Charles Boles: Campaigning to prove that he is unsuited for the job he is seeking..

In most of the country "justices of the peace" are basically known for conducting weddings.

In Arizona, while they do that (for most JPs here, it is one of the more enjoyable parts of the job), they also serve as judges (small claims, low-level DUIs, evictions, many misdemeanors, orders of protection, etc.).

In that regard, a large part of the job is about paperwork - see that it is done cleanly and accurately.

And because it is an elected position, there are occasionally candidates for the job who don't seem to understand that, or at least who don't take it seriously.

Charles Boles, the Republican nominee for Justice of the Peace in the University Lakes precinct of Maricopa County (east Tempe) seems to fall into that group.

Notes: the Democratic nominee is Tyler Kissell; the district itself is almost evenly divided between Rs and Ds.

As noted in a complaint filed by Mark Thompson, a Republican former legislator and one of the candidates in the R primary won by Boles, Boles has been filing campaign finance reports that are contradictory and/or incomplete.

From the complaint -



He lists a number of issues with a number of different reports, so I chose to look at his most recent filings.

"Sloppy" doesn't even begin to describe what I found.

From Boles' most recent report ("Post Primary Report") -



As someone with a bit of an accounting background (and only a *bit* - I am not an accountant), this page is almost horrifying.  On line 5b and line 7, columns A and B should have the same number.  As you can see, they don't.  Not even close.

From his Pre-Primary report:



Boles' response to Thompson's complaint was less than illuminating (it also didn't say anything about fixing the shortcomings in his reports; in fact, most of his response was to simply criticize Thompson's previous candidacy) -



According to reports that have reached me, Maricopa County Elections has punted on the complaint, citing lack of jurisdiction (which I find hard to believe) and lack of time (considering that early ballots go into the mail later this week, I believe this one very much).

In other words, Boles probably won't get much push back on his financial reports until after the election, at the earliest.


Of course, if he wins the election, he may see far more push back than he, as a non-sitting judge, expects - *if* he wins his race, he will then fall under the jurisdiction of the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct.

Arizona's judicial branch is a nationally respected one; in fact, it garners more national respect than the state's legislative and executive branches.

And the Commission is a big reason for that.  It does a very effective job of keeping the few AZ judicial officers who get out of line from getting too far out of line.

And not getting the paperwork right is something that *will* get the Commission's attention.


Summary:

Boles' open disregard for the detail work of being a candidate speaks volumes about how he would do the job if he wins.

Hey canvassing pros! Got plans for after the election? You just might want to have a chat with the US Census Bureau...

Most regular readers here (and at Arizona Eagletarian and Blog for Arizona), are very cognizant of the important influence that the decennial redistricting process has on Arizona's politics.

It is so influential that the Republicans in the legislature are still litigating it, knowing that even a small change to districts could be very lucrative for them.

A fact that many people are less aware of is the fact that the redistricting process is based on the decennial Census.

The Census' data is used to ensure that states are apportioned the correct number of representatives in Congress, and that districts within each state are equal in size...at least for the first election of a decade.

Hence, observers of the political scene (such as yours truly) keep an eye on developments related to the census.

It's not directly political, but the US Census Bureau announced something of interest to the denizens of Maricopa County today - while we are still over five years away from the 2020 Census, in 2015, Maricopa County will be the site of a test of possible new techniques to be used in 2020.

From the Census Bureau press release -

The test in Maricopa County will be smaller, concentrating on following up with households that fail to respond to the census. Maricopa County has a mobile and diverse population, which will help the Census Bureau study new ways to conduct field operations and manage field staff.  

That's the part that may be of interest of to geeks (such as yours truly? :) ), but the next part of the press release should be of interest to political folks who wish to use or hone their canvassing skills, and make money while doing so (emphasis added by them, not me) -

Conducting this test will require recruiting and hiring more than 800 temporary office and field staff. Pay ranges from $16.25 to $28.25 per hour. Recruiting will begin in early November and more information will be available at that time.

I don't know how long the test activity will last, but it should be something that will keep canvassers canvassing until the 2016 election cycle starts (in a presidential cycle, that means some time in the latter part of 2015).

Fairness: Terry Goddard's ground-breaking ad

Terry Goddard is running for Arizona Secretary of State, facing Republican Michele Reagan.


As a state senator, she supported and voted for the infamous SB1062, which would have granted legal protections to those who discriminate against LGBT folks (and others) and who base their bad behavior on religious citations.  The bill was ultimately vetoed by Governor Brewer at the behest of the business community (Brewer has no more use for the intended victims than Reagan, but she listens to folks with the deepest pockets).

Goddard showed his stance, and backbone, on the issue, by having an actual same-sex couple from Arizona star in his campaign ad on the issue.

To the best of my knowledge, this is the first example of this in any AZ political ad, and may be the first time a non-LGBT candidate has run such an ad in the country.

No matter what, though, it hits Reagan right in her weakest area - the hate that she has wholeheartedly embraced as part of her pursuit of statewide support in the R primary.

Candidates for Arizona Governor debate education

Below is the video of the education debate between the two major candidates for governor of Arizona, Democrat Fred Duval and Republican Doug Ducey.

I'll leave it to viewers to evaluate the debate for themselves, but catch Ducey at the 26:58 mark of the video, citing comedian Louis CK's opposition to Common Core as one of the reasons that he, Ducey, also opposes it.

Does Ducey count actress Jenny McCarthy among his medical advisers?   He already has professional hater Cathi Herrod serving as an adviser on social issues.

Yes, I'm a Duval supporter. :)

With Friends Like These... : Diane Douglas' multiple albatrosses

...As if her attempt at a stealth campaign wasn't bad enough...

One of the staples of any election season is the endorsement.  Organizations and individuals "endorse", or recommend voting for, specific candidates.

Generally speaking, when an organization endorses a candidate, it does so because it believes that the candidate will be supportive of the organization's agenda; individuals do so for similar reasons.  Most of the time, the endorsers believe the endorsees are "fellow travelers" on whatever ideological road they're all on.

Most of the time, endorsements are viewed as a "good" thing in some way, usually serving as a quick way of lending insight into a candidate's positions and even the general attitude that they would bring to the office that they are seeking.

However, as the example of of Diane Douglas (AZGOP nominee for Superintendent of Public Instruction) illustrates, that's not always actually beneficial.

From the blog website of the Maricopa County Republicans -

 Hmmm...let's look at the sort of people think that Douglas is a good choice to run Arizona's schools -

State legislator Judy Burges - Arizona's Queen Birther

State legislator David Farnsworth - The "chicken in every backyard" guy

State legislator Rick Murphy - alleged child molester* (* = no charges were filed)

Former state legislator Frank Antenori - the anti-everything,"don't make me mad" guy

Former state legislator Jack Harper - there are many facets to this jewel of craziness, but we going to with just one (in the interests of brevity), so how about "The 'Democrats are just as bad as Saddam Hussein" guy"?

Former state legislator Lori Klein - also has many facets to her brand of crazy, but let's go with "read a bigoted anti-Latino letter on the floor of the Arizona State Senate"

Former state legislator Thayer Verschoor - possibly the least nutty of this bunch; main claim to fame is as anti-civil society Grover-crat

State legislator Adam Kwasman - Goes around proudly intimidating children

State legislator Darin Mitchell - elected to represent a district he didn't actually live in

State legislator Carl Seel - Arizona's Crown Prince Birther

Not on this list, but possibly the most significantly bad endorsement, is that of disgraced former state legislator Russell "poor women should be sterilized" Pearce.


Endorsements are supposed to speak well of the recipient, but that's apparently something that Douglas and her supporters don't understand.

Douglas has been campaigning by being all-but-invisible, appearing in public only when she is legally obligated to do so, or when the crowd is considered to be a completely safe (and deep-pocketed) R crowd.

That approach reduces the possibility of general election voters seeing the real Diane Douglas.

It's too bad for her that her supporters have such well-documented track records.

In case you didn't know already, it's unofficially official: Sal DiCiccio is running for mayor of Phoenix next year

Sal DiCiccio, a member of the Phoenix City Council, hasn't exactly hidden the fact that he covets the office of mayor of Phoenix, Arizona's largest city.

He's become the local public face of the Rs' anti-public employee pension movement and now he's taken to applying the principles of "Obama Derangement Syndrome" to the current mayor, Greg Stanton.

In today's example, he takes something good, mildly praises it, and then uses the good thing as an excuse to disparage the target of his ire.

From his Twitter feed, posted earlier today:

Early prediction: Next year's campaign season in Phoenix is going to be Ugly.  DiCiccio will run *against*, well, pretty much everything.  He's going to spend so much time demonizing public employees, Greg Stanton, and pretty much anybody who isn't in a position to line his pockets that no one will notice he has nothing positive to offer the people of Phoenix.

Why does Russell Pearce still have a taxpayer-funded job?

By now, most people have heard of the rants of Russell Pearce, former president of the Arizona State Senate - he wants to sterilize poor women.

By now, most people have heard of the firestorm of criticism of Pearce, from all over the political spectrum.

Note: Reagan is the AZGOP nominee for Arizona Secretary of State.  What a difference four years makes:  

In 2010, she was an ardent supporter of Pearce and his infamous SB1070, both co-sponsoring and voting for the anti-immigrant measure.

In 2014, not so much.

Of course, in 2010, Pearce's targets were people with skin that is darker than a golfer's tan (a group which doesn't include Reagan); in 2014, Pearce's targets are women (which *does* include Reagan).


By now, most people have heard of Pearce's resignation from his post as 1st Vice Chair of the Arizona Republican Party.

What people have not heard of is Pearce's ouster from his high-paying job ($85K/year) with the Maricopa County Treasurer's office.

They haven't heard of it, because it hasn't happened.

From the twitter feed of Dennis Welch, political reporter on KTVK, posted at approximately 5:15 p.m. on Wednesday and screen captured at approximately 8:38 p.m.

In addition to his advocating the sterilization of poor women, Pearce has used his county email account to spew much more bile targeting immigrants, poor people, and racial and ethnic minorities.

In the private sector that's so revered by GOPers, Pearce would have been shown the door long ago.

Instead, Hoskins is protecting Pearce and keeping him on the public payroll, in spite of Pearce's vile and offensive comments toward the bulk of the public that he is supposed to serve, not insult.



Personal take on this:

Pearce should not have resigned his party post, if only because that was a position that didn't receive any taxpayer support.  It was a partisan advocacy position, and Pearce was guilty of nothing more than "truth in advertising" - contempt for women, the poor, and poor women is a staple of GOP campaign platforms across the country.

On the other hand, the taxpayers are under no obligation to pay him to spew his filth.

Arizona Election 2014: Ballot questions

This year, this is going to be a simple post - there are only three state-level ballot questions*, and none were proposed through the petition process,  In contrast, in 2006, there were 18, with only six of the questions referred to the ballot by the legislature.  

* = In many jurisdictions, there will be local-level questions (school district overrides, city charter updates, etc.).  However, there are only three questions that will be every ballot in the state.


Voting decisions on two of the questions will be very easy:

- Proposition 122, referred by the lege in 2013 as SCR1016.  If passed, it would allow the AZ legislature to ignore any federal law, regulation, or rule that it doesn't like, and to bar any official in the state from supporting/enforcing said law, regulation, or rule.

This probably isn't legal anyway, but passing it would send a message to late-night comedians everywhere that they can continue to count on Arizona for a steady stream of punchline material.

In other words, HELL NO.


- Proposition 304, a proposal from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers to raise the annual legislative salary from $24K to $35K.

As with most things in life, you get what you pay for.  And we pay our legislators crap.

$35K isn't great, but it's better than $24K, and it might attract a better quality of candidates for the lege.  Which is something that Arizona needs.

This one is a Yes. 


- The tough one is Proposition 303, referred by the lege in 2014 as HCR2005.  If passed, it would create a section in AZ law called "The Patients' Right To Try Act".  It *sounds* "warm and fuzzy" good - it would allow eligible patients to make use of "investigational" drugs and medical therapies if such is made available by a manufacturer of such.  Basically, desperate patients could take a chance on unproven treatments, if they so desire and a possible treatment is made available.

Sounds good, until you realize that the measure is being proposed by the Arizona legislature in a way that cannot be corrected or repealed by a future legislature (because of the Voter Protection Act)...and the next time that the members of the Arizona legislature support an idea that is beneficial for the average Arizonan will be the very first time for the majority of them.

Cynicism now thoroughly piqued, further examination of the measure is warranted. 

Upon which one finds a few interesting facts about the proposal - 

1.  In this context, "investigational" means "not approved by the FDA".  In essence, this would allow Big Pharma (and its relations) to use desperate patients as guinea pigs for untested medical therapies.

2.  The proposal does NOT require a manufacturer to make available untested medical therapies, only provides them legal cover if they do so.

3.  It would bar state regulators from penalizing physicians or health care facilities that administer those therapies.

4.  The legislative intent section clearly states that the act applies to all patients, not just those with terminal illnesses (the language of the act states that eligible patients must have a terminal illness).

5.  The proposal would allow a manufacturer to pass on to the patient the cost of manufacturing an untested medical therapy.  If a specific therapy hasn't reach the "economies of scale" part of its existence, that number is going to be huge.

6.  This proposal (or something similar) is popping up in legislatures all over the country -  Michigan, New Jersey,and Colorado, among others.  That kind of coordination indicates that this idea has some deep-pocketed supporters.

7.  The political committee formed to support the measure reeks of "dark money" - the largest single contributor is the corporate lobbying firm "free market think tank", the Goldwater Institute (providing $35K out of $35,504.30 in contributions reported in its most recent campaign finance report) and the largest single expenditure reported in the most recent campaign finance report is to Sherpa Public Affairs of Phoenix ($14.5K out of nearly $28K)...under the heading "Reimbursements".

Since GI's sources of money are secret and the word "reimbursements" is so all-encompassing yet vague, this committee has effectively anonymized both its contributions and expenditures.  They've made sure that no one can follow the money trail here. 


To sum up: this proposal was shepherded to the ballot in a way that circumvents the already minimal oversight provided by the normal legislative process, looks to be designed more to enhance industry profits than to enhance patient outcomes, and has deep-pocketed supporters who wish to remain in the shadows.

In the final analysis: this is a No vote.


As seems to be normal for AZ elections, the questions referred by the legislature merit a no vote, while the question referred to the ballot by something other than the lege merits a yes vote. 


Note: more on a similar drug proposal that was implemented in Colorado from a contributor to Forbes.com here.