AZ House Speaker Tobin calls Chad Campbell "insincere" and "immature"...

...and says Campbell should have cleared his proposal to address the epidemic of gun violence sweeping the state and nation with Tobin first.

On Sundays here in AZ, like most of the country, local TV stations broadcast their political or public affairs programming, usually early in the morning.

Phoenix station KPNX (Channel 12 to those folks who aren't into alphabet soup early in the morning) broadcasts a program called "Sunday Square Off" at 8 a.m. local time.  The host is Brahm Resnick, a recently naturalized Canadian immigrant.  He's pretty even-handed, letting his guests say what they're going to say without interfering with them, but not afraid to press someone for details when they are being vague on an issue (given that he usually deals with politicians, that happens.  Frequently. :) ).

The show, while aired on Sunday, is recorded on Friday, which means that Resnick and his station can post teasers and previews on Saturday.

Which they did this week, here.

A transcript of the relevent part of the teaser -

Resnick - Now do you doubt his sincerity?

Tobin - Oh well sure, this is about him running for governor.  I'm very disappointed and it's immature..."here's my plan" and all you press guys show up and they put microphones in his face.  So he gets attention and that's OK.  Well how about picking up the phone and saying "hey Andy, what about something like this?"

Something tells me that the upcoming session of the lege will be a long and contentious one, judging by the fact that the Republican leadership is already resorting to name-calling.

Oh, and the leader of the caucus that barely acknowledges the existence of, much less deigns to speak to, Democratic members of the House and their constituents, whining about it when somebody doesn't talk to *him*?

Is there such a term as "operational hypocrisy"?  If not, there is now, and Tobin is serving up a big steaming pile of it...

Hugh Hallman, former mayor of Tempe, "pondering" a 2014 run for governor

From the Phoenix Business Journal, written by Mike Sunnucks -

Former Tempe mayor Hugh Hallman is looking at running for Arizona governor in 2014.

 

The Republican said on his website today he is pondering a run.

 

“Over the next few months, I will be traveling the state of Arizona to speak with and listen to people from all walks of life about what’s really important to them in their state government, and how we can address our priorities successfully,” Hallman said. “At that time, I will make a final decision about pursuing elected office. I have one particular elected office very clearly in mind — the office of governor of Arizona.”

If he runs and gains the R nomination next year, he could suffer the embarrassment of losing Tempe, his hometown, in the general election.  As mayor of Tempe, he kept a lid on the anti-constituent craziness that permeates internal Republican politics these days, but to get through the Republican primary, he'll need to cut loose with the nihilist rhetoric of the Rs' social and fiscal agendas.

That will cost him votes in Tempe. 

Lots of votes.

Sunnucks' piece went on to list a few other rumored candidates -

On the Democratic side:  Dr. Richard Carmona, former US Surgeon General and 2012 Democratic nominee for US Senate; Fred Duval, businessman, author, and former President of the Arizona Board of Regents; and Greg Stanton, mayor of Phoenix.

On the Republican side:  State Treasurer Doug Ducey and AZ Secretary of State Ken Bennett.


Possible additions/subtractions to that list:

Greg Stanton has stated that he is not running for governor in 2014 (that doesn't mean he won't change his mind at some point, but 2014 really might be too early for him to go for the governor's job.)

State Representative Chad Campbell, the Democratic leader in the AZ House, is also eyeing a run.  Like the others mentioned here, he may end up not running for governor (right now, they're all "pondering"), but he is probably more likely to run than Carmona is, at this point.

Felecia Rotellini, the impressive Democratic nominee for AZ Attorney General in 2010, is being talked up as a potential candidate.  I think that she is more likely to mount another run at AG, but it's still early - anything could happen.

Scott Smith, the Republican mayor of Mesa.  Has had success during his administration (Mesa is no longer the political, social, economic, intellectual, and cultural laughingstock of Arizona) and is young enough (mid to late 50s) that he could wait until 2018.  On the other hand, the wheels could fall off in Mesa at any time (or, more likely, the Arizona legislature could slash Mesa's tires at any time), so he may be best served by running in 2014.

Steve Pierce, former president of the AZ state senate (he won reelection to the Senate, but lost the R caucus vote for a return to the senate presidency) and rancher in Yavapai County, is rumored to be eyeing the race, but a candidate who isn't from Maricopa or Pima counties has an uphill path.  Add in the fact that while former legislators *have* made it to the 9th Floor (Jan Brewer, Jane Hull), they didn't get there directly, going through other offices first, and he may be least likely to run of anyone mentioned in this post.

Gary Pierce (no relation to Steve), member and former chair of the Arizona Corporation Commission, is also rumored to be interested in the governor's office.  Those rumors received a boost when fellow R Bob Stump was elected as chair of the ACC, presumably to allow Gary Pierce the time to explore a run.


In other 2014 news, maybe we should rename the office of the Arizona Attorney General as the office of Arizona Eternal Optimist:

Tom Horne has formed a reelection committee.

Good God, this is going to be fun.  :)

How NOT to advocate against beefing up common sense gun laws

Yes, this guy is a little extreme, even for the firearms enthusiast/fetishist crowd.  But only a little.

Q & A with Representative Chad Campbell

The start of the 2013 session of the Arizona legislature is less than a week away, and it promises to be a colorful and interesting session (interesting for political geeks, anyway :) ).

In the interest of gaining a little insight into the minds of some legislators and what to expect for the upcoming session, I contacted the legislators from LDs 24 and 26 (I live in LD24 and have known the incoming legislators in LD26 for years) with a number of questions.

The responses will be posted here.

First up:  Representative Chad Campbell (D-Phoenix), the House Democratic leader (questions in black, responses in blue) -

Picture courtesy AZHouseDemocrats.com

What unique perspective or background do you bring to the legislature? I think one of the unique perspectives I bring to the legislature is the fact that I have worked in the public, private and non-profit sectors. I’m one of the few members of the legislature who has this type of experience. I believe this experience gives me valuable insight into how all of these sectors interact with one another and how they impact our community and economy. This is important as we face challenging times which require innovative solutions and partnerships between the three sectors.

 

What will be your priorities for the 2013 session of the legislature? 

1. Increasing and identifying new funding for our schools. 2. Working to improve and strengthen our health care systems. 3. Increasing transparency and accountability at all levels of government, which also means ending handouts to special interests such as private prisons. 4. Providing leadership with a long-term vision, a blueprint for lack of a better term, for our state. We have suffered from leadership that has only made short-sighted decisions over these last few years. That cannot continue.

 

What bills do you plan to introduce? 

There will be several so I can’t list them all out here. Suffice it to say they will all relate to my priorities listed in the above question one way or another.

 

It is difficult for Democratic members of the legislature to have their proposals actually move through the legislature, especially without the support of some of the Republican members. What areas of common ground do you expect/hope to find with Republican members? 

I hope that we can find some common areas around school safety issues in light of the recent tragedy, as well as overall increased funding for our schools. One other area I would like to see some agreement on is tax reform that helps small businesses and families. It’s time to close out many of the loopholes in our tax code that are benefitting only the few and make it a simpler, more effective tax code. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue, it’s just good economics.

 

As in the recent past, expectations are that some "cutting edge" measures will be considered by the legislature this year. Have you heard of any specific proposals that may bring unwanted attention to Arizona? 

Well, we’ve already heard of ludicrous proposals to arm teachers on school campuses, and unfortunately that may be just the tip of the iceberg on this issue. I also expect more bills aimed at demonizing the immigrant community, attacking women’s rights, and additional corporate welfare. We will be there to fight these bad ideas every step of the way.

 

Regardless of the other issues that may arise during the session, the state's budget is always the most contentious. What areas of the budget would you like to see strengthened? What area(s) do you think could withstand a cut? Do you have any ideas for introducing long-term stability to Arizona's budget? 

We really can’t take any more cuts to our budget, and right now we have a surplus so there is no need for it. We need to add funding to our schools, health care, infrastructure, law enforcement, state parks and a whole other litany of programs and areas. One area that does need to have funding reduced is money going to our prisons, specifically private prisons. Prison populations are stable and there is no need for additional beds at this time. Yet, Gov. Brewer and the Tea Party led legislature gave private prisons $50 million last year. This is just one example of the continued bad decision making we’ve seen from the GOP over the last several years.

What we need is a long-term plan for our state. This means a modernized tax code that is fair for everyone which produces the revenue we need for schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and sustainable economic development programs that will make Arizona competitive. We also need to introduce and embrace innovative solutions that are plaguing our schools, health care providers and business sector. We must no longer keep repeating the same mistakes of the past. Arizona must head in a new direction that is not dominated by ideology, but by common sense and logic. I will be unveiling a blueprint for Arizona’s future sometime in the near future that does exactly that.

 

If your constituents want to contact you, what is your office address, phone, and email?

House Minority Leader Chad Campbell
1700 W. Washington
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
602.926.3026
chcampbell@azleg.gov

Freshman Republican Legislator throws down...on the entire state of Iowa

Republican Phil Lovas (R-Peoria), a Representative-elect in the new LD22 (basically the old LD4) has prefiled HB2017.

If passed, it would move the date of Arizona's presidential preference primary to the same date as Iowa's presidential caucuses, unless Iowa is no longer "first in the nation", then it would be held earlier.

These schemes crop up every four years or so.  Often, they even result in intra-party showdowns and brinksmanship (like when Florida was penalized half of its delegates to the national convention by the GOP), but they rarely result in real changes - Iowa has the first presidential caucuses and New Hampshire has the first presidential primaries.

Why?  I don't have a simple answer (and I truly don't believe that there is a simple answer here), but I do have an observation:

The proponents of these schemes always seem to argue that Iowa and New Hampshire don't necessarily have to be "first in the nation", but they never seem to have a good argument why their state should be.

Apparently, it's Arizona's turn to whine.


For the record, I don't think that there is any coincidence that the person proposing the particular bill is from the same area as Jack Harper, the soon-to-be former state legislator and constant source of subject material.

There's just gotta be something in the water there...

2014 committees/speculation update

A brief post, mostly because there isn't much news yet...

...State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills) has opened an exploratory committee for a run at the state senate seat in LD23 (North Scottsdale, Fountain Hills).  The Yellow Sheet Report (the Arizona Capitol Times' pricey political gossip sheet) reported this development as if it was unexpected news, but...

1.  The current state senator from LD23 is Michele Reagan, and she is (unofficially, at this point) running for AZ Secretary of State in 2014, leaving an opening there.

2.  Kavanagh is termed out of the House and cannot run for reelection to the House in 2014, which leaves a run for statewide office (probably doesn't have the name rec for such a run and I haven't heard of him expressing any interest in a statewide office), a run for Congress (which would probably mean a primary fight against David Schweikert, the incumbent member of Congress in his area, and Schweikert just beat up on the deep-pocketed Ben Quayle.  A Kavanagh challenge to him probably isn't feasible right now...plus I haven't heard of him expressing any interest in this area, either), or a run for state senate.

LD23 is a very Republican district; the winner of the R primary there *will* end up winning the general, and the two people who, in my estimation, could defeat him in the primary aren't interested (current State Sen. Michele Reagan is apparently running for another office, and former State Sen. Carolyn Allen is retired now).  Someone may step up and challenge him, but until he is actually defeated, the seat is presumed to be his for the taking.

In short, while this was reported as news, there is nothing unexpected here.


...Former State Sen. Jerry Lewis (R-Mesa) has renewed his committee, possibly in preparation for another run for the LD26 seat.  Lewis defeated Russell Pearce in the 2011 Pearce recall election, only to be defeated in his bid for a full term by Representative (soon to be "Senator") Ed Ableser (D-Tempe).

Republican legislative agendas: It's like deja vu all over again

In case anyone thought that the Republicans learned some lessons from their trouncing in November, think again.

In the US House, Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-somewhere past the orbit of Pluto...ok, she's from Minnesota.  But this time of year, Pluto and MN are roughly the same temperature.  :) ) introduced, on the very first day of the 113th Congress, introduced HR45, a measure to repeal healthcare reform, also known as "ObamaCare" and HR46, a measure to repeal Dodd-Frank, the minimal increase in oversight of Wall Street and the financial services industry after the financial speculation bubble burst late in the last decade. (no text available for either measure as yet)

The Rs have been wailing against both measures basically since both were enacted; for example, in just the last Congress, the House Republicans voted to repeal health care reform 33 times.

None of their efforts made it through the Senate, and there's no reason to think that these will, if one or both even passes the House.  Of course, both HR45 and HR46 were assigned to *9* committees each, which may be the House Republican leadership's way of saying "quit wasting our time, Michele."

Of course, Republicans in Arizona are no better; in fact, they may actually be worse - they know they may actually get their way.

In Washington, the House Republicans will posture endlessly, but even they know what they're doing it just for show, to appease their base at klavern meetings and country club cocktail parties, but little more.

In Arizona, the Republicans may be looking to appease the same people, but do so with the knowledge that their efforts may actually become the law of the land.

To whit:

State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills, which isn't as far out there as Pluto, but it's close - Fountain Hills is also the home of Joe Arpaio) has filed his first bill for the upcoming session of the Arizona legislature - HCR2003.

If passed by the legislature, it would refer to the ballot a repeal of Arizona's medical marijuana law, a law that was enacted by the voters in 2010.

Since it was enacted, Arizona's elected Republicans have been fighting it in every court that will accept their legal filings. 

They've been going the "court" route because they can't overturn the will of the voters on their own. 

In 1998, the voters of Arizona passed an amendment to the state constitution known as Prop 105, or the Voter Protection Act.  It bars the legislature from overturning a measure approved by the voters.  They *can* amend such a measure, if the amendment both furthers the purpose of the measure and is approved by a 3/4 vote of the lege.

The 1998 measure was necessary because the lege had overturned a 1996 measure relating to...wait for it...

Medical marijuana.


Of course, even in court, they usually lose, and lose badly.  Which leaves Kavanagh's plan as the only one with real viability - get the voters to override themselves.

Which *could* happen, except that the Rs haven't presented any independently verifiable evidence that the voters were wrong to approve the medical marijuana law.  All they've done is present evidence that the Rs don't agree with the voters.

Now, I'm a pretty cynical, "glass half full" kind of guy, but even I think that's not going to be enough to convince the voters of Arizona.

Oh, and given the Republicans' penchant for doing the "same old, same old", I have a nominee for the office of chair of the GOP (national or state, works either way) -

Punxsutawny Phil.


If you don't understand the reference, watch the movie "Groundhog Day", starring Bill Murray.

Is John Boehner using Hurricane Sandy relief as leverage to gain a 2nd term as Speaker of the House?

The 112th Congress adjourned for the last time today.  The next meetings of both the House of Representatives and the Senate will take place tomorrow, but those will mark the beginning of the 113th Congress.

As such, all unfinished business (and there's a lot of it - one of the most unproductive sessions of Congress ever) of the 112th Congress is now dead, and that includes measures that would provide relief to those still suffering the from the effects of Hurricane Sandy, which devastated parts of New Jersey, New York, and other northeastern states approximately two months ago.

The Senate passed a relief measure, but the Republican majority in the House refused to even consider it, much less pass it.

When they adjourned the 112th Congress today, effectively killing any relief for those who are still dealing with the destruction wrought by the historically destructive storm.

The callousness of the Republican leadership incensed people from all over the political spectrum, including Republicans from the affected areas -

Governor Chris Christie (R-NJ), from the Los Angeles Times, written by Paul West -

"Shame on you. Shame on Congress," Christie said at a news conference in Trenton, the state capital. "It's absolutely disgraceful, and I have to tell you, this used to be something that was not political. Disaster relief was something you didn't play games with." But "in this current atmosphere, [it's] a potential piece of bait for the political game. It is why the American people hate Congress."

Congressman Peter King (R-NY) took to the floor of the House to express his outrage (video here, courtesy ABC News) -

"I'm saying right now, anyone from New York or New Jersey who contributes one penny to congressional Republicans is out of their minds," he said in an interview on Fox News. "Because what they did last night was put a knife in the back of New Yorkers and New Jerseyans. It was an absolute disgrace."

Apparently, the Republican leadership is callous, but not deaf.  The uproar was loud enough to inspire the House leadership, in the persons of Speaker John Boehner and Majority leader (and Speaker-wannabe) Eric Cantor, to promise that Sandy relief will be the first thing on the new Congress' agenda.

Caving so quickly doesn't make much sense, until one remembers that the election for House Speaker is tomorrow.

And the votes of the Republican members of the delegations from NY, NJ, and the other states affected by Sandy could be crucial to the eventual victor (I'm betting on Boehner is this horse race, but my insight into internal R caucus politics is limited, to say the least).

I'll be keeping an eye on news reports while I'm at work tomorrow and suggest that those who can also do that, do so.

(Fiscal Cliff) Diving Into The New Year

Well, earlier today, it looked like that some kind of deal had been worked out between the White House, Senate, and House to avoid put off the country going over the "fiscal cliff".

Then it looked like the deal had been killed by a group of House Republicans, led by speaker-wannabe Eric Cantor, who feel that as bad as the measure is in its current form, it isn't bad enough for their taste.

Now it appears that the House *will* vote on the deal tonight (~ between 7 and 8 p.m. AZ time), and without any amendments.

Not going to predict the outcome of the vote tonight, but the vote outcome will serve as a sign of the outcome of another big vote, this one coming Thursday -

If the fiscal cliff measure passes the House, expect John Boehner to retain the speakership for the next session of Congress.

If it doesn't pass (and this includes it not even coming up for a vote), expect Boehner to lose the speakership, ending up deposed in favor of Eric Cantor.

I'd gloat over Boehner's troubles (he's been a horrid speaker), but if he ends up with the job, Cantor will be worse.

2013 predictions

...Look for the value of aluminum futures to skyrocket in the new year.  When there are concrete proposals put forth in DC to begin addressing the epidemic of mass shootings in the US, the tin foil hat-wearing crowd will go ballistic.  And since most "tin" foil is actually aluminum these days...

...On a related note, the NRA will steal a page from Herbert Hoover's oh-so-successful reelection campaign ("a chicken in every pot!") with their own campaign to turn schools into armed encampments for fun and profit ("a semi-automatic in every lunch box!").

...If the NRA and its apologists like Tom Horne and Jan Brewer get their way and are able to block real firearms reform, many schools will add body armor to their school uniform requirements.

...While there will be many bills proposed during the upcoming session of the Arizona legislature that will be bad for AZ if passed, there will be at least 10 that will keep us (AZ) in the national spotlight as a punchline (OK, this one is like predicting that Phoenix will have a sunny day).

...The "fiscal cliff" deal (assuming that it holds together; the House hasn't voted on it as of this writing) in DC will be renamed the "kicked the can down the #$^&! road" bill come the end of February/beginning of March.  It's a two month patch and not much more.  John Boehner may or may not be the Speaker of the Republican-controlled US House at that point, but that is the only possible significant change is the roster of players in DC.  The political furor of the last few days of February will look like the political furor of the last few days of 2012, with the addition of the Republicans trying to use the debt limit as leverage in their efforts to siphon off the Social Security Trust Fund toward their benefactors on Wall Street.

...A nationally prominent Republican political figure will be caught up in some kind of "moral" scandal (sex, booze, more sex, etc.).  Not saying that Republicans are the only ones who like to get laid, have a drink, etc. (not hardly), but they are the ones who like to pass judgement on those who do.  Meaning that when they are caught doing something of that nature, it's a lot juicier than when a Democrat does it (the missteps of the "do as we say, not as we do" crowd are always juicier than those of the "live and let live" crowd).

...Locally prominent Republican political figure, Tom Horne, Arizona's Attorney General, will be the subject of "what will come first, the resignation or the felony indictment?" rumors.  He already has the sex scandal (cheating on his wife), corruption (hiring his girlfriend to a taxpayer-funded job), appetizer scandal (campaign finance violations), and " 'colorful' event" (committing a hit-and-run collision while leaving that girlfriend's home, all observed and documented by federal investigators following him).  He doesn't have much ground left to cover in the area of "can do this and keep his job".

...The Arizona Republican Party will form a bit of a circular firing squad when they elect a new chairman of the state party later this month, ignoring the lessons of the 2012 elections and choosing the most virulently conservative candidiate for the job.

...Not wanting to be accused of taking advantage of that situation, the leadership of the Arizona Democratic Party will respond by fielding candidates for 2014 who can best be described as "Republican-lite".

...A political figure (R or D or neither) will post, Tweet, email, text or otherwise publicize a pic or statement that will embarrass them and claim that they a) thought it was private, b) think is being taken out of context, and c) think is a regrettable error and that they will never do again.  Some careers will survive it (i.e. - Paul Babeu), some won't (i.e. - Anthony Weiner); either way, it will be filed in the "whatthehellwashethinking?" folder.

...If a D-controlled county board of supervisors learns from the (in)action of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, look for vacancies in legislative seats held by Rs to go unfilled.  State law requires that such vacancies must be filled by members of the same party as the person who vacated the seat, but apparently the law makes the filling of a vacancy optional.  The Rs on West Washington ignored it when it was Republicans making sure that an area that voted for a Democrat went unrepresented; expect their screaming to reach a decibel level in the triple digits if a Republican leaning area is similarly screwed over.

...Andy Biggs, the incoming president of the AZ Senate, will ban from the Senate a certain unworshipful blogger for being, well, *unworshipful*. :)

...And last but certainly not least, expect insightful wiseass-ery from a certain insightful wiseass (but oh-so-humble :) ) blogger...

Quick $ analysis of 2012 AZ Congressional races

It has to be quick - it only includes net operating expenditures from candidates' principal committees.  I searched the FEC's website for a while, but could not find a way to filter independent expenditure reports by particular candidate, race, or even state.  Could have gone through every IE report filed this year, but that would take more time than is available on a Sunday afternoon.

There was a *lot* of IE money expended during the 2012 elections.

The sources of information:

Arizona Secretary of State's Official Election Canvass of Results
Post-General Election campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission

Further caveats:  The "net operating expenditures" number is from the applicable candidate's final 2012 campaign finance filing; it includes funds expended during the primary election, if any.  Since I could not think of a way to separate funds that only affected the primary vote, all expenditures were included, not just monies spent during the general election part of the cycle.

In addition, some candidates faced a "real" primary (viable opposition) while facing a walkover in the general, some faced the opposite combination, some neither, and one race, CD9, had both competitive primaries (D and R) and a competitive general election.

Candidate	CD	Net Operating Expenditures		Gen. Election Votes		$/gen elect vote
Kirkpatrick  - W	1	2313080.23		122774		18.840
Paton	1	1390118.16		113594		12.238
Barber - W	2	1254521.72		147338		8.515
McSally	2	1342020.03		144884		9.263
Grijalva - W	3	934605.93		98468		9.491
Gosar - W	4	1089090.06		162907		6.685
Salmon - W	5	1049982.19		183470		5.723
Schweikert - W	6	1668447.82		179706		9.284
Pastor - W	7	637532.76		104489		6.101
Franks - W	8	386233.88		172809		2.235
Parker	9	1062250.42		111630		9.516
Sinema - W	9	2024619.87		121881		16.611
Flake - W	Sen	9133038.17		1104457		8.269
Carmona	Sen	6016542.06		1036542		5.804

W = Won race


Of these, the following had

- a competitive primary and an uncompetitive general - CDs 4 (R), 5 (R), 6 (R)

- an uncompetitive primary and an uncompetive general - CDs 3 (D), 7 (D), 8 (R)

- an uncompetitive primary and a competitive general - CDs 1 (D), 2 (D and R), US Sen (D)

- a competitive primary and a competitive general - CD 9 (D and R), 1 (R), US Sen (R)

Note: "competitive" and "uncompetitive" are not synonyms for "contested" and "uncontested".  In many cases, in the primary, the general, or both, there were other candidates on the ballot, but their likelihoods of winning fell into the "snowball's chance in Phoenix...in August" category.  Not a commentary on the character of the "minor" candidates, just an assessment of their electability.

I would have expected that there would be a correlation between competitive races and $/vote, there doesn't seem to be one. 

For example, Trent Franks (R) spent the lowest amount per vote, and his race was all but completely uncontested, with only token opposition in both the primary and the general.

On the other hand, Ann Kirkpatrick (D) spent the most money per vote, and while she had a competitive general election race against Jonathan Paton (R), she had a practically noncompetitive race (Wenona Benally Baldenegro).

There might be a way to show a correlation between money spent and votes earned, but other factors would have to be part of the formula - some combination of partisan voter registrations, partisan advantage/disadvantage, some way to account for the influence of primary election expenditures on the general election (and make no mistake, there is such an influence), and, of course, Independent Expenditures.

I can find some of the info (voter reg stuff), but does anybody have any ideas on how to find and work with the other data?

The US House is meeting Sunday; I set the over/under at 3

...3, as in "the number of times that John Boehner lets the tears flow"...

In a rare occurence, the US House of Representatives will meet tomorrow, a Sunday. 

The unusual scheduling is ostensibly to give the House a chance to pass a measure that would enable the country to avoid going over the "fiscal cliff".

However, while a number of measures are on the tentative agenda, no one truly expects much to be done tomorrow - the Republican caucus in the House has turned political self-immolation into an art form, and their fiscal cliff negotiating position ("stop me before I shoot myself!") may be their pièce de résistance.

While they still could surprise me (and everyone else, including themselves) and put aside ideological posturing in favor of actually, you know, *governing*, I think the only real question left to ponder is -

Who is going to cry more tomorrow, Cardinals fans or Republican Speaker of the House John Boehner?

For the record, I think that Cardinals fans will cry more often, but I'm not counting tears of joy over the end of a truly painful season.

"Cleaning out the backpack", or "time to prepare for the 2013 session of the legislature"

Update on 12/28 -

Thanks go out to sharp-eyed regular reader Anna Johnson, a debate host at Civil Arizona.  There were two errors in the original post - Adam Driggs is the senator from Amanda Reeve's district, and Rich Crandall was not removed from the Senate Education Committee; he only lost the chairmanship.  He remains a member of the committee.  Lastly, she clarified that Linda Gray not only did not run for reelection, she had reached  her term limits.  All areas have been clarified or corrected.

Thanks again Anna!

End update...

When I attend events where I might possibly write about them, I usually have a small backpack with me (think: bookbag).  That pack serves as a container for my laptop, camera, extra pens, notebooks, cables and power cords for anything that might require them, etc., as well as a repository for any literature or swag that might come my way during a particular excursion.

As might be expected, that leads to a backpack full of stuff, and a backpack in need of periodic cleaning out.

During the most recent cleanout of my backpack, I came across this guide to the 2011-2012 Arizona Legislature -

After perusing it, I realized that while in terms of "good government" practices, the upcoming lege probably won't be much better than the one that just concluded, the names and faces of the lege will be very different.

Part of the 50th Arizona Legislature (began in 2011), but gone from the 51st Arizona Legislature (beginning in 2013):

State Sen. Paula Aboud (D) - term-limited out of the Senate and did not run for election.

State Sen. Sylvia Allen (R) - did not run for reelection, instead opting for a (successful) run at a spot on the Navajo County Board of Supervisors.

State Sen. Frank Antenori (R) - defeated in his bid for reelection by former legislator David Bradley.

State Sen. Scott Bundgaard (R) - resigned from office effective January 6, 2012 over a domestic violence incident in February 2011 (he was caught assaulting his then-girlfriend by the side of a Phoenix freeway).  He is now suing the City of Phoenix and Phoenix PD, alleging, among other things, defamation.  He was replaced in the Senate by then-Rep. Judy Burges.  Burges won a full term in the Senate during the 2012 elections.

State Sen. Ron Gould (R) - Term limited out of the Senate, chose to run for Congress in the new CD4.  Lost in the primary to eventual general election winner Paul Gosar.

State Sen. Linda Gray (R) - Term limited and did not run for another office.

State Sen. Lori Klein (R) - lost in the Republican primary when her suburban Phoenix Anthem home was redistricted into a Prescott-centered district.  There were three other incumbent Republicans in that district; she chose to avoid a primary with the other incumbent senator in the district, Steve Pierce (the then-president of the Senate) and went after one of the two House seats from the district.  Both of the other Rs in the race are based in the Prescott area (current state Rep. Karen Fann and current House Speaker Andy Tobin).  Klein lost the primary, but her one term in the lege was marked by two or three terms' worth of "colorful" - she packed heat on the House floor during the 2011 State of the State address from the governor, she aimed a pistol at a reporter in the Senate lounge in order to show off the "purty l'il laser sight", and she read an anti-immigrant screed into the Senate record.  And those may be the highlights of her political career.

State Sen. John Nelson (R) - Dropped out of an R primary when fellow senator Don "Tequila" Shooter "moved" into his R-leaning district after Shooter realized that after redistricting, his own district had too many Democratic and Latino voters for his comfort.  Quotes around "moved" because there are rumors that Shooter never actually changed his residence into the new district.  However, there were no Democratic candidates on the ballot in the new district, so no one challenged his eligibility.

State Sen. Russell Pearce (R) - Became the first, and thus far only, Arizona legislator to be removed from office via the recall process.  He was defeated by 12% by Jerry Lewis (R) in 2011, who was later defeated by Ed Ableser (D) in the 2012 election.  Pearce ran for a new term in 2012, only to be defeated by Bob Worsley (R) in the primary, by 12%.   Pearce was replaced as president of the Senate by Steve Pierce, who won reelection to the Senate in 2012 but was deposed as Senate president by Andy Biggs, an ally of Russell Pearce.

State Sen. David Schapira (D) - Ran for the new CD9, but lost in the primary.  Has maintained his political presence by, among other things, campaigning for the Democratic nominee and eventual general election victor, Kyrsten Sinema.  Expected to be a factor in 2014, but I'm not sure which office he is interested in.

State Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D) - Resigned from the Senate on January 3, 2012, in order to focus on a (successful) run for Congress.  Replaced by David Lujan, a former state senator who promised not to run for election to a full term (and he kept his promise).

That's a turnover of 11 out of 30, or 37%, which sounds like a lot, until you realize that only 2 lost elections to return to the Senate.  The other eight chose to pursue other offices, or none at all.

The membership of the Arizona House of Representatives in 2013 will be also be very different from the House membership at the beginning of 2011 -

State Rep. Kirk Adams (R), then the Speaker of the House, resigned after the 2011 session in order to run for Congress in CD5 (East Mesa, Gilbert, most of Chandler, and other areas in the East Valley portion of metro Phoenix).  He lost in the R primary there to eventual winner Matt Salmon and was last seen running a PAC that laundered money from Big Business to some campaigns that supported/opposed ballot questions.  If he isn't indicted (and in AZ, maybe even if he is), he should also be a factor during the 2014 election cycle.

State Rep. Ben Arredondo (D) - Indicted by the feds for his involvement in a "tickets to sporting evens in exchange for influence" scandal; not the only elected official who was involved, but the only one (so far, anyway), to face legal repercussions.  He resigned from office after accepting a plea deal, and was replaced by...no one.  The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors are required by state law to appoint another Democrat to fill a vacancy in an office held by a D, and they absolutely refused to do so.

State Rep. Cecil Ash (R) - Ran for (and won) Justice of the Peace in North Mesa.  That seat was open because Lester Pearce, Russell Pearce's brother, decided to run for a seat on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.  That Pearce lost in the R primary by, you guessed it, 12%.

State Rep. Tom Chabin (D) - Redistricted into an R-leaning district; unlike Shooter above, chose the honorable course of staying put and fighting it out.  Ran for State Senate, where he lost to fellow state rep Chester Crandell in November.

State Rep. Steve Court (R) - The House majority leader did not run for reelection.

State Rep. John Fillmore (R) - Ran for the Senate, but lost in the primary to Sen. Rich Crandall, who went district shopping in order to avoid a primary battle with Russell Pearce.  Crandall may be returning to the Senate, but payback came just about the time the election results were finalized - Crandall, an adversary of Russell Pearce, may have beaten John Fillmore, an ally of Pearce, but the new Senate president is Andy Biggs, an ally of Pearce.  For the 2013 session of the lege, Crandall has been removed from his long-time chairmanship of the Senate Education Committee.

State Rep. Jack Harper (R) - The long-time legislator (and God's gift to writers in need of subject material) chose to not run for reelection.  He was rumored to be eyeing a run at Secretary of State in 2014, but has announced that he is stepping away from politics for the foreseeable future (translation - until his wife gets sick of him being underfoot all the time)

State Rep. Matt Heinz (D) - Ran for Congress in the new CD2 (basically Gabby Giffords' former district); lost in the primary to eventual general election winner Ron Barber.

State Rep. Russ Jones (R) - Lost in the primary to Darin Mitchell.  Later sued, saying that Mitchell didn't actually live in the district.  A court agreed that Mitchell didn't live in the district, but declined to remove Mitchell from the ballot.

State Rep. Peggy Judd (R) - Did not run for reelection.

State Rep. Nancy McLain (R) - Ran for the state senate seat held by the termed-out Ron Gould; lost in the primary to eventual general election victor Kelli Ward.

State Rep. Richard Miranda (D) - In February, resigned from office, citing family and health concerns; in March, entered a guilty plea to wire fraud and tax evasion charges for misusing funds from two non-profits; in July, sentenced to 27 months in prison.  Replaced by Martin Quezada, who won a full term in the 2012 election.

State Rep. Daniel Patterson (D) - Resigned in early April over a domestic violence incident.

State Rep. Terri Proud (R) - Redistricted into a district with a full slate of R legislators; chose not to mount a primary battle.

State Rep. Amanda Reeve (R) - Another redistricting casualty. Ended up in a district with three R legislators and one D legislator.  One, Adam Driggs (R), ran to keep a Senate seat; the other three, Reeve, Kate Brophy-McGee (R) and Eric Meyer (D) fought it out in the general for the two House seats.  Reeve came in third.

State Rep. David Burnell Smith (R) - Lost in the 2012 primary for a House seat.

State Rep. Steve Urie (R) - Ran for and won the race for Highland District (Maricopa County) Justice of the Peace.  Could be a short-lived move if he runs afoul of judicial branch ethics standards - JPs handle eviction actions, and Urie owns a property management company.  Can you say "conflict of interest"?

State Rep. Ted Vogt (R) - Ran for reelection; lost in the general election.

State Rep.  Jim Weiers (R) - The former speaker and a payday loan czar was termed out of the House and did not run for another office.

State Rep. Jerry Weiers (R) - The brother of the former speaker was also termed out and ran for (and won) mayor in Glendale.

State Rep. Vic Williams (R) - Chose to run for the Pima County Board of Supervisors.  Lost in the primary.

That's 21 out of 60 people (35%) who were House members at the beginning of 2011 who will not be in the lege at all at the beginning of 2013.  In addition, seven House members in 2011 gained seats in the Senate for 2013 - Ed Ableser (D), Judy Burges (R), Chester Crandell (R), Steve Farley (D), Rick Gray (R), Katie Hobbs (D), Kimberly Yee (R). 

That means that 47%, 28 out of 60, of the 2011 members of the House will not be part of the House in 2013. 

Of those 28, only four lost elections (primary or general) for House seats.

The numbers mean that 14% of the turnover in the House, and 18% of the turnover in the Senate, is directly due to the will of the voters (meaning the incumbent was defeated in a bid to return to the same office). 

I may not be a huge fan of term limits, but I completely understand the desire for them.

Personal note:  Former State Rep. Ben Arredondo may be dealing with legal troubles of his own making, and in that regard deserves little sympathy, but I have three points in that area -

1.  Arredondo may have been part of a "tickets for influence" scheme, but he's not the only one.  Not hardly.  They just made an example of him.

2.  His political career may have ended badly, but no one should use that as an excuse to forget his decades of public service.  Simply put, he's done more good for his community than pretty much any ten of the pretenders on West Washington.

3.  Whatthehell is going on with the lege staff?  They have all but completely scrubbed Arredondo from the lege's website.

He's gone from the roster of members, even though when a member leaves office during a term for any reason, his/her name is left on the list with a note indicating when and why they left office.

Arredondo should be where the crudely-drawn question mark is (I may not be the best writer, but I'm a better writer than an artist :) ); note the highlighted examples of the usual procedure when a member leaves office (Adams and Burges).

There are still traces of him on the website, such as he is still listed as the sponsor or co-sponsor of bills that he sponsored or co-sponsored.  However, when you click on his name, this screen pops up -

What Arredondo did was wrong for anyone in a position of public trust, and he deserves to be held accountable for his crimes, but to remove him from the history of the lege while leaving such embarrassments as Scott Bundgaard and Daniel Patterson (violence toward women), Russell Pearce (recalled in disgrace because of the arrogant and high-handed way he conducted himself in office, including his own involvement in the sports tickets scheme), and Richard Miranda (embezzlement from two non-profits) there?

It may not be illegal, but it is wrong.

Christmas 2012

Guns are different; it's time to treat them that way

In other words, accepting the status quo isn't acceptable...

After the brief post on last Friday relating to the mass murder in the elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, regular reader Thane challenged me to name some specific actions that could/should be taken, or at least discussed, in response to the horror there.

While there are cultural aspects to the issue - as a society, too often we consider violence to be an acceptable course of action, even when it isn't absolutely necessary - firearms are designed to escalate the immediacy of a violent course of action, and to heighten the lethality of such a course of action once it is undertaken. 

In short, firearms are tools designed for one purpose - to kill, and ever-improving technology increases the ability of users to kill more people with more efficiency in less time.

There are people, mostly gun fetishists/enthusiasts (pick your preferred term), who try to equate firearms with any other object ever used to end a life.  They take the position that if guns should be banned or restricted because they have been used to kill people, then so should say, hammers, because people have been killed by blows from a hammer.

The difference there is the designed purpose of the tool in question.

Can someone use a hammer to murder someone else?  Certainly.  But if one is used for the purpose for which it is designed, someone ends up with a roof over his head.

Can someone use a gun to build a house?  I suppose so, if he doesn't mind getting wet when it rains.  But if a gun is used for the purpose for which it is designed, someone, perhaps many someones, ends up dead.

Also pushed by many of the same people is the idea that the right to possess a gun trumps all other considerations, even the safety of others.  They contemptuously proclaim that people who feel threatened by others who possess guns or who engage in intimidating behavior should just buy their own guns.  Which is wonderful for the bottom lines of gun manufacturers and dealers, but not so wonderful for the rest of us.

I don't pretend to have any ideas that will be guaranteed to prevent another shooting.  In fact, human nature being what it is, I can all but guarantee that another *will* occur.

However, that isn't a reason to do *nothing*, no matter how much some postulate that if a proposed response cannot be guaranteed to prevent all further gun violence, then it shouldn't even be considered.  There are responses than can serve to reduce the number of mass shootings, and to reduce the body count when they do occur -

- Renewing the assault weapons ban won't stop people who already possess military-grade (or nearly so) firearms from misusing the ones that they have, but it will make it more difficult to gain access to more.

- Banning or restricting access to high capacity ammo magazines won't prevent mass shootings, but it will slow down any that do occur.  The people who want to wage war on student and teachers, movie-goers, churchgoers, Saturday morning shoppers, workers, etc., will have to stop and reload every so often.

- Closing the loopholes in background check laws that enable anyone to all-but-anonymously purchase firearms at gun shows and over the internet won't prevent would-be mass shooters from obtaining weapons, but it will make it a little more difficult to do so from the shadows.

However, those ideas only address the "tool" aspect of firearms.

The other main aspect of the rising rate of mass shootings is the "behavior" aspect, and that must be addressed, too, if we hope to make any inroads into this growing problem.

- Buttressing the mental health care system in the US is a must.  Alone, it won't prevent all future mass murders, because not all "bad" or violent people are mentally ill (in fact, most aren't), and not all "mentally ill" people are bad or violent people (in fact2, most aren't).  On the other hand, getting the Jared Loughners and Adam Lanzas of the world (if, in fact3, Lanza was mentally ill) help should reduce the number of "crazy" shootings.

That still leaves the "cold blooded" and "heat of the moment" shootings, where people who understand the difference between right and wrong choose to do wrong.

I don't pretend to have a cure for unrelenting avarice or hot jealousy or any of the other things that ail the human spirit, nor have I heard of anyone else having one (certain religious types claim to have such a cure, but given the number of times throughout history that religion has been cited as justification for mass murder, those folks have a bit of a credibility problem).

However, while human motivations and emotions cannot be controlled by society, human actions that threaten or actually harm members of society can be addressed by society.  To that end, some suggested adjustments to current laws and practices...

- Commit a crime with a firearm, or commit a crime while in possession of a firearm even if the firearm was not a part of the crime, get a year in prison on top of any other sentence.  In addition, that year would be served consecutive to, not concurrent with, any other punishment.

- Remove *perceived* threats as a justification for the use of deadly force.  The only legally acceptable reason for the use of deadly force should be only in response to an *actual* threat.  In addition, it should be an affirmative defense, one where it is necessary for the defense to show the use of deadly force was proper.  It would still be necessary for the prosecution to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had actually committed the violent act, but once that was accomplished, proof of justification would be burden for the defense.

- Firearms possessors and users would be absolutely responsible for the results of the discharge of their weapons.  For example, even where use of a firearm is justified, the person that fires a gun, misses his target, and strikes an innocent bystander would face charges stemming from the shooting.  The person who created the situation that warranted the use of a firearm in the first place would face charges (felony murder?), but so would the shooter, and not "slap on the wrist" charges, either.


Note to readers: Without a doubt, this post has been the toughest ever for me to put together.  I don't think it is a coincidence that I wasn't able to finish it until the last of the funerals for the victims took place.  Whenever I sat to write this, a flood of thoughts and feelings flooded in, and I had to step away to organize the thoughts.  Based on the quality of the writing here, that effort may have been less than completely successful, but it will do (one of the joys of being a blogger - no editors).

While the number of mass shootings has served to desensitize most of us (yes, even me) to the carnage, the murders of 26 small children and their teachers, 27 including Lanza's mother, in Newtown is so shocking to the national conscience that even people who are jaded by modern life have opened their eyes to what is going on in our schools and homes and churches and streets.

It has affected nearly everyone and impacted the way that they think, act, and speak about guns in our society.

Even the NRA, which in the past has enthusiastically blamed everthing and everyone except for guns and gun owners for previous mass shootings waited a full week before dancing on the graves of the victims.

While the cynic in me (and, I believe, many of us) expects that we as a society will be distracted by the never-ending stream of "news" and events fed to us by modern media, but the idealist in me (yes2, there is one here :) ) thinks and hopes that this latest horror may be the one to snap us out of our collective trance.