for open seats.

For districts, the move means about $547,000 in savings at a time when schools are counting every penny. But the lack of interest in board service reflects a trend across the state.

Once again, most school-board candidates in the Valley have been appointed, rather than elected in November.
According to the Maricopa County Superintendent of Schools' website, as a result of the lack of interest, 54 school board candidates will skip the election and be appointed to the positions they seek, while 12 other seats will be declared vacant and be appointed by the Superintendent at a later date.

Note: a complete list of school board candidates is here.

I actually understand the dearth of candidates for some of the fire boards.  Many of them cover the odd parcels of land within Maricopa County that are surrounded by cities but aren't actually incorporated into any of them.  They generally don't have many people in them,  much less people who are interested in a very low-profile elected office.

School boards, however, affect everyone.

Right now, there is a lot of focus on Arizona's malfunctioning education system and a lot of interest in blaming teachers and adminstrators and students and parents for the problems.  Personally, I blame a majority caucus in the state legislature that is more interested in siphoning public money into corporate coffers than in doing their real jobs, but I digress...

What there isn't enough of is people interested in actually working to fix the problems.

School board members put in a lot of time and effort and take a lot of criticism from people because regardless of what they do, they tick off a significant number of people.

It's the kind of job that receives no pay and little thanks, and thanks to the legislature, insufficient resources to do the job well or even adequately.

And when people grow ever more frustrated with what seems to be an unwinnable fight (improving schools in their neighborhoods and state), more will just throw up their hands in frustration and stop caring.

Look for a growing number of cancelled school board elections in each successive election cycle.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

Glassman-McCain debate -

OK, the debate included the Libertarian candidate (David Nolan) and the Green candidate (Jerry Joslyn), but the featured players were Democrat Rodney Glassman and Republican John McCain.

I'll do a full recap when the video archive is posted (either on Glassman's campaign website or on KTVK's), but I can give a summary now -

Glassman did well, but I don't think he landed a knockout blow.

Republicans will still vote for McCain and Democrats will still vote for Glassman.  Glassman may have moved a few independent voters, but he's going to need more than a "few" to pull off the upset of the year in politics.

Best line of the night:

"If we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, we need to reduce the number of our senators dependend on fossil fuel contributions." - Rodney Glassman

Most awkward moment of the night:

When asked to describe his legislative legacy when compared to great Arizona senators of yore like Carl Hayden (Central Arizona Project) and Ernest McFarland (original GI Bill).

McCain's response -

His "reputation."


That answer may be one of the most completely honest things that McCain said during the entire debate.

He has no actual accomplishments anymore.  He had a few things that he could point to, but in his quest to move far enough right to win the GOP presidential nomination in 2008 and to turn back the challenge of JD Hayworth this year, he has turned his back on everything good he has ever done in D.C. (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law, DREAM Act sponsorship, etc.)

He can't point to work on bringing projects to Arizona - that would be out of character for his "anti-earmark" persona.  Hell, Rick Renzi (Rick freakin' Renzi!) did a better job of that (projects on the Navajo reservation were the main reason he could win re-election in a D-leaning district.)

He can't point to his success fighting earmarks and out-of-control federal spending - earmarks are still around (full disclosure: I don't think that all earmarks are bad, but they should be for public works projects and should be completely transparent) and the U.S. has waged two fantastically expensive off-the-books wars with his enthusiastic support.  Hell, Jeff Flake has been more effective on earmarks than the far more senior McCain, and Flake has had almost no success on the issue.

He can't even point to work on veterans' issues - other than occasionally employing a few for campaign ads, he has done nothing for veterans, despite being one himself (a fact that he always points out, while blithely ignoring his lack of effort on behalf of his fellow vets).  Hell, Harry Mitchell has done more for America's (and Arizona's) veterans in four years than McCain has done in nearly three decades in D.C.

Still, Glassman didn't do as well as he could have, or will need to, in order to defeat McCain.

Still2, McCain didn't put away Glassman.  After the primary debate, Hayworth was toast.  However, Glassman held his own Sunday night.  The next five or so weeks should be very interesting.


My friend Eric summed it up best when he wrote on Facebook that Glassman needs to run as McCain2K against McCain2K10.


John McCain circa 2000 was somebody people could respect and even vote for while disagreeing with him on specific issues.

John McCain circa 2010 looks more like a tired reactionary hack than the energetic maverick that he was just 10 years ago.


OK.  That really was more a recap than the short comment that I had started writing.  It took so long that KTVK has already posted its story on the debate, complete with links to the video.

It took so long that Tedski at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has already posted twice on the debate, here and here.

Later...

Saturday, September 25, 2010

Candidate Debates for the week ending October 3, 2010

Most of the following info is from the Clean Elections website...

No CE-sponsored debates for statewide candidates this week.


Legislative debates -

LD4
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Windmill Suites at Sun City West
12545 W Bell Road
Surprise, AZ 85374

LD29
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College District Office
Community Room
4905 E Broadway
Tucson, AZ



LD24

Wednesday, September 29, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn & Suites
600 E 16th Street
Yuma, AZ 85365

LD30
September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Pima Community College
East Campus Community Room
8181 E Irvington
Tucson, AZ



LD12

Thursday, September 30, 2010
6:00 PM
Hampton Inn and Suite
2000 N Litchfield Road
Goodyear, AZ 85395


Scottsdale City Council candidate debate:

Arizona Republic City Council Debates
Monday, September 27, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.

And the big one of the week, even though it will take place on Sunday, September 26 (before the "week" in this post begins):

U.S. Senate debate. featuring Rodney Glassman, Democratic nominee, and John McCain, Republican incumbent

6 p.m.
Broadcast on KTVK (Phoenix channel 3) and KTTU (Tucson channel 18), carried on cable in Yuma, and livestreamed on AZFamily.com

Should be fun, though probably not quite as popcorn-worthy as the debate between McCain and Hayworth in the R primary.

Later...

Friday, September 24, 2010

Warning: If you have a child on AZ's KidsCare, don't apply for AHCCCS

I don't often agree with Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic, but her columns are usually thought -provoking, and once in a while, she hits one out of the park.

From her latest piece
Life hasn't been easy the last few years for Dianne and Patrick McKeen. Like many couples, they're struggling in this economy but they're managing.


They've learned to live without life's little luxuries, things like health insurance. Still, they count themselves fortunate. They, at least, were able to buy their daughter health-care coverage through KidsCare.

Then Dianne got sick this summer and along came the state of Arizona with nine of the most terrifying words in the English language: We're from the government and we're here to help.

Now 7-year-old Sierra McKeen is about to be kicked to the health-care curb.

{snip}

On the day of her release from the hospital, Dianne got a letter saying she'd been approved for AHCCCS, under a “spend-down” program that takes into account your medical bills.


What no one told her -- until it was too late, that is -- was that her stint on AHCCCS would be temporary … and that once she was on AHCCCS, her family would also be put on AHCCCS … and that once Sierra was on AHCCCS, she'd be taken off of KidsCare … and that once their AHCCCS expired, Sierra would have to go onto a waiting list to get back onto KidsCare.

They also didn't mention that the term ‘waiting list' is a tad misleading because it's a wait that never ends. By decree of the Arizona Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer, KidsCare is frozen.
Just to back up what Roberts wrote, from the main page of KidsCare's website -
KidsCare Program Changes


The KidsCare Office is unable to approve any new applications. Enrollment in the KidsCare Program has been frozen since January 1, 2010 due to lack of funding for the program, however, you can still apply. DES will review your application first, to determine if your family may be eligible for AHCCCS Health Insurance. If your children are not eligible for AHCCCS Health Insurance, but it appears they may be eligible for KidsCare, and you are willing to pay a premium, DES will send their information to the KidsCare Office to add them to the KidsCare waiting list. The waiting list will be prioritized based on the date of the application. The oldest application date will be on the top of the list. If funding becomes available, the KidsCare Office will contact you.
Let me be clear here -

I think that most of the rank-and-file workers at the State of Arizona are people trying to serve the public the best that they can under extremely dire circumstances.  They should be lauded, and thanked, for their service to the people of Arizona...no matter how much the likes of Jan Brewer, Russell Pearce, and the rest of the R contingent at the Capitol like to demonize them.

However, temporarily enrolling a desperately ill woman into AHCCCS and using that as leverage to permanently remove a child from KidsCare is inexcusably shameless.

Period.

The tone-deafness of the Schweikert campaign continues: Palin supports Schweikert

And while some may take the following post as an argument that Schweikert shouldn't accept Palin's support, let me be clear - I think that they're a matched set.

Just not in a good way.  :)

From the Phoenix Business Journal -
Palin steps up campaign against Giffords, Kirkpatrick, Mitchell

Sarah Palin is picking up her online and fundraising efforts on behalf of three Republicans looking to unseat incumbent Arizona Democrats in November.

Palin is urging her supporters to get behind David Schweikert, Paul Gosar and Jesse Kelly in their bids against U.S. Reps. Harry Mitchell of Tempe, Ann Kirkpatrick of Flagstaff and Gabrielle Giffords of Tucson.

Palin has targeted 20 races nationwide where she wants to help Republican challengers.
Sarah Palin may actually be one of the national Republican/tea party figures best-suited to help Schweikert's campaign -

- She quit partway through her only term as governor of Alaska in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a public speaker and would-be Republican king- (or queen-)maker; Schweikert quit partway through his only term as Maricopa County Treasurer in order to pursue a more lucrative career as a Club for Growth-financed candidate for Congress.

- Her partial term as governor was one beset by scandals and ethics complaints; Schweikert's partial term as treasurer was characterized by professionalism and ethics issues, too.

- Her investments include (or perhaps "included", some sources indicate that she divested from them - after people noticed and started asking her about them) making money off of the misery in the Sudan; Schweikert makes money off of the misery of Valley homeowners who are underwater with their mortgages.


To sum up: 

Palin and Schweikert are more focused on their personal careers and enrichment than on public service.

Palin and Schweikert go through life relatively free of the burdens of professionalism and integrity.

And Palin and Schweikert are ruthless in their acquisition of personal wealth.


Yup.  They're perfect for each other.

Vote for Harry Mitchell for Congress.

Later...

Schweikert campaign dusting off old tricks and gimmicks

Perhaps feeling the heat from the success of the recent video released by Harry Mitchell's campaign showing a number of Republicans from CD5 publicly expressing support for the Democratic incumbent, the Schweikert campaign has released its own video showing bipartisan supporters for their candidate.

...Well, make that bipartisan "supporter" (singular) because there is only one person in the video.

Anyway, when Mitchell first ran for Congress in 2006, a similar group of Republicans stepped forward to support the Tempe icon, and then-Congressman JD Hayworth responded with a single Democratic supporter, Craig Columbus, the 2002 D nominee in CD5.  Columbus ran a high $ and ugly primary campaign while virtually rolling over in the general election.  He has been characterized by one long-time Democrat in the district (not me - his candidacy was before my time as an active Democrat) as a "Republican in everything but name."

The "Democrat" recruited by the Schweikert campaign is similarly suspect.  His name is Charlie Harrison, a noted gay rights activist and a self-proclaimed "very liberal" Democrat.

After that, however, his political activities and associations become a little murky.

In the 1990s, he was indicted for perjury as a result of his involvement in the infamous AZScam scandal (Phoenix New Times article here).  Maybe not the best person for Schweikert, with questions surrounding his own ethics, to associate with.

He has contributed money to various political candidates and causes over the last decade.  Some of the recipients of his largesse included long-time Latino activist Alfredo Gutierrez during his 2002 run for the D nomination for governor and a 2006 campaign against an anti-LGBT ballot question.  He's also contributed to Republicans Trent Franks, Roberta Voss, and Sue Gerard.  Voss and Gerard I can sort of understand - they're relatively moderate by the standards of the AZGOP.  But Franks?  Trent freakin' Franks???

More recently, he has been involved in a tiff with the U.S. Forest Service over some "recreational residences" in the Tonto National Forest near Carefree (AZ Republic background here; Phoenix New Times coverage here).  Some of his anger with Mitchell may stem from Harrison's inability to persuade any of AZ's delegation to influence the Forest Service to ignore federal law and its own rules regarding the cabins.  Harrison has also lobbied Franks and Senators Jon Kyl and John McCain to no avail on his pet issue.

However, he has targeted his public anger to the sole Democrat that he has contacted, Harry Mitchell, and has uttered nary a peep about the Republicans.

His association with Schweikert is curious, too. 

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican/tea party candidate espousing a platform that is anti-choice, anti-education, anti-social safety net and worse, yet Harrison supports Schweikert while refering to himself as a "liberal."

And he calls on other "liberals" to vote against "liberal" Harry Mitchell.


Umm...yeah.


Two points here -

1.  I am a liberal Democrat and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog knows that.  I am also a fan of Harry Mitchell and proud of it.  Anybody who has read this blog also knows that.  But I have to say, Harry Mitchell is no liberal. 

He's a career public servant.  Throughout his career, from his decades of teaching high school in Tempe to his terms in Congress representing CD5, he has focused on representing the best interests of the people he has served.  I may not have always agreed with some of his votes and positions, but have always had absolutely no doubt that he tries to do the right thing.

He isn't a liberal, but he is a decent man.  Instead of attacking Mitchell for that, Republicans (and liberal-on-one-issue folks like Harrison) should support him as an example of something that ALL elected officials should aspire to.

2. David Schweikert may be a decent man at heart (the jury is still out on that.  Vulture investing will do that), but he's no liberal, or even a moderate who would be acceptable because he is a decent public servant (using public office to give a no-bid contract to a friend will do that).


Harrison may proclaim himself to be a "very liberal Democrat" but the inconsistencies in his campaign contributions (Trent freakin' Franks???) and his support for a candidate who will actively work against him and the causes that he supports over a single personal grievance only speak to Harrison's naivete (a description of him from the New Times' piece on his involvement with AZScam).

Personally, I think he is being petty, but since I haven't met Harrison, I'll stick with the description of people who have met him.

Later...

Wednesday, September 22, 2010

CD5 a dead heat in the latest polling

From The Hill -
There's new evidence to support Democrats' claims that Rep. Harry Mitchell (D-Ariz.) is running a strong reelection campaign.


A new poll shows the two-term incumbent leading former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert (R) — albeit by a single point.

Mitchell had 45 percent support to 44 percent for Schweikert, with 6 percent for Libertarian Nick Coons and 5 percent undecided, in an internal poll obtained by the Ballot Box.
With the usual caveats about internal polls, these latest numbers appear to be in line with what I've seen and heard anecdotally while walking, knocking, and talking in the district.

Compared to earlier polling (covered in the linked article), Schweikert's support (44% now vs. 46% then) has stagnated while Mitchell's has risen (45% now vs. 38% then).

At least some of this may be a bit of "blowback" in response to the Schweikert campaign's 60 Plus Association's carpetbombing of District TV screens with their anti-Mitchell TV spot. (I can't remember the last time I could watch an entire hour without seeing the spot at least twice).

People are just sick of the shameless attacks on Mitchell without Schweikert saying how he would be better for the district than Mitchell.

Oh, and more than a few have noticed that the guy who gives his pay raises to charity (Mitchell) is being criticized by the guy who has made a mint off of vulturing foreclosed homes, undercutting neighborhood standards, and serving eviction notices to a 12-year-old.

Schweikert is running as a generic Republican in a district as geographically compact and as familiar with Mitchell as AZ-CD5 and Schweikert has also developed a credibility problem.  It's still early, and he's got time to steer his campaign away from the shoals of electoral irrelevance, but early ballots drop in approximately two weeks. 

He's got that long to get it together, but that would mean deviating from the script handed to him from on high (GOP pooh-bahs like John "Tan Man" Boehner).  He's got some serious problems.

...It's 10:24 and there's that ad again (Channel 15).  Gotta love industries with cash to burn - local TV stations need the revenue.

Short Attention Span Musing: The "That's Just Republicans Being Republicans" Edition

...Terry Goddard (D), Jan Brewer (R) and Barry Hess (L) sat down with the Arizona Republic's editorial board to talk about their visions for Arizona.  Brewer's vision: cut education, health services, the Department of Economic Security, and anything else that benefits the working and middle classes while protecting tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.

...Ken Bennett, the appointed Arizona Secretary of State, had pledged to not endorse (at the 14:25 mark in the video) any candidates in a race overseen by his office.  However, that pledge has gone by the wayside, as the man who will run the state's elections has endorsed fellow Republicans like Brenda Burns (Corporation Commission), Scott Bundgaard (LD4 State Senate) and Steve Pierce (LD1 State Senate).

FYI - Democratic nominee for Secretary of State Chris Deschene has pledged not to endorse candidates in elections that he would oversee as SOS, and has stuck by that pledge.

...Democratic nominee for Attorney General Felecia Rotellini has demanded an apology from Republican Tom Horne and his campaign for falsely claiming that Rotellini "has never tried a case in her entire life."  The Arizona Republic article linked to "demanded" indicates that Horne is now aware that Rotellini *has* tried cases before a jury, but hasn't backed down from his statement or issued an apology.  Why should he, when the lie serves his purposes better than the truth.

...Republican candidates all over the state have kept to the master plan of running and hiding from voters whenever possible.  The latest examples of this:  Russell Pearce blowing off the Clean Elections debate in LD18 on Monday and Kirk Adams and Justin Olson doing the same last week in LD19.  In both cases, the Republicans aren't running as Clean candidates and therefore don't have to participate in CE debates, but they aren't participating in other events that put them in the same places as their Democratic opponents and voters.

...Jan Brewer's "Arizona Commission on Privatization and Efficiency" has issued its first set of recommendations on which state services and operations can be given over to private vendors, and other "efficiency" measures, in order to save the state money.

The suggestions include:

Privatizing the state's email system
Selling state parks
Hiring private companies to manage highway rest areas (if the feds approve, not likely, but anything is possible)
Purchasing software that would allow State computers to be shut down remotely

The Commission includes a number of Republican Party/anti-government stalwarts.

Mark Brnovich, chair, current the Director of the Arizona Department of Gaming, and a former executive with a private prison company (Brewer just *loves* those guys, doesn't she?)

Chad Kirkpatrick, Director of the Government Information Technology Agency, and chair of the Arizona Federation of Taxpayers, the Arizona incarnation/affiliate of Americans for Prosperity, a corporate lobbying group

John Halikowski, Director of the Arizona Department of Transportation, a former legislative researcher working for the Republican caucus of the AZ lege.  He was instrumental in crafting legislation mandating privatization.  His bio indicates that he spent six years working in executive positions for MVD, and I'm not sure of this, but the math looks right for him to have worked there during Russell Pearce's corruption-laden administration of that agency. Will check into that...

Glenn Hamer, President and CEO of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, a former Executive Director of the Arizona Republican Party, and a man who has never seen a public service that shouldn't be privatized in a way that maximizes some corporation's profits (whether that corporation can deliver the service as well is irrelevant)

Leonard Gilroy, a senior staffer at something called "The Reason Foundation," an organization that claims to be an independent think tank dedicated to "free market" principles, but their dedication to "free" markets isn't free.  According to Sourcewatch, much of their funding comes from industry sources and extremists like the infamous Koch Brothers.

Stan Levine, a retired chemical company CEO and a senior member of Joe Arpaio's "posse"

There were a few more, but none who were there to represent the public interest.

With an assemblage like that, is it any wonder that they want to give state parks, which are supposed to be managed for the benefit of the people of Arizona, to private corporations to be managed for the benefit of those corporations?

It all looks like it's part of the GOP's game plan of running government into the ground (by refusing to actually govern responsibly by say, balancing the freakin' budget), and when government inevitably fails on their watch, use the failure that they've induced as an excuse to further sell off public assets to private groups.


Later...

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Maybe the Cardinals should invest in QB or defensive secondary depth

...because after Sunday's blowout loss to Atlanta, it seems obvious that their weaknesses aren't because of people filling prescriptions for medical marijuana.

From The Phoenix Business Journal -
The Arizona Cardinals are opposing Proposition 203 which could make medical marijuana legal in the state and let chronically ill or severe pain patients buy small amounts of pot from state licensed clinics with a doctor’s approval.

The Cardinals gave $10,000 to Keep AZ Drug Free today, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s office.
The "today" referenced in the quote is last Wednesday, September 15.

It's kind of hard to expect the Cards' players to be focused on doing the best possible job on the field when team ownership and management aren't focused on putting the best possible team on the field.

Firedoglake coverage here.

Prop. 111 appears to be the "least bad" of the lege-initiated ballot questions, but appearances can be deceiving

Wow.  The Arizona Legislature has found a way to turn what should have been the least problematical ballot question, the one that, if passed, would rename the office of the Secretary of State to the office of Lieutenant Governor, into the one most likely to get Arizona slapped around in federal court.

Yet again.

And that's an accomplishment, considering that the other measures foisted off on us by the legislature include an anti-affirmative action question (Prop. 107), an anti-health care reform question (Prop. 106), and an anti-union question (Prop. 113). 

However, dedicated ideologues that they are, they pulled it off.

The rationale for the measure is rooted in the fact that it's been nearly a quarter-century since Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office as the result of an election.  Because of an impeachment (Evan Mecham), some felony convictions (Da Fifester) and a resignation to accept a promotion to D.C. (Janet Napolitano), three of Arizona's Secretarys of State have ascended to the Governor's office - Rose Mofford, Jane Hull, and Jan Brewer.

The supporters of the measure want to highlight to the public that the SOS is second in line for the ninth floor and want to accomplish that by changing the vote for SOS to a vote for Lt. Governor.  The actual day-to-day duties of the job wouldn't change.

They also wish to make sure that the Lt. Governor and the Governor are from the same party in order to avoid situations where the SOS was a member of a different party than that of the governor she replaced (Mofford was a D, she replaced R Mecham; Brewer is an R who replaced a D in Napolitano).

To be sure, there was some contention over the SOS/Lt. Governor measure, contention that crosses partisan lines - the limited opposition in the lege came from Rs, yet personally, I (a Democrat) don't support it. 

Regardless of the name of the office, the duties will still be that of a secretary of state, not a 'governor-in-waiting" and people should know what they are voting for.  It would have been better to create an actual office of lieutenant governor (not exactly a radical concept - most states have one) or to simply remind voters that AZ doesn't have a Lt. Governor and the line of succession should be one of the factors they consider when choosing an SOS.

There are other problems with the measure.  Robert Robb, a conservative columnist for the Arizona Republic, has pointed out that the language of Prop. 111 would effectively bar independent voters, those not affiliated with a specific recognized political party, from holding either office.

From Prop. 111 -
C. DURING THE PRIMARY ELECTION, CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN FOR THAT OFFICE SEPARATELY FROM ANY CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. ON COMPLETION OF THE PRIMARY ELECTION, EACH NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR SHALL RUN ON A TICKET AS A JOINT CANDIDATE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION WITH THE NOMINEE FOR THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR FROM THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY AS THE NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR. AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, A SINGLE VOTE FOR A NOMINEE FOR GOVERNOR SHALL CONSTITUTE A VOTE FOR THAT NOMINEE'S TICKET, INCLUDING THE NOMINEE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. FOR ANY WINNING CANDIDATE FOR GOVERNOR AT THE GENERAL ELECTION, THAT WINNING CANDIDATE'S JOINT CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS THE WINNING CANDIDATE FOR LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR.
Please note the repeated use of the word "shall."  The proposed language would make partisan affiliation for seekers of those two offices mandatory.

As Robb points out in his column, in the era of "disenchantment" with partisan politics, it's probably not the brightest idea to been seen as actively disenfranchising non-affiliated office seekers.

Something else hasn't been pointed out, at least not anywhere that I've yet seen - Arizona is one of the states still subject to the "preclearance" provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 in regard to anything that affects election practices or procedures.

Before any changes to such practices and procedures can go into effect, the changes have to be examined and approved by the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

And as something that restricts the pool of candidates eligible to hold the office that oversees the conduct of elections, this definitely seems to qualify for DOJ examination under the Voting Rights Act.

A couple of conversations with people who are a lot more familiar with this area than me seems to bear this out, but the DOJ cannot and will not step in until and unless Prop. 111 is passed by the voters (until then, officially, they have nothing to consider).

Supporters of the measure acknowledge that there are problems, but feel that they can be corrected with bills passed by the legislature.

Perhaps some of the issues could be so corrected, but the actual language of a voter-approved amendment to the AZ Constitution cannot be touched by the legislature.  Period.

The state's Republicans like to gripe about Arizona's inclusion on the list of states subject to "preclearance," but moves like this only serve to ensure that Arizona will remain on the list for the foreseeable future.

Updates as more info becomes available...

Monday, September 20, 2010

Brewer campaign script: Plan A - Lie; Plan B - Run and Hide. Plan C: When Plan B stops working, return to Plan A.

Early this year, Jan Brewer and her quest for an elected term as governor were in trouble.

Deep-pocketed Republican challengers were swamping her in her primary race, and early polling had Terry Goddard defeating her in the general election.

Then Russell Pearce's SB1070 came along, and Brewer's campaign righted itself with Plan A. 

She focused on selling that nativist measure to the Republican base, using stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and outright lies.

The bill, and her success inciting "energizing" her base forced most of the other R gubernatorial candidates to withdraw from the race.

In addition, polls taken shortly after the primary showed her with a comfortable (~20%) lead over the Democratic nominee for governor, Terry Goddard.

Then came The Debate.

After the brain freeze that will never go away, the grammatical gaffes ("we has did"), and the frantic retreat from the media after the debate, her handlers refused to allow her anywhere near a situation that isn't totally in their control.

That marked the beginning of Plan B.

Run and hide Brewer and her weaknesses until November, and everybody would keep their jobs (and the revenue streams for their real "former" employers).

Then came word on Monday of new polling that shows Goddard has seriously closed on Brewer.

It's become obvious, even to those who have their heads buried in the sand at the bottom of the deepest underground bunker in the state (which has been made to look a *lot* like the 9th floor of the Executive Tower), that running and hiding is no longer a viable plan.

Instead of adapting to the changed circumstances (something that might just involve cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery), they've chosen to go back to Plan A.

Stereotypes, extremist rhetoric, and lies.

From an interview with Jorge Ramos of Univision, via Huffington Post -
RAMOS: But you understand people were upset that you said that the majority of undocumented immigrants were drug mules when in reality they are not. The majority are not.


BREWER: Well, if you know; if you are coming across with the drug cartels, and you're hauling drugs, then you are. And they're probably not doing it willingly; they are probably not doing it willingly.

RAMOS: Do you still believe the majority are drug mules? The majority of undocumented immigrants are bringing drugs to this country?

BREWER: I think that it has increased. I think that it has increased.
If The Debate was Brewer's "Brain Fart" moment, this could well be her "doubling down on a pair of 8s when Goddard is showing a 10" moment.

We'll know in November if her ploy is effective.

Later...

Sunday, September 19, 2010

Fact Checking the Arizona Republic

Wherein I have the opportunity to correct one (or more) career journalists on the facts...

One of the advantages of doing this is that I've learned a *lot* about the technical aspects of Arizona politics.  Probably not as much as if I had been a student in one of Harry Mitchell's civics classes at Tempe High, but I've learned enough to actually help out Capitol tour guides on at least one occasion at the legislature.

So my eyebrows raised a little on Sunday when I read this passage from the Arizona Republic's Political Insider column -
Brewer may not have a second in command, but Secretary of State Ken Bennett seems to think he is capable of filling the job.

The "No. 2 spot," as Bennett described his office this week, would get a more powerful title if voters pass Proposition 111. The Nov. 2 ballot measure would essentially eliminate the office of secretary of state, transferring its duties to a newly created lieutenant-governor position.

Bennett said he won't take a stance on propositions that are under his watch as Arizona's current secretary of state, but he supports any "concept" that would make it clear that a vote for secretary of state could be a de facto vote for governor.

During an interview on Wednesday with The Arizona Republic's Editorial Board, Bennett said voters need a reminder that the position he holds is first in line to take over if Arizona's governor dies, resigns or, say, is recruited by the president to be the head of U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

When Brewer, Arizona's former secretary of state, took over for Janet Napolitano, Brewer appointed Bennett to her old job. Now, he is asking voters to elect him as secretary of state over challenger Chris Deschene, D-Window Rock. If he wins, and Prop. 111 passes, voters will be calling him Lt. Gov. Bennett.
Ummm...not-so-minor problem with that last paragraph - if Bennett wins in November, it's highly unlikely that anyone will *ever* refer to him as "Lt. Gov. Bennett."

Even if Prop. 111 passes (far from guaranteed) and survives some inevitable legal challenges (not likely, but more on that tomorrow or Tuesday after I make some phone calls), it won't go into effect until the 2014 cycle.

At that point, if Bennett wins this year, he'll be termed-out as Secretary of State and will be barred from running for the newly-renamed office. 

There *are* a couple of scenarios where Bennett could run for a possible Lt. Governorship.

1. He could lose this year (I like this one - vote Deschene!) and choose to run for it in 2014.

2. He could win this year, serve out the term, take a full term off to reset the term limits clock, and then run for the office again in 2018.

These two scenarios seem highly unlikely.  Regardless of this year's results in the SOS race, if Bennett runs for a statewide office in 2014, it will probably be for Governor.

- If Terry Goddard wins the November election for Governor, look for Bennett, Dean Martin, and one or two other R "big names" to look at challenging him in 2014.

- If Jan Brewer wins in November, she'll be termed-out in 2014 and the race will be for an open seat, and again, Bennett would be in the mix of Rs looking at the seat.

Adding to that is the fact that Bennett is both young enough (~50) and far enough up in Arizona's political food chain that he is still on the "up or out" political trajectory.  Taking a term off and then running for an office he has already held would be seen as the end of the "ascendancy" portion of his career and serve to reduce his credibility as a candidate overall.

Put it all together and neither Bennett nor Deschene (whichever one wins in November) will be referred to as "Lieutenant Governor" after the election, and Bennett will likely never run for that particular office in the event Prop. 111 passes the voters.


More on Prop. 111 later this week...

Arizona's descent in "Third World" social and economic status continues

Let's see, after generations of Republican control of the legislature...

- Arizona has one of the most overcrowded and underfunded education systems in the country (more here and here)...

- Arizona has a literacy rate below the U.S. national average...which is already below that of places like Samoa, Mongolia, and Uzbekistan...

- Arizona now has the 2nd highest percentage of its population living in poverty in the United States...but hey, at least we're ahead of Mississippi!...

- Arizona has the third-highest teen pregnancy rate in the U.S...

On top of all this (and more.  I could have done this for hours) comes the latest news of the state's epic failure of leadership.

From an Arizona Republic article -
Worries about Arizona's economic future led a financial-services company this month to downgrade the state's debt rating, which could make it more expensive for the government to borrow money.

Moody's Investors Service lowered the state's debt rating from Aa2 to Aa3, citing the state's economic weakness, budget deficit and reliance on non-recurring revenue sources such as selling off and leasing back state buildings.
Hmmm... the state's "economic weakness, budget deficit" and the accounting sleight-of-hand used to "balance" the budget have led to skeptical views of the state's ability to meet its financial obligations?


No wonder Jan Brewer is running only on her "demonize Mexicans" campaign plank and Republicans all over the state are running away from direct debates with any ballot opponents.


BTW - While Arizona *is* ahead of Mississippi in terms of poverty rate, Mississippi is ahead of AZ in terms of credit rating.

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Jan Brewer and failed leadership: This week's lession

Jan Brewer has staked out "border security" and immigration as her signature issue during her campaign for a full term as governor of Arizona, hence her now-infamous signing of SB1070.

She hasn't anything substantial on the matter (even SB1070 turns out to have been somewhat unconstitutional), but her speeches on the subject have been paragons of bluster and bloviating, which was likely the real purpose of the whole "sign SB1070"/"embrace the nativists" two-step.

And when she has the chance to engage is something a little more substantial than speeches as local Republican organizations, well, she doesn't.

From the Arizona Republic -
Brewer not at U.S, Mexico governors meeting

SANTA FE, N.M. - U.S. and Mexican border governors are gathering in Santa Fe to focus on border security, economic development and energy.

Gov. Bill Richardson and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger are co-hosting the event scheduled to begin Sunday.

{snip}

The governors of Arizona and Texas have said they will not attend.
Contrary to the rumor circulating around the internet (a rumor that I may be starting right now :) ), she didn't pass on the conference because New Mexico has border checkpoints* to keep the riff raff out.   She didn't want to be embarrassed when she failed the literacy test by failing to correctly spell "Albuquerque."

Nope.  This conference was originally scheduled to take place in Arizona.  Some of the Mexican governors who were scheduled to be in Arizona expressed objections to SB1070 and were going to boycott the conference.  Brewer objected to their objections and cancelled the conference.

And now that they are holding it anyway, she refuses to attend, even to discuss economic issues, something that the [alleged] leader of the 2nd-poorest state in the nation should pay attention to.

Or would, if she had any "leader" in her personality.

Debates for the week of September 20, 2010

Most info from the website of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

Statewide candidates:

Secretary of State
September 22, 2010

7:00 PM - 7:30 PM
Televised on KAET
Horizon Channel 8


Legislative candidates:

LD18
Monday, September 20, 2010

6:00 PM
Phoenix Mesa Marriott Hotel
200 N Centennial Way
Mesa, AZ 85201


LD3
Tuesday, September 21, 2010

6:00 PM
Bullhead Area Chamber of Commerce Conference Center
1251 Highway 95
Bullhead City, AZ 86429

LD8
September 21, 2010

6:30 PM
Kerr Cultural Center
6110 N Scottsdale Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85253

 
LD2
Wednesday, September 22, 2010

6:00 PM
Woodlands Radisson Hotel
1175 W Route 66
Flagstaff, AZ 86001


LD7
Thursday, September 23, 2010

6:00 PM
Appaloosa Library
City of Scottsdale
7377 E Silverstone Rd
Scottsdale, AZ 85255


Scottsdale City Council candidate forum (complete community meeting notice here):

Brown Avenue Merchants City Council Debates
Monday, September 20, 2010
6:00 p.m.

City Hall Kiva Forum
3939 N. Drinkwater Blvd.



Later...