Some of this has been covered elsewhere, but merits inclusion here because of timeliness and topicality -
- LD17 State Representative Ben Arredondo pled guilty in federal court on Friday on some felony mail fraud charges related to a sporting events tickets bribery scam and a "scholarship fund" that was used to pay education expenses for some relatives of his. According to news reports, his sentencing will take place in January. A copy of the plea agreement is here, courtesy AZCentral.com.
With the felony conviction, Arredondo becomes ineligible to serve in the legislature. When the seat officially becomes vacant, the Democratic Party precinct committeemen (PCs) of the current LD17 will meet to nominate three candidates to fill the seat for the remainder of Arredondo's term. The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will then interview and select one of the candidates for the appointment.
- John Mills, a former staffer at the Arizona House of Representatives, is the subject of a federal indictment on wire fraud charges, relating to his alleged use of campaign funds for personal purposes.
...While the two, Arredondo and Mills, have been convicted and/or accused of some serious crimes, the crimes are still relatively small time.
The "buzz" in Arizona's political circles is that this is just the beginning and that more investigations, indictments, and convictions of "large fry" are in the federal pipeline.
- Arizona has had governors indicted* (and convicted) while in office, a state treasurer resign in disgrace (before he could be indicted), and a state mine inspector who was indicted on fraud and theft charges.
And just in the last couple of decades.
However, to the best of my knowledge, we've haven't had an Attorney General who was the subject of a corruption investigation.
Enter Tom Horne.
He's now facing civil charges (which could result in fines, as opposed to the prison time that criminal charges could bring) stemming from some alleged campaign finance violations. A close aide of his, Kathleen Winn, headed up an independent expenditure committee during the 2010 election cycle. That independent committee spent more than half a million dollars opposing candidates.
Or should I say, "candidate".
The only candidate that the committee expended funds opposing was Felecia Rotellini, Horne's opponent in the race for Attorney General that year.
There was evidence (aside from the obvious - a Horne associate running an "independent" committee that focused solely on attacking a Horne adversary) that there was operational and fundraising coordination between Horne, hence the charges.
Fun fact: All of the independent expeditures were funnelled through Lincoln Strategy Group, which is run by infamous GOP operative Nathan Sproul. Who's having problems of his own these days.
Even before this, Horne had ethical issues - like a receiving a lifetime ban from the Securities and Exchange Commission for things like fraud and deceiving clients, like concealing a bankruptcy on a financial disclosure form, like hiring women who are close, personal friends to taxpayer-funded jobs for which they may be slightly less than qualified for (that's kind of a convoluted way of saying that he allegedly has used taxpayer money to support his girlfriends).
And to top it all off, during the FBI investigation that led to the current legal difficulties? Horne was driving a car that collided with another car, and after doing so, drove off. He committed a hit-and-run.
In full view of two FBI agents who were following him as part of the investigation.
And where did the accident occur?
At the address of his (alleged) girlfriend.
Ooopsie.
*Actually, multitasker that he was, Ev Mecham was indicted, impeached, and the subject of a recall election, all at the same time. However, including all of that would have made the sentence waaaaay too long. :)
- Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever was legally intoxicated, speeding, and not wearing a seat belt at the time of his fatal car crash. All of which goes to illustrate that no one is immune to the laws of biochemistry or physics, not even those who enforce the laws of man. If you are going to consume alcohol (or any other intoxicant), don't drive; when you drive, drive in a manner that is safe for the conditions (Dever was driving at more than 60 mph on a gravel road designed, and designated, for a lower speed); and when you get into a motor vehicle, wear your damn seat belt.
Having said all that, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a huge tragedy for Dever's family and friends, and my deepest condolences go out to them.
- Apparently, one of the candidates for the Arrowhead Justice of the Peace office, Melanie DeForest, has withdrawn from the race. According to a source, a press release was sent out late this week announcing the withdrawal, however, I haven't seen the press release nor did DeForest return a call seeking confirmation. However, I trust my source on this.
DeForest is the "incumbent" in the race in that she currently holds the office. She was appointed to the office when her predecessor Philip Woolbright was removed from office over ethics violations.
Woolbright was removed from office too late for a normal election process (collect nomination signatures, turn them in and be placed the primary ballot, win the primary, and go on to the general election), so the race is a "write-in" only one on the November ballot. There are nine declared write-in candidates, but DeForest was considered to be the favorite, both because she was already in the office and because she has the support of the Arrowhead Justice Precinct/NW Valley "establishment", such as it is - the treasurer of her campaign committee is Miles Keegan, the constable of the Hassayampa Justice Precinct, and her non-"Melanie DeForest" campaign contributors, per her most recent campaign finance filings, are John Keegan, a former JP in the Arrowhead precinct, and Chris and Martha Mueller. Mr. Miller is "Judge" Mueller, the Hassayampa JP, and Martha is his homemaker wife.
Note: Woolbright is scheduled for a bench trial on Thursday on a charge stemming from the incidents that were part of the ethics violations (Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR2012005432). However, that may change if either side in the case moves for a continuance.
The Arizona Republic has a story on DeForest's withdrawal from the race. Apparently she "enhanced" her resume, claiming certain educational and employment achievements that cannot be documented.
- Speaking of Maricopa County Superior Court cases, Jon Levenson, the former constable in the Kyrene Justice Precinct agreed to a plea deal in his insurance fraud/conspiracy case (CR2011-007713). He plead guilty to one charge, Conspiracy to Commit Arson of an Occupied Structure (his own house), while two other charges were dropped. He was sentenced to serve four months in Maricopa County Jail, but based on my reading of the plea agreement, the jail sentence is suspended and he will serve two years' probation instead. I've reached out to someone who knows more about this stuff than I do (you know, a lawyer-type person :) ). I'll update if appropriate.
Update on 10/7 - turns out that I did, in fact, misread the linked plea agreement. The normal sentence for a Class Two felony is much harsher than four months in county lockup; the four months in county is *part* of the suspended sentence, along with the two years' probation. Apologies to readers for my misreading of the plea agreement. End update...
Saturday, October 06, 2012
Bill Clinton coming to Tempe for Richard Carmona
Former President Bill Clinton is coming to ASU in Tempe as part of a rally for Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee for US Senate who has been surging in recent polls. RSVP here.
Basic info:
Date: Wednesday, October 10
Place: ASU Tempe, Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 South Athletes Place, Tempe, Arizona 85287
Time: Open at 8 p.m; rally starts at 9 p.m.
Basic info:
Date: Wednesday, October 10
Place: ASU Tempe, Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 South Athletes Place, Tempe, Arizona 85287
Time: Open at 8 p.m; rally starts at 9 p.m.
Wednesday, October 03, 2012
Takeaway from the debate: Mitt took round one on style points
...and rounds two and three can, and I expect will, have different outcomes.
Romney pluses: Stated clearly and (for now) kept to his positions confidently, even aggressively. Frequently interrupted and/or ignored the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, making it appear that Romney was in control of the debate.
Romney minuses: In spite of that, he didn't land a body blow, or even seriously sting President Obama, and he needed to do so tonight.
Obama pluses: He had facts on his side, and he stayed calm and composed in the face of Romney's incessant lies and attacks.
Obama minuses: He didn't call out Romney on the lies, letting a huge TV audience walk away from the event with the impression that Obama may not have the spine to stand up to Romney.
While the debate was a "win" for Romney, barely, the talking heads on the cable news networks think that this was a major "game changing" victory for Romney, and a brutal loss for Obama.
The problem with the talking heads is that they think like Washington insiders and expect that everyone else thinks the same way.
For them, the nuances of Simpson-Bowles, tax policy, and the deficit are the most vital topics of the day (and they certainly are important).
However, most parents with hearts will have a far more visceral reaction when their 3-year old cries -
"Mommy/Daddy! Please don't vote for the man who wants to kill Big Bird!"
I can't take credit for the following pics from my Facebook friends, but they may illustrate the real takeaway from the debate for most people -
"Obama went after bin Laden; Romney is going after Big Bird".
Romney pluses: Stated clearly and (for now) kept to his positions confidently, even aggressively. Frequently interrupted and/or ignored the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, making it appear that Romney was in control of the debate.
Romney minuses: In spite of that, he didn't land a body blow, or even seriously sting President Obama, and he needed to do so tonight.
Obama pluses: He had facts on his side, and he stayed calm and composed in the face of Romney's incessant lies and attacks.
Obama minuses: He didn't call out Romney on the lies, letting a huge TV audience walk away from the event with the impression that Obama may not have the spine to stand up to Romney.
While the debate was a "win" for Romney, barely, the talking heads on the cable news networks think that this was a major "game changing" victory for Romney, and a brutal loss for Obama.
The problem with the talking heads is that they think like Washington insiders and expect that everyone else thinks the same way.
For them, the nuances of Simpson-Bowles, tax policy, and the deficit are the most vital topics of the day (and they certainly are important).
However, most parents with hearts will have a far more visceral reaction when their 3-year old cries -
"Mommy/Daddy! Please don't vote for the man who wants to kill Big Bird!"
I can't take credit for the following pics from my Facebook friends, but they may illustrate the real takeaway from the debate for most people -
"Obama went after bin Laden; Romney is going after Big Bird".
Sunday, September 30, 2012
John Mills, former House staffer, indicted by the feds
From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -
The allegation that Mills may be a little dirty isn't surprising to anyone who dealt with him during the redistricting process last year (he served as House Speaker Andy Tobin's hatchet man) - when I asked a few of my friends and acquaintances about him, the nicest thing that was said was "Karma's a bitch".
Mills was actually fired from the lege once before, for blurring some lines during the 2001-2002 redisricting process, but was rehired by Jim Weiers when Weiers became House speaker during the middle of the last decade.
However, Weiers' attempt to pooh-pooh the current allegation is a little surprising, and may be a little counter-productive.
Spouting a version of "move along, nothing to see here" in a blatant attempt to make this go away quietly only serves to signal to observers (like a certain cynic with a blog ;) ) that there *is* something to see.
And now, we're going to look for it.
A federal grand jury has indicted a former state House staffer on 15 counts of wire fraud, that allege he used a campaign account for his own personal expenses, then returned the money before the election.
The indictment alleges John Rowland Mills used the campaign donations to help pay various mortgages, invest in Google stock, invest in a biodiesel business venture and feed his retirement investment accounts, as well as his wife's.
{snip}
Although the indictment does not name the candidate whose campaign funds Mills used, Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, told The Republic it was his account. At the time of the alleged fraud, Weiers was speaker of the Arizona House and was able to amass hefty contributions for his 2008 re-election bid.
Weiers called the indictment "silly" because he does not feel he was victimized by Mills' actions. He said the indictment appears to be an attempt by the FBI to justify the time and effort federal investigators put into the investigation.
The allegation that Mills may be a little dirty isn't surprising to anyone who dealt with him during the redistricting process last year (he served as House Speaker Andy Tobin's hatchet man) - when I asked a few of my friends and acquaintances about him, the nicest thing that was said was "Karma's a bitch".
Mills was actually fired from the lege once before, for blurring some lines during the 2001-2002 redisricting process, but was rehired by Jim Weiers when Weiers became House speaker during the middle of the last decade.
However, Weiers' attempt to pooh-pooh the current allegation is a little surprising, and may be a little counter-productive.
Spouting a version of "move along, nothing to see here" in a blatant attempt to make this go away quietly only serves to signal to observers (like a certain cynic with a blog ;) ) that there *is* something to see.
And now, we're going to look for it.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
ACC: Arizona Corporation Commission, or Arizona "Crony" Commission
Must be nice to be an unethical Republican (that's not redundant - I do know some ethical ones. Of course, this being the 21st Century, the ethical ones have no chance of winning an R primary, so we don't hear about them).
For the most part, when they get caught doing something dirty, they don't face penalties harsher than a slap on the wrist...with a wet noodle.
To whit:
- Susan Bitter Smith, Bob Burns, and Bob Stump, Republican candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission all, accepted funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and agreed to follow Clean Elections' rules concerning expenditures. One of those rules is that candidates cannot use funds that are specified for use during the primary for general election-related activity.
The threesome did so, however, expending primary funds on a mailer that attacked their three general election opponents.
A complaint was filed and an investigation ensued.
This week, they agreed to "give up" $29K in public funding for their campaigns in exchange for making the matter go away and for not having to admit their guilt.
No jail time, no fines, and not even a whisper of a hint of removal from the ballot. They just won't have as much public money to spend on their own campaigns.
And there is nothing in the agreement that will do anything to minimize the vast amount of money that can and will be spent by industry-funded PACs and Independent Expenditure committees to ensure the election of willfully blind people serve as society's watchdogs.
- - "Cronyism" addendum one to the above story: The chairman of the ACC, Republican Gary Pierce, is a "marketing consultant" for the company that printed the mailers, Americopy. Americopy is owned and operated by a big R donor, Alan Heywood. In other words, even when getting caught doing dirt, the R candidates found a way to funnel public money to campaign contributors.
- - "Cronyism" addendum two to the above story (not directly related to the above story, but highly illustrative of the glad-handing atmosphere that surrounds the current ACC): The Sierra Club, with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) is suing the ACC to stop the construction and operation of a power plant that will generate electricity by burning trash. The Republicans on the ACC, Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump, have declared this to be a "green" initiative, in spite of the massive amount of pollution that it will create as it generates electricity.
Turns out that the company behind the proposed project, Reclamation Power Group, is fronted by one Ron Blendu.
If that name sounds a little familiar, it should. Ron's brother Bob Blendu is a former state legislator. Some of Bob's colleagues during his stint in the lege? Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump.
Oh, and another of his colleagues during his time in the legislature? Bob Burns, a current candidate for the ACC.
The fifth Republican in this brew of "it isn't what you know, it's who you know" is perennial R candidate Susan Bitter Smith. She's never been a member of the lege so far as I can tell, but if she wins a seat on the ACC, she should fit right in with the other R's - she's a career corporate lobbyist.
For the most part, when they get caught doing something dirty, they don't face penalties harsher than a slap on the wrist...with a wet noodle.
To whit:
- Susan Bitter Smith, Bob Burns, and Bob Stump, Republican candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission all, accepted funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and agreed to follow Clean Elections' rules concerning expenditures. One of those rules is that candidates cannot use funds that are specified for use during the primary for general election-related activity.
The threesome did so, however, expending primary funds on a mailer that attacked their three general election opponents.
A complaint was filed and an investigation ensued.
This week, they agreed to "give up" $29K in public funding for their campaigns in exchange for making the matter go away and for not having to admit their guilt.
No jail time, no fines, and not even a whisper of a hint of removal from the ballot. They just won't have as much public money to spend on their own campaigns.
And there is nothing in the agreement that will do anything to minimize the vast amount of money that can and will be spent by industry-funded PACs and Independent Expenditure committees to ensure the election of willfully blind people serve as society's watchdogs.
- - "Cronyism" addendum one to the above story: The chairman of the ACC, Republican Gary Pierce, is a "marketing consultant" for the company that printed the mailers, Americopy. Americopy is owned and operated by a big R donor, Alan Heywood. In other words, even when getting caught doing dirt, the R candidates found a way to funnel public money to campaign contributors.
- - "Cronyism" addendum two to the above story (not directly related to the above story, but highly illustrative of the glad-handing atmosphere that surrounds the current ACC): The Sierra Club, with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) is suing the ACC to stop the construction and operation of a power plant that will generate electricity by burning trash. The Republicans on the ACC, Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump, have declared this to be a "green" initiative, in spite of the massive amount of pollution that it will create as it generates electricity.
Turns out that the company behind the proposed project, Reclamation Power Group, is fronted by one Ron Blendu.
If that name sounds a little familiar, it should. Ron's brother Bob Blendu is a former state legislator. Some of Bob's colleagues during his stint in the lege? Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump.
Oh, and another of his colleagues during his time in the legislature? Bob Burns, a current candidate for the ACC.
The fifth Republican in this brew of "it isn't what you know, it's who you know" is perennial R candidate Susan Bitter Smith. She's never been a member of the lege so far as I can tell, but if she wins a seat on the ACC, she should fit right in with the other R's - she's a career corporate lobbyist.
Friday, September 28, 2012
Event: Zócalo in Scottsdale: Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?
From Zocalo Public Square -
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2012, 7:00 PM
Zócalo in Scottsdale: Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Running and hiding from open debate? That's so 2010...
Everybody remembers the "brain freeze heard 'round the world" when Governor Jan Brewer blanked for more than 13 seconds during her first televised debate with Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.
After her embarrassing performance, she and her handlers decided that the "first" debate would be the "only" debate.
Many other Republican candidates, looking at the poll numbers that indicated that 2010 was going to be a wave year for the Republicans, followed suit. There was no reason to risk a debate gaffe derailing an all-but-certain victory.
And for the most part, the plan worked (or at least, it didn't *not* work) - the 2010 wave swamped the US House, state legislatures, and governor's mansions coast-to-coast. After the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled the US House, became a large enough minority caucus in the US Senate so that they have been able to block pretty near every remotely positive measure, controlled all or part of 35 state legislatures, and controlled 29 governor's offices.
Fast-forward to 2012 and while it is shaping up to be a far more balanced year, yet many Republicans are campaigning like it's 2010 all over again.
In Arizona, both Republican Senate nominee Jeff Flake and CD9 nominee Vernon Parker are playing the "run and hide" card for all it's worth.
Flake has declined to publicly debate Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee (though to be fair, per the linked article, he has agreed to a debate with Carmona, in a TV studio with no live audience, for 30 minutes only).
Parker is just ignoring Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee, and the voters in the new Ninth Congressional District. He simply has not responded to debate inquiries.
In 2012, Flake and Parker, and certain other Republicans, are still running from their 2010 playbook, which had a primary theme of "Keep your head down and your mouth closed. If you don't screw up, you'll win."
In 2010, that scheme worked in nearly all but the most heavily Democratic districts.
In 2012, the situations and districts here are much more competitive and the "bunker" mentality and approach isn't going to work for any candidate.
Having said all that, there are candidates who legally *cannot* avoid at least some interaction with voters and the other candidates.
Clean Elections candidates must participate in a CE-sponsored debate as a condition of receiving funds from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
This looks to be the busiest week of the general election season in terms of Clean Elections debates.
- Monday, September 24, LD11 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Pima Community College - Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson
- Tuesday, September 25, LD20 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU West - La Sala Ballroom, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road in Glendale
- Tuesday, September 25, LD24 Senate and House, 5:30 p.m. at A.E. England Building (ASU Downtown campus), 424 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix
- Wednesday, September 26, LD14 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street in Benson
- Thursday, September 27, LD16 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU-Poly Cooley Ballroom B, 7001 E. Williams Field Road, Mesa
- Thursday, September 27, LD27 Senate and House, ASU-Mercado, Room C145, 502 E. Monroe Street in Phoenix
After her embarrassing performance, she and her handlers decided that the "first" debate would be the "only" debate.
Many other Republican candidates, looking at the poll numbers that indicated that 2010 was going to be a wave year for the Republicans, followed suit. There was no reason to risk a debate gaffe derailing an all-but-certain victory.
And for the most part, the plan worked (or at least, it didn't *not* work) - the 2010 wave swamped the US House, state legislatures, and governor's mansions coast-to-coast. After the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled the US House, became a large enough minority caucus in the US Senate so that they have been able to block pretty near every remotely positive measure, controlled all or part of 35 state legislatures, and controlled 29 governor's offices.
Fast-forward to 2012 and while it is shaping up to be a far more balanced year, yet many Republicans are campaigning like it's 2010 all over again.
In Arizona, both Republican Senate nominee Jeff Flake and CD9 nominee Vernon Parker are playing the "run and hide" card for all it's worth.
Flake has declined to publicly debate Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee (though to be fair, per the linked article, he has agreed to a debate with Carmona, in a TV studio with no live audience, for 30 minutes only).
Parker is just ignoring Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee, and the voters in the new Ninth Congressional District. He simply has not responded to debate inquiries.
In 2012, Flake and Parker, and certain other Republicans, are still running from their 2010 playbook, which had a primary theme of "Keep your head down and your mouth closed. If you don't screw up, you'll win."
In 2010, that scheme worked in nearly all but the most heavily Democratic districts.
In 2012, the situations and districts here are much more competitive and the "bunker" mentality and approach isn't going to work for any candidate.
Having said all that, there are candidates who legally *cannot* avoid at least some interaction with voters and the other candidates.
Clean Elections candidates must participate in a CE-sponsored debate as a condition of receiving funds from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.
This looks to be the busiest week of the general election season in terms of Clean Elections debates.
- Monday, September 24, LD11 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Pima Community College - Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson
- Tuesday, September 25, LD20 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU West - La Sala Ballroom, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road in Glendale
- Tuesday, September 25, LD24 Senate and House, 5:30 p.m. at A.E. England Building (ASU Downtown campus), 424 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix
- Wednesday, September 26, LD14 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street in Benson
- Thursday, September 27, LD16 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU-Poly Cooley Ballroom B, 7001 E. Williams Field Road, Mesa
- Thursday, September 27, LD27 Senate and House, ASU-Mercado, Room C145, 502 E. Monroe Street in Phoenix
Friday, September 21, 2012
Who Really Pays Arizona Taxes?
I don't normally simply republish emails from others unless it concerns an event announcement or something similar, but tonight, I was forwarded something from Dana Wolfe Naimark of the Children's Action Alliance (CAA) that does a spectacular yet succinct job of summing up and refuting the half-truths and lies put forth by the people who insist that the poor and middle class don't pay enough in taxes and that corporations and the wealthy pay too much.
From the email:
From the email:
By now, it’s clear that Governor Romney’s statements about the 47% of American households who don’t pay federal income taxes missed some key points – about Americans and about tax policy. We often hear similar false assumptions about who pays their fair share of state taxes here in Arizona.
The facts show that the Arizona legislature has created numerous methods that profitable corporations and taxpayers of all incomes use to shrink their income taxes. People who don’t owe state income taxes include unemployed Arizonans, working families earning low incomes, seniors receiving social security benefits, and families claiming tax credits. Arizona households who do not pay state income taxes are still paying to support schools, roads, and other public assets. They pay state sales taxes when they go to the store. They pay property taxes through their rent or mortgage. If they own a car they pay taxes when they renew their registration and fill the tank with gas.
When all state and local taxes are combined, low-income households have the most “skin in the game” – the lowest income households pay more than two times the richest 1% as a share of their income.
Arizona needs a budget and tax system that fuels our goals for a vibrant economy and strong families. Taxpayers deserve an honest analysis of who pays taxes and the reforms that will make our communities healthier and more secure. Consider:
- For tax year 2009, three out of four corporations that filed income taxes in Arizona paid the minimum tax of $50. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Tax Year 2009 Corporate Statistics, 12/11.)
- In 2010, corporations reduced their Arizona income tax liability by $72.7 million through the use of tax credits. Another $265 million in tax savings was carried forward to apply in future years. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Income Tax Credits, June 2012.)
- There are 31 tax credits available to individuals and families on Arizona state income taxes. In 2009, 115,000 taxpayers in Arizona wiped out their personal state income tax bill through tax credits. A family with adjusted gross income of more than $130,000 can end up paying nothing in state income taxes through the use of five common tax credits. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Income Tax Credits, June 2012; email information from Office of Economic Research and Analysis, 12/9/11; example calculation based on laws for tax year 2011)
- In 2009, 460,000 taxpayers wiped out their state income tax bill through the standard or itemized deductions. They had high medical expenses, large amounts of mortgage interest, or other deductions. (Arizona Department of Revenue, email information from Office of Economic Research and Analysis, 12/9/11)
- Taxpayers don’t pay state income taxes on some types of income, including social security retirement benefits, and active duty military pay.
- 8 out of 10 Arizonans pay more in state and local sales taxes than in state income taxes. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? November 2009)
- Many families with very low incomes still owe and pay state income taxes. In 2010, a family with two parents and two children owed state income taxes in Arizona if their total income was $23,600 – just $1,300 out of poverty. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Impact of State Income Taxes on Low-Income Families in 2010, November 2011)
- The richest 1% of families in Arizona pay $5.60 in state and local taxes for every $100 in income. The poorest 20% pay $12.50. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? November 2009)
There is absolutely nothing I can add to this to improve it, so I'll just say that CAA's full report can be found here. It's definitely worth a read for everyone, not just people who are politically active.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Arizona Ballot Propositions 2012
At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November. While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited. I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position. However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.
First, some resources -
The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here.
The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures. I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.
On to the questions -
Proposition 114 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it). Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem. Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury. Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on for years. They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system - mostly available to the highest bidder. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 115 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it). Makes changes to the selection process for judges. The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary. This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence. It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 116 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one. They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 117 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation. Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams. Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona. The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 118 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled. When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons). This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 119 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development. This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature. Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief. Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats. I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".
Proposition 120 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd. It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances. It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations. This has been tried before. It resulted in the Civil War. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 121 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups. It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans. The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA). The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district. I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.
If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."
The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail. I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider. And to defeat. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 204 - A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education. I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue. However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.
One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.
He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.
As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.
Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.
Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.
I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.
Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.
First, some resources -
The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here.
The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures. I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.
On to the questions -
Proposition 114 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it). Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem. Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury. Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on for years. They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system - mostly available to the highest bidder. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 115 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it). Makes changes to the selection process for judges. The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary. This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence. It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber. Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".
Proposition 116 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one. They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 117 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation. Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams. Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona. The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 118 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled. When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons). This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 119 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development. This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature. Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief. Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats. I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".
Proposition 120 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature. This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd. It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances. It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations. This has been tried before. It resulted in the Civil War. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 121 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation. This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups. It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans. The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA). The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district. I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.
If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."
The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail. I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider. And to defeat. I'm voting "No".
Proposition 204 - A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition. It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education. I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue. However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.
One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.
He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.
As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.
Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.
Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.
I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.
Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.
Project Civil Discourse: A Statewide Conversation on
Project Civil Discourse is an initiative of the Arizona Humanities Council, dedicated to fostering an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, constructive discussion of political issues in Arizona.
Next week, they'll be conducting a statewide forum on some of the questions that will be on the ballot in November. The announcement -
A Statewide Conversation on
I'll be attending the forum at the Scottsdale Community College location, the location nearest to me; if one of the locations is close to you, sign up and reserve your spot.
Next week, they'll be conducting a statewide forum on some of the questions that will be on the ballot in November. The announcement -
Mapping Arizona's Future
Thursday, September 27, 2012
6:00 to 9:00pm
6:00 to 9:00pm
Free & Open to the Public
A Statewide Conversation on
Arizona's Key Ballot Propositions
Michael Grant, former host of KAET-TV's Horizon and
prominent valley attorney, will moderate a panel of experts (Justice Ruth
McGregor, former Chief Justice for the Arizona Supreme Court, Ken Strobeck,
Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Howie Fischer,
Chief Correspondent at Capitol Media Services) and participant roundtable
discussions on three key ballot propositions.
- Prop 115: Judicial Selection
- Prop 204: Quality Education and Jobs
- Prop 121: Open Government
A Simulcast Discussion Around Arizona
Forum Locations:
Apache Junction - Central Arizona College - Superstition Mountain Campus
Winkelman/SE Pinal County - Central Arizona College - Aravaipa Campus
Coolidge - Central Arizona College - Signal Peak Campus
Flagstaff - Coconino Community College - Lone Tree Campus
Scottsdale - Scottsdale Community College
Sedona - Yavapai College - Sedona Center for Arts & Technology
Tucson - Pima County Community College - West Campus
Yuma - Arizona Western College
Apache Junction - Central Arizona College - Superstition Mountain Campus
Winkelman/SE Pinal County - Central Arizona College - Aravaipa Campus
Coolidge - Central Arizona College - Signal Peak Campus
Flagstaff - Coconino Community College - Lone Tree Campus
Scottsdale - Scottsdale Community College
Sedona - Yavapai College - Sedona Center for Arts & Technology
Tucson - Pima County Community College - West Campus
Yuma - Arizona Western College
Space is Limited, Pre-registration is
Required
For more information, please contact Jamie Martin at 602-257-0335 x26 or jmartin@azhumanities.org
I'll be attending the forum at the Scottsdale Community College location, the location nearest to me; if one of the locations is close to you, sign up and reserve your spot.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Republicans in US Senate kill veterans' jobs bill; prepare to go on vacation until after the November election
From the National Journal via its sister publication Government Executive, written by Erin Mershon -
The Senate vote was 58 - 40, with 60 votes needed to allow the measure to move forward.
Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the measure, every vote against the measure was cast by a Republican. Five Republicans did cross over to vote in support of veterans -
- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a tough battle with Elizabeth Warren for the Senate seat there.
- Susan Collins of Maine, who isn't up for reelection this year, but is known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus in the Senate.
- Olympia Snowe of Maine, who would be up for reelection this year, except she is retiring. Also known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus.
- Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a fierce race against Shelley Berkley in his quest for a full term in the Senate. So fierce, in fact, that Heller is now trying to distance himself from Mitt Romney, who is beginning to act as a drag on the rest of the R ticket.
- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Since the tea party types in her party turned on her and she was able to beat them back, as a write-in candidate of all things, she will occasionally vote for the best interests of her constituents and for America, and this was one of those occasions.
However, two of the Republicans who voted against veterans and for petty partisanship -
Arizona's own Jon Kyl and John McCain.
Kyl's vote is not a surprise; he's part of the leadership of the R caucus in the US Senate and his primary guiding principle seems to be "if it doesn't help me or mine (industry lobbyists and other Republicans), then it doesn't pass." He (and they) view anything to help veterans as something that would help President Obama, especially since Obama strongly supported the veterans' job corps. And they oppose *everything* that could even remotely be seen as helping the president.
McCain's vote is more than a bit of a surprise. He's a veteran himself (in case you missed the eight zillion or so campaign ads, mailers, and talking points mentioning that fact when he ran for president in 2008) and recently has been showing signs that the "maverick" McCain was returning, the McCain who once looked like he was made of presidential timbre.
In short, the McCain with actual principles is long gone and "ain't comin' back".
And now the Senate has one more vote this week, making all of *three* this week, before heading home until after the November elections.
It seems that membership in the Republican-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, has become the next best thing to "no show jobs", so it's kind of appropos that the Congress is also the "no jobs show".
And before someone complains that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate, the Senate rules allow for the minority party to obstruct the process at every turn, and the Republicans have enthusiastically, even ruthlessly, taken advantage of those rules. They may not be in the majority in the Senate, but they are in control in the Senate.
BTW - did anyone else notice that the five Rs who supported the measure are women or are being challenged by women this year? Not sure what it means, or if it even means anything at all, but it sure is interesting...
Senate Republicans effectively killed a measure to find jobs for unemployed veterans on a procedural vote Wednesday, after several attempts by Democrats to keep the bill on the table failed.
Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., raised a point of order against the bill on Wednesday, citing alleged violations of Senate budget rules. Since three-fifths of the chamber did not vote to waive the rules, the legislation cannot move forward.
The point of order was the latest in a string of obstacles designed to derail the bill, which would have created the Veterans Jobs Corps by setting aside $1 billion in federal grants to give veterans priority for jobs that might require military skills, such as in law enforcement or fire safety. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., briefly filibustered the legislation last week in an unrelated attempt to withdraw aid to Pakistan.
The Senate vote was 58 - 40, with 60 votes needed to allow the measure to move forward.
Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the measure, every vote against the measure was cast by a Republican. Five Republicans did cross over to vote in support of veterans -
- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a tough battle with Elizabeth Warren for the Senate seat there.
- Susan Collins of Maine, who isn't up for reelection this year, but is known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus in the Senate.
- Olympia Snowe of Maine, who would be up for reelection this year, except she is retiring. Also known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus.
- Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a fierce race against Shelley Berkley in his quest for a full term in the Senate. So fierce, in fact, that Heller is now trying to distance himself from Mitt Romney, who is beginning to act as a drag on the rest of the R ticket.
- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. Since the tea party types in her party turned on her and she was able to beat them back, as a write-in candidate of all things, she will occasionally vote for the best interests of her constituents and for America, and this was one of those occasions.
However, two of the Republicans who voted against veterans and for petty partisanship -
Arizona's own Jon Kyl and John McCain.
Kyl's vote is not a surprise; he's part of the leadership of the R caucus in the US Senate and his primary guiding principle seems to be "if it doesn't help me or mine (industry lobbyists and other Republicans), then it doesn't pass." He (and they) view anything to help veterans as something that would help President Obama, especially since Obama strongly supported the veterans' job corps. And they oppose *everything* that could even remotely be seen as helping the president.
McCain's vote is more than a bit of a surprise. He's a veteran himself (in case you missed the eight zillion or so campaign ads, mailers, and talking points mentioning that fact when he ran for president in 2008) and recently has been showing signs that the "maverick" McCain was returning, the McCain who once looked like he was made of presidential timbre.
In short, the McCain with actual principles is long gone and "ain't comin' back".
And now the Senate has one more vote this week, making all of *three* this week, before heading home until after the November elections.
It seems that membership in the Republican-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, has become the next best thing to "no show jobs", so it's kind of appropos that the Congress is also the "no jobs show".
And before someone complains that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate, the Senate rules allow for the minority party to obstruct the process at every turn, and the Republicans have enthusiastically, even ruthlessly, taken advantage of those rules. They may not be in the majority in the Senate, but they are in control in the Senate.
BTW - did anyone else notice that the five Rs who supported the measure are women or are being challenged by women this year? Not sure what it means, or if it even means anything at all, but it sure is interesting...
Monday, September 17, 2012
Republican candidate ordered off of the ballot in LD13
From AZCentral.com, written by Amber McMurray and Haley Madden -
There are procedural requirements/laws that would seem to make it unlikely that the Rs can appoint someone to fill the ballot slot, given that the deadline is 5 p.m. on Tuesday. From ARS 16-343 (emphasis mine) -
The other interesting part of section C above (as in "other than the highlighted portion") is the bit about the chair of the district having the largest *geographic area* being the one to call the meeting necessary to appoint someone to fill the ballot slot. While the AZSOS shows that there are more registered voters in the Maricopa County portion of LD13 than in the Yuma County portion (59K to 35K), geographically speaking, LD13 is more a Yuma County district than a Maricopa County district.
However, that's just trivia, because at this point, while there still could be some rule-bending by the Rs to name someone to fill the vacant ballot spot, it looks as if it's going to come down to a write-in campaign.
While under the provisions of the above section of law, candidates have until five days before the election to file as write-in candidates, realistically, any interested parties should file as soon as it becomes definite that there will be a vacant spot on the ballot. A successful write-in campaign will need to be up and running ASAP.
Which won't be fun for any of the candidates, but should make for great subject material for wiseasses with blogs. :)
Legislative candidate Darin Mitchell's name should be removed from the Nov. 6 ballot, a judge ruled Monday.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbilling ordered that Mitchell be removed from the ballot after hearing testimony from neighbors and other witnesses who said the GOP House candidate did not reside in district where he was elected.
{snip}
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbilling ordered that Mitchell be removed from the ballot after hearing testimony from neighbors and other witnesses who said the GOP House candidate did not reside in district where he was elected.
{snip}
But the process for his replacement is a matter of timing, according to Matt Roberts, Secretary of State's Office spokesman.
According to the office interpretation of state statute, the Republican party can appoint a candidate to replace Mitchell if they can do it before the ballots are printed Tuesday night.
If the party cannot meet that deadline - or if Mitchell appeals and the Arizona Court of Appeals does not rule by that deadline - then no name will go on the ballot. Any candidate, however, can file to run as a write-in.
There are procedural requirements/laws that would seem to make it unlikely that the Rs can appoint someone to fill the ballot slot, given that the deadline is 5 p.m. on Tuesday. From ARS 16-343 (emphasis mine) -
2. In the case of a vacancy for the office of United States representative or
the legislature, the party precinct committeemen of that congressional or
legislative district shall nominate a candidate of the party's choice and shall
file a nomination paper and affidavit complying with the requirements of section
16-311.
{snip}
C. Any meetings for the purpose of filing a nomination paper and affidavit
provided for in this section shall be called by the chairman of such committee
or legislative district, except that in the case of multicounty legislative or
congressional districts the party county chairman of the county having the
largest geographic area within such district shall call such meeting. The
chairman or in his absence the vice-chairman calling such meeting shall preside.
The call to such meeting shall be mailed or given in person to each person
entitled to participate therein no later than one day prior to such meeting. A
majority of those present and voting shall be required to fill a vacancy
pursuant to this section.
D. A vacancy that is due to voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of the
candidate and that occurs following the printing of official ballots shall not
be filled in accordance with this section, however, prospective candidates shall
comply with section 16-312. A candidate running as a write-in candidate under
this subsection shall file the nomination paper no later than 5:00 p.m. on the
fifth day before the election.
The other interesting part of section C above (as in "other than the highlighted portion") is the bit about the chair of the district having the largest *geographic area* being the one to call the meeting necessary to appoint someone to fill the ballot slot. While the AZSOS shows that there are more registered voters in the Maricopa County portion of LD13 than in the Yuma County portion (59K to 35K), geographically speaking, LD13 is more a Yuma County district than a Maricopa County district.
However, that's just trivia, because at this point, while there still could be some rule-bending by the Rs to name someone to fill the vacant ballot spot, it looks as if it's going to come down to a write-in campaign.
While under the provisions of the above section of law, candidates have until five days before the election to file as write-in candidates, realistically, any interested parties should file as soon as it becomes definite that there will be a vacant spot on the ballot. A successful write-in campaign will need to be up and running ASAP.
Which won't be fun for any of the candidates, but should make for great subject material for wiseasses with blogs. :)
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Doug Ducey and other Republican elected officials using their positions to interfere with initiative process
There are two ballot questions on the November ballot that were placed there by petition drives (or maybe just one right now, depending on the latest ruling on the "top two primary" question) instead of the legislature, and the Republicans hate them both almost as much as they hate President Obama.
A little birdie (aka - a friend :) ) pointed out this Twitter exchange between Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey and a couple of interested Arizonans -
Ummm...yeah.
For those who say that elected officials are free to express their opinions on their own time, just like the rest of us, I agree...if the campaigning is on their own time.
However, in this case, I would point out some of the detail information from at least one of Ducey's tweets -
"1:52 PM on 11 Sep 12"?
That's early in the afternoon on Tuesday. Kind of the middle of the workday there, Doug.
Ducey is the chair of an anti-Prop 204 political committee. While the committee is so new (formed on August 15) that their first finance report showed no activity, but their next report should be interesting.
This activity could be a problem for Ducey - he could report this, perhap as an in-kind contribution from the taxpayers (?), because his campaigning took place during the middle of his work day. At that point, his time is a resource that belongs to the taxpayers.
Which could cause him some discomfort.
On the other hand, he could *not* report it, and hope no one notices...oops, too late.
And either way, there could be hell to pay if it comes out that Ducey used a state-owned computer to post his tweet (and let me be clear, I'm not saying that he did. It would take someone with far more technical knowledge and with far better investigatory access to the state records and equipment needed to prove that he did or did not use state property for campaign purposes).
This isn't the only committee that Ducey is giving his/the taxpayers' time to - he's also the chair of a pro-Prop 118 committee. Prop 118 is a long, complex, and highly technical amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to state permanent funds and investments.
He's also not the only state-level elected campaigning against Prop 204 - at Thursday's Forum on Civic Engagement held by the Arizona Town Hall, John Huppenthal, the AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke against Prop 204. Not directly, but by talking only about things in the measure that he didn't like, nor did he express support for any effort to buttress education funding in Arizona (an interesting non-position for someone who was elected to oversee and protect public education in the state).
The forum was clearly after business hours, but he was there as, and was introduced as, the holder of his office, the highest-ranking education-related office in the state.
...Another elected official actively working against the best interests of Arizona citizens is State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who is the chair of a committee that supports Prop 115, an amendment to the AZ Constitution that seeks to reduce the independence of the state's Judicial Branch.
Hey, at least Farnsworth can point out that the lege is out of session and his work against the judiciary
A little birdie (aka - a friend :) ) pointed out this Twitter exchange between Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey and a couple of interested Arizonans -
Ummm...yeah.
For those who say that elected officials are free to express their opinions on their own time, just like the rest of us, I agree...if the campaigning is on their own time.
However, in this case, I would point out some of the detail information from at least one of Ducey's tweets -
"1:52 PM on 11 Sep 12"?
That's early in the afternoon on Tuesday. Kind of the middle of the workday there, Doug.
Ducey is the chair of an anti-Prop 204 political committee. While the committee is so new (formed on August 15) that their first finance report showed no activity, but their next report should be interesting.
This activity could be a problem for Ducey - he could report this, perhap as an in-kind contribution from the taxpayers (?), because his campaigning took place during the middle of his work day. At that point, his time is a resource that belongs to the taxpayers.
Which could cause him some discomfort.
On the other hand, he could *not* report it, and hope no one notices...oops, too late.
And either way, there could be hell to pay if it comes out that Ducey used a state-owned computer to post his tweet (and let me be clear, I'm not saying that he did. It would take someone with far more technical knowledge and with far better investigatory access to the state records and equipment needed to prove that he did or did not use state property for campaign purposes).
This isn't the only committee that Ducey is giving his/the taxpayers' time to - he's also the chair of a pro-Prop 118 committee. Prop 118 is a long, complex, and highly technical amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to state permanent funds and investments.
He's also not the only state-level elected campaigning against Prop 204 - at Thursday's Forum on Civic Engagement held by the Arizona Town Hall, John Huppenthal, the AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke against Prop 204. Not directly, but by talking only about things in the measure that he didn't like, nor did he express support for any effort to buttress education funding in Arizona (an interesting non-position for someone who was elected to oversee and protect public education in the state).
 |
| Huppenthal on stage at the forum |
The forum was clearly after business hours, but he was there as, and was introduced as, the holder of his office, the highest-ranking education-related office in the state.
...Another elected official actively working against the best interests of Arizona citizens is State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who is the chair of a committee that supports Prop 115, an amendment to the AZ Constitution that seeks to reduce the independence of the state's Judicial Branch.
Hey, at least Farnsworth can point out that the lege is out of session and his work against the judiciary
Friday, September 14, 2012
Irony Alert
On Thursday evening, the Arizona Town Hall held a Forum on Civic Engagement at Central High School in Phoenix. If a video archive of the event is posted on the internet, I'll link to it here.
It was a thought-provoking evening, and one deserving of a serious write-up, which I'll do later, but for now, I'm going to let my inner wiseass run wild for a moment.
John Huppenthal is Arizona's State Superintendent of Public Instruction. He, along with his predecessor Tom Horne (AZ's current Attorney General) has done everything within his power (and a few things that may be outside of his authority) to demonize Mexican-Americans and attacking the Mexican-American Studies program of the Tucson Unified School District.
With that background, Thursday's forum served up this week's moment of irony -
That's Huppenthal on the far right of the pic (of course).
I wonder if he appreciated, or even was aware of, the irony of appearing on a stage while under that quote?
It was a thought-provoking evening, and one deserving of a serious write-up, which I'll do later, but for now, I'm going to let my inner wiseass run wild for a moment.
John Huppenthal is Arizona's State Superintendent of Public Instruction. He, along with his predecessor Tom Horne (AZ's current Attorney General) has done everything within his power (and a few things that may be outside of his authority) to demonize Mexican-Americans and attacking the Mexican-American Studies program of the Tucson Unified School District.
With that background, Thursday's forum served up this week's moment of irony -
 |
| (L-R) Susan Carlson of the Arizona Business and Education Council, Peggy Klein of the O'Connor House, Bryanna Cisneros of the Maricopa Community College District's Center for Civic Engagement, and John Huppenthal, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction |
That's Huppenthal on the far right of the pic (of course).
I wonder if he appreciated, or even was aware of, the irony of appearing on a stage while under that quote?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)