Jan Brewer's new motto: "Damn the facts, full distort ahead!"

Of course, her disregard of the facts could torpedo her run at a full term as governor...

EJ Montini of the Arizona Republic published an interesting column in Thursday's paper about Jan Brewer's tendency to spout bigoted but baseless (my term, not his) stereotypes and fabricated statistics (also my term - he used "exaggerated") when discussing immigration.

The example he cited involved her saying, during a debate between the R candidates for governor that the majority of undocumented immigrants were engaged in narcotics trafficking and extortion and that they are responsible for a massive crime wave in Arizona.

As this Think Progress piece from writer Andrea Nill points out, during a period in Arizona's history that has seen an increase in undocumented immigration, there has been an actual decrease in crime in AZ.

Oops, Jan.

This falsehood was pointed out by dark horse R Matthew Jette, but to no avail.

Jan stuck by her misfiring mouth, and continued to spout the same stuff.

In Montini's piece, he began by predicting that Brewer will win the November election because of SB1070.

I'm not so sure (I know, it's not exactly shocking that a Goddard supporter would disagree with Montini's point. :) ).

While the bill was fronted in AZ by nativist demagogue Russell Pearce, she has made it hers, and by doing so, has locked up the support of a significant part of Arizona's electorate, the nativists.

*That* has all but guaranteed her the R nomination, especially since the other contenders are falling fast (Dean Martin has almost no money and won't be getting any any time soon, Buz Mills can't even get the endorsement of the NRA, and he sits on the Board of Directors of it) or never were a factor in the first place (Jette would be a legit dark horse in most other states; in AZ, however, his reasoned yet honest approach will net him less than 5% of the primary vote - Rs will consider his calling out the numbers and stereotypes spouted on the immigration issue as the equivalent of shouting "the emperor has no clothes!" and will close their ears).

However, for SB1070 to guarantee Brewer's win in November's general election, the lege should have passed it and she should have signed it in early October.

Not late April.

As it is, people will have had the time to actually understand the effect of SB1070 on *everybody*, not just those "durn Mexicans."

By the time early ballots go out in October, the law may have (and should be) blocked by a federal court because of its unconstitution overreaching.

At which point, Terry Goddard's approach of going after the cartels and hitting them where it hurts - in the wallet - a less showy but far more effective - and legal! - tactic will look good to the vast array of independent voters in Arizona.

Especially when Brewer's side of the issue is marked by neo-Nazis going on Mexican hunts armed anti-immigrant "patrols" in the desert.

Later...

Mitchell working for the next Greatest Generation

It was a long day at work today, and tomorrow will be just as long, so only a little copy and pasting tonight...

From an email from Congressman Harry Mitchell -

Yesterday marked the 66th anniversary of President Franklin D. Roosevelt signing the historic GI Bill into law. The original GI Bill was one of the greatest achievements of the 20th Century in America, giving our returning veterans a strong foothold in the economy and serving as the foundation for what became known as The Greatest Generation.

As the representative of 65,000 veterans, the Chairman of the House Veterans Affairs Committee’s Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and as a former teacher, I was honored to help renew the commitment to our veterans in 2008, by introducing a new GI Bill for the 21st Century, which was signed into law the same year.

The Post-9/11 Veterans Education Assistance Act extends the education benefits to all members of the military who have served on active duty since September 11, 2001, including activated reservists and National Guard.

Specifically, under the legislation,

•Service members returning from Iraq or Afghanistan receive up to four academic years of educational benefits, including stipends for housing and books.
•Veterans have up to 15 years after they leave active duty to use their education benefits.
•Veterans can use the Yellow Ribbon GI Education Enhancement Program, in which the federal government will match, dollar for dollar, any voluntary additional contributions to veterans from institutions whose tuition is more expensive than the maximum educational assistance provided under the Post-9/11 GI Bill.

This updated GI Bill is critical to strengthening the nation’s military. Not only will it helps attract high quality recruits who are interested in earning a higher education, but it will open doors for our veterans, strengthen our economy, and help military recruitment. Recently, the House Committee on Veterans Affairs reported that 233,424 veteran beneficiaries have taken advantage of the new GI Bill and have been paid to date.

I believe that we have a responsibility to serve those who bravely served us. We promised a higher education to our service members when they joined, and it is our duty to see they get it when they become veterans. The care of our veterans, servicemen and servicewomen are not just Democratic concerns or Republican concerns. They are American concerns.

To stay updated, please visit my website to learn more what I’m doing to honor those who have served us.

Sincerely,

Harry

Later...

In 2004, Matt Stone and Trey Parker (the creators of South Park), released a movie called "Team America: World Police."

It was an incredibly funny and profoundly filthy movie (there were a couple of scenes that if they had been shot with human actors would have caused this film to receive an "X" rating). It satirized both the supporters and opponents of the "War on Terror."

Parker and Stone took no political positions, skewering everyone from Sean Penn, Hollywood liberal (far left), to Kim Jong Il, Korean dictator (far right).

Parker and Stone, as is the case with their work on South Park, were equal opportunity offenders.

So it was with a bit of surprise yesterday when I read that the "Team America PAC" had endorsed Sam Crump in the R primary in CD3.

I wasn't aware that Parker and Stone had gotten into the PAC business and were endorsing candidates, so I was very interested to see what kind of platform they were espousing.

Turns out that "Team America PAC' has nothing to do with "Team America: World Police."

Nope, the PAC is the brainchild of nativist former Congressman Tom Tancredo. It is dedicated to supporting candidates who push for Tancredo's version of "immigration reform" (something just this side of "deport or kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.") The organization is also a haven for people who think like Tancredo, such as Bay Buchanan and this guy.

Not a whole lot of "equal opportunity offending" there - they support candidates like Crump, Jesse Kelly (AZ8) and JD Hayworth (AZ-Sen) while decrying people like John McCain (John McCain!!) as being too liberal.

Not a lot of humor there either, I expect.

It's time to start talking about ballot questions

Lost in the excitement over the races for various offices on this fall's ballot have been the large number of important questions being placed before the voters in November.

The Arizona Legislature's Legislative Council (basically a group of lawyers who take legislative bill proposals and write them into "legalese) will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in House Hearing Room 4 (HHR4) to consider, possibly amend, and adopt some draft analyses of the various questions scheduled to go before the voters, including two active initiatives that haven't turned in their petitions yet.

The short version of my take on the questions:

Other than the Medical Marijuana question, they're all crap. Pretty much everything proposed by the legislature is aimed at destroying any parts of Arizona's social safety net that have previously been approved by the voters. The other two, which may not make it on the ballot, are part of the same extremist, anti-government/anti-society, ideology.

However, this post isn't about my visceral reaction, it's about the Lege Council's analyses of the questions. Analyses that appear to be, and are supposed to be, impartial.

The Secretary of State's list of current ballot questions is here.

Note: all analyses linked to are drafts and are subject to change.

In the order of the SOS' list, not the Lege Council's list of analyses, because that is the order that the questions will appear on the ballot -

Question 106 (full text here) - an anti-health care reform amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Proposed in 2009, even before HCR passed. Referred to the ballot by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 107 (full text here) - an anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 108 (full text here) - an anti-"card check"/anti-labor amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the Senate and House on party-line votes.

These three questions are more about the Republican legislative majority's staunch pro-business/anti-minority and working class ideology than about good government.

Question 109 (full text here) - the first "pro" question of this year's ballot, this one would make the "right" to hunt, fish, or otherwise "harvest wildlife" a right protected under the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Ensuring that Arizona continues as the punchline to political jokes nationwide. Referred by the House and Senate with all Rs and a few rural Ds supporting.

Question 110 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the sale of state trust lands. Lege Council analysis here. This measure includes a provision allowing for the sale or lease of state trust lands without "advertising or auction." In a ballot chock full o' stinkiness, this one may quietly be the most rancid proposal of all. It will be worthy of a full post of its own as the summer drags on and the November election looms ever closer. Referred by the House and Senate unanimously. Something tells me that a lot of the D members of the lege were snookered by the "protect military installations from development" language in the measure.

Question 111 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would change the job title of the Arizona Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." Lege Council analysis here. Nothing about the measure changes the functions of the job, so the current job title is more descriptive of the job function than the proposed title. Referred by the Senate unanimously and by the House with a few Rs opposing.

Question 112 (full text here) - an amendment to the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions to allow more time to verify the petitions. Lege Council analysis here. Possibly the least bad measure up for consideration, but since the source is the legislature... Referred by the House and Senate with a few Rs (and one D) opposing.

Question 203 (full text here) - the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Lege Council analysis here. This is a good measure, so not surprisingly, this one is a citizen-based initiative, not a legislative-based one.

Question 301 (full text here) - zeroing out the Land Conservation Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why conserve land when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 302 (full text here) - repealing the Early Childhood Development and Health Fund and sweeping the money in the Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why work to ensure that Arizona's child get a healthy start to life when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate with all Ds and a couple of Rs opposing.

Not on the ballot as yet, and may not qualify for the ballot, but ones that the Lege Council has draft analyses for are -

- the End Photo Radar Initiative, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. What it sounds like.

- Prop 13 Arizona, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. Would institute strict limits on property taxes, hikes to property taxes, and increases to valuations of property.

Later...

Candidate challenges update: Shaw out, Cheuvront out; Huppenthal in

Only a couple of challenges remain unresolved, but most of the "big" ones have been adjudicated -

- Augustus Shaw, Republican House candidate in LD17, is OFF the ballot for a minor technicality - he lives in LD20. OK, so that's not so minor. :)

- John Huppenthal, Republican candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction is ON the ballot after a judge found that even though the applicable law states that a candidate must form a campaign committee before collecting nomination signatures, the fact that Huppenthal collected sigs under only an "exploratory" committee is not a violation.

- Democrat Ken Cheuvront, a term-limited state senator (LD15) and candidate for Justice of the Peace in the Encanto justice precinct in Phoenix, is OFF of the ballot for using non-partisan petitions to gain the ballot in a partisan primary. His removal from the ballot leaves only incumbent Encanto JP C. Steven McMurry on the ballot.

There are a couple of challenges remaining; once those are heard next week, the final list of ballot-qualified candidates will be available.

BP's Brown Water bringing out GOP's Brown Nosers

Ummm...BP pollutes thousands of square miles of the Gulf of Mexico and devastates the economies of states from Texas to Florida, and Republican Congressman Joe Barton, of *TEXAS*, apologizes to BP?

Why would he do something that jaw-droppingly dumb?

Best guess: Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

BTW - Barton has received over $16K in direct contributions from BP's PAC since 1997, and that number doesn't include money laundered donated to various GOP campaign committees (RNCC, RNC, etc.)

Barton's very public genuflection to the paymasters at BP should be worth a hefty payoff contribution this cycle.

Later...

Shaw campaign (D17) in more trouble

As if the challenge to his candidacy based on residency wasn't bad enough (hearing scheduled for downtown Phoenix on Thursday), the Augustus Shaw is facing the possiblity of thousands of dollars in fines arising from campaign finance law violations stemming from his failure to file campaign finance reports for his 2004 run for the Tempe City Council.

From the Phoenix New Times -

Augustus Shaw, a Republican running for State Legislature, failed to close out a political action committee he started when he ran for Tempe City Council in 2004, officials say.

Because of state campaign-finance laws, Shaw should have either terminated the PAC or filed finance reports each a year.

Because he's done neither since 2005, Tempe officials tell New Times, Shaw is on the hook for thousands of dollars in penalties.

Oops.

Stay tuned for results from tomorrow's hearing...

And Scottsdale wept...

Forbes.com has an article up, one discussing the movement of the wealthy around the country.

From the article -

Surprise: America's wealthy like warm weather and low taxes. That's the takeaway from IRS data, analyzed by Forbes, on moves between counties. We looked for counties that the rich are moving to in big numbers.

Topping the list: Collier County, Fla., which includes the city of Naples. Tax returns accounting for 15,150 people showed moves to Collier County from other parts of the country in 2008, the latest year for which IRS data is available. Their average reported income: $76,161 per person--equivalent to $304,644 for a family of four.

A slide show of the top 35 counties for the inflow of wealth is here.

Upshot of it all:

Even with some of the lowest taxes and nicest weather in the country, Scottsdale and Maricopa County don't make the cut.

And given that the economic development "plan" here is "find people who have made a bundle elsewhere, entice them to move here, and then to spend as much of their bundle here before they kick", something isn't working.

Something's working in Colorado, New Mexico, Washington, Texas, Montana, and Idaho, but not here.

Something is working all over the eastern seaboard, but not here.

It's even working in parts of California (now that's something that runs counter to the AZGOP's no taxes/no regulation orthodoxy), but not here.

Perhaps it's time to consider Plan B. Plan A isn't working.

Tony Nelssen's widow Marg appointed to finish out his term

...I can't say "the fix was in" (at this point in time, I don't have any evidence that tonight's events were other than above-board and honest) but her public comment before the selection process even took place sounded a lot like a victory speech.

Plus, when her name was not drawn out of the hat by City Clerk Carolyn Jagger (eliminating the candidate whose name was drawn), absolutely no one looked surprised.

It was clear from the outset that the favored candidate among the various residents of who turned out for the meeting was Marg Nelssen - ten people, including Nelssen herself, spoke in support of appointing Nelssen to the Council; none spoke in support of another candidate.

The main argument in favor of Nelssen's appointment seemed to be (I'm paraphrasing here) "Marg is Tony's wife, so she deserves it. Anything else would be disrespectful to the people who voted him into office in the first place."

Certain speakers spent some of their time and rhetoric excoriating three members of the Council (Ecton, Klapp, and McCullagh) for "playing politics." One speaker accused them of "selling their souls."

Of course, all of the speakers ignored the fact that the whole "appoint Marg" theme was a shameless political ploy by the Lane clique to regain a fourth vote, and a majority, on the Council.

In addition to that, Mayor Jim Lane not only expressed his support for Nelssen (something that he has a right to do), he ran the meeting in a way to encourage public pressure on the three Council members who opposed his moved to shoehorn Marg Nelssen onto the Council last week. The normal practice is to ask visitors to not applaud and to gavel it down whenever applause erupts. Tonight, applause was allowed to go on unchecked.

During the meaty part of the proceedings, four people were nominated to fill the vacancy -

Councilwoman Lisa Borowsky nominated Jay Petkunas, a member of the Planning Commission in Scottsdale

Councilwoman Suzanne Klapp nominated Jim Bruner, a former member of the Council and the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors

Councilman Wayne Ecton also nominated Bruner

Councilman Bob Littlefield nominated Marg Nelssen

Councilman Ron McCullagh passed, with most observers figuring that he was on board with the Bruner nomination. He was, as votes later in the meeting proved.

Mayor Jim Lane expressed his support for the nomination of Nelssen. However, to maintain the illusion (an illusion that no one in the audience bought into, by the way) that the nomination process wasn't going to end in a 3 - 3 tie with the names of the finalist put into a hat, he nominated one Richard Acton (possible incorrect name and/or spelling there).

After a brief round of votes, the choices came down to Nelssen and Bruner, who each received three votes. Littlefield, Lane, and Borowsky supported Nelssen; Klapp, Ecton, and McCullagh supported Bruner.

However, four votes were needed to win the seat.

As such, the two remaining names were placed in a hat, with the name drawn from the hat being the candidate eliminated from consideration. When that name was announced as Jim Bruner's, the most of those assembled burst out in raucous cheers.

Nelssen will be sworn into office next week.


Nelssen may ultimately turn out to be a fine member of the Council, but I have to ask one question to the "give it to Marg! Tony's wife *should* take his place!" crowd" -

If Bill Clinton had died in office, how many of you would have argued "give it to Hillary! Bill's wife *should* take his place!"?


Later...

Candidate challenges: updates

Update to the update at the end of the post...

There were a number of challenges to state-level candidates filed last week, and they are starting to be heard in court.

The complete list of challenges, from the Secretary of State's office, here.

Going down the list -

Tom Gordon, GOP candidate for Governor - withdrawn

Joe Penalosa, GOP candidate in CD4, challenged by another GOP candidate - challenge overruled. He will appear on the primary ballot. Coverage from the Phoenix New Times here.

Anna Maria Brennan, GOP candidate for state senate in LD11 - withdrawn.

John Kowalski, GOP House candidate in LD6 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

William Wallace, Democratic House candidate in LD26 - hearing scheduled for today, then rescheduled for tomorrow. A call to the number on his website brought forth a statement that he is withdrawing from the race.

Augustus Shaw, GOP House candidate in LD17. Hearing scheduled for Thursday. Said he was thinking of withdrawing before vowing to fight the good fight. Grab some popcorn for this one.

Bob Thomas, GOP Senate candidate in LD15 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

Anthony Goshorn, Green House candidate in LD17 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

W. John Williamson, Democratic House candidate in LD8 - hearing scheduled for Friday.

Sharon Spane, Democratic House candidate in LD21 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

John Huppenthal, GOP candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction - hearing scheduled for Friday. He will probably stretch this out to the very end, but his credibility as a candidate for the state's top educator is cratering. More popcorn for this one. Lots more.

Scott Bergren, GOP House candidate in LD21 - withdrawn.

Joseph Sweeney, GOP Congressional candidate in CD7 - hearing scheduled for Thursday.

Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor - hearing scheduled for Wednesday.

Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for State Mine Inspector - hearing scheduled for next Monday.

Dave Ewoldt, Independent State Senate candidate in LD28. This one is in Pima County Superior Court, and I couldn't find any info online.

Complete list of withdrawn/removed candidates, courtesy the AZSOS' website, here; write-in candidates here.

More updates as they become available...

Note: I attempted to link to the actual case info where possible from the Maricopa County Superior Court's website, but apparently their website isn't designed with static addresses for their online documents. Apologies.

Edit to update the update: W. John Williamson, Democrat in LD8, has withdrawn; the cases against Larry Gist, Green candidate for Governor, and Manuel Cruz, Democratic candidate for Mine Inspector, have been dismissed and those candidates will be on the ballot.

McCain moving farther right as the campaign wears on

To follow up on his joining JD Hayworth on the nativist train, now McCain is partying with noted anti-Semites.

Pics courtesy Blue Virginia -

The highlight here is the name of one of the "hosts," Fred Malek.

Many years ago, Malek was an operative in the Nixon-era White House. One of his more eye-opening raisons d'etre while there was to count (and purge?) Jewish employees of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

The appearance with Malek isn't much of a surprise - Malek was a big part of McCain's unsuccessful bid for the Presidency. Still, this move, drinking for dollars with noted anti-Semites like Malek (as well as Governor Bob "slavery wasn't part of the Confederacy" McDonnell), only serves to remind voters that McCain has far more in common with J.D. "worship Nazi Henry Ford" Hayworth than he has to separate himself from Hayworth.

Washington Post coverage of the fundraiser (taking place in just a few hours) here.

Later...

Candidate debates start this week

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission will begin holding debates for candidates who have chosen to accept campaign funding from the CCEC. Participation in the debates is a condition of accepting the funding.

"Traditional" candidates are invited to the debates, though they are under no obligation to attend. Most choose to do so, especially in races where the traditionally-financed candidate(s) aren't the favorite, such as in the race for the Republican nomination for Governor.

Note: A phone call to Buz Mills' campaign HQ confirmed that he is planning to participate in the debate, as is Matt Jette, the dark horse candidate on the R side of the ballot.

It appears this year that the CCEC debates for statewide candidates won't be open to the public as they will be televised on KAET's Horizon.

The R Governor's candidate debate will air on June 15 (tomorrow) at 7 p.m.

Up next week: the Attorney General debates, with the Republican debate airing June 22 (next Tuesday) and the Democratic debate airing the following evening (both at 7 p.m.)

The complete schedule for statewide candidates can be found here; legislative candidate debate schedule here. Many do *not* have a primary period debate because there is no contest in the primary.

Up this week in legislative debates:

LD11:

June 14, 2010 (tonight!!)

Republican Candidates Senate and House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Embassy Suite Paradise Valley
4415 E Paradise Village Parkway South
Phoenix, AZ 85032

LD19:

June 15, 2010

Republican Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Country Inn and Suites
6650 E Superstition Springs Blvd
Mesa, AZ 85206

LD23:

June 16, 2010

Republican Senate Candidates
Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Holiday Inn Casa Grande
777 N Pinal Ave
Casa Grande, AZ 85122

LD13:

June 17, 2010

Democrat Candidates House of Representatives
6:00 PM - 8:00 PM
Hilton Garden Inn
11460 W Hilton Way
Avondale, AZ 85323

Residency issues threaten candidacy of Republican in LD17

From the Arizona Capitol Times -

Sixteen challenges were filed in Maricopa County Superior Court against candidates’ nominating petitions, including allegations that Sen. John Huppenthal collected thousands of invalid signatures and that House candidate Augustus Shaw lives in wrong legislative district.

{snip}

The challenge against Shaw, a Republican seeking a District 17 House seat, claims he is ineligble for office in that district because he actually lives in District 20. A private investigator hired by the law firm Perkins, Coie, Brown & Bain, which is closely associated with the Arizona Democratic Party, reported that during three days of surveillance he witnessed Shaw at his home in District 20, but never at the District 17 home where he lists as his address.

District 20 takes in Ahwatukee, west Chandler and southwest Tempe, while District 17 is comprised of north Tempe and south Scottsdale.

In the Cap Times article, Shaw went on to rationalize the "move" as done to help his autistic son. He claimed that the "move" has been in the works for nearly a year and that he has already moved in with his in-laws (the LD17 address listed on his paperwork).

In spite of Shaw's protestations, it appears that his "move" was a paperwork-only one, done to establish his residency in LD17.

According to the Arizona Guardian article on this topic, Shaw was observed walking his dog and going to stores in the neighborhood of his LD20 home, but was never at the LD17 address listed on his campaign paperwork.

Oops.

This isn't exactly the first time that Shaw has been accused of being a little lax in his ability to follow the basic rules of professionalism or even simple honesty.

In 2006, he was reprimanded by a judge for overstepping the bounds of decorum (and fact!) in his communications with a homeowner/member in an HOA that he represented. More on Shaw's activities here, courtesy the Phoenix New Times.

In 2004, he ran for Tempe City Council. He gained access to the ballot then by persuading local Democratic activists to circulate his nominating petitions. After his petitions were completed, he changed his partisan registration to Republican.

Not exactly the sort of thing that endears a candidate to voters of any political persuasion - Shaw eventually lost to long-time Republican Hut Hutson in the (officially, anyway) non-partisan race.

By 2008 however, he had convinced the AZGOP of his R bonafides, winning election to the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman position.

Which brings us to something else that further strains the credibility of Mr. Shaw.

The bylaws of the AZGOP are a closely-held document (at least, they aren't available on the AZGOP's website or anywhere else that I could find online, while the Arizona Democratic Party's bylaws are available on the ADP's website), and could vary significantly from the ADP's, but it seems likely that there will be similarities between the bylaws of the organizations, at least in basic structure.

In the ADP, one must be a precinct committeeman (PC) before becoming a member of the State Committee, and be a member of the State Committee before becoming an officer of the State Committee.

If a PC moves from his/her precinct, they lose their PC slot, and if a state committee member moves from the district he/she was elected from, they lose their position on the state committee.

Augustus Shaw has claimed to do both, move from his original precinct (Tempe 60) and his legislative district (LD20).

Yet apparently, the AZGOP is convinced that he remains in good standing as a Republican PC from LD20, because he is still listed as the AZGOP's 1st Vice Chairman.

BTW - It's the practice in the ADP for a party officer to resign their position if they choose to run for public office, partly out of concern that the necessarily focused self-interest of a candidate could conflict with the broad duties of a party officer.

Apparently2, the AZGOP doesn't take issue with such potential conflicts of interest.

Anyway, the challenge to Shaw's candidacy is scheduled to be heard on Thursday in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Caveat to the above: The GOP's bylaws could be more flexible than the ADP's in this regard. If anyone has a .pdf copy of the most recent AZGOP bylaws, feel free to forward them to me. Thank you.

Later...

The melodrama continues in Scottsdale politics

When Councilman Tony Nelssen succumbed to cancer, he left a vacancy on the Scottsdale City Council.

The City Charter clearly states that the remaining members of the Council shall appoint a replacement, but no procedure for doing so is specified. As such, things can get a little creative on those occasions when an appointment is necessary.

This was seen at last Tuesday's meeting, which took place on the same day as Nelssen's memorial service. There, Mayor Jim Lane tried to use the emotions of the day to guilt the Council into immediately appointing Nelssen's widow, Marg, to fill the vacancy on the Council.

The move failed on a 3 - 3 tie vote. Lane, Bob Littlefield, and Lisa Borowsky were in favor; Suzanne Klapp, Ron McCullagh, and Wayne Ecton were opposed. That's the normal breakdown when controversial issues go before the Council, and before his death, Nelssen was the fourth vote in the Lane clique.

In the linked AZ Republic article, Lane is quoted as calling the votes of McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton an "affront." Many of the commenters on the article agreed with that, calling McCullagh, Klapp, and Ecton "boorish," "grasping," "wankers," and more.

I know certain readers are going to disagree with me on this, but NO, not even close.

If anyone involved was "boorish" it was Lane for trying to take advantage of the genuine grief that many in the city feel over the loss of Tony Nelssen in a shameless attempt to reload the Council with a lockstep majority in his favor.

If Lane had simply waited a week, he would have appeared to be a compassionate and wise (almost statesman-like) public servant instead of a cynical political operative.

As it is, the appointment of a replacement will happen this week (Tuesday, 4 p.m., City Hall Kiva), and it will take place without the public viewing the proceedings through grief-tinged lenses.

Right now, it looks as if each remaining member of the Council will nominate someone to fill the open seat, and a series of votes will be taken. Sources expect (as do I) that when the listof candidates is winnowed down to two candidates, the Council will reach an impasse (aka - another 3 - 3 split) and the names of the two finalists will be placed in a hat with the seat going to whichever name is drawn from the hat.

Also expected (though not guaranteed): Marg Nelssen will be one of the finalists. She has expressed in interest in being one of the candidates, and after last week's very public moon shot by Lane, he is too wedded to the idea of appointing her for him to move his support to someone else.

Tuesday's meeting should be the most openly contentious one of the year, and should provide *lots* of writing material. :)

See you there...

"Defending Arizona" - Congressman Harry Mitchell on border and immigration issues

From an email to the Congressman's constituents -

Our state continues to pay a heavy and unfair price for the federal government’s failure to secure our borders and fix our broken immigration system. The federal government has a responsibility to act – it simply hasn't done so – and Arizona continues to shoulder the burden.

As you know, illegal immigration affects Arizona more than it does any other state – more than half of all illegal crossings over the U.S.-Mexico border happen here in Arizona. Specifically, here in the Valley, this has enabled smugglers and Mexican drug cartels to set up vast networks of drop houses, which operate as gateway stations for their illegal activities. The crime and violence associated with these drop houses is tragic and completely unacceptable. Upon being elected to Congress, I asked for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation into federal efforts to identify and remove criminal aliens and combat drop houses. This has been a multi-year investigation, of which we expect the results to be presented this summer.

This is also why last month I introduced a bill with Republican Rep. Dana Rohrbacher of California to help secure our border. H.R. 5357, The Deploy National Guard Troops to the Border Act, would immediately deploy a minimum of an additional 3,000 National Guard troops to Arizona's border.

The National Guard has successfully assisted with border security in the past. Operation Jump Start, which concluded its mission in 2008 proved remarkably effective. Border-wide, the National Guard helped seize more than 1,080 vehicles used to transport drugs and/or illegal immigrants, more than 300,600 pounds of marijuana, and 5,060 pounds of cocaine.

I thought the National Guard was drawn down too quickly in 2008 and urged President Bush to extend the deployment of National Guard troops – to no avail. At the time, I offered legislation at the time to stop the draw down from happening, but it was defeated. I’ve also urged President Obama on multiple occasions to send additional National Guard troops to the border and teamed up with Republican Rep. Brian Bilbray of California last year to secure millions of dollars in additional funding for security improvements at the border.

While I welcome the President’s recent announcement that he will be sending an additional 1,200 National Guard troops to the border, I believe we need much more. That is why I hope Congress will take the next step by passing our bill while working on a more comprehensive, permanent fix.

Arizonans should have their voices heard in this debate and recent action taken by the state reflects Arizonans’ ongoing frustration with the federal government’s failure to enact tough, realistic immigration reform. The situation cannot wait simply because this is an election year, while folks in Washington choose to play politics rather than provide solutions. This is an urgent threat to our national security, and I believe the federal government must act.

A broken and ineffectual immigration system is a burden Arizonans should not have to continue to bear alone.

Sincerely,

Harry

Mitchell's statement on the introduction of H.R. 5357 can be found here in the Congressional Record.