Short Attention Span Musing...

...Attended a public hearing of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review on Wednesday.  They were meeting to solicit public input/feedback on the judges who will be on the retention ballot in November.  Full list appended to the end of this press release.

All of one member of the public showed up to speak about a specific judge.  It was kind of disheartening.

Hope the turnout is better at the upcoming meetings in Pima and Pinal counties -

March 14, 2012 - Tucson

4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

West Side Police Service Center

1310 West Miracle Mile

Rillito Room

March 21, 2012 – Florence

4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

Pinal County Justice Center

971 Jason Lopez Circle

Building A

...Since the meeting was "noticed" as being an hour long, by law, the commissioners had to remain there for an hours.  When the one speaker from the public was done, the commissioners and a few members of the general public who showed up simply to observe spent the rest of the time talking about some general issues involving judges and the judiciary.

One of the people who showed up to observe did speak briefly.  She's associated with a campaign (SOS filer ID 201200392) to vote out the two members of the AZ Supreme Court who are up for retention this cycle.

Her main specific objection seemed to be over the decision in the case of the governor's move to fire the independent chair of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, Colleen Mathis.  Mathis' biggest offense?  She was and is actually independent, just as the voters intended when we created the independent redistricting process.

The AZ Supreme Court overturned Brewer's move and reinstated Mathis.

While the person who appeared at the meeting appeared to be a member of the lemming branch of the GOP (or the parrot branch, if you prefer), and this all appears to a continuation of the GOP's temper tantrum over a redistricting process that they didn't have absolute control over, it's worth keeping an eye on.

...In another example of "it's not what you know, it's who you know", the Senate Judiciary Committee will consider the nomination of Paul Senseman to the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments.

In case you've forgotten (or just weren't paying attention in the first place), Senseman was and is one of the private prison industry's primary lobbyists in AZ and used to be a senior staffer/handler for Governor Jan Brewer.

It'll be "Senseman Family Car Pool Day" at the lege - his wife Kathy's nomination to the State Board for Charter Schools will be heard at the same time in the meeting of the Senate Education Committee.

Like her husband, Kathryn Senseman is a professional industry lobbyist.

Note: this nomination was scheduled for committee consideration a couple of weeks ago.  Not sure why it was delayed.

...If Tempeans need yet another reason to vote for Mark Mitchell for mayor, they need look no further than the endorsement of Michael Monti by Scottsdale Mayor Jim Lane.  Lane has turned Scottsdale City government into an ideological petri dish for the lobbyists at the Goldwater Institute.  After three-plus years of Lane's administration, Scottsdale's hallmarks are a senior city staff whose job security depends more blind loyalty to Lane than on professionalism, a heavy concentration of liquor licenses near residential areas, and development standards that cater to the whims of deep-pocketed developers while ignoring the concerns of residents.

And Lane thinks Monti is a chip off of the ol' Lane/GI block.  'Nuff said.

...On the other hand, instead of seeking the endorsement of *mayor* Jim Lane, Monti should seek the help of *accountant* Jim Lane when filling out and filing his campaign finance reports.  Monti *really* seems to have issues with campaign finance reporting.  As the now-former lieutenant governor in South Carolina learned this week, campaign finance rules can be annoying, especially when they aren't followed.


...Wendy who?  Wendy Rogers, failed 2010 candidate for state senate and a soon-to-be failed candidate for the R nomination in the new CD9, is claiming that "the Left" vandalized her house on the day she made her official announcement that she is a candidate for Congress.

Not to rain on her parade, but while *I* know who she is because of blogging, most of the Ds that I know, and for that matter, most of the Rs that I know, heard about the announcement and responded with "Wendy who?"

Which may be the entire point of her cries about "vandalism".  She already an afterthought in the primary race, and it's still early enough for other candidates to jump in.

That's gotta rankle...

Early ballot time - Scottsdale

Lost in the hubbub over Super Tuesday in many states on Tuesday  and the jurisdictional elections in March in many of the state's municipalities is the fact that Scottsdale is holding a special election in March also.

"Special" meaning no candidates, just ballot questions.

There are nine questions, all placed on the ballot by the Scottsdale City Council.

Not having had time to follow local politics closely for the last few months, I didn't have a specific opinion on any of the measures, and was inclined to vote against them on general principle -

I don't trust that the mayor and city council of Scottsdale are working for the best interests of the people of Scottsdale.  They spend wayyyyyyy too much time finding reasons to give deep-pocketed developers exactly what they want, even if that negatively impacts neighborhoods and the families that live in them.

But that's not the right way to approach voting, because...

1.  While the Scottsdale Mayor and City Council is bad, they are nowhere near as bad as the Arizona Legislature (with the lege, vote against anything they send to the ballot.  The next time the majority in the lege votes to put a measure on the ballot that actually benefits all Arizonans will be the very first time for most of them.)

2.  It's the lazy way to do things.

The city-published election information booklet is here.

So, here is my take on the ballot questions.

Question 1 - relating to awarding a franchise to Southwest Gas "to maintain and operate a natural and artificial gas distribution system in the City of Scottsdale".  Not sure yet.  This may be a default "no".


Proposition 430, approving an update to the city's General Plan.  This is the only question where people submitted "for" and "against" arguments.  The supporters of the change could be best described as the people who see Scottsdale as only a profit center and not a home.  The opponents could be best described as the "Change?  I don't know what it is, but I know I don't like it" crowd. 

One side wants the future of Scottsdale surrendered to the short-term interests of developers, which I believe is the reason that they support the new General Plan.

The other side wants Scottsdale to be the Scottsdale of the "good ol' days" when it was a small town swarming with tourists and the hitching rails outnumbered the permanent residents, not a growing mid-sized metropolis/suburb with growing families and the few remaining hitching rails are museum pieces.

Still, while I believe that the time has come for the people of Scottsdale to look at the calendar as it is, not as it was, this proposal isn't the way to move Scottsdale into the 21st century.  I'm voting against it because it will be difficult to repair the damage it will cause, once the new GP is implemented.

No.

The remaining propositions are ostensibly "housekeeping" measures, polishing up outdated language and synching the city's charter to state law.

Proposition 431 - among its provisions, it would allow the city to cease publication of legal notices in newspapers or in fact, anywhere.  This clause is written so broadly that the mayor and city council could order that legal notices be posted on the inside of the door on the outhouse in Jim Lane's back yard (in case you can't tell, that's a metaphor.  I'm pretty sure Lane doesn't have an outhouse on his property.  :) ).  Another clause would take away the city's authority to *bar* development in a flood plain (yes, we have them in AZ), allowing it to only "limit" it.

No.


Proposition 432 - has some decent things in it, purely housekeeping bits, but it includes a clause matching the city charter's open meeting requirements to state law, whatever that may be.  Given that the lege is trying to make government less open and accountable, that's a bad thing.  In addition, there is nothing wrong with the city government being more open than state law requires.  However, this one is mostly harmless, so I'm voting -

Yes.


Proposition 433 - seems to be purely housekeeping, moving language regarding one city commission into the section of the charter that relates to the rest of the city's boards and commissions.

Yes.


Proposition 434 - relating to the city's budget process.  Again, the legal notice requirement will be only that which is required by state law and no more.  And the other relevant budget process provisions will be synched up with state law.  I've already stated what I think of what the lege is doing to government openness requirements and that the city should use state law only as a baseline for openness, not a target.

No.


Proposition 435 - allowing the city council and mayor to create an exception to the way the city executes contracts by simply passing an ordinance or resolution.  Currently, that can only be done according to a charter provision or state law.  Since it expands the power of the mayor and council,

No.


Proposition 436 - relating to utility franchise agreements.  Again, changing notification requirements to match state law.  Again,

No.


Proposition 437 - relating to city records.  Again, changing openness requirements to match state law.  Again,

No.


The next example of this type of post should be for the primary election in August...

The coming week...

As usual, all committee agendas are subject to change without notice, and given that this is the Arizona legislature, many of them will change with as little notice as the lege can give.

The two biggest new items up for consideration this week are matching supplemental appropriations bills to continue funding for Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  Some of the Republicans in the lege have made noises about not funding the AIRC, but it's required by the Arizona Constitution.

Still, they aren't known for letting little things like constitutional requirements get in the way of their temper tantrums, and they are still thoroughly peeved that the Independent Redistricting Commission was actually *independent* this time around.  Look for more games.

Pertinent information:  HB2862, House Appropriations, Wednesday, 2 p.m., HHR1; SB1533, Senate Appropriations, Tuesday, 2 p.m., SHR109.

The other items of interest up for consideration this week have already been seen before:

- HB2640, taking the limits off of the size of ammunition magazines used by "hunters" (think of the damage that Jared Loughner could have wreaked with an unending supply of bullets) and HB2728, allowing "hunters" to use silencers - Senate Judiciary, Monday, 2 p.m., SHR1

- HB2349, Rep. Kimberly Yee's move to add restrictions to the voter-approved Medical Marijuana Act - Senate Education, Monday, 2 p.m., SHR1.  Even if it gets the requisite 3/4 vote needed to amend a voter-protected law, it may still run into the requirement that any amendments further the intent of the underlying measure.

- A striker to HB2062 with a subject of "DUI; incarceration reimbursement" will be heard in Senate Public Safety and Human Services, Wednesday, 10 a.m., SHR3.  No text available as yet.

- A striker to HB2090 with a subject of "parity funding for Arizona universities" (Why am I hearing all sorts of alarms going off right now?) (no text available as yet) and HB2774, expanded the tax exemption for property owned by religiously-affiliated entities will be heard by Senate Finance, Thursday, 9 a.m., SHR1.

- HB2437, banning the appropriation of state monies "pursuant to a federal mandate without a federal report regarding the constitutionality of the mandate." (quoting the lege summary of the measure; basically it means that the lege will refuse to follow any federal law or rule that it doesn't like) will be heard by Senate Border Security, Federalism, and States' Sovereignty, Thursday, 9 a.m., SHR109. (Watch this agenda; it's chaired by Sylvia Allen and they usually slip in nuggets of ugly on Wednesdays).

- SB1237, allowing ADEQ to cite federal agencies for any pollutant discharges related to wildfires and wildfire suppression, will be heard by House Environment, Tuesday, 2 p.m., HHR5.

- SB1365, allowing people to breach contracts by citing religious beliefs, will be heard by House Employment and Regulatory Affairs, Tuesday, 2 p.m., HHR3.


Bills before the lege can be found here.

House committee agendas are here; Senate agendas are here.

Complete floor calendars are here.  My "highlight" on Monday's Senate Third Read calendar (Third Read = Final Approval) is SCR1008, a declaration of a state of emergency in Arizona and telling the feds to buzz off, even in regards to federal lands here.

The lege's Capitol Events calendar is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

One non-lege related event:

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review will hold public hearings to solicit comment on Justices and Judges that will be on the 2012 retention election ballot.

This week, Maricopa County, followed by Pima and Pinal counties in the successive weeks (all hearings on Wednesdays).  The schedule -

March 7, 2012 - Phoenix

4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

Arizona State Courts Building

1501 W. Washington Street

Conference Room 345

March 14, 2012 - Tucson

4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

West Side Police Service Center

1310 West Miracle Mile

Rillito Room

March 21, 2012 – Florence

4:30 to 5:30 p.m.

Pinal County Justice Center

971 Jason Lopez Circle

Building A 

Quick update on Congressional races

This isn't meant to be a comprehensive listing of candidates, nor will there be any predictions.  It's too early for the first, and I've got a poor track record on the second.

:)

In the most interesting races, in the new CD9 (Tempe, South Scottsdale, parts of east and central Phoenix)...

- On the Democratic side, David Schapira, the Democratic leader in the Arizona Senate, Kyrsten Sinema, former state legislator, and Andrei Cherny, former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party are all in the race.  Schapira is still the only one who lives in the district, but other than that all are veteran campaigners and the race should be an interesting one.  Sorry, but I have no better insight than that.  So far... :))

Full disclosure time:  I'm supporting David Schapira in the primary.  While I personally like Kyrsten Sinema and Andrei Cherny, I believe that David is the best choice for the district.  Having said that, I'll have no trouble supporting Sinema or Cherny in the general election in the event that one of them wins the nomination.

- On the Republican side, Don Stapley, Maricopa County Supervisor, and Martin Sepulveda, former Chandler City Council member, are the big names so far.  However, there are rumors still circulating that Hugh Hallman, outgoing mayor of Tempe, and/or Sal DiCiccio, member of the Phoenix City Council may yet enter the race on that side. 


In the next most interesting race (to me, anyway.  I'm sure the folks in Tucson find it far more interesting than a race in Maricopa County. :) ) ...

- On the Democratic side in CD2 (Tucson), state legislators Steve Farley, Paula Aboud, and Matt Heinz, as well as Nan Walden, a former Congressional staffer (among many other things) and newcomer Nomiki Konst, are in the race (though not all have paperwork available on the FEC's website).  As with CD9, it's too early to tell how this one will work out.

- On the Republican side, Frank Antenori, currently in the AZ state senate, Jesse Kelly, a 2010 candidate for Congress, and Dave Sitton, best known as a radio broadcaster, are in the race.  As with the CD2 Ds, it's too soon to tell how this one will work out, and as with the CD9 Rs above, others may yet jump into the race.


Next up: CD1 (a very rural district that encompasses most of Northern AZ).

- On the Democratic side, the race (so far) is between Wenona Benally Baldenegro, a newcomer, and Ann Kirkpatrick, a former member of Congress.  Kirkpatrick is getting a lot of support from the Democratic establishment, and Baldenegro is garnering a lot of grassroots support.  Kirkpatrick is winning the money race, with her having approximately $465K cash on hand versus Baldenegro's ~$6400 (per their most recent campaign finance filings).

- On the Republican side, the cupboard is almost bare right now since the Republican incumbent Paul Gosar has chosen to go after a safe R district rather than this slightly D leaning competitive one.  One Douglas Wade of Sedona has filed for a run here.  Former state legislator Bill Konopnicki is among the Rs rumored to be eyeing this seat.


After the above districts, the interesting races are confined to the Republican side of the ballot, since the districts involved are safe Republican districts.

- In CD4 (a wide ranging, mostly rural district that includes Yuma and Pinal County), the race is between Paul Gosar, current member of Congress, Ron Gould, current AZ state senator, and Paul Babeu, current Pinal County Sheriff.  Babeu's candidacy is on its last legs since the stories broke, stories about him being gay and the fact that the school he used to run in Massachusetts was closed due to allegations of abuse under his watch.  Gould's candidacy is too new for there to be any campaign finance filings, however, Gosar reported $256K cash on hand in his most recent FEC filing.

- In CD6 (North Scottsdale and NE Maricopa County), freshman incumbents Ben Quayle and David Schweikert are facing off in what is shaping up to be the most contentious race.  They're already taking potshots at each other.  I said I wouldn't make any predictions, but I'll make one here:  this one will easily be the most entertaining race in Arizona this year.

Note:  In CD6, one Matthew Jette has filed to run as a Democrat.  His filing indicates CD6, which under the new maps will cover most of Scottsdale, but his address is in Chandler, which is (mostly) in the current CD6.  Either way, it will be a tough race for any D.  In 2010, Jette ran for governor as a Republican.  I don't know what kind of Democrat Jette is/will be, but based on his performance at a Republican forum in Tempe in 2010 held before Jan Brewer signed SB1070 and hitched her political future to the nativist train, he's intelligent and thoughtful and doesn't stand a snowball's chance of going anywhere in R circles.

- In CD5 (southeastern part of Maricopa County), the race is between Kirk Adams, former speaker of the Arizona House, and Matt Salmon, former member of Congress.  Right now, the campaigns are in the "trolling for campaign contributions and endorsements" period, and Salmon appears to winning on both counts.  However, both candidates are trying to claim the same turf within the GOP (pro-Big Business/Big Money) so this race could be very close.

The other races involve safe incumbents (Ds Ed Pastor and Raul Grijalva, and R Trent Franks).  If any of those races becomes something other than automatic for the incumbents, I'll update...

Romney getting rather "efficient" about flip-flopping

It used to take years, or at least weeks, for Mitt Romney to change his positions on issues.  Apparently, however, he's gotten so much practice at it he's gotten his cycle time down to mere hours.

From AP, via the Seattle Times -

Republican Mitt Romney says he doesn't support a Senate Republican effort that would allow employers to deny insurance coverage based on moral objections and that critics say could limit birth control. Romney's campaign immediately reversed his position.

In honor of Romney's campaign strategy of being for everything before he is against everything, or against everything before he is for it, I have a suggestion for his official campaign footwear.

From BornRich.com -

The world's most expensive flip-flops. 

At only $18,000 per pair...

...his wife could afford a pair for each of her Cadillacs.

...his NASCAR friends, the team owners, can keep a few spare pairs on hand in their sky boxes.

...he can afford to give a pair to each of the people that he likes to fire as a severance payment (OK, he probably wouldn't do that.  But not because he can't afford to...)


Personally, I hope the Rs hold one more nationally televised primary debate.

I want to see if Romney can get his flip-flop cycle time down to one sentence.

I'm confident in his ability to pull it off.

There must be something in the waters here...

The definition of "carpetbagger" from Merriam-Webster.com -

2 : outsider; especially: a nonresident or new resident who seeks private gain from an area often by meddling in its business or politics

Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley (R-Mesa) has announced that he is a candidate for Congress in the new CD9. 

He joins (at least) state senator David Schapira (D), former state senator Kyrsten Sinema (D), former chair of the Arizona Democratic Party Andrei Cherny (D), and Travis Grantham (R) as candidates for the same office.

Should be a fun race.  The best part?  The posts are going to be easy to write.


Only Schapira actually lives in CD9.

Sometimes the best way to step up is to step down

State Representative Daniel Patterson has become the Democratic version of former State Sen. Scott Bundgaard.

Patterson, like Bundgaard before him, has been dogged by rumors and allegations of domestic violence for years, first involving ex-wives and more recently, girlfriends. 

Bundgaard hung on for months but finally gave up his seat when it became clear that the Republican-led Senate Ethics Committee wasn't going to let him slide on his "non-arrest" for an incident by the side of a Phoenix freeway (I may never say anything complimentary about State Sen Ron Gould of "flies a Confederate flag on the 4th of July" fame, but have to give credit where it is due - he didn't let go of this).

Patterson has been accused of domestic violence in the past, first by his ex-wife and now by his girlfriend/campaign manager. (h/t to DA Morales at Three Sonorans; once you get past the over-the-top editorializing, he's spot on).

Like Bundgaard before him, Patterson's first reaction has been to hunker down and hope it will all go away.

Like Bundgaard before him, Patterson has blamed his victim.

Unlike Bundgaard before him, his colleagues aren't joining him in hoping it will all blow over.  Democrats all over the state are calling for Patterson to step down from his position in the House of Representatives.  The chorus isn't just one voice, and it isn't just Joe or Jane Average Democrat calling for his resignation.

House Democratic Leader Rep. Chad Campbell and Luis Heredia, Executive Director of the Arizona Democratic Party have called for Patterson to resign. 

Rep. Katie Hobbs (D) has filed an ethics complaint, signed by 15 other Democratic members of the House, against Patterson over the domestic violence allegations (and I'm proud to say that both of my state reps, Ben Arredondo and Ed Ableser, are among the signers).

My fellow bloggers David Safier (Blog for Arizona) and Eli Blake (Deep Thought) have also called on Patterson to resign, as has the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

It's time to add another voice to the chorus. 

Patterson needs to step up and accept responsibility for his actions and to step down from the legislature and take the time to address the issues in his life.

Maybe that means anger management counseling, maybe it means cranio-rectal dislodgement surgery, maybe it means something else, but for the sake of his constituents, his family, and himself, it's time for Daniel Patterson to step away from public life until he straightens out his private life.

The coming week...

I said this last week and was thoroughly blown out of the water when the Rs dropped a budget proposal on us, but this coming week is shaping up to be a relatively quiet one on the committee front.

Guess that it's a good thing that each of the posts includes a disclaimer that committee agendas and schedules can change without notice.  And consider that disclaimer given for this post.  :)

As of right now, the most interesting bill going before committee this week is a striker to HB2036.  More complete coverage on the measure is here,   Basically, it an anti-abortion measure with every single punitive and petty idea that the Rs have come up with over the last few years, with the exception of the "trans-vaginal" ultrasound mandate that has cropped up in other places.

The measure will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday at 2 p.m. in SHR1.

While there are a couple of individual measures that are controversial, right now they're all measures that have been heard in committee at least once in the other chamber (lowlights:  HB2035, Rep. Kimberly Yee's attempt to undermine the voters' approval of medical marijuana; HB2563, Rep. Terri Proud's move to add the Bible to public school curriculums; .

That makes the second "highlight" of the week, as currently scheduled, some of the executive nominations up for committee consideration.  Such as...

Not to say that the Capitol world is a small one, or to imply that the operating rule down there is "it's not what you know, it's who you know", but Kathryn Senseman, wife of former Brewer communications person and private prison lobbyist Paul Senseman (and a professional lobbyist herself), is up for consideration for a "public member" spot on the State Board for Charter Schools.

"Public member"?  Only technically.  As a professional lobbyist, she's not officially part of the state government or any of the industries she works for, but she's hardly an outsider.

To sum up:  things look quiet right now, but as we learned last week, that can change at a moment's notice (or less).

The complete House committee schedule is available here; the Senate's schedule is available here.

The lege's floor calendars are here.

The lege's Capitol Events calendar is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' Capitol Calendar is here.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee's (JLBC) monthly fiscal highlights report for February is here.

Really Short Attention Span Musing

...The big "news" today was Jan Brewer's announcement on NBC's Meet The Press that she is endorsing Mitt Romney for the GOP nomination for president.

Umm, if the endorsement was supposed to matter to R voters, wouldn't she have issued the thing a few days before early ballots went out, rather than a few days before the close of voting?

I couldn't find the statewide numbers for the 2008 GOP presidential primary, but in Maricopa County in 2008, approximately 63% of all GOP primary votes were cast early, and as of 2/16 (approximately 1 1/2 weeks ago), more than 163K mail ballots had been returned in Maricopa County.

AZ lege persisting in pushing anti-choice measure on AZ's women

One of the lege's anti-choice/womens health care bills (HB2838) is stalled in a House committee, but that's not stopping the more extreme members of the lege (Rs, one and all) from trying to do an end run around that committee...

On Monday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to meet at 2 p.m. or upon adjournment of the Senate's floor session in SHR1.  Sen. Steve Yarbrough (R-Self Dealer) slipped a gem of a striker on to that meeting's agenda, with the following subject:

abortion; procedures; informed consent; requirements

With a subject like that, one would expect the involvement of the Center For Arizona Theocracy Policy (CAP), and one would be correct (Arizona Capitol Times coverage here, subscription required).

It has all of the clauses of the stalled HB2838.

It's a long bill (27 pages!), and a complicated one, but it contains most of the "ideas" that anti-choice activists have pushed here and across the country.  Here is a brief checklist -

Mandatory ultrasounds as part of all abortion procedures?  Check...

Require that doctors who perform abortions do so within 30 miles of a hospital where they have admitting privileges?  Check...

Interject the legislature between patients and their doctors by mandating specific medical activities, without regard to what is best for a particular patient?  Check...

Subject abortion providers to all sort of onerous and vindictive penalties for any infraction of state laws or regulations?  Check...

Ban most abortions after 20 weeks?  Check...

Breach doctor/patient confidentiality by introducing a third party (a notary public) into the health care process, based not on medical need but on ideology?  Check...

And those are just the high points.

Another highlight is the "legislative findings" section of the measure.  It's four pages and hundreds of words of pure propaganda masquerading as scholarly research and legal precedent, all tied up in a big red bow by a self-congratulatory expression of concern for the health of women.


Anyway, if  you can't make it down to the Capitol to express your objections to the striker, those of you who have set up an account can log in and weigh in on the measure here.  Otherwise, the list of committee members is here.  Click on members' names for phone and email contact info.

Best guess:  This measure passes committee on a party-line vote. and probably passes the full Senate along party lines too.  The question is when it returns to the House for approval of the amendment.  If I understand legislative procedure correctly, by using the "striker" method, they'll be able to bypass the House committee process and send it directly to the floor for the entire House to vote on it.

Reading the striker (and the original bill), I'm curious about one thing -

Does the lege have CAP's lobbyists and attorneys on retainer, or does CAP have the lege on retainer?

Lesson time: Arizona Constitution 101

You'd think that people elected to office and exercising authority under the Arizona Constitution would occasionally read the think.

But you'd think wrong.

From HTRNews -

A state House committee has approved a bill that will make thousands of Arizona university students dig a little deeper into their pockets to pay for school.

The legislation would require full-time students to pay at least $2,000 each year toward their tuition at a state university.

Students would not be able to use university-provided grants, scholarships or tuition benefits to pay the minimum share.


The bill in question is HB2675.  The bill passed the House Appropriations Committee by a 7 - 6 vote, with all the Democrats on the committee (Lela Alston, Chad Campbell, Matt Heinz, and Anna Tovar) and two Republicans (Steve Urie and Vic Williams) voting against it.


For those who weren't paying attention in their high school civics classes, from Article 11, Section 6 of the Arizona Constitution -

The university and all other state educational institutions shall be open to students of both sexes, and the instruction furnished shall be as nearly free as possible.

"...as nearly free as possible."

Words to take to heart, but unfortunately, a supermajority of the legislature would rather take an oath to a corporate lobbyist like Grover Norquist to heart instead of the oath they took to the people of Arizona.

Live blogging the R debate from Mesa...

...though I'm in my living room watching CNN.  Seems the AZGOP didn't want to give out tickets or press credentials to lowly liberal bloggers.  Not sure why... ;-)

Anyway, it's time to hide the women, children, minorities, and small animals.  The GOP's presidential candidates are in town. 

Well, hide them if you think the civil rights of ethnic and racial minorities (and everyone else) should be protected, women should have access to reproductive health care, poor children shouldn't have to work as janitors in schools in order to get an education, and when you are mind-boggling wealthy, you should be able to afford a car that is big enough for the family dog.

Will post updates as this goes along...

...Romney during introduction: "America's promise has been broken by this president". He must believe Reagan is still president...

...Santorum: I will cut everything that the Rs don't like. Apparently, poor people are the cause of all that ails the US.

...Romney: Doubles down on Santorum's attack on the poor by adding public sector employees...

...Santorum now opposes No Child Left Behind because it led to spending on education.

...Gingrich finally gets to talk. Talks about founding fathers. Yes, he's a historian.

...Gingrich and our Jan have something in common: They want to get rid of civil service! Whoooo hoooo!

...Ron Paul's groupies out in force, but Paul is sticking to his same talking points. He's not trying to become a factor in the race...

...OK.  the highlight of this entire debate has been the anti-Arpaio ad that aired during the break. 

They have beaten me into submission.  I'm signing off...

Breaking: Budget bills to go before AZ lege at 8 a.m. Tuesday

With no notice, the Rs running the Arizona lege have scheduled the state's budget for committee hearings Tuesday morning at 8 a.m.

Senate Appropriations agenda is here.  House Appropriations agenda is here.

Between this and last week's ejection of a 12 News reporter from the House floor by a Republican functionary who cited an unannounced security policy, it's obvious that the Rs haven't learned the lesson from the recall election loss of former senate president Russell Pearce -

High-handed and arrogant behavior by elected officials is the surest way to tick off the voters...

Updates as I read the bills...

Update:

I'm going to link to the Senate bills, but there are matching House bills that will go before House Appropriations.

SB1523 - General Appropriations

SB1524 - Capital Outlay

SB1525 - State Budget Procedures

SB1526 - Revenue; Budget Reconciliation

SB1527 - Government; Budget Reconciliation

SB1528 - Health; Welfare; Budget Reconciliation

SB1529 - K-12 Education; Budget Reconciliation

SB1530 - Higher Education; Budget Reconciliation

SB1531 - Criminal Justice; Budget Reconciliation (this whole budget is ugly, but never let it be said that the Rs can't be petty and vindictive at the same time - this one elminates the State Capital Postconviction Public Defender Office.  Guess we'll need to change the state motto from "The Grand Canyon State" to "We Kill 'Em Quick")

SB1532 - Environment; Budget Reconciliation

The coming week...

It's shaping up to be a relatively quiet week at the Arizona legislature...emphasis on "relatively".  There are still going to be a number of controversial bills, but not the large number that we've seen in recent weeks.  Of course, agendas, particularly those for meetings later in the week, are subject to change without notice.

While many sources have reported that bills that haven't been heard in committee in their originating chamber as yet are dead, that isn't completely true - the Appropriations Committees can and are still hearing bills that originated in their respective chambers.

Most of the committee agendas are short, but they still have nuggets of ugly.

For example -

- House Energy and Natural Resources (Monday, 2 p.m., HHR4) has an agenda with only one item on it - SB1054.  That measure would raise the daily limit on hours that underground miners may work from 8 hours per day to 12 hours per day (a 50% hike).  In addition, it would remove language from state law that states that underground mining is hazardous and dangerous.

- House Appropriations (Wednesday, 10 a.m., HHR1) has an agenda with two very bad measures - HB2675, mandating that all public university students contribute at least $2000 per year of their own money toward tuition, no matter how poor they might be; and HCR2032, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution that would impose TABOR-like restrictions on Arizona's state government.

- Senate Banking and Insurance's (Tuesday, 2 p.m., SHR3) agenda has HB2079, Rep. Jack Harper's bill to make it easier for mortgage loan originators to obtain a mortgage broker's license (Harper works as a mortgage loan officer for a mortgage broker.  Hmmm...).

- Senate Appropriations (Tuesday, 2 p.m., SHR109) has an agenda with SB1495, a measure from Sen. Steve Smith that would require all applicants and recipients of unemployment insurance payments to submit to drug testing; SB1333, establishing a "council" and funding for the Rs to fight any federal laws that they don't like; and SB1421, a long and complicated bill from Sen. Don "Tequila" Shooter with the subject "uninsurable individuals; health insurance plan".  It's from Shooter, so it's safe to presume two things - 1) he didn't write it; and 2) it's bad for Arizonans.

- Senate Public Safety and Human Services' (Wednesday, 9 a.m., SHR3) agenda has HB2442, which would make prisoners on parole, probation, community supervision, or home detention pay for any drug testing that they are subject to as a condition of the status.

- Senate Commerce and Energy's (Wednesday 9 a.m., SHR109) agenda has HB2026, a measure from Jack Harper that would lower the threshold that real estate brokers must meet in order to renew a real estate sales license.  It has an "emergency" clause.  Not sure why Harper thinks this is an "emergency", but if it passes the Senate with a 2/3 majority and is signed into law by the governor, it will be effective immediately instead of the normal 90 days after the end of the legislative session.


The full list of House committee agendas is here; the full list of Senate agendas is here.  Floor calendars are posted here. 

The lege's Capitol Events calendar is here; the Arizona Capitol Times' calendar of events is here

Unless another legislator unexpectedly resigns this week, or another county sheriff unexpectedly comes out of the closet, the biggest political event of the week should be one that won't be at the Capitol - Wednesday's Republican Presidential debate in Mesa.

Does Jack Harper's wife know that he left the house needing glasses?

Some elected officials should be barred from using social media...but I'm glad they're not.  Wiseasses like me have more to write about. :)

From the Arizona Republic,

Tweet of the week:
"Heard the Governor read a proclaimation (sic) and she looked young! Does her husband know she left the house looking great?" -- Rep. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, tweeting under the handle @HarperForAZ, during the state's centennial celebration

The tweet in question -

Jan Brewer at an Arizona Centennial celebration, courtesy the Governor's webpage -

"Young"?  Your call...