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.

President Obama's address on the combat mission in Iraq

Shamelessly copied and pasted from the White House's website -



The text of the speech, also courtesy of the White House's website -

Good evening. Tonight, I’d like to talk to you about the end of our combat mission in Iraq, the ongoing security challenges we face, and the need to rebuild our nation here at home.


I know this historic moment comes at a time of great uncertainty for many Americans. We’ve now been through nearly a decade of war. We’ve endured a long and painful recession. And sometimes in the midst of these storms, the future that we’re trying to build for our nation -- a future of lasting peace and long-term prosperity -- may seem beyond our reach.

But this milestone should serve as a reminder to all Americans that the future is ours to shape if we move forward with confidence and commitment. It should also serve as a message to the world that the United States of America intends to sustain and strengthen our leadership in this young century.

From this desk, seven and a half years ago, President Bush announced the beginning of military operations in Iraq. Much has changed since that night. A war to disarm a state became a fight against an insurgency. Terrorism and sectarian warfare threatened to tear Iraq apart. Thousands of Americans gave their lives; tens of thousands have been wounded. Our relations abroad were strained. Our unity at home was tested.

These are the rough waters encountered during the course of one of America’s longest wars. Yet there has been one constant amidst these shifting tides. At every turn, America’s men and women in uniform have served with courage and resolve. As Commander-in-Chief, I am incredibly proud of their service. And like all Americans, I’m awed by their sacrifice, and by the sacrifices of their families.

The Americans who have served in Iraq completed every mission they were given. They defeated a regime that had terrorized its people. Together with Iraqis and coalition partners who made huge sacrifices of their own, our troops fought block by block to help Iraq seize the chance for a better future. They shifted tactics to protect the Iraqi people, trained Iraqi Security Forces, and took out terrorist leaders. Because of our troops and civilians -- and because of the resilience of the Iraqi people -- Iraq has the opportunity to embrace a new destiny, even though many challenges remain.

So tonight, I am announcing that the American combat mission in Iraq has ended. Operation Iraqi Freedom is over, and the Iraqi people now have lead responsibility for the security of their country.

This was my pledge to the American people as a candidate for this office. Last February, I announced a plan that would bring our combat brigades out of Iraq, while redoubling our efforts to strengthen Iraq’s Security Forces and support its government and people.

That’s what we’ve done. We’ve removed nearly 100,000 U.S. troops from Iraq. We’ve closed or transferred to the Iraqis hundreds of bases. And we have moved millions of pieces of equipment out of Iraq.

This completes a transition to Iraqi responsibility for their own security. U.S. troops pulled out of Iraq’s cities last summer, and Iraqi forces have moved into the lead with considerable skill and commitment to their fellow citizens. Even as Iraq continues to suffer terrorist attacks, security incidents have been near the lowest on record since the war began. And Iraqi forces have taken the fight to al Qaeda, removing much of its leadership in Iraqi-led operations.

This year also saw Iraq hold credible elections that drew a strong turnout. A caretaker administration is in place as Iraqis form a government based on the results of that election. Tonight, I encourage Iraq’s leaders to move forward with a sense of urgency to form an inclusive government that is just, representative, and accountable to the Iraqi people. And when that government is in place, there should be no doubt: The Iraqi people will have a strong partner in the United States. Our combat mission is ending, but our commitment to Iraq’s future is not.

Going forward, a transitional force of U.S. troops will remain in Iraq with a different mission: advising and assisting Iraq’s Security Forces, supporting Iraqi troops in targeted counterterrorism missions, and protecting our civilians. Consistent with our agreement with the Iraqi government, all U.S. troops will leave by the end of next year. As our military draws down, our dedicated civilians -- diplomats, aid workers, and advisors -- are moving into the lead to support Iraq as it strengthens its government, resolves political disputes, resettles those displaced by war, and builds ties with the region and the world. That’s a message that Vice President Biden is delivering to the Iraqi people through his visit there today.

This new approach reflects our long-term partnership with Iraq -- one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect. Of course, violence will not end with our combat mission. Extremists will continue to set off bombs, attack Iraqi civilians and try to spark sectarian strife. But ultimately, these terrorists will fail to achieve their goals. Iraqis are a proud people. They have rejected sectarian war, and they have no interest in endless destruction. They understand that, in the end, only Iraqis can resolve their differences and police their streets. Only Iraqis can build a democracy within their borders. What America can do, and will do, is provide support for the Iraqi people as both a friend and a partner.

Ending this war is not only in Iraq’s interest -- it’s in our own. The United States has paid a huge price to put the future of Iraq in the hands of its people. We have sent our young men and women to make enormous sacrifices in Iraq, and spent vast resources abroad at a time of tight budgets at home. We’ve persevered because of a belief we share with the Iraqi people -- a belief that out of the ashes of war, a new beginning could be born in this cradle of civilization. Through this remarkable chapter in the history of the United States and Iraq, we have met our responsibility. Now, it’s time to turn the page.

As we do, I’m mindful that the Iraq war has been a contentious issue at home. Here, too, it’s time to turn the page. This afternoon, I spoke to former President George W. Bush. It’s well known that he and I disagreed about the war from its outset. Yet no one can doubt President Bush’s support for our troops, or his love of country and commitment to our security. As I’ve said, there were patriots who supported this war, and patriots who opposed it. And all of us are united in appreciation for our servicemen and women, and our hopes for Iraqis’ future.

The greatness of our democracy is grounded in our ability to move beyond our differences, and to learn from our experience as we confront the many challenges ahead. And no challenge is more essential to our security than our fight against al Qaeda.

Americans across the political spectrum supported the use of force against those who attacked us on 9/11. Now, as we approach our 10th year of combat in Afghanistan, there are those who are understandably asking tough questions about our mission there. But we must never lose sight of what’s at stake. As we speak, al Qaeda continues to plot against us, and its leadership remains anchored in the border regions of Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will disrupt, dismantle and defeat al Qaeda, while preventing Afghanistan from again serving as a base for terrorists. And because of our drawdown in Iraq, we are now able to apply the resources necessary to go on offense. In fact, over the last 19 months, nearly a dozen al Qaeda leaders -- and hundreds of al Qaeda’s extremist allies -- have been killed or captured around the world.

Within Afghanistan, I’ve ordered the deployment of additional troops who -- under the command of General David Petraeus -- are fighting to break the Taliban’s momentum.

As with the surge in Iraq, these forces will be in place for a limited time to provide space for the Afghans to build their capacity and secure their own future. But, as was the case in Iraq, we can’t do for Afghans what they must ultimately do for themselves. That’s why we’re training Afghan Security Forces and supporting a political resolution to Afghanistan’s problems. And next August, we will begin a transition to Afghan responsibility. The pace of our troop reductions will be determined by conditions on the ground, and our support for Afghanistan will endure. But make no mistake: This transition will begin -- because open-ended war serves neither our interests nor the Afghan people’s.

Indeed, one of the lessons of our effort in Iraq is that American influence around the world is not a function of military force alone. We must use all elements of our power -- including our diplomacy, our economic strength, and the power of America’s example -- to secure our interests and stand by our allies. And we must project a vision of the future that’s based not just on our fears, but also on our hopes -- a vision that recognizes the real dangers that exist around the world, but also the limitless possibilities of our time.

Today, old adversaries are at peace, and emerging democracies are potential partners. New markets for our goods stretch from Asia to the Americas. A new push for peace in the Middle East will begin here tomorrow. Billions of young people want to move beyond the shackles of poverty and conflict. As the leader of the free world, America will do more than just defeat on the battlefield those who offer hatred and destruction -- we will also lead among those who are willing to work together to expand freedom and opportunity for all people.

Now, that effort must begin within our own borders. Throughout our history, America has been willing to bear the burden of promoting liberty and human dignity overseas, understanding its links to our own liberty and security. But we have also understood that our nation’s strength and influence abroad must be firmly anchored in our prosperity at home. And the bedrock of that prosperity must be a growing middle class.

Unfortunately, over the last decade, we’ve not done what’s necessary to shore up the foundations of our own prosperity. We spent a trillion dollars at war, often financed by borrowing from overseas. This, in turn, has short-changed investments in our own people, and contributed to record deficits. For too long, we have put off tough decisions on everything from our manufacturing base to our energy policy to education reform. As a result, too many middle-class families find themselves working harder for less, while our nation’s long-term competitiveness is put at risk.

And so at this moment, as we wind down the war in Iraq, we must tackle those challenges at home with as much energy, and grit, and sense of common purpose as our men and women in uniform who have served abroad. They have met every test that they faced. Now, it’s our turn. Now, it’s our responsibility to honor them by coming together, all of us, and working to secure the dream that so many generations have fought for -- the dream that a better life awaits anyone who is willing to work for it and reach for it.

Our most urgent task is to restore our economy, and put the millions of Americans who have lost their jobs back to work. To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve, and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jumpstart industries that create jobs, and end our dependence on foreign oil. We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines, and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs. This will be difficult. But in the days to come, it must be our central mission as a people, and my central responsibility as President.

Part of that responsibility is making sure that we honor our commitments to those who have served our country with such valor. As long as I am President, we will maintain the finest fighting force that the world has ever known, and we will do whatever it takes to serve our veterans as well as they have served us. This is a sacred trust. That’s why we’ve already made one of the largest increases in funding for veterans in decades. We’re treating the signature wounds of today’s wars -- post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury -- while providing the health care and benefits that all of our veterans have earned. And we’re funding a Post-9/11 GI Bill that helps our veterans and their families pursue the dream of a college education. Just as the GI Bill helped those who fought World War II -- including my grandfather -- become the backbone of our middle class, so today’s servicemen and women must have the chance to apply their gifts to expand the American economy. Because part of ending a war responsibly is standing by those who have fought it.

Two weeks ago, America’s final combat brigade in Iraq -- the Army’s Fourth Stryker Brigade -- journeyed home in the pre-dawn darkness. Thousands of soldiers and hundreds of vehicles made the trip from Baghdad, the last of them passing into Kuwait in the early morning hours. Over seven years before, American troops and coalition partners had fought their way across similar highways, but this time no shots were fired. It was just a convoy of brave Americans, making their way home.

Of course, the soldiers left much behind. Some were teenagers when the war began. Many have served multiple tours of duty, far from families who bore a heroic burden of their own, enduring the absence of a husband’s embrace or a mother’s kiss. Most painfully, since the war began, 55 members of the Fourth Stryker Brigade made the ultimate sacrifice -- part of over 4,400 Americans who have given their lives in Iraq. As one staff sergeant said, “I know that to my brothers in arms who fought and died, this day would probably mean a lot.”

Those Americans gave their lives for the values that have lived in the hearts of our people for over two centuries. Along with nearly 1.5 million Americans who have served in Iraq, they fought in a faraway place for people they never knew. They stared into the darkest of human creations -- war -- and helped the Iraqi people seek the light of peace.

In an age without surrender ceremonies, we must earn victory through the success of our partners and the strength of our own nation. Every American who serves joins an unbroken line of heroes that stretches from Lexington to Gettysburg; from Iwo Jima to Inchon; from Khe Sanh to Kandahar -- Americans who have fought to see that the lives of our children are better than our own. Our troops are the steel in our ship of state. And though our nation may be travelling through rough waters, they give us confidence that our course is true, and that beyond the pre-dawn darkness, better days lie ahead.

Thank you. May God bless you. And may God bless the United States of America, and all who serve her.

Later...

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...

Maricopa County community colleges sued for discriminating against *legal* immigrants

Ummm...don't the defenders of SB1070 in the legislature and the other nativists in Arizona like to say that they aren't opposed to all immigrants, just "illegal" ones?

From AP via the Arizona Republic (I don't normally quote MSM articles in their entirety, but this one is very short) -

The Justice Department has filed a lawsuit against the Maricopa County Community College District alleging it engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in hiring authorized non-citizens.

The Justice Department says its investigation revealed that Maricopa Community Colleges required all newly hired non-citizens to present additional work authorization documents beyond those required by law, but did not require U.S. citizens to do so.

The Immigration and Nationality Act requires employers to treat authorized workers in the same manner during the hiring process, regardless of their citizenship status.

District spokesman Tom Gariepy says the district has no comment because the matter is in litigation

This development, on top of last week's resignation of MCCCD Governing Board member Colleen Clark (interesting timing, that) should make for some interesting discussions at the Board's next meeting, whether that occurs at the next regularly scheduled meeting on September 28 or if one is scheduled  in the interim.

Now the attitude of contempt toward the "the other" that suffuses political discourse and practical governance at the upper reaches of Arizona's political food chain (state and county versions) has made its way to lower levels.
It seems that in Arizona, the Republicans embrace both "trickle down economics" and "trickle down bigotry."

Is Jan Brewer setting up a run for President?

Let's see -

- Alabama's then-Governor (and staunch segregationist) George Wallace objected to the federal Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act in the 1960s.

- Arizona Governor (and staunch nativist) Jan Brewer has objected to the inclusion of SB1070 and Arizona in the Universal Periodic Review report submitted to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

- George Wallace ran for President in 1964, 1968, 1972, and 1976.

- Jan Brewer should have some free time on her hands after Terry Goddard wins the election in November, so....?


Yeah, I know this is a bit of a cheap shot (more of a spleen vent than an actual post), but with Brewer's whole-hearted embrace of the nativist wing of the AZGOP, spewing of frightening rhetoric (beheadings, anyone?), and enthusiastic obliviousness to the threat presented by three murderers with ties to white supremacists who escaped from a private prison in Kingman, she's become an embarrassment to the state.

Enough already.

Elect Terry Goddard, if only to keep Arizona off of The Daily Show.


Note: I love watching The Daily Show.  I don't love watching Arizona on The Daily Show.

Fun with campaign signs

It hasn't even been a week, and the Schweikert campaign dirty tricks have already started...

Sighted on the northeast corner of 48th St. and Chandler Boulevard today -

And in case anyone questions the source of the signs...

There were others, calling Mitchell "union owned" and more.  The ones I saw were also located in the 48th St. corridor.

This technique, putting up "counter" or "insult" signs next to an opposition candidate's signs, is hardly a new one, but it had fallen into some disfavor over the last few election cycles.  It cropped up a little during the primary season, and with this, it's evident that certain campaigns are digging deep into the bag of dirty tricks (more on that tomorrow).

It's generally a waste of money because the primary audience for them has already made their choice.  In other words, it's "preaching to the choir" time.  In addition, in the case of the above sign, most undecided voters won't know who "Pelosi" is, or why being associated with "Pelosi" is supposed to be a bad thing (though I happen to think it is a good thing, but I'm just a wiseass liberal blogger :) ).

It's rather telling that Schweikert has started his general election campaign with dirty tricks with signs coordinated "coincidentally timed"** with Americans for Prosperity television attacks on Harry Mitchell.  Most campaigns try to start off on a positive note, trying to educate voters on why they should vote *for* their candidate, not why they should vote *against* their opposition.

However, the Schweikert platform mainly consists of "tax cuts for the wealthy and no regulations for corporations," which aren't exactly strong planks in an area as economically distressed as Arizona.  As such, he has no recourse but to go negative early in the general election cycle.

Look for more stunts like this one or last cycle's mailer where Schweikert claimed to have the endorsement of the Arizona Republic.  He *had* received such an endorsement.

For another race.

Years before.


Anyway, I suppose I have to give the Schweikert campaign some credit -"Pelosi's Lap Dog" may not be the truth, but it is probably more beneficial to his campaign than the actual truth -

"CD5's Champion."


** = The AFP spots are "independent expenditures" and cannot be coordinated with a candidate committee.  Given the lead time on both creating signs and TV spots, the timing of both the signs and the TV spots could reasonably inspire some raised eyebrows.  However, suspicions aren't direct knowledge that AFP and the Schweikert campaign coordinated the roll out of both.

KNXV-TV (Phoenix channel 15) coverage here.

Billionaire wingers from New York trying to buy elections in Arizona

Since Tuesday's primary results came in, showing David Schweikert to be the Republican nominee in CD5, television viewers have been inundated with ads deriding Democrats in general and Representatives Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick in particular. 

The spots are the product of a Republican front organization named "Americans for Prosperity." (AFP)(The spot specifically targeting Mitchell and Kirkpatrick is here.  I won't embed it here, but will be referring to it later. :) )

AFP is dedicated to protecting the short-term financial interests of large corporations and the ultra-wealthy, organizing and funding campaigns against health care reform, efforts to address climate change, tobacco regulations, balanced state budgets, and anything resembling a social safety net (like Social Security).  It has also played a big part in funnelling money and direction to the tea party movement within the Republican Party.

As this article from The New Yorker documents, AFP is the brainchild of David Koch who, with his brother Charles, owns almost all of Koch Industries, one of the country's biggest polluters (hence their opposition to industry/environmental regulations).  Aside from AFP, the Koch brothers are literally two of the biggest contributors to Republican/corporate causes, donating approximately $100 million over the years.

That's all just background to the latest attack ads that they are bombing Arizonans with.

The spot that targets Harry Mitchell and Ann Kirkpatrick specifically has, shall we say, a rather "weak" relationship with the truth (focusing on the Mitchell-related stuff) -

Lie:  The spot refers to Mitchell as a "Washington liberal."

Reality: Mitchell was born and raised in Tempe.  He married his high school sweetheart there and has lived in the same house in Tempe for almost 50 years.  He taught at Tempe High for 28 years.  He served Tempe (and Scottsdale and the rest of CD5) as a member of the City Council, Mayor, State Senator, and Congressman for almost 40 years.

Reality: Harry Mitchell is hardly a "liberal" (a fact that occasionally infuriates actual liberals in CD5, like yours truly :) ).  Don't take my word for it - the liberal group Americans for Democratic Action graded Mitchell's voting record as 60% liberal, with the average Democratic grade as 85% and fellow AZers Pastor and Grijalva at 100%.  Mitchell is one of an ever-shrinking group in Congress - the moderates.


Lie: When Harry Mitchell voted in support of the health care reform, he voted for something that will cost a trillion dollars,balloon the federal deficit, limit medical choices, and gut Medicare.

Reality: HCR will reduce the federal deficit by $143 million, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

Reality: According to WebMD, HCR doesn't limit choice any more than the current system does.

Reality: According to the AARP (hardly a partisan organization), HCR actually strengthens Medicare by, among other things, reducing prescription costs for seniors.

Reality:  David Schweikert, the AFP-supported Republican candidate in CD5, is actually the candidate in the race who supports Republican Representative Paul Ryan's plan for privatizing Social Security and ending Medicare.


Lie (or fib, at least): Arizonans "overwhelmingly" oppose HCR.

Reality: They are citing a poll from Rasmussen Reports.  Rasmussen is known for being somewhat biased and partisan, favoring Republican positions in their polling results. (OK, if the RNC decided to say that Magellan and centuries of scientific observations are wrong and the world is actually flat, Rasmussen would come out with a poll that says that 70% of Americans agree...but I digress :) ).

Reality: More objective polling organizations, such as Gallup, show that the country is sharply divided on the issue.


Lie: The spot claims that Mitchell votes for the positions and interests of Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democratic leadership, ahead of the interests of Arizonans.

Reality: As this Washington Post study shows, Mitchell is the sixth-most independent member of Congress, voting with his party's leadership less than 80% of the time.  He's easily the most independent member of the AZ delegation, Republican or Democrat.


...OK, that's just the wonky, facts-centered stuff.

The juicy, gossipy stuff from analyzing the ad is this -

One of the actors in the spot (pic from the spot below), Greg from Scottsdale (I think)

is "sort of" well known within local tea party circles -

Not just a paid demonstrator/actor he. 

He's a true believer and has a website where he offers to "coach" interested folks on living his philosophy...over the phone...at $45 per hour.

Gotta pay for the photoshopped photos of President Obama in white-face somehow...

AFP and the Koch brothers may think this guy and David Schweikert are typical CD5ers, but they lens through which they view Arizona is a rather long one (Oklahoma, D.C., and NYC) and rather scratched.

Of course, with Schweikert's penchant for vulture investing, picking the bones of desperate Arizona homeowners, Schweikert is probably what they *hope* the typical CD5er is like.

Harry Mitchell, with his lifetime in and dedication to Arizona, is far more representative of CD5.

Friday Night Videos

When I was younger (a year or two ago :) ), one of the coolest shows on broadcast TV was NBC's Friday Night Videos.

OK, it was "cool" for people who didn't have cable and access to MTV back when they took the "M" in "MTV" seriously and still played music...but I digress... :))

So it is with that as background, I announce the start of a new series of posts.

Once per week, on Friday nights, I'll feature the best in new political videos (What?  You were expecting Lady Gaga or Katy Perry?  ...not that a Katy Perry vid would be a bad thing...something to think about for after the election cycle is over... :) )

For the premiere video in this series (drumroll, please)...

Vulture, featuring David Schweikert.



More info at Your loss, his gain.

Brewer campaigning on wishful thinking. Now she's insisting that Arizona's economy is healthy.

From the Arizona Republic -

Gov. Jan Brewer and Attorney General Terry Goddard, fresh off primary-election victories this week, shared the podium at the annual League of Arizona Cities and Towns meeting Thursday, painting completely opposite pictures of the state's economy and direction.

Brewer, a Republican, and Goddard, a Democrat, are vying for election to the Governor's Office in November.

In her remarks, Brewer described Arizona as a state in the midst of a comeback and touted her economic-development efforts and her work to bring thousands of new jobs to the region.

Ummm...just a few numbers for everybody's perusal -

From the Bureau of Labor Statistics:

Arizona's unemployment rate in January 2009 (when Brewer ascended to the governor's office): 8.0%
Arizona's unemployment rate in July 2010 (the month with the most current info available): 9.6%

Number of unemployed people in Arizona in January 2009 - 252,224
Number of unemployed people in Arizona in July 2010 - 305,941


From the US Courts website:

Number of Arizona bankruptcy filings for the quarter ending December 31, 2008 (the last period before Brewer became governor): 5,792

Number of Arizona bankruptcy filings for the quarter ending March 31, 2010 (the most recent period for which data is available): 9,652


From the website of Arizona Indicators, from the Morrison Institute for Public Policy:

Monthly taxable sales in January 2009 (when Brewer took office): $4.831 billion
Monthly taxable sales in April 2010 (most recent available data): $3.64 billion


From the website of the Arizona Legislature's Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC):

The State of Arizona's General Fund revenues in January 2009: $662.5 million
The State of Arizona's General Fund revenues in July 2010 (latest date available): $622.1 million, including $64.6 million from the sales tax increase enacted by the voters in May. (Revenue would have been $557.5 million if the voters of Arizona hadn't stemmed the bleeding.)


Home prices are still declining in Arizona, with no real indication of when the housing market is going to stabilize:

AZRepublic article, dated August 15, 2010, on the continuing decline in Phoenix home prices here; EV Tribune article on the lagging housing market in Arizona here; ABC15 piece here.


So let's summarize the economic performance of Jan Brewer so far -

Unemployment - UP

Bankruptcies - UP

Economic activity - DOWN

Home prices - DOWN

State finances: STILL PLUMMETING


Insisting that there is an economic recovery in Arizona isn't the same thing as there actually being an economic recovery in Arizona.

Her performance on economic issues is like her performance in debates with Terry Goddard -


Nonexistent.

Jan Brewer admits that SB1070 is bad for Arizona...

...but instead of using her words to do it, she's using our money...

From ABC15's website -

The state hopes a public relations agency can convince people to travel to Arizona despite concerns they might have about the state’s immigration law.


The Arizona Governor’s Task Force on Tourism and Economic Vitality hired HMA Public Relations to come up with a campaign to help tackle any negative backlash caused by Senate Bill 1070.

The PR firm's press release on the subject is here.

It turns out that the $100K contract is for outreach to "traditional media relations in targeted domestic markets as well as Mexico City and Northern Mexico." (emphasis mine)

Jan and her clan have spent months (hell, *years*) demonizing Mexicans and anybody with skin that is a shade other than lily-white, and now that she has figured out that perhaps her kowtowing to the nativist wing of her base has done severe damage to Arizona's national and international image, she wants to spend our money to clean up her mess?

A seat in the AZ lege isn't the steppingstone it is in other states...

...at least not for Republicans, anyway.

Last night, former legislators Rusty Bowers, Jim Waring, Pam Gorman, Sam Crump and Jonathan Paton lost primaries in Congressional races, bringing the record of Republican state legislators looking to jump to the federal level to an abysmal 0 for at least 2.  As in at least 2 decades (with a minor caveat that I will discuss in a moment.)

- Former state senator Bowers lost to dentist Paul Gosar in the CD1 primary by almost 12,000 votes.

- Former state senator Waring lost to Ben Quayle in the CD3 primary by more than 3,000 votes.

- Former state senator Gorman lost to Quayle by more than 9,000 votes.

- Former state representative Crump lost to Quayle by more than 11,000 votes.

- Former state senator Paton lost to Jesse Kelly in the CD8 primary by more than 6,000 votes.

That's in 2010.  In 2008...

- Former state rep David Schweikert lost to Democrat Harry Mitchell (CD5) by almost 27,000 votes in the general election.  Schweikert's back for another go, so he may be the one to break the dry spell.  Of course, even if he does, he'll have gone through another office (Maricopa County Treasurer) and a losing race first.

- Now former state senator Tim Bee lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords (CD8) in the same general election by more than 39,000 votes.

- Now former state representative Mark Anderson lost in the CD5 primary by almost 9,000 votes to Schweikert.

- Former state representative Laura Knaperek lost in the same primary by nearly 7,000 votes.

In 2006...

- Former state rep Randy Graf lost to Democrat Gabrielle Giffords in the CD8 general election race by more than 30,000 votes.

- Former state rep Steve Huffman lost to Graf in the CD8 primary by almost 3,000 votes.

And so on.

In fact, the last R legislator to win a seat as one of AZ representives in the U.S. Congress was Trent Franks, who first won election in 2002.  Of course, he had left the lege in 1986, so he had time to get past whatever stench attaches itself to Republican legislators.

As for the other Republican members of the AZ delegation -

- John Shadegg once worked for the lege, but he was never a member.

- Jeff Flake once headed the Goldwater Institute, where he may have served as a de facto member of the lege, but he wasn't elected to it.

- Former Congressman Rick Renzi went to college in AZ, but he never served in the lege here or in his real home state of Virginia.

- Former Congressman JD Hayworth went straight from a TV sports desk to Congress in 1994, with no legislative experience.


However fruitless the quest has been for Republican legislators looking to move up, the same isn't true for Democratic legislators.


In 2006, former state senators Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords won their elections in CD5 and CD8, respectively. 

In 2008, former state representative Ann Kirkpatrick won her election in CD1.

Hmmm...that pattern brings to mind two possibilities.

One, as bad as the AZ legislature is for Democrats, it seems to serve as a good training ground for the rigors of a campaign for Congress.  Maybe some of the more ambitious Rs should consider becoming Democrats.  OK, so that probably isn't going to happen. :)

Two, maybe the Rs who care more about their furthering their careers than furthering the interests of Arizona will pass on the legislature.  OK, so that probably isn't going to happen either.  :(

Later...

Musings on yesterday's primary results...

Since I so willingly spouted off with predictions before the vote results came in, it's only right that I dissect the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of those predictions.

On to the post-mortem...


R Senate primary prediction: McCain, with a caveat that it might not be the blowout that it should be.  Reality: At a 24 point margin (almost 122K votes), this race *was* the blowout it should have been.

D Senate primary prediction: Parraz in a squeaker, though I left open the possibility that Glassman could hold on.  Reality:  turns out that the caveat about Glassman was a good one.  He, in fact, did hold on to win...over Cathy Eden.  Parraz came in fourth, and it wasn't even a close fourth.  Even though I knew better (internal poll numbers are *always* suspect...argghhhh!), I bit hard on the numbers that the Parraz campaign released showing him in a solid second place, within the margin of error.

I can promise that I won't make that mistake again during this election cycle.

R CD3 prediction: "Got no clue, other than it won't be Quayle. Even R primary voters want more substance in a candidate."  Reality: an even bigger miss than with Parraz in the D Senate primary.  That's what I get for overestimating Republican voters.

I can promise that I won't make that mistake again, during this or any other cycle.

R CD5 prediction: Dead on with Schweikert.  Questioned whether Ward would hold on to 2nd place, which he is right now by approximately 570 votes over Bitter Smith.

D SOS prediction: Wercinski.  Reality: Deschene, and it wasn't close.  The margin is more than 60K votes right now.  Wercinski ran an energetic campaign, and I saw more of his campaign than of Deschene's.  Turns out that there is more to the state than Maricopa County.  Who knew?  :)

D AG prediction: Rotellini.  Reality: so far correct, but Rotellini's lead over Lujan is only 1375 votes.

R AG prediction:  Horne. Reality: Horne's ahead, but this race makes the Democratic race look like a blowout.  Horne is currently up 454 votes statewide.  Attribute the closeness of this one to Thomas' fame (and access to Joe Arpaio's deep campaign coffers) in the largest county in Arizona, Maricopa.  Thomas finished ahead in Maricopa County by 4669 votes.

R Superintendent of Public Instruction prediction: Huppenthal.  Reality: Huppenthal.  I didn't think it would be close, and it wasn't.

D Superintendent of Public Instruction prediction: too close to call.  Reality: Kotterman easily.  The margin surprised me, but Kotterman's victory did not.  The reason for my hesitance when making predictions was that four years ago. Slade Mead seemed to have the D nod locked up and most observers underestimated Williams' campaign skills.  Yes, I made a mistake, but it was an understandable and even reasonable one, I think.

R Maricopa County Attorney prediction: Romley, though Montgomery could make it interesting.  Reality: Montgomery won easily.  The biggest surprise was that while this was a "turnout" win (meaning that the hard right wing of the Republican Party was motivated to get out and vote), it didn't help JD Hayworth (politically, very similar to Montgomery).  In the Senate race, Hayworth lost Maricopa County by 24 points, the same margin as he lost statewide.

For at least the next two years, Joe Arpaio has another patsy in the CA's office.

Overall evaluation of my predictive abilities:  Mixed.  Mostly OK, with appropriate caveats in the races I wasn't sure about, but also made a couple of glaring pure misses (Parraz not finishing higher in the D Senate race, Quayle winning in CD3).

Live and (hopefully) learn...