Event: Zócalo in Scottsdale: Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?

From Zocalo Public Square -

FRIDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2012, 7:00 PM

Zócalo in Scottsdale: Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?Mickey Edwards

According to surveys, most Americans are pretty close to the middle on most issues—a fact that hasn’t changed much over time. The problem with American politics today, argues former Oklahoma Republican Congressman Mickey Edwards, isn’t that we’re extreme; it’s that we’re partisan. What creates political gridlock aren’t deep differences in principle but shallow calculations of party advantage. And even when both parties agree on what to do, one party will sabotage the other for trying to do it. But it hasn’t always been this way, and it doesn’t have to continue. What can be done? Edwards, author of The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans, visits Zócalo to discuss his ideas for breaking the partisan stranglehold on our democracy by fundamentally restructuring both our elections and our governing systems.

The event will take place at Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art, 7374 E 2nd Street in Scottsdale.  The event is free, but reservations are required.  They can be made here.

I disagree with the premise here - I think that the basis of most of that which ails our political system is apathy on the part of a significant percentage, perhaps even a majority, of voters.  That apathy allows certain unscrupulous people to operate with relative impunity, and when one of those people is caught, the apathetic ones are briefly roused from their sleep, point fingers and blame the bad apple who was sloppy enough to be caught doing bad things and the system that "allowed" bad things to happen.

They never look in the mirror when they are pointing fingers.

Still, it should be an interesting evening - discussion is good, and based on my past experience with Zocalo Public Square, the discussion will be both informed and civil.

Running and hiding from open debate? That's so 2010...

Everybody remembers the "brain freeze heard 'round the world" when Governor Jan Brewer blanked for more than 13 seconds during her first televised debate with Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

After her embarrassing performance, she and her handlers decided that the "first" debate would be the "only" debate.

Many other Republican candidates, looking at the poll numbers that indicated that 2010 was going to be a wave year for the Republicans, followed suit.  There was no reason to risk a debate gaffe derailing an all-but-certain victory.

And for the most part, the plan worked (or at least, it didn't *not* work) - the 2010 wave swamped the US House, state legislatures, and governor's mansions coast-to-coast.  After the 2010 elections, Republicans controlled the US House, became a large enough minority caucus in the US Senate so that they have been able to block pretty near every remotely positive measure, controlled all or part of 35 state legislatures, and controlled 29 governor's offices.

Fast-forward to 2012 and while it is shaping up to be a far more balanced year, yet many Republicans are campaigning like it's 2010 all over again.

In Arizona, both Republican Senate nominee Jeff Flake and CD9 nominee Vernon Parker are playing the "run and hide" card for all it's worth.

Flake has declined to publicly debate Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee (though to be fair, per the linked article, he has agreed to a debate with Carmona, in a TV studio with no live audience, for 30 minutes only).

Parker is just ignoring Kyrsten Sinema, the Democratic nominee, and the voters in the new Ninth Congressional District.  He simply has not responded to debate inquiries.

In 2012, Flake and Parker, and certain other Republicans, are still running from their 2010 playbook, which had a primary theme of "Keep your head down and your mouth closed.  If you don't screw up, you'll win."

In 2010, that scheme worked in nearly all but the most heavily Democratic districts.

In 2012, the situations and districts here are much more competitive and the "bunker" mentality and approach isn't going to work for any candidate.

Having said all that, there are candidates who legally *cannot* avoid at least some interaction with voters and the other candidates.

Clean Elections candidates must participate in a CE-sponsored debate as a condition of receiving funds from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. 

This looks to be the busiest week of the general election season in terms of Clean Elections debates.

- Monday, September 24, LD11 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Pima Community College - Northwest Campus, 7600 N. Shannon Road in Tucson

- Tuesday, September 25, LD20 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU West - La Sala Ballroom, 4701 W. Thunderbird Road in Glendale

- Tuesday, September 25, LD24 Senate and House, 5:30 p.m. at A.E. England Building (ASU Downtown campus), 424 N. Central Avenue in Phoenix

- Wednesday, September 26, LD14 Senate and House, 6 p.m. at Benson City Council Chambers, 120 W. 6th Street in Benson

- Thursday, September 27, LD16 Senate and House, 6:30 p.m. at ASU-Poly Cooley Ballroom B, 7001 E. Williams Field Road, Mesa

- Thursday, September 27, LD27 Senate and House, ASU-Mercado, Room C145, 502 E. Monroe Street in Phoenix

Who Really Pays Arizona Taxes?

I don't normally simply republish emails from others unless it concerns an event announcement or something similar, but tonight, I was forwarded something from Dana Wolfe Naimark of the Children's Action Alliance (CAA) that does a spectacular yet succinct job of summing up and refuting the half-truths and lies put forth by the people who insist that the poor and middle class don't pay enough in taxes and that corporations and the wealthy pay too much.

From the email:

By now, it’s clear that Governor Romney’s statements about the 47% of American households who don’t pay federal income taxes missed some key points – about Americans and about tax policy. We often hear similar false assumptions about who pays their fair share of state taxes here in Arizona.

 

The facts show that the Arizona legislature has created numerous methods that profitable corporations and taxpayers of all incomes use to shrink their income taxes. People who don’t owe state income taxes include unemployed Arizonans, working families earning low incomes, seniors receiving social security benefits, and families claiming tax credits. Arizona households who do not pay state income taxes are still paying to support schools, roads, and other public assets. They pay state sales taxes when they go to the store. They pay property taxes through their rent or mortgage. If they own a car they pay taxes when they renew their registration and fill the tank with gas.

 

When all state and local taxes are combined, low-income households have the most “skin in the game” – the lowest income households pay more than two times the richest 1% as a share of their income.

 

Arizona needs a budget and tax system that fuels our goals for a vibrant economy and strong families. Taxpayers deserve an honest analysis of who pays taxes and the reforms that will make our communities healthier and more secure. Consider:

• For tax year 2009, three out of four corporations that filed income taxes in Arizona paid the minimum tax of $50. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Tax Year 2009 Corporate Statistics, 12/11.)

• In 2010, corporations reduced their Arizona income tax liability by $72.7 million through the use of tax credits. Another $265 million in tax savings was carried forward to apply in future years. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Income Tax Credits, June 2012.)

• There are 31 tax credits available to individuals and families on Arizona state income taxes. In 2009, 115,000 taxpayers in Arizona wiped out their personal state income tax bill through tax credits. A family with adjusted gross income of more than $130,000 can end up paying nothing in state income taxes through the use of five common tax credits. (Arizona Department of Revenue, Arizona Income Tax Credits, June 2012; email information from Office of Economic Research and Analysis, 12/9/11; example calculation based on laws for tax year 2011)

• In 2009, 460,000 taxpayers wiped out their state income tax bill through the standard or itemized deductions. They had high medical expenses, large amounts of mortgage interest, or other deductions. (Arizona Department of Revenue, email information from Office of Economic Research and Analysis, 12/9/11)

• Taxpayers don’t pay state income taxes on some types of income, including social security retirement benefits, and active duty military pay.

• 8 out of 10 Arizonans pay more in state and local sales taxes than in state income taxes. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? November 2009)

• Many families with very low incomes still owe and pay state income taxes. In 2010, a family with two parents and two children owed state income taxes in Arizona if their total income was $23,600 – just $1,300 out of poverty. (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, The Impact of State Income Taxes on Low-Income Families in 2010, November 2011)

• The richest 1% of families in Arizona pay $5.60 in state and local taxes for every $100 in income. The poorest 20% pay $12.50. (Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, Who Pays? November 2009)

 

 

There is absolutely nothing I can add to this to improve it, so I'll just say that CAA's full report can be found here.  It's definitely worth a read for everyone, not just people who are politically active.

 

Arizona Ballot Propositions 2012

At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November.  While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited.  I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position.  However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.

First, some resources -

The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here. 

The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures.  I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.

On to the questions -

Proposition 114 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it).  Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem.  Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury.  Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on for years.  They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system - mostly available to the highest bidder.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 115 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it).  Makes changes to the selection process for judges.  The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary.  This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence.  It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 116 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one.  They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 117 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation.  Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams.  Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona.  The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 118 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled.  When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons).  This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 119 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development.  This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature.  Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief.  Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats.  I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".

Proposition 120 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd.  It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances.  It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations.  This has been tried before.  It resulted in the Civil War.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 121 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.  This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups.  It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans.  The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA).  The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district.  I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.

If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."

The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail.  I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider.  And to defeat.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 204 - A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education.  I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue.  However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.

One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.

He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.

As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.

Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.

Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.

I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.

Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.

Project Civil Discourse: A Statewide Conversation on

Project Civil Discourse is an initiative of the Arizona Humanities Council, dedicated to fostering an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, constructive discussion of political issues in Arizona.

Next week, they'll be conducting a statewide forum on some of the questions that will be on the ballot in November.  The announcement -

Mapping Arizona's Future

Click Here to Register

Thursday, September 27, 2012
6:00 to 9:00pm

Free & Open to the Public

A Statewide Conversation on
Arizona's Key Ballot Propositions

Michael Grant, former host of KAET-TV's Horizon and prominent valley attorney, will moderate a panel of experts (Justice Ruth McGregor, former Chief Justice for the Arizona Supreme Court, Ken Strobeck, Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Howie Fischer, Chief Correspondent at Capitol Media Services) and participant roundtable discussions on three key ballot propositions.

• Prop 115: Judicial Selection
• Prop 204: Quality Education and Jobs
• Prop 121: Open Government

A Simulcast Discussion Around Arizona

Forum Locations:
Apache Junction - Central Arizona College - Superstition Mountain Campus

Winkelman/SE Pinal County - Central Arizona College - Aravaipa Campus

Coolidge - Central Arizona College - Signal Peak Campus

Flagstaff - Coconino Community College - Lone Tree Campus

Scottsdale - Scottsdale Community College

Sedona - Yavapai College - Sedona Center for Arts & Technology

Tucson - Pima County Community College - West Campus

Yuma - Arizona Western College

Space is Limited, Pre-registration is Required

Click Here to Register

For more information, please contact Jamie Martin at 602-257-0335 x26 or jmartin@azhumanities.org

I'll be attending the forum at the Scottsdale Community College location, the location nearest to me; if one of the locations is close to you, sign up and reserve your spot.

Republicans in US Senate kill veterans' jobs bill; prepare to go on vacation until after the November election

From the National Journal via its sister publication Government Executive, written by Erin Mershon -

Senate Republicans effectively killed a measure to find jobs for unemployed veterans on a procedural vote Wednesday, after several attempts by Democrats to keep the bill on the table failed.

Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., raised a point of order against the bill on Wednesday, citing alleged violations of Senate budget rules. Since three-fifths of the chamber did not vote to waive the rules, the legislation cannot move forward.

The point of order was the latest in a string of obstacles designed to derail the bill, which would have created the Veterans Jobs Corps by setting aside $1 billion in federal grants to give veterans priority for jobs that might require military skills, such as in law enforcement or fire safety. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., briefly filibustered the legislation last week in an unrelated attempt to withdraw aid to Pakistan.

The Senate vote was 58 - 40, with 60 votes needed to allow the measure to move forward.

Every Democrat in the Senate voted for the measure, every vote against the measure was cast by a Republican.  Five Republicans did cross over to vote in support of veterans -

- Scott Brown of Massachusetts, who is locked in a tough battle with Elizabeth Warren for the Senate seat there.

- Susan Collins of Maine, who isn't up for reelection this year, but is known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus in the Senate.

- Olympia Snowe of Maine, who would be up for reelection this year, except she is retiring.  Also known as one of the better human beings in the R caucus.

- Dean Heller of Nevada, who is in a fierce race against Shelley Berkley in his quest for a full term in the Senate.  So fierce, in fact, that Heller is now trying to distance himself from Mitt Romney, who is beginning to act as a drag on the rest of the R ticket.

- Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.  Since the tea party types in her party turned on her and she was able to beat them back, as a write-in candidate of all things, she will occasionally vote for the best interests of her constituents and for America, and this was one of those occasions.

However, two of the Republicans who voted against veterans and for petty partisanship -

Arizona's own Jon Kyl and John McCain.

Kyl's vote is not a surprise; he's part of the leadership of the R caucus in the US Senate and his primary guiding principle seems to be "if it doesn't help me or mine (industry lobbyists and other Republicans), then it doesn't pass."  He (and they) view anything to help veterans as something that would help President Obama, especially since Obama strongly supported the veterans' job corps.  And they oppose *everything* that could even remotely be seen as helping the president.

McCain's vote is more than a bit of a surprise.  He's a veteran himself (in case you missed the eight zillion or so campaign ads, mailers, and talking points mentioning that fact when he ran for president in 2008) and recently has been showing signs that the "maverick" McCain was returning, the McCain who once looked like he was made of presidential timbre.

In short, the McCain with actual principles is long gone and "ain't comin' back".

And now the Senate has one more vote this week, making all of *three* this week, before heading home until after the November elections.

It seems that membership in the Republican-controlled Congress, both House and Senate, has become the next best thing to "no show jobs", so it's kind of appropos that the Congress is also the "no jobs show".

And before someone complains that the Democrats are the majority party in the Senate, the Senate rules allow for the minority party to obstruct the process at every turn, and the Republicans have enthusiastically, even ruthlessly, taken advantage of those rules.  They may not be in the majority in the Senate, but they are in control in the Senate.

BTW - did anyone else notice that the five Rs who supported the measure are women or are being challenged by women this year?  Not sure what it means, or if it even means anything at all, but it sure is interesting...

Mitt Romney on Obama Voters: His "let them eat cake" moment

Republican candidate ordered off of the ballot in LD13

From AZCentral.com, written by Amber McMurray and Haley Madden -

Legislative candidate Darin Mitchell's name should be removed from the Nov. 6 ballot, a judge ruled Monday.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbilling ordered that Mitchell be removed from the ballot after hearing testimony from neighbors and other witnesses who said the GOP House candidate did not reside in district where he was elected.

{snip}

 

But the process for his replacement is a matter of timing, according to Matt Roberts, Secretary of State's Office spokesman.

 

According to the office interpretation of state statute, the Republican party can appoint a candidate to replace Mitchell if they can do it before the ballots are printed Tuesday night.

 

If the party cannot meet that deadline - or if Mitchell appeals and the Arizona Court of Appeals does not rule by that deadline - then no name will go on the ballot. Any candidate, however, can file to run as a write-in.

There are procedural requirements/laws that would seem to make it unlikely that the Rs can appoint someone to fill the ballot slot, given that the deadline is 5 p.m. on Tuesday.  From ARS 16-343 (emphasis mine) -

2. In the case of a vacancy for the office of United States representative or the legislature, the party precinct committeemen of that congressional or legislative district shall nominate a candidate of the party's choice and shall file a nomination paper and affidavit complying with the requirements of section 16-311.

 

{snip}

 

C. Any meetings for the purpose of filing a nomination paper and affidavit provided for in this section shall be called by the chairman of such committee or legislative district, except that in the case of multicounty legislative or congressional districts the party county chairman of the county having the largest geographic area within such district shall call such meeting. The chairman or in his absence the vice-chairman calling such meeting shall preside. The call to such meeting shall be mailed or given in person to each person entitled to participate therein no later than one day prior to such meeting. A majority of those present and voting shall be required to fill a vacancy pursuant to this section.

D. A vacancy that is due to voluntary or involuntary withdrawal of the candidate and that occurs following the printing of official ballots shall not be filled in accordance with this section, however, prospective candidates shall comply with section 16-312. A candidate running as a write-in candidate under this subsection shall file the nomination paper no later than 5:00 p.m. on the fifth day before the election.

The other interesting part of section C above (as in "other than the highlighted portion") is the bit about the chair of the district having the largest *geographic area* being the one to call the meeting necessary to appoint someone to fill the ballot slot.  While the AZSOS shows that there are more registered voters in the Maricopa County portion of LD13 than in the Yuma County portion (59K to 35K), geographically speaking, LD13 is more a Yuma County district than a Maricopa County district.

However, that's just trivia, because at this point, while there still could be some rule-bending by the Rs to name someone to fill the vacant ballot spot, it looks as if it's going to come down to a write-in campaign.

While under the provisions of the above section of law, candidates have until five days before the election to file as write-in candidates, realistically, any interested parties should file as soon as it becomes definite that there will be a vacant spot on the ballot.  A successful write-in campaign will need to be up and running ASAP.

Which won't be fun for any of the candidates, but should make for great subject material for wiseasses with blogs. :)

Doug Ducey and other Republican elected officials using their positions to interfere with initiative process

There are two ballot questions on the November ballot that were placed there by petition drives (or maybe just one right now, depending on the latest ruling on the "top two primary" question) instead of the legislature, and the Republicans hate them both almost as much as they hate President Obama.

A little birdie (aka - a friend :) ) pointed out this Twitter exchange between Arizona State Treasurer Doug Ducey and a couple of interested Arizonans -

Ummm...yeah.

For those who say that elected officials are free to express their opinions on their own time, just like the rest of us, I agree...if the campaigning is on their own time.

However, in this case, I would point out some of the detail information from at least one of Ducey's tweets -

 

 

"1:52 PM on 11 Sep 12"?

That's early in the afternoon on Tuesday.  Kind of the middle of the workday there, Doug.

Ducey is the chair of an anti-Prop 204 political committee.  While the committee is so new (formed on August 15) that their first finance report showed no activity, but their next report should be interesting.

This activity could be a problem for Ducey - he could report this, perhap as an in-kind contribution from the taxpayers (?), because his campaigning took place during the middle of his work day.  At that point, his time is a resource that belongs to the taxpayers.

Which could cause him some discomfort.

On the other hand, he could *not* report it, and hope no one notices...oops, too late.

And either way, there could be hell to pay if it comes out that Ducey used a state-owned computer to post his tweet (and let me be clear, I'm not saying that he did.  It would take someone with far more technical knowledge and with far better investigatory access to the state records and equipment needed to prove that he did or did not use state property for campaign purposes).

This isn't the only committee that Ducey is giving his/the taxpayers' time to - he's also the chair of a pro-Prop 118 committee.  Prop 118 is a long, complex, and highly technical amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to state permanent funds and investments.

He's also not the only state-level elected campaigning against Prop 204 - at Thursday's Forum on Civic Engagement held by the Arizona Town Hall, John Huppenthal, the AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction, spoke against Prop 204.  Not directly, but by talking only about things in the measure that he didn't like, nor did he express support for any effort to buttress education funding in Arizona (an interesting non-position for someone who was elected to oversee and protect public education in the state).



Huppenthal on stage at the forum

The forum was clearly after business hours, but he was there as, and was introduced as, the holder of his office, the highest-ranking education-related office in the state.

...Another elected official actively working against the best interests of Arizona citizens is State Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, who is the chair of a committee that supports Prop 115, an amendment to the AZ Constitution that seeks to reduce the independence of the state's Judicial Branch.

Hey, at least Farnsworth can point out that the lege is out of session and his work against the judiciary

Irony Alert

On Thursday evening, the Arizona Town Hall held a Forum on Civic Engagement at Central High School in Phoenix.  If a video archive of the event is posted on the internet, I'll link to it here.

It was a thought-provoking evening, and one deserving of a serious write-up, which I'll do later, but for now, I'm going to let my inner wiseass run wild for a moment.

John Huppenthal is Arizona's State Superintendent of Public Instruction.  He, along with his predecessor Tom Horne (AZ's current Attorney General) has done everything within his power (and a few things that may be outside of his authority) to demonize Mexican-Americans and attacking the Mexican-American Studies program of the Tucson Unified School District.

With that background, Thursday's forum served up this week's moment of irony -

(L-R) Susan Carlson of the Arizona Business and Education Council, Peggy Klein of the O'Connor House, Bryanna Cisneros of the Maricopa Community College District's Center for Civic Engagement, and John Huppenthal, Arizona's Superintendent of Public Instruction

That's Huppenthal on the far right of the pic (of course). 

I wonder if he appreciated, or even was aware of, the irony of appearing on a stage while under that quote?

Part two: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

Note: The first part of this post is here.  That one was mostly about abbreviations; this one will have some of that, but it is more about the specifics of Arizona politics, particularly regarding the state capitol.

Again, let me be clear - neither this post nor its predecessor is meant to be considered definitive or complete.  They're just primers.

Some of the players and forces at play at the Capitol:

- Arizona's governor (currently Jan Brewer) is handicapped by the fact that Arizona, like most western states, utilizes a "weak executive" model of government. The governor's two biggest political tools are the veto pen and the job title, and the public soapbox that goes with it. Otherwise, the governor can't do much that isn't specifically approved by the legislature.

The current governor isn't known as the brightest light in the nighttime sky, but she's bright enough to have held office (of one sort or another) since the early 1980s. Not sure if that is evidence that she is underrated intellectually, or that the intellectual requirements necessary to get into elected office in Arizona are overrated.

Brewer ascended to the governor's office, which is physically located on the ninth floor of the Executive Tower at the AZ Capitol (hence, the occasional use of "the Ninth Floor" to describe the administration/governor's office in general) when her predecessor, Janet Napolitano, accepted the job of US Secretary of Homeland Security in 2009.

Brewer won election to her own term in 2010 after she signed SB1070, the infamous anti-immigrant law that has basically been eviscerated by the courts. However, the bill was a strong enough sop to the nativist wing of the AZGOP to clear what had been a crowded primary field, and to propel her to a general election victory over Democratic nominee Terry Goddard.

She has basically been a rubber stamp for the Republican caucus in the lege, wielding her veto pen  only on certain extreme measures where the legislative support for a measure was weak enough that her veto wouldn't be overridden.

She is term-limited and will not be able to run for re-election in 2014.

The main "power behind the throne" is well-connected lobbyist Chuck Coughlin. Reputed to be the brains of the Brewer political operation, Couglin was/is employed as a lobbyist by the Corrections Corporation of America, which just received a contract from the state for private prison cells that the state doesn't need.

- Arizona's state legislature is the seat of the most political authority, and the most political mischief, in the state. It may be shortened as "the lege".

Where to start, where to start....?

How about with...

...term limits have created a climate where experience is rare and ignorance is king.  State level term limits allow for officeholders to hold a particular office for a maximum of eight years (four two-year terms for legislators, two four-year terms for people in statewide offices such as governor or attorney general).  Some legislators get around the term limits by switching chambers periodically, but most don't stay around long enough to get good at the job.  The term limits aren't permanent - the officeholder only has to take one term off from an office to reset the term limits clock.  However, as the law is written, even one day sworn into an office counts as a full term.  As such, both Governor Jan Brewer and AZSOS Ken Bennett are term-limited and will not be eligible to run for reelection to their current offices in 2014.  Both first gained their current offices when Janet Napolitano resigned from the governor's office in 2009 to take a promotion to the Obama Administration and D. C.  Brewer succeeded to the governor's office from her previous position as AZSOS, and Bennett was appointed to fill that office.  In 2010, both won election to full terms. (Yes, this part is more than a little repetitive, but it merits coverage in both the sections about the governor and about term limits.)

...the Arizona Constitution (and school civics textbooks all over the state) says that the legislature is a bicameral body consisting of the House of Representatives and the State Senate; the practical reality is that the two chambers of the lege are the Center for Arizona Policy (social engineering agenda) and the Goldwater Institute (big business lobbying). Those organizations don't write *every* bill that is passed by the lege, but if either one opposes a measure outright, said measure dies. Quickly. Painfully. Publicly.

- - Note: in addition to the abbreviation "CAP", the Center for Arizona Policy will also be referred to as the "Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy" because most of the measures supported by CAP are all about imposing the strictures of their preferred religion upon the rest of society.

- - Note2: "The Goldwater Institute" will be used in most references, though the abbreviation "GI" may be used on occasion. GI professes to be a "non-partisan think tank", though they never seem to support the ideas of Democrats, and the "analyses" they provide always support policies that enhance corporate profit margins.

Players in the lege include Republicans Sen. Steve Pierce and Rep. Andy Tobin, the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House, respectively. Both are from the Prescott area and will be returning to their respective chambers in January as they are unchallenged in the general election. Democratic Rep. Chad Campbell, the House Democratic leader, is likely to return to the House as his is a Democratic-leaning district. Campbell is rumored to be eyeing a run for the Ninth Floor in 2014. Over in the Senate, the Democratic leadership is in flux. Current Democratic leader David Schapira ran for Congress and will not be returning to the Senate. In addition, there will be a number of new senators, so I cannot predict who will emerge as the leader.

Other names to watch include Rep. John Kavanagh (R), chair of the House Appropriations committee; Sen Michelle Reagan (R), a likely 2014 statewide or Congressional candidate; Sen. Rich Crandall (R), Rep. Steve Farley (D), Rep. Katie Hobbs (candidate for Senate, who, though facing a Republican in the general election, resides in the same Democratic-leaning district as Campbell, above).

There are others, but until all of the elections sort themselves out and we see who ends up where and what the breakdown in each chamber is, the names will wait.

One person that we won't have to watch at the Capitol is Russell Pearce, nativist icon and the former Senate president who lost a recall election in 2011.  He lost a 2012 primary in his attempt to return to the senate.  Look for him to move into a bigger role in the AZGOP while biding his time, waiting for another opportunity to run for elected office.

One group that should be a bigger player, but isn't, is the office of the Legisislative Council (Lege Council). The lawyers on staff there turn bill proposals into legalese (aka - take the ideas of legislators and the ideas of lobbyists that legislators put their names to and turn them into actionable legislative proposals). They also analyze and report on the legal viability of those proposals. Those analyses tend to be direct, accurate, and thoroughly ignored by the lege if the analyses aren't in abject agreement with Republican ideology.

Hence, the pattern of Arizona being sued over various laws, and usually losing, all at taxpayer expense.

Another organization at the Capitol, one with much greater sway than the Lege Council, is the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC). It serves as the Arizona Legislature's version of the Congressional Budget Office (CBO). It is basically a number-crunching operation, both collecting and analyzing Arizona-centered economic data, and performing fiscal analyses of bill proposals under consideration by the lege.

- Arizona's Judicial Branch, which includes Justice Courts (overseen by JPs), municipal courts, county court systems, the AZ Court of Appeals, and the AZ Supreme Court, is pretty widely respected for its fairness and professionalism. At least, it is respected outside of Arizona. Here in AZ, because the courts say "no" to the lege too often, the ideologues in the lege are constantly trying to reduce the independence of the courts.  The Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court is Rebecca White Berch.  She is a Republican, but she is one of my favorite public officials in the state.  She's smart, fair, and starts her meetings on schedule.  Trust me when I say this, that is very unusual at the Capitol.  If a meeting that she's running has an agenda stating that its start time is 9 a.m., it starts at 9 a.m.  Across the Wesley Bolin Plaza at the lege, if a committee agenda states that the start time is 9 a.m., that meeting starts betweeen 9 a.m. and dusk.  And come budget time, the "dusk" part is negotiable.

- Arizona's lobbyists, including the aforementioned Coughlin, CATP, and Goldwater Institute, are very influential here.  There are far to many to list them all, though Civil Arizona offers a list of the 20 most powerful ones here (while I disagree with the ranking order of the list, it pretty effectively covers the top 20); the Arizona Capitol Times has a complete list of lobbyists here; the AZSOS offers a search function for its database of registered lobbyists here.  Because of term limits and normal turnover, the lobbyists (and a few members of the staff at the Capitol) have become the lege's institutional memory.

- The core media group at the Capitol includes the Arizona Capitol Times, the Arizona Republic, and Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services.

...The Cap Times may be about the goings-on in state government, but their target audience isn't the people of Arizona, it's the lawyers, lobbyists, and other insiders who profit from the Capitol.  While not known for hardcore investigative reporting, they will publish pieces about legislators and other electeds that are more than puff pieces...so long as the pieces don't reflect poorly on the lobbyists who actually pay for their subscriptions (legislators get their copies gratis).  Receives a large chunk of their revenue from legal notices (corporate filings, notices of bank auctions, etc.), so once a year, some legislator runs a bill to end the requirement that such things have to be published in a newspaper.

And once per year, the publisher of the Cap Times trots over to the lege, says "hi" to old friends and acquaintances, and beats back the measure.

...The Arizona Republic is the state's primary newspaper.  They do have a couple of reporters who are basically assigned to the Capitol beat, and those reporters are pretty good, but their editors and publisher won't let them off the leash to do pieces that involve serious research and investigation.  Usually, all that they are allowed to do is to take dictation.  As a whole, many people consider the AZRep to be a conservative newspaper, and while there is a lot of truth to that, I think that they are more a "corporate profit" newspaper that looks to protect the status quo, even if that status quo is of dubious long-term benefit and viability.  Yes, they've endorsed "moderate" Republicans over extreme Republican in primaries, but they will almost always endorse Republicans over Democrats in general election races.  It's all about who they think will best secure the short-term profitability of Arizona's real estate industrial complex and other corporate interests.

...Along with the lobbyists at the lege, Howie Fischer is the Capitol's version of institutional memory.  He's been down there forever...well, since before the last time Arizona had a governor who both entered and exited office because of the results of an election (the mid-1980s).  He is the reporter for a news organization named "Capitol Media Services"  He's also the photographer, editor, publisher, salesman, chief cook, and bottlewasher for Capitol Media Services.  In other words, he *is* Capitol Media Services.  Basically, he is the capitol correspondent for all non-TV news outlets except for the Cap Times and AZRep.  He does some good work, but his business model is such that he needs access to legislators (and staffers) as sources.  Hence, he can't afford to tick them off by actually investigating and writing about things like corruption at the Capitol.  He's also a Republican (I think), but does a decent job of not letting that shade his reporting from the Capitol. 

Well, not too often, anyway.

...On television, the Maricopa County-based political talk shows are Horizon (KAET, a PBS affiliate, hosted by Ted Simons), Sunday Square Off (KPNX, an NBC affiliate, hosted by Brahm Resnick), Politics Unplugged (KTVK, an independent station, hosted by Carey Pena and Dennis Welch), and Newsmaker Sunday (KSAZ, a Fox affiliate, hosted by John Hook).  The first three are good and seem to be pretty evenhanded.  I can't comment on the Fox station's program because it is on at 7:30 on Sunday freakin' morning!, so I've never seen more than the last few minutes of it.


That's it for now, but I'll update when developments call for it.

Part one: Arizona Politics 101 - "Peanuts! Crackerjack! Scorecards! Ya can't tell the players without a scorecard!"

After writing this blog for 6+ years, I've noticed that I tend to write in a sort of shorthand, using abbreviations more often than I should and writing as if all readers know the backstory of the elected officials, candidates, players (lobbyists, mostly) and situations here in AZ (See? An abbreviation!  "AZ" is short for "Arizona").

Originally, this post was going to include the works - abbreviations, players, backstory (stuff that I tend to assume everyone already knows, so I tend to just reference it, but not necessarily explain it) - but the post was getting to be incredibly, and unreadably, long, and still wasn't close to being complete.

Time to break it into parts.

As such, the first post will be a list of abbreviations and nicknames.  It won't be comprehensive, not hardly, but it should be a good start.

Also, while there will be a few mentions of matters of a partisan nature, neither this nor the next post aren't ideological hit pieces.  I'll just be discussing some of the practical applications of power in Arizona.

If I leave out something that you believe should be included, let me know in a comment or an email.

Abbreviations -

- Any state's postal code abbreviation (AZ, CA, TX, etc.) can and will be used in place of its whole name, though I try to use the full name at least once before using the abbreviation.

- "SOS" refers to "Secretary of State".  You'll see it used often here because the SOS is the chief elections officer in most states, and this is a political blog.  In instances where "SOS" is used alone, it will almost always refer to the Arizona Secretary of State, though "AZSOS" may also be used.  For references to the secretary of state in other states, the name of the state will be spelled out or the state's postal code abbreviation will be appended to "SOS".  For instance, the California Secretary of State will either be referred to by that name or "CASOS".

- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors = "MCBOS"; on second use in a piece, they may be referred to as "the supes"..  In instances where the board of supervisors in another county is being referenced, the name will be spelled out (i.e. - "Pima County Board of Supervisors", though on second use, a shorter phrase may be used (i.e. - "Pinal BOS" or "Navajo supes").

It should be noted that while I don't often do so, folks who write about the judicial system a lot tend to use the phrase "the supes" when discussing the supreme court, whether in their state or in the US.

- The Arizona Democratic Party and Maricopa County Democratic Party are "ADP" and "MCDP", respectively.

- The Arizona Republican Party is abbreviated as "AZGOP".  Republicans will also be referred to as "GOPers".

- "CCEC" refers to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission, Arizona's voter-enacted mechanism for providing public funding to candidates.  It isn't mandatory for candidates, nor is it a panacea for all that ails Arizona politically (obviously), but it provides a path for candidates to raise money without selling their integrity (and souls) to those with deep pockets and anti-social agendas.

- "ADOT" = Arizona Department of Transportation and "MVD" refers to the Motor Vehicle Division of ADOT (MVD handles the sort of stuff that most average residents of Arizona need - drivers' licenses, vehicle registrations, etc.)

- "JP" is short for Justice of the Peace.  It's a relatively low-profile elected office, but it pays very well.  Maricopa County Justices of the Peace earn approximately $105K per year, making them the second-highest paid publicly-elected officials in the state, behind only the governor.  It comes up here because a couple of friends of mine are JPs, and many electeds go for a term as a JP in order to increase their pensions (see:  Cheuvront, Ken).  Note:  the president of the governing board of the Salt River Project (SRP) makes approximately $180K per year at last check, but that person is elected by the members of the board, and they are elected by the landowners in the SRP service area.

- The Arizona Corporation Commission is abbreviated "ACC".  The ACC is ostensibly the body that oversees and regulates securities and utilities in Arizona.  I say "ostensibly" because the ACC is controlled by a Republican majority who look to be a wholly-owned subsidiary of ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council.  ALEC is an organization that is dedicated to putting legislators together with industry lobbyists.

- "CAP" is short for both the Center for Arizona Policy (more on them in the next post) and Central Arizona Project.  Generally, the context of the piece will indicate which is being referenced.  That will usually be the Center for Arizona Policy because they are far more influential and active at the state capitol than the Central Arizona Project.

- "The lege" is short for "the legislature".  Used alone, it refers to the Arizona State Legislature; if another state's legislature is being referenced, that state will be specified, as in "Texas lege".

- The Arizona Capitol Times is the capitol newspaper (like the name doesn't make that clear :) ).  Usually, I just spell out the name, but on occasion, mostly to avoid being repetitive, that is shortened to "Cap Times."

- The Arizona Republic is the state's general interest newspaper (for now anyway.  They've been in decline for years, and their new "subscription fee for everything" business model may just drive readers to other sources).  It will either be referenced by its full name or by "AZRep".

- The other newspaper that is regularly referenced here is the Phoenix New Times.  It will either be referenced by its full name or "the New Times".

For other abbreviations, on the first reference in a piece, the full name will be cited first, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.  For example - "...Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO)..."


More to come...

The Rs' LD13 primary mess: Unleash the lawyers!

On Tuesday, the Arizona Capitol Times broke the story that Darin Mitchell, one of the winners of the LD13 Republican primary for a seat in the Arizona House of Representatives, apparently doesn't live in that district.

Note: the link is to my post about the story; the Cap Times' story is now behind a subscriber paywall.

The incumbent legislator that Mitchell ousted, Russ Jones, took a few days to mull his options, ultimately deciding to file a lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court (link courtesy KPNX-TV).

In the lawsuit, Jones asks the court to enjoin (aka - forbid) the AZ Secretary of State and the county recorders in Maricopa and Yuma counties (LD19 spans parts of both counties) from placing Mitchell's name on the general election ballot.

He also asks for court costs and attorney fees, but does *not* specifically ask the court to place his name on the ballot in Mitchell's stead.

I'm not a lawyer, so take this with a big grain of salt (meaning that I could be way off here), but I don't think this is going to go far.

1.  There is a 10-day period after the deadline for filing candidate petitions in June when candidates (and non-candidates) can challenge the ballot eligibility of other candidates.  Fisher availed himself of that time to challenge the petitions of another candidate, successfully forcing that candidate out of the race; Jones did not challenge Mitchell's residency at that time.  I'm guessing that the Court will be loathe to give Jones a second opportunity at this late date, particularly in order to overturn the results of an election.

2.  There are a couple of typos in the legal filing.  It refers to Mitchell as "Shaw" a couple of times -



From page 4 of the linked .pdf
 

There was another instance of this on page 5 of the filing.

The typos alone might not be enough for the Court to dismiss the filing (I think "intent" is obvious here, and I think that the filers clearly intended to name "Mitchell", not some mysterious "Shaw", but I really don't know), but if the Court is looking for a way to not get involved in this mess, the typos could give it a technical, rather than substantive (and hence, easily reversible), excuse to dismiss.

3.  Neither I, nor anyone I talked to about this, is aware of any Arizona case law that is on point about this (to be fair, neither I nor the people I spoke to are attorneys, so there may be an obscure case that we missed), so if the Court does take any position on this, they'll be setting precedent.


Depending on the latitude that the Court has (and this was something I really would have preferred to ask an attorney about), they could split hairs, saying that it is too late to knock Fisher off of the ballot, but because of the residency issue it could determine that Fisher is ineligible to serve in the lege until he meets the residency requirement.

In addition, if Fisher is actually kicked off of the general election ballot, it creates a real mess because that would only leave one ballot candidate for the two House seats that are up for election - incumbent Steve Montenegro (R).  No Democrats, Independents, or other party candidates are on the general election ballot.  That means that the 2nd seat would go to whichever candidate runs the best write-in campaign.

If that happens, and a credible Democrat in LD13 wants to step up, call me.  I'll volunteer for your campaign.  I'm pretty sure that the MCDP has my number, or you can email me or reach out on Facebook.


Having said all that, I love this stuff, and not just in a "better them than us" sort of way (though I freely admit that I'm glad this is happening with the Rs and not the Ds).

This stuff is fascinating, in a "nuts and bolts" of politics way.

Yes, I'm a political geek, and yes, I'm proud of it.

Prop 204: Damn, what Tedski said

In November, Arizona's voters will vote on extending a 1% increase in the state's sales tax that the voters passed a couple of years ago to provide additional revenue for Arizona's education system.

I'm a little torn on this - I despise sales and other regressive taxes, but I totally understand why we need to support and improve schools in Arizona.

I've decided to vote for it, and I could go on about the various reasons for that decision, but Tedski, Ted Prezelski, at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has summed up the best reasons to vote for Prop 204, and done so far more succinctly than I ever could (emphasis mine) -

 

Earlier this week, the report that no state cut more money for schools than Arizona did got a lot of play. I guess I should have written about it, but, unfortunately, the news that the folks that run our state don’t give a rat’s ass about our state’s future doesn’t shock me enough to make me angry anymore.

 

Phil Hubbard, who served in the legislature in the eighties and nineties, used tell a story about a Republican from Sun City who had a seat near him on the floor. Another legislator was giving a speech about preparing for the future. The legislator from Sun City leaned over to Hubbard and said, “The future? In Sun City we don’t even buy green bananas.”

 

These days, we’ve got a veto-proof majority and a governor serving on behalf of people who don’t buy green bananas.

 

Vote yes on 204…sales taxes suck and are regressive, but hoping our legislators will give a darn is a fool’s errand.

Other than using more words (that's just how I roll :) ), I would change only one thing in Ted's post -

I'd have used the word "damn" instead of "darn".

AHCCCS to hold public meetings on possible changes to Arizona Medicaid

On very short notice, and scheduled at times of the day when most people won't be able to even think about participating, Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) will be holding meetings to put out some information and to solicit public input on possible changes to Arizona's Medicaid program (aka - AHCCCS). 

The first meeting was yesterday (Wednesday, September 5) in Flagstaff (hence the quip about "short notice).

The rest -

Monday, September 10, 2012 2p.m. - 4p.m.	The Disability Empowerment Center 5025 E. Washington St., 200 Phoenix
Friday, September 14, 2012 11a.m.- 1p.m.	Yuma County Public Library 2951 S. 21Dr. Yuma
Tuesday September 18, 2012 1p.m. - 3p.m.	United Way Community Resource Campus 330 N. Commerce Park Loop Tucson

In July, the US Supreme upheld the Affordable Care Act, but allowed states to opt out of provisions that would expand Medicaid.

That means that Arizona will not expand AHCCCS in any way, because while the feds will pick up most of the costs, the AZ legislature must first approve it, and those are the same folks who danced on the graves of poor people who needed organ transplants while giving yet another tax cut to corporations.  Hell, these are the people that refused to change state law to allow many Arizonans who had exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits to collect them for a few more weeks, and that would not have cost Arizona a single dime.

Don't hold your breath waiting for them to do the right thing.