Redistricting update: No change, Pearce and Adams fended off

The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments met today to consider the "Communication from House Speaker Kirk Adams and Senate President-Elect Russell Pearce" - basically, they met to decide whether to reopen the nomination process for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission because Pearce and Adams didn't like the list of candidates from which they will select two members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

Summary:  NO, the Appellate Court Appointments Commission won't reopen the process.

Details:

As has been her practice, Chief Justice Rebecca Berch started the meeting on schedule at 9 a.m.

After a couple of housekeeping items (i.e. - approval of minutes), the first to address the assembled Commission members were Kirk Adams and Russell Pearce.  As expected, both requested that the Appellate Court Appointments commission reopen the nomination process, remove three candidates that they consider to be unqualified, and add the name of Christopher Gleason to the pool.

Then they both left the meeting.

They were the last people who weren't members of the Appellate Court Appointments commission to speak in favor of reopening the short list.

All of the other public speakers, including luminaries such as Paul Berman, Dean of the ASU Law School, Lattie Coor, former President of ASU, Sue Gerard, currently a member of Maricopa County Special Healthcare District and one of the driving forces behind the proposition that set up the AIRC, and State Representative Chad Campbell, House Democratic Leader-elect, stood up to support the process so far and its results.

Campbell went so far as to advise the Commission members to ignore him and any other elected officials who weigh in on this.  The voters have chosen to make the redistricting process independent, and it should stay that way.

It was clear from the outset that the majority of the Appellate Court Appointments commission did not support making any changes, but it took two hours to make that official.

One factor that lengthened the meeting was a technical point.  The physical list of nominees hadn't been sent to the legislators who will make appointments from that list, leaving open the possibility that the nominating process wasn't complete.  And with the withdrawals of two of the Republican candidates, the constitutional requirement that the R list contain 10 names couldn't be met.

However, that point brought up another question - if there was no list, how then could Pearce and Adams find problems with the list and then very publicly pressure two of the members of that list to withdraw?

The outcome was that the Commission voted to *not* accept the withdrawals of Republican candidates Schnepf and Sossaman and to affirm their earlier inclusion of Paul Bender on the list of Independent candidates.

One sentiment that most of the members of the Commission seemed to share, R, D, and Independent alike, was that none of them like to be bullied.

Other than Doug Cole (R-Chuck Coughlin's plant on the board) and three others, the board members objected to the heavy-handed tactics of Pearce and Adams -

- John Taylor, an Independent from Yavapai County, observed that "[t]hey (meaning Pearce and Adams) are trying to tell us what to do."

- Dewey Schade, a Republican from Maricopa County, added that Pearce and Adams "tipped their hand" when they pressured Schnepf and Sossaman to withdraw from consideration, and that the Commission should "consider the source" when pondering the complaints that have come up.

- Jane Strain, a Republican from Cochise County, advised everyone present "I don't deal well with threats" in response to suggestions that failing to accede to Pearce's and Adams' demand would result in a lawsuit.

In response to the other issue that had cropped up, the complaints from Pearce, Adams, the Center for Arizona Theology Policy and others that a remark from a now-former member of the Appellate Court Appointments commission regarding one of the candidates who didn't make it onto the final short list (the aforementioned Christopher Gleason) constituted a "religious test" for public office.

At the December 8, 2010 meeting where most of the AIRC candidates were interviewed, Louis Araneta stated that the reason he wouldn't be voting to send on Gleason's name to the legislature was that he questioned Gleason's ability to separate church and state.

That set off a ginned-up furor, with cries of "religious discrimination!" and the like. 

However, as was pointed out in today's meeting, many of the other applicants' applications exhibited far more religious involvement than did Gleason's.  Additionally, many of the members of the Appellate Court Appointments commission also have strong religious components in their lives.

Chief Justice Berch noted that she thought that Araneta's comment went to Gleason's ability to be  impartial not his faith.  The rest of the Appellate Court Appointments commission echoed her sentiment.

A candidate's impartiality is something that the commission members are constitutionally required to consider in their evaluation of a candidate.

Commissioner Strain pointed out that she prays every night, including for the "five poor souls" who will eventually be named to the AIRC, whoever they might be.  There was more than a little laughter at that comment.

After the meeting, Rep. Campbell summed it up best when he said simply that "[t]he voters of the state won today."

Pic of Campbell addressing the meeting

























Today's meeting was recorded.  That video will eventually be uploaded to the AIRC website, or the nominations website, or perhaps the Appellate Appointments commission's website.  That much wasn't made clear, but the fact that it *will* eventually be uploaded was definitely stated by Chief Justice Berch.

Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services has coverage here, via the East Valley Tribune.

Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has coverage here.

Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times has coverage here.

Would reopening the Redistricting Commission nomination process violate the AZ Constitution?

As the clock winds toward 10 p.m. and I have to get ready for bed so that I am wide awake for tomorrow's meeting of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, I am struck by a thought (don't be so shocked.  It happens once in a while, even to me :) ) -

If the Appellate Court Appointments commission reopens the nomination process for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) because Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams were successful in their efforts to force two of the Republican nominees to withdraw because Pearce and Adams didn't approve of them, wouldn't that be giving the Republicans 12 nominees to choose from? 

If so, that could create a problem for Chief Justice Berch and the rest of the Appellate Court Appointments commission.

From Article Four, Part Two, Section One, Paragraph Five of the Arizona Constitution -

By January 8 of years ending in one, the commission on appellate court appointments or its designee shall establish a pool of persons who are willing to serve on and are qualified for appointment to the independent redistricting commission. The pool of candidates shall consist of twenty-five nominees, with ten nominees from each of the two largest political parties in Arizona based on party registration, and five who are not registered with either of the two largest political parties in Arizona.

Mark Schnepf and Steve Sossaman withdrew their names at the direct urging of Pearce and Adams.  They were never found to be unqualified for the AIRC.

Pearce and Adams had 10 nominees to choose from, and they chose to eliminate two of them from consideration.

As such, they have nothing to complain about.

Of course, since this will be going down on West Washington, little things like the facts and the Arizona Constitution may be pushed aside by partisan bullying. 

We'll see tomorrow.

Good night everyone...

Redistricting update: Another one bites the dust

...and some interesting ties between the Tucsonan (maybe "Tucsonite"?  Have to ask Tedski some time... :) ) that Senate President-elect Russell Pearce (R-National Alliance) and House Speaker Kirk Adams (R-I'll think of something clever and snarky soon) want added to the pool of applicants for the Independent Redistricting Commission and a failed tea party Congressional candidate who is lining up for a second run in 2012.

First up, Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic has updated her story from yesterday.  Now, both Mark Schnepf and Steve Sossaman have withdrawn their applications for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  They did so in response to a letter from Pearce and Adams, even though Schnepf believes that he is qualified to be a member of the redistricting commission.
Second, Jim Nintzel, writing for the Tucson Weekly, has found some interesting ties between Christopher Gleason, the applicant that Pearce and Adams want added to the pool of people that they can consider when making their picks for the AIRC.

From the article -

The Range hears that Republican Jesse Kelly, who lost his bid to unseat Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords by fewer than 4,200 votes last month, may be itching for a rematch.

The GOP rumor circuit is buzzing with word that Kelly will announce his plans to run against Giffords as soon as mid-January.

And, depending on how things go at tomorrow’s hearing of the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, he may end up with a friend on the Independent Redistricting Committee.

{snip}

Here’s a detail that hasn’t been explored in all the controversy over Gleason’s application: He was also a member of the Conservatives for Congress Committee, which ran a number of below-the-belt hits against Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in an unsuccessful effort to boost Jesse Kelly earlier this year.

We hear from multiple sources that Gleason—who didn’t return a phone call from The Range—is now helping set up a new non-profit with the working title of Tucson 360. The plan is to hire Kelly as an executive director of the non-profit so he’ll have a perch from which he will be conducting his 2012 congressional campaign.

It wouldn't be too surprising (to me, anyway) if Pearce, Adams, or one of their mouthpieces stand up at tomorrow's meeting to request that the Appellate Court Appointments commission reopen the pool of applicants because two of the candidates have withdrawn their names from consideration.

Of course, they probably won't mention the fact that the two who withdrew did so at the behest of Pearce and Adams.

What's the cliche?  Oh yeah...


That's like someone murdering his parents and then pleading for mercy because he is an orphan.


To put it in a less snarky (or cliched) way -

The Appellate Courts Commission was required to give Pearce and Adams ten names from which to choose two Republican members of the AIRC.

They did so. 

Pearce and Adams then considered the available options, and then, of their own free will, informed two of the applicants that they wouldn't be chosen.  That notice isn't required, but I can't find anywhere in the law re: AIRC where it is barred, either.

Pearce and Adams can now continue their deliberations, considering the remaining eight Republican applicants.

What's the problem?


BTW - if they really want to keep independent Paul Bender, former dean of the law school at ASU, from being the fifth member and chairman of the AIRC (and they *really* don't want him there), there is one certain way to prevent that -

Pearce or Adams can make him one of the first four picks.

When the going gets tough...

...some folks would rather step off than step up...

Chris Christie, the Republican Governor of New Jersey frequently touted as a contender for the R presidential nod in 2012, likes to talk tough about about things, especially public employees, but when the going gets tough, he can be found...

...vacationing at Disney World (from a Washington Post piece by Rachel Weiner) -

As New Jersey crawls out from under piles of snow, it's being helped not by Gov. Chris Christie or Lt. Gov Kim Guadagno but by Senate President and acting governor Stephen M. Sweeney, a Democrat. Why? Because the state's two top executives skipped town before the storm hit. (Christie is at Disney World in Florida; Guadagno is in Mexico.)

{snip}

Christie left for Florida on Sunday, the same day Sweeney declared a state of emergency in New Jersey. (He rescinded that call Monday night.)

While this is an outrageous desertion of duty (doubly so because Christie's Lieutenant Governor, fellow Republican Kim Guadagno, whose sole real job is to serve as governor when Christie is out of state, chose to go on vacation at the same time), it shouldn't be a surprise.

Christie (and obviously Guadagno, his hand-picked running mate) is part of the Republican clique that exhibits the same contempt for public service that they show toward actual public servants.

This is the sort of thing that while it will negatively impact his chances for reelection as governor, it could help him win the GOP nod in 2012.

Redistricting update: one candidate withdraws, Rs pressuring two more to follow suit

From an Arizona Republic article, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -

Elevating their dispute with the state's redistricting effort, the top two Republicans in the Legislature are asking three nominees for the Independent Redistricting Commission to step aside.

So far, they've had mixed results: One nominee declined their request, another dropped out, and the third has been silent.

{snip}

The letter went to Republicans Mark Schnepf and Steve Sossaman, as well as Paul Bender, an independent.

{snip}

Bender, a former dean of the Arizona State University Law College, replied in a letter to Pearce and Adams that he would not withdraw. He said he studied the constitutional requirements for serving on the commission and believes he meets them.

{snip}

Schnepf on Sunday wrote to Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, who chairs the vetting panel, saying that he believes he is constitutionally qualified to serve. But he is withdrawing from consideration, he wrote, because it's clear neither of the lawmakers would name him to the redistricting panel.

The third nominee, Sossaman, did not respond to inquiries from Pitzl.

It's interesting and heartening to note that a number of Arizonans are paying attention to this process and Pearce's and Adams' attempt to subvert the independence of the "Independent" Redistricting Commission.

The letters regarding the latest kerfluffle sent to the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments are here and here and here.

That last link includes a letter that was sent to Appellate Courts Commission supporting the existing pool of 25 applicants, a letter that was signed by 12 people, current and former electeds and community activists, including:

State Sen. Carolyn Allen
Fmr. State Rep. Jennifer Burns
Fmr. AZAG Grant Woods
Fmr. State Sen. Sue Gerard
Fmr. State Rep. Pete Hershberger
Fmr. Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson

Others who submitted letters of support include Lattie Coor, retired ASU President, David Schapira, Democratic leader-elect of the incoming state senate, and one of the candidates who didn't make it this far.

A quick look at the three .pdfs of comments submitted to the Appellate Court Appointments commission showed 177 pages of emails and letters, the overwhelming majority of which express support for the Commission, its process, and the pool of applicants.  A few, perhaps three out of the more than 100 comments submitted, directly stated that they wanted the nomination process reopened because of the controversy over one of the excluded candidates.

Having Russell Pearce serve as one of the front-men in this ploy by the Rs may not have been wise.

Many, perhaps even most, of the letters submitted in support of the current pool of applicants referred to Pearce and/or Kirk Adams by name or title and urged the Appellate Court Appointments commission to stand up to the attempt to strong-arm the process.

There were a number of commenters who desire to stop the redistricting process entirely.  Apparently, they are unaware of the U.S. Constitution and Arizona law on the matter, nor do they seem aware of the ballot measure that was approved by the voters in 2000 with over 56% of the vote that created the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (Prop 106 on page 16 of the linked .pdf).

Wednesday's meeting of the Appellate Court Appointments commission will begin at 9 a.m. in room 101 of the Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 West Washington, Phoenix.

Be there early to get a good seat.  Popcorn recommended (but building security probably won't allow it  :) ).

State Rep. Frank Pratt (R-LD23) beaten on Christmas Day

From the Arizona Republic, written by Laurie Merrill -

An Arizona state representative from Pinal County was beaten, knocked unconscious, tied up and left bound inside his Casa Grande business after 2:30 p.m.Christmas Day.

Rep. Frank Pratt, R-Casa Grande, had gone to his shop, Pratt Pools, to check on it when he was attacked by someone already in the building in the 100 block of W. Cottonwood Lane, police said.

According to the article, Pratt was discovered by his wife at approximately 8 p.m.  He is currently hospitalized in Phoenix with non-lifethreatening injuries.

The Casa Grande Police Department (and presumably, the Pinal County Sheriff's Department) are looking for Pratt's state-issued vehicle, a gold-colored 2007 GMC Yukon with an Arizona license plate, 815 - KYJ.

If the vehicle is spotted, notify your local law enforcement agency via a call to 911.  If you have any information about the crime, call the Casa Grande PD at 520-421-9700.

Best wishes on a speedy recovery go out to Rep. Pratt.

Getting ready for the next session of the legislature - dates

Culled from an Arizona Republic article written by Alia Beard Rau.  The House and Senate schedule/deadline memos aren't posted yet, but when available, they'll be posted on the legislature's website.

Commentary, some snarky, some not, added by me for educational and entertainment value.

Some of the scheduled upcoming events (OK, some of the "scheduled" dates are more "fervently hoped for" than "definitively planned"):

- The inauguration of the statewide constitutional officers (Governor, Secretary of State, Attorney General, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, and Mine Inspector) will be on January 3, 2011 at the Capitol on West Washington.  Open to the public.

- Russell Pearce and a rogues' gallery of nativists from across the country will trek to D.C. to announce an attack on the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

- The 50th Arizona Legislature will be sworn in and start its work on January 10, 2011.  This is also the day that the Governor traditionally delivers the State of the State address.  There are limited public seats available.  The best course of action for those who wish to attend the festivities is to contact your legislator.  Though if your legislator is a Republican, you'd better be a family member or a favored lobbyist if you really expect to obtain a ticket.

Speaking of lobbyists, the Capitol Events calendar, showing the different events that have booked time or space near the Capitol (usually, but not always, the House or Senate lawns) is filling quickly.  The first "event" of the legislative season will be a "prayer walk" conducted by the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy.

- The deadline to introduce bills in the Senate is January 31, 2011.  To introduce bills after that, approval of the Senate Rules Committee will be required.

- The deadline to introduce bills in the House is February 7, 2011.  To introduce bills after that, approval of the House Rules Committee will be required.

Except for "strike-everything" amendments which change a previously introduced bill into something completely different.

- The last day for House and Senate committees to hear bills introduced in their respective chambers is March 12, 2011.  At that point, any unheard bills are considered dead.

Except for those bills revived by a strike-everything amendment.

- The last day for House and Senate committees to hear bills that were introduced in and approved by the other chamber is April 9, 2011.  At that point, any bills that haven't be heard in both chambers will be considered dead.

Except for those bills revived by a strike-everything amendment.

The 100th day of the session, and the traditional target date for adjournment of the lege, is April 19, 2011.

Hey, anything could happen.  Though it hasn't happened in recent memory, and usually the only years they come close are election years (time spent legislating takes time away from campaigning to keep their jobs as legislators).  Of course, even if the R leadership keeps the railroad running on schedule by sacrificing accomplishment (you know, like passing a budget that's actually balanced), they can always call a special session.

They had *nine* special sessions during the 49th Arizona Legislature.  And the budget still isn't balanced.

Fun with campaign finance reports...

Oh, the stuff that I dig into when I'm feeling bored diligent... :)

Notes:  Most information gathered from the last four finance reports of the cycle.  In addition, I didn't go through the reports of Democratic candidates.  Partly because I'm a partisan hack (like that's breaking news to any regular readers! LOL) and partly because most of the Democratic candidates financed their campaigns through Clean Elections, and CE candidates are actively discouraged from using their campaign funds for non-campaign purposes.  I checked a few, but their reports, as well as the reports of R candidates who utilized CE funding, were really boring.

Today, between basketball games and gift unwrappings, I was perusing some Maricopa County and State of Arizona campaign finance reports (political geek that I am), and learned that many candidates and PACs use their campaign funds "creatively".  Nothing that is necessarily illegal, but stuff that doesn't seem to have much to do with electing candidates.

From recent reports filed with the Maricopa County Recorder and the Secretary of State -

Associated Highway Patrolmen of Arizona PAC, 11/18/2010 - $1000 to the ALEC Scholarship Fund (page 51 of the linked .pdf), which pays for legislators to attend various ALEC functions.  The memo on the contribution was "Various Republican Candidates/Committees Contribution."  They can contribute to anyone they want to, but have they forgotten who leads the annual charges to underfund DPS and to mess with the public safety employees' pension fund?  It sure isn't the Democrats...

Arizona Dairymen PAC, 11/15/2010 - $500 to the ALEC Scholarship Fund.

Transportation Association (Legislative and Educational PAC), 9/15/2010 - $449.41 to SRP for "ALEC AZ Nite Dinner"

Apollo Group Inc. Organization for Legislative Leadership in Arizona, 10/14/2010 - $2500 directly to ALEC

Note: The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) is a somewhat shadowy* right-wing group dedicated to putting state legislators into contact with lobbyists and executives from its corporate sponsors.  The Scholarship Fund is intended to pay for member legislators to attend various ALEC functions.


* = shadowy because its membership is semi-secret (members can self-publicize their association with ALEC, but generally ALEC doesn't publish a complete list of its members, and it also keeps secret its contributors and the amounts contributed).

Other interesting entries include -

Frank Antenori, R for Senate in LD30, spent $104.90 on 11/3/2010 for a power strip for his laptop and a blue tooth headset.  The election was on *11/2.*  He's not the only candidate to use campaign funds for computers/electronics, but most were discreet enough to make the expenditures *before* the election.

Nancy Barto, R for Senate in LD7, spent $334.40 on 11/11/2010 for airfare, $246.34 for lodging on 11/13/2010 (and a $25 baggage fee on that date), and $175 on 9/25/2010 for a fee for a Wallbuilders conference in Texas.  Wallbuilders is an anti-choice/historical revisionist group based in Texas.

Chuck Gray, R Senator in LD19...well, actually, since Gray is retiring (for now, anyway) and didn't run this year, technically speaking nothing he spent from his campaign funds this year was intended to help him win an election, but let's not quibble over details. How about we just cover some of the highlights. 

He spent $265.43 on 10/28/2010 to renew a subscription to the Wall Street Journal.  Also, $194.04 from 10/1/2010 through 10/6/2010 on miscellaneous charges related to a trip to Boston, over $1500 on travel-related charges from 8/9/2010 through 9/13/2010.  Many, but not all, of the other things that he used his campaign funds for this year were also travel-related.

Jack Harper, R for House in LD4, spent $100 on 9/23/2010 on a two-year membership in ALEC.

John McComish, R for Senate in LD20, spent $130 on 8/13/2010 for a donation to Tempe Right To Life.

Steve Montenegro, R for House in LD12, spent $82 on 7/17/2010 to pay the fee for submitting a ballot proposition argument to the Arizona Secretary of State.

Russell Pearce, R for Senate in LD18, spent $551.17 on 11/5/2010 for "airfare and lodging" (no destination listed).

Michelle Reagan, R for Senate in LD8, spent $418.80 on 11/18/2010 for airfare to Colorado for a fellowship.  In August, she spent $675 on dues for the National Rifle Association and AZ Citizens Action for the Arts.   On 7/26/2010, she spent $86 out of campaign funds on a subscription to the Arizona Republic.

Bob Robson, R for House in LD20, spent $227.70 on 9/2/2010 on "newspaper subscription to Phoenix Newspapers (aka - the Arizona Republic).

Jim Weiers, R for House in LD10, spent $75 on 7/7/2010 to submit a ballot proposition argument to the Arizona Secretary of State.

Interesting stuff...interesting to political geeks.  :))
 

Happy Holidays from Random Musings

To all reader, whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Ashura, Festivus, Chrismukkah, winter solstice, or something (or nothing) else, may you all have a joyous and safe holiday.

Inspired by a mention of this event on today's edition of Pardon The Interruption on ESPN...



Yeah, it's not Christmas-y, but it isn't political either.

Jan " BrewerCare Death Panels" Brewer says that organ transplants are "potentially life-saving"

...but before anyone gets excited, she's using that to buttress her argument in support of further cutting Medicaid in Arizona...

From Governor Brewer's letter to Congress begging to be allowed to cut Medicaid (known in AZ as "AHCCCS") further -

...Because we cannot change our generous eligibility standards, Arizona has taken actions to reduce our Medicaid cost, such as limits on services not mandated by Medicaid, including potentially life-saving organ transplantations...

The "eligibility standards" (page 26 of the linked .pdf) that Brewer et. al. consider to be so "generous"?

Income that doesn't exceed 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL).  That's $10,830/year for a single adult or $22,050/year for a family of four.

Only Jan and her clan can keep a straight face when describing abject poverty as "generous."

H/T to State Sen.-elect David Schapira (D-LD17), quoted in the Arizona Capitol Times, for the heads-up on this...

Redistricting update: Latest salvo targets judicial independence

It looks like Kirk Adams, Russell Pearce, and Jan Brewer are opening up another front in their war against the judicial branch's independence.

From the Arizona Business Gazette, written by Howard Fischer -

The dust-up over the process of nominating candidates for the Independent Redistricting Commission is giving new ammunition to those who want to scrap Arizona's merit selection process for judges.

Several key state lawmakers say they would welcome the chance to revisit the 1974 constitutional amendment that took away the right of voters to directly elect judges to the Arizona Supreme Court, the state Court of Appeals and the superior courts in Maricopa and Pima counties.

Some, like incoming Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said returning to that system may be the best course of action.

{snip}

[State Rep.-elect Eddie] Farnsworth said the federal system of gubernatorial choices subject to Senate confirmation provides some "checks and balances" into the process, more so than he said exists with the current judicial selection commission.

Such a change would have the backing of Gov. Jan Brewer.

She has said she does not like the current restriction that limits her to choosing a new judge solely from the list sent to her by screening panels.

I'm not positive (not exactly on Pearce's, Adams' or Brewer's speed dials here :) ) but in addition to the long-term motives - they've made noises in this area before - this move could also serve as an implied threat toward Chief Justice Berch and the whole judicial branch -

Give us who we want for the "Independent" Redistricting Commission, or else the gloves are off.

We'll find out at next Wednesday's meeting (December 29, 2010) of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments if this latest move is an effective one.


BTW - Am I the only one who noticed the irony of the least-qualified governor in recent memory objecting to the idea of having only qualified people to choose from for judgeships?

Later...

A brief Pearce family history

Presented without comments because none are needed.

From the Phoenix New Times' Feathered Bastard, written by Stephen Lemons -

State Senate President-elect Russell Pearce's son Joshua Trent Pearce was recently under investigation by the Mesa Police Department for allegations of possible child abuse.


Mesa PD spokesman Sgt. Ed Wessing confirmed that police responded to a call December 10 from Banner Desert Medical Center regarding a nine day-old baby girl, the daughter of Joshua Pearce and his wife Samantha.

According to Wessing, hospital staff told police that the child had a skull fracture, and that the parents' explanation of how the fracture may have occurred did not jibe with the severity of the injury.

{snip}

Today, Wessing informed me that no charges would be forthcoming.


"The Mesa Police Department will not be submitting criminal charges in this case," Wessing told me via e-mail. "At this time we do not have sufficient probable cause to charge Mr. Pearce in this case."

{snip}

This is not Josh Pearce's first brush with the law. In 2006, he was arrested by the Mesa PD for a DUI, while driving on a suspended license. He told police that he was a regular user of marijuana, but that he no longer drank alcohol because of a previous DUI.


In the car with him was Samantha and their then five day-old child Wyatt.

{snip}

His job was listed as "roofer." Court documents described his last known address as being 1247 East Inca Street in Mesa, the same listed on state Senator Russell Pearce's campaign finance reports with the Arizona Secretary of State.


Wessing stated that Josh Pearce now has a different Mesa address on file.

In 2007, the County Attorney's Office hit Josh Pearce with two felony counts of aggravated DUI. Josh pleaded guilty to one count in a deal with prosecutors and received five years probation.

Russell Pearce himself is no stranger to allegations of domestic abuse. In 2008, I revealed the existence of a marriage dissolution petition filed by Pearce's wife LuAnne in 1980, which alleged physical abuse at the hands of her husband.

It reads in part, "Further, the husband, RUSSELL KEITH PEARCE, is possessed of a violent temper, and has from time to time hit and shoved the wife, the last time being on February 3 [1980], when he grabbed the wife by the throat and threw her down."

The Pearces were ultimately reconciled and remain married to this day.

{snip}

Josh Pearce was born in November of 1980, around nine months following the document's filing.


Also in 2008, I blogged about a 1974 police report that stated Pearce, then a young sheriff's deputy, busted down the door of his first wife Karen. Karen and Russell were divorced the same year. No charges were ever filed in that incident.

A similar summary from David Safier at Blog for Arizona can be found here.

Note: I generally don't quote other writers' work this extensively (preferring to quote a paragraph or two and link to the entire piece), but I feel it is appropriate in this case as Mr. Lemons has done a far better job of succinctly documenting the Pearce family's activities than I could.

2010 Ebbie Awards

...sort of patterned after Keith Olbermann's "Worst Persons In The World" segment on his nightly show...


Second Runner-Up -

Unnamed personnel from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

From Treehugger.com -

Photo: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service - Northeast Region

To many people, Jim Hart and Khalil Abusakran are heroes. When the two men from Maryland, saw a deer stranded in the icy waters of the Patapsco River, they did what few others would dare. With an inflatable boat, the duo ventured out and rescued the animal before it perished in the frozen stream. But, after they and the deer returned to shore, it wasn't a hero's reception that awaited them -- instead, the two men were slapped with fines for not having life-jackets aboard their vessel.

I freely admit, I'm not sure I would have done the same thing - venturing out into freezing water to save a deer - I'm just not that brave.  Or foolish (hopefully :) ).  However, the act of the the officers of the MD Department of Natural Resources, fining these two men for doing something that the DNR officers refused to do, merits Christmas Eve visits from the Ghosts of Bambi Past, Present, and Future (and I don't mean the kind of "Bambi" who brings her own stripper pole, either :) ).


First Runner-Up -

Arizona Senator John McCain.

From Politico's Daily Beast -

Railing against Don't Ask Don't Tell, shooting down an immigration bill he once sponsored, pushing his own changes to START—the tougher John McCain who emerged in the primaries may be here to stay.


{snip}

Conversations with friends, advisers, and analysts reveal McCain as a man still angry at his 2008 presidential loss, fueling his desire to remain in the spotlight and an important part of the debate, even on issues where he is out of step with the majority of Americans.

For taking his anger out on gay and lesbian servicemembers, 9/11 first responders, foreign policy, DREAMers, and still doing nothing to actually represent Arizona in D.C., McCain earns a visit from the Ghosts of Mavericks Past.

Obviously, the Maverick is already gone, so there's no Present or Future Mavericks around to make some visits.



And the "winner" is...

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer

There was consideration of making this a group award, also giving it to Russell Pearce and the rest of the Republican caucus in the legislature.  Most of the wave of nastiness emanating from West Washington these days gets its start in the R caucus room, but Brewer is the one who has taken it national and has ridden the wave all the way to a full term on the 9th floor.

Latest example (and there are many examples - could have gone with imagined headless bodies in the desert, actual bodies due to BrewerCare, her ties to private prison lobbyists), blaming the tepid health care reform package passed by Congress earlier this year for her inability to balance Arizona's budget for the last two years -

Heading into a new year with a new Legislature and a new Congress, the primary area of budget focus for Arizona will be our need for action by the federal government on "Obamacare."


If our state budget is to be balanced, it will require action by Congress and the White House. They must provide flexibility to states so we have the ability to create sustainable Medicaid programs.

For her shameless leadership of the hate brigade, Jan's Christmas Eve visitors will be the ghosts of Cecilia Esquer (a long-time civil rights champion and Chicana activist), Mark Price (the first victim to succumb to her cutting off AHCCCS benefits to transplant patients) and Gary and Linda Haas (the couple murdered in New Mexico by escapees from one of the private prisons championed by Brewer and her advisers/lobbyists).

Later...

It's official - Arizona will gain a seat in Congress in 2012

Confirming something that was already widely expected, as a result of the 2010 Census Arizona will gain a 9th seat in the U.S. Congress.

The new apportionment map is here (state numbers only; actual districts will be mapped out in the coming year.)

Having 9 seats in the House will put Arizona on the same footing as...

Massachusetts, which is losing a seat (one of the Ds who is going to lose his seat will run for challenge Scott Brown for a seat in the Senate)

Indiana (no change)

Tennessee (no change)

...And ahead of those with eight seats...

Missouri (losing a seat)

Minnesota

Wisconsin

12 seats in Congress switched states.

While the population of the country, and hence its Congressional representation, in concentrated in the East (as in "east of Texas), all of the states that lost a seat in Congress are also in the East (particularly in the Northeast and Rust Belt), and all of the states that gained a seat are in the West or deep South.

The big gainers were Texas (+4) and Florida (+2); Ohio and New York each lost two seats to lead that list.

The only state in the deep South that lost a seat was Louisiana.  That wasn't a surprise due to the mass exodus from the state in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster/post-disaster debacle.

A map showing population percentage change by state is here.  The only state that showed a net loss in population was Michigan (- 0.6%).  Texas gained the most population numerically (nearly 4.3 million) while Nevada gained the most population as a percentage of its 2000 population (~35%).

More information here.


Tying this back into the ginned-up controversy over the yet-to-be-formed Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC), it wouldn't be surprising if the motives of Kirk Adams and Russell Pearce (for trying to mess with the independence of the "Independent" commission) went beyond base partisanship.

The general expectations are that the new CD will be carved out in the East Valley area of Maricopa County due to the growth there and the fact that the current CD6 is already one of the largest (in terms of population) in the country.

Both Pearce and Adams are from the East Valley area of Maricopa County (Mesa, to be specific).

Pearce has already "explored" a run for Congress once, and most observers expect that Adams is going to make a run for Congress at some point.

The recent histrionics coming from them have the all of the hallmarks of a play to put someone on the commission who is friendly to their personal political interests, not just the Republican Party's.

BTW - to anybody who might view what I just wrote as an "attack" on Pearce and/or Adams:  It isn't.  It's just an observation and some speculation.  It's not like they invented the concept, either; it's been around as long as redistricting has.