Early ballot time: 2014 primary edition

Well, it's another even-numbered year, which means that it's another election year, and unless you have been living under a cactus (hey, it's Arizona, I get to use Arizona-centric metaphors :) ), you know that.

One of the characteristics of an election year is voting, and in Arizona, early ballots have started hitting mailboxes, including mine. (Note: residents of Maricopa County can request an early ballot here; in other counties, visit your county recorder's website or call their office for details.)

Being a Democrat living in south Scottsdale, my ballot is a little sparse on the contested races front, but there are a few.

First up:  A three-way race for two nominations for the Arizona House of Representatives in LD24.  The candidates -

Lela Alston, incumbent
Rich Bauer, challenger
Ken Clark, challenger

(note: the other incumbent, Rep. Chad Campbell, is term-limited and isn't running for another office this year.)

While only two of the candidates can earn a vote in the primary, leading to the possibility that the candidate who doesn't get my vote in the primary will be one of the nominees for the general election, I can state unequivocally that I will have no problem supporting (and voting for) any two of the three in the general.

Having said that, it's time to pick two.

The first one is easy.

Lela Alston is the incumbent and she has earned another term in the legislature.  She brings a civil and professional demeanor and a strong work ethic to the legislature, as well as being a strong voice for the district and for public education (not a surprise for a retired teacher).

The other choice was a little more difficult because I am not active in LD24 circles and I don't personally know either Clark or Bauer.  However, while that is not ideal, it places both on equal footing when it comes to considering their candidacies.

Under normal circumstances, I am not someone who cares about endorsements; organizations endorse the candidates who they believe will best support their organizational agendas.  Even when I agree with a particular organization's agenda, my support goes to the candidate who I believe will best work for the people the candidate is running to represent.

However, this time around, endorsements are pretty much all I have to go on as both Bauer and Clark look to be strong candidates.  Their strengths may be *different*, but they're strengths nonetheless.

Bauer has the endorsement of a laundry list of organizations and "big names", some that I wholeheartedly respect and support (Planned Parenthood of Arizona, a couple of unions and union locals) and some that I'm rather cynical about (Central AZ Home Builders, Multihousing Association, various chambers of commerce).

Clark has no "big" endorsements that I know of.  What he does have, though, is the endorsements of people that I've worked phone banks or walked precincts with.

People that I know, like, and respect and who speak from and vote their hearts carry more weight with me than organizations that look to their profit margins before speaking.

Clark gets the primary election vote.

Lela Alston, courtesy her campaign website

Ken Clark, courtesy his campaign website

Next up: State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

Two candidates for one nomination -

David Garcia
Sharon Thomas


As with the LD24 race, both D candidates are stellar candidates; either one is worthy of general election support.

As good as both candidates are, I can only vote for one, and that one is David Garcia.  Of the four candidates running (2 D, 2 R), he would serve as the best advocate for public education in Arizona, and for the state's students.

And while the incumbent, Republican John Huppenthal, believes and behaves to the contrary, that *is* the basic duty of the holder of this particular office.

David Garcia, courtesy his campaign's Facebook page

Finally: Scottsdale City Council.

Eight candidates for three seats.

Michael Auerbach
Bill Crawford
Cindy Hill
Kathy Littlefield
Linda Milhaven
Jennifer Petersen
Dennis Robbins
David Smith

Where in the LD24 race I think all of the candidates are strong and worthy of vote (though I can vote for only two), in this race, I cannot bring myself to vote for even one, much less three.

I'm either familiar with them and would never vote for them, or I'm unfamiliar with them and had to do some research - some are pure tea party types, or blame public employee unions for all that ails Scottsdale, or ("political kiss of death time", from my perspective anyway) have been endorsed by Joe Arpaio.

There are a couple of candidates who fall into the "less bad" category, but this being Scottsdale, "less bad" is still "very bad".

While I reserve the right to change my stance for any runoff election in November, for now I am not casting a vote for any of the candidates.


Note to all D and non-partisan campaigns:  My ballot's in the mail.  Go ahead an take me off of all of your call, mail, and canvass lists.

Note to other readers:  I wish it was that easy. :)  Seriously, it *will* happen, but it will take close to a week, allowing time for the US Postal Service to do its job, and the staff at the county elections office to process the ballot, record its return, and for the various campaigns to get the official word.

State Sen. Chester Crandell (R-LD6) passes away

First and foremost, my deepest condolences go out to Sen. Crandell's family and friends.  Politically, we never agreed, on pretty much absolutely anything.  However, he was also very civil and even warm, even toward those with whom he disagreed.

He will be missed by many.

Picture courtesy the website of the Arizona Legislature

From the Arizona Republic, written by Alia Beard Rau -

Arizona Sen. Chester Crandell was found dead Monday afternoon after he didn't return from a horseback ride near Heber-Overgaard. He was 68.

Crandell, a fifth-generation rural Arizonan and rancher, had served in the Legislature since 2011.

Across partisan lines, Crandell was well-liked and well-respected:
  
From the Facebook page of State Senator Katie Hobbs (D-LD24) -

There may not be a lot that we agreed on, but I know that we shared the same passion for making sure we leave Arizona a better place than we found it. You did that Chester - thank you.

State Senate Adam Driggs (R-LD28) tweeted this - 

I will miss my friend Senator Chester Crandell. He was an Arizona statesman who worked w/ honor and integrity to make Arizona a better place.

Per news reports as of this writing, the investigation into Crandell's death is ongoing and no arrangements have been announced.


Now to the political details -


His seat is vacant now, and will be filled by a process where the Republican PCs of his district nominate three candidates whose names will be forwarded to the appropriate county's board of supervisors.  They will appoint someone to fill the seat until the end of the term.  Given that the legislature is adjourned and no special sessions are expected, the replacement will probably not have much to do.

As for his candidacy (he was running for re-election), he was the only R candidate, and there was no D candidate.  However, there is an Independent candidate, former state senator (and former Republican) Tom O'Halleran.

O'Halleran is *not* running unopposed now - Crandell will be replaced on the ballot in a process that has some similarity to the process to fill the Senate seat that is now vacant.

From ARS 16-343 -

A. A vacancy occurring due to death, mental incapacity or voluntary withdrawal of a candidate after the close of petition filing but prior to a primary or general election shall be filled by the political party with which the candidate was affiliated as follows:

{snip}

2. In the case of a vacancy for the office of United States representative or the legislature, the party precinct committeemen of that congressional or legislative district shall nominate a candidate of the party's choice and shall file a nomination paper and affidavit complying with the requirements of section 16-311.

However, since ballots have been printed, section D looks to apply here -

D. A vacancy that is due to voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of the candidate and that occurs following the printing of official ballots shall not be filled in accordance with this section, however, prospective candidates shall comply with section 16-312. A candidate running as a write-in candidate under this subsection shall file the nomination paper no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth day before the election.

We'll see if any R write-in candidate garners enough primary votes to appear on the general election ballot.  Per the AZSOS' website, they'll need at least 427 votes for that to happen.

When services are announced, or when updates on filling the seat and/or ballot become available, I'll pass them along...


Note: Thanks to regular reader (and Twitter follower) "leewah" for pointing out section D of ARS 16-343.  In my rush to complete this post in a timely manner, I did not read far enough into that chapter of the law.

The surprise #1 candidate in Republican primaries this year? Barack Obama, of course.

Arizona's Republicans are offering some very "enlightening" primaries this year. 

They are educating people on exactly what they have to offer to Arizona.

Ever more negativity.

They are not running "for" Arizona or their intended district's constituents.

Nope, they are running "against" Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and even Nancy Pelosi. 

Mostly Obama, though.

The phenomenon isn't entirely unexpected in statewide races, because whether the races are high profile (i.e. - governor) or low profile (i.e. - Corporation Commission), most voters never really get to know the candidates.  Even the voters who try to become more informed about the candidates are still relatively "low information" voters.

Where it is surprising to see the attacks is against candidates who people in the relevant district *know*.

One example, from Laurie Roberts of the Arizona Republic -

It's no secret that dark-money forces across the state are using Barack Obama to scare off Republican voters from candidates they oppose.

{snip}

...[H]ands down, the scariest hide-the-children-it's-an-Obama-lover-in-GOP-clothing mailer is making the rounds in Scottsdale.

The Arizona Free Enterprise Club is attacking Republican Bob Littlefield, who is running for the House, along with Effie Carlson, Rep. Michelle Ugenti, Jay Lawrence.

"When he wanted Obamacare passed, he called upon his liberal allies in Congress," the ad says, next to the most sinister mug of Obama I've seen this campaign season. "And when he needs Obamacare funded in Arizona, he will call on liberal Bob Littlefield."

A picture of the mailer, also courtesy Roberts -

Bob Littlefield is a long-time member of the Scottsdale City Council and is very familiar to the people of Scottsdale.  This year, he is running for a seat in the state legislature in LD23, which is most of Scottsdale and all of Fountain Hills.

There is a four-way primary for two nominations and as there are no Democratic or Independent candidates, the two Republican nominees will become LD23's representatives in the legislature.

That means that the gloves are off in the primary.  There's no fear of nicking up a potential nominee so badly that he is too damaged to win the general election.

Since Littlefield seems to be leading, and certainly has the highest name recognition, the long knives are pointed straight at him.

The problem with their line of attack?

Bob Littlefield is as much a liberal as I am a Yankees fan (Hinting:  I grew up in MA.) (Saying it outright: Most assuredly *not* a Yankees fan).

What he is, however, is not "bay at the moon" crazy.  He genuinely seems to care about Scottsdale, and has supported, and likely will continue to support, proposals that will benefit his constituents, regardless of ideological orthodoxy.

He's also known for having a low tolerance for BS in general and "go along to get along" types.

All of which makes him, if not politically "likeable", at least worthy of some old-fashioned "respect".

You know, the kind that existed back when people were allowed to disagree with each other without being disagreeable.


Note: none of this is meant to constitute an endorsement.  I may live in Scottsdale, but this isn't my race.  I don't live in the LD23 part of Scottsdale; I live in one of the few precincts that is actually in LD24.

Which means that I can say proudly and loudly that my legislators are Sen. Katie Hobbs, Rep. Lela Alston, and Rep. Chad Campbell.

Not scuffing my toe, hanging my head, and mumbling "Sen. Michele Reagan, Rep. John Kavanagh, and Rep. Michelle Ugenti".


:)

Netroots Nation coming to AZ in 2015

Netroots Nation coming to Phoenix in 2015!

The convention, bringing together many of the most outstanding online voices in the progressive universe to share knowledge, wisdom, and inspiration (and also bringing in some of the stars of the progressive political world :) ), is traveling to Phoenix for its 2015 meeting.

From the history page of Netroots Nation's website -

Netroots Nation began in 2006 as the Yearly Kos Convention, planned to be a real-life gathering of the growing number of people who were gathering daily in the new public square—the virtual world—to raise their collective voice, proactively influence their government and advocate for progressive change. We rebranded in 2007, adopting the name Netroots Nation to more accurately reflect the broad makeup of our attendees and our mission of implementing programs that teach and empower online activists.

This will be the convention's first trip to a "dead red" area (aka - strongly Republican); previous conferences have been in blue, or at least purple, areas like Las Vegas, San Jose, Minneapolis, and Austin (Phoenix proper may be fairly progressive, but outside of Tempe, Tucson, and a couple of other outposts of sanity, most of Arizona is the very opposite of "progressive").

The selection of Phoenix as the site of the 2015 conference has already generated some controversy -

Markos Moulitas, the "Kos" in "Yearly Kos" (the original name of the convention) has already announced that he will not attend next year's event, because it will be in Arizona, home of the infamous SB1070 and "systemic harassment of Latinos".

While he makes some valid points, he ignores the progress that has been made here by the more progressive elements of Arizona society.  As John Loredo, former minority leader in the Arizona House of Representatives wrote in his reply to Moulitsas' announcement -

Thank you for supporting the boycott we called [over SB1070]. We called for the boycott to bring economic pressure onto the state and to force Arizona business leaders to get off the bench and into the immigration fight. It worked. The year after Senate Bill 1070 passed, business leaders testified at the State Senate and took the position that Arizona could no longer sustain the economic boycott and the legislature needed to stop passing any more harmful immigration bills. Since that point, not one immigration bill has passed at the Arizona state legislature. We accomplished our goal, and those of us who called for the boycott called it off. We hope those that respected our calling for the boycott will respect our decision to call it off.

{snip}

This is an opportunity to highlight and impact our national debate over immigration at the issue’s epicenter. Most of the national Progressive community is investing heavily in Arizona because of the infrastructure we have created and the victories we have achieved. There’s much more work to do, and it will not be easy. Arizona should be supported for everything our Latino and Progressive community has accomplished, and for what we are working to change, not punished in perpetuity.”

I admire Loredo's work and freely concede that I am nowhere near as eloquent a writer, but I can offer these points to add in support of Loredo's points about Netroots Nation coming to Phoenix next year -

1.  We (meaning AZers) can use the help.  Right now, it is very easy for non-AZers to see us as little more than a late-night punchline because the country only hears about the worst of AZ (the legislature, Joe Arpaio, Cathi Herrod, Tom Horne, etc.).  Welcoming NN to AZ would help get the word out that while our "crazy bench" is deep and broad, we have a growing movement filled with people who refuse to embrace the hate (and lunacy) held by the best-known Arizonans and instead are working to move AZ's political structure into the 20th Century (19th Century now; we'll work on moving into the 21st Century after we make it into the 20th :) ).

2. It'll piss off AZ Republicans to no end (Yes, I am a partisan hack. :) )


Note:  I have already registered to attend next year, and offered to volunteer at the event.

Gaining no traction in the race for the R nomination for governor, Andrew Thomas gets his "mean and petty" on

From RealClearPolitics, a summary of polling data for the race for the Republican nomination for governor of AZ -

Obviously, there have been some shake ups in the race over time, and the pollster and the polling universe apparently make a difference in the results, but one thing has remained clear regardless of date, methodology or the conductor of the polls in question:

Andrew Thomas is well on his way to becoming just another electoral footnote (couldn't, and probably wouldn't, happen to a nicer guy).

So he has decided to attract some attention to himself (hey - it's working; I'm writing about him, aren't I? :) ) by publishing a "border plan" that can be best summed up as the "hate sampler" plan.

His "plan" is to mobilize 3000 members of the Arizona National Guard, build a fence along the border with Mexico or across the middle of the state (or both, that isn't really clear), cut funding for social safety net programs to pay for it all, roll back restoration of AHCCCS eligibility to levels previously approved by the voters of Arizona, conscript those people who still receive benefits from those programs into "community service" (his word; my word for it is "slavery"), and enact some unspecified "judicial reform" to rid him the state of "activist judges" (a group that the disbarred Thomas despises even more than he despises immigrants).

Kind of reminds me of 2010 when Barry Wong, then a Republican candidate for the Arizona Corporation Commission, looked at his poll numbers the R primary (perhaps not so coincidentally, at pretty much the same point in the cycle), and announced his plan to have utilities check the immigration status of their customers, and to have them shut off service to any customers who couldn't prove legal status.

The mean and petty turn by Wong didn't help - Wong came in third in the three-way race for the two nominations, by over 100,000 votes (in a race where 300,000 won a nomination).

Thomas may finish above last place in the six-way race that he finds himself in, but I expect that the candidate who finishes in third place will be looking down at Thomas.

In an R primary, "mean and petty" will *help* a candidacy (especially in a primary), but it won't *save* a candidacy (see: Wong's example).

The simple fact is that in AZGOP circles, "mean and petty" no longer stands out because almost all of their candidates go there.

Shamelessly and enthusiastically.

Is Mike Huckabee a candidate for the GOPer presidential nomination in 2016?

...Normally, I am loathe to highlight GOPer events, especially fundraisers, but the "hidden" subtext on this one is so blatant that it merits coverage...

And before anyone thinks that would be surprise, it should be noted that no real GOP "frontrunner" has emerged, the closest being Rand Paul.  Given the pattern of the last couple of presidential election cycles, being anointed the "frontrunner" more than a couple of weeks out from the start of the Iowa caucuses is something to be avoided, not desired.

Mike Huckabee is not even mentioned much as someone who is a viable 2016 candidate for the Rs (not that he's being completely discounted, either) but he's doing the things that "serious" candidates do in midterm election years -

While higher-profile candidates such as Chris Christie are trekking to Iowa, New Hampshire, and other 2016 early primary/caucus states to make appearances in front of R voters there almost a year and half before any votes are cast, he's out racking up IOUs campaigning for R electeds and candidates running this year.

To whit, from the events page of the Pima County GOP:

Now Franks, as well as Salmon, Gosar, and Schweikert, sits in a seat in a district that is so safely R that he faces no serious Democratic opposition, nor is any expected for the foreseeable future.  For him (and them) building a campaign war chest is all about looking so strong that any potential primary challengers are scared off (is Ben Quayle still looking for a job?)

Doubtless, much money will end up in Franks' coffers (and those of Salmon, Gosar, and Schweikert) as a result of Huckabee's visit.

What remains to be seen is if Huckabee, a big Bible guy, reaps benefits from the political version of "casting bread upon the waters".

Adam Kwasman mistakes bus full of YMCA campers for children fleeing violence in Central America. Goes full weasel when the truth is pointed out.

Edit, and an apology, on 7/23/2014 -

It has been pointed out to me that the story that serves as the basis of this post was done by Brahm Resnik, not William Pitts, as I originally wrote.  The name has been corrected.  

My apologies to Brahm Resnik, and William Pitts also - both do some great work and merit proper credit for their work.

End edit...

Adam Kwasman, a candidate for the Republican nomination in CD1, journeyed to Oracle, Arizona on Tuesday.

He was there to participate in a protest over immigration (OK - a bunch of nativists got together to try to scare some children who are refugees from rampant violence in Central America.  They heard a rumor that some of those children would be bused to a facility in Oracle and got their hate on) when a busload of children came by.

He moved in to let the children know what he thought of children fleeing violence.  He even tweeted about it (courtesy Arizona Republic) -

He left shortly thereafter and drove to Phoenix.

While there, Brahm Resnik, a reporter from KPNX (Phoenix channel 12) interviewed him briefly.  Kwasman doubled down on his "abrogation of the rule of law" theme from the tweet.  He was droning on and on about how scared and sad the children were.

Until he took a breath, and Resnik took the opportunity to inform Kwasman that his busload of "immigrant kids" was actually busload of "YMCA camp kids".

Kwasman's response?

"They were sad too."

Full video of Kwasman's weasel moment -

Apparently, the "patronage" job is alive and well in Arizona

...And so is "shameless hypocrisy"...

From AP, via KTVK (Phoenix channel 3), written by Bob Christie (emphasis added) -

Former Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce has been offered a job with the Maricopa County Treasurer's office overseeing the agency's technical services department, but he may not take the job right away because he's too busy.

The Republican is a contentious figure in Arizona because he authored a series of laws that cracked down on people in the country illegally, including Senate Bill 1070. He became the only state legislator ever recalled from office by state voters in 2011.

Pearce said Monday that he wasn't looking for a job but is considering the offer from Treasurer Charles "Hos" Hoskins to oversee the department's human resources, legislative outreach, budget and senior citizen outreach. He's not sure if he'll take the position because he's too busy at the moment, Pearce said.

The job, assuming that Pearce accepts it (prediction: he will, but may wait until the furor dies down before formally accepting the job.  As the lege isn't in session, there probably isn't much pressure on that front) will officially be about lobbying for Charles Hoskins, Maricopa County Treasurer.

However, Hoskins is a political ally of Pearce's friend and patron, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and it would be the epitome of obvious patronage for Arpaio to give Pearce a job himself.

This looks like a "wink and a nod" arrangement, but it gives Arpaio and Pearce a patina of plausible deniability.

And the "hypocrisy" part?

Pearce, the future public agency lobbyist, is a past (very vocal) critic of, you guessed it, public agency lobbyists.

But he balances that with a deep affection for (deep-pocketed) private lobbyists.

Fun with campaign signs: Hallman edition, chapter 2

Advice to politicos and would-be politicos:

When you are caught in some sort of misstatement and are being criticized, there are two viable options -

1. Fix the statement.

2. Ignore the criticism.


Whatever you do, however, don't double down.  That just gives your critics a 2nd bite at the apple.


To whit:

On Sunday, I posted about the campaign signs of Hugh Hallman, a Republican candidate for the office of Arizona State Treasurer.

His signs proclaim his focus on balancing the state's budget.

A few hours after putting up the post, Hallman (or someone from his campaign) tweeted a reply -

The reply didn't address the fact that the state treasurer has nothing to do with the state budget, but to be fair to him, I visited his website.  I wanted to see if the website, which can be updated/corrected far more readily than signs, showed that Hallman has a more realistic view of the duties of the office than his signs indicate.

The very front page of his website -

Soooooo...based on the "double down" strategy, I have to ask -

Is Hallman running for office or practicing for a Blackjack tournament?

Fun with campaign signs - Hallman Edition

Hugh Hallman, a former mayor of Tempe, is showing his "not ready for prime time" status with his current campaign signs.

This year, he's running for Arizona State Treasurer against two other Rs (no Democratic candidates are in the race, so that one will be decided in the R primary).

State treasurer is a low-profile position, so low profile that even knowledgeable activists don't know much about it.  And average voters?

They might know the job exists, but not much else.

And it appears that Hallman is looking to take advantage of that ignorance with misleading campaign signs -

The problem with this sign (and he has the same verbiage on his website)?

Other than period pilgrimages over to the lege to beg lobby for a bigger chunk of it, the state treasurer has almost NOTHING to do with the state's budget.

The budget is within the purview of the legislature, and they aren't giving up that one; the only reason that they pay any attention to the governor regarding the budget is because of the governor's veto power.

The state treasurer doesn't have that, so is ignored.

However, the average voter doesn't know the nitty-gritty of Arizona governance, so we get signs like this.

Blocked, The Sequel

Less than a year ago, I discovered that former legislator Jack Harper had blocked me from following him on Twitter.

During his time, Harper was known as one of the more colorful members of a pretty colorful bunch (OK - he was God's gift to wiseass writers.  Put him in the same ZIP code as a microphone, step back, and watch the verbal diarrhea ensue).

At the time, I took his action as a compliment. 

Still do. :) (It's nice to know that I've made a bit of an impact with this blog.)


Well, it's happened again. 

Only this time, the offended party is a sitting legislator, one who may be further "out there" than Harper - as bad as he was (and will be, if he ever runs for office again), to the best of my knowledge, Harper never used his position to give aid and comfort to someone trying to defraud the US government and the people of the United States (aka - Cliven Bundy).

Lookee what I came across today -

 

I had followed Thorpe in the aftermath of his pilgrimage to the Bundy ranch in Nevada (aka - sedition Mecca for Americans), but hadn't notice much from his Twitter feed in recent weeks, so I checked it out.

And smiled. 

AZ lege and governor ordered to properly fund education. Their response: "Waaahhhhhhhh!"

On Friday, Judge Katherine Cooper of the Maricopa Superior Court ordered the legislature to restore funding to education that it had illegally cut.  This will result in a $317 million increase in education funding during this fiscal year* and may result in a larger sum ($1.5 billion plus) being awarded to make up for the cuts in previous years.

* = This isn't a done deal; the lege WILL look for a way to weasel out of it.

Fuller story from KPHO.com (Phoenix channel 5) here.

Background on the case from the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest here.


The decision was not surprising, and it most definitely was not disappointing.

However, the reaction of R electeds and hangers-on, while not surprising either, is still hugely disappointing.


From the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Gary Grado and including information from Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services -

[Arizona Governor Jan] Brewer was not happy with the decision, saying through spokesman Andrew Wilder the imposed spending will have a disastrous effect on public safety and vulnerable populations because the money has to come from somewhere in the budget.

“A court should not substitute their judgment on policy for that of the duly elected legislators who are constitutionally responsible for budget appropriations,” Wilder wrote in an email. “Courts spend money in a vacuum while elected executive and legislative officials must balance spending within the confines of budget realities.”

{snip}

Michael Liburdi, an attorney who is not associated with the case, said the court can compel the Legislature to pay.

“As the court mentioned in its minute entry, it can’t tell the Legislature how to come up with the money. That’s a political question, so the state needs to find the money from some source in the budget, so a fund sweep, raise taxes, etc,” Liburdi said.

Note: Liburdi may note be "associated with" this particular case, but he has ties (and here) to the R leadership of the lege.  He serves as one of their legal water carriers a lot.

Note2: The court did not "substitute their judgement on policy"; it issued a ruling on the law.  That's its job, even when "elected executive and legislative officials" don't like the law in question and violate it repeatedly.

Fun With Campaign Signs 2014: Chapter 1

Could someone explain to me how President Obama and the Arizona Corporation Commission* intersect?


From the ACC's website:

In most states, the Commission is known as the Public Service Commission or the Public Utility Commission. Our Commission, however, has responsibilities that go beyond traditional public utilities regulation. These additional roles include facilitating the incorporation of businesses and organizations, securities regulation and railroad/pipeline safety.

* - Check out the (relatively) very small print at the bottom of the sign.  Forese and Little are running for seats on the ACC.  Though based on the priorities indicated by their signs, working *for* the people of Arizona is not their top priority.

Happy 238th America!

How it got started, on paper anyway...

From the National Archives -

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

---

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:
Column 1
Georgia:
   Button Gwinnett
   Lyman Hall
   George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
   William Hooper
   Joseph Hewes
   John Penn
South Carolina:
   Edward Rutledge
   Thomas Heyward, Jr.
   Thomas Lynch, Jr.
   Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
   Robert Morris
   Benjamin Rush
   Benjamin Franklin
   John Morton
   George Clymer
   James Smith
   George Taylor
   James Wilson
   George Ross
Delaware:
   Caesar Rodney
   George Read
   Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
   William Floyd
   Philip Livingston
   Francis Lewis
   Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
   Richard Stockton
   John Witherspoon
   Francis Hopkinson
   John Hart
   Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
   Josiah Bartlett
   William Whipple
Massachusetts:
   Samuel Adams
   John Adams
   Robert Treat Paine
   Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
   Stephen Hopkins
   William Ellery
Connecticut:
   Roger Sherman
   Samuel Huntington
   William Williams
   Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
   Matthew Thornton

AZ Ballot challenges summary

One of the biannual traditions in AZ politics is legal challenges to candidates' ballot eligibility. 

There is a short period after the final date to turn in nominating signatures to challenge a candidate's ballot eligibility.  If no challenges are raised at that time, the candidate is presumed to be eligible. 

This is important to remember.

During 2012, a Republican legislative candidate was found to be living outside of the district he was running in, but the challenge was raised long after the deadline to do so.  As such, that candidate remained on the ballot (and eventually won the race).  See: Darin Mitchell, LD13 House.

This year's challenge period is over and most challenges have been resolved one way or the other. 

A few remain open because while a ruling was issued, it was appealed.

Courtesy the website of the Arizona Secretary of State, the status of challenges to state and federal level candidates (color code: Red = off the ballot; Green = on the ballot, Yellow = pending appeal):

Randy Camacho
CD7 Democratic nomination
Case dismissed, Camacho on the ballot

Miguel Olivas
CD3 Libertarian nomination
Olivas withdrew and off the ballot

Johnnie Robinson
CD7 Democratic nomination
Robinson withdrew and off the ballot

Patricia Flores
LD3 Republican State House nomination
Flores withdrew and off the ballot

Toby Farmer
LD13 Republican State Senate nomination
Ruling in favor of defendant; Farmer on the ballot.  APPEAL FILED.

James Samuelson
CD5 Independent (General election)
Samuelson withdrew and off the ballot

Cesar Chavez
CD7 Democratic nomination
Ruling against defendant, Chavez off the ballot.  Note: while the AZSOS' website doesn't indicate it, he plans to appeal the ruling.

Justin Henry
LD20 Republican State Senate nomination
Ruling against defendant, Henry off the ballot.  APPEAL FILED.

Ethan Orr
LD9 Republican State House nomination
Case dismissed, Orr on the ballot.

Scott Ryan
LD18 State Senate Independent (General election)
Ruling against defendant, Ryan off the ballot

Bryan Hackbarth
LD21 Republican State House nomination
Ruling against the defendant (twice; there were two challenges to his candidacy), Hackbarth off the ballot.  Twice. 

Ruben Gallego
CD7 Democratic nomination
Case dismissed, Gallego on the ballot

Helmuth Hack
LD21 Libertarian State House nomination
Hack withdrew and off the ballot

Barry Hess
Governor, Libertarian nomination
Case dismissed, Hess on the ballot.

Sharon Thomas
Superintendent of Public Instruction Democratic nomination
Case dismissed, Thomas on the ballot

Chuck Wooten
CD2 Republican nomination
Ruling against defendant, Wooten off the ballot

Carlyle Begay
LD7 State Senate Democratic nomination
Case dismissed, Begay on the ballot

Jennifer Knepfler
LD26 State Senate Libertarian nomination
Ruling against defendant, Knepfler off the ballot

Erminie Zarra
LD29 State Senate Republican nomination
Zarra withdrew and off the ballot

Full list of withdrawn/removed candidates here (primary) and here (general).  Note: the lists aren't fully up-to-date, but they do include candidates who withdrew before legal challenges to their candidacies were raised.