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.

Q. What's a lawyer to do when he isn't allowed to be a lawyer? A. Run for governor, of course.

Nearly six months ago, disgraced and disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas threatened to do just this, and now he is carrying out the threat.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Alia Beard Rau -

Disbarred former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has announced he will run for governor in 2014.

In an e-mail to members of the media, the Republican said he file paperwork today with the Secretary of State’s Office.

“I’ll be focusing on the need to protect public safety, ensure border security and fight corruption, among other issues,” Thomas said in the e-mail. “Voters will be urged to watch the video of my State Bar hearing and see for themselves how honest prosecutors are railroaded for fighting corruption in this state.”

 His joining with Sen. Al "Tin Foil" Melvin in the race for the GOP nomination for governor sends a couple of signals -

1. Next year is going to be colorful,  As in colorful enough for The Daily Show to consider moving here, if only to save big money on air fare for their crews and correspondents.  They're going to be here, a lot.

2.  There will be whispers of a conspiracy.  The idea here may be to make the GOP slate of candidates so unpalatable that Arizona's judiciary is convinced that a third Brewer term isn't a violation of Arizona's constitution.

Yes, I mock, but I mock with the full knowledge that Arizona has a history of picking some really bad governors, like good ol' Ev Mecham.  I don't believe that AZ's Rs will embrace the "full loony", but the field may be large enough to split the sane vote to the point where one of the loons will get the nomination.

And then anything could happen.

Thomas disbarred, Patterson resigns: A busy couple of days in AZ politics...

Tuesday and Wednesday were rather eventful days in Arizona politics.

...The most significant, at least locally, event was the disbarment of former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and one of his former deputies, Lisa Aubuchon.  Another former Thomas deputy, Rachel Alexander, had her license to practice law suspended.

They faced an investigation into some of the activities Thomas engaged in, with the assistance of Aubuchon and Alexander, during his term as the Maricopa County Attorney.

To say the least, that investigation didn't go well for the trio.

While the legal community rarely hands out punishments to its own that are stronger than a couple of lashes with a wet noodle, when attorneys step far enough out of line...

Can you say "ton of bricks"?

Anyway, my favorite passage from the ruling (hat tip to a friend for noticing it) -

At some point in his career, a leak formed in the dike of Andrew Thomas’s ethical restraint. In short time, it rapidly grew...[w]ithin a few short years the hole had become a radical moral dislocation.

Thomas has called a press conference for Wednesday morning; expect him to continue playing the "victim" card.

Note:  This was written before the press conference.  He held the presser, and compared himself to Ghandi, Dr. Martin Luther King and Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

Seriously.

As someone who has been disbarred (assuming the penalty is upheld on the inevitable appeal), he will be eligible to apply for reinstatement after five years.  Expect the video of this presser to be played at any hearing on that particular subject.

The Arizona Republic has coverage here.

...The Daniel Patterson mess is dragging on, but in a new direction. 

The House Ethics Committee met on Tuesday and accepted Patterson's response to the report on the investigation into his activities (domestic violence, misconduct in office, general creepiness, etc.).  However, nothing was done at the time, and it was looking like he would be a member of the lege for another week.

The the committee met again on Wednesday, and voted to recommend to the full House that it expel Patterson from the lege.

Patterson turned around and showed them - he resigned.  Finally.

There may be a lawsuit yet stemming from this - while making his exit from the lege, Patterson said that the lege was "hostile work environment".  

Which may be Patterson's way of laying some legal groundwork.

I hope he goes for it - if he sues, as the plaintiff he would have to testify under oath, and more importantly, be cross-examined under oath, about the events that transpired leading up to today's events.

Patterson changed his voter registration from Democratic to independent over a week ago, and by doing so, he may have seriously gummed up the process for replacing him. 

ARS 41-1202 states that when a vacancy occurs in the lege, the seat must be filled by a member of the same party as the person who vacated the seat.

The statute says nothing about what to do when a legislator is elected under a party banner, changes his registration in office, and then leaves office, nor can I find anything relevant in other parts of the ARS.

I made a few calls to folks who know a lot more about this stuff than I do, and the universal response was "Dunno.  Trying to figure it out too."  (OK, they used more words, and bigger ones, but this was the upshot of their answers :) .)

It's unusual for an officeholder to leave office before completing his/her term in office (it does happen, but the vast majority complete their terms); a very rare occurrence for an officeholder to change his/her partisan while in office.

The combination of the two conditions in the person of one (now former) legislator? 

Not just unusual or rare; nobody can recall it happening in Arizona before this.

Should create a bit of conundrum for the Pima County Board of Supervisors, who are tasked with filling the spot.

Still, it's a question of interest mostly to political geeks (like me) - no matter who is appointed to fill the vacancy left by Patterson, the lege will adjourn within a few weeks, and the appointee won't make a difference in the partisan balance in the House.  The Republicans will still have a 2/3 majority for the remainder of the session.

According to a story in the Arizona Capitol Times, Patterson re-registered as a Democrat before resigning, but the paperwork hasn't reached the SOS' office yet, so it isn't confirmed.

If he did re-register, things will be far more simple; if he didn't, things will be far more interesting.

...Sylvia Allen (R-Snowflake) announced that she won't run for another term in the Senate, choosing to trade the state capitol in Phoenix for a possible job in the Navajo County seat in Holbrook.

She cited "family" concerns in her announcement, but the fact is that her new district is far more competitive than her current one, and there is already a formidable Democrat in the race, State Rep. Tom Chabin.

In short, a return to the lege was a long way from being a sure thing, so a run for the Navajo County BOS isn't a surprise.

...Ed Ableser (D-Tempe) announced that he will seek the Senate seat in the new LD26.  The move sets up a likely general election contest against Jerry Lewis (R-Mesa), who gained his office in November's recall of Russell Pearce.

Thomas-watch: April 10, 2012, Findings to be announced

Announced by the Arizona Judicial Branch -

Presiding Disciplinary Judge William O'Neil has set a hearing for the Thomas, Aubuchon, Alexander Attorney Discipline Matter.

The hearing will take place on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 9 am at the Arizona State Courts Building, located at 1501 West Washington, in the Supreme Court Courtroom. The hearing is expected to last approximately 30 minutes.

The Discipline Hearing Panel will release their findings in the Discipline Matter and read a summary from the bench. The full order will be available immediately following the hearing and will be emailed to the media and available on the court's web site.

I believe the proceeding will be open to the public, but even if it is, there isn't a lot of seating availability in the Supreme Court Courtroom, so the best option for viewing may be the live streaming option that will be available on the Court's website.

There's another reason to prefer watching the live stream over being there - the court being the court (you know, stuffy concerned about maintaining decorum), the probably wouldn't be amused by audience members giving a big "Whoo Whoo!!" when the findings are read.

Apparently, bigotry, deception, and lies don't the holidays off

Yes, I know that said "no political posts" but some things just cry out for a response...and since they don't have to take holidays off from their spewings I don't have to take time out from criticizing those spewings...

Sonoran Alliance has a Russell Pearce-penned op-ed piece up regarding his opinions on the ongoing legal battles between Maricopa County officials, the county court system and the Dynamic Duo (Sheriff Joe Arpaio and County Attorney Andrew Thomas) with the Arizona Bar Association thrown in for good measure.

The piece is standard winger tripe - everything that ails Maricopa County is the fault of liberal judges and lawyers...and, of course, undocumented immigrants.

All would be fine if folks would just get out of the way of fine upstanding public servants like Andrew Thomas while he wages his jihads against liberals...and, of course, undocumented immigrants.

In a somewhat surprising development (surprising that it happened so quickly, not that it happened), Pearce aimed most of his rhetorical salvos at Maricopa County Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Mundell and retired Arizona Chief Justice Ruth McGregor, the newly-appointed special master brought in to oversee the court cases between Thomas/Arpaio and the county's judges and other elected officials.

While Arpaio and Thomas and their supporters (a group that counts Pearce as one of its leaders) were certain to object to the appointment of an independent special master to oversee all of the many court cases involving county and court officials that have been brought by Thomas and Arpaio. I just thought that even *they* would take the rest of the week off from their campaign of bigotry, deceptions, and outright lies.

I was wrong (mark this date down :) ).

From the piece:

While I have worked with Former Chief Justice Ruth McGregor and I like her and feel she is very competent, she certainly has the appearance of conflict, she was who appointed Superior Court Presiding Judge Barbara Rodriquez Mundell (a focus of the investigation) to her position and worked with her for the past several years. (By the way phantastic she is a Democrat).

So let's see, in one sentence (and one parenthetical phrase): he implied a conflict of interest on the parts of both judges (telling readers that neither of them can be trusted while shifting the conversation away from Thomas' and Arpaio's misdeeds), stressed a Hispanic name (telling his fellow nativists that Judge Mundell is one of "them"), and drops in Chief Justice McGregor's voter registration (aka - telling fellow Rs that she isn't "one of us").

That's pretty efficient use of a single sentence, but old hat for an experienced demagogue like Pearce.

We're stuck with Arpaio and Thomas for another three years (barring resignations to run for higher office or federal investigations/indictments/convictions), but we can start making a change next year by electing officials (lege, Governor, etc.) who don't see their primary duty as running interference for the Dynamic Duo.

That's something that would make Christmas 2010 joyous for people who respect the rule of law in Maricopa County.

Interesting Agenda Update - Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

In a post earlier this week about the schedule of political activity, I opined that the most interesting item on the agenda for Wednesday's meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors would be the one where they approved the hiring of private lawyers to serve as Andrew Thomas' personal hitters special prosecutors targeting the Supes themselves, in particular Don Stapley.

Well, that has changed somewhat.

The item in question, #11 on the formal meeting's agenda, has been pulled, and placed on the agenda of a special meeting scheduled to take place immediately before the regularly scheduled meeting.

Hmmm...

As it turns out, the supes found a way to not approve the hiring of the lawyers.

From AZCentral.com -

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' plans to appoint outside attorneys as special prosecutors to investigate charges against Supervisor Don Stapley hit another stumbling block this morning, as the county Board of Supervisors withdrew from its agenda the item that would have sought approval for the appointments.

{snip}

[In a letter] County Manager David Smith outlined reasons the item had been withdrawn from the agenda for Wednesday's formal meeting:

1. The services of these attorneys were not properly procured. Procurement is required for the expenditure of any county or state funds, including RICO monies.

2. Two of the attorneys are not residents of Maricopa County, as required by applicable statute, including the person proposed to be in charge of all aspects of the matters.

3. The substantive matters set forth in the appointments have been previously assigned to the Yavapai County Attorney and cannot be reassigned by the County Attorney.

4. The three individuals cannot commence work or use court processes until the Board approves their appointments.

5. Your office refuses to provide a cost estimate for the proposed work and now appears to admit that the RICO fund does not contain sufficient funds to cover the costs (see attached MacDonnell memo, which states that Diversion Fund monies may be used). There may be an unknown substantial impact on the County Attorney's budget or the County's general fund if the previously planned uses of these funds have to be funded from other sources."

Essentially, the man who is the County's top lawyer and the one who wants to be Arizona's top lawyer either doesn't know the law (see items 2 - 4 in the above quote) or just doesn't think that the law should apply to him.

Either way, he isn't qualified for his current position or the one he aspires to.

Well, that didn't take long...

In yesterday's post on upcoming political activities, I wrote -

"...Maricopa County Board of Supervisors - no meetings scheduled at this point, though with the constant legal wrangling between the supes and Andrew Thomas/Joe Arpaio, something could pop up on short notice."

So, acting as if they *wanted* to prove my prescience, today the MCBOS posted a notice of a special meeting on Wednesday morning (10 a.m, Sullivan Conference Room, 10th Floor, 301 W. Jefferson in Phoenix).

No agenda for the special meeting as posted as yet, but it wouldn't shock me if the main topic will have something to do with today's development in the ongoing feud between the supes and County Attorney Andrew Thomas.

From AZCentral.com -

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas announced early Monday that he is turning two controversial cases involving public corruption to an out-of-county prosecutor.

Thomas said that the criminal prosecution against Supervisor Don Stapley and the grand jury investigation into the planned court tower building in downtown Phoenix will be handled by the Yavapai County Attorney's Office.

"I'm trying to bring about a global resolution of the issues between our office and the Board of Supervisors," Thomas said.

AZRep columnist Laurie Roberts has coverage here.

What remains to be seen is if Thomas' move is calculated to allow him to save face when his cases implode (bottom line - with the Stapley case he indicted, then investigated. Never a good sign for a prosecution...) or if he is just prepping for his resignation to run for AG (or Gov??) next year.

Of course, it could be both - it will look better, or at least less bad, if the cases are ultimately dropped by an out-of-county prosecutor instead of Thomas or his hand-picked* successor.

* - That "hand-picked" is just a bit of speculation, but it seems like something Thomas would negotiate in exchange for getting rid of the cases.

Edit on 4/7 to update -

The MCBOS has posted an agenda for the meeting; it lists no subject for the meeting other than to say that the meeting will be of the "executive session" variety, meaning "public not invited."

End edit...

Later!