Q3 money totals are in...and some (OK, *my*) suspicions are raised about a return of the Green/GOP scam

- First up, the Cash on Hand (COH) totals as of the end of September.  This is NOT a prediction of who will win a given race, but COH numbers may be an accurate predictor of who will spend money for mailers and TV/radio ads as we approach the election.

The following is for federal races and select Maricopa County-level races.  Ballot candidates only; no write-in candidates.

- Now for the suspicious part.

While doing this, I realized that no Libertarian Party candidate was on the ballot for a federal office in AZ or in Maricopa County.  Where they might siphon votes from the Republican candidate in the race

Green Patty candidates?  On the ballot is most federal races where the Democratic candidate will win or has even a snowball's chance in Phoenix...in July..of winning.  Where the Green candidate may siphon votes away from the Democratic candidate in race.

Call me a cynic, but I don't believe in coincidences.

Especially since three of the Greens were write-in candidates in the primary.

Especially since all four Green have failed to file paperwork with the FEC.

If it *is* a scam foisted off on the voters of Arizona by the GOP, it's not a new one.

At least they aren't homeless kids this time.

So...should my 2016 run be as Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan?

This story blew up all over the internet today, but it's too juicy not to chime in now that my workday is over...

From the Arizona Capitol Times, written by Evan Wyloge -

Two-time GOP loser changes party to Democrat, name to Cesar Chavez for new congressional bid

Scott Fistler didn’t have much luck as a Republican candidate. He lost a 2012 write-in campaign against U.S. Rep. Ed Pastor, then lost a 2013 bid for a Phoenix city council seat now held by Laura Pastor, Ed’s daughter.

All that could change, though, just like Fistler’s name and party registration.

After petitioning a state superior court last November and paying $319, Fistler now legally shares the name of the celebrated labor movement icon, Cesar Chavez. Earlier this year, Chavez (formerly Fistler) became a Democrat, and – before Ed Pastor announced his retirement from Congress – filed to run in the heavily Hispanic 7th Congressional District.
In his petition for a name change, Fistler wrote that he had “experienced many hardships because of my name.”

Note:  For those who are unclear on the concept, the title is sarcasm.  I'm not running for any office in 2016 under *any* name, whether my own or someone else's*.

* = Though if we could get someone to run as Ayn Rand...and someone else as William Buckley...and Margaret Thatcher...and... :)

Republicans and voting "reform": Even when they are trying to be subtle, they're like an elephant in a china shop

During the 2012 election cycle, there were many Republican-initiated moves across the country intended to inhibit or even block voting by groups that tend to not vote for them.

For example, here in Arizona we saw the Maricopa County Elections Department tell Spanish-speaking voters the wrong day for Election Day, the same elections department under-train staff and under-supply polling places in Democratic-leaning areas, leading to ballot shortages and long lines on Election Day, and a suspiciously interminable vote-counting process after the election.

The efforts brought forth a mixed bag of results.

Nationally, Barack Obama won reelection as President, and the number of Democrats in the US Senate surprisingly increased, while the Republicans retained a comfortable majority in the US House.

Locally, Democratic candidates won all three competitive Congressional seats here, and made small gains in the Arizona legislature, while the Republicans now control all statewide elected offices and Maricopa County Sheriff Joe "Bull Connor Jr." Arpaio won reelection comfortably.

Because of the lessons from the 2012 election cycle is that Republicans across the country are attempting to make systemic changes, to impose rule changes at local and state levels, to "stack the deck" in favor of Republican candidates.

In many of the states that tend to vote for Democrats in presidential elections but whose state governments are dominated by Republican, proposals to change the way electoral votes are allocated.  Instead of the current "winner take all" system, they want to change to a system where electoral votes are split between the major candidates, based on things like percentage of the popular vote or by congressional district.  However, no such proposals have been put forth in states that tend to favor Republican presidential candidates.

In other states with state governments dominated by Republicans, they've seen proposals to restrict voting by groups that tend to favor Democrats, all in the name of "reform"..

None of the schemes qualify as "subtle", and all of them have justifiably caused an uproar wherever they've be put forth.

Here in AZ, the Republicans have seemed to learn a bit of a lesson from all of that.

They're still trying to "stack the deck" here, so national Republicans should have no worries about backsliding on the part of the AZGOP.

They're mostly trying to be a little sneaky, even delicate, about it.

Of course, being who they are, their efforts are as sneaky and delicate as an elephant in the proverbial china shop.

Sen. Michelle Reagan (R-Scottsdale), an erstwhile 2014 candidate for AZ Secretary of State, is chair of the state senate's Elections Committee, and she is leading the way on this.  Many of the proposals under consideration here may not have her name on them, but she determines which of them move forward.

One of her own measures, SB1260, has already moved through her committee, passing unanimously.  It raises some of the adminstrative hurdles that have to be surmounted by people attempting to put a referendum or initiative question on the ballot.  However, the changes aren't huge ones, and some of them are (dare I say it?) reasonable.  Hence, its unanimous committee support.

Less reasonable is her SB1262, which seems to make "minor" changes to campaign finance law regarding recall elections.  It seeks to impose standard campaign finance restrictions on committees and contributors involved in the recall effort before the recall election is officially called (basically, while petitions are being circulated and haven't been submitted and certified).  In an of itself, that's not unreasonable - candidates for office face those limits even before they submit their own petitions.

However, that unfairly tilts the balance toward the elected officials who are the subject of recall campaigns.  The official who is the subject of a recall campaign is automatically on the ballot, so he/she does not have to incur expenses (or solicit contributions to pay for those expenses) before the recall election is scheduled.  The people who support the recall face a campaign limits clock that starts months before that date.  SB1262 has been agendized for the February 19 meeting of Senate Elections.

Also with some superficial merit is her SCR1006.  As written and if approved by the voters, it would amend the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting petitions for ballot questions from four months prior to the election where the question will be on the ballot (for the vast majority of questions, this means the first Tuesday in July) to May 1.  In and of itself, that isn't a bad idea - for ballot questions, there are tens of thousands of pages with hundreds of thousands of signatures to go through and verify, and that's a heavy burden to bear for the professional staffs in the offices of the AZ SOS and AZ's county recorders.  However, while the bill rolls back the deadline to submit petitions, it doesn't similarly roll back the earliest date when signatures can start being collected for ballot questions (24 months before the measure is to be voted on).  In addition, Sen. Steve Gallardo (D-Phoenix) proposed an amendment to the measure which would have slightly reduced the number of signatures required for ballot questions, something that would both address easing the burden on the SOS and county recorders and the reduced time available to collect signatures.  However, when this bill was considered by Reagan's committee, she didn't just oppose the amendment, she used her position as chair to make sure that the amendment wasn't even considered.  Passed by the committee on a 5 - 2 vote. 

Note to readers:  Don't consider the presence of a Democrat on a bill's list of sponsors to be a sign that the bill may be a good one.  Sen. Robert Meza (D-Phoenix) has signed on to a number of these bills.  They're still crap.

And with a veneer of merit that's measured in microns (millionths of a meter):  Reagan's SB1416 and SCR1019.  Those are related measures that would require that signatures needed for proposed ballot questions and by new parties seeking direct ballot access be collected from at least five counties (not unreasonable) and that at least forty percent of the signatures be collected from counties other than Pima and Maricopa.  Both measures are agendized for the February 19 meeting of Senate Elections.

Which doesn't sound too bad, until you think on it for oh, about a tenth of a second, and remember that 75% of the state's population is in those two counties, as are more than 74% of the state's registered voters.

In addition to placing a statistical overemphasis on rural voters for the purpose of gaining access to the ballot for potential ballot question and new parties, her measures would elevate the financial and logistical hurdles for the folks behind ballot questions/new parties.

That all pales next to her striker, or strike-everything amendment, to SB1003 that seeks to make returning an early ballot by someone who is not an immediate family member a felony.  This directly attacks the many Democratic-supporting campaigns and organizations who do just that as part of their "get out the vote" efforts.

The amended SB1003 passed Senate Elections on a party-line vote.

Tom Prezelski (Tomski?) of Rum, Romanism and Rebellion offers his take on Reagan's efforts to "reform" voting and elections here.

Steve Muratore of Arizona Eagletarian has more info on developments related to some of the bills mentioned in this post here.

Julie Erfle of Politics Uncuffed offers her observations on one of Reagan's measures here.


And Reagan is one of the more "reasonable" and "professional" members of the Republican caucus of the legislature.

By comparison, Rep. Jeff Dial (R-Chandler) has proposed HB2568.  His measure starts off by changing the nominating signature requirements for candidates in a way that favors Republicans statewide, and favors majority party candidates in districts dominated by a single party.  Under current law, the number of signatures required for a candidate to be nominated to a party's primary ballot is based on a percentage of the relevant party's registered voters in the area to be represented by the office up for election.  He proposes to cut the required percentage to one-third of the current level, but to increase the "denominator" of the equation by approximately three times by making the total number of voters in the district the base.

For example, if under current law, if a candidate of party X is running in a district with 10,000 voters, 3000 of whom are registered in party X needs signatures from 1% of his party's voters to get on the ballot, 30 signatures would be needed.  Under Dial's proposal, he'd need 1/3 of 1% of 10,000, or 33, signatures.

In an example where the district has 10,000 voters and party X has 5000 registrants, the required number of signatures would go from 50 down to 33.

Statewide, partisan registration percentages are approximately 36% Republican, 30% Democratic, 0.16% Green, and 0.73% Libertarian.

In short, Dial's scheme would make it easier for Republicans statewide and in most legislative and Congressional districts to get on the ballot and, except for the few Democratic-dominated districts, more difficult for Democrats to get on the ballot.  On the other hand, Greens and Libertarians would be completely blocked from ballot access.  Partisan nominating petitions must be signed by members of the relevant political party, and Dial's proposal would raise their signature requirements to a number greater than the number of members of those parties.

And that is the "less bad" part of Dial's proposal.

Part of his proposal would mandate removal from the permanent early voters list (PEVL) anyone who lives in a home whose ownership is transferred by a "trustee's deed of sale" (aka - foreclosed).  People who haven't moved as a result of the foreclosure would be forced to re-register to vote and ask for an early ballot twice before before they could receive a ballot.

HB2568 was held by the House Judiciary Committee during its February 14 meeting.

Of course, it's not just Reagan and Dial -

- Rep. Michelle Ugenti (R-Scottsdale) has HB2527.  Current law covering polling places allows electioneering activities outside of a 75-foot buffer zone outside the actual area where voting takes place.  The same law allows for certain exceptions where "emergency conditions" exist that make electioneering problematical.  The exceptions tend to be school facilities.  Ugenti's proposal would remove the part of the law that allow for exemptions to the electioneering allowance, meaning that the buildings would have to allow electioneering, or not serve as polling places.

A bad bill, but it shows a sort of subtlety for which AZ Republicans aren't known.

Passed by the House Judiciary Committee by a party-line vote.  Next up:  House Government.

- Sen. Chester Crandell (R-LD6 ) has SB1274.  Currently, early ballots can be returned by mail at any time, so long as they are received by the county elections department by the time polls close on Election Day (7 p.m.) or they can be dropped off at any polling place in the county on Election Day.  Crandell's proposal would remove the ability of voters with early ballots to drop them off at a polling place.  In addition, the ballots would have to be received by the Elections Department by 7 p.m. on the Tuesday the week BEFORE the election. 

Agendized for the February 19 meeting of Senate Elections.

- Rep Carl Seel (R-Birtherland) has HB2350.  Currently, a voter who want to be on the PEVL or simply to receive an early ballot for a single election simply complete and sign the appropriate request form.  Seel's proposal would raise the hurdle that voters need to climb over by requiring that signatures on such forms be notarized first.  In addition, any people who are currently on the PEVL would be removed from the list if they don't send in a notarized request form within two election cycles (four years).

- Seel also has HCR2013.  Currently, the state constitution mandates that a primary election be held for most elected offices.  Seel's proposal would change that to allow closed party caucuses to nominate candidates to the general election ballot.  "Closed" means "no independents allowed".

- Rep. David Stevens (R-Sierra Vista) has HCR2008.  Currently, the state constitution mandates that elections for most offices be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November.  Stevens' proposal would amend the state constitution to mandate that "a candidate who wins the primary election for that office and who has no write-in or other opposition for that office at the general election shall be deemed and declared the winner of the general election."END_STATUTE""

The change would not apply to candidates for federal office.  However, it is written so broadly and vaguely that a shamelessly partisan/enthusiastically efficient election official (your choice about which term you prefer) would have cover for bypassing the election and simply declaring a favored candidate the winner.


Many, even most, of these measures won't pass...initially.  However, until the legislative session is over, the language from any of these bills can be air-dropped into another bill in the form of a striker at any time.  This is a situation that requires ongoing vigilance.

And active memories. 

All of the people who are pushing the above "reforms" will be going before the voters in 2014; that offers a perfect opportunity to advise them of the error of their ways.

Pearce camp digging deep into bag of dirty tricks as recall election draws near

On Tuesday, voters in Mesa's LD18 will decide the political fate of State Sen. Russell Pearce, and in the light of recent polls that show him in a dead heat with or even behind his challenger, Jerry Lewis, Pearce and his followers are getting desperate.

After running a sham candidate, Olivia Cortes, in an attempt to siphon votes from Lewis, only to see her withdraw from the race, they are now running a robocall targeted at Latino voters. 

Note:  The animation is not part of the robocall, just the audio.

The call, with an actor using a Hispanic accent and trying to sound like a Democrat, is trying to suppress the anti-Pearce vote by announcing that Pearce and Lewis are Republicans (true) and that Democrats can effectively protest the lack of a Democratic candidate on the ballot by writing in another name, any other name (not true - under AZ law, such votes are meaningless unless the write-in candidate has previously registered with the AZ Secretary of State).

Stephen Lemons of the Phoenix New Times has complete coverage here.

The political committee behind the robocalls is Safeguard Arizona's Future, SOS info here.  It is chaired by Ronald Ludders, a tea party type and an employee of the Arizona Corporation Commission (according to his Facebook page).  So far this cycle, they've reported almost no activity and only $327 cash on hand.  My guess is that the robocalls cost more than that, so there should be some activity reported in the next filing.

Regardless of how Tuesday's election turns out, expect the dirty tricks to continue next year - Ludders formed a new committee just last week, Arizona Project.  Given his tea party and ACC connections, one can guess where he will find money to spend/launder for R candidates.

Because while some pundits have declared that Pearce's political career is on the line Tuesday, I believe that he is arrogant enough that if he loses, he will A) fight to overturn the election results in court, and B) will not take the hint and go away.  No matter what, he will be running for some office next year.

Still, better that he does that as a challenger than as an incumbent.  

The Lewis campaign and Citizens for a Better Arizona have big GOTV efforts planned; contact either to volunteer to help out.

Redistricting update: They're already going to the mattresses

"Going to the mattresses" is a quote from the movie "The Godfather", meaning that a Mob organization was preparing for a war with a rival organization by looking for apartments for their soldiers to conduct operations from.  They would buy a number of mattresses for their people to sleep on while there, hence the phrase.

In the political context, it means "bring in the lawyers."  Where "process" doesn't generate desired outcomes, litigation is the alternative.

We're seeing that phenomenon happen with Arizona's redistricting process.

That's not entirely unexpected as redistricting *anywhere* usually brings lawsuits.

Usually however, they wait until maps are drawn before litigating or threatening to litigate.

Here in Arizona though, we are fortunate to have political prodigies like Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams.

They're not waiting for new legislative and Congressional district maps to be drawn.

They're not even waiting for the panel that will draw the maps to be formed.

From Mary Reinhart at the Arizona Guardian (subscription required) -

GOP threatens lawsuit over redistricting panel

GOP legislative leaders Tuesday called on a state commission to reconsider its nominations to a new redistricting panel or face a lawsuit.

A lawsuit, also known as the "Goldwater Institute attorney full employment initiative."

To be fair, the Democratic leadership is responding with its own "going to the mattresses" pledge.

From an Arizona Republic piece by Mary Jo Pitzl -

Democrats, meanwhile, said their Republican counterparts were wrong to meddle with the process.

"The whole intent of this process was to keep lawmakers out of it," said Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix.

If the nominating commission reconfigures its list of 25 candidates, Campbell predicted a lawsuit.

"Once that list has been released and certified, I don't think you can go back and do it over again," he said.

I've got call calls out to the Arizona Attorney General's Office (regarding a question about who would handle a lawsuit from Adams and Pearce - lawyers working for the AG's office, the legislature, the Party (s), or someone else) and to the Appellate Court Appointments Commission (regarding a question about any future meetings to address this current GOP-generated kerfluffle).

Updates as more info becomes available.

BTW - this may be the first time in history where a written piece has both the word "kerfluffle" and the phrase "going to the mattresses" in it.  They generally aren't known for their juxtaposition.   :)

Republican approach to redistricting: If the facts aren't on your side, then lie

Last week, the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments finalized the short list of applicants for the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  The leadership of the Arizona Legislature have 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans to choose from, and their four eventual picks have five Independent candidates to choose from when they select someone to be the chair of the AIRC.

The Appellate Court Appointments did a pretty good job of screening the applicants and establishing a pool of well-qualified group for the legislators to select from.

So naturally, the Republicans, in the form of Senate President-elect Russell Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams, have objected strenuously to the process.

They want a do-over on the nominating and interview process so they will have fewer "qualified" applicants to select from and more "malleable" ones instead.

However, they're not getting too far with their technical objections to the process, mostly because the Appellate Court Appointments Commission didn't do anything incorrectly.

So, being good Republicans, they aren't letting a little detail like the facts aren't on their side stop them from agitating for a change in their favor.

From a press release from Kirk Adams -

“Last week, an applicant for the Independent Redistricting Commission was blocked by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments, apparently because of his religious faith.  In an open meeting, a Commissioner opposed the application of Christopher Gleason for the sole reason that his application indicates he is a man of faith.

Ummm...this is one of those occasions where being a lowly unpaid blogger has its advantages.  I get to use the word "I".

I was there last week when the member of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission expressed his reservations regarding the candidacy of Mr. Gleason.

The reservations weren't over the fact that Mr. Gleason is a "man of faith" or even over his specific faith.  It was over his involvement in an organization, 4 Tucson, that desires to increase religious involvement and control of secular society.  The Appellate Court Appointments Commission member, Louis Araneta of Maricopa County, expressed the concern that there should be a "separation between church and state."

As a citizen, Gleason has the complete right to participate in such an organization.  That participation is protected by the first amendment to the United States Constitution (and probably other things, but I'm not a lawyer.  If someone wishes to add to the list, comments are open.)

However, the law creating the redistricting process mandates that the district maps produced consider many characteristics; districts that are favorable to one religious denomination or another isn't on the list. 

And neither the law nor the Constitution allow the imposition of religious standards on secular society.

It's no coincidence that the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy is chiming in on this matter, loudly.  They've demanded the resignation of Araneta, the "offending" member of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission.

The PR full court press is on, as the Republican side of the AZ blogosphere has also jumped in on this, from Greg Patterson at Espresso Pundit through the lesser lights/press release sites like Sonoran Alliance and ICArizona.

In our society, redistricting is boring, and most folks don't pay attention to it.  Religion, however, is and has always been, one of the hottest of "hot button" topics, and it has the emotional ooomph required to motivate otherwise disinterested people to take a position on the matter without knowing the real facts of the matter.

Or even caring that their faith, the part of their being that is so important to them, is being used for base partisan politics.

This tactic is being used to bring pressure to bear on Rebecca White Berch, the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court and chair of the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.  Republican though she may be, she isn't known as a pushover, especially for the likes of noted blusterers such as Pearce and Adams. 

That leaves this move, attempting to manufacture a little targeted public outrage based on false pretenses.

Time will tell if it works.


Note: Mary Reinhart of the Arizona Guardian has a story up saying that a special meeting of the Appellate Court Appointments Commission may be called for next week, but the story is behind a subscription firewall, so I can't read the whole thing.


BTW - check out Gleason's application.  He's not "unqualified" for the AIRC per se, but his primary professional qualification seems to be that he has found a way to profit from kidney stones.  Even if one ignores his delusions of theocracy, his absence from the list of finalists still isn't exactly a huge loss for the AIRC or Arizona.

May out of LD17 race

One of the masterminds of the rash of faux-Green candidacies in close races, Steve May, has withdrawn from the race for a House seat from LD17 (Tempe and south Scottsdale).

From the Arizona Capitol Times -

Former lawmaker Steve May announced Sept. 13 he is terminating his campaign for the House in Legislative District 17.

{snip}

May issued a written statement Sept. 13 about the termination of his campaign. It doesn’t give specific reasons for withdrawing, but says his pursuit of public office as a write-in helped him come to the conclusion that he is personally not ready to hold office again.


“This unique experiment in democracy has also raised my own awareness, and helped me see clearly that personal and political timing must align for a campaign to truly be successful,” May wrote. “I spoke about the need for honest leadership, and I have determined the necessary personal alignment does not exist to continue the campaign.”

Let me translate that quote into simple English.


He's saying he needs to get his s**t together before running for office again.


May's withdrawal from the race comes as a surprise, but perhaps it shouldn't - he was blasted in an Arizona Republic editorial on the faux-Green controversy that was published this weekend and looked *really* bad in an Arizona Capitol Times piece where he admitted to a reporter that he operated his Segway while under the influence, boasted about writing the section of Arizona law that exempted Segways from DUI statutes, and flipped off Tempe police officers who stopped him for operating his Segway while intoxicated.

He's got a lot of s**t to get together.

May is listed as "withdrawn late" so his name may still be on the November ballot.  A call to the Secretary of State's office to clarify that matter went unanswered (actually, I reached an operator, asked for someone who could answer a media inquiry, was transferred to hold, and was eventually disconnected without talking to another person or even having a chance to leave a message.

More later...

Arizona Republic blasts Steve May and the AZGOP over faux Greens

From an editorial in the Arizona Republic -

Beware of May's, Pullen's phony Green candidates

Steve May, a Republican activist once considered someone worth taking seriously, has performed the second-most obnoxious act of this election season.

May recruited a group of at least nine people, nearly all identified as Mill Avenue drifters and homeless people, as fake Green Party candidates - ballot place-holders who May hopes might steal votes from legitimate Democratic Party candidates, thus improving the chances of GOP opponents.

{snip}

So, illegal? No. Obnoxious? Certainly. But it was not the most obnoxious act of the political season.

No, the dubious award for Misplaced Chutzpah in a General Election Cycle goes this year to Randy Pullen and the Arizona Republican Party. Pullen and the party not only did not have the decency to be embarrassed by May's chicanery, they defended it.

{snip}

Steve May, Randy Pullen and the rest of their band of merry pranksters may be willing to pretend that toying with voters is all in good fun. We suspect the rest of Arizona takes its democracy more seriously than that.

It's a pretty strong condemnation of May and the AZGOP by the Rep's editorial board, far stronger than anything that they usually put out regarding Republicans.  I don't expect that to be part of a pattern (even when the Rs wholly deserve it, as frequently happens) because the AZRep doesn't like messing with the status quo power structure, and the AZGOP is that in Arizona. 

However, I'll savor this moment while it lasts.

Many of the faux-Green candidates dropping

From the Arizona Capitol Times -

Less than a day after a federal judge said they had the right to stay on the ballot, three alleged “sham” Green Party candidates withdrew from their races.

 

Christopher Campbell, a Senate candidate in Legislative District 10, Clint Clement, a House candidate in Legislative District 17, and Ryan Blackman, a candidate in the 5th Congressional District, officially withdrew from their races the morning of Sept. 10, according to the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

Three other faux-Greens had previously withdrawn (name and office [allegedly] sought):

• Matthew Shusta, LD23 State Senate
• Drew Blischak, LD20 State Representative
• Michelle Lochmann, Arizona Secretary of State

As near as I can tell, that leaves four suspect Green candidates still running - one each for Arizona State Treasurer and LD17 State Senator, and two for Arizona Corporation Commission.  Each has strong ties to one of the primary people behind the scheme, Steve May, a Republican candidate and operative.  In addition, they all share one PO box as a campaign committee address.

Even though the three mentioned in the Cap Times article have withdrawn from the race, the damage could be already done.  From later in the above-linked article -

Ironically, all three could still end up on the ballot. Maricopa County began printing ballots at 7 a.m., before the candidates withdrew. Depending on which district’s ballots were printed first, one or all of them could still be on the ballot, though votes for them in the November general election would not count, said Assistant Secretary of State Jim Drake.

 

“I can’t guarantee that they won’t be on the ballot,” Drake said.

Pardon my cynicism, but given the track record of Ken Bennett, I won't be surprised if the ballots of the affected districts were earmarked to be printed first, just in case one or some of the faux-Greens got cold feet.

Since I live in an area affected by the deception (LD17/CD5), I'll find out definitively in a few weeks when early ballots go out.

Either way it goes, I'll update at that time...

AZGOP/Green candidate scandal coverage goes national

...It's made it all the way to the east coast now, and not in just a weekly or suburban daily that no one outside of its base market reads.

From the New York Times -

Benjamin Pearcy, a candidate for statewide office in Arizona, lists his campaign office as a Starbucks. The small business he refers to in his campaign statement is him strumming his guitar on the street. The internal debate he is having in advance of his coming televised debate is whether he ought to gel his hair into his trademark faux Mohawk.

{snip}

Mr. Pearcy and other drifters and homeless people were recruited onto the Green Party ballot by a Republican political operative who freely admits that their candidacies may siphon some support from the Democrats.

{snip}

...Steve May, the Republican operative who signed up some of the candidates along Mill Avenue, a bohemian commercial strip next to Arizona State University, insists that a real political movement has been stirred up that has nothing to do with subterfuge.


“Did I recruit candidates? Yes,” said Mr. May, who is himself a candidate for the State Legislature, on the Republican ticket. “Are they fake candidates? No way.”

Mr. May can insist from now until November that the "candidates" that he recruited are real, but they didn't even vote for themselves.

The article contains a number of pictures of May and the faux-Green candidates together along Mill Ave. in Tempe.  Here's a pic of May and one of the candidates, Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, from last week's LD17 Clean Elections debate.  Goshorn was scheduled to appear during the Senate half of the debate, but he declined to do so, because according to the NYT article, he felt a "bad vibe."

Pic below of Goshorn (left) and May, from the night of the debate.

Later...

Don't serious candidates at least vote for themselves?

Steve May, the former Republican legislator who is running in District 17 (Tempe/south Scottsdale) for state representative, has been insisting that the Tempe homeless folks that he recruited to run as Green Party write-in candidates are *serious* candidates who deserve the Arizona Green Party's support.



From the blog of Luisa Evonne Valdez, a legitimate Green candidate in LD15, a Facebook "conversation" she had with May -

Steve May

Luisa, i can't speak for all of them....but the five guys I helped were not Republicans. They are legitimate candidates and will be wonderful assets to your party. You guys should be supporting them.

Well, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office has posted both the summary vote totals for "official" write-in candidates as well as the precinct-by-precinct totals for each of those candidates.
 
The summary page just lists the net vote totals in Maricopa County for each candidate.  Among the suspect "Green" candidates, the leading vote-getters were Thomas Meadows (running for State Treasurer) at 21 votes and Michelle Lochmann (Secretary of State) at 17.  Most of the other candidates received between 1 and 4 votes.
 
What was interesting was the way the precinct totals broke down.  While the specific names of those voters who cast their ballots for the faux-Greens cannot be divined from the precinct-by-precinct totals, one can tell who *didn't* vote for them.
 
- Ryan Blackman, a write-in for CD5, and Clint Clement, LD17 State Rep, same committee address which is the voter registration address for Clement.  That address is located in the Salt River precinct in south Scottsdale.
 
Grand totals of their votes from their own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, write-in candidate for LD17 State Senator, registration address in the Paiute precinct in Scottsdale.
 
Grand total of votes for him from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Drew Blischak, write-in candidate for LD20 State Rep, registration address in the Bullmoose precinct in Chandler.
 
Grand total of votes from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
- Benjamin Pearcy, write-in candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission, registration address in the Tempe 25 precinct.
 
Grand total of votes from his own precinct -
 
0.
 
A number of the candidates gave an unclear address, meaning that the address of 420 S. Mill Ave. is considered an "invalid address" by the "district locator" function of the Maricopa County Recorder's Office's website.   However, looking at a map of the district, that address will be in either the Tempe 5 or Tempe 6 precincts.
 
Grand total of votes for the faux-Greens in those precincts -
 
0.
 
 
May and the Republicans can issue all the protestations of innocence that they want, but it's becoming ever clearer that most of the candidates that they enticed to run as Greens not only don't take being a member of the Green Party seriously, they don't take their own candidacies seriously.
 
Nor do they even take basic civic responsibilities, like voting, seriously.

AZGOP election fraud scandal: The letter asking for the investigation

Courtesy Ballot Access News (The text in italics is footnoted in the text of the letter; bolded text is bolded in the original.  Since the table in the letter couldn't be copied-and-pasted as a table, that text is set aside by using the Trebuchet font.)-

August 30,2010


VIA EMAIL AND HAND DELIVERY

The Honorable Terry Goddard
Arizona Attorney General
1275 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

The Honorable Richard Romley
Maricopa County Attorney
301 West Jefferson Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85003

The Honorable Dennis Burke
U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona
Two Renaissance Square
40 North Central Avenue, Suite 1200
Phoenix, Arizona 85004

Re: Request for Investigation of Possible Voter Fraud

Dear Mr. Goddard, Mr. Romley, and Mr. Burke:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Arzona Democratic Party to request that your offices conduct an investigation into possible voter fraud perpetrated by individuals affiliated with the Arizona Republican Party who have conspired to have Republicans reregister as members of the Arizona Green Party and then fie as write-in candidates for that party when, in fact, they do not adhere to the Green Party's platform, have no intention of representing the Green Party, and have the explicit intent of deceiving voters and taking votes away from legitimate candidates. The purpose of this scheme is to ensure the election of Republican candidates. The evidence of this conspiracy is compellng, and given the impending ballot printing deadlines for the November 2,2010 general election, urgent action by your offices is required.

The Arizona Green Party

The Arizona Green Party filed petitions in 2008 to become a "recognized political party" pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-803, but it failed to obtain the requisite number of votes in the 2008 general election to be entitled to "continued representation" as a political party. See A.R.S. § l6-804(A). Consequently, the Arizona Green Party was required to petition for recognition again for the 2010 elections.

On April 14, 2010, in response to the petitions submitted by the Arizona Green Party pursuant to A.R.S. § 16-803, the Secretary of State certified the Arizona Green Party as a "recognized political party," allowing it access to the statewide ballot. Such recogntion does not, however, entitle the Arzona Green Party to "continued representation" on the ballot. Rather, the Arzona Green Party must obtain at least 5% of the votes cast for governor in the upcoming general election to qualify for continued representation on the ballot. See A.R.S. § l6-804(A).1

The 2008 Experiment

Durng the 2008 election, several individuals filed as Arzona Green Party candidates but refused to participate with the Arizona Green Party, to represent its values and platform, or to campaign on issues important to the Arizona Green Party.

For example, one candidate, Dr. David Corl, originally a registered Republican, filed as a candidate for the state legislature as a Green Party candidate. Before reregistering with the Green Party, Dr. Corl had no ties to or relationship with the Green Party. To say that Dr. Corl put minimal effort into his campaign would be an

1 In the alternative, a new political party is entitled to continued representation on the ballot "if, on November 1 of the year immediately preceding the year in which the general election for state or county officers . . . such party has registered electors in the party equal to at least two-thrds of one per cent of the total registered electors in such jursdiction." A.R.S. § l6-804(B).

overstatement. In fact, Dr. Corl failed to gather enough valid signatues to even appear on the ballot, and when a legal action was filed challenging his petitions, Dr. Corl quickly withdrew his candidacy. Luckily, Dr. Corl's efforts to infuence the results of the 2008 election were short-lived and yielded little success.

Another candidate, however, did succeed in influencing the 2008 election by mounting a fake campaign designed to deceive voters and to take votes from legitimate legislative candidates. Margarite Dale ran as a Green Party candidate in Legislative District 10 and was the subject of media scrutiny because of her close ties to the Republican Party and its candidates and elected officials. Speculation arose that she ran as a Green Party candidate at the suggestion of the Republican Party in order to draw votes away from the Democratic Party's nomiee, the incumbent legislator Jackie Thrasher, in Legislative Distrct 10. See Mary Jo Pitzl, Dems See Red as Republicans Run as Greens, ARIZ. REPUBLIC, Oct. 11, 2008, http://www.azcentra1.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2008/l0/l1/20081011greenparty101l.html; Sarah Fenske, The Dirty Truth About "Clean" Elections, PHOENIX NEW TIMES, Apr. 2, 2009, http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2009-04-02/news/the-dirty-truth-about-clean-elections (both attached hereto). Ms. Dale's campaign succeeded in causing the Democratic Party's nominee to lose in the general election. Ms. Dale received 2,358 votes, while Ms. Thrasher lost her seat by just 553 votes.

This year, following the success of the experiment in 2008, more "former" Republicans and a few others have fied as Arizona Green Party candidates without having any ties to the Green Party and without espousing its fundamental beliefs. Unlike in 2008, however, there is clear evidence that these individuals have conspired to defraud the voters of a fair and honest election.

The 2010 Conspiracy

Because the Arizona Green Party does not have continued representation on the ballot, it is subject to a different scheme for write-in candidates than that which applies to the other major parties in Arzona. Under A.R.S. § l6-645(D), a write-in candidate for a party that lacks continued representation on the ballot must obtain only a plurality of the votes cast for that party for the office sought by that candidate. That means an individual who runs unopposed as a Green Party write-in candidate need obtain only one vote in order to become the Green Party's official nominee and to appear on the general election ballot as such.

In contrast, an unopposed major-party candidate must obtain write-in votes equal to "the same number of signatues required by § 16-322 for nominating petitions for the same office." A.R.S. § l6-645(E). This statutory provision for major-party candidates helps ensure that the write-in candidate has a fair amount of support from his own party or independents in order to obtain that party's nomination and appear on the general election ballot. For example, a Republican statewide candidate must have gathered 5,609 signatures on his nominating petitions or the same number of write-in votes in the primary in order to gain access to the general election ballot. A Green Party candidate for a statewide office, on the other hand, must have gathered 1,231 valid signatures on his nominating petition in order to obtain a place on the primary ballot, see http://www.azsos.gov/election/20l0/Info/GreenSigReq.htm. while an unopposed Green Party write-in candidate for a statewide office needs to obtain only one write-in vote in  order to become the party's nominee. This statutory provision appears to have inspired these individuals to file as shame [sic] Green write-in candidates.

Arizona law, thus, has created a perfect opportunity for unscrupulous individuals to take advantage of a system designed to foster access to and participation in the electoral process. Unfortunately, certain individuals-many of whom were recently registered Republicans-appear to have developed a scheme to gain easy access to the general election ballot under the Arizona Green Party's name and have filed as write-in candidates for a variety of statewide and legislative offices. There are 15 Green Party write-in candidates, and of those, only two have been endorsed by the Green Party. Based on information obtained from the Maricopa County Elections Department, the following are the names of the Green write-in candidates who claim to be affiliated with the Green Party but have not garnered the Green Party's endorsement nor are involved with that party, and the dates on which they switched their party affiliation to Green:
 
Candidate Name Party and Date of Re-registration Office Sought


Ryan Blackman Original registration July 13,2010 Congress Distrct 5


Richard Grayson Date unown (previously Republican) Congress Distrct 6



Chrstopher Campbell July 15,2010 (previously Republican) State Senate District 10


Gail Ginger July 15,2010 (previously Republican) State Senate District 10


Anthony Goshorn May 17,2010 (previously Libertarian) State Senate District 17


Mattew Shusta June 1,2010 (previously Democrat) State Senate District 23


Clint Clement July 13,2010 (previously Republican) State House District 17


Drew Blischak July 13,2010 (previously Republican) State House District 20


Tim Hensley July 5, 2002 (currently Republican) State House District 22


Michelle Lochmann July 15,2010 (previously Republican) Secretary of State


Thomas Meadows July 15,2010 (original registration) State Treasurer


Theodore Gomez July 15, 2010 (original registration) Corp. Commissioner


Benjamin Pearcy July 14, 2010 (previously Republican) Corp. Commissioner
 
 
As noted in the table above, of the thirteen Green write-in candidates, none was a member of the Green Party more than a few days before becoming a Green Party candidate and none is endorsed by the Arzona Green Party.2 Additionally, nine  individuals filed as Green Party candidates for the primary election and collected nominating petition signatures in order to qualify for the ballot. In stark contrast to the write-in candidates, the Arzona Green Party endorsed seven people who filed nominating petitions as Green candidates. The remaining two unendorsed candidates are: Larry Gist, candidate for governor, and Justin Dahl, candidate for State Representative in District 12.3

Evidence of Intent to Commit Voter Fraud

While it is patently suspicious for so many individuals-many of whom were recently registered Republicans-to have filed as Green Party write-in candidates, as well as Mr. Gist who filed as a regular candidate, despite having no ties to the Green Party nor seeking to establish those ties, this information alone would not be sufficient to allege fraud and a conspiracy to commit fraud. The evidence, however, does not stop there. There is much evidence pointing to the conclusion that members of the Republican Party have conspired to run fraudulent Green Party candidates in an effort to deceive voters and take votes away from the Democratic nominees in the November election.

Legislative District 10

In Legislative District 10, there are two Green write-in candidates for State Senate, neither of whom has been endorsed by or is known to the Green Party: Chris Campbell and Gail Ginger. It appears that Ms. Ginger may have tried to file as a candidate for the State House. Her $500 threshold exemption statement lists "office sought" as State Representative - District 10, but her Nomination Paper indicates that she is a candidate

2 Mr. Goshorn originally filed as a Green Party candidate for the Arizona House of Representatives for District 17, and thus registered with the Green Party on May 17, 2010. But following a legal challenge to his petition signatures, he withdrew as a House candidate and later filed as a write-in candidate for the State Senate in District 17.

3 The Arizona Green Party has indicated that it is considering endorsing Mr. Dahl but has not done so as of the date of ths letter. See http://azgp.org/content/arizona-greenparty-azgp-announces-endorsed-candidates-2010-elections.

for State Senator - Legislative District 10. It is currently unknown whether the Secretary of State's office considers her a candidate for the senate or house.

It is certain, however, that Mr. Campbell is a candidate for State Senate in District 10. Until the day he filed as a Green Party write-in candidate, he was a registered Republican. He wil be facing incumbent Republican Linda Gray and Democrat Justin Johnson in the general election. Mr. Campbell has admitted that he was approached by members of the Republican Party to run as a Green Party candidate in Legislative District 10 with the specific intent to take votes away from the Democratic nominee, not to actually win the election or to promote the Green Party's values or platform. He admits to knowing Senator Gray, and he lives with the daughter of former house speaker, Republican Jim Weiers. As noted above, until the day Mr. Campbell filed as a Green Party write-in candidate-which was also the last possible day to file as a write-in candidate-he was a registered Republican. Below is an excerpt of a phone conversation between Mr. Campbell and a registered Independent whom Mr. Campbell did not know and to whom he had not spoken previously.

Caller: Okay, so this will help Linda Gray, then?

Chris Campbell: Yes, it will. The likelihood of me even winning is incredibly small. You know, basically one in a million, all right . . .. But just having my name on the ballot is going to take votes away from the Democrats.
...

Chris Campbell: Okay, I was approached by Republicans to basically say, hey do you mind running to get your name out even if you aren't Green Party. Because honestly, I'm more Libertarian than I am Green, period. But I'm just trying to get, more or less I'm taking votes away from the Democrats.4

4 The entire transcript, as well as an electronic copy of the phone conversation, are enclosed herewith.
 
Mr. Campbell's admission provides concrete evidence that he has registered as a  member of the Arizona Green Party and filed as a write-in candidate with the explicit intent to defraud Arzona voters who may believe he adheres to the Green Party platform and is running as a bonafide Green Party candidate. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Campbell has sought to put his name on the general election ballot as par of a conspiracy designed to ensure that Senator Gray is reelected and Mr. Johnson is defeated.

Likewise, it appears that Gail Ginger, the other candidate in Legislative District 10, was also approached by members of the Republican Party to become a member of the Green Party and to fie as a write-in candidate in order to deceive voters into voting for her rather than the Democratic Party's nominee. Her candidacy is part of the concerted effort to re-elect Senator Gray, or perhaps the incumbent house candidates. In a brief phone conversation, Ms. Ginger implicated prominent Republican Party members Representative Jim Weiers and John Mills as individuals with knowledge of ths scheme, and gave the caller Mr. Mills' cell phone number. Ms. Ginger explained that John Mills works for the Republican caucus at the State House of Representatives.5

Legislative District 17

Additionally, it appears that several Green write-in candidates with residences in Tempe have been recruited by members of the Republican Party to defraud voters in Legislative District 17, as well as across the State. District 17 is known to be a competitive legislative district, and if these Green candidates pull votes away from the Democratic nomiees, the Republicans may win these seats. These Green candidates are Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, Thomas Meadows, Theodore Gomez, and Benjamin Pearcy. As noted above, none of these candidates is endorsed by the Green Party nor have they expressed any interest in participating in the Green Party's activities or espousing its platform and beliefs. They, too, appear to be pawns in the Republican Party's scheme to defraud voters and change the election results.

Further, the handwriting on each of the candidates' Nomination Papers appears the same, and it appears to match that of Steve May, Republican write-in candidate for Legislative Distrct 17 and a former Republican member of the Arizona House of

5 A transcript and electronic copy of this phone conversation is attached hereto.
 
Representatives from another district. See candidate nomination and financial disclosure documents enclosed herewith. The media has reported that Mr. May "had been pushing Anthony 'Grandpa' Goshorn" for the Green Party's nomination for the House seat in Distrct 17, and following Mr. Goshorn's and Republican Augustus Shaw's withdrawals from that race, Mr. May filed as a Republican write-in candidate for that office. See Mary Jo Pitzl, Former Rep. Steve May Seeks Return, POLITICAL INSIDER, Jun. 29, 2010, http://www.azcentra1.com/memberslBlog/PoliticalInsider/87954; see also attached screenshot of Steve May's Facebook page showing a pictue of Mr. Goshorn and Mr. May when Mr. Goshorn filed as a candidate. Moreover, Goshorn, Pearcy, Meadows, and Gomez use the same P.O. Box address for their campaigns' mailing address, and all but Goshorn use an address for a Starbucks in downtown Tempe as their campaigns' filing address (420 S. Mill Avenue). Republican candidate May, and Green candidates Goshorn, Pearcy, and Gomez filed their write-in nomination papers at the exact same minute: 11:43 on July 15, 2010. Each of the four also used the same notary for his nomination papers.

Violations of Arizona Criminal Laws

There are several provisions in Title 16 that define crimes involving elections and crimes against the elective franchise, but those provisions are not the exclusive remedies when an individual has taken action that theatens the legitimacy of the electoral process. See A.R.S. §§ 16-1001-1021; State v. Jones, 222 Ariz. 555, 562-63, 218 P.3d 1012, 1019-20 (Ct. App. 2009) (affirmng dismissal of criminal charges against legislator for filing nominating petitions with false verifications but noting that other criminal statutes may be applicable to cases in which a false statement is included in a written instrument).

The activities outlined above may fall under several Arizona, as well as federal, statutes. For example, by filing as Green write-in candidates and presumably voting for themselves on early ballots, the individuals listed above may have marked early ballots "with the intent to fix an election for (their) own benefit or for that of another person." A.R.S. § 16-1005. Additionally, there may be a violation of A.R.S. § l6-1006(A)(1), which prohibits an individual from knowingly attempting to influence a voter in casting his ballot by any corrupt means or to defraud a voter "by deceiving and causing him to vote for a different person for an office or for a different measure than he intended or desired to vote for," id. § (3). Here, the Green write-in candidates have attempted to influence general election voters who wil be deceived into believing that a vote in favor of these candidates is actually for someone who supports the Green Party platform, when in fact, the candidates do not espouse those beliefs at all and are only running with the intent to pull votes away from Democratic nomiees. If those Green candidates run under their actual party affiliations, such as Republican or Libertaran, they would be less likely to garner the votes of those who support the Green Party's platform.

A further investigation into these activities may reveal that valuable consideration has been provided to the write-in candidates, thereby implicating A.R.S. § l6-l0l4(A), which makes it unlawful for an individual to knowingly give valuable consideration to or for a voter or other person to induce the voter to vote or refrain from voting at an election for any paricular person.

Arzona's general criminal statutes may also apply in ths situation. For example, A.R.S. § 13-2002 defines forgery as falsely making or completing a written instrument or offering or presenting an instrument that contains false information. Here, the Green write-in candidates appear to have completed their voter registration and candidate forms with false information regarding their actual affiliations with the Green Party and their intent to run as bonafide Green Party candidates. Likewise, A.R.S. § 13-23l0(A), which proscribes fraudulent schemes and artifices, makes it unlawful for an individual "who, pursuant to a scheme or artifice to defraud, knowingly obtains any benefit by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises or material omissions." The Green Party write-in candidates have obtained a benefit-placement on the general election ballot-by deceiving Arizona voters into believing they are actually Green Party adherents, when in fact their intent is only to take votes away from the Democrats.

Because the Green Party write-in candidates have submitted paperwork to both county and state governent offices, they appear to have violated A.R.S. § 13-2311, which applies to "any matter related to the business conducted by any department or agency of ths state or any political subdivision thereof' and makes it unlawful for anyone to conceal a material fact or make any false writing or document knowing that such document is false or contains a fraudulent statement. Finally, A.R.S. § 13-2407(A) establishes a class 6 felony for tampering with a public record. That crime involves the making, completing or filing of a written instrment that is a public record, such as a voter registration form and candidate filing paperwork, "knowing that it is falsely made."
 
Violations of Federal Criminal Laws


Because federal candidates wil appear on the general election ballot, federal jursdiction is established. Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 6, May 2007, available at htt://www.justice.gov/criminal/pin ("In such cases (in which both state and federal candidates appear on the ballot), the federal interest is based on the presence of a federal candidate, whose election may be tainted, or appear tainted, by the fraud, a potential effect that Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate under Article I, Section 2, clause 1; Article I, Section 4, clause 1; Article II, Section 1, clause 2; and the Seventeenth Amendment."). "Every voter in a federal primary election, whether he votes for a candidate with little chance of winning or for one with little chance of losing, has a right under the Constitution to have his vote fairly counted, without its being distorted by fraudulently cast votes." Anderson v. United States, 417 U.S. 211,227 (1974).

Federal law, like that in Arizona, includes penal provisions related to elections and voter fraud. For example, it is unlawful to intimidate a voter or to interfere with the voter's abilty to choose the federal candidate of his choice. 18 U.S.C. § 594. If anything of valuable consideration were involved in the recruitment of these individuals to vote for themselves as Green wrte-in candidates, both the candidates and their recruiters would have violated 18 U.S.C. § 597, which makes it unlawful to make or accept an expenditure to any individual to either vote or abstain from voting for or against any candidate. See also id. § 600.

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 1001 makes it unlawful to knowingly falsify or make materially false or fraudulent statements, and 18 U.S.C. § 241 makes it unawful for two or more people to conspire to injure or threaten a person's constitutional rights, including those related to the elective franchise. See United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299 (1941); Exparte Yarborough, 110 U.S. 651 (1884).

Federal law also provides criminal penalties for those who engage in fraud in the voter registration process: 42 U.S.C. § 1973i(c) prohibits an individual from knowingly providing false information on a voter registration form and from conspiring with another to vote illegally.
 
Conclusion


Based on the evidence presented above, I request that your offices investigate the possible voter fraud that has been commtted by the sham Green candidates as well as the Republican officials whom they have identified as recruiting and organizing them in an effort to deceive voters in the general election. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance.

Very truly yours,

Rhonda L. Barnes

RLB/kdl

 
Unlike most legal letters that I've read, this one was actually informative (meaning that I learned some facts that I didn't already know or at least suspect.  Among other things, my research didn't uncover the fact that some of the paperwork had the same handwriting (Steve May's), the same notary, or was submitted at the exact same time as that of other suspect candidates.
 
Notes:  Ms. Barnes is an attorney with Perkins, Coie, Brown & Bain, and there was a problem with the "copy and paste" function when I copied this letter.  A large number of typos were added to the text and I've tried to correct them all, though I might have missed a few.  There was one spelling error in the original, and that is marked by "[sic]".  Any other errors are mine.
 
Later...

AZGOP using AZ Green Party as patsies

...by doing something that they did in 2008 in a few select districts.  It worked then (costing then-Rep. Jackie Thrasher her seat), so they've expanded it.

From the AZ Republic -

The state Democratic Party is alleging possible voter fraud in what it called a scheme to undermine its candidates by recruiting "sham" Green Party hopefuls.

In a complaint filed late Monday, the party seeks an investigation by federal, state and county law-enforcement officials.

The complaint names Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix; Steve May, a Republican candidate for the Legislature; and a House Republican staffer as complicit in an effort to register at least a half-dozen people as Green Party members so they could run as write-in candidates in last week's primary election.

Note: Weiers is a candidate in the same district as Thrasher.

The Republicans are denying any wrongdoing, but their disdain for the standards of behavior (aka - "laws") that govern elections seem to have led them to be less than subtle when they went about their machinations.

The Arizona Green Party itself caught on to the scam, as evidenced by this press release listing which candidates that they actually endorse, and which ones that they consider to be "carpetbaggers" -

Claudia Ellquist, AZGP state co-chair, stated, "There are several Green Party candidates that are actively opposed. We strongly advise all registered Arizona voters to not waste their votes on these individuals during the August 24th Primary Election or the November 2nd General Election (assuming they advance)." The offices include: Governor, Secretary of State (write-in), Treasurer (write-in), Corporation Commission (2 write-in candidates), U.S. Congress (CD 5, write-in), State Senate (LD 10, 2 write-in candidates), State Representative (LD 17, write-in), State Senate (LD 17, write-in), State Representative (LD 20, write-in), State Representative (LD 22, write-in), and State Senate (LD 23, write-in).

Some interesting patterns emerged from a little research from a few weeks ago (so it is possible that some of this has changed, though that doesn't seem likely) into the candidacies cited above -

- Ryan Blackman, the faux-Green running as a write-in for CD5, gave the same address as the faux-Green running for LD17 as a write-in, Clint Clement.  Which isn't illegal.  What is interesting, however, when one finds out that Blackman isn't registered to vote anywhere in the state, much less at his listed address.  Clement *is* registered to vote.  He has never done so, however.  In addition, while he filed as a Green Party write-in on July 13, he modified his party enrollment on July 19.

- Thomas Meadows, the faux-Green running as a write-in for State Treasurer, filed on July 15, giving a Tempe P.O. box as his campaign's mailing address and 420 S. Mill Ave. in Tempe as his committee address.  He registered to vote on July 16.

- Theodore Gomez and Benjamin Pearcy, the two faux-Greens running as write-ins for the Arizona Corporation Commission, gave the same combo of mailing/committee addresses as Meadows.  Both registered their candidacies on July 15.  I couldn't find any evidence that Gomez is registered to vote at all (caveat: that's a common sort of name and he could have registered under a nickname like "TJ" or something similar); Pearcy was registered to vote prior to getting involved in this scheme and just updated his partisan affiliation on July 14.

BTW - for those readers who aren't familiar with Tempe, "420 S. Mill Ave." is the location of Starbucks store #11573.  Umm...Starbucks' locations aren't known for either their office or residential components.  Just sayin'...

Bonus BTW - "4/20" is a popular verbal shorthand is some videos linked later in this post.  It refers to the unofficial "National Pot Smokers Day" of April 20.  "Two birds, one stone" and all that - they can refer to a favorite place and a favorite activity at the same time. 

- Anthony "Grandpa" Goshorn, the faux-Green running for LD17 State Senate, lists the same mailing address, but has a committee address in Scottsdale.  He changed his partisan affiliation on May 17.  That is the earliest change date for those in on this scheme, but he was also one of the first involved.

Originally, he was going to run as a ballot-qualified Green candidate for LD17 State Representative, but his petitions were challenged and he withdrew from the race on June 16.

- The faux-Greens running for LD10 State Senate, Christopher Campbell and Gail Ginger, modified their partisan affiliations on July 15.  According to the AZRep article linked above, Ginger has dropped out the race in favor of Campbell.

- Drew Blischak, the faux-Green running for LD20 State Representative, modified his registration on July 13.

- Michelle Lochmann, the candidate for State Treasurer, modified hers on July 15.

I wasn't able to do similar research on the suspect candidates from outside of Maricopa County, though they exhibited the same pattern in regards to their filing dates, filing their candidacies on July 14 and 15, the last two days that someone could declare a write in candidacy for the August primary election.


In addition to the write-ins, the ballot-qualified Green candidate for Governor, Larry Gist, also looks to be part of the scheme.  While his campaign has almost no cash on hand, it has loads of debt, mostly to ethically-challenged R operative Derrick Lee (info here and here).

Many, but not all, of the suspect candidates, are acquaintances of Republican former legislator Steve May.  For example, his video talk with ACC candidate Pearcy can be found here (but view it soon, before May takes it down).

May's ties to Goshorn are illustrated on this screenshot of his Facebook page -

May has displayed his contempt for the laws of this state and those who enforce them, as shown in this video, where he encourages someone to damage public property (@1:50 in the video) and has given the same person a t-shirt (@ 2:39) that May has designed and sells that says "Welcome to Mill Ave.  Our Cops Suck".

Note: All of May's uploaded videos can be found here on YouTube.  Catch 'em while you can...

It seems that the AZGOP is running on empty this year.  Their positions of "no taxes for the wealthy", "no regulations for large corporations", and "bupkus for everybody else" are unsupportable in Arizona's cratered economy, so they have settled on a campaign plan of demonization (SB1070), distraction (lies and name-calling), and sleaze (this scheme).

They are hoping that the state's voters won't notice that they have nothing positve to offer to Arizona.

More to come...

More fun with signs...

Keeping up with the theme of the last post...

It seems as if the Republicans really have their claws out for each other this year.

This sign was spotted at the intersection of Rio Salado Parkway and Priest Drive in Tempe, in the heart of CD5.

Note the add-on banner in the upper left portion of the sign.

"CO-SPONSORED AND VOTED FOR SB1070"

Which would be fine in a "I'm not going to vote for him anyway, so even that doesn't lower my opinion of him" sort of way, except for one thing -

Ward has never held elected office, much less a seat in the Arizona legislature.  He never had the opportunity to co-sponsor and vote for SB1070.

To be fair to Mr. Ward, I don't actually believe his campaign added the false statement to his sign.  Yes, every R in the state is trying to jump on the nativist bandwagon, but even they hesitate at such a blatant lie...

...OK, they don't hesitate to lie so much as they hesitate to be *caught* lying, and that one is very easily debunked.

On the other hand, they don't hesitate to be caught lying, when they can make it look like someone else is doing the lying.

And the Schweikert campaign is also using the add-on banner gimmick on their signs, with the same white lettering on a red background.

Hmmm....

BTW - As of this afternoon anyway, the banner on the sign pictured above has been changed to "Endorsed by Congressman John Shadegg.".

BTW2 - The campaign claws are out and boy are they sharp this cycle.  There are a huge number of pro-Schweikert trolls (or one pasty-complexioned one with absolutely no life) posting praise for Schweikert and criticism of Ward on all of the R blogs and many of the AZRep articles covering the CD5 primary.  Given the amount of personal wealth that Schweikert, Ward, and a couple of the others have invested in the race to challenge Democratic incumbent Harry Mitchell, look for things to get even nastier than sign games and troll droppings.