Voting *for* a candidate: a guide

During an election cycle, particularly a long one like a presidential cycle, it's easy to lose sight of why we support this candidate or that candidate, losing ourselves in being against the "other".

The reasons why we support candidate "A" become subsumed by the fact that candidate "B" is an arrogant, avaricious plutocrat or the reasons that we support candidate "X" are drowned in the glare of candidate "Y's" bigotry, corruption, etc.

As easy as voting"against" can be, voting "for" is far more satisfying.  I've been voting for a while now.  Not gonna say how long, but the first presidential ticket that received my vote was Mondale/Ferraro.  You do the math. :)

While most of my votes have been "for" a candidate, too many have been for the "less bad" candidate.  The most satisfying votes that I've ever cast were for Harry Mitchell.  While he is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me politically, he based his positions, and his votes in office, on what he thought was in the best interests of his constituents.

Voting for him in 2010 when David Schweikert took advantage of the Republican wave that year to oust an icon was no less satisfying than voting for him in 2006 when Mitchell first won a seat in Congress.

Having said all of that, here's my "positive" take on my votes this year, why I voted "for" particular candidate.  There were lots of  "for" candidates this year -


- Barack Obama for President - I enthusiastically voted for him in 2008, and proudly did so again this year. 

In the face of intractable opposition (to the point that Republicans in Congress voted against bills that they had sponsored themselves if Obama supported them), he led the start of real healthcare reform, started winding down the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, fought for tax cuts for the working and middle classes, saved the American auto industry, and oversaw the end for Osama Bin Laden. 

To be sure, there were a few missteps, but even most of those just showed that the man is simply human (stay off the pitcher's mound, Mr. President :) ).

My biggest complaint with him is that he hasn't be liberal enough in his governance.

However, that dovetails with the biggest reason to vote to give him a second term - he has governed.  Not ruled, not dictated, not anything but do his job.

He has worked *for* his constituents, all of them, not just those who agree with him or give him campaign contributions.

You may not agree with everything he's done in office; I like and support him, and even *I* don't agree with everything that the Obama administration has done. 

However, he has done what he has done out of concern for the best interests of his constituents, which should be the motivation behind the positions and actions of *all* elected officials.

As such, he has more than earned a second term in the oval office.

Picture courtesy CNN

I promise that the rest of these will be much shorter.  :)

- Dr. Rich Carmona for U.S. Senate - This may be his first foray into electoral politics, but it's not his first foray into public service.  Not hardly.

In his storied career, he has been an Army medic (in Vietnam), a SWAT team leader, and Surgeon General of the United States.  His life story is the archetypal American success story - born to immigrant parents, worked to obtain an education, lifted himself out of poverty, and has spent his adult life in public service of one sort or another.

In short, he's the sort of person who *should* be in office because he has been where most of us have been.

Carmona talking to a supporter in Tempe, September 15

- Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Congress (CD9) - *Not* her first foray into electoral politics, but it's hardly her first foray into public service.  Like Carmona above, she bootstrapped her way out of poverty with education and hard work, and like Carmona, she has dedicated her life to serving the public.  In her case, she has been a social worker, attorney, and educator.

And like Carmona, she is the kind of person who should be in office representing us because she has been and is us.

Sinema at a candidate forum in July in Tempe

- Katie Hobbs (Senate) and Lela Alston and Chad Campbell (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD24 - They are each experienced, dedicated, intelligent, hard-working, and caring public servants and have earned another term in office.

(L-R) Hobbs, Alston, and Campbell at the LD24 Clean Elections forum in Phoenix, September 25th

Bonus legislative race:  Ed Ableser (Senate) and Juan Mendez and Andrew Sherwood (House) for the Arizona legislature from LD26 -  While they were not on my ballot (I live in LD24), all three are friends of mine and people who I respect.  They are active members of the community and have and will work for the betterment of the community.

 

 

(Standing L-R) Mendez, Sherwood, and Ableser at the LD26 Chili Cook-Off, April 28

 

- Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff - Penzone is a career cop who has based his career on *involving* the entire community, not demonizing* part of it for personal and political gain.  When he is elected, he'll bring a level of professionalism and integrity to the MCSO that hasn't been seen there in decades.

Penzone in Tempe, April 28 (same event as in the above pic, only a couple of hours earlier)

- Marcia Busching, Sandra Kennedy, and Paul Newman for the Arizona Corporation Commission - While the members of this trio bring a variety of experiences and backgrounds to the table, but they share a focus on ensuring Arizona's energy future.

Are all of the above candidates Democrats?  Yup.

But before the above is dismissed as "partisan hackery", one should ask if all of the above candidates are the "best" candidates. 

The answer to that question is a resounding "Yes".

Their primary concern has been (in the case of previous or current officeholders) or will be (in the case of future officeholders) the best interests of the people that they represent.

I don't expect to agree with them on every single issue, but I do expect that every person who "represents" me to hold positions, craft policies, and cast votes based on the best interests of their constituents.

And before anyone begins thinking that I've gone soft, an "against" post will follow this one.  :)

The number to call in the event of voter suppression tactics at polling places: 800-253-3931

Recently (say, the last month or so), there has been a pic circulating around Facebook urging anybody who is the victim of or witnesses to illegal voter suppression efforts to call the FBI at a special number.  The number that has been going around is 202-514-1888.

Great idea, except....

...that particular number is the TDD (Telecommunications Device for the Deaf) number for the FBI's press office in DC -

Probably not the most effective number for filing reports, unless you are deaf and have access to TDD equipment. 

As I don't know the genesis of the Facebook campaign, I cannot state unequivocally that there is ill intent behind the apparent error; in fact, I'm leaning toward thinking this is an honest mistake - the FBI *did* issue a press release on just this topic, and like the rest of its press releases, the header contains the TDD number.

The press release  (emphasis mine) -

Protecting the Right to Vote and Prosecuting Ballot Fraud

U.S. Department of Justice October 16, 2012

Office of Public Affairs (202) 514-2007/TDD (202)514-1888

WASHINGTON—In anticipation of the upcoming election, the Justice Department today provided information about its efforts, through the Civil Rights and Criminal Divisions, to ensure that all qualified voters have the opportunity to cast their ballots and have their votes counted free of discrimination, intimidation, or fraud in the election process.

 

Civil Rights Division

 

The Civil Rights Division is responsible for ensuring compliance with the civil provisions of federal laws that protect the right to vote,and with federal criminal laws prohibiting discriminatory interference with that right.

 

The Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section enforces civil provisions of federal laws that protect the right to vote including: the Voting Rights Act; the National Voter Registration Act; the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act; and the Help America Vote Act. Among other things, these laws prohibit discrimination based on race or membership in a minority language group; prohibit intimidation of voters; provide that voters who need assistance in voting because of disability or illiteracy can obtain assistance from a person of their choice; require minority language election materials and assistance in certain jurisdictions; provide for accessible election machines for voters with disabilities; require provisional ballots for voters who assert they are eligible but whose names do not appear on poll books; provide for absentee ballots for service members, their family members, and U.S. citizens living abroad; require states to ensure that citizens can register at drivers’ license offices, public assistance offices, other state agencies, and through the mail; and include requirements regarding maintaining voter registration lists.

 

The Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section enforces federal criminal statutes that prohibit voter intimidation and suppression based on race, color, national origin, or religion.

As it has in the past, on Election Day, November 6, 2012, the Civil Rights Division will implement a comprehensive program to help ensure ballot access that will include the following:

• Shortly before the election, the Civil Rights Division will announce which jurisdictions will have federal personnel as election monitors and observers at polling places.
• Civil Rights Division attorneys in both the Voting and Criminal Sections in Washington, D.C., will be ready to receive election-related complaints of potential violations relating to any of the statutes the Civil Rights Division enforces. Attorneys in the division will take appropriate action and will consult and coordinate with local U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and with other entities within the Department of Justice concerning these complaints before, during, and after Election Day, as appropriate.

Civil Rights Division staff will be available by phone to receive complaints related to ballot access (1-800-253-3931 toll-free or 202-307-2767) or by TTY (1-877-267-8971). In addition, individuals may also report complaints, problems, or concerns related to voting by fax to 202-307-3961, by e-mail to voting.section@usdoj.gov, and, closer to Election Day, by complaint forms that may be submitted through a link on the department’s website at www.justice.gov/crt/about/vot/.

 

Complaints related to violence or threats of violence at a polling place should, in the first instance, always be reported to local police authorities by calling 911.

 

Criminal Division and the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices

 

The Department’s Criminal Division oversees the enforcement of federal laws that criminalize certain election fraud and vindicate the integrity of the federal election process.

 

The Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section and the Department’s 94 U.S. Attorneys’ Offices are responsible for enforcing the federal criminal laws that prohibit various forms of election fraud, such as vote buying, multiple voting, submission of fraudulent ballots or registrations, destruction of ballots or registrations, alteration of votes, and malfeasance by election officials. The Criminal Division is also responsible for enforcing federal criminal law prohibiting voter intimidation that does not involve a basis in race, color, national origin, or religion (as noted above, voter intimidation that has a basis in race, color, national origin, or religion is addressed by the Civil Rights Division).

 

The department encourages each U.S. Attorney’s Office to communicate with state election officials before the federal general elections regarding the handling of election-related matters in their respective districts. In addition, the department provides annual training for the Assistant U.S. Attorneys who serve as district election officers (DEOs) in their respective districts. DEOs are responsible for overseeing potential election-crime matters in their districts and for coordinating with the department’s election-crime experts in Washington, D.C.

 

On November 6, 2012, the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices will work with specially trained Federal Bureau of Investigation personnel in each district to ensure that complaints from the public involving possible voter fraud are handled appropriately. Specifically:

• Federal prosecutors at the Public Integrity Section, the DEOs in U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, FBI officials at Headquarters in Washington, D.C., and FBI special agents serving as Election Crime Coordinators in the FBI’s 56 field offices will be on duty while polls are open to receive complaints from the public.
• Election fraud or intimidation complaints should first be directed to the local U.S. Attorney’s Office or the local FBI office. A list of U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and their telephone numbers can be found at www.justice.gov/usao/offices/index.html, and a list of FBI offices and accompanying telephone numbers can be found at the “Contact Us” button at http://www.fbi.gov. Again, however, complaints related to violence or threats of violence at a polling place should, in the first instance, be reported to local police authorities by calling 911.
• Election fraud or intimidation complaints may also be directed to the Public Integrity Section (202-514-1412). Public Integrity Section prosecutors are available to consult and coordinate with the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices and FBI regarding the handling of election-crime allegations.

Both protecting the right to vote and combating election fraud are essential to maintaining the confidence of all Americans in our democratic system of government. We encourage anyone who has information suggesting voting discrimination or ballot fraud to contact the appropriate authorities.

 From the above-specified website, the contact numbers for the US Attorney/DOJ offices here in AZ:

Phoenix - (602) 514-7500
Tucson - (520) 620-7300
Flagstaff - (928) 556-0833
Yuma - (928) 314-6410

From the FBI's website, the number for the Phoenix office is 623-466-1999.

Arizona Republicans counting their chickens before their eggs are hatched

...actually, they're counting them even before they know who will be controlling part of the roost.

Normally, when Arizona's Republicans engage in one of their many intramural ideological knife fights, I smirk a little and then move on to another topic.  Simply put, they have too many of these to bother writing about more than the lamest or most extreme.

The most recent example meets both criteria:  it's both ideologically extreme and just plain lame.

Recently, the executive committees of the Republican parties in both Pinal and Maricopa counties approved resolutions urging the Republican members of the incoming legislature to depose their current leadership in the lege, House Speaker Andy Tobin and Senate President Steve Pierce.

Their alleged "crime"?

Not being supportive enough of the bat-shit crazy clique of the GOP caucus. 

The wingers are demanding the ouster of Tobin and Pierce in favor of Steve Smith and Andy Biggs, respectively.

Tobin and Pierce are very conservative and are not above partisan gamesmanship, using their positions to undermine or block proposals from Democratic members. 

However, neither is stupid nor is either one nuts.  While a significant number of tea party/ALEC-driven measures did pass through the lege during the most recent session, Tobin and Pierce blocked a few of the worst measures.

However, the biggest complaint is about money.  Pierce and Tobin have a committee that has been spending money in support of Republican legislative candidates, and the wingers are whining that they haven't seen enough of that largesse.  One of the biggest complainers is Sen. Frank Antenori (R-Bully), who has found that the voters of his newly-drawn district are less tolerant of his bluster than his old district - reports of recent polling in the district have him down more than five percentage points to Democrat David Bradley.

Antenori has become frantic, leaving messages with Steve Pierce, demanding that the committee spend money on his race.  The answer from Pierce (actually, from the attorney representing the PAC) was an unequivocal "No".

There were two reasons for this answer.

One, the PAC is an independent expenditure fund and is barred by law from coordinating activity with candidate campaigns (OK, you can stop laughing now); in the event that any expenditures took place, the phone calls would become evidence of coordination.  That's the official reason.

The unofficial reason is two, Frank Antenori is an unmitigated ass and more to the point of this post, an adversary of Pierce.  If Antenori is reelected, he is going to support someone else for the Senate presidency, no matter how much outside money is thrown into his race.

It should come as no surprise that the wingers involved in this attempted putsch are all allies and/or acolytes of former (and now twice-defeated) Senate president and nativist icon Russell Pearce.  He may be gone, but his presence is still felt at the Capitol.

I don't know how this is going to work out (if I had to speculate, I'd guess that Pierce and Tobin are secure in their positions, though both will be wielding simple, not super, majorities in the next session of the legislature), but expect this rift to percolate through at least the state Republican reorganization in January - Pearce and his cronies will attempt to solidify their control of the state GOP while Pearce plots his return to office.

Oh, and the "lame" part of all this:  all of this posturing is taking place scant days before the election, one in which there is a real chance that the Democrats will make at least part of this irrelevant - there is a possiblity that the AZ Senate will end up tied 15 -15 or even with a Democratic majority.  Expectations are that that won't happen, but 13 D seats seems likely and 14 is well within the realm of possibility.  15 or 16 seats is possible, but it would take too many things going unexpectedly well for either to be practically feasible (though it would be nice, like "early Christmas present" nice :) ).

Stay tuned...

Good governance is good politics

I may never say anything positive about him again, but Republican Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey has earned some serious respect from across the political spectrum because of the way that he has set aside partisan politics in the face of the devastation wrought upon his state by Hurricane Sandy this week.

He has earned it.

He's dropped partisan gamesmanship in favor of working with President Obama and the federal government to address the needs of storm-ravaged New Jersey residents.

Obama and Christie speaking to storm victims.  Pic courtesy MSNBC.

He and Obama certainly don't have much in common, but they do have this:  when their constituents needed them this week to step up and be *leaders*, not just politicians, they dropped any election-year partisan posturing and went to work.

That's the sort of personal dedication and professional integrity that I respect in, and expect from, *all* elected officials, not just the ones with whom I happen to agree.

Today, Chris Christie has my respect, and will for as long as he places the long-term interests of his constituents before short-term partisan gain.

I don't expect to ever agree with him on the sort of political issues that tend to divide Democrats and Republicans, but that doesn't mean I can't or won't give credit where it is due.


Quick and cheap political analysis (and worth every penny you're paying for it :) ):

I can't even pretend to have a clue as to what impact Hurricane Sandy will have on this year's elections, but Christie has given himself a leg up in the 2016 general election (if Obama wins next week) or in 2020 (if Romney wins next week).  The general election electorate loves someone they see as placing "doing the job" ahead of "flaunting the job title".

However, the same thing that gives Christie a general election boost is the sort of thing that will undermine his chances in the R primary.

Q & A with Marcia Busching, candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission

Marcia Busching, a candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission took time out of her busy schedule to answer a few questions.  Here they are -



Busching at an event in Tempe in September

From her campaign website: Busching with solar panels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell us a little about yourself:

I have dedicated myself to improving the lives of others through community activities, legal representation, education, and mentoring. I grew up in the Midwest, the eldest of three siblings, and now have my own law firm that specializes in mediations and arbitrations. Previously I have had experience in the banking, construction, and real estate industries. I also have had public service experience as a Citizens Clean Election Commissioner and member of the Arizona Liquor Control Board. I am also a proud wife and mother of three, Pete, Toffler, and Carrie.

When did you first become interested in politics, and why?

Having served on the Clean Elections Commission there were times that I felt Arizonans didn’t have enough of a choice when completing their ballots. Sometimes there just weren’t enough people interested in a particular position. As I watched and worked on various campaigns, I realized that it was important to set up and take a turn at public service.

Why run for the Corporation Commission, and what in your background will you bring to the table that the other commissioners (whoever they might be) don't have?

As a former bank examiner, attorney, business owner, and mediator I believe I will be a vital asset to the commission. I feel that I have a harmonious mixture of business and public service experience that some of my opponents lack, and that will be handy during long hours of careful deliberation.

What do you hope to accomplish there?

I want to serve and consider the best interests of everyone. It is important to hear all aspects of a matter before coming to a conclusion, and to have decisions be transparent. I want to be a watchdog for Arizonans, not a utility lapdog.

Are there any "nuts and bolts" issues (transparency, etc.) with the ACC that you would seek to address as a commissioner?

I believe that it is altogether too difficult for ordinary citizens to see how the Commissioners have voted on a certain topic. It is absurd that, while we live in an age of information, ordinary citizens must work so hard to uncover the basic facts about where the Commissioners stand on key subjects such as utilities regulation and plant proposals. If the Corporation Commission is to be accountable for its actions, then Arizonans must be able to easily find out what those actions are.

The utilities side of the ACC's activities receives most of the attention from the public and the media.  Most people aren't aware of the ACC's securities regulation activities.  What's your take on that aspect of the ACC's work?

The Corporation Commission helps Arizona residents recover for fraudulent activity against them. We need to make sure the vulnerable have an avenue of relief.

If the proposed trash-burning power generating plant becomes reality, what will you tell people who live in the area of the plant?

I think it would be a tragedy if the trash-burning facility becomes a reality. Not only is it expensive to build, but the pollution it would generate would not be healthy for our West Valley residents.

The ACC is charged with crafting energy policy for AZ.  Are there any policies that you support that are "people-friendly", "business-friendly" and "forward thinking"?

I support rooftop solar for residences and the implementation of solar power by small businesses, community facilities, and schools. My opponents on the other hand, may impose a surcharge to small businesses who wish to utilize solar technology. I also wish to see the business formation process become streamlined, easier to use, and helpful.

Part of a commissioner's duties may involve lobbying the Arizona Legislature, both supporting and opposing proposals.  What in your experience will you draw upon to help you when dealing with the often intransigent and usually hostile legislative branch?

I am hopeful that the legislative branch will be more moderate after the election. We all need to work together to make Arizona an attractive place to live and work. I will use my mediation skills to work with the legislators to implement wise policies for the benefit of all of us.

Why should Arizona's voters choose you for the Corporation Commission?

I truly am passionate about the role that the ACC plays in Arizona’s future. I have experience in both the business and political worlds that will be invaluable to the Corporation Commission. For over thirty years I have considered Arizona my home, and I feel that I can serve the best interests of all of us, our businesses and the environment as a Commissioner on the ACC.

 

 

Thanks go out to Marcia and her busy staff for working with me on this.  I know how busy candidates and their campaign staffs are this close to the election and am appreciative of the effort of their part to make this happen.

Jerry Lewis: Personally Civil, Politically Extreme

In the new Legislative District 26 (West Mesa, most of Tempe), current State Rep. Ed Ableser (D-LD17 - Tempe, South Scottsdale) is facing off against current State Sen. Jerry Lewis (R-LD18 - Central and West Mesa).

Ableser was first elected to the House in 2006 and has done an admirable job of representing his ASU-centric district while starting a family and a professional career.  He was and is a perfect match for a diverse, educated, moderate, and mostly middle-class district.

Lewis was first elected to the Senate last year during the recall election that ousted nativist icon Russell Pearce from the Arizona legislature.  Lewis is a successful businessman, active in the community, and a family man.

Based on my personal knowledge of Ableser (we're friends) and everything that I've heard about Lewis (we've never met, but many people that I know also know him), both are fine men and upstanding citizens.

And while those characteristics should be expected from *every* elected official (except female electeds, who should be expected to be "fine women and upstanding citizens" :) ), alone, they aren't enough to qualify someone to represent a district in the legislature.

While Lewis has the support of the "yeah, but he's a nicer guy than Russell Pearce" brigade, that's like saying that "yeah, but he doesn't foam at the mouth like a rabid dog".  On the face of it, it may be true, but so what?  That's setting the personal temperment/behavior bar rather low.

Personally, I have a deep amount of respect for Lewis for daring to take on the Pearce machine and doing his part to end years of near-dictatorial control of the political structure by Pearce and his allies in that area.  He was the precisely right candidate for a district where the electorate was Republican-leaning but with a strong Latino contingent.  As inappropriate for society in general as Pearce's bigoted rants and stunts were, they had become an expression of open contempt for a huge portion of his constituents.

It's no coincidence that immigration issues moved to the lege's back burner when Lewis moved in.

However, that seems to be the only area where Lewis has exhibited a moderating influence.

For example, he voted for a budget that continued the lege's devastation of public education in Arizona (not really a surprise though - he's a big charter school guy; anything that is bad for public ed is good for him.  Leave him in the lege long enough and people will be talking about him like they talk about Steve Yarbrough.)

Some people like to tout Lewis as "independent" or even "moderate".  He's not -

He voted with the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy 92% of the time.

There is absolutely NOTHING moderate about CAP; pretty much every anti-woman and anti-personal freedom measure that goes before the Arizona Legislature is a product of theirs.

In short, he may put a smiling face on it, but his extreme positions on social policy are NOT a good fit for the new LD26.  The new LD26 contains the most moderate part of Mesa as well as the portion of Tempe that contains ASU.  Nothing about Lewis says that he is a "college town" kind of legislator.

Vote for Ed Ableser.  Not only is he a part of the community that he represents, but his beliefs and priorities are in line with that community.

Races to watch (non-AZ edition) -

Come election day, there will be some races to watch aside from the presidential contest and the races here in Arizona; here are some of the races that I'll be keeping an eye on come Election Day -

- MA-Sen: Few individual Senate races have been higher profile this year than the one where Elizabeth Warren is attempting to oust Scott Brown from the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy.  This one has been neck-and-neck (and more than occasionally ugly) throughout most of the cycle, but recent polls show Warren opening up a small lead.  Warren is a staunch consumer advocate and a Democrat; Brown is a darling of Wall Street and a Republican.  Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state.  I predict that Warren will win, if only because she isn't mailing it in the way Martha Coakley (and the Massachusetts Democratic Party) did during the special election to fill the seat that was vacated when Kennedy passed away.

- WI-Sen: The race Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D) and former governor Tommy Thompson (R) has seen its share of ups and downs; current polls show Thompson leading by a single percentage point.

- MO-Sen: Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent vs. Rep. Todd Akin (R) here.  Akin started out with a lead, coughed it up (big-time!) when he spouted off about "legitimate" rape and how women cannot become pregnant as a result of "legitimate" rape.  His support fell off of the table after his ignorant comments, but he has clawed his way back into contention with a variety attacks on McCaskill (apparently, he thinks she should be "ladylike"; he means that she shouldn't speak the truth about him).  If I had to guess, I'd say McCaskill will win, but the race is far closer than it should be.

- OH-Sen:  Incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown is facing the bizarre but well-funded Josh Mandel (R).  Karl Rove has dumped millions into this race.  While Mandel probably won't win (it's still close enough for anything to happen), this race has become a proxy for the presidential race in swing-state Ohio, so expect this one to remain active, and colorful, until the very end.  If Mandel does pull this one off, look for the backers of the "Citizens United" decision by the US Supreme Court to raise a glass filled with (very expensive) champagne in a toast to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and the other corporate stooges on the Supreme Court.

- The races for control of the legislatures in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan:  In 2010, those states elected legislatures with Republican majorities and put Republicans in the governor's offices, and the havoc ensued.  Each state enacted anti-women, anti-union, anti-society, etc. measures.  They may not return Democratic majorities to their respective legislatures, but putting in enough Ds to slow down or even block the most extreme parts of the Rs' ALEC-written and Koch Brothers-funded agenda is likely.

- IN-Sen: Joe Donnelly (D) and Richard Mourdock (R) are facing off here, after the tea party-type Mourdock defeated long-time incumbent Richard Lugar in the Republican primary.  If Lugar was the R nominee, this race would be considered a lock for the Republicans.  As it is, Mourdock began the general election race leading polls.  But he wouldn't just shut up, and the race is now close and going down to the wire.  His latest example of "diarrhea of the mouth":  Pontificating on how pregnancies resulting from rape are "God's will" and so women should be forced to carry and give birth to rape babies, even against their will.

Others to watch: CT-Sen (Linda McMahon (R), a former pro wrestling executive facing off against Rep. Joe Murphy (D) in a battle to replace the retiring Joe Lieberman (I) ); VA-Sen (Tim Kaine (D) and George "macaca" Allen (R) contesting here); Wisconsin CD1 (R VP nominee Paul Ryan fighting to keep his seat in Congress against Democratic nominee Rob Zerban.  This seat should be won by Ryan, but Zerban isn't going away); Florida CD18 (R tea party/batshit crazy type Allen West vs. D newcomer Patrick Murphy) and Massachusetts CD5 (scandal-plagued D incumbent John Tierney vs. R businessman Richard Tisei - the scandal isn't directly about Tierney, it's more about "what did he know and when did he know it" and some of his wife's activities, but that may be enough to cost him his seat).

Got a suggestion for a race to watch on Election Day while we are waiting for AZ and presidential returns to come in?  Leave it in a comment here.

Watchword for GOTV: Energy

When it comes to successful political movements, one thing is more important than money, or a partisan voter registration advantage, or a hundred other things that are cited by "experts".

Energy.

Energy in the candidates who are the mind of successful campaigns.

Energy in the staffers and organizers, who are the backbone of successful campaigns.

Energy in volunteers and activists who are the grassroots heart and soul of successful campaigns.

We've reached the point of the election cycle where mailboxes are stuffed every day with lit in favor or opposed to each candidate and where all TV ad time has been booked, to the point where some stations are cutting the "news" time in their news shows to add ad time (and, of course, revenue).

Now all that's left is getting out the vote (and making sure you cast your own vote).

It's been a long election cycle (hell, the Republicans have been running against Obama since before he was even inaugurated into his first term nearly four years ago) and we are all looking forward to the day *after* the election (especially the candidates, campaign staffers, and super-volunteers for whom an 18-hour day is "slacking off"), but there's less than two weeks to go.

It's time to dig deep into that reserve of energy that we all keep (or maybe just reach for a little extra caffeine :) ). 

In Maricopa County, you can volunteer for GOTV efforts at the following places -

MCDP Headquarters

2914 N. Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602-298-0503

 

Ahwatukee

4645 Chandler Blvd. Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85045

480-961-0022

 

Avondale

319 N. Litchfield Rd. Suite 101

Goodyear, AZ 85338

623-882-3721
 

Gem Dems

7153 E. Main St.

Mesa, AZ 85207

480-924-3367

 

Glendale

8751 N. 51st Ave Suite 105

Glendale, AZ 85302

602-435-9117

 

North Phoenix

10658 N 32nd St.

Phoenix, AZ 85028

602-996-2021
 

Scottsdale

7051 E. 5th Ave. Suite E

Scottsdale, AZ 85215

480-421-2012

 

South Phoenix

6645 S. Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85042

 

Outside of Maricopa County, contact your county's Democratic Party for volunteering info.

Cochise County -
1010 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
(520) 458-9467

Coconino County -
201 E. Birch Ave. Suite A
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 214-0393

Gila County -
1101 S. Beeline Hwy. (SR 87)
Payson, AZ 85541
(928) 468-2305

Graham County -
728 S. 9th Ave.
Safford, AZ 85546
(928) 428-2820

Greenlee County -
104 Wards Canyon Rd.
Clifton, AZ 85533

La Paz and Mohave Counties -
701 Stockton Hill Rd. Suite S
Kingman, AZ 86401
(928) 753-0006

Navajo County -
111 E. Hopi Dr.
Holbrook, AZ 86025

Pima County -
4639 E. 1st St.
Tucson, AZ 85717
(520) 326-3716

Pinal County -
350 N. Main St.
Florence, AZ 85132

Yavapai County -
1555 Iron Springs Rd.
Prescott, Arizona 86305
(928) 541-0413

Yuma County -
1600 S. 4th Ave. Suite D
Yuma, AZ 85364
(928) 783-4673

Aside from the above party-based operations, every candidate has one, too (many individual LDs have them too, but I haven't found a complete listing, as of this writing) -

List of statewide candidates here; legislative candidates here.  For county- and local-level candidate contact info, reach out to your county party.  Or just use Google like the rest of us.  :)

Note:  If a particular county isn't listed above, it is because the ADP doesn't list a headquarters address for it here.

Republicans attacking a Republican judge because he isn't partisan enough to suit them

This story is exhibit 1 in the case against Proposition 115, the measure to impose more partisanship on the state's judiciary, the only branch of the state's government that garners any serious respect.

From Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the East Valley Tribune (emphasis mine) -

A loosely organized effort to oust a state Supreme Court justice is forcing him to consider an unprecedented campaign to keep his post.

 

Justice John Pelander said he is upset by "hit pieces'' being put out by groups urging that he not be retained on the bench this year. He said the information being circulated about a September ruling is "misleading'' at best.

 

{snip}

 

Campaign materials being put out by groups as diverse as the Williams Tea Part [sic] and Legislative District 18 Republican Committee are urging a "no'' on the ballot question about retaining Pelander.

 

The anger is focused on Pelander because the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that Proposition 121 can be on the ballot. That measure, if approved, would amend the state Constitution to create an open primary system where all candidates run against each other regardless of party affiliation, with the top two advancing to the general election.

The Arizona Republican Party, like the other organized parties in the state, has come out in opposition to Prop 121.  However, simply voting "no" on the measure, and urging others to do the same, isn't enough for them.

Nope, they are trying to retaliate against a judge, who was just one of a majority on the state supreme court that ruled against their gambit to keep the measure away from the voters (actually, the justices ruled against an appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the measure to remain on the ballot, but a top-of-the-(back of)-ballot Supreme Court justice is a riper target than a Maricopa County Superior Court judge).

I expect the effort to remove Pelander from the Arizona Supreme Court will fail (previous efforts to remove judges who weren't, but this effort serves as a perfect example of what will happen if Proposition 115 passes - whenever a case with partisan implications comes along, judges will feel undue pressure to rule on the basis of partisan interests, not the law.

To do otherwise will endanger their jobs.


For the record, I have already voted against Props 115 and 121; I may not agree with 121 (hence my "no" vote), but the backers jumped through all the hoops necessary to put the measure on the ballot, and it deserves consideration by the voters.  I think that they should defeat the measure, but it is up to the voters, not special interests.

For the record2, I do believe that there are legitimate reasons to remove a judge from the bench.  Corruption, misuse of office, and rendering rulings based on factors other than the law are at the top of the list.

None of that describes Justice Pelander.  Vote to retain him.

Prop 121, the "jungle primary" initiative: not really designed to improve things

Among the ballot questions on this year's ballot is Proposition 121, a measure that would amend Arizona's Constitution to do away with partisan primaries in favor of a "top two" or "jungle" primary.  Instead of candidates running in a primary election to determine their party's nominee (s) for a particular office or independent candidates gathering enough signatures to directly gain a place on the general election ballot, all candidates for an office will run in a single primary with the top two vote-getters, regardless of partisan affiliation (or non-affiliation) moving on to the general election ballot (or two for each opening where multiple openings exist for the same office, such as state representative).

The measure is actively (and vociferously) opposed by the political parties (small to large) and certain civic groups (like the League of Women Voters) and wholeheartedly supported by a coalition of pro-business groups and their advocates.

Last week, there were two pro-Prop 121 events here in the Valley.

On Wednesday, ASU's Morrison Institute held a discussion on ASU's Downtown Campus with Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org and author of Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America, and Mickey Edwards, a former Congressman and author of the book The Parties Versus the People.

Friday, Zocalo Public Square held an event at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art with Edwards (sans Salit) titled "Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?"

(L-R) Edwards, Salit, and Don Budinger of the Morrison Institute Wednesday evening

Both events, though not SRO, were well-attended.  However, not all attendees were supportive -

A rather agitated State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), at the Morrison Institute event

Kavanagh wasn't the only local politico who made an appearance Wednesday (though he was the only one who directly participated in the discussion) - current candidate for Congress Kyrsten Sinema, former Attorney General Terry Goddard, and former mayor of Phoenix Paul Johnson (a supporter of the measure) all were there at one point or another.


Salit and Edwards basically took the position that political parties have controlled the levers of government, and to the point of this initiative (and their respective books  :) ), access to ballots for the benefit of themselves and not for the people of the country.

And to be fair, there is some truth to that.  For example in Arizona, while there is a path to the ballot for Independent candidates, the signature requirements are much higher for them (3% of voters registered as "other") than for partisan candidates (1/2 of 1% of voters registered in a party).

The supporters of the measure argue that passing the measure will result in candidates that are more responsive to voters and even more "centrist".

However, there is no evidence to that effect in the states that already have a "jungle primary" system in place.

It has created situations such as those in California where in one district two very liberal Democrats are facing off in the general election (30th Congressional District) - a Democratic-leaning district, to be sure, but not an exclusively Democratic one - and another, the 31st Congressional District, where the general election ballot has two Anglo Republicans are running to represent a Latino and Democratic leaning district.

What a jungle primary *doesn't* do is address what I consider to be the main malady that ails modern American politics -

Apathy.

Too many people, non-voters and low-information voters alike, just don't care about politics, being "too busy" or "too good" or "too something" to be bothered.  Even many of the people who vote believe that their civic duty is done once the election is over, acting as if our society and our government is a "fire it up and forget it" sort of operation.

This measure is being marketed as a "magic pill" that *may* cure all that ails AZ politics (to be fair, while many of the local supporters of Prop 121 have taken this tack, Salit and Edwards did not; they think that the jungle primary system is "better", but not perfect).

Based on what I heard and witnessed last week, Salit and Edwards are honest in their intent and honorable in their character, but on this matter, they are simply wrong.

Much like term limits before it, the jungle primary represents, at best, change for the sake of change.  Not change that will actually improve anything.

The "top two" or "jungle" scheme seems to be much like "supply side" economics - where supply-siders posit that if a product or service is cheap enough, people will buy it (yes I know that is *very* simplified, but this post is about practical politics, not economic theory), Salit, Edwards, Johnson, and the rest of the jungle primary supporters believe, and want others to believe, that if we just get "better" candidates, more people will be happy with the available choices on Election Day.

However, the problem with supply side economics is that its proponents ignore the fact that the US has a demand-driven economy.  Price may affect existing demand for a product, but it won't *create* demand. 

By the same token, "better" candidates may impact the thinking of already-engaged voters, but voters who aren't engaged still won't care.

And I freely admit that I have no idea how to address that particular problem. 

Feel free to leave suggestions in a comment; outlandish is OK, just keep it within the realm of possibility.  And civility. :)

While my vote wasn't changed, I do thank the Morrison Institute, Zocalo, and especially Edwards and Salit.  I may disagree with this measure, but any civil discussion on how to improve our political system should always be welcomed.

A second "thank you" goes out to Jackie Salit, who generously took time for a phone interview with me on Monday.  We may disagree on this, but she was intelligent, gracious, and eloquent.


Steve at the Arizona Eagletarian offers his take Friday's Zocalo event here.

Tempe/South Scottsdale Democrats nominate three to fill vacant seat

The (soon-to-be former) LD17 Democrats (because of redistricting, the district that emcompassed south Scottsdale and most of Tempe has been split up into three different districts for the next ten years) met once more to nominate three people to serve out the term of the recently-resigned Ben Arredondo. 

The meeting was a brief one, as the group was required to nominate three people for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to choose from, and only three people were running.

Hence, the meeting closed with the threesome being nominated by acclamation and no speeches were necessary.  Which was a good thing for the attendees who wanted to get to the ASU-Oregon game. 

Well, "good" until they were told how thoroughly Oregon was beating ASU.  :)

Any, the three nominees are:

Kristin Gwinn, a political consultant, double master's candidate at ASU in ASU's Public Policy and Public Administration programs, and activist
Randy Keating, chair of the (current) LD26 Democrats and small business owner
Juan Mendez, current candidate for the legislature in LD26 and a long-time community activist

(L-R) Mendez, Keating, Gwinn
 

Steve Muratore of the Arizona Eagletarian has full coverage here, including an overview of the legal and procedural particulars surrounding this meeting.

Breaking: Former state legislator Bill Konopnicki passes away

Picture courtesy the Eastern Arizona Courier

Republican former legislator Bill Konopnicki passed away this evening.

The Eastern Arizona Courier published a story early Wednesday detailing Konopnicki's rapidly deteriorating health due to non-alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.

Twitter is alive with remembrances of him from all across the political spectrum, and the non-political world as well.

Robbie Sherwood, a former reporter for the Arizona Republic, remembers Konopnicki as "old school" in that he came up through local service organizations, not party organizations, and that perspective affected his activities at the Capitol.

He was known as someone who was there to solve problems and "get things done", not to hold to a partisan ideological position, no matter how counterproductive that position.  His primary interest was in working for the best interests of his district and for Arizona.

Along with the late Jake Flake (R) and Jack Brown (D), they formed a trio of legislators who brought a small town sensibility to the lege (they represented northeastern Arizona; mostly small towns and ranches there).  As such, he (and they) were considered too conservative to be Democrats and too moderate to be darlings of the hardcore Rs who have taken control of the Capitol in recent years.

However, many of those from both sides of the partisan aisle with longer memories respect him as one of the last "true gentlemen" at the Capitol, as demonstrated by the outpouring of condolences for Konopnicki's family and friends.

According to his last legislative biography, he was born in Detroit and his family moved to Arizona when he was 5 years old.  He received his higher education at Arizona Western College, ASU, and U of A, before going on to operate a number of small businesses in Safford and the surrounding area over the next few decades.

One of Konopnicki's personal points of pride was that as the owner of some McDonald's franchises in Safford and eastern Arizona, he gave many of his neighbors their first "real" jobs.

Sherwood posted one of his memories of Konopnicki on his Facebook page.  It is reprinted here with permission -

Farewell to my friend former Rep. Bill Konopnicki who passed away this evening. A tremendously nice guy but tough as well. One lasting memory from following him on the campaign trail: on the day of his hometown Safford parade, Bill was suffering from an impacted tooth. He was miserable, hadn't slept and was in a lot of pain. He needed to see a doctor, but in small-town politics you don't miss an event like this. So Bill walked the entire mile-long route smiling, waving and shaking hands, all while carrying one of his little granddaughters in his arms. He was adored and respected by his constituents, embodied service before self and will remain an inspiration.

Koponicki harkens back to a day in Arizona politics where politicians could disagree without being disagreeable, and when there was a function middle at the Capitol that could actually solve problems. 

He will be missed greatly.

My condolences go out to Konopnicki's family and friends on their loss.

2nd debate: A clear win for Obama

After watching last night's debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, I was sure that Obama won the debate handily - he was engaged, on point, and on his game, while Romney was often flustered, usually vague, and always arrogant.

However, I am also sure that I have a "bit" of a partisan bias; OK, I'm a partisan hack. :)

But I'm an honest and (I like to think a) fair one, so I decided to sleep on it before writing about my impressions of the debate in Hempstead.

Summary:  no change.  Obama won, going away.

The bottom line is that while Obama wasn't perfect, he did a very good job in Hempstead.  On the other hand, Romney in the second debate looked like the San Diego Chargers in the second half of Monday night's NFL game - even when he did something right, he followed it up with something so wrong that it more than counterbalanced the thing he did right (on Monday night, the Chargers steamrolled their way to a 24 - 0 halftime lead over the Denver Broncos, only to see that lead disappear in a litany of turnovers and penalties as the Broncos went on to win the game 35 - 24.  The word "epic" is overused these days, but it was definitely a collapse of epic proportions).

I'm not the only one who thinks that the president won the debate - even some Fox News commentators think so too -

Neil Cavuto: “The President put in a better performance tonight.”

Charles Krauthammer:  “I think on points, if you’re scoring it on points, Obama wins on points

Juan Williams:  “I think Obama won the debate.”

To be fair, the Fox News commentators did try to minimize the scale of Obama's victory, but even they couldn't deny the fact of the victory (OK, many of them weren't that honest; the spin this morning is dizzying as Fox's morning show talking heads proclaim the debate to be a resounding victory for Romney).

Two takeaways from last night's debate:

- "Binders full of women" is the second debate's "Big Bird" moment. 

During the first debate, Romney pledged to balance the federal budget by cutting the federal subsidy to PBS, which broadcasts the beloved Sesame Street with Big Bird, among many other educational programs.

During the days after the debate, Romney was hammered with that comment

During the second debate, Romney responded to a question about his position on the issue of women not receiving equal pay for equal work by telling a story about how he had "binders full of women" available to him while he was filling cabinet positions as governor of Massachusetts.  He managed to sound evasive and condescending at the same time.

And has been getting hammered with that comment.

- The other takeaway has been a little lost in the rhetorical hubbub surrounding the "binders" comment and the other moments of interest during the debate (like Romney blaming gun violence in America on single mothers), but "please proceed, Governor" stands a chance of becoming a catchphrase meaning "you are doing such a good job of hanging yourself that I don't need to help you.  Much.  Here, have a little more rope."

During the exchange over the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during an attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Romney claim that Obama didn't call the attack an "act of terror" for two weeks.  The President responded that he did so the next day.  Romney thought he had the president on this point and honed in on it, reiterating his position and demanding that the president affirm or change his.  The president responding wth "Please proceed, Governor."

Romney did so, and was immediately fact-checked by debate moderator Candy Crowley, who pointed out that the president did, in fact, call the attack an act of terror the very next day.

It's probably doesn't help the credibility of a candidate to accuse another candidate of lying and then to turn around be caught lying himself.  Jus' sayin'...

If you didn't see the debate, the full debate video is available here, courtesy Huffington Post.  It's a little over 90 minutes long and well worth a look for those who wish to form their own opinions, something we should all do.

Maricopa County Recorder's Office engaging in voter suppression activity?

From ABC15.com, written by Tim Vetscher (emphasis mine) -

The Maricopa County Elections Department mistakenly listed the wrong date of the upcoming general election on an official government document.

The error appears on a document containing a voter ID card.

In addition to the ID card, the piece of paper it comes in lists other information such as important election dates.

In the corner of the document, it says November 6th in English but in Spanish it reads 8 de Noviembre, the 8th of November.

 

Election day is November 6th, not November 8th.

Folks, there is a reason that Arizona has been, is, and will remain, a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act.

OK, there are *many* reasons, and this is only the latest and most blatant.

Folks2, it's official - we've reached the "cheat like hell" portion of the Republicans' plan to win the elections this year.

Two pro Prop 121 events this week

There are two events this week that are intended to support Proposition 121, the "top two" primary initiative that is on November's ballot.

No, they aren't officially campaign activity, but in practical terms, holding the events this close to the election isn't a coincidence.

First up on Wednesday, former Congressman Mickey Edwards and Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org, will appear together on ASU's Downtown campus.  Details:

WHAT: 'Taking the Partisan Out of Politics'

WHEN: Oct. 17 at 5 p.m.

WHERE: Cronkite Theater

Arizona State University

Cronkite School of Journalism

555 N. Central Ave.

ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus.

ADMISSION: Free, but seating is limited so please RSVP.

RSVP: Elisabeth.S.Smith@asu.edu   Parking is available at University Center Garage at a cost of $10 per car. The entrance to the garage is on the side of Polk Street between 1st Street and Central Avenue.  However, ASU Downtown is also on the Valley Metro light rail line.   Edwards is the author of the book The Parties Versus The People and Salit is the author of the book Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America.   Salit took a few minutes to speak to me from New York ahead of her visit to Arizona.  She spoke of the "new conversation" in American politics, and part of that conversation will take place Wednesday evening.       An excerpt from Salit's book is here.   - On Friday, Zocalo Public Square will be holding a similarly-themed event with Edwards (sans Salit) in Scottsdale -   Place: Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art 7374 E 2nd Street Scottsdale, AZ   Time: 7 p.m.   Parking: West of the Museum in the parking garage between the Scottsdale Civic Center Library and Scottsdale Stadium.  Parking is free.     For the record:  I oppose, and have in fact already voted against, Prop 121.    A "top two" primary system is already in place in Louisiana, Washington, and California, as well as certain specific smaller jurisdictions (such as cities) but there is no evidence that it has resulted in more moderate candidates or elected officials.  In addition, it has led to situations, such as the one in California, where a heavily Democratic and Latino district has two Anglo Republican candidates on the fall ballot.   This particular measure is also sloppily-written, or maybe it is simply deliberately vindictive, with a provision that allows candidates to self-declare membership in any political party, even one that doesn't exist.  While it certainly isn't right to shun voters who choose not to declare an affiliation to a particular party, neither is it right to show contempt for those who do so choose an affiliation, be it Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or whatever.   And that provision seems to be designed to specifically shower contempt on voters who have chosen a partisan affiliation.   However, having said all that, the issue is one that legitimately merits discussion, and the backers of the measure jumped through all the right hoops in order to place the question on the ballot.   I'll write more after the events...