Uncivil discourse update: No injunction in LD20 Republicans' mess

...not yet, anyway...

In what is likely to be only the first court proceeding related to the mess that is the LD20 Republican Party Committee, a judge ruled that while the language used in some emails was "intemperate" and certainly bad, it didn't quite meet the legal threshold of harassment, and thus no injunction against harassment (aka - a restraining order) was warranted.

LD20 (which is mostly Ahwatukee) can perhaps best be described at the "petri dish"* of the discord in the Arizona Republican Party as a whole, is a place where the Tea Party movement has been "feeling its oats" and has been attacking the mainstream of the AZGOP with even more vigor than they've gone after Democrats and Independents who don't drink the Kool-Aid tea.

The mess had gained national notice when the recently-reelected chair of the LD20 Republican Committee, Anthony Miller, resigned, citing fears for the safety of his family and himself.  The Tea Party types were incensed over his support of the Republican nominee for U.S. Senate, John McCain.

Then last week one of the District officers who resigned along with Miller, Sophia Johnson, asked for an order of protection (the "injunction"), citing harassing emails from one of the Tea Party types, Sandra Miller (no relation to Anthony Miller).

In the Tuesday morning hearing held in the courtroom of the Kyrene Justice Court, Judge Elizabeth Rogers** heard both sides of the issue, examined the evidence presented to her (printed copies of the emails in question) and ruled that while the emails were certainly rude and "intemperate," they didn't rise to the legal threshold to be considered harassment.

Judge Rogers admonished Ms. Miller, advising her that sometimes people need to take a moment before to think about what they are going to say, especially in a subject area like politics that tends to excite emotions.

Personally, I don't think she got the message, but we'll see.

* - The new chair of the Arizona Republican Party, Tom Morrissey, is a Tea Party type from LD20.

** - Full disclosure time:  Judge Rogers is a friend of mine, and I helped with her 2010 reelection campaign.

The Legislative Crazy Train Is Up To Speed...

...And Is Ready To Derail Arizona's Future...

Less than a week ago, I wrote a post detailing some of the dumber/loonier bill proposals already proposed for the current session of the legislature. While many of the bill proposals are absolute ideological claptrap, a number of the bill proposals are efforts at cleaning up or clarifying already existing laws or are targeted at specific problems.

Turns out, the R caucuses were just getting warmed up, and they haven't even introduced the anti-children/14th Amendment bills yet.  Those are coming Thursday, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. 

Now that we are into the third week of the session, nearly all pretense of "good governance" is gone.

Bills added just in the last few days:

- HB2544, Rep. Judy Burges' latest "birther" bill

- HCR2030, Rep. Jack Harper's proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would loosen the ban on spending public money for religious purposes.  It would create an exception for school vouchers (this one has "Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy" written all over it)

- HCR2029, Rep. Chester Crandell's proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would create a "sunset" provision for all voter-approved spending initiatives (an attempt to reduce the voters' influence over the direction of the state and their ability to rein in the ideological excess of the legislature)

- SB1231, Sen. Lori Klein's proposal to limit government expenditures and tying future caps on the changes to the cost of living and the state's population.  Exempts from the limit payments on debt incurred by the end of the current fiscal year

- SCR1019, Sen. Scott Bundgaard's companion to the above bill.  This is a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution to reduce the state's expenditure limit.  Currently, the limit is 7% of "total personal income of the state" to 6.4%.  As of last February, (the date of the most recent analysis) Arizona's spending was at 5.95% of total personal income of the state.  This bill would then appear to be harmless, except that the percentage isn't just affected by state spending, it's affected by the economy as a whole.  Even if state spending doesn't change, a reduction in residents' ability to earn a living would result in a lower expenditure limit.  Possibly leading to a reduction in services just at the moment when more folks need to avail themselves of those services (i.e. - community college and university enrollments generally rise during down economic periods, yet the legislature is focused on decimating higher education in Arizona)

- SB1246, Sen. Nancy Barto's plan to do everything to inhibit a woman's right to choose her own medical care, including abortion services, that is allowable under the strictures of Roe v. Wade

- SCR1018, Sen. Steve Pierce's move to reduce property taxes paid in Arizona.  Currently, while there are limits on property tax levels, but there are a number of exceptions to those limits.  His measure is a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would eliminate most of those current exceptions to the limits

Something tells me that even the anti-14th Amendment bills coming later this week from Rep. John Kavanagh, Sen. Ron Gould won't be the end of the nuttiness.  I figure there will be material for at least two more posts in this informal series, and that's all before the silly season starts, "silly season" being when strike-everything amendments become the primary reason for existence for certain legislators (Jack Harper, anyone?).

Very early campaign committees for 2012

I've been wanting to do one of these for a while, but haven't been able to do so because no one has opened a 2012 campaign committee for statewide, legislative, or Congressional races.

It was kind of baffling for a moment because in previous cycles, candidates for the next cycle started forming campaign committees almost as soon as the voting is complete in the previous cycle.

Then I remembered - we're in a redistricting year, and no one can start a campaign committee because they don't know what district they will be running for.  This affects any potential statewide candidates (there are three seats on the Corporation Commission up next year) because the layout of the new districts could affect their decisions on what office to seek.

Still, at the county and local levels, a few committees have been opened or are still open for the 2012 cycle.

An open committee at this point doesn't mean that the candidate listed will be on the 2012 ballot for the office listed, but it allows him/her to raise and expend money in support of a possible candidacy.

Newly opened -

Peter Pingerelli of Peoria opened a $500 Threshold committee for a run at the Peoria Unified School District Governing Board (opened 1/12/2011).  He's not an incumbent, and he's not a candidate to fill the vacancy on the current board.

Keith Russell of Mesa has opened a committee for the office of Maricopa County Assessor.  He is the current County Assessor (1/6/2011).


Still open -

R Fulton Brock (incumbent) has a committee open for County Supervisor.  He's got a little under $100 cash on hand, and his soon-to-be ex-wife Susan is still listed as the committee treasurer, though Fulton filed his most recent report himself.  Something will have to change soon - either he won't be running for reelection, or he will find a new treasurer since she's about to become a convicted and imprisoned felon.  I'm guessing that he will just find a new treasurer once things settle down, but this being Maricopa County Arizona, anything could happen.

R Don Stapley (incumbent) has a committee open for County Supervisor.  He's got a little under $500 cash on hand.

R Andy Kunasek (incumbent) has a committee open for County Supervisor.  He has a little more than $34K on hand.

R Max Wilson (incumbent) has a committee open for County Supervisor.  He reports $0 cash on hand

D Mary Rose Wilcox (incumbent) has a committee open for County Supervisor.  She has a little more than $13K on hand.

R Bill Montgomery (incumbent) has a committee open for County Attorney.  He has $28K cash on hand.

R Joe Arpaio (incumbent) has a committee open for County Sheriff.  He has $2.8 million in cash on hand.

R Mike Stauffer (challenger) has a committee open for County Sheriff.  He has $374 cash on hand.  His Facebook campaign page is here.


Local elections, Tempe:

Kolby Granville has a City of Tempe committee open (9/21/2010) with no office specified, but Tempe has City Council and Mayoral elections coming early next year.

The incumbents - Council members Corey Woods, Mark Mitchell, and Joel Navarro, as well as Mayor Hugh Hallman - have open committees.  Nothing surprising there, though Hallman may not be running for reelection, depending on term limits (not sure how those affect Tempe offices, if at all) and what the new Congressional districts look like.


Local elections, Scottsdale:

Jim Lane has opened a committee for a run at reelection as Mayor.  Again, not surprising.

Later...

Judge Armando Gandarilla passed away this weekend

Pic courtesy Judge Gandarilla's family, sent via the Maricopa County Justice Courts
















Edited to include the press release issued by the Maricopa County Justice Courts.  They did a much better job of writing about this than I did.  :)

Armando Gandarilla, Justice of the Peace for the Downtown (Phoenix) Justice Precinct, passed away this weekend.

He had been a Justice of the Peace since 2008, when he was appointed to fill a vacancy, and won election to a full term in November 2010.

Judge Gandarilla was noted for his many neighborhood and civic activities and awards, such as a Hon Kachina Award for Volunteerism (1981).

Prior to his service as Justice of the Peace, he spent more than a quarter of a century with the Maricopa County Adult Probation Office.

A colleague described him with one word - "Sweet."

Arrangements are pending.

My deepest condolences go out to Judge Gandarilla's family and many friends.


Edit begins...

From the press release email -

With great sadness the Maricopa County Justice Courts announce the death of Judge Armando Gandarilla, the Justice of the Peace for the Downtown Justice Precinct. Judge Gandarilla passed away at his home in Phoenix, Arizona on Monday, January 24.


“It is with great sadness that we announce the passing of our colleague and friend, Armando Gandarilla,” said Presiding Justice of the Peace Lester Pearce. “Those who knew Judge Gandarilla will remember him as a gentle and passionate person, who cared deeply for his profession and those around him”

Judge Gandarilla was first appointed Justice of the Peace for the Downtown Justice Court in 2008, upon the recommendation of Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox. He ran unopposed and was reelected in 2010. Prior to his appointment, he had more than 30 years of experience in the probation and justice arenas.

Judge Gandarilla held a bachelor’s degree in social work from Arizona State University and completed studies for a master’s degree in organizational management from the University of Phoenix. He was employed as a probation officer/supervisor for the Maricopa County Adult Probation Office from 1975-2002. During his career, Judge Gandarilla received several community honors including the Hon Kachina 12 Who Cares Award, Volunteer Probation Officer of the Year Award and the Spirit of Giving Award.

“Our thoughts and prayers are with Judge Gandarilla’s two daughters and son during this most difficult time,” said Pearce.

There are 25 justice courts in Maricopa County that hear a combined caseload of more than 400,000 cases each year including civil lawsuits where the amount in dispute is $10,000 or less, landlord and tenant controversies, small claims cases and civil and criminal traffic offenses, including DUIs. Justices of the Peace also resolve other types of misdemeanor allegations and handle requests for orders of protection and injunctions against harassment.

At this time, arrangements are still pending.
 
End edit...

Odds and ends...

..."Welcome to the worst state of the union" was the headline (but not the quote)



You are now reading the blog of an internationally-known "Democratic commentator."  Take a moment to appreciate your good fortune.  Ahhhhhhh....

Seriously, reporter Andrew Purcell, writing for the Sunday Herald (Scotland), contacted me earlier this week for a piece he was putting together on the fiscal crises facing the various states and the federal government here in the U.S.  One of the states featured in his article was Arizona, and he spoke to both Rep. John Kavanagh and me.  In the published piece, I was quoted as "Democratic commentator Craig McDermott."

It's a solid piece of journalism, and before any R readers jump to conclusions, it's fair and even-handed.  Arizona is only a small part of the piece.  The focus is mostly divided between the federal goverment, New Jersey, with mentions of some other states.  Arizona seems to have received the most attention of the "other states."

I recommend the piece (and not just because I'm quoted in it :) ).  Being so close to our own fiscal problems, it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that Arizona isn't the only state in a deep fiscal crisis.

Purcell has posted the article as he wrote it and with a headline more of his choosing (the editors at the Herald chose one that is a little more eye-catching, as editors are wont to do :) ) on his own website, here.

I'm grateful to Purcell for two things.

1. Reaching out and interviewing folks here (yes, even for interviewing Kavanagh).

2. Not making me sound like the babbling idiot that I felt like during the interview. :)

...Apparently, Sen. Linda Gray believes that she and the other people who run the state do so with a divine mandate.

At the beginning of the Special Session Senate floor session on Wednesday, she gave the prayer.  Her prayer was a recitation of one listed in George Washington's Prayer Journal, one with the line (emphasis mine) "...bless O Lord, all the people of this land, from the highest to the lowest, particularly those whom thou has appointed to rule over us in church & state..."

The video archive of the session can be found on this page.  The line is uttered at approximately the 1:03 mark of the video for "01/19/2011 - Senate Floor - Special Session" (approximately halfway down the page right now).

...On the other hand, that may fit in with the Republican theme of the week - their biennial reorganization meeting was held in a mega-church in north Phoenix.

...This week marked the 50th anniversary of John F. Kennedy's 1960 Inaugural address, the one with the immortal line "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country."

Today, a President uttering such a line would be decried as a "raving socialist" or something else equally false or worse.  However, it's a line that anyone who truly considers him- or herself a patriot should take to heart.



...Of course, this week marked another anniversary, one that the screamers probably celebrated far more enthusiastically than they honored JFK's inauguration.

The decision in Citizens United vs. FEC was handed down one year ago, ushering in an age of corporate domination of American elections.

Later...

The coming week - legislative edition

As usual, all info gathered from the website of the Arizona Legislature or other online sources, and subject to change without notice. 

"SHR" indicates that a meeting room is a Senate Hearing Room; "HHR" indicates a House Hearing Room.


Committee hearings on the Senate side of the Capitol this week -

- Rules will meet in Caucus Room 1 on Monday upon adjournment of the floor session.  The agenda is a long one, but the meeting probably won't be, as the committee exists only as a gatekeeper/rubber stamp.  It either refuses to hear any bills that the Senate President doesn't like and to push through those he does approve of.  Lowlights this week:  SB1136 and SR1001, a bill to block a tribal casino in the West Valley and a resolution opposing that casino.  Those bills are being fast-tracked by the anti-Native nativists in the Senate.

- Natural Resources and Transportation will meet in SHR109 on Monday upon adjournment of the Rules meeting.  Not many bills on the agenda, but they will consider the first executive nominations of the session.  Most of the nominees are big R contributors.

- Education will meet in SHR3 on Monday upon adjournment of Rules.  Lowlights:  SB1116, Sen. Andy Biggs bid to make permanent "displaced pupils choice grants" (AKA "private school vouchers") and SB1053 and SB1055, Sen. Linda Gray's bills relating to "character education" ("character" is something that cost a former Arizona Treasurer his job).

- Banking and Insurance will meet in SHR3 on Tuesday at 2 p.m.  One bill on the agenda thus far:  SB1122, Sen. Nancy Barto's move to make "health care sharing ministries" tax exempt.

- Appropriations will meet in SHR109 on Tuesday at 2 p.m.  No bills on the agenda.  Budget hearings for "statewide debt, community colleges, and Department of Health Services."

- Public Safety and Human Services will meet in SHR3 on Wednesday at 9 a.m.  Likely lowight: SB1018, a measure that further privatizes certain Department of Corrections operations (in this case, prisoner transition services).

- Government Reform will meet in SHR1 on Wednesday at 9 a.m.  Interesting bill:  SB1165, a measure from Sen. Steve Yarbrough, to bar municipalities from contracting with third parties to audit sales tax transactions or for the "collection, administration or processing" of such transactions (referred to in the bill as "transaction privilege" taxes).

- Water, Land Use, and Rural Development will meet in SHR3 on Wednesday at 2 p.m.  Agenda looks quiet so far.

- Healthcare and Medical Liability Reform will meet in SHR1 on Wednesday at 2 p.m.  Short agenda.  The one interesting bill looks to be SB1176, innocuously titled "medical board: omnibus."  Among other things, it would serve to reduce public disclosure of the misdeeds of medical professionals.

- Economic Development and Jobs Creation will meet in SHR109 on Wednesday at 2 p.m.  Looks quiet so far - one bill, one executive nomination, one presentation (from a business lobbying group, the National Federation of Independent Business - Arizona..

- Finance will meet in SHR1 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  A few executive nominations and some tax- and pension-related bills, most of which I do NOT understand well enough to summarize here.  Visit the legislature's "Bill Info" page if you want to look up one or more of them.

- Border Security, Federalism, and States Sovereignty will meet in SHR109 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  This one is Sen. Sylvia Allen's committee, so it isn't surprising that while the agenda is a short one, it's colorful.  They'll start with a "presentation" from a group of anti-immigration ranchers from southern AZ, follow with consideration of SB1178, a Tenth Amendment/"federal government go away!" bill and SCR1006, a resolution supporting the aforementioned ranchers' "border security" plan (a "plan" that includes militarizing the border and roundups of immigrants). 

Nothing on the agenda indicates that the assemblage will break into a chorus of the Horst Wessel song, but with this crew, ear plugs and a barf bag might be necessary.

- Various subcommittees of Appropriations will hold budget hearings Friday morning at 9 a.m.  Agendas here, here, and here.


On the House side -

- Rules will meet in HHR4 on Monday at 1 p.m.  As with its Senate counterpart above, the agenda is long and boring, with the most contentious bills likely to be the House versions of the anti-tribal casino bills.

- Ways and Means will meet in HHR1 on Monday at 2 p.m.  As with its Senate counterpart above (Senate Finance Committee), I don't understand most of the bills.  Here however, most of the bills have been spawned by Rep. Jack Harper, and anything with his name on it is presumed to be a bad bill.  However, one I *do* understand is Harper's HCR2006, a bill to radically raise the amount raise the amount of business property (equipment, etc.) exempted from taxation from the current $50K to "an amount equal to the earnings per employee of twenty workers in this state according to a designated national measure of earnings per employee adjusted annually as provided by law."  The most current numbers for per capita income in Arizona (not an exact language match with the measure, but it will do for this post):
 
$34,335. 

20 times that number: $686,700, or an increase of almost 1300%.   The real number would almost certainly be higher because I'm sure the Rs would find a "measure" that inflated employee earnings as much as possible.

- Energy and Natural Resources will meet in HHR4 on Monday at 2 p.m.  Quiet so far.

- Education will meet in HHR3 on Monday at 2 p.m or upon adjournment of the House floor session.  On the agenda:  HB2197, Rep. Debbie Lesko's bill to bar the establishment or operation of a charter school "in an age restricted community that is located in unorganized territory."  It has an emergency clause to provide for immediate enactment.

- Banking and Insurance will meet in HHR2 on Monday at 2 p.m.  Looks quiet so far - a couple of presentations, and a few bill that I mostly don't understand.

- Government will meet in HHR4 on Tuesday at 2 p.m.  Lowlight:  HB2153, Rep. Steve Montenegro's move to bar municipalities and counties from passing any new ordinances to require that newly-constructed homes have fire sprinklers.  Ordinances that were enacted before December 31, 2009 would stand, however.


- Environment will meet in HHR5 on Tuesday at 2 p.m.  Presentations only, so far.
 
- Employment and Regulatory Affairs will meet in HHR3 on Tuesday at 2 p.m.  Looks relatively quiet, though the one bill on the agenda is the subject of the first strike-everything amendment of the session.  It's a "same subject" amendment and doesn't look to be greatly different than the original bill.
 
- Higher Education, Innovation, and Reform will meet in HHR2 on Wednesday at 9 a.m. Quiet so far.
 
- Health and Human Services will meet in HHR4 on Wednesday at 9:45 a.m.  Looks pretty quiet so far.
 
- Commerce will meet in HHR5 on Wednesday at 10 a.m.  On the agenda:  Rep. John Kavanagh's HB2102, adding "fingerprint clearance card" to the list of documents that cannot be issued to/for people who cannot definitively prove their immigration status.
 
- Appropriations will meet in HHR1 on Wednesday at 2 p.m.  Budget hearings only, so far.
 
- Transportation will meet in HHR3 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  Lowlight:  HB2288, Rep. Jeff Dial's scheme to force the state's aiports to abandon the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and totally privatize their security and screening operations.
 
There once was an era in American history where airport security was left to the tender mercies of the profit-driven, low-bidder-seeking corporate mentality. 
 
That era ended on September 11, 2001.
 
- Technology and Infrastructure will meet in HHR1 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  Only bill on the agenda:  HB2502, Rep. Carl Seel's proposal to mandate that if a public agency advertises some sort of program for the public, the agency must declare the source of its funding.
 
- Judiciary will meet in HHR4 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  Only bill on the agenda:  HB2141, a bill from Rep. Jack Harper relating to county realignment.  Not sure what he's up to with this one, but it's Jack Harper - his proposals are presumed bad.
 
- Agriculture and Water will meet in HHR5 on Thursday at 9 a.m.  Looks quiet so far. 
 
 
Other events at or around the Capitol this week:
 
- It's "National School Choice Week" so in addition to a number of other events, on Wednesday, the American Federation for Children will hold a legislators-only luncheon and movie showing at the Associated General Contractors Building, 1825 W. Adams.
 
That's a nice sounding name for an organization, but it is dedicated to undermining public education systems by lobbying legislators to siphon more and more money away from publc ed to private schools through vouchers.
 
- The only event on the Governor's public schedule for the coming week is a press conference on Monday with a "special announcement regarding education reform."
 
Since the unwritten rules of "political theater" usually call for such events to take place among students in a school and this one will be on the 2nd floor of the Capitol's Executive Tower, it's likely that the about-to-be-proposed "reform" isn't one that is likely to benefit students or schools.
 
Of course, I'm a cynic of long standing. :)
 
- Other events can also be found here, courtesy the Arizona Capitol Times.
 
Later...

Congratulations to Andrei Cherny, the new Chair of the Arizona Democratic Party

After some procedural wrangling, the Democrats of Arizona united to chose Andrei Cherny, former White House staffer, Assistant Arizona Attorney General, and 2010 Democratic nominee for Arizona Treasurer, to be their chair for the 2011-2012 election cycle.

The race between Andrei and Rodney Glassman was a close one, but after the votes were counted, they shook hands and pledged to work for the best future for Arizona and the Arizona Democratic Party.

Keith Olbermann out at MSNBC

From Huffington Post -

Keith Olbermann and MSNBC have ended their contract, according to a statement from MSNBC. The last episode of "Countdown" will air this evening, Friday, January 21.


MSNBC's statement reads as follows:

MSNBC and Keith Olbermann have ended their contract. The last broadcast of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" will be this evening. MSNBC thanks Keith for his integral role in MSNBC's success and we wish him well in his future endeavors.

This news is a little stunning, yet it isn't entirely surprising, given Comcast's recent takeover of MSNBC.  Guesses are that Rachel Maddow is next, but we'll see what happens in the coming days and weeks.

Later...

Arizona Democratic Party chair race: time to close ranks and unite

As most observers have probably already noted, I don't often write about the inner workings of the Arizona Democratic Party (or the Arizona Republican Party, for that matter), mostly because most readers find that kind of "inside baseball" stuff really boring.

Either they're insiders and know this stuff already, or they're not insiders and they don't care about it in the first place.

However, the current jockeying for the chairmanship of the Arizona Democratic Party has made it into the MSM, so the whole thing merits a temporary waiving of my personal policy in this regard.


Every two years, political parties in Arizona reorganize, choosing new leaders for the next election cycle, and that's where the Democrats and Republicans are right now, heading into Saturday's meetings of their respective State Committees.

I'll leave it to the various Republican bloggers to "discuss" what's going on in their party; suffice it to say that anyone that they choose to lead them for the next two years is someone that I'm going to disagree with, on pretty much all significant issues.

Two candidates for ADP chair have emerged - Rodney Glassman, the former Tucson City Council member and 2010 Democratic nominee for U.S. Senate, and Andrei Cherny, the former White House staffer, Assistant Arizona Attorney General, and 2010 Democratic nominee for Arizona Treasurer.

Various pro and con factions have formed, and the "jockeying" has involved more than a few elbows being thrown.  The level of rancor has risen to the point where an email went out yesterday, signed by former Attorney General Terry Goddard and current Congressman Raul Grijalva, urging a one month delay in electing a new slate of officers.

I'm not sure I agree with that idea, but I undertstand it.  Discussion has become rancorous, and a lot of people are still reeling from the shootings in Tucson two weeks ago.  A month's delay may give time for everyone to calm down and to heal a little.

However, putting this off for a month may also give time for the current disagreements to grow into outright rifts.

As a member of the ADP's State Committee, I can state unequivocally that we've been buried in emails trumpeting this or that endorsement, and many of us are getting sick of the noise.

It's time to settle the matter, and regardless of how the votes tally, unite behind the new chair, whoever that might be.


Full disclosure time:  As a State Committee member, I will be voting tomorrow, and for a number of reasons, have decided to support Andrei Cherny.  He isn't a perfect candidate, but he is a *good* candidate, and even more importantly, he is the *better* candidate.

I've met both candidates, but don't know either one well, so I've relied on the impressions of friends of mine who do know one, the other, or both personally.

Everyone that I've spoken to has been impressed by Andrei's intellect and energy.  Everyone that I've spoken to about Rodney, especially the ones who worked on his campaign, are less complimentary of him.

Also impressive was Andrei's performance in a low-profile, downballot race. 

Many folks have focused on the ability to raise money, and to be sure, that is a very important ability in a state chair (and one that favors Cherny).

However, an even bigger part of a state chair's job is the ability to reach people, and Andrei did that almost 686K times, including winning his race in Pima County with over 151K votes.  Rodney also ran statewide, and received 592K votes.  He lost Pima County, receiving only 134K votes there.

Not only was that loss in Pima the first loss in a significant statewide race for a D in years, Pima is Rodney's home county. 

He couldn't even reach the people who know him best in an area that tends to vote for Democrats.

That doesn't bode well for what will happen if he is elected state chair.

I like Rodney, based on the few contacts that I've had with him, and I like a lot of his supporters, a few of whom are friends, but on this matter, I am in disagreement with those friends.

I fervently hope that regardless of how the vote goes tomorrow, all of the state's Democrats, friends and strangers alike, will be able to cast their differences aside and unite behind the new chair.

See you tomorrow at the Wyndham, BYOP*.

* - Bring Your Own Popcorn :))

Redistricting Update: Two Republican replacement nominees selected

The Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments selected Republicans Crystal Russell and Richard Stertz to replace two other Republicans who had been found ineligible for membership on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).

The Commission, per its legal duties, had forwarded the names or 10 Republicans, 10 Democrats, and 5 Independent applicants to the AIRC.  From that list, the leader of each caucus in each chamber will select one person to serve on the AIRC.  The four members so selected will then choose a fifth member from the list of Independents to act as chair of the AIRC (there are other possible variations based on the possiblity that one of the legislators could select someone not of their own party, but most observers consider that to be unlikely).

House Speaker Kirk Adams (R) and Senate President Russell Pearce (R) filed suit over the original list, claiming that three of the 25 names weren't eligible because they held public office.  Republicans Stephen Sossaman and Mark Schnepf were/are on irrigation district governing boards and Independent Paul Bender has served as a judge on a couple of tribal courts.  Many observers felt that Sossaman and Schnepf were "thrown under the bus" in order to mask the partisan nature of the attack on Bender's qualifications.  Bender is a law professor at ASU and a noted progressive.  He's also widely considered, even by his detractors, to be brilliant.

The Supreme Court agreed with Pearce and Adams regarding Sossaman and Schnepf, but found that Bender's offices with the courts of sovereign tribal nations didn't qualify as "public offices" under Arizona law.

The meeting went along pretty efficiently.  After some brief opening remarks, they immediately and unanimously decided to consider only the five applicants who were interviewed by the Commission but hadn't made it on to the original list of names sent to the leadership of the legislature.

There was concern expressed over the lack of geographic diversity among the nominees, and while the members of the Commission felt that they didn't do anything improper with the formation of the original list, the issue of geographic diversity was clearly on their minds as they proceeded.

After a motion to nominate Russell and Christopher Gleason as the two replacements, the Commission briefly went into executive session to discuss some legal advice.

After that session, the motion was amended to separate the nominations.

Russell was approved unanimously.  After discussion over the nature of some of Gleason's political ties, he was nominated.  His nomination failed by a 4 - 8 vote.

After that vote, Jeffrey Miller was nominated.  His nomination failed, also by a 4 - 8 vote.

The next name considered was Stertz, and his nomination passed by an 11 - 1 vote.

Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch thanked the Commission members for gathering together on such short notice and adjourned the meeting, less than an hour after it began.

Now, let the four-way chess match begin, and a chess match it will be because each selection by a leader of the legislature will constrain the selections that follow.

Later...

R response to the furor over legislators illegally carrying guns at the legislature: Make it legal

One of the interesting tidbits arising from the opening of the legislature last week was the story of a number of legislators carrying firearms with them on the floors of each chamber.  One of them, Sen. Lori Klein, later confirmed to me (and others) that she had a gun with her both in the Senate and in the House when she attended the Governor's speech that day.

While some might attribute this turn of events to the recent shooting in Tucson, where six people were killed and more than another dozen were wounded, including Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, but a gunman who attacked a "Congress On Your Corner" gathering, this is hardly the first time in recent memory that a legislator has bragged about "packin' heat" at the Capitol, usually followed a by a statement in a belief that legislators are exempt from the law.

Anyway, after the shootings and the p.r. mess that was the opening of the legislature, the Republicans resisted any efforts to pass sensible firearms safety laws, preferring instead to maintain their embrace of the gun fetishists.

And now, they've doubled down on the insanity.

Sen. Ron Gould has introduced, with "luminaries" such as Sen. Russell Pearce, Sen. Rick Murphy, Rep. Carl Seel, Rep. Jack Harper, and others signed on as sponsors/cosponsors, SB1201.

It's rather innocuously labelled "firearms omnibus," but it is anything but innocuous.

If enacted, it would -

- Remove the section of the law (ARS 13-3102) that makes entering a goverment building while possessing a firearm a crime

- Changes the section of the law (ARS 13-3107) regarding the unlawful discharge of firearms by replacing "with criminal negligence" to "knowing" in the definition

- Removes the provision in the same section as above that allows local police chiefs to evaluate and set policy in "hunting areas" within their jurisdiction

- Changes the law (ARS 13-3108) to disallow the state or any of its agencies from enacting a "rule or ordinance" relating to firearms, with certain exceptions, and GREATLY restricts those exceptions


People in other parts of the country hear talk about the "nuts" in Arizona, and they think we are talking only about people like Jared Loughner.

They have no clue about the cultural insanity here that enables people like Loughner.


Given the timing of this, as in how long it takes to get a bill idea through the Legislative Council and turned into an actual bill, did Gould et. al. even wait for the end of the funerals in Tucson before spawning this abomination?

Redistricting update: Friday meeting to select two more Republican nominees for the Independent Redistricting Commission

From the just-released meeting notice for the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, the group that screens the applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC) -

NOTICE OF EMERGENCY MEETING


The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will hold an emergency meeting at 11:30 a.m. on January 21, 2011, to identify two eligible individuals from the Republican candidates for nomination to the Independent Redistricting Commission, as ordered by the Arizona Supreme Court in its Order filed January 19, 2011, in No. CV-10-0405-SA.

The meeting is open to the public. Citizens may address the commission at 11:30 a.m. on January 21, 2011. Public comment cannot be accepted after the 11:30 a.m. hearing on January 21. The meeting will be held in Phoenix in Room 345 of the Arizona State Courts Building, 1501 West Washington.

The agenda may be obtained from the Human Resources Division, Administrative Office of the Courts, 1501 West Washington, Suite 221, Phoenix, Arizona, 85007; by calling (602) 452-3311; or at the Commission=s website at http://www.arizona-redistrictingnominations.com/.

Note:  The chair of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission is Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, and historically, when one of her meetings has a specified start time, she starts the meeting at that time.  If you plan on attending, be in your seat by 11:29 a.m. or you will miss something significant.

Later...

David Schweikert's vote to repeal health care reform: Impacts on his "constituents"

Yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 2, a bill to repeal last year's health care reform legislation, by a vote of 245 - 189.  All Republicans, including AZCD5's David Schweikert, voted in favor of the bill.

The bill, the debate, and the vote were a triumph of ideology over reality, because if health care reform is repealed, it will increase the federal deficit and harm people all over the country, including thousands here in CD5.

From the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce -

This analysis describes the impact of repeal of the Affordable Care Act in the 5th Congressional District of Arizona, which is represented by Rep. David Schweikert. It finds that repeal of the health reform law would have significant consequences in the district by:


Allowing insurance companies to deny coverage to 122,000 to 320,000 individuals, including 8,000 to 36,000 children, with pre-existing conditions.

Rescinding consumer protections for 469,000 individuals who have health insurance through their employer or the market for private insurance.

Eliminating health care tax credits for up to 15,700 small businesses and 143,000 families.

Increasing prescription drug costs for 10,100 seniors who hit the Part D drug “donut hole” and denying new preventive care benefits to 84,000 seniors.

Increasing the costs of early retiree coverage for up to 11,600 early retirees.

Eliminating new health care coverage options for 4,000 uninsured young adults.

Increasing the number of people without health insurance by 43,000 individuals.

Increasing the costs to hospitals of providing uncompensated care by $50 million annually.

Repeal of Protections Against Insurance Company Abuses

Repeal would eliminate the ban on discrimination on the basis of pre-existing conditions. Under the health reform law, insurance companies can no longer deny coverage to children with pre-existing conditions and will be banned from discriminating against adults with pre-existing conditions in 2014. There are 122,000 to 320,000 residents in Rep. Schweikert’s district with pre-existing conditions like diabetes, heart disease, or cancer, including 8,000 to 36,000 children. Repeal would allow insurance companies to refuse to insure these individuals if they seek coverage in the individual or small-group markets. The consequences would be particularly acute for the 18,000 to 48,000 individuals in the district who currently lack insurance coverage and who would be unable to purchase individual policies if the law is repealed.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits. The health reform law prohibits insurance companies from imposing annual and lifetime limits on health insurance coverage. This provision protects the rights of everyone who receives coverage from their employer or through the market for private insurance. If this protection is repealed, insurers would be able to impose coverage limits on 469,000 individuals in the district with employer or private coverage.

Repeal would eliminate the ban on rescissions. The health reform law prohibits insurers from rescinding coverage for individuals who become ill. Repeal would allow insurance companies to resume the practice of rescinding coverage for the 48,000 district residents who purchase individual health insurance.

Repeal would eliminate other consumer protections. The health reform law protects individuals from soaring insurance costs by requiring reviews of proposed rate increases and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administrative expenses, profits, and other overhead. Repeal would deny these new protections to tens of thousands of district residents who either buy their own insurance or receive coverage through employers who do not self-insure.

Repeal of Benefits for Individuals and Families

Repeal would eliminate the requirement that insurance companies provide free preventive care. The health reform law promotes wellness by requiring insurance companies to offer free preventive care as part of any new or revised policies they issue after September 23, 2010. Repeal would allow insurance companies to charge for these essential benefits, which would increase out-of-pocket costs for 98,000 district residents.

Repeal would eliminate health insurance options for young adults. The health reform law allows young adults to remain on their parents’ insurance policies up to age 26. In Rep. Schweikert’s district, 4,000 young adults have or are expected to take advantage of this benefit. Repeal would force these young adults to find other coverage or return to the ranks of the uninsured.

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for buying health insurance. Starting in 2014, the health reform law gives middle class families the largest tax cut for health care in history, providing tax credits to buy coverage for families with incomes up to $88,000 for a family of four. Repeal would deny these credits to 143,000 families in the district.

Repeal would increase the number of uninsured. When fully implemented, the health reform law will extend coverage to 94% of all Americans. If this level of coverage is reached in the district, 43,000 residents who currently do not have health insurance will receive coverage. Repeal would mean these residents would lose their health insurance.

Repeal of Benefits for Seniors

Repeal would increase drug costs for seniors. Beginning in 2011, the health reform law provides a 50% discount for prescription drugs for Medicare beneficiaries who enter the Medicare Part D “donut hole” and lose coverage for their drug expenses. The law then increases the discount to Medicare beneficiaries each year until 2020, when the donut hole is finally eliminated. There are 10,100 Medicare beneficiaries in Rep. Schweikert’s district who are expected to benefit from these provisions. Repeal would increase the average cost of prescription drugs for these Medicare beneficiaries by over $500 in 2011 and by over $3,000 in 2020.

Repeal would deny seniors new preventive care and other benefits. The health reform law improves Medicare by providing free preventive and wellness care, improving primary and coordinated care, and enhancing nursing home care. The law also strengthens the Medicare trust fund, extending its solvency from 2017 to 2029. Repeal would eliminate these benefits for 84,000 Medicare beneficiaries in the district and cause the Medicare trust fund to become insolvent in just six years.

Repeal of Benefits for Small and Large Businesses and Health Care Providers

Repeal would eliminate tax credits for small businesses. The health reform law provides tax credits to small businesses worth up to 35% of the cost of providing health insurance. There are up to 15,700 small businesses in Rep. Schweikert’s district that are eligible for this tax credit. Repeal would force these small businesses to drop coverage or bear the full costs of coverage themselves.

Repeal would increase retiree health care costs for employers. The health reform law provides funding to encourage employers to continue to provide health insurance for their retirees. As many as 11,600 district residents who have retired but are not yet eligible for Medicare could ultimately benefit from this early retiree assistance. Repeal would increase costs for employers and jeopardize the coverage their retirees are receiving.

Repeal would increase the cost of uncompensated care born by hospitals. The health reform law benefits hospitals by covering more Americans and thereby reducing the cost of providing care to the uninsured. Repeal would undo this benefit, increasing the cost of uncompensated care by $50 million annually for hospitals in the district.

Repeal of Benefits for Taxpayers

Repeal would increase the long-term debt by over $1 trillion. The health reform law reduces the nation’s debt by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse in the health care system, reducing the growth of health care costs, and preventing excessive profit-taking by private insurers. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill will reduce the deficit by over $200 billion over the next ten years and by over a trillion dollars in the decade after that. Repeal would eliminate these cost-cutting measures, adding more than $3,000 to the national debt for each American, including the 680,000 residents of the district.

Of course, while Schweikert has enthusiastically worked to reduce his constituents and their families' access to health care, he has no problem accepting taxpayer-funded healthcare coverage for himself and his family, nor does he have a problem with shielding from public scrutiny the members of his own caucus who have done the same.
 
 

Special session: they've got this train running at full speed

...and they're aiming at the state's most vulnerable residents...


Wednesday afternoon, the Arizona Legislature convened a special session in order to pass bills related to Governor Jan Brewer's plan to kick 280,000 people off of AHCCCS.

The first order of business was to declare an "emergency" and suspend the rules related to things like public notice of committee agendas and time requirements.

Under normal conditions, it takes at least three days minimum to pass a bill.  However, with the rules suspended, bills can be passed in one day.  However, they're taking two for this special session.
Matching bills were "read" ("introduced") in each chamber of the legislature today and went through committee hearings in both chambers.

The bills are SB1001 and HB2001.

The bills will pass, one will be substituted for the other (a parliamentary procedure to speed up the process) and will be forwarded to the Governor, who will then have permission to ask the feds for an eligibility waiver to cut the number of people on AHCCCS.

The expectation around the Capitol is that the feds will say "NO!" but even in the unlikely event that federal permission is forthcoming, with voter approval of 2000's Prop 204 (setting eligibility at 100% of the federal poverty level), the legislature cannot adjust AHCCCS eligibility without voter approval.

Bills, HCR2001 and HCR2002, were introduced to amend the Arizona Constitution to bar the voters from ever expanding AHCCCS coverage again.  If either was passed, it would have mandated a special election on May 17, 2011.

Both were introduced by Rep. Jack Harper (R-Surprise!), but neither one was heard in committee, so they are probably dead for now.

Other bills that were introduced for the special session but not heard in committee -

HB2002 (Harper) and SB1002 (Schapira, Sinema, Tovar) would have changed what sort of organ transplants are covered by AHCCCS.  Republican Harper's bill would have made the change conditional upon voter approval of his amendment to the AZ Constitution; the bill proposed by Democrats Schapira, Sinema, and Tovar has no such conditional enactment clause, but did include an emergency clause for immediate enactment.

Sinema also introduced SB1003 and SB1004.  SB1003 was basically the same as SB1002, while SB1004 would have repealed a specific tax credit and directed the revenue toward paying for AHCCCS transplants.

This special session should be over by around 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, just in time for the legislators to head home for the weekend on their normal schedule.

The other bills...OK, the amendment to the AZ Constitution/special election...can wait until a later special session if the feds throw everyone a curveball and actually give the Governor permission to kick the poorest Arizonans off of AHCCCS.  The word is that another special session will be called by the end of the month, one relating to tax cuts for business, masquerading as "economic development."

Stay tuned...

Live blogging Senate Appropriations - special session

2:39 p.m. - Special session SB1001 passes 9 - 4.  Biggs announces vote and adjourns meeting in same breath.

2:38 p.m. - Biggs wonders if state will have to "emasculate" education to fund AHCCCS.

2:36 p.m. - Allen votes yes.  Biggs says bill generates needed "discussion".  Says that lawsuits will follow.

2:35 p.m. - Sylvia Allen says that they should be allowed to reform all programs to balance budget.

2:34 p.m. - Sinema votes no.

2:30 p.m. - Sinema points out that even a federal waiver won't override Prop 204, which expanded AHCCCS eligibility to 100% of the federal property level.

2:29 p.m. - Biggs hurrying Schapira.  Schapira votes no.

2:26 - Schapira - Preventative care is better and cheaper than treatment, and this will increase indigent treatment costs, possibly more than is saved.

2:24 p.m. - Schapira call this a "poor policy" with likely negative business and economic impacts on the state.

2:23 - Aboud (D) voting no.  Calls out Republicans for protecting wealthy and corps while targeting poor..  Calls bill a "half-hearted" publicity stunt.

2:21 p.m. - Rs all voting yes.  What a shock.

2:18 p.m. - Sen. Andy Biggs gavelled meeting into session.  Democrats walking in as voting starts.