The two wings of the AZGOP waging a civil war for control...

...not of their party, but for the carcass of Arizona...

This is the time of year when the political parties "reorganize" - elect new/reelect old leadership and prepare for the next political cycle.  The Democrats do it; the Republicans do it, even the Libertarians and the Greens do it.

Right now, the local chapters of the major parties are holding their reorg meetings, electing their own leadership as well as delegates to their respective parties' state committee.

Those state committee members will elect new state party leadership slates in January.

The Democrats have experienced some changes in local leadership roles, but most (all?) of those transitions have been peaceful progressions as the state's minority party tries to learn from and adapt to the results of November 2nd's results.

The Republicans?  Not so much, not with the learning, and most certainly not with the peaceful.

 - The LD11 Republicans effectively deposed Randy Pullen, chair of the AZGOP for the last two cycles (four years) by not reelecting him to their state committee.  As he won't be a state committee member, he cannot run for a state party office.  The rift has been widely credited to "establishment" Republicans (in the persons of John McCain supporters) taking back control of the district from "tea party" Republicans (in the persons of supporters of Pullen).

- The LD22 Republicans have their own "establishment v. tea party" dynamic going on, with some serious nastiness going on in the weeks leading up to their reorg meeting. 

- The LD19 Republicans had some ballot box stuffing and interesting use of proxies going on in their reorganization meeting, and the root cause of the strife seemed to stem from a "tea party v. establishment" conflict.

All of this may lead to a messy state party reorganization meeting in January, or the establishment wing of the AZGOP may have effectively silenced the tea partiers by then.

Since it looks like that the "establishment" types are ascendant, the January meeting may be a public rubber stamping of whatever they've put together by then.

Until that time, however, let me provide a pictorial summary of the Rs' LD reorganization meetings -

Pic courtesy the Flickr page of user savagetom2008











Let's call the carcass on the ground "Arizona."  I'll leave it to readers to figure out for themselves which GOPer wing is represented by the jackal, and which is represented by the vultures.

And time for a blast from the (recent) past - one of the folks mentioned in the LD22 article linked above was Trish Groe, a former state rep from LD3.  In early 2007, she was arrested for DUI.  After a lot of legal contortions (it was a felony-level DUI, then it wasn't, it was going to be prosecuted by La Paz County, then Yuma County, then Maricopa County, then there was a plea deal, then there wasn't), she finally lost her seat in the 2008 primary.  And disappeared from public view.

Until now.

Later...

Scottsdale Mayor Lane discarding expertise of Scottsdale residents...

...if the resident with that expertise is associated with an outgoing member of the City Council...

An email update from the Coalition of Greater Scottsdale (COGS) confirms something I had overheard, that members of City task forces who were appointed by outgoing council members Wayne Ecton and Tony/Marg Nelssen will be removed from their task forces and replaced by appointees of the newest members of the Council, Linda Milhaven and Dennis Robbins.

The email wonders if this is allowed under the rules in Scottsdale (City Charter and/or ordinances).  I'm not sure as the Charter and ordinances are unclear on the status of task forces (a lack of clarity that Lane is almost certainly taking advantage of), but while the City's commissions and boards are specifically covered in both Charter and ordinance language, task forces don't seem to be.

Article 5 of the Scottsdale City Charter gives the Council the authority to "create, change, and abolish boards or commissions" at its discretion, but nothing specifies the appointment procedures.

Section 2-241 of the City Code seems to apply here.

Part (b) specifies

"All members of appointive boards and commissions shall be appointed by and serve without compensation at the pleasure of the council."

Part (d) specifies

"Appointment to a board or commission, except the public safety personnel retirement system board and the personnel board, shall be for a term of three (3) years or until a successor is appointed. "

In short, and in practice, members of boards and commissions are appointed by the Council as a whole and the appointees serve specific terms on those boards and commissions.

However, the only place where task forces and task force members are mentioned is in the clauses of the City's code of ethics that say that the code of ethics applies to members of task forces. 

Otherwise, task forces are more temporary and "ad hoc" than the more formal boards and commissions.

The practice during the Lane administration regarding task forces has been for each member of the Council to directly appoint one member while the Mayor appoints the chair of the task force.

While there is nothing in the City's charter or code that clearly allows that practice, there also isn't anything barring it, either.

Whew.  :)

With all that as background, it seems petty and shortsighted of the Lane regime to discard folks who have been working on a given issue for up to a year or longer simply because of a change in the composition of the Council. 

This seems particularly so given the intent that task forces are temporary.  The time needed for new members to get up to speed can only needlessly lengthen the time that a task force has to spend on its given task, creating inefficiencies in both the use of taxpayer resources and in simple government operations.

Something that a "small government" enthusiast like Lane should find anathema to his professed ideology.

Only he doesn't apparently.

The newest blockbuster for your video game console...

Thanks to a friend for the graphic...

Jan Brewer has lied repeatedly about the reason that transplants aren't covered any longer, usually blaming the new federal health care reform law for it.  Even though she signed the transplant funding cuts into law well before HCR was passed.

When she isn't blaming HCR, she likes to blame the federal stimulus law, saying that it barred cuts to states' Medicaid programs (AZ's is AHCCCS) by any states that accepted stimulus money.  Her story is that since AHCCCS was untouchable, cuts had to come from elsewhere.

The reality is that AHCCCS *wasn't* untouchable, here or anywhere else, and was, in fact, subject to cuts.  Which she and her cronies in the lege started implementing almost from the moment she took over the governor's office.

During the furor over health care reform, many Republicans liked to scream about "government death panels."

Too bad most listeners didn't realize that the screamers were talking about the "death panels" that they themselves were part of.

...Look for Brewer and Co.'s summer movie release of a Pearce/Adams production costarring the state's AHCCCS enrollees and the state's food stamp recipients.

Soylent Green.


- yeah, it's a little gross, but at this point, pretending that Brewer, Pearce, and the rest of the Capitol gang are decent human beings who just happen to hold different political positions than I do is just a waste of energy,

And a lie.

Agenda posted for Redistricting Commission interviews

On Wednesday, December 8, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will meet to interview Democratic, Independent, and Republican applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The meeting starts at 8 a.m.; the interviews commence at 9 a.m.

The agenda -

COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENTS


A G E N D A

December 8, 2010

State Courts Building
1501 West Washington
Room 345
Phoenix, Arizona

8:00 a.m. Call to Order ...................................... Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch

Call for Public Comment

Legal Advice from Attorney General Regarding Eligibility Questions

Note: This discussion may be conducted in executive session in order to promote open and frank discussion of applicant qualifications, upon motion and approval by two-thirds of the members in attendance.

Approval of Interview Questions

Note: This discussion may be conducted in executive session to avoid public disclosure of the questions before the interviews, upon motion and approval by two-thirds of the members in attendance.

Approval of November 16 Minutes

Disqualifications and Disclosures

9:15 a.m. Interviews of Democratic Applicants

10:30 a.m. Discussion of Democratic Applicants and Interviews

Note: This discussion may include one or more executive sessions, if necessary for frank discussion of applicant qualifications, upon motion and approval by two-thirds of the members in attendance.

Selection of Democratic Nominees

Note: All voting will be conducted in public session in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(5).

11:00 a.m. Interviews of Independent Applicants

11:50 a.m. Discussion of Independent Applicants and Interviews

Note: This discussion may include one or more executive sessions, if necessary for frank discussion of applicant qualifications, upon motion and approval by two-thirds of the members in attendance.

Selection of Independent Nominees

Note: All voting will be conducted in public session in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(5).

12:15 p.m. Lunch

1:00 p.m. Interviews of Republican Applicants

2:15 p.m. Discussion of Republican Applicants and Interviews

Note: This discussion may include one or more executive sessions, if necessary for frank discussion of applicant qualifications, upon motion and approval by two-thirds of the members in attendance.

Selection of Republican Nominees

Note: All voting will be conducted in public session in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 133(c)(5).

Adjourn

Public Notice: In accordance with Supreme Court Rule 130(f), the Commission shall hold an executive session upon a two-thirds vote of the Commissioners in attendance in order to promote open and frank discussion of applicant qualifications or to conduct a portion of an interview. To encourage frank discussion, the substance of deliberations in executive session shall not be disclosed by a Commissioner.

Supreme Court Rules 130(f) and 133(c)(5) can be found here.
 
Later...
 

Short Attention Span Musing

...Not sure what it means, but why is it that many of the same Republicans who pontificated that Congressional Democrats messed up big-time when they re-elected Nancy Pelosi as leader in the House after the ugly results from November 2, yet they are gleeful now that they have deposed the GOP state and Maricopa County chairs after the buttkicking that was inflicted on the Democrats (and the rest of the state) because of those same results.

Apparently, they are replacing the GOP symbol of an elephant with a circular firing squad...

...I am probably one of the few on this side of this particular issue, but I've got very little sympathy for the people who are all up in arms about new airport security procedures.  Too many of them, such as certain Republican congressmen, were all in favor of things like a secret "no-fly" list, data mining, and racial and ethnic profiling, pooh-poohing any civil rights concerns as subordinate to security concerns.

Yet now that some of the enhanced security procedures are things that they find concerning, they want to subordinate everybody else's security to their own tender sensibilities. 

I don't like the new procedures, but I don't like getting blown up, either.

And I really don't like hypocrites.

...Republicans, like Arizona's own embarrassment "Congressman" Trent Franks are furious that the first Guantanamo detainee to be tried in a civilian court was acquitted on all but one of the hundreds of charges he faced.  Terms like "travesty of justice" are being thrown around, along with calls for the resignation of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and demands that all other trials be held in front of military tribunals, which have a different (lower?) burden of proof for the prosecution to meet.

No matter how this goes forward, there are certain to be cries of outrage from *somebody* - either the Obama Administration backs away from treating the detainees like common criminals and its pledge to try the cases in civilian courts (annoying Democrats and other civil libertarians) or it goes forward with civilian court trials (annoying Republicans to no end). 

In addition, backing away from civilian trials could undermine the credibility of the Obama Administration internationally, yet losing too many of the cases could accomplish the same thing.

Thank the Bush Administration for this mess, and that's not a partisan zinger (don't get used to it :) ).

By having the primary responsibility to gather the evidence and build the cases against the detainees fall to the military, he all but guaranteed the cases would never survive real scrutiny.  He (and his administration) should have allowed the professional investigators and prosecutors of the FBI and DOJ to take the lead in this area, and left the military to do what they do best.

However, people can say "woulda, coulda, shoulda" all that they want, but reality is what it is, and that's what we have to deal with.

Perhaps we should remember one fundamental principle of the American system of justice -

The principle that there is a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused is the undoubted law, axiomatic and elementary, and its enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.


Coffin v. United States, 156 U.S. 432 (1895)

While the possible acquittal of guilty people would be ("will be"?) frustrating, being seen as rigging the trials of accused terrorists will be worse.

If the cases are now referred to military courts (to unruffle domestic political feathers) and it turns out that an innocent bystander was imprisoned and convicted by a military tribunal (not exactly out of the realm of probability), the U.S. will have zero credibility in the Middle East and across the world.

Credibility it will need the next time that the U.S. needs to do something there, whether it is work on brokering a peace deal between Israel and whoever is trying to destroy them this week, searching for terrorists, or just looking for a place to vacation over the holidays.

Update on the Redistricting Commission screen process

The next meeting will be held on Wednesday, December 8.  Interviews, both in-person and telephonic, will be conducted.

All of the applications can be viewed here; a list of the candidates who made the first cut is here.

From an email that was forwarded to me (and there was nothing in the email indicating that the information is confidential or not otherwise subject to public disclosure) -

Dear {Name of Applicant}:


Congratulations on your successful completion of the initial phase of the nomination process for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission. The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments is pleased to invite you to join us for an interview for inclusion on the list to be forwarded for appointments to the Redistricting Commission.

The Commission will conduct interviews on Wednesday, December 8, at the Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 West Washington, Phoenix. Please arrive promptly by 9:00 a.m. and sign in at the reception desk on the 3rd floor. The Commission will interview applicants registered with a Democratic affiliation shortly thereafter. Please allow sufficient time for parking in the Arizona State Capitol Complex and to pass through security screening at the State Courts Building. The attached map highlights the building location and nearby parking lots.

The Commission will pose a few questions and then ask that you offer a one-minute statement explaining why you should be appointed to the Redistricting Commission. We anticipate that your entire interview will last no more than three to five minutes.

Please reply to this email to confirm that you can attend at 9:00 a.m. on December 8. If you cannot appear in person and would like to appear telephonically instead, please reply with a telephone number at which we can reach you between 9:15 and 10:30 that morning.

We look forward to speaking with you on December 8.

Sincerely,

Rebecca White Berch
Chief Justice
Chair

My respect goes out to applicants of whatever political persuasion (or non-persuasion) who actually travel to Phoenix from the nether reaches of the state for what even the chair of the selection commission admits will take no more than three to five minutes of their time.

In my previous post on this subject, I wrote that the next meeting would be on Monday, December 6.  That information was obviously incorrect (I expect that Chief Justice Berch, who is the chair of the Appellate Courts Appointments Commission, has a pretty solid knowledge of the Commission's meeting schedule :) ) and has been updated.

I'm not sure exactly what time that they will be interviewing the Republican and Independent candidates on the 8th, but it probably won't be any earlier.  :)

At least, I hope not, because I won't be arriving to cover the meeting until almost 9 a.m. :))

Welcome to health care "reform" Arizona-style: BrewerCare

The term "BrewerCare" gleefully stolen from friend and strong Veterans and YD activist Cole...

Republican "governance" in a nutshell, using Arizona as an object lesson:

- Push for tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy, while heavily pimping a sales tax hike that disproportionately affects poor and working families...

- Embrace an anti-immigrant law that would be utterly ineffective at reducing the number of undocumented immigrants crossing the border, but would directly benefit Jan Brewer's (and Shadow Governor Russell Pearce's?) advisers/puppeteers from CCA

- Push for cuts to Arizona's Medicaid program, AHCCCS, that caused a patient, one already prepped for life-saving liver transplant surgery, to be discharged from the hospital because AHCCCS now won't cover the cost of the surgery (for a liver donated specifically to him by a dying family friend)...

- - The Democratic caucus of the Arizona House of Representatives has a press release containing some of the history behind the specific cuts here.

...Just a little sneak preview of what 2011 will hold for Arizona and the country with the Republicans running things...

List of Redistricting Commission applicants pared down to 40

The Commission of Appellate Court Appointments met on Monday to solicit public comment on the more than 70 applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Ultimately, the leadership in the lege will choose four members (2 Ds and 2 Rs) and those four will select the fifth member, an Independent, who will serve as chair.

On Monday, the Appellate Court Appointments commission set up the process for their part in the process - they eliminated a number of applicants, mostly on the grounds that they didn't meet the legal requirements for membership on the redistricting commission (i.e. - they'd changed their party registrations within the last three years).

The list of applicants who made the "shorter list" will be interviewed at a meeting in December and a "short list" for the legislative leaders to choose from will be constituted.

The 40 who made the first cut, from Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic (typos left unchanged, but links to the applicants' public applications added) -

The Republicans:

Jim Bruner, Scottsdale

Louis Armando De Leon, Phoenix

Scott Day Freeman, Phoenix

Christopher Mark Gleason, Tucson

Patrick McWhortor, Cave Creek

Jeffrey D. Miller, Tucson

Micahel Reddick Perry, Phoenix

Crystal A. Russell, Gilbert

Mark Edward Schnepf, Gilbert

Leslie Ann Schwalbe, Tempe

Susan Fried Shultz, Paradise Valley

Stephen J. Sossaman, Queen Creek

Richard Stertz, Tucson

Lynn Werner, Tempe

Benny E. White, Tucson


The Democrats:

Marcia J. Busching, Phoenix

Robert Lawrence Cannon, Phoenix

Frances Baker Dickman, Phoenix

Luis Armando Gonzales, Tucson

Eric Bruce Henderson, Holbrook

José Manuel Herrera, Phoenix

Michael Kuby, Tempe

Linda C. McNulty, Tucson

Lawrence Charles Mohrweis, Flagstaff

William Garfitt Roe, Tucson

Mark David Rubin, Tucson

S.L. "Si" Schoor, Tucson

Jimmie Dee Smith, Yuma

Marshall A. Worden, Tucson


The independents (not a D or an R)

Paul Bender, Phoenix

Raymond Frank Bladine, Phoenix

Doug Campos-Outcalt, Phoenix

Catherine Castle, Laveen

Adolfo P. Echeveste, Tempe

Kimber Layne Lanning, Phoenix

Coleen Coyle Mathis, Tucson

Timothy Warren Overton, Avondale

Margarita Silva, Laveen

Linda Spears, Tempe

Eliminated in the first round was David Harowitz, a Republican lawyer and Rep. Steve Yarbrough's business partner.  The business relationship alone may or may not have been enough to disqualify Harowitz, but the fact that he tried to conceal that relationship...?

Making the first cut was Paul Bender, a highly esteemed ASU law professor.  The Republicans, in the person of blogger Greg Patterson, tried to smear him as "ACLU," "liberal," and as violating the bar against members holding public office because he is involved with various tribal courts.

Of course, left out of his screed were the facts that the ACLU is non-partisan, that "liberal" is a label that doesn't denote partisan affiliation, and that the tribal courts are parts of sovereign nations and don't qualify as public offices in Arizona (state, county, municipal, etc.)

It also didn't help that even Patterson conceded that "Bender is qualified and he's a brilliant guy.  He was my Arizona Constitutional Law Professor, so I know him well. "

Note:  I don't know Bender.  I was seated behind him at the meeting.  He was sitting in the back row when I arrived a few minutes late for the meeting.  I stood against the back tables with the other late arrivals (all the seats we filled) until building staff brought in another dozen or so seats.

Even though the meeting was held in the Arizona Courts Building, roughly a quarter mile from the legislature, it was like it was in a completely different world -

The meeting actually started at the posted time, 10 a.m.

After covering the legislature for four years, I'm not used to that happening down there.  :)


The interview meeting (and some may be conducted telephonically) is scheduled for Wednesday, December 8.

First 2012 Congressional candidate for the Rs?

From the Arizona Republic -

Tim La Sota, chief of staff to Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane, has resigned to join Scottsdale-based Rose Law Group, he said.

La Sota, an attorney, became Lane's chief of staff when the mayor's term began in January 2009. He will remain with the city through Nov. 26.

LaSota has already been moonlighting for the Rose Law Group, working on its defense of SB1070.  That isn't a big surprise, since he was one of uber-nativist Andrew Thomas' lobbyists/hangers-on during Thomas' tenure as Maricopa County Attorney.
There was also some hubbub recently over certain high-ranking staffers, and LaSota was one, who received lucrative raises when rank-and-file city employees are looking at stagnant or even declining pay and scaled back benefits (or the City passing an increasing portion of the costs of those benefits to the employees).  It's possible that Jim Lane/Lamar Whitmer orchestrated this to help minimize political fallout during the next election cycle.  Lane will be up for reelection then.

Still, this seems to be more a move to set up a possible electoral run in two or four years than political damage control.  In Scottsdale, the only people who care about the average City employee (or resident, for that matter) getting screwed over are the screwees themselves.

As a City employee, however, there would be all sorts of legal, ethical, and practical restrictions on his ability to raise money for and run a campaign for elected office.

Tim LaSota is the son of Jack LaSota, a former AZ attorney general and currently a lawyer and lobbyist.  His dad is an insider's insider, and the apple hasn't fallen far from the tree.. 

The question isn't *if* Tim LaSota is going to run for office, it's "when and where" will LaSota will run.

The "Party of No" is morphing into the "Party of Shameless Hypocrisy" before our eyes...

They aren't even in office, but are already enthusiastically becoming "D.C.-ified."

From TalkingPointsMemo -

Maryland physician Andy Harris (R) just soundly defeated Frank Kratovil, one of the most endangered Democrats on Capitol Hill going into the November election. And he did it in large part by railing against 'Obamacare' and pledging to repeal Health Care Reform. But when he showed on Capitol Hill today for an orientation for incoming members of Congress and their staffs, he had a different question: Where's my government health care?


According to Glenn Thrush of Politico, Harris created a stir at the orientation meeting by demanding to know why he had to wait a month after he was sworn in in January for his government-subsidized health care to kick in. After responding in a huff, he even asked if there was some way he could buy into the government care in advance, seemingly thinking there might be a government program similar to the so-called 'public option' championed by progressive Democrats in 2009.

From Harris' campaign website (before he cleanses it) -

"...the answer to the ever-rising cost of insurance is not the expansion of government-run or government-mandated insurance but, instead, common-sense market based solutions..."

I've got a "common-sense market based" solution for Mr. Harris, a practicing physician - take some of the profits from his lucrative medical practice and buy an insurance policy from a private company.

Or when he has a complaint about his health, go buy a mirror and treat himself.

The bad cruise vacation: Time for a little perspective

By now, most people have heard about the Carnival cruise ship that experienced a fire and power loss, and how the passengers had to survive for a few days on Spam and Pop-Tarts.  There have been a slew of stories in the MSM about the hardships that the passengers faced - a limited menu, few working showers, no air conditioning, etc.

To be sure, the experience that they found on the trip wasn't the experience that they signed up for, and I am glad that they did make it back to shore safely.

A little perspective is called for -

A little seasickness beats dying of cholera...

Camping out on the deck of a luxury liner while the U.S. Navy and U.S. Coast Guard scramble at top speed to alleviate the discomfort of passengers beats dying in squalor while awaiting a "rescue" effort that was hesitant and half-hearted at best...

Living on Spam and Pop Tarts (with an open bar!) beats dying on nothing...

And after a few days of discomfort, getting to return to a bright and shiny homes with flat screen TVs, microwaves, and IPods, beats surviving a few days in hell, and getting to return to...

Hell.

Just sayin'...

Ringers 2010 - Redistricting Commission Edition

As most politically active folks know, one of the reasons, perhaps the most important reason, for the decennial national census is to reapportion Congressional and state legislative representation.

Here in Arizona, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission draws the new maps (subject to preclearance by the U.S. Department of Justice, thanks to provisions of the Voting Rights Act).

The five-member Commission is formed every 10 years from a pool of applicants screened by the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.  After the screening process winnows the field of applicants down to a manageable number, four members are appointed by legislative leaders (2 Democrats, 2 Republicans).  The fifth member (an Independent) is selected by the four legislative appointees.

The next screening meeting, one where public comment on the applicants is accepted, is Tuesday, November 16.

The applications can be viewed here.


One of the applicants caught the eye of a friend of the blog (I admit, I completely missed this one in the tumult of the election season) and brought him to my attention.

David Harowitz of Tempe.

He's a Republican and a lawyer, with an office at 7517 S. McClintock, #107, in Tempe.  Remember that address.

When asked to list all of his political activities for the last ten years, he answered "Other than trying to be informed and voting, I have not been involved in any political activity."  Remember that.

When asked "6.  Is there any possible conflict of interest or other matter that would create problems or prevent you from fairly and impartially discharging your duties as an appointee to the Independent Redistricting Commission?", he marked "No."  Remember that, too.

When asked "7.  Are you now an officer, director, or majority stockholder, or otherwise engaged in the management, of any business enterprise?", he marked "Yes" and later explained "I am the President, director, and sole shareholder of David J. Harowitz, P.C., a law firm I founded.  I am the primary administrator and attorney.  I have served from 1980 to the present."  Remember that.

He later signed the application form and had his signature notarized, attesting that his answers were "true and correct."  Remember that.

Where to start, where to start?

How about that address, 7107 S. McClintock, #107?

It's the address of HY Processing, according the the records of the Arizona Corporation Commission, and he is listed as the agent of that organization.  In itself, that isn't a problem - "agent" is part of what a lawyer does. 

What is a problem however, in light of his answer to question 7 on his application, is that he his also listed as a "member" of HY Processing, along with his wife Stacy and Steven and Linda Yarbrough.

He is also the agent of the Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization Inc. (ACSTO).

ACSTO's website touts Harowitz' involvement with the formation of the organization and reveals that Steve Yarbrough is the executive director of the organization.

Steve Yarbrough is Harowitz' former law partner, as noted in Harowitz' application (seemingly, one of the few things he was up front about). 

Yarbrough was a key actor in the East Valley Tribune's series titled "Rigged Privilege."  The series delved deeply into the misuse and abuse of the state's school tuition tax credit program, pushed by Yarbrough from his position in the Arizona legislature (currently a state representative, soon to be a state senator) and benefitting Yarbrough and his partners, including Harowitz, through HY Processing.

It seems that he lied, both by commission and omission, when he attested that his only management involvement with a business enterprise was with his own personal law firm.  "What does the 'H' in 'HY Processing' stand for, Mr. Harowitz?"

Additionally, his glossing over of his heavy involvement with, and benefit from, Steve Yarbrough's business enterprises could render false his answer to question 6.  It may not rise to the level of "conflict of interest" in a technical sense (lawyers are better at splitting verbal hairs than I ever will be), but he seems to have a clear financial interest in protecting his partner Yarbrough during redistricting.

I don't know if this will be enough for the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments to pass over Harowitz' application (and this being Arizona, certain folks may consider all of this to be a recommendation for Harowitz' candidacy).

Certainly, his application should be evaluated in light of his rather flexible relationship with the truth.

Tuesday's meeting (10:15 a.m., room 345, Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington, Phoenix) will play a huge part in the determining the political course of Arizona for the next decade. 

If you find yourself able to attend, do so.

New committees and chairs announced for the AZ legislature

...and there is going to be a LOT of subject material for wiseass bloggers coming out of 1700 West Washington in 2011...

Info courtesy AP via the Arizona Daily Star.

HOUSE
Agriculture and Water, Russ Jones

Appropriations, John Kavanagh

Banking and Insurance, Nancy McLain

Commerce, Jim Weiers

Employment and Regulatory Affairs, Bob Robson

Education, Doris Goodale

Energy and Natural Resources, Frank Pratt

Environment, Amanda Reeve

Government, Judy Burges

Health and Human Services, Cecil Ash

Higher education, Innovation and Reform, Steve Court

Judiciary, Eddie Farnsworth

Military Affairs and Public Safety, David Gowan

Rules, Jerry Weiers

Technology and Infrastructure, David Stevens

Transportation, Vic Williams

Ways and Means, Jack Harper

Nothing too shocking in the House here; a couple of new committees to make room for legislative returnees Farnsworth (yes, he got Judiciary, which already exists, but Court got one of the new ones to make room for Farnsworth on an "old" committee) and Robson.  Otherwise, every committee chair went to someone who was a legislator in 2010.

SENATE



Appropriations, Andy Biggs

Water and Rural Development, Gail Griffin

Border Security, Federalism and States' Sovereignty, Sylvia Allen

Economic Development and Jobs Creation, Michele Reagan

Commerce and Energy, Al Melvin

Education, Rich Crandall

Finance, Steve Yarbrough

Government Reform, Frank Antenori

Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform, Nancy Barto

Judiciary, Ron Gould

Natural Resources and Transportation, John Nelson

Public Safety and Human Services, Linda Gray

Veterans and Military Affairs, Adam Driggs

Banking and Insurance, John McComish

Rules, Russell Pearce


Oooooh.  The Senate is going to be fun this year!

Perhaps the toughest assignment goes to Michele Reagan - "Economic Development and Job Creation"??

She may be the Senate member on the steepest upward trajectory politically, and this assignment could put her over the top for whatever office she wants after her stint in the Senate, if she succeeds.

On the other hand, if this assignment is Pearce's way of setting up a patsy in case the Rs experience an epic failure to produce an economic recovery in Arizona (not exactly out of the realm of possibility), a failure in this assignment could stall or stop her political ascension and open an opportunity for fellow LD8'er (and Pearce friend and acolyte) Rep. John Kavanagh.

Of course, the balancer to that is the Sylvia Allen assignment, "Border Security, Federalism and States' Sovereignty."  Like Kavanagh, Allen is a friend and acolyte of Pearce; unlike Kavanagh, she isn't burdened by a surfeit of intelligence.

In other words, this assignment is perfect for her.

Expect most of Pearce's anti-immigrant bills to be funnelled through this committee (they'll be his, even if he has another senator put his/her name on the measures.)

Bring your own popcorn; Kool-Aid IVs will be provided...

Steve Yarbrough's assignment to the Finance committee is also supremely interesting, in an "indictment waiting to happen" sort of way.

Senate Finance is roughly analogous to the House's Ways and Means Committee and is responsible for taxes and tax credits and the like.

When Yarbrough was in the House, he pushed through and protected Arizona's infamous school tuition tax credit law, a law that takes money out of public schools and transfers it to private schools.

And funnels it through an organization that Yarbrough controls where he takes a hefty cut of the money for himself.

For the last couple of years, most of my legislative coverage has focused on the Senate because that is where the conflict was - a couple of the members thought the devastating cuts of the last two budgets weren't harsh enough and would vote against any budget that left the state operational.

It looks as if the next couple of years will be spent with the same focus - this time because the clown cars have surrounded the Capitol, and the clowns have made the Senate building their headquarters.

Results update: Medical Marijuana now ahead!

The latest numbers are up, and while no changes in any of the races look likely, the numbers for Prop 203, the medical marijuana question, have flipped and it is now passing by over 4400 votes.

Others of note:

Prop 112, the measure sent to the ballot by the legislature that would make it more difficult for citizen-initiated to qualify for the ballot by moving back the deadline for submitting petitions by two months is passing by all of 43 votes statewide.

In the race for LD26 State Representative, Democratic incumbent Nancy Young-Wright is within 745 votes of Republican Vic Williams.

In the LD20 State Rep. race, incumbent D Rae Waters is within 1039 votes of R Bob Robson.

All unofficial results for state elections can be found here.


In Maricopa County races, while the margins have changed, there don't look to be any changes in the outcomes -

The two closest significant county-level races, the Justice of the Peace contests in the University Lakes and Kyrene Justice Precincts, ended Election Day with the Democratic candidates (Meg Burton-Cahill and Elizabeth Rogers, respectively) ahead of their Republican opponents.  Their margins have grown to 1460 and 1405, respectively.  If the leads hold up, Rogers will hold the distinction of being the only Democrat to win a race in the R-leaning Ahwatukee area this cycle.

While some of the ballot questions downballot are closer in terms of the raw number of votes, those mostly cover school district questions.  Some of those questions had fewer votes cast in their entire districts than were cast in my home precinct.

However, even some of those are still interesting -

Tolleson ESD budget question - failing, but only by 16 votes (972 - 990)

Kyrene ESD budget question - failing by 70 votes (23812 - 23882)

Laveen ESD budget question - failing by 26 votes (3213 - 3239)

Other races of note -

In the race for the District 2 seat on the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Dana Saar of Fountain Hills has opened up a lead of almost 14K votes over incumbent (and district-wide embarrassment) Jerry Walker of Mesa.

Finally, in the race for the Peoria Unified school governing board, Jane Schutte is comfortably ensconced in 2nd place (in a "vote for two" race) by nearly 3200 votes.  This wouldn't actually be significant, but Schutte withdrew from the race in early October, meaning the board will have a vacancy on it as of the first of the year.

Not saying there is a cause and effect relationship here, but according to this Arizona Republic story on the matter, Schutte is Secretary of the LD4 Republicans, and never participated in campaign events before she withdrew (like a candidate forum in September), nor has she issued any statements since the withdrawal or the "election."

While I couldn't find direct evidence that she is an officer of the LD4 Republicans (they don't have their officers listed on their website), according the AZ SOS' website, she is a regular contributor to the LD4 Rs, as well as candidates like Ron Gould (LD3), Jack Harper (LD4) and Brenda Burns (Corporation Commission).  In addition, according to this Peoria Times piece, she was running as part of a team with John Rosado, who was also running for the Central Arizona Project board of directors as a tea party/anti-government candidate. 

Between the lack of a real campaign, those contributions and her tea party connections, Schutte seems to have run solely to wreak havoc with the school board.

Given that whoever will be appointed to fill the seat is going to miss school board training sessions and will be behind the other members in gaining effectiveness in doing the job, she has succeeded.

Tennessee legislator calls children of undocumented immigrants "rats"

...and to the surprise of absolutely no one, he's got a LOT in common with Arizona's own Shadow Fuhrer, State Sen. Russell Pearce (R - National Alliance).

From Tennessean.com -

State Rep. Curry Todd, a Col­lierville Repub­li­can prob­a­bly best-known in these parts for his spon­sor­ship of gun leg­is­la­tion, is the hit of the Inter­net today after a clip of a leg­isla­tive hear­ing Wednes­day was posted in which he com­pared ille­gal immi­grants to mul­ti­ply­ing rats.


Todd made his remark after being told by Cov­erKids admin­is­tra­tors that they could not require women to pro­duce proof of cit­i­zen­ship before receiv­ing pre­na­tal care because their unborn chil­dren would, by law, be con­sid­ered Amer­i­can cit­i­zens. Todd appeared upset over the opin­ion, mum­bling that it meant “they can go out there like rats and mul­ti­ply then, I guess.”

Hmmm....

Such a perceptive and insightful observation!

Surely he can't have anything in common with our very own Russell???

...Like sponsoring anti-immigrant bills that would let any resident of the state sue a state agency or political subdivision (municipality, county, etc.) that they feel isn't sufficiently energetic in toeing the nativist line?

...Like sponsoring bills (and here) that would require proof of citizenship, with specified forms, of all people registering to vote, whether or not they were financially able to obtain the specified forms (Note: a similar law in AZ was recently found to be illegal by a federal appeals court)?

...Like sponsoring bills that are nothing more than love letters to lobbyists, easing rules regarding reporting requirements, increasing the allowable values of bribes "gift" to legislators from lobbyists, and reducing the number of lobbyists who have to register as lobbyists, even though they engage in professional lobbying activities (here, here, and here).

...Like sponsoring bills that allow/encourage the carrying of guns in bars.

...Oh wait.  Russell Pearce has done all of those, often before his counterpart in Tennessee did so.

Well, there can't be any other similarities, right?

....Like being involved with the Corrections Corporation of America (accepted campaign contribution 10/14/2010 and 11/24/2009 in the amount of $500)

...Like being involved with the American Legislative Exchange Council - Todd is listed as ALEC's state chairman for Tennessee and is a member of its national board of directors (he also paid $1000 out of his campaign funds on 4/23/2009 for "dues/subscriptions" for the ALEC Convention and $175 on 12/27/2006 to the ALEC Convention under the heading of "conference.")

Note: details on the Pearce/ALEC/CCA ties here and here from NPR.

Who am I kidding?  They're peas in a pod; they've even got the same mush-mouthed speaking style.

There are probably even more similarities, but the Tennessee legislature's website absolutely sucks for searching bills by the name of the sponsors.

Maybe during last week's "Over/Under" post, I should have added a line about "Percentage of American state legislatures that will be caught up in the Pearce nativism pandemic in 2011:  70 percent"...