Jerry Lewis: Personally Civil, Politically Extreme

In the new Legislative District 26 (West Mesa, most of Tempe), current State Rep. Ed Ableser (D-LD17 - Tempe, South Scottsdale) is facing off against current State Sen. Jerry Lewis (R-LD18 - Central and West Mesa).

Ableser was first elected to the House in 2006 and has done an admirable job of representing his ASU-centric district while starting a family and a professional career.  He was and is a perfect match for a diverse, educated, moderate, and mostly middle-class district.

Lewis was first elected to the Senate last year during the recall election that ousted nativist icon Russell Pearce from the Arizona legislature.  Lewis is a successful businessman, active in the community, and a family man.

Based on my personal knowledge of Ableser (we're friends) and everything that I've heard about Lewis (we've never met, but many people that I know also know him), both are fine men and upstanding citizens.

And while those characteristics should be expected from *every* elected official (except female electeds, who should be expected to be "fine women and upstanding citizens" :) ), alone, they aren't enough to qualify someone to represent a district in the legislature.

While Lewis has the support of the "yeah, but he's a nicer guy than Russell Pearce" brigade, that's like saying that "yeah, but he doesn't foam at the mouth like a rabid dog".  On the face of it, it may be true, but so what?  That's setting the personal temperment/behavior bar rather low.

Personally, I have a deep amount of respect for Lewis for daring to take on the Pearce machine and doing his part to end years of near-dictatorial control of the political structure by Pearce and his allies in that area.  He was the precisely right candidate for a district where the electorate was Republican-leaning but with a strong Latino contingent.  As inappropriate for society in general as Pearce's bigoted rants and stunts were, they had become an expression of open contempt for a huge portion of his constituents.

It's no coincidence that immigration issues moved to the lege's back burner when Lewis moved in.

However, that seems to be the only area where Lewis has exhibited a moderating influence.

For example, he voted for a budget that continued the lege's devastation of public education in Arizona (not really a surprise though - he's a big charter school guy; anything that is bad for public ed is good for him.  Leave him in the lege long enough and people will be talking about him like they talk about Steve Yarbrough.)

Some people like to tout Lewis as "independent" or even "moderate".  He's not -

He voted with the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy 92% of the time.

There is absolutely NOTHING moderate about CAP; pretty much every anti-woman and anti-personal freedom measure that goes before the Arizona Legislature is a product of theirs.

In short, he may put a smiling face on it, but his extreme positions on social policy are NOT a good fit for the new LD26.  The new LD26 contains the most moderate part of Mesa as well as the portion of Tempe that contains ASU.  Nothing about Lewis says that he is a "college town" kind of legislator.

Vote for Ed Ableser.  Not only is he a part of the community that he represents, but his beliefs and priorities are in line with that community.

Races to watch (non-AZ edition) -

Come election day, there will be some races to watch aside from the presidential contest and the races here in Arizona; here are some of the races that I'll be keeping an eye on come Election Day -

- MA-Sen: Few individual Senate races have been higher profile this year than the one where Elizabeth Warren is attempting to oust Scott Brown from the seat previously held by Ted Kennedy.  This one has been neck-and-neck (and more than occasionally ugly) throughout most of the cycle, but recent polls show Warren opening up a small lead.  Warren is a staunch consumer advocate and a Democrat; Brown is a darling of Wall Street and a Republican.  Massachusetts is a heavily Democratic state.  I predict that Warren will win, if only because she isn't mailing it in the way Martha Coakley (and the Massachusetts Democratic Party) did during the special election to fill the seat that was vacated when Kennedy passed away.

- WI-Sen: The race Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin (D) and former governor Tommy Thompson (R) has seen its share of ups and downs; current polls show Thompson leading by a single percentage point.

- MO-Sen: Claire McCaskill, the Democratic incumbent vs. Rep. Todd Akin (R) here.  Akin started out with a lead, coughed it up (big-time!) when he spouted off about "legitimate" rape and how women cannot become pregnant as a result of "legitimate" rape.  His support fell off of the table after his ignorant comments, but he has clawed his way back into contention with a variety attacks on McCaskill (apparently, he thinks she should be "ladylike"; he means that she shouldn't speak the truth about him).  If I had to guess, I'd say McCaskill will win, but the race is far closer than it should be.

- OH-Sen:  Incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown is facing the bizarre but well-funded Josh Mandel (R).  Karl Rove has dumped millions into this race.  While Mandel probably won't win (it's still close enough for anything to happen), this race has become a proxy for the presidential race in swing-state Ohio, so expect this one to remain active, and colorful, until the very end.  If Mandel does pull this one off, look for the backers of the "Citizens United" decision by the US Supreme Court to raise a glass filled with (very expensive) champagne in a toast to Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and the other corporate stooges on the Supreme Court.

- The races for control of the legislatures in Wisconsin, Ohio, and Michigan:  In 2010, those states elected legislatures with Republican majorities and put Republicans in the governor's offices, and the havoc ensued.  Each state enacted anti-women, anti-union, anti-society, etc. measures.  They may not return Democratic majorities to their respective legislatures, but putting in enough Ds to slow down or even block the most extreme parts of the Rs' ALEC-written and Koch Brothers-funded agenda is likely.

- IN-Sen: Joe Donnelly (D) and Richard Mourdock (R) are facing off here, after the tea party-type Mourdock defeated long-time incumbent Richard Lugar in the Republican primary.  If Lugar was the R nominee, this race would be considered a lock for the Republicans.  As it is, Mourdock began the general election race leading polls.  But he wouldn't just shut up, and the race is now close and going down to the wire.  His latest example of "diarrhea of the mouth":  Pontificating on how pregnancies resulting from rape are "God's will" and so women should be forced to carry and give birth to rape babies, even against their will.

Others to watch: CT-Sen (Linda McMahon (R), a former pro wrestling executive facing off against Rep. Joe Murphy (D) in a battle to replace the retiring Joe Lieberman (I) ); VA-Sen (Tim Kaine (D) and George "macaca" Allen (R) contesting here); Wisconsin CD1 (R VP nominee Paul Ryan fighting to keep his seat in Congress against Democratic nominee Rob Zerban.  This seat should be won by Ryan, but Zerban isn't going away); Florida CD18 (R tea party/batshit crazy type Allen West vs. D newcomer Patrick Murphy) and Massachusetts CD5 (scandal-plagued D incumbent John Tierney vs. R businessman Richard Tisei - the scandal isn't directly about Tierney, it's more about "what did he know and when did he know it" and some of his wife's activities, but that may be enough to cost him his seat).

Got a suggestion for a race to watch on Election Day while we are waiting for AZ and presidential returns to come in?  Leave it in a comment here.

Watchword for GOTV: Energy

When it comes to successful political movements, one thing is more important than money, or a partisan voter registration advantage, or a hundred other things that are cited by "experts".

Energy.

Energy in the candidates who are the mind of successful campaigns.

Energy in the staffers and organizers, who are the backbone of successful campaigns.

Energy in volunteers and activists who are the grassroots heart and soul of successful campaigns.

We've reached the point of the election cycle where mailboxes are stuffed every day with lit in favor or opposed to each candidate and where all TV ad time has been booked, to the point where some stations are cutting the "news" time in their news shows to add ad time (and, of course, revenue).

Now all that's left is getting out the vote (and making sure you cast your own vote).

It's been a long election cycle (hell, the Republicans have been running against Obama since before he was even inaugurated into his first term nearly four years ago) and we are all looking forward to the day *after* the election (especially the candidates, campaign staffers, and super-volunteers for whom an 18-hour day is "slacking off"), but there's less than two weeks to go.

It's time to dig deep into that reserve of energy that we all keep (or maybe just reach for a little extra caffeine :) ). 

In Maricopa County, you can volunteer for GOTV efforts at the following places -

MCDP Headquarters

2914 N. Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85012

602-298-0503

 

Ahwatukee

4645 Chandler Blvd. Suite 104

Phoenix, AZ 85045

480-961-0022

 

Avondale

319 N. Litchfield Rd. Suite 101

Goodyear, AZ 85338

623-882-3721
 

Gem Dems

7153 E. Main St.

Mesa, AZ 85207

480-924-3367

 

Glendale

8751 N. 51st Ave Suite 105

Glendale, AZ 85302

602-435-9117

 

North Phoenix

10658 N 32nd St.

Phoenix, AZ 85028

602-996-2021
 

Scottsdale

7051 E. 5th Ave. Suite E

Scottsdale, AZ 85215

480-421-2012

 

South Phoenix

6645 S. Central Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85042

 

Outside of Maricopa County, contact your county's Democratic Party for volunteering info.

Cochise County -
1010 E. Fry Blvd.
Sierra Vista, AZ 85635
(520) 458-9467

Coconino County -
201 E. Birch Ave. Suite A
Flagstaff, AZ 86001
(928) 214-0393

Gila County -
1101 S. Beeline Hwy. (SR 87)
Payson, AZ 85541
(928) 468-2305

Graham County -
728 S. 9th Ave.
Safford, AZ 85546
(928) 428-2820

Greenlee County -
104 Wards Canyon Rd.
Clifton, AZ 85533

La Paz and Mohave Counties -
701 Stockton Hill Rd. Suite S
Kingman, AZ 86401
(928) 753-0006

Navajo County -
111 E. Hopi Dr.
Holbrook, AZ 86025

Pima County -
4639 E. 1st St.
Tucson, AZ 85717
(520) 326-3716

Pinal County -
350 N. Main St.
Florence, AZ 85132

Yavapai County -
1555 Iron Springs Rd.
Prescott, Arizona 86305
(928) 541-0413

Yuma County -
1600 S. 4th Ave. Suite D
Yuma, AZ 85364
(928) 783-4673

Aside from the above party-based operations, every candidate has one, too (many individual LDs have them too, but I haven't found a complete listing, as of this writing) -

List of statewide candidates here; legislative candidates here.  For county- and local-level candidate contact info, reach out to your county party.  Or just use Google like the rest of us.  :)

Note:  If a particular county isn't listed above, it is because the ADP doesn't list a headquarters address for it here.

Republicans attacking a Republican judge because he isn't partisan enough to suit them

This story is exhibit 1 in the case against Proposition 115, the measure to impose more partisanship on the state's judiciary, the only branch of the state's government that garners any serious respect.

From Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the East Valley Tribune (emphasis mine) -

A loosely organized effort to oust a state Supreme Court justice is forcing him to consider an unprecedented campaign to keep his post.

 

Justice John Pelander said he is upset by "hit pieces'' being put out by groups urging that he not be retained on the bench this year. He said the information being circulated about a September ruling is "misleading'' at best.

 

{snip}

 

Campaign materials being put out by groups as diverse as the Williams Tea Part [sic] and Legislative District 18 Republican Committee are urging a "no'' on the ballot question about retaining Pelander.

 

The anger is focused on Pelander because the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that Proposition 121 can be on the ballot. That measure, if approved, would amend the state Constitution to create an open primary system where all candidates run against each other regardless of party affiliation, with the top two advancing to the general election.

The Arizona Republican Party, like the other organized parties in the state, has come out in opposition to Prop 121.  However, simply voting "no" on the measure, and urging others to do the same, isn't enough for them.

Nope, they are trying to retaliate against a judge, who was just one of a majority on the state supreme court that ruled against their gambit to keep the measure away from the voters (actually, the justices ruled against an appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the measure to remain on the ballot, but a top-of-the-(back of)-ballot Supreme Court justice is a riper target than a Maricopa County Superior Court judge).

I expect the effort to remove Pelander from the Arizona Supreme Court will fail (previous efforts to remove judges who weren't, but this effort serves as a perfect example of what will happen if Proposition 115 passes - whenever a case with partisan implications comes along, judges will feel undue pressure to rule on the basis of partisan interests, not the law.

To do otherwise will endanger their jobs.


For the record, I have already voted against Props 115 and 121; I may not agree with 121 (hence my "no" vote), but the backers jumped through all the hoops necessary to put the measure on the ballot, and it deserves consideration by the voters.  I think that they should defeat the measure, but it is up to the voters, not special interests.

For the record2, I do believe that there are legitimate reasons to remove a judge from the bench.  Corruption, misuse of office, and rendering rulings based on factors other than the law are at the top of the list.

None of that describes Justice Pelander.  Vote to retain him.

Prop 121, the "jungle primary" initiative: not really designed to improve things

Among the ballot questions on this year's ballot is Proposition 121, a measure that would amend Arizona's Constitution to do away with partisan primaries in favor of a "top two" or "jungle" primary.  Instead of candidates running in a primary election to determine their party's nominee (s) for a particular office or independent candidates gathering enough signatures to directly gain a place on the general election ballot, all candidates for an office will run in a single primary with the top two vote-getters, regardless of partisan affiliation (or non-affiliation) moving on to the general election ballot (or two for each opening where multiple openings exist for the same office, such as state representative).

The measure is actively (and vociferously) opposed by the political parties (small to large) and certain civic groups (like the League of Women Voters) and wholeheartedly supported by a coalition of pro-business groups and their advocates.

Last week, there were two pro-Prop 121 events here in the Valley.

On Wednesday, ASU's Morrison Institute held a discussion on ASU's Downtown Campus with Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org and author of Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America, and Mickey Edwards, a former Congressman and author of the book The Parties Versus the People.

Friday, Zocalo Public Square held an event at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art with Edwards (sans Salit) titled "Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?"

(L-R) Edwards, Salit, and Don Budinger of the Morrison Institute Wednesday evening

Both events, though not SRO, were well-attended.  However, not all attendees were supportive -

A rather agitated State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), at the Morrison Institute event

Kavanagh wasn't the only local politico who made an appearance Wednesday (though he was the only one who directly participated in the discussion) - current candidate for Congress Kyrsten Sinema, former Attorney General Terry Goddard, and former mayor of Phoenix Paul Johnson (a supporter of the measure) all were there at one point or another.


Salit and Edwards basically took the position that political parties have controlled the levers of government, and to the point of this initiative (and their respective books  :) ), access to ballots for the benefit of themselves and not for the people of the country.

And to be fair, there is some truth to that.  For example in Arizona, while there is a path to the ballot for Independent candidates, the signature requirements are much higher for them (3% of voters registered as "other") than for partisan candidates (1/2 of 1% of voters registered in a party).

The supporters of the measure argue that passing the measure will result in candidates that are more responsive to voters and even more "centrist".

However, there is no evidence to that effect in the states that already have a "jungle primary" system in place.

It has created situations such as those in California where in one district two very liberal Democrats are facing off in the general election (30th Congressional District) - a Democratic-leaning district, to be sure, but not an exclusively Democratic one - and another, the 31st Congressional District, where the general election ballot has two Anglo Republicans are running to represent a Latino and Democratic leaning district.

What a jungle primary *doesn't* do is address what I consider to be the main malady that ails modern American politics -

Apathy.

Too many people, non-voters and low-information voters alike, just don't care about politics, being "too busy" or "too good" or "too something" to be bothered.  Even many of the people who vote believe that their civic duty is done once the election is over, acting as if our society and our government is a "fire it up and forget it" sort of operation.

This measure is being marketed as a "magic pill" that *may* cure all that ails AZ politics (to be fair, while many of the local supporters of Prop 121 have taken this tack, Salit and Edwards did not; they think that the jungle primary system is "better", but not perfect).

Based on what I heard and witnessed last week, Salit and Edwards are honest in their intent and honorable in their character, but on this matter, they are simply wrong.

Much like term limits before it, the jungle primary represents, at best, change for the sake of change.  Not change that will actually improve anything.

The "top two" or "jungle" scheme seems to be much like "supply side" economics - where supply-siders posit that if a product or service is cheap enough, people will buy it (yes I know that is *very* simplified, but this post is about practical politics, not economic theory), Salit, Edwards, Johnson, and the rest of the jungle primary supporters believe, and want others to believe, that if we just get "better" candidates, more people will be happy with the available choices on Election Day.

However, the problem with supply side economics is that its proponents ignore the fact that the US has a demand-driven economy.  Price may affect existing demand for a product, but it won't *create* demand. 

By the same token, "better" candidates may impact the thinking of already-engaged voters, but voters who aren't engaged still won't care.

And I freely admit that I have no idea how to address that particular problem. 

Feel free to leave suggestions in a comment; outlandish is OK, just keep it within the realm of possibility.  And civility. :)

While my vote wasn't changed, I do thank the Morrison Institute, Zocalo, and especially Edwards and Salit.  I may disagree with this measure, but any civil discussion on how to improve our political system should always be welcomed.

A second "thank you" goes out to Jackie Salit, who generously took time for a phone interview with me on Monday.  We may disagree on this, but she was intelligent, gracious, and eloquent.


Steve at the Arizona Eagletarian offers his take Friday's Zocalo event here.

Tempe/South Scottsdale Democrats nominate three to fill vacant seat

The (soon-to-be former) LD17 Democrats (because of redistricting, the district that emcompassed south Scottsdale and most of Tempe has been split up into three different districts for the next ten years) met once more to nominate three people to serve out the term of the recently-resigned Ben Arredondo. 

The meeting was a brief one, as the group was required to nominate three people for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors to choose from, and only three people were running.

Hence, the meeting closed with the threesome being nominated by acclamation and no speeches were necessary.  Which was a good thing for the attendees who wanted to get to the ASU-Oregon game. 

Well, "good" until they were told how thoroughly Oregon was beating ASU.  :)

Any, the three nominees are:

Kristin Gwinn, a political consultant, double master's candidate at ASU in ASU's Public Policy and Public Administration programs, and activist
Randy Keating, chair of the (current) LD26 Democrats and small business owner
Juan Mendez, current candidate for the legislature in LD26 and a long-time community activist

(L-R) Mendez, Keating, Gwinn
 

Steve Muratore of the Arizona Eagletarian has full coverage here, including an overview of the legal and procedural particulars surrounding this meeting.

Breaking: Former state legislator Bill Konopnicki passes away

Picture courtesy the Eastern Arizona Courier

Republican former legislator Bill Konopnicki passed away this evening.

The Eastern Arizona Courier published a story early Wednesday detailing Konopnicki's rapidly deteriorating health due to non-alcoholic cirrhosis of the liver.

Twitter is alive with remembrances of him from all across the political spectrum, and the non-political world as well.

Robbie Sherwood, a former reporter for the Arizona Republic, remembers Konopnicki as "old school" in that he came up through local service organizations, not party organizations, and that perspective affected his activities at the Capitol.

He was known as someone who was there to solve problems and "get things done", not to hold to a partisan ideological position, no matter how counterproductive that position.  His primary interest was in working for the best interests of his district and for Arizona.

Along with the late Jake Flake (R) and Jack Brown (D), they formed a trio of legislators who brought a small town sensibility to the lege (they represented northeastern Arizona; mostly small towns and ranches there).  As such, he (and they) were considered too conservative to be Democrats and too moderate to be darlings of the hardcore Rs who have taken control of the Capitol in recent years.

However, many of those from both sides of the partisan aisle with longer memories respect him as one of the last "true gentlemen" at the Capitol, as demonstrated by the outpouring of condolences for Konopnicki's family and friends.

According to his last legislative biography, he was born in Detroit and his family moved to Arizona when he was 5 years old.  He received his higher education at Arizona Western College, ASU, and U of A, before going on to operate a number of small businesses in Safford and the surrounding area over the next few decades.

One of Konopnicki's personal points of pride was that as the owner of some McDonald's franchises in Safford and eastern Arizona, he gave many of his neighbors their first "real" jobs.

Sherwood posted one of his memories of Konopnicki on his Facebook page.  It is reprinted here with permission -

Farewell to my friend former Rep. Bill Konopnicki who passed away this evening. A tremendously nice guy but tough as well. One lasting memory from following him on the campaign trail: on the day of his hometown Safford parade, Bill was suffering from an impacted tooth. He was miserable, hadn't slept and was in a lot of pain. He needed to see a doctor, but in small-town politics you don't miss an event like this. So Bill walked the entire mile-long route smiling, waving and shaking hands, all while carrying one of his little granddaughters in his arms. He was adored and respected by his constituents, embodied service before self and will remain an inspiration.

Koponicki harkens back to a day in Arizona politics where politicians could disagree without being disagreeable, and when there was a function middle at the Capitol that could actually solve problems. 

He will be missed greatly.

My condolences go out to Konopnicki's family and friends on their loss.

2nd debate: A clear win for Obama

After watching last night's debate between President Barack Obama and former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, I was sure that Obama won the debate handily - he was engaged, on point, and on his game, while Romney was often flustered, usually vague, and always arrogant.

However, I am also sure that I have a "bit" of a partisan bias; OK, I'm a partisan hack. :)

But I'm an honest and (I like to think a) fair one, so I decided to sleep on it before writing about my impressions of the debate in Hempstead.

Summary:  no change.  Obama won, going away.

The bottom line is that while Obama wasn't perfect, he did a very good job in Hempstead.  On the other hand, Romney in the second debate looked like the San Diego Chargers in the second half of Monday night's NFL game - even when he did something right, he followed it up with something so wrong that it more than counterbalanced the thing he did right (on Monday night, the Chargers steamrolled their way to a 24 - 0 halftime lead over the Denver Broncos, only to see that lead disappear in a litany of turnovers and penalties as the Broncos went on to win the game 35 - 24.  The word "epic" is overused these days, but it was definitely a collapse of epic proportions).

I'm not the only one who thinks that the president won the debate - even some Fox News commentators think so too -

Neil Cavuto: “The President put in a better performance tonight.”

Charles Krauthammer:  “I think on points, if you’re scoring it on points, Obama wins on points

Juan Williams:  “I think Obama won the debate.”

To be fair, the Fox News commentators did try to minimize the scale of Obama's victory, but even they couldn't deny the fact of the victory (OK, many of them weren't that honest; the spin this morning is dizzying as Fox's morning show talking heads proclaim the debate to be a resounding victory for Romney).

Two takeaways from last night's debate:

- "Binders full of women" is the second debate's "Big Bird" moment. 

During the first debate, Romney pledged to balance the federal budget by cutting the federal subsidy to PBS, which broadcasts the beloved Sesame Street with Big Bird, among many other educational programs.

During the days after the debate, Romney was hammered with that comment

During the second debate, Romney responded to a question about his position on the issue of women not receiving equal pay for equal work by telling a story about how he had "binders full of women" available to him while he was filling cabinet positions as governor of Massachusetts.  He managed to sound evasive and condescending at the same time.

And has been getting hammered with that comment.

- The other takeaway has been a little lost in the rhetorical hubbub surrounding the "binders" comment and the other moments of interest during the debate (like Romney blaming gun violence in America on single mothers), but "please proceed, Governor" stands a chance of becoming a catchphrase meaning "you are doing such a good job of hanging yourself that I don't need to help you.  Much.  Here, have a little more rope."

During the exchange over the killing of the American ambassador to Libya and three other Americans during an attack on the embassy in Benghazi, Romney claim that Obama didn't call the attack an "act of terror" for two weeks.  The President responded that he did so the next day.  Romney thought he had the president on this point and honed in on it, reiterating his position and demanding that the president affirm or change his.  The president responding wth "Please proceed, Governor."

Romney did so, and was immediately fact-checked by debate moderator Candy Crowley, who pointed out that the president did, in fact, call the attack an act of terror the very next day.

It's probably doesn't help the credibility of a candidate to accuse another candidate of lying and then to turn around be caught lying himself.  Jus' sayin'...

If you didn't see the debate, the full debate video is available here, courtesy Huffington Post.  It's a little over 90 minutes long and well worth a look for those who wish to form their own opinions, something we should all do.

Maricopa County Recorder's Office engaging in voter suppression activity?

From ABC15.com, written by Tim Vetscher (emphasis mine) -

The Maricopa County Elections Department mistakenly listed the wrong date of the upcoming general election on an official government document.

The error appears on a document containing a voter ID card.

In addition to the ID card, the piece of paper it comes in lists other information such as important election dates.

In the corner of the document, it says November 6th in English but in Spanish it reads 8 de Noviembre, the 8th of November.

 

Election day is November 6th, not November 8th.

Folks, there is a reason that Arizona has been, is, and will remain, a "preclearance" state under the Voting Rights Act.

OK, there are *many* reasons, and this is only the latest and most blatant.

Folks2, it's official - we've reached the "cheat like hell" portion of the Republicans' plan to win the elections this year.

Two pro Prop 121 events this week

There are two events this week that are intended to support Proposition 121, the "top two" primary initiative that is on November's ballot.

No, they aren't officially campaign activity, but in practical terms, holding the events this close to the election isn't a coincidence.

First up on Wednesday, former Congressman Mickey Edwards and Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org, will appear together on ASU's Downtown campus.  Details:

WHAT: 'Taking the Partisan Out of Politics'

WHEN: Oct. 17 at 5 p.m.

WHERE: Cronkite Theater

Arizona State University

Cronkite School of Journalism

555 N. Central Ave.

ASU Downtown Phoenix Campus.

ADMISSION: Free, but seating is limited so please RSVP.

RSVP: Elisabeth.S.Smith@asu.edu   Parking is available at University Center Garage at a cost of $10 per car. The entrance to the garage is on the side of Polk Street between 1st Street and Central Avenue.  However, ASU Downtown is also on the Valley Metro light rail line.   Edwards is the author of the book The Parties Versus The People and Salit is the author of the book Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America.   Salit took a few minutes to speak to me from New York ahead of her visit to Arizona.  She spoke of the "new conversation" in American politics, and part of that conversation will take place Wednesday evening.       An excerpt from Salit's book is here.   - On Friday, Zocalo Public Square will be holding a similarly-themed event with Edwards (sans Salit) in Scottsdale -   Place: Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art 7374 E 2nd Street Scottsdale, AZ   Time: 7 p.m.   Parking: West of the Museum in the parking garage between the Scottsdale Civic Center Library and Scottsdale Stadium.  Parking is free.     For the record:  I oppose, and have in fact already voted against, Prop 121.    A "top two" primary system is already in place in Louisiana, Washington, and California, as well as certain specific smaller jurisdictions (such as cities) but there is no evidence that it has resulted in more moderate candidates or elected officials.  In addition, it has led to situations, such as the one in California, where a heavily Democratic and Latino district has two Anglo Republican candidates on the fall ballot.   This particular measure is also sloppily-written, or maybe it is simply deliberately vindictive, with a provision that allows candidates to self-declare membership in any political party, even one that doesn't exist.  While it certainly isn't right to shun voters who choose not to declare an affiliation to a particular party, neither is it right to show contempt for those who do so choose an affiliation, be it Democratic, Republican, Green, Libertarian, or whatever.   And that provision seems to be designed to specifically shower contempt on voters who have chosen a partisan affiliation.   However, having said all that, the issue is one that legitimately merits discussion, and the backers of the measure jumped through all the right hoops in order to place the question on the ballot.   I'll write more after the events...

Political news briefs of the (mostly) legal variety

Some of this has been covered elsewhere, but merits inclusion here because of timeliness and topicality -

- LD17 State Representative Ben Arredondo pled guilty in federal court on Friday on some felony mail fraud charges related to a sporting events tickets bribery scam and a "scholarship fund" that was used to pay education expenses for some relatives of his.  According to news reports, his sentencing will take place in January.  A copy of the plea agreement is here, courtesy AZCentral.com.

With the felony conviction, Arredondo becomes ineligible to serve in the legislature.  When the seat officially becomes vacant, the Democratic Party precinct committeemen (PCs) of the current LD17 will meet to nominate three candidates to fill the seat for the remainder of Arredondo's term.  The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors will then interview and select one of the candidates for the appointment.

- John Mills, a former staffer at the Arizona House of Representatives, is the subject of a federal indictment on wire fraud charges, relating to his alleged use of campaign funds for personal purposes.

...While the two, Arredondo and Mills, have been convicted and/or accused of some serious crimes, the crimes are still relatively small time. 

The "buzz" in Arizona's political circles is that this is just the beginning and that more investigations, indictments, and convictions of "large fry" are in the federal pipeline.

- Arizona has had governors indicted* (and convicted) while in office, a state treasurer resign in disgrace (before he could be indicted), and a state mine inspector who was indicted on fraud and theft charges. 

And just in the last couple of decades.

However, to the best of my knowledge, we've haven't had an Attorney General who was the subject of a corruption investigation.

Enter Tom Horne.

He's now facing civil charges (which could result in fines, as opposed to the prison time that criminal charges could bring) stemming from some alleged campaign finance violations. A close aide of his, Kathleen Winn, headed up an independent expenditure committee during the 2010 election cycle. That independent committee spent more than half a million dollars opposing candidates.

Or should I say, "candidate".

The only candidate that the committee expended funds opposing was Felecia Rotellini, Horne's opponent in the race for Attorney General that year.

There was evidence (aside from the obvious - a Horne associate running an "independent" committee that focused solely on attacking a Horne adversary) that there was operational and fundraising coordination between Horne, hence the charges.

Fun fact: All of the independent expeditures were funnelled through Lincoln Strategy Group, which is run by infamous GOP operative Nathan Sproul. Who's having problems of his own these days.

Even before this, Horne had ethical issues - like a receiving a lifetime ban from the Securities and Exchange Commission for things like fraud and deceiving clients, like concealing a bankruptcy on a financial disclosure form, like hiring women who are close, personal friends to taxpayer-funded jobs for which they may be slightly less than qualified for (that's kind of a convoluted way of saying that he allegedly has used taxpayer money to support his girlfriends).

And to top it all off, during the FBI investigation that led to the current legal difficulties? Horne was driving a car that collided with another car, and after doing so, drove off. He committed a hit-and-run.

In full view of two FBI agents who were following him as part of the investigation.

And where did the accident occur?

At the address of his (alleged) girlfriend.

Ooopsie.

*Actually, multitasker that he was, Ev Mecham was indicted, impeached, and the subject of a recall election, all at the same time. However, including all of that would have made the sentence waaaaay too long. :)

- Cochise County Sheriff Larry Dever was legally intoxicated, speeding, and not wearing a seat belt at the time of his fatal car crash.  All of which goes to illustrate that no one is immune to the laws of biochemistry or physics, not even those who enforce the laws of man.  If you are going to consume alcohol (or any other intoxicant), don't drive; when you drive, drive in a manner that is safe for the conditions (Dever was driving at more than 60 mph on a gravel road designed, and designated, for a lower speed); and when you get into a motor vehicle, wear your damn seat belt.

Having said all that, we should not lose sight of the fact that this is a huge tragedy for Dever's family and friends, and my deepest condolences go out to them.

- Apparently, one of the candidates for the Arrowhead Justice of the Peace office, Melanie DeForest, has withdrawn from the race.  According to a source, a press release was sent out late this week announcing the withdrawal, however, I haven't seen the press release nor did DeForest return a call seeking confirmation.  However, I trust my source on this.

DeForest is the "incumbent" in the race in that she currently holds the office.  She was appointed to the office when her predecessor Philip Woolbright was removed from office over ethics violations.

Woolbright was removed from office too late for a normal election process (collect nomination signatures, turn them in and be placed the primary ballot, win the primary, and go on to the general election), so the race is a "write-in" only one on the November ballot.  There are nine declared write-in candidates, but DeForest was considered to be the favorite, both because she was already in the office and because she has the support of the Arrowhead Justice Precinct/NW Valley "establishment", such as it is - the treasurer of her campaign committee is Miles Keegan, the constable of the Hassayampa Justice Precinct, and her non-"Melanie DeForest" campaign contributors, per her most recent campaign finance filings, are John Keegan, a former JP in the Arrowhead precinct, and Chris and Martha Mueller.  Mr. Miller is "Judge" Mueller, the Hassayampa JP, and Martha is his homemaker wife.

Note:  Woolbright is scheduled for a bench trial on Thursday on a charge stemming from the incidents that were part of the ethics violations (Maricopa County Superior Court case number CR2012005432).  However, that may change if either side in the case moves for a continuance.

The Arizona Republic has a story on DeForest's withdrawal from the race.  Apparently she "enhanced" her resume, claiming certain educational and employment achievements that cannot be documented.

- Speaking of Maricopa County Superior Court cases, Jon Levenson, the former constable in the Kyrene Justice Precinct agreed to a plea deal in his insurance fraud/conspiracy case (CR2011-007713).  He plead guilty to one charge, Conspiracy to Commit Arson of an Occupied Structure (his own house), while two other charges were dropped.  He was sentenced to serve four months in Maricopa County Jail, but based on my reading of the plea agreement, the jail sentence is suspended and he will serve two years' probation instead.  I've reached out to someone who knows more about this stuff than I do (you know, a lawyer-type person :) ).  I'll update if appropriate.

Update on 10/7 - turns out that I did, in fact, misread the linked plea agreement.  The normal sentence for a Class Two felony is much harsher than four months in county lockup; the four months in county is *part* of the suspended sentence, along with the two years' probation.  Apologies to readers for my misreading of the plea agreement.  End update...

Bill Clinton coming to Tempe for Richard Carmona

Former President Bill Clinton is coming to ASU in Tempe as part of a rally for Richard Carmona, the Democratic nominee for US Senate who has been surging in recent polls.  RSVP here.

Basic info:

Date: Wednesday, October 10
Place: ASU Tempe, Sun Devil Performance Lawn, 650 South Athletes Place, Tempe, Arizona 85287
Time: Open at 8 p.m; rally starts at 9 p.m. 

 



Takeaway from the debate: Mitt took round one on style points

...and rounds two and three can, and I expect will, have different outcomes.

Romney pluses:  Stated clearly and (for now) kept to his positions confidently, even aggressively.  Frequently interrupted and/or ignored the debate moderator, Jim Lehrer, making it appear that Romney was in control of the debate.

Romney minuses: In spite of that, he didn't land a body blow, or even seriously sting President Obama, and he needed to do so tonight.

Obama pluses:  He had facts on his side, and he stayed calm and composed in the face of Romney's incessant lies and attacks.

Obama minuses:  He didn't call out Romney on the lies, letting a huge TV audience walk away from the event with the impression that Obama may not have the spine to stand up to Romney.


While the debate was a "win" for Romney, barely, the talking heads on the cable news networks think that this was a major "game changing" victory for Romney, and a brutal loss for Obama.

The problem with the talking heads is that they think like Washington insiders and expect that everyone else thinks the same way.

For them, the nuances of Simpson-Bowles, tax policy, and the deficit are the most vital topics of the day (and they certainly are important).

However, most parents with hearts will have a far more visceral reaction when their 3-year old cries -

"Mommy/Daddy!  Please don't vote for the man who wants to kill Big Bird!"

I can't take credit for the following pics from my Facebook friends, but they may illustrate the real takeaway from the debate for most people -

"Obama went after bin Laden; Romney is going after Big Bird".

 

 

 

 

 

John Mills, former House staffer, indicted by the feds

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary Jo Pitzl -

 

A federal grand jury has indicted a former state House staffer on 15 counts of wire fraud, that allege he used a campaign account for his own personal expenses, then returned the money before the election.

 

The indictment alleges John Rowland Mills used the campaign donations to help pay various mortgages, invest in Google stock, invest in  a biodiesel business venture and feed his retirement investment accounts, as well as his wife's.

 

{snip}

 

Although the indictment does not name the candidate whose campaign funds Mills used, Rep. Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, told The Republic it was his account. At the time of the alleged fraud, Weiers was speaker of the Arizona House and was able to amass hefty contributions for his 2008 re-election bid.

 

Weiers called the indictment "silly" because he does not feel he was victimized by Mills' actions. He said the indictment appears to be an attempt by the FBI to justify the time and effort federal investigators put into the investigation.

The allegation that Mills may be a little dirty isn't surprising to anyone who dealt with him during the redistricting process last year (he served as House Speaker Andy Tobin's hatchet man) - when I asked a few of my friends and acquaintances about him, the nicest thing that was said was "Karma's a bitch".

Mills was actually fired from the lege once before, for blurring some lines during the 2001-2002 redisricting process, but was rehired by Jim Weiers when Weiers became House speaker during the middle of the last decade.

However, Weiers' attempt to pooh-pooh the current allegation is a little surprising, and may be a little counter-productive.

Spouting a version of "move along, nothing to see here" in a blatant attempt to make this go away quietly only serves to signal to observers (like a certain cynic with a blog ;) ) that there *is* something to see.

And now, we're going to look for it.

ACC: Arizona Corporation Commission, or Arizona "Crony" Commission

Must be nice to be an unethical Republican (that's not redundant - I do know some ethical ones.  Of course, this being the 21st Century, the ethical ones have no chance of winning an R primary, so we don't hear about them).

For the most part, when they get caught doing something dirty, they don't face penalties harsher than a slap on the wrist...with a wet noodle.

To whit:

- Susan Bitter Smith, Bob Burns, and Bob Stump, Republican candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission all, accepted funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and agreed to follow Clean Elections' rules concerning expenditures.  One of those rules is that candidates cannot use funds that are specified for use during the primary for general election-related activity.

The threesome did so, however, expending primary funds on a mailer that attacked their three general election opponents.

A complaint was filed and an investigation ensued.

This week, they agreed to "give up" $29K in public funding for their campaigns in exchange for making the matter go away and for not having to admit their guilt.

No jail time, no fines, and not even a whisper of a hint of removal from the ballot.  They just won't have as much public money to spend on their own campaigns.

And there is nothing in the agreement that will do anything to minimize the vast amount of money that can and will be spent by industry-funded PACs and Independent Expenditure committees to ensure the election of willfully blind people serve as society's watchdogs.

- - "Cronyism" addendum one to the above story:  The chairman of the ACC, Republican Gary Pierce, is a "marketing consultant" for the company that printed the mailers, Americopy.  Americopy is owned and operated by a big R donor, Alan Heywood.  In other words, even when getting caught doing dirt, the R candidates found a way to funnel public money to campaign contributors.

- - "Cronyism" addendum two to the above story (not directly related to the above story, but highly illustrative of the glad-handing atmosphere that surrounds the current ACC):  The Sierra Club, with the Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest (ACLPI) is suing the ACC to stop the construction and operation of a power plant that will generate electricity by burning trash.  The Republicans on the ACC, Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump, have declared this to be a "green" initiative, in spite of the massive amount of pollution that it will create as it generates electricity.

Turns out that the company behind the proposed project, Reclamation Power Group, is fronted by one Ron Blendu.

If that name sounds a little familiar, it should.  Ron's brother Bob Blendu is a former state legislator.  Some of Bob's colleagues during his stint in the lege?  Gary Pierce, Brenda Burns, and Bob Stump.

Oh, and another of his colleagues during his time in the legislature?  Bob Burns, a current candidate for the ACC.

The fifth Republican in this brew of "it isn't what you know, it's who you know" is perennial R candidate Susan Bitter Smith.  She's never been a member of the lege so far as I can tell, but if she wins a seat on the ACC, she should fit right in with the other R's - she's a career corporate lobbyist.