Sunday, the Arizona Republic published a column written by Doug MacEachern where he blamed the political mess in Quartzsite in La Paz County on Clarence Dupnik.
The sheriff of Pima County.
Since Tucson, the county seat of Pima County, is roughly 240 miles from Quartzsite, this seems to be a bit of a stretch. However, if this is an accepted journalistic practice, does that mean that I can blame the biker rally killings in Coconino County this weekend on the gun nuts in the Arizona legislature? Perhaps making Rep. Jerry Weiers (R-Glendale), the lege's resident biker advocate/lobbyist, the poster child of the blamefest?
It wouldn't be any more accurate than MacEachern's diatribe, but apparently, "accuracy" isn't a requirement for Arizona journalists, at least not for those who are senior staffers at the Republic.
Sunday, July 24, 2011
Saturday, July 23, 2011
Interesting pattern to the sounds emanating from the state Attorney General's office
Tom Horne, Arizona's Republican Attorney General (and a likely candidate for governor in 2014) has established a rather interesting pattern when determining what matters are worthy of his office's attention -
- In response to Republican AZ Senate president Russell Pearce creating a "blacklist" barring certain political dissenters from the Capitol, infringing upon the rights of those individuals to express their opinions or even to meet with their own elected representatives - silence.
- In response proposed EPA rules regarding the emission of greenhouse gases, he ordered Arizona's withdrawal from a lawsuit supporting the new rules - “I am passionate about protecting the rights of individual states under the 10th Amendment. And I am equally passionate about limiting government intrusion into the ability of employers to reasonably operate their businesses."
- In response to Republican state senator Scott Bundgaard beating up his girlfriend by the side of a freeway in Phoenix, and using his position in the state senate to block his arrest by the police, instead watching as the now ex-girlfriend is hauled off in handcuffs (she was later released with no charges as more facts came to light) - the sound of crickets chirping.
- In response to public criticism of his own jihad against the ethnic studies program in Tucson - outrage. He called his critics "thugs."
- In response to the growing evidence that his political ally Russell Pearce was heavily involved in the Fiesta Bowl ticket/gifts to legislators scandal - the sound of snakes slithering across the desert.
- In response to the widening criticisms of his non-investigation into the scandal - feigned outraged, calling the criticisms "partisan" (as if the fact that he is trying to make the scandal go away isn't rooted in partisanship), and passing the buck...errr..."investigation"... to someone else to not investigate the matter.
- In response to Republican John Huppenthal, Arizona's nativist Superintendent of Public Instruction, finding that Tucson's ethnic studies program violates state law in direct contradiction to an independent study commissioned by Huppenthal himself (possibly a violation of ARS 38-423 - no link due to the fact that the lege's website is unavailable for some reason) - nada.
- In response to Republican senator Lori Klein pointing a pistol at Arizona Republic writer Richard Ruelas in the members lounge of the State Senate building - the sound of cacti growing.
Even if Horne (and the rest of us) accept Klein's excuse/story that the incident was Ruelas' fault - she has claimed that she was just harmlessly pointing the weapon at a wall and Ruelas sat in front of her - the Republic article linked above was accompanied by a picture taken by Mark Henle of the Republic.
The pic clearly shows Klein possessing the weapon in a public building, specifically the building housing the Arizona State Senate. That's a violation of state law, and no self-serving press releases (or combination of winks and nods) change that.
- In response to an elected official hiring an unqualified female "friend" to a highly paid position for which she is apparently utterly unqualified - bupkes.
To be fair to Horne, the elected official in question is Horne himself and the woman is a long-time "associate." Nobody expects him to investigate himself; when there are questions about the integrity of a high-ranking law enforcement official, it usually falls upon someone further up the law enforcement org chart to handle those duties.
- In response to complaints from Republicans and their tea party associates that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission might actually be "independent" - an investigation is immediately launched, looking for possible criminal activity.
Hmmm...what's the pattern? Oh yeah -
Apparently, in Tom Horne's Arizona anyway, everyone has to follow the law...except for him and his friends and allies...or when not following the law benefits him and his friends and allies.
- In response to Republican AZ Senate president Russell Pearce creating a "blacklist" barring certain political dissenters from the Capitol, infringing upon the rights of those individuals to express their opinions or even to meet with their own elected representatives - silence.
- In response proposed EPA rules regarding the emission of greenhouse gases, he ordered Arizona's withdrawal from a lawsuit supporting the new rules - “I am passionate about protecting the rights of individual states under the 10th Amendment. And I am equally passionate about limiting government intrusion into the ability of employers to reasonably operate their businesses."
- In response to Republican state senator Scott Bundgaard beating up his girlfriend by the side of a freeway in Phoenix, and using his position in the state senate to block his arrest by the police, instead watching as the now ex-girlfriend is hauled off in handcuffs (she was later released with no charges as more facts came to light) - the sound of crickets chirping.
- In response to public criticism of his own jihad against the ethnic studies program in Tucson - outrage. He called his critics "thugs."
- In response to the growing evidence that his political ally Russell Pearce was heavily involved in the Fiesta Bowl ticket/gifts to legislators scandal - the sound of snakes slithering across the desert.
- In response to the widening criticisms of his non-investigation into the scandal - feigned outraged, calling the criticisms "partisan" (as if the fact that he is trying to make the scandal go away isn't rooted in partisanship), and passing the buck...errr..."investigation"... to someone else to not investigate the matter.
- In response to Republican John Huppenthal, Arizona's nativist Superintendent of Public Instruction, finding that Tucson's ethnic studies program violates state law in direct contradiction to an independent study commissioned by Huppenthal himself (possibly a violation of ARS 38-423 - no link due to the fact that the lege's website is unavailable for some reason) - nada.
- In response to Republican senator Lori Klein pointing a pistol at Arizona Republic writer Richard Ruelas in the members lounge of the State Senate building - the sound of cacti growing.
Even if Horne (and the rest of us) accept Klein's excuse/story that the incident was Ruelas' fault - she has claimed that she was just harmlessly pointing the weapon at a wall and Ruelas sat in front of her - the Republic article linked above was accompanied by a picture taken by Mark Henle of the Republic.
The pic clearly shows Klein possessing the weapon in a public building, specifically the building housing the Arizona State Senate. That's a violation of state law, and no self-serving press releases (or combination of winks and nods) change that.
- In response to an elected official hiring an unqualified female "friend" to a highly paid position for which she is apparently utterly unqualified - bupkes.
To be fair to Horne, the elected official in question is Horne himself and the woman is a long-time "associate." Nobody expects him to investigate himself; when there are questions about the integrity of a high-ranking law enforcement official, it usually falls upon someone further up the law enforcement org chart to handle those duties.
- In response to complaints from Republicans and their tea party associates that the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission might actually be "independent" - an investigation is immediately launched, looking for possible criminal activity.
Hmmm...what's the pattern? Oh yeah -
Apparently, in Tom Horne's Arizona anyway, everyone has to follow the law...except for him and his friends and allies...or when not following the law benefits him and his friends and allies.
Friday, July 22, 2011
Thursday Redistricting Hearing
Thursday, the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission held a public hearing at South Mountain Community College. Prior to the meeting, there were rumors that tea party types planned a big turnout for the meeting. While there were a number of them there, they were mostly well-behaved.
Perhaps the facts that 24th Street and Baseline (the location of SMCC) isn't exactly home turf for them (too many folks with skin darker than a golfer's tan) and the unobtrusive but unsubtle presence of a number of police officers and other visible security personnel contributed to their desire to avoid significant confrontations or disruptions of the meeting. They applauded their own speakers and hooted and hollered a couple of times at pro-competitive districts speakers, but other than that, the chair of the meeting only had to issue one warning to the audience about the police presence.
The next hearing in Maricopa County will be Monday at 6 p.m. at the Mesa Convention Center. The complete list of upcoming hearings is here.
Steve at The Arizona Eagletarian has a full write-up of the meeting here, but here are a few pics -
A pre-meeting shot of the crowd. Estimates were that as many as 200 people attended.
Dave Wells of Tempe, a political science professor from ASU
State Senators John McComish (R) and Leah Landrum Taylor (D) speaking before the meeting. Both addressed the Commission to support the protection of "communities of interest" (aka - their own districts)
Randall Holmes of Tempe addressing the Commission in support of competitive districts
Kelly Townsend of Gilbert, a Republican PC and tea party type, calling for the resignation of AIRC chair Colleen Mathis. She was poised and polished...except for the fact that the commissioner she was calling out was not Mathis, it was Linda McNulty. Oops. Townsend had a game plan to follow, and follow it she did. Even if it had nothing to do with reality. Still, she did better than another tea party type who took the mike to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry as the mapping consultant. That one didn't obviously didn't write the words she was reading - she couldn't pronounce "telemetry." Oops2.
Some tea party types greeted arrivals in the hallway outside the meeting room. The guy in the red, white, and blue shirt is actually wearing a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I don't think he understands the irony of displaying that document while working against the independence of the Independent Redistricting Commission.
Perhaps the facts that 24th Street and Baseline (the location of SMCC) isn't exactly home turf for them (too many folks with skin darker than a golfer's tan) and the unobtrusive but unsubtle presence of a number of police officers and other visible security personnel contributed to their desire to avoid significant confrontations or disruptions of the meeting. They applauded their own speakers and hooted and hollered a couple of times at pro-competitive districts speakers, but other than that, the chair of the meeting only had to issue one warning to the audience about the police presence.
The next hearing in Maricopa County will be Monday at 6 p.m. at the Mesa Convention Center. The complete list of upcoming hearings is here.
Steve at The Arizona Eagletarian has a full write-up of the meeting here, but here are a few pics -
A pre-meeting shot of the crowd. Estimates were that as many as 200 people attended.
Dave Wells of Tempe, a political science professor from ASU
State Senators John McComish (R) and Leah Landrum Taylor (D) speaking before the meeting. Both addressed the Commission to support the protection of "communities of interest" (aka - their own districts)
Randall Holmes of Tempe addressing the Commission in support of competitive districts
Kelly Townsend of Gilbert, a Republican PC and tea party type, calling for the resignation of AIRC chair Colleen Mathis. She was poised and polished...except for the fact that the commissioner she was calling out was not Mathis, it was Linda McNulty. Oops. Townsend had a game plan to follow, and follow it she did. Even if it had nothing to do with reality. Still, she did better than another tea party type who took the mike to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry as the mapping consultant. That one didn't obviously didn't write the words she was reading - she couldn't pronounce "telemetry." Oops2.
Some tea party types greeted arrivals in the hallway outside the meeting room. The guy in the red, white, and blue shirt is actually wearing a copy of the Declaration of Independence. I don't think he understands the irony of displaying that document while working against the independence of the Independent Redistricting Commission.
The crowd...
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Why don't they just pass a d@mn budget?
Earlier today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2560, the Republican posturing bill that sets an arbitrary cap on federal spending and mandates immediate cuts to spending on discretionary spending (mostly social programs and infrastructure spending). In addition, H.R. 2560 mandates that the House and Senate approve a "balanced budget" amendment to the US Constitution before the debt ceiling can be raised.
The bill passed by a vote that was almost completely along party lines. All five AZ Republicans voted for the bill (all five were also cosponsors), while AZ Democrats Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor opposed it, and Gabrielle Giffords was absent).
The "balanced budget" amendment measures mentioned are H.J. Res. 56, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res. 1. All have a budget IMbalance clause in them - a requirement that measures that raise taxes or otherwise increase revenue need a 2/3 majority to pass each chamber of Congress.
That's the same clause that has destroyed fiscal stability in Arizona, California, and a number of other states. It has very effectively blocked any moves to increase revenues, whether through tax rate hikes or through simple closure of loopholes, yet allows for the passage of practically permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
All of this, including the brinkmanship over increasing the federal debt limit, is geared toward forcing a showdown over federal spending.
Except that the Republicans in the House are already in a position to cut spending any way they want, and have been since January.
Under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the House controls the purse strings, and the Republicans control the House.
If they want to cut federal spending and decrease taxes, then they can just pass a budget with less spending and more tax cuts.
Of course, that would mean standing up and explaining why tax breaks for owners of corporate jets are more important than education, or why massive tax credits for oil companies are needed more than the infrastructure need to clean up the messes that oil companies leave wherever they go (like all over the Gulf Coast).
They don't want to do that - they've been getting their butts handed to them in special elections since they made it clear that their intent was to leverage their majority status in the US House into a complete dismantling of the country's social safety net. They want to funnel the public treasury away from the public and into corporate coffers, but they know if they are up front about that fact, they'll lose their jobs (and probably undercut the chances of a Republican winning the White House in 2012).
Hence, the scheme to distract people into swallowing cuts to Social Security (which has nothing to do with the budget, other than the annual siphoning of money from Social Security's trust fund into the general fund), Medicaid (which is funded by a special payroll tax) and education (which only secures the country's future, which is something that any government of any country is supposed to protect and nurture).
They're hoping to use the threat of economic armageddon brought on by a failure to increase the debt ceiling (something that even Ronald Reagan, the late Republican icon, thought was the responsible thig to do) to keep people focused on that issue instead of the gutting of America's social safety net and physical infrastructure.
I have no idea if the debt ceiling will actually be raised, but if it is, they'll wait until the last possible moment to do so.
And if it isn't, they'll blame President Obama for the Republican-engineered destruction of the economy.
The bill passed by a vote that was almost completely along party lines. All five AZ Republicans voted for the bill (all five were also cosponsors), while AZ Democrats Raul Grijalva and Ed Pastor opposed it, and Gabrielle Giffords was absent).
The "balanced budget" amendment measures mentioned are H.J. Res. 56, S.J. Res 10, and H.J. Res. 1. All have a budget IMbalance clause in them - a requirement that measures that raise taxes or otherwise increase revenue need a 2/3 majority to pass each chamber of Congress.
That's the same clause that has destroyed fiscal stability in Arizona, California, and a number of other states. It has very effectively blocked any moves to increase revenues, whether through tax rate hikes or through simple closure of loopholes, yet allows for the passage of practically permanent tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy.
All of this, including the brinkmanship over increasing the federal debt limit, is geared toward forcing a showdown over federal spending.
Except that the Republicans in the House are already in a position to cut spending any way they want, and have been since January.
Under Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, the House controls the purse strings, and the Republicans control the House.
If they want to cut federal spending and decrease taxes, then they can just pass a budget with less spending and more tax cuts.
Of course, that would mean standing up and explaining why tax breaks for owners of corporate jets are more important than education, or why massive tax credits for oil companies are needed more than the infrastructure need to clean up the messes that oil companies leave wherever they go (like all over the Gulf Coast).
They don't want to do that - they've been getting their butts handed to them in special elections since they made it clear that their intent was to leverage their majority status in the US House into a complete dismantling of the country's social safety net. They want to funnel the public treasury away from the public and into corporate coffers, but they know if they are up front about that fact, they'll lose their jobs (and probably undercut the chances of a Republican winning the White House in 2012).
Hence, the scheme to distract people into swallowing cuts to Social Security (which has nothing to do with the budget, other than the annual siphoning of money from Social Security's trust fund into the general fund), Medicaid (which is funded by a special payroll tax) and education (which only secures the country's future, which is something that any government of any country is supposed to protect and nurture).
They're hoping to use the threat of economic armageddon brought on by a failure to increase the debt ceiling (something that even Ronald Reagan, the late Republican icon, thought was the responsible thig to do) to keep people focused on that issue instead of the gutting of America's social safety net and physical infrastructure.
I have no idea if the debt ceiling will actually be raised, but if it is, they'll wait until the last possible moment to do so.
And if it isn't, they'll blame President Obama for the Republican-engineered destruction of the economy.
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Schweikert to hold foreclosure prevention workshop
Edited on 7/27 to reflect a change in location. There are rumors that it may change again before the event takes place. Check the latest entries in this blog before going out to the event...
...which would be fine in a "constituent services" sort of way, except no one is sure if the priority will be helping CD5 residents keep their homes, or helping "Foreclosure Dave" scope out future targets...
Courtesy the Republican site Intellectual Conservative Arizona, the details of the event -
As have the neighborhood-blighting code violations at some of the properties they've grabbed up.
If you go, be cautious with how much information you give to the staffers at the event...
...which would be fine in a "constituent services" sort of way, except no one is sure if the priority will be helping CD5 residents keep their homes, or helping "Foreclosure Dave" scope out future targets...
Courtesy the Republican site Intellectual Conservative Arizona, the details of the event -
When: Saturday, July 30, 2011...While the pace of acquisitions and dispositions of foreclosd properties by Schweikert and his partners (through corporate entities Swartz and Brough, Sheridan Equities, and MasFundAZ) has slowed somewhat since the election, it *has* continued.
Time: 9:00 – 1:00 p.m.
Where:
Tempe Public Library
3500 S. Rural Rd.
Tempe, Arizona 85282
As have the neighborhood-blighting code violations at some of the properties they've grabbed up.
If you go, be cautious with how much information you give to the staffers at the event...
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Time to support the independence of the "Independent" Redistricting Commission
With the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) starting its series of public hearings around the state, look for the Republicans in the legislature to redouble their attempts to hijack the Commission, either through intimidation by tea party proxies or by direct legislative action.
There are at least a couple of things that people can do to combat the moves to subvert the independence of the AIRC -
1. Go to a hearing. Stand up and speak in support of the AIRC's independence, a fair, honest, and open process, and competitive districts. And thank the members of the AIRC for their efforts and sacrifices on behalf of the future of the state.
2. Talk to people. Let your friends and neighbors know what is going on and why they should keep and eye on the goings-on with redistricting. Write letters, to the editor of your local newspaper in order to reach out to a wider group of people, and to elected officials, in order to let them know that people are watching and they should just cut the crap*.
* = You probably shouldn't use the phrase "cut the crap." That may reduce your credibility with the electeds. Just sayin'... :)
I recently submitted a letter to the editors of the Arizona Republic. Hopefully, they'll accept it for publication and do so this week.
I also sent a letter to Governor Brewer. I doubt she'll be publishing it anytime soon, so here it is -
Later...
There are at least a couple of things that people can do to combat the moves to subvert the independence of the AIRC -
1. Go to a hearing. Stand up and speak in support of the AIRC's independence, a fair, honest, and open process, and competitive districts. And thank the members of the AIRC for their efforts and sacrifices on behalf of the future of the state.
2. Talk to people. Let your friends and neighbors know what is going on and why they should keep and eye on the goings-on with redistricting. Write letters, to the editor of your local newspaper in order to reach out to a wider group of people, and to elected officials, in order to let them know that people are watching and they should just cut the crap*.
* = You probably shouldn't use the phrase "cut the crap." That may reduce your credibility with the electeds. Just sayin'... :)
I recently submitted a letter to the editors of the Arizona Republic. Hopefully, they'll accept it for publication and do so this week.
I also sent a letter to Governor Brewer. I doubt she'll be publishing it anytime soon, so here it is -
Governor Brewer,
I am writing to you today to urge you to respect in independence of the Independent Redistricting Commission. In addition, I urge you to use your influence to convince the members of the legislature to do the same.
When the voters passed Proposition 106 in November of 2000, they sent an overwhelming message that they want a fair, transparent, and nonpartisan process for Congressional and legislative redistricting, and a process that is NOT under the control of the partisan officeholders whose districts are being designed.
The recent attempts to both physically and politically intimidate the IRC by certain members of the state government clearly run counter to the voters' will.
Beside threatening the viability and effectiveness of the redistricting process (something that obviously doesn't bother certain people), these attempts to subvert the process will have another effect, one that those same people may not like - it will almost certainly contribute to Arizona remaining a "pre-clearance" state.
Some of the members of the Republican caucus in the legislature are pushing for a special session of the legislature be called so that they can remove the independent chair of the IRC, Colleen Mathis. I would remind you (and them) that there are clear and specific grounds for removal listed in the Arizona Constitution, and the chair hasn't even come close to violating any of them. However, I'm not naive. I undertand that considerations of practical politics hold greater sway at the Capitol than the simple ideals of fair play or respect for the will of the voters.
When those certain legislators pressure you to call a special session to serve their partisan interests, remind them that when you called a special session to change a single word in Arizona law that would have allowed thousands of Arizonans who have been most adversely affected by the current recession to collect a few more weeks of federally-funded unemployment benefits, they balked.
And they were rather shameless about it to boot.
Holding a special session now to railroad someone who has done nothing wrong would generate a PR nightmare of a magnitude that most of them have never witnessed, much less been a part of.
Whether it's for idealistic or practical reasons, standing up for the independence of the IRC is the politically wise thing to do.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Regards,
[cpmaz]
Later...
Update: Campaign Committees
There have been a few developments on the 2012 campaign committee front since the last update.
...In the race for US Senate, Don Bivens, attorney and former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, has formed a committee. According to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's The Fix, the committee is an exploratory one, and Bivens has said that he will make a final decision on running around Labor Day.
...In legislative developments -
- Former state legislator David Bradley has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD28 state senate.
- Martin Quezada has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.
- Lorenzo Sierra Jr. has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.
- Michael Snitz has formed a committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD14 state representative.
Note: all of the districts listed will change once the Independent Redistricting Commission puts together the new maps.
Active Congressional committee fundraising totals (April thru June) (incumbents italicized):
Raul Grijalva (D) - $88233 raised, $70724 on hand
Chuck Gray (R) - $3359 raised, $16443 on hand
Trent Franks (R) - $59507 raised, $41068 on hand, $372477 in debt
David Schweikert (R) - $2230 raised, $17881 on hand, $501800 in debt
David Schweikert (R) (2nd committee) - $250777 raised, $336262 on hand
Gabrielle Giffords (D) - $281177 raised, $787949 on hand
Travis Grantham (R) - $13300 raised, $13240 on hand
Kirk Adams (R) - $230525 raised, $209225 on hand
Ann Kirkpatrick (D) - $221289 raised, $215723 on hand
Paul Gosar (R) - $166544 raised, $138392 on hand
Ed Pastor (D) - $93158 raised, $1391488 on hand
Ben Quayle (R) - $282964 raised, $370277 on hand, $7487 in debt
Matt Salmon (R) - $162289 raised, $155744 on hand, $16889 in debt
Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (R) - $22397 raised, $21351 on hand, $485 in debt
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (D) - $8446 raised, $4603 on hand
Note: because incumbent US Representative Jeff Flake is now running for US Senate, his fundraising reports are not available online.
Note2: All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.
Note3: I didn't list the district of the Congressional committees because those are going to change in a few months.
Observation: Aren't the Republicans the ones who campaign on their opposition to debt? Just sayin'...
- No changes in municipal campaign committees in Tempe and Scottsdale, though that should change soon - sources report that there is a poll in the field regarding the Tempe mayor's race. Some say it's a push poll, others say it's legit. I'm not a Tempe resident, so I didn't get the calls and cannot evaluate it directly.
Later...
...In the race for US Senate, Don Bivens, attorney and former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party, has formed a committee. According to Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's The Fix, the committee is an exploratory one, and Bivens has said that he will make a final decision on running around Labor Day.
...In legislative developments -
- Former state legislator David Bradley has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD28 state senate.
- Martin Quezada has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.
- Lorenzo Sierra Jr. has formed an exploratory committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD13 state representative.
- Michael Snitz has formed a committee for a run for the Democratic nomination for LD14 state representative.
Note: all of the districts listed will change once the Independent Redistricting Commission puts together the new maps.
Active Congressional committee fundraising totals (April thru June) (incumbents italicized):
Raul Grijalva (D) - $88233 raised, $70724 on hand
Chuck Gray (R) - $3359 raised, $16443 on hand
Trent Franks (R) - $59507 raised, $41068 on hand, $372477 in debt
David Schweikert (R) - $2230 raised, $17881 on hand, $501800 in debt
David Schweikert (R) (2nd committee) - $250777 raised, $336262 on hand
Gabrielle Giffords (D) - $281177 raised, $787949 on hand
Travis Grantham (R) - $13300 raised, $13240 on hand
Kirk Adams (R) - $230525 raised, $209225 on hand
Ann Kirkpatrick (D) - $221289 raised, $215723 on hand
Paul Gosar (R) - $166544 raised, $138392 on hand
Ed Pastor (D) - $93158 raised, $1391488 on hand
Ben Quayle (R) - $282964 raised, $370277 on hand, $7487 in debt
Matt Salmon (R) - $162289 raised, $155744 on hand, $16889 in debt
Gabriela Saucedo Mercer (R) - $22397 raised, $21351 on hand, $485 in debt
Wenona Benally Baldenegro (D) - $8446 raised, $4603 on hand
Note: because incumbent US Representative Jeff Flake is now running for US Senate, his fundraising reports are not available online.
Note2: All numbers rounded to the nearest dollar.
Note3: I didn't list the district of the Congressional committees because those are going to change in a few months.
Observation: Aren't the Republicans the ones who campaign on their opposition to debt? Just sayin'...
- No changes in municipal campaign committees in Tempe and Scottsdale, though that should change soon - sources report that there is a poll in the field regarding the Tempe mayor's race. Some say it's a push poll, others say it's legit. I'm not a Tempe resident, so I didn't get the calls and cannot evaluate it directly.
Later...
Friday, July 15, 2011
Redistricting Commission outreach meetings/public hearings scheduled for locations around the state
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission is commencing its road tour, scheduling hearings in various locations around the state. The list isn't complete yet, but here's what they have listed so far -
Thursday, July 21, 6 p.m. - South Mountain Community College, 7050 S. 24th St., Phoenix. Room SU 100A
Friday, July 22, 6 p.m. - Nogales Unified School District Adminstrative Building/District Office, 310 Plum St., Nogales. Anita Lichter Board Room.
Saturday, July 23, 1 p.m. - City of Yuma, with remote locations in San Luis and Parker (physical locations to be announced)
Monday, July 25, 6 p.m. - Mesa Convention Center, 263 N. Center St., Mesa. Palo Verde III - Building B
Tuesday, July 26, 6 p.m. - Bullhead City Council Chambers, 1255 Marina Blvd., Bullhead City
Wednesday, July 27, 6 p.m. - Casa Grande City Council Chambers, 510 E. Florence Blvd., Casa Grande; remote location: (City of) Maricopa Unified School District Office Administration Building, 44150 W. Maricopa/Casa Grande Hwy, Maricopa. Board Room
Thursday, July 28, 6 p.m. - Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Board Hearing Room, 1015 Fair St., Prescott; remote location: Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex, 10 S. 6th St., Cottonwood
Friday, July 29, 1 p.m. - Navajoland Inn & Suites (formerly Days Inn) Conference Room, 392 W. Hwy 264, St. Michaels
Saturday, July 30, 1 p.m. - Hon Dah Resort - Casino, 777 Hwy 260, Pinetop. Mt. Baldy Room; remote locations: Holbrook City Council Chambers, 465 1st Ave., Holbrook and Winslow City Council Chambers, 115 E. 2nd St., Winslow
Monday, August 1, 6 p.m. - City of Flagstaff, with remote locations in Page and Tuba City (physical locations to be announced)
Tuesday, August 2, 6 p.m. - South Tucson City Council Chambers, 1601 S. 6th Ave., South Tucson
Wednesday, August 3, 6 p.m. - Glendale City Council Chambers, 5850 W. Glendale Ave., Glendale
Thursday, August 4, 6 p.m. - Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma St., Sierra Vista; remote location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Room, Building G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee
Friday, August 5, 6 p.m. - City of Phoenix (physical location to be announced)
Saturday, August 6, 6 p.m. - Abrams Public Health Building, 3950 S. Country Club Rd., Tucson. Room 1106
Note: the schedule is subject to change. In addition, this is only the first round of meetings according to the schedule. Check the AIRC's website for updates before attending any of the meetings listed above.
Thursday, July 21, 6 p.m. - South Mountain Community College, 7050 S. 24th St., Phoenix. Room SU 100A
Friday, July 22, 6 p.m. - Nogales Unified School District Adminstrative Building/District Office, 310 Plum St., Nogales. Anita Lichter Board Room.
Saturday, July 23, 1 p.m. - City of Yuma, with remote locations in San Luis and Parker (physical locations to be announced)
Monday, July 25, 6 p.m. - Mesa Convention Center, 263 N. Center St., Mesa. Palo Verde III - Building B
Tuesday, July 26, 6 p.m. - Bullhead City Council Chambers, 1255 Marina Blvd., Bullhead City
Wednesday, July 27, 6 p.m. - Casa Grande City Council Chambers, 510 E. Florence Blvd., Casa Grande; remote location: (City of) Maricopa Unified School District Office Administration Building, 44150 W. Maricopa/Casa Grande Hwy, Maricopa. Board Room
Thursday, July 28, 6 p.m. - Yavapai County Board of Supervisors Board Hearing Room, 1015 Fair St., Prescott; remote location: Yavapai County Cottonwood Annex, 10 S. 6th St., Cottonwood
Friday, July 29, 1 p.m. - Navajoland Inn & Suites (formerly Days Inn) Conference Room, 392 W. Hwy 264, St. Michaels
Saturday, July 30, 1 p.m. - Hon Dah Resort - Casino, 777 Hwy 260, Pinetop. Mt. Baldy Room; remote locations: Holbrook City Council Chambers, 465 1st Ave., Holbrook and Winslow City Council Chambers, 115 E. 2nd St., Winslow
Monday, August 1, 6 p.m. - City of Flagstaff, with remote locations in Page and Tuba City (physical locations to be announced)
Tuesday, August 2, 6 p.m. - South Tucson City Council Chambers, 1601 S. 6th Ave., South Tucson
Wednesday, August 3, 6 p.m. - Glendale City Council Chambers, 5850 W. Glendale Ave., Glendale
Thursday, August 4, 6 p.m. - Sierra Vista Public Library, 2600 E. Tacoma St., Sierra Vista; remote location: Cochise County Board of Supervisors Public Hearing Room, Building G, 1415 Melody Lane, Bisbee
Friday, August 5, 6 p.m. - City of Phoenix (physical location to be announced)
Saturday, August 6, 6 p.m. - Abrams Public Health Building, 3950 S. Country Club Rd., Tucson. Room 1106
Note: the schedule is subject to change. In addition, this is only the first round of meetings according to the schedule. Check the AIRC's website for updates before attending any of the meetings listed above.
Thursday, July 14, 2011
Pinal County Applicants Sought for Judicial Performance Review
Press release from the Arizona Judicial Branch, aka the Arizona Supreme Court -
Superior Court judges in Arizona are chosen in two ways. Counties with a population of less than 250,000 people elect Superior Court judges. Counties with a population of more than 250,000 people have Superior Court judges who are appointed through the state’s merit selection process.
The 2010 Census certified that Pinal County now has a population of more than 250,000 people. Pinal County judges will now participate in the merit selection process and stand for “retention elections,” rather than competitive elections. Judges on the ballot will be reviewed by the Judicial Performance Review Commission, so that voters will know whether the judges on the ballot meet judicial performance standards.
The 2012 election will be the first time that information is available to Pinal County voters about the Superior Court judges on their ballot. The judicial reviews are based on surveys of people who come to court and observe the judges’ performance. Information collected at public hearings and judicial discipline records are also considered.
The Commission on Judicial Performance Review will include members from Pinal County beginning this fall. The Supreme Court will appoint three public members from Pinal County (who cannot be lawyers or judges) to the commission. The Court will also appoint one attorney from Pinal County to the commission.
Mike Hellon, a public member and chairman of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, encourages Pinal County citizens to take an active role in judicial review: “A qualified and independent judiciary, untainted by partisan politics, is one of the cornerstones of our free society. Serving on the commission that reviews the performance of Arizona judges is an important and satisfying contribution to the quality and independence of our judicial system.”
The Commission meets four to six times a year in Phoenix. Members are reimbursed for travel expenses. Service on this commission involves active participation by the member with a commitment to attend most if not all of the meetings.
Judicial Performance Review also includes a self-improvement component. In addition to the commission appointments, public members and attorneys are needed to serve on teams that will meet with Pinal County judges about their performance. Applicants must be residents of Pinal County. An application form can be downloaded at: www.azcourts.gov/committeescommissions and should be submitted to the address on the form by August 12, 2011. The application can also be requested by sending an email to JPR@courts.az.gov or calling 602-452-3098. More nformation about Judicial Performance Review can be found at www.azjudges.info or by calling 602-452-3098.
Superior Court judges in Arizona are chosen in two ways. Counties with a population of less than 250,000 people elect Superior Court judges. Counties with a population of more than 250,000 people have Superior Court judges who are appointed through the state’s merit selection process.
The 2010 Census certified that Pinal County now has a population of more than 250,000 people. Pinal County judges will now participate in the merit selection process and stand for “retention elections,” rather than competitive elections. Judges on the ballot will be reviewed by the Judicial Performance Review Commission, so that voters will know whether the judges on the ballot meet judicial performance standards.
The 2012 election will be the first time that information is available to Pinal County voters about the Superior Court judges on their ballot. The judicial reviews are based on surveys of people who come to court and observe the judges’ performance. Information collected at public hearings and judicial discipline records are also considered.
The Commission on Judicial Performance Review will include members from Pinal County beginning this fall. The Supreme Court will appoint three public members from Pinal County (who cannot be lawyers or judges) to the commission. The Court will also appoint one attorney from Pinal County to the commission.
Mike Hellon, a public member and chairman of the Commission on Judicial Performance Review, encourages Pinal County citizens to take an active role in judicial review: “A qualified and independent judiciary, untainted by partisan politics, is one of the cornerstones of our free society. Serving on the commission that reviews the performance of Arizona judges is an important and satisfying contribution to the quality and independence of our judicial system.”
The Commission meets four to six times a year in Phoenix. Members are reimbursed for travel expenses. Service on this commission involves active participation by the member with a commitment to attend most if not all of the meetings.
Judicial Performance Review also includes a self-improvement component. In addition to the commission appointments, public members and attorneys are needed to serve on teams that will meet with Pinal County judges about their performance. Applicants must be residents of Pinal County. An application form can be downloaded at: www.azcourts.gov/committeescommissions and should be submitted to the address on the form by August 12, 2011. The application can also be requested by sending an email to JPR@courts.az.gov or calling 602-452-3098. More nformation about Judicial Performance Review can be found at www.azjudges.info or by calling 602-452-3098.
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Love letters...
I write here to inform, educate, vent, gripe, celebrate, commiserate, and more. I hope that what I write causes people to think about the things going on in Arizona and engage in civil discussions on the best ways to address the issues facing the state.
Yes, there's more than a bit of ego involved in blogging. :)
However, I'm not naive. I fully realize that not everyone feels that way, and they usually let me hear about it in a comment here. On rare occasions however, I receive a direct message from a reader.
From a reader email, unedited and in its entirety-
BTW - a couple of points that I didn't make in the reply to the note -
1. One of the reasons that I love Arizona is that it provides would-be political commentators like me *oodles* of material to work with. While Massachusetts' political scene has some parallels to Arizona's (it's certainly no less corrupt, unfortunately), it offers nowhere near the level of utter insanity that Arizona does.
2. It doesn't speak well of me, but while I derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when someone learns something new from one of my posts, I also derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when I simply get under someone's skin.
I'm feeling great joy right now. :))
Good night!
Yes, there's more than a bit of ego involved in blogging. :)
However, I'm not naive. I fully realize that not everyone feels that way, and they usually let me hear about it in a comment here. On rare occasions however, I receive a direct message from a reader.
From a reader email, unedited and in its entirety-
New Englander, GO HOME
Massachusetts... that tiny blue state where Ted Kennedy, in a drunken stupor abandoned a woman to drown and Mitt Romney brought the state to near bankruptcy with his Pre-Obama Health Care for all. New Englander, why don't you return? Seems the politics in MA are more to your liking. Return to the land from which you came for its obvious you do not wish to become an Arizonian but hope to make our home more to your liking -My response wasn't eloquent, but since eloquence isn't exactly my stock-in-trade, that's not a big deal. :)
V.
--
“Privacy is a major element of freedom, without which people and nations cannot remain free.” – George Orwell, 1984
Mr. V,
Just a few points -
1. I *am* home, and have been for nearly 17 years.
2. I *am* an Arizonan. I love my state, in spite of (and occasionally because of) its imperfections. Because of that love, I want the state to be a better place for everybody, and am willing to work toward that goal.
3. I *do* occasionally miss New England. Like on Opening Day at Fenway, and the first weekend in the fall when you can drive into the mountains of New Hampshire to view the absolutely spectacular foliage. Other than those times, my perspective on the subject can be summed up in four words - "Ya don't shovel sunshine."
4. Arizona is a lot closer to bankruptcy than Massachusetts, and one party has been running the show here for a couple of generations now. And it isn't the Democrats.
Thank you for writing.The writer used a pseudonym, but since that pseudonym is known within the AZ blogosphere and I don't know that the person who wrote the note is also the person who posts and comments on posts under that name, I've decided not to publicize the pseudonym.
BTW - a couple of points that I didn't make in the reply to the note -
1. One of the reasons that I love Arizona is that it provides would-be political commentators like me *oodles* of material to work with. While Massachusetts' political scene has some parallels to Arizona's (it's certainly no less corrupt, unfortunately), it offers nowhere near the level of utter insanity that Arizona does.
2. It doesn't speak well of me, but while I derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when someone learns something new from one of my posts, I also derive great joy (and yes, a little pride, too) when I simply get under someone's skin.
I'm feeling great joy right now. :))
Good night!
AZ legislators have tender sensibilities. Who knew?
Last week, EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic wrote a column that pointed out the track record of the Arizona legislature in regards to children - pull out all the stops to "protect" them...until they are born.
At that point, the Republicans in the legislature assume a rather laissez-faire attitude towards children (and worse, if the kids are born to poor parents or have brown skin).
Montini's point upset the legislators, and in the person of Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-LD10), they responded with a column published in Monday's edition.
In it, she argued that the legislature's priorities were "[c]racking down on bullying in our schools, protecting the health of women in our state and reining in our spending to lower the debt passed on to the next generation."
That's a rather selective way of looking at what the lege worked on this past session.
The reality is that legislators worked on their own personal priorities, not the priorities of the state's residents.
...Where struggling Arizonans want jobs, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while increasing the tax burden on middle class homeowners.
...Where Arizonans want accessible health care, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed a budget with massive cuts to AHCCCS, placing thousands of the most vulnerable Arizonans at jeopardy.
...Where Arizonans want a robust and effective education system for the children, Republican legislators (including Yee) have worked to gut education in Arizona.
Just in case someone thinks that I'm being unfair to Rep. Yee, lumping her in with the rest of her caucus based on mere votes, from the list of bills that Yee herself sponsored or cosponsored:
HB2392, a bill to allow guns in school zones
HB2409, a bill to bar the award of attorney's fees to the state or a county or municipality in a civil action relating to the enforcement or challenge of a law, ordinance, or regulation
HB2415, a bill that became law pertaining to addressing bullying incidents in schools (OK, she gets credit for one relatively harmless, perhaps even beneficial, measure)
HB2416, a bill that became law delaying and restricting abortions and women's health care
HB2442, a bill to ban the nonexistent practice of abortions for gender selection; another version became law
HB2534, a bill that became law to attempt to block the Tohono O'odham tribe from building a casino in the West Valley part of Maricopa County by allowing a municipality to summarily "annex" (aka - steal) legally acquired land. Though this became law, it was block by a federal court.
HB2544, a "birther" bill (another version passed the lege, but was vetoed by the governor)
HB2549, a bill that became law, addressing the pressing issue of making "The Grand Canyon State" the official state nickname
HB2555, a bill to bar local regulation of taxis and other forms of tranportation for hire
HB2581, a bill to greatly expand the corporate tuition tax credit program. Passed by the lege, vetoed by the governor
SB1282, a bill that became law to allow religious entities to engage in secular political activity without having to register as a political committee, avoiding all sorts of disclosure rules (like having to tell where the money is coming from)
SB1553, a bill that became law, creating school vouchers
SB1610, a bill that became law, perhaps the law from this session {cue up the sarcasm} that is the single most important measure passed this year {end sarcasm} - making the Colt Single Action Army Revolver the official state firearm
The bottom line is that Yee and her colleagues have two options here -
1. Grow a thicker skin. Criticism and disagreement is part of an elected official's lot in life. Somebody who is easily upset by those things should stay away from politics, much less elected office.
2. Actually work on the state's priorities, not your personal priorities. Do your job of representing your constituents, regardless of district, well enough so that any criticisms aren't deserved.
My expectation -
They'll do neither. It's easier to whine, and they think whining plays better with tea party types than does conscientious competence.
At that point, the Republicans in the legislature assume a rather laissez-faire attitude towards children (and worse, if the kids are born to poor parents or have brown skin).
Montini's point upset the legislators, and in the person of Rep. Kimberly Yee (R-LD10), they responded with a column published in Monday's edition.
In it, she argued that the legislature's priorities were "[c]racking down on bullying in our schools, protecting the health of women in our state and reining in our spending to lower the debt passed on to the next generation."
That's a rather selective way of looking at what the lege worked on this past session.
The reality is that legislators worked on their own personal priorities, not the priorities of the state's residents.
...Where struggling Arizonans want jobs, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations while increasing the tax burden on middle class homeowners.
...Where Arizonans want accessible health care, Republican legislators (including Yee) passed a budget with massive cuts to AHCCCS, placing thousands of the most vulnerable Arizonans at jeopardy.
...Where Arizonans want a robust and effective education system for the children, Republican legislators (including Yee) have worked to gut education in Arizona.
Just in case someone thinks that I'm being unfair to Rep. Yee, lumping her in with the rest of her caucus based on mere votes, from the list of bills that Yee herself sponsored or cosponsored:
HB2392, a bill to allow guns in school zones
HB2409, a bill to bar the award of attorney's fees to the state or a county or municipality in a civil action relating to the enforcement or challenge of a law, ordinance, or regulation
HB2415, a bill that became law pertaining to addressing bullying incidents in schools (OK, she gets credit for one relatively harmless, perhaps even beneficial, measure)
HB2416, a bill that became law delaying and restricting abortions and women's health care
HB2442, a bill to ban the nonexistent practice of abortions for gender selection; another version became law
HB2534, a bill that became law to attempt to block the Tohono O'odham tribe from building a casino in the West Valley part of Maricopa County by allowing a municipality to summarily "annex" (aka - steal) legally acquired land. Though this became law, it was block by a federal court.
HB2544, a "birther" bill (another version passed the lege, but was vetoed by the governor)
HB2549, a bill that became law, addressing the pressing issue of making "The Grand Canyon State" the official state nickname
HB2555, a bill to bar local regulation of taxis and other forms of tranportation for hire
HB2581, a bill to greatly expand the corporate tuition tax credit program. Passed by the lege, vetoed by the governor
SB1282, a bill that became law to allow religious entities to engage in secular political activity without having to register as a political committee, avoiding all sorts of disclosure rules (like having to tell where the money is coming from)
SB1553, a bill that became law, creating school vouchers
SB1610, a bill that became law, perhaps the law from this session {cue up the sarcasm} that is the single most important measure passed this year {end sarcasm} - making the Colt Single Action Army Revolver the official state firearm
The bottom line is that Yee and her colleagues have two options here -
1. Grow a thicker skin. Criticism and disagreement is part of an elected official's lot in life. Somebody who is easily upset by those things should stay away from politics, much less elected office.
2. Actually work on the state's priorities, not your personal priorities. Do your job of representing your constituents, regardless of district, well enough so that any criticisms aren't deserved.
My expectation -
They'll do neither. It's easier to whine, and they think whining plays better with tea party types than does conscientious competence.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Why doesn't the Arizona Republic make it official and put Chuck Coughlin's name on the masthead?
From the Arizona Republic, written by Alia Beard Rau and Matt Dempsey -
Interestingly, the article didn't mention the Fiesta Bowl.
Nor did it mention the impact of thousands of Clean Elections' qualifying contributions on Rep's data.
Nor did it mention the influence of "independent" expenditure money funnelled from corporations and corporate associations.
In other words, the Rep ran what looks to be nothing more than an above-the-fold propaganda piece.
Otherwise known as business as usual.
The popular perception that corporate giants and powerful lobbyists wield all the monetary influence in politics doesn't necessarily ring true in Arizona.
Here, the largest source of funding for candidates' election campaigns comes from the average grass-roots voter. That was the case during the 2010 election, and it's expected to be the case again as candidates gear up for the 2012 race.In case you aren't familiar with Cole and HighGround, Cole and HighGround's president, the titular Chuck Coughlin, were deeply involved in the Fiesta Bowl "gift"/bribery scandal that is threatening the political careers of many elected officials at the Capitol, most notably the embattled president of the state senate, Russell Pearce.
"I think among the general public, there's this misconception about the influence of money in Arizona politics," said Doug Cole, senior vice president of government affairs for HighGround, a consulting group that works with many of the state's most influential Republican candidates.
Interestingly, the article didn't mention the Fiesta Bowl.
Nor did it mention the impact of thousands of Clean Elections' qualifying contributions on Rep's data.
Nor did it mention the influence of "independent" expenditure money funnelled from corporations and corporate associations.
In other words, the Rep ran what looks to be nothing more than an above-the-fold propaganda piece.
Otherwise known as business as usual.
Saturday, July 09, 2011
Pearce Recall Certified; Election Imminent*
* - Pending the inevitable legal challenge, of course...
From the East Valley Tribune, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services -
And even if there isn't, she may use the Casey Anthony "spaghetti" defense - throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall, and see if some of it sticks.
BTW - "spaghetti" isn't the real name, but since this is a PG-13 rated blog... :)
Congratulations, and thanks, are due to all of the folks at Citizens for a Better Arizona. Without their vision, dedication, and thousands of hours of hard work, history would not have been made - Pearce is the first state-level elected official in Arizona to be faced with a recall.
From the East Valley Tribune, written by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services -
State election officials announced Friday there are more than enough signatures to force Senate President Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, to defend his seat.Later in the article, Fischer writes about how Pearce has no plans to mount a legal challenge to the recall, but Pearce's lawyer is Lisa Hauser, the infamous Republican attorney. If there is an angle or scheme she can use in defense of Pearce's interests, she will.
Elections Director Amy Bjelland formally certified there are10,365 valid signatures on the petitions. Only 7,756 were needed.
Gov. Jan Brewer now has 15 days to call the election, something she cannot legally refuse to do. That means the vote will come on the next available election date, Nov. 8, unless there is a legal challenge.
And even if there isn't, she may use the Casey Anthony "spaghetti" defense - throw a lot of spaghetti against the wall, and see if some of it sticks.
BTW - "spaghetti" isn't the real name, but since this is a PG-13 rated blog... :)
Congratulations, and thanks, are due to all of the folks at Citizens for a Better Arizona. Without their vision, dedication, and thousands of hours of hard work, history would not have been made - Pearce is the first state-level elected official in Arizona to be faced with a recall.
Thursday, July 07, 2011
Baseball and politics: The games inside the games
In honor of MLB's All Star Game coming to Phoenix next week...
Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.
One example of that is "working the umpires."
In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game. Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that.
That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.
It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.
In politics, much the same activity takes place.
Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts. The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.
The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.
The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.
In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.
Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.
Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.
Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.
The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running. That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators. However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind. He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.
The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission. It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.
The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant. ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.
The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle. The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.
Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle. Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.
Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.
From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -
However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.
Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.
Even though it wasn't true.
And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate. One does work for him though.
Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process.
Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting.
At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.
Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).
Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed. Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.
Later...
Politics, like baseball, has a "game within the game," things that don't show up in vote tallies or box scores but that can impact the parts of the game that do.
One example of that is "working the umpires."
In baseball, the umpires are independent of either team playing a game. Their job is to be neutral and fair and the game works best when they are just that.
That fact, however, doesn't stop players, coaches, and managers from wheedling, needling, flattering, criticizing, barking, whimpering, whatevering the umpires, trying to gain an edge on a close call.
It doesn't work (usually), but that doesn't stop them from trying - in a game where one run can mean a win, and one win can mean a championship, the potential payoff is worth the effort.
In politics, much the same activity takes place.
Consider the hubbub surrounding the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).
Set up with the voters' passage of Prop 106 in 2000, the AIRC is responsible for neutrally and fairly laying out Arizona's legislative and Congressional districts. The Commission is designed to be as neutral as possible - there are two Republican members, two Democratic members, and one Independent member who acts as the chairperson of the Commission.
The first time around, the Republicans didn't complain about the Commission much - they were ready and the ostensibly neutral Commission was neutral in name only.
The "Independent" chair was less "independent" and more "Republican in everything but registration," while the Republican lawyer for the AIRC, Lisa Hauser, spent more time ordering the other lawyers (and yes, the commissioners, too) around rather than giving them honest advice and letting the commissioners make their decisions.
In short, the Rs were well-prepared in 2001.
Fast forward a decade to 2011, and the Rs weren't so well-prepared.
Where in 2001, they had all of the pieces in place to control the redistricting process; in 2011, they didn't even have candidates for the Commission that they liked, and have been relying on gamesmanship to gain an edge up.
Since the beginning of the process, selecting candidates for the AIRC, the Republicans, particularly the leadership in the legislature, have been trying to obstruct the process or intimidate the participants.
The first gambit was a lawsuit to knock a few candidates out of the running. That move sort of succeeded - two Republicans were removed from the pool of candidates and were replaced by people who were considered to be more pliable by the legislators. However, the main target of the lawsuit, Independent candidate Paul Bender, survived the challenge (Bender is considered to have a brilliant legal mind. He's also an Independent, possibly because he is liberal enough to consider the Democratic Party too conservative.
The second gambit was an attempt by the Republicans to game the process again by hiring the previously-mentioned Hauser as an attorney for the Commission. It failed, but the Rs weren't (and aren't) done.
The next move was to criticize the selection of Strategic Telemetry (ST) as the mapping consultant. ST has worked for some Democratic campaigns in the past, so the Republicans argued that they are too partisan.
The Republicans wanted National Demographics (ND), the mapping consultant for the last redistricting cycle. The one that turned out pretty well for the Rs.
Maybe they were hoping for some of the same "luck" that they had last cycle. Which was less "luck" than "planning" - the president of ND is a Republican and a "fellow" at the Rose Institute, a think tank dedicated to making sure that redistricting efforts across the country favor Republicans.
Now, they are demanding that the chair of the AIRC, Colleen Mathis, resign from the Commission because her husband Christopher served as the treasurer of a Democratic legislative campaign in 2010.
From Article 4, Section 2 of the Arizona Constitution, relating to the requirements for members/candidates of the AIRC -
Each member shall be a registered Arizona voter who has been continuously registered with the same political party or registered as unaffiliated with a political party for three or more years immediately preceding appointment, who is committed to applying the provisions of this section in an honest, independent and impartial fashion and to upholding public confidence in the integrity of the redistricting process. Within the three years previous to appointment, members shall not have been appointed to, elected to, or a candidate for any other public office, including precinct committeeman or committeewoman but not including school board member or officer, and shall not have served as an officer of a political party, or served as a registered paid lobbyist or as an officer of a candidate's campaign committee.Nothing is mentioned about spouses in the constitutional requirements, nor are there any questions relating to the involvement of spouses in campaign in the application for the Commission.
However, there *is* a question where the applicants have to certify that they are current on their taxes.
Rick Stertz, the member appointed by Senate President Russell Pearce (and perhaps not coincidentally, one of the replacements for the candidates knocked out of consideration by the lawsuit from Pearce and Kirk Adams, then the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives) so certified.
Even though it wasn't true.
And Stertz (or his spouse) hasn't worked for a candidate. One does work for him though.
Hand-in-hand with the attacks on the Commission's independence has been the move to flood the meetings of the Commission with tea party types and other Republicans to make it seem like there is a groundswell of opposition to a fair and independent redistricting process.
Last week, over 40 people, many self-identified as representing themselves but later identified as active Republicans, showed up to a Commission meeting in Tucson with the intent to disrupt the meeting.
At this week's meeting on Friday, ~70 people showed up in Phoenix, but unlike the incident in Tucson, they were there to civilly support the work and the independence of the Commission.
Next week's meeting, on Wednesday July 13, is scheduled take place in Chandler at 9:30 a.m., though the specifics are subject to change (and the actual location hasn't been announced yet).
Another strong turnout of people who support and fair, transparent, and independent redistricting process is needed. Civility in numbers can effectively counter incivility in numbers.
Later...
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission meeting Friday
The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) is scheduled to hold a meeting on Friday.
Info:
Location - Room 312, Executive Tower (Pharmacy Board Meeting Room), 1700 West Washington, Phoenix
Time - 9:30 a.m.
Agenda - here
After the last meeting, where a number of tea party types showed up to disrupt the meeting and attempted to intimidate members of the Commission and members of the public, a strong turnout of people who are actually concerned about the future of Arizona is called for.
The Commission needs to hear both that competitive districts are important to the future of Arizona and that people acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of the members.
And they need to see that most of the people for whom they toil are civil, rational human beings.
Be there folks, whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or something else (yes, even a Republican).
Info:
Location - Room 312, Executive Tower (Pharmacy Board Meeting Room), 1700 West Washington, Phoenix
Time - 9:30 a.m.
Agenda - here
After the last meeting, where a number of tea party types showed up to disrupt the meeting and attempted to intimidate members of the Commission and members of the public, a strong turnout of people who are actually concerned about the future of Arizona is called for.
The Commission needs to hear both that competitive districts are important to the future of Arizona and that people acknowledge and are grateful for the efforts of the members.
And they need to see that most of the people for whom they toil are civil, rational human beings.
Be there folks, whether you are a Democrat, Independent, Libertarian, Green, or something else (yes, even a Republican).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)