The 2010 ballot questions...

Early ballots drop next week, and the deadline for registering to vote in November's election is on Monday, so it is time to start discussing specific positions on the ballot questions (and the timing is also good because it ties in with yesterday's post)...

There are 10 statewide ballot questions this November. The legislature placed nine of them on the ballot, usually but not always on party-line votes.


While I have provided a very brief summary of the propositions (with my intended votes), with links to the actual text, other groups have put together far more comprehensive summaries -

The Arizona Secretary of State has released a Ballot Measures Publicity Pamphlet. It can be found at http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/contents.htm.  It contains the language of the propositions, a summary of each proposition from the Legislative Council, and “for” and “against” arguments.

When they have completed it, the Arizona Advocacy Network will have its own summary of the ballot propositions at http://www.azadvocacy.org/resources/ballotguides.html.

The Arizona chapter of the League of Women Voters has a guide to the propositions out, too - http://www.lwvaz.org/azvoterservice/LWV%202010%20Voter%20Guide.pdf


The first seven questions are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution, and all were placed on the ballot by the legislature.

Note: where the name of a national organization is indicated as opposing or supporting a specific measure, unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the Arizona chapter of that national organization.

Proposition 106 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202014.pdf

Prop. 106 is an anti-health care reform supported by the insurance industry. It would bar the creation of a single-payer health insurance system or a viable “public option.” Based on arguments submitted for the publicity pamphlet, the measure is supported by the insurance industry, Republican Party, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party. It is opposed by the Green Party, NOW, Arizona Association of Retired Persons, Arizona Education Association, and the League of Women Voters. The medical community seems split, but most of the MDs/RNs who submitted “for” arguments had them paid for by one or another insurance industry front group.

NO.


Proposition 107 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202019.pdf

Prop. 107 would bar affirmative action measures and rules. It is supported by Republicans like Russell Pearce, Tom Horne, and Rachel Alexander (a lawyer who worked for Andrew Thomas as a communications person). It is opposed by the Arizona Education Association, League of Women Voters, NOW, Greater Phoenix Urban League, and Ann Wallack, chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.

Hell NO.


Proposition 109 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202008.pdf

Prop. 109 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would give the right to hunt and fish in Arizona the same status as the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. It is supported by various Republicans, including Jan Brewer, and hunting and fishing advocacy groups. Opposed by the Humane Society and the Sierra Club.

NO.


Proposition 110 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201047.pdf

Prop. 110 would change the rules regarding state trust lands to allow the exchange of lands in order to protect Arizona’s military bases. Supported by a wide variety of groups; no “against” arguments were submitted for the publicity pamphlet.  While this measure has a lot of support, I’m hesitant about one clause.

Section D.4. (emphasis mine) -

D. Nothing herein IN THIS SECTION, or elsewhere in THIS article X contained, shall prevent:

4. THE DISPOSITION OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS, OR THE RESTRICTION OF INTERESTS OR RIGHTS IN LANDS, HELD IN TRUST UNDER THIS ARTICLE, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT OR AUCTION...

Yeah...that language would allow the lege and a state government dominated by hacks to get rid lands meant to benefit Arizona and its education system and to do so without public notice.


There are specific conditions under which such transfers would be allowed, but without public oversight, who would know if those conditions were being met?

Pardon my cynicism, but NO.


Proposition 111 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201013.pdf

Prop. 111 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would change the title of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor and require a party’s nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor to run as a single ticket in the general election. This one has a major problem that may not survive a legal challenge – the language of the proposition passed by the legislature effectively bars independent candidates from ever running for either position.

I understand and empathize the rationale behind the desire for creating a Lieutenant Governor in Arizona, but this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.

NO.


Proposition 112 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202018.pdf

Prop. 112 would change the deadline for submitting signatures for initiative petitions to six month before a general election. Current law requires petition signatures to be submitted four months before a general election. Many arguments in favor; none were submitted against the proposition.

There are 10 questions on the ballot.  The legislature has submitted nine of them, and the citizens of Arizona only one.  Yet the lege sees fit to make it more difficult for *citizens* to propose ballot questions?

NO.


Proposition 113 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201001.pdf

Prop. 113 is an anti-“card check” measure that would require a secret ballot in any election, including union organizing efforts. Supported by various industry groups; opposed by unions and the Arizona Advocacy Network.

NO.



Proposition 203 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf

Prop. 203 would legalize the use of small amounts of marijuana for medically prescribed purposes. This is the only proposition placed on the ballot via the initiative petition process. Supported by patients; opposed by anti-drug use groups and law enforcement officials.

Probable YES.


Proposition 301 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202002.pdf

Prop. 301 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and sweep all funds from the Land Conservation Fund. Supported by the anti-tax group Arizona Tax Research Association; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, The Sonoran Institute, and the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy.

Proposition 302 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202001.pdf

Prop. 302 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and terminate the First Things First early childhood education program and sweep all of its funds into the state’s General Fund. Supported by the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Tax Research Association, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Valley of the Sun United Way, League of Women Voters, Pima County Pediatric Society, United Way of Yuma County, Arizona Public Health Association, Stand for Children Arizona, United Way of Northern Arizona, NOW, Arizona Dental Association, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Arizona Child Care Association, Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition (PAFCO), Arizona School Boards Association, First Things First, Children's Action Alliance, Eddie and Nadine Basha, ASU president Michael Crow, former governor Rose Mofford, and former governor Raul Castro.

Hell NO on both of these.  They're shortsighted and soulless attempts to use the state's structural deficit, something created by Republicans with their never-ending drive to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, as a wedge to attack programs mandated by the voters.

The Republicans in the legislature simply want to siphon money intended for purposes that provide a long-term to benefit society into corporate coffers to pump up short-term profit margins via even more directed tax cuts and credits.

Arizona has a strong tendency of voting against ballot measures that seem to be even the least bit hinky; this year, that would be a good attitude for all voters to take with them when they vote.  Most of the measures have serious issues in regard to who they really benefit (hint: not average Arizonans!) or in how poorly they were drafted.

Do the Republicans really think "arrogant snit" is a viable political position?

Picture from the R blog Sonoran Alliance


A new group advocating for the interests of Arizona's taxpayers has formed, and damn, are the Republicans pissed.

Sonoran Alliance has a press release up from the Arizona chapter of the industry front group Americans for Prosperity in which AFP announces a press conference on Friday and decries the new group as "fake" and "so-called"...

ICArizona (aka the Goldwater Institute's press release webpage) has the same piece up also touting the press conference on Friday.  And calling the new group "fake" and "so-called"...

Greg at Espresso Pundit was more original, but also went completely over the top - he equated the new group to the faux-Green candidates that the Rs recruited for a number of close races to fool voters who might otherwise vote Democrats.

This must be a pretty dastardly group to rouse the ire of such steadfast and proper defenders of corporate profit margins *decent Americans.*  Who could be behind such a devious group?

Democrats.

Seriously, their biggest complaint is that the group Arizona Taxpayers Association is headed by Democrats.

Apparently, they are deeply offended by the mere idea that anyone other than them could dare to speak for Arizona taxpayers.

Even though Patterson, Sonoran Alliance, the Goldwater Institute, and Americans for Prosperity don't actually care about Arizona's taxpayers, their families, their communities or the state as a whole.

BTW - the only way that the "fake" finger-pointing or the analogy to the faux-Green candidates would work is if the people behind the Arizona Taxpayers Association do not now and have never paid any taxes.

Patterson et. al. have presented no evidence to that effect, nor do I expect them to ever present independently verifiable evidence to that effect.

Manny Cruz calls for Joe Hart to resign for fraud

Manuel Cruz, candidate for Arizona State Mine Inspector, announced this morning that he had filed a complaint with Attorney General Terry Goddard against incumbent state mine inspector Joe Hart for illegally assuming office in 2006.

Cruz presented evidence that Joe Hart did not have the required four years of underground mining experience when he signed a sworn affidavit attesting to his qualification for the office in 2006. “I am calling upon Joe Hart to resign from office immediately and suspend his reelection campaign,” said Cruz.


In 2006, the requirements for the job of mine inspector included a provision that candidates for/holders of the office have at least four years of underground mining experience, something that Hart never even claimed to have.  The mining experience that Hart took an oath swearing that he had was all with a surface mining company.

This year, Hart's former colleagues in the Arizona legislature passed an industry-lobbyist-written bill to lower the qualifications threshold for the office, slipping the new language into an "omnibus" mining bill, HB2617.  In that bill, they removed the requirement that the mine inspector have any experience in underground mining.

Besides being a tool for the mining industry in a job that was created specifically to ensure the safety of miners, Hart didn't even meet the basic qualifications for the position when he first ran for it.  No one noticed in 2006, when the only people running for the job were Republicans. 

It's no coincidence that the people who were most supportive of the lower qualifications threshold were the mining industry lobbyists who have benefited the most from Hart's apparently fraudulent hold on the office (the videos of the committee meetings on the bill can be found at the bottom of this page).


More information about Manuel Cruz, his background, and his candidacy can be found on his website.

AZ Republic endorsements

The Republic has started issuing its general election endorsements.

...The contest for the five open seats on the board of the directors of the Central Arizona Project, aka Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD) on the ballot, covered in an article published Tuesday.

From the article (links added by me) -

From an airplane, you can easily see what voters might not realize on the ground: The contest for five seats on the Central Arizona Water Conservation District board of directors will have an enormous impact on our future.

The 15-member board oversees our supply of water from the Colorado River, delivered through the Central Arizona Project canal that so vividly cuts through the desert to reach the Phoenix and Tucson areas.

But a slate of candidates with narrow, short-term goals is threatening the long-term stability of our water supplies. They aim to shrink the water conservation district's role so drastically that it will be unable to do vital analysis and long-range planning. What a disaster for a desert state.

{snip}

Current board member Tim Bray, a Scottsdale water consultant, is thoroughly versed in the wide range of issues, from finding supplies to assisting rural areas (in the long-term self-interest of cities), that must be addressed.

Former Phoenix City Manager Frank Fairbanks offers the perspective of municipal water users, along with a track record of working cooperatively on complex problems.

Jim Holway of Phoenix has extensive experience in water management, including nine years as assistant director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. His involvement in land and conservation issues would add depth to the board.

Engineer Arif Kazmi of Chandler would bring welcome technical knowledge of water delivery.

As former general manager of CAP, Sid Wilson knows its complete inner workings and the practical implications of policy decisions.

I definitely agree with the endorsements of Kazmi and Holway - they've got the kind of "real-world" experience in handling water resources that the board sorely needs.  As for the others, I don't have any serious issues with their candidacies, but haven't done a lot of research on the rest of the candidates as yet.

Another thing in the article that I definitely agree with is the sentiment that concluded the article (emphasis mine) -

The stakes are higher than ever. A shortsighted, rigid, ideological approach is truly dangerous to our long-term water supplies. Voters should put candidates with vision on CAP's board of directors.

Voters should apply that sentiment when voting for all offices, not just CAWCD.  Arizona's future is depending on it.


As more major endorsements roll in, I'll discuss them here.

Later...

Hypocrisy, thy name is Brewer

Yes, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples to choose from to support the headline.  I'm going to go with the most recent example...

From the Arizona Republic (emphasis mine) -

Gov. Jan Brewer and the director of Science Foundation Arizona this morning told assembled scientists from around the world that Arizona will become a center for research and production for algae fuels.

In announcing $4 million in grants and matching funds from government and industry, Brewer said the investment could produce billions of dollars for the state and millions of gallons of fuel.

{snip}

Brewer said the state will commit $2 million in discretionary federal stimulus to the research center, which will be matched by a like amount in industry investment marshalled by Arizona State University and the Science Foundation.

This is nothing new for Brewer - she has steadily opposed even the existence of any federal effort to stimulate the economy, but has repeatedly (and gleefully) claimed credit for doling out stimulus money that she has denounced.

Denounced everywhere except in her campaign's press releases.

More background on Brewer's two-faced approached to federal stimulus money here.

Edit to add:

Turns out great minds think alike, and greater minds do some deeper research.

From a press release from the Arizona Democratic Party, a list of examples of Brewer's crowing about doling out stimulus money that she opposes, from just since the beginning of August -

Last 6 weeks of Brewer press releases taking credit for job creation from stimulus funding:


Aug. 11 “Governor Jan Brewer and City of Surprise Welcome Rioglass Solar to Arizona” ($10.6 million)

Aug. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Innovation Grants” ($3.4 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Success in Obtaining College Access Challenge Grant to Aid Low-Income Students” ($2.9 million)

Aug. 17 “Governor Jan Brewer Hails Success in Securing Funding for Arizona Forest Restoration Initiative”  ($2 million)

Aug. 26 "Governor Jan Brewer Announces $2.7 Million in Grants for Renewable Energy Manufacturers" ($2.7 million)

Aug. 27 "Governor Jan Brewer Adds Funding Support for Public Safety" ($10 million)

Sept. 3 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Energy Awards for Rural Communities” ($2.7 million)

Sept. 8 “Governor Jan Brewer Establishes Rural Business Council Focused on Job Growth in Rural Areas”  ($2 million)

Sept. 13 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Economic Aid for Rural Counties” ($2.5 million)

Sept. 14 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Broadband Award” ($39.2 million)

Sept. 16 “Governor Jan Brewer Announces Funding for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics”

($0.1 million)

Sept. 28 “Governor Jan Brewer Dedicates Funding to Advance Algae Technologies and Innovations” ($2 million)

Total: $80.1 million

End edit...

Oh, and assuming that the Rs retain control of the Arizona legislature after November's election, expect them to look for a way seize "sweep" Science Foundation Arizona's funds in a "budget-balancing" move.  They've attacked SFAz before and will do so again until they are successful in finding a way to destroy it.

No matter how foolish their actions, pushing an ideology trumps serving the public for these folks, from Brewer on down.

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.

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...

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...

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...

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...

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...