Blog For Arizona

FEC Complaint Against Bee Ad Certain To Languish

by Michael Bryan

I am reminded by the Bee complaint (and legal eagles with whom I consult on these matters) that the FEC currently only has two members, which means it does not have a quorum and cannot conduct any official business.

This is why the DNC complaint against McCain for promising to take public funds to secure a multi-million-dollar loan and then exceeding the FEC primary caps has not been acted on, either.  The appointments to the FEC are tied up over a dispute between Republicans who want their entire slate of appointees approved in a single vote (because some of them are just too atrocious even for Republicans to be seen voting for), and Democrats who want individual up or down votes on each nominee.

If this dispute is not resolved, the FEC will not be able to issue checks for public  financing of the fall campaign, and the FEC also will not be able to address the complaint against Bee (though it may be assigned to an investigative staff member).

Tim Bee's campaign may have legal liability if there is evidence to show that his campaign coordinated this ad with the Educational Financial Reform Group (EFRG). Proof of such co-ordination could possibly be contained in the b-roll of the footage shot to produce the ad, which may be why Cox Communications and Public Policy Partners who created the ad have so far proven unwilling to release that material to the media. We'll see if they are more cooperative with the FEC investigators when they demand access to that material. Wouldn't it be convenient if that material were somehow destroyed or lost in an administrative SNAFU in the interim?

The fines, if any, against the EFRG and/or the school districts will likely not be too severe; probably 100-200% of the amount in violation ($16K, we know of so far). But in extreme cases, the fines can start with a base of $10K and add as much as 1000% of the amount in violation. So there are potential fines of approaching $200K involved, but such fines would not be applied to Bee's campaign unless he coordinated with the maker of the ad.

There is also the issue of just who the heck the EFRG actually is. Who are it's board of directors and officers? How are they organized and how do they report their activities? What is its budget and how is has it been spent? What is the organization's charter and does it actually provide for lobbying expenditures? Who actually made the decision to spend public funds in this manner? There needs to be much more transparency about these questions if public funds are to be spent to influence public policy. So far, none of those questions have been answered to my satisfaction.

There are really two issues here, however: a legal issue, and a moral issue.  It is not clear at this point whether the Bee campaign did anything legally wrong themselves. But it appears that the EFRG organization may have broken both federal and Arizona elections laws. Will they be held to account for it? Whoever 'they' may be?

But even if this instance of electioneering were perfectly legal, which I doubt, the school districts' spending district tax dollars in support of a candidate rather than on the education of our children is just wrong. Considering the the base funding rate for a pupil in Arizona is just over $6K, a year's worth of education for two children was spent on this silly "Thank You" to Bee.

A Public Defender Passes

Pima County Public Defender Robert Hooker killed in crash

I didn't have the pleasure of knowing Bob very well personally. A few interactions, a dignified presence in the halls of Superior Court, and an enormously respectful reputation shared in all quarters the Arizona Bar are my only connections to him. But I'm feeling his passing greatly.

His death was senseless, and an enormous loss to our community. Bob gave up a very successful practice to become the Pima County Public Defender, and he and his chief deputy Bob Hirsh guided the organization to new heights of professionalism and excellence.

As a judge, a lawyer, a gentleman, and a devoted public servant, Bob embodied the very best of my profession.

It would be the ultimate irony if the very Public Defender's office he led takes up the defense of the damned fool who killed him while drag-racing.

Meet Sydney Hay, Republican Lobbyist and Ideologue Seeking to Fill Tricky Dick Renzi's Purloined Shoes

Mining industry lobbyist and candidate for Congress in CD 1, Sydney Hay put together a very nice introductory video for her campaign. It illustrates very clearly why the GOP won't manage to hang on to CD 1: they are absolutely bereft of ideas.

Hay's campaign looks like it was cobbled together out of most extreme rantings and wacky policies of the Right over the past 20 years, the dissicated corpses of Reagan and Goldwater, and the most disingenuous and empty rhetoric the Right has fallen back on in defense of the massive failures of the Bush years, all held together by a 'values' appeal that already passé among evangelicals and fundamentalists, let alone the general public.

You can always tell when a social movement is effectively dead by how nostalgic its members become about a claimed Golden Age. In the case of the Conservative Movement, their necromantic rites centering around Reagan and Goldwater are increasingly elaborate, central to their religion, and frankly pitiful.

Sure, we Democrats have our culture heroes—FDR, JRK, RFK, MLK—but we aren't nearly so strident about hearkening back to their particular strain of liberalism as a lost Golden Age that we must return to, and to which our politicians must pay obsequious obescience.

That's because Liberalism is alive and kicking and growing. Conservatism is a dead and discredited credo, destroyed by Bush and the Republican Congress of 1994-2006, now seeking a leader who can revivify it with a fresh perspective and newly invigorated values. That leader doesn't seem to be Sydney Hay—she's too ideologically rigid to acknowledge any new ideas.

I was really amused by the enthusiastic and detailed endorsement by Arizona Republican Congressman Trent Franks. Since the incumbent is in the dock, Renzi can't exactly pass the establishment torch, so Trent from next door is pinch-hitting. It should prove amusing to watch the Republican candidates in CD 1 madly scramble to avoid any association with Renzi.

Trent credits Sydney with a number of key accomplishments. He indicates she lead the campaign to require a super-majority for any tax increase in Arizona. The result has been to ratchet down tax rates permanently, destroying the Arizona state government's ability to fund essential services. Trent tells us that Sydney, a former teacher, also was largely responsible for the failed experiment of charter schools, and for diverting taxes to private and parochial schools.

Polices Sydney claims credit for have over the last two decades been largely responsible for Arizona's free-fall to nearly the bottom among U.S. states in almost every educational metric. With accomplishments like these in her past, electing her to office is sure to result in policies that will make us even more backward, poor, and uncompetitive.

Let's take a quick look at some of the 'ideas' Sydney wants to take to Congress...

Voter ID Laws: Voter Supression Under the Guise of Preventing Individual Voter Fraud

"The GOP has transformed the legal apparatus of the United States into an instrument of partisan force." - Scott Horton "Vote Machine: How Republicans hacked the Justice Department" (PDF)

The GOP has been engaging in a cynical and deliberate attempt to use the justice system to punish their political enemies, justify and legitimate their systematic voter suppression programs, and seek electoral advantage by undermining the neutrality and credibility of our criminal justice system. Any citizen of conscience, liberal and conservative alike, should condemn these practices before their entrenchment in our legal culture enables Democrats to abuse power in a similar fashion as they move into positions of power.

Once an instrument of power becomes legitimate through repeated use, it is naive in the extreme to expect those who seek power to lay such tools aside voluntarily. The GOP's misuse of our justice system in this fashion therefore threatens the freedom of every citizen and undermines the integrity of our democratic system of governance.

The GOP's campaign seeks to build a myth of individual voter fraud in which large numbers of ineligible persons (usually non-citizens) seek to subvert our elections by voting fraudulently or multiple times. Concern about such fraud is exploited to pass draconian voter ID laws, the purpose of which is to differentially reduce Democratic voter's effective participation (i.e. a voter's ballot actually counting) by 3-5%, thereby allowing victory for the GOP in more close contests.

The second, even more pernicious aspect of their campaign is to subvert the Justice Department (and even some local prosecutorial authorities, such as The Maricopa County Attorney's office) to bolster the claims of individual voter fraud by issuing voter fraud cases on flimsy and deficient evidence. This has happened repeatedly and is behind at least some of the U.S. Attorney firings that drew a great deal of attention last year.

In addition, the Justice Department has been used, as have the investigative resources of the FBI, to bring prosecutions for public corruption against political enemies and rivals of the GOP. From 2001 to 2006, the Justice Department had initiated 375 investigations of public officials: 298 of those investigations targeted Democrats, only 67 of them targeted Republicans.

The odds of such an imbalance being the result of random chance is 1 in 10,000. Based on the great number of public corruption scandals that have engulfed the GOP and dragged its reputation into the gutter with voters, neither is it based on the underlying proclivities of Democratic officials (who, being in the minority for those years, had much less opportunity to misuse their offices, in any case).

Recent Senate hearings have shown there is no evidence to support GOP concerns about individual voter fraud, which is the only kind of election fraud that could be addressed by voter ID laws. Watch the hearing (RealMedia).

Arizona's voter ID law, requiring proof of citizenship to register and to vote at the polls, is back in effect for the 2008 races. The effect of this law will not be to stop voter fraud, but to stop a class of people, including the poor and minorities, from effectively exercising their franchise, giving a preferential advantage to Republican candidates.

An Indiana voter ID law is now before the Supreme Court, and in the oral arguments the Justices admitted frustration that they haven't been provided any reliable data on which to judge the seriousness of the 'problem' of individual voter fraud. Download Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)

A State must have a compelling interest in preventing such fraud in order to burden a fundamental constitutional right such as voting. As the method of remedying the problem imposes a known cost of effectively disenfranchising a statistically measurable number of the most vulnerable Americans, there must really be a significant problem and the court must examine the State's method of addressing that problem to ensure that it is narrowly tailored to avoid burdening that right to the extent possible.

The Court has no such record establishing there is a serious problem with individual voter fraud, therefore the State's response cannot possibly be narrowly tailored to impose the least possible burden on the fundamental right to vote. If the Court upholds the Indiana law, the ruling will be utterly illegitimate and primarily based on the partisan bias of the Court.

Voter ID is merely a legal means of harassing certain classes of voters. Voter turn-out is not the issue, as turn-out is apparently not much affected by voter ID laws. Rather, it is the effective exercise of the voter's franchise that is the issue. A person without adequate ID may go to poll, and even cast a provisional ballot, but the likelihood of his vote actually being counted becomes much, much less.

Preventing people from coming to the polls and voting is much harder than simply creating a legal basis on which to ignore their votes. Provisional voting provides just such a legal mechanism that targets undesirable voters (i.e. preponderantly Democratic ones) by means of the ID requirement.

Many Republicans express derision for the idea that significant numbers of citizens lack a government issued ID acceptable under voter ID laws: an estimated 11% of the population (21 million Americans) lack such ID. Many of those citizens lack the resources (time, money, transportation, documentation) to obtain such ID in order to make their franchise effective. In the absence of any evidence that individual voter fraud is a significant problem, the burdens placed on these citizens to make their franchise effective is intolerable.

Every American should be outraged when any political party resorts to legalistic methods of voter suppression in order to win more elections. There is a clear echo of the legal methods of effectively destroying the franchise of black Americans for over a century in these laws, prompting many to call the new laws "José Crow."

Just as "Jim Crow" will forever stain the honor of my own Democratic Party, "José Crow" will become a source of eternal dishonor for the GOP. The temporary gains made as a result of such a shameful policy cannot even begin to compensate for the permanent reputational harm it imposes.

GOP State Legislative Leadership Wants to Give Away a Veto Over Funding of Local Police Agencies

Most of the GOP leadership in the state legislature think that the Attorney General and any County Attorney should get a veto over state funding for any police force in the state who fails to adequately serve the political agenda of the anti-immigrant crusaders of the GOP.

Sponsors of HCR 2039, seek to deputize every state, county, city, and town employee to enforce federal immigration laws. The great kicker in the scheme is to enable any County Attorney or the Arizona Attorney General to impound the state funding of any police agency in Arizona (i.e., not limited to those in their own jurisdictions, which encourages playing politics with the safety of people who aren't their constituents and thus can't retaliate at the ballot box) if he or she, at their sole discretion, determines that the agency has adopted any policy that prevents, or even limits, personnel from determining or reporting immigration status to ICE.

That means that Maricopa County Attorney, serial grandstander, and wanna-be governor Andrew Thomas could effectively cripple any police agency in the state if he believes they are in any way limiting identifying or reporting undocumented immigrants. And there is no appeal process and no due process.

Now, far be it from me to tell anyone's racist granny how to hate on the brown folks, but I know a badly drafted law when I see it. Giving any County Attorney veto power over state funding off any police agency, with no appeal, no recourse, no time limit, and no check on their discretion beyond some vague statutory language is just begging for trouble.

I can only conclude that in their zeal to take yet another whack at undocumented persons, the GOP leadership has abandoned all proportion or caution. And they are playing their polemic wack-a-Mexican game with the funding and operations of our local police forces.

Whatever happened to Republicans being in favor of law and order?

Election Integrity Issues Spark a Republican Civil War in Pima County

For someone who claims "I don't speak for the Republican Party" Benny White sure has a lot to say about election integrity. Benny is the political wife of Republican Party chairwoman Judy White (herself given to unilateral pronouncements as to what is legitimate or illegitimate subjects for political discourse). Benny was appointed to the Pima County Logic and Accuracy Committee, which oversees the pre-election testing of voting equipment, and he has an opinion as to how elections should be administered in Pima County, and how they should not be.

There have been some recent murmurings about the Board of Supervisors yanking the Elections Division away from direct supervision by County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry and placing it under the direct supervision of the Board of Supervisors, or even giving it to the Recorder's office. After the raft of embarrassing and troubling revelations about the Elections Divisions' operation in the recent trial and on-going legal tussle, I can certainly understand if some Supervisors have lost confidence in CHuckelberry's supervision of the division.

In response to some of those murmurings, Benny felt the need to speak his mind via email to all and sundry on the subject, and to critique any such plan as potentially making the situation far worse by making elections a direct report to a partisan body (especially one not controlled by his own party, presumably...).

I think Benny's got some excellent points. Maybe, as he suggests, the County Registrar is the natural home of the Election Division, since their functions are so closely coordinated, and that is the way Maricopa County has structured their elections system bureaucracy (though, of course, the argument "that's what Maricopa does" carries much less weight with me than it apparently does with Benny).

Unfortunately, Benny stomped on one particular toe by making a disparaging allegation as to one of our County Supervisor's responsiveness to him on this issue.

Benny opined:

"I was opposed to the release of the database and requested that the Board of Supervisors appeal the legally flawed order from Judge Miller. The Board of Supervisors chose to ignore me. As a matter of fact, Ray Carroll would not even return phone calls to discuss the issue. Well, I am still waiting for the benefits the Democrats promised Judge Miller they would provide." [emphasis added]

Well, that didn't sit too well with Sugar Ray, as it simply wasn't true, according to him. He also didn't much appreciate Benny, who is not a licensed attorney in Arizona, let alone an expert on Arizona elections law (other than perhaps in his own mind), criticizing a well-respected judge like Michael Miller, even if Benny claims he doesn't speak for the Republican Party.

Ray invited Benny to keep the Carroll name out of his damn mouth, thank you very much. He made it very clear that he didn't appreciate being talked about in such a manner, nor that Benny should presume to have any authority to speak for the Republican Party on this matter, despite his rather disingenuous disclaimer to the contrary.

I don't know if the source of Ray's annoyance is just Benny's casual smear on Ray's reputation, or if Ray also doesn't appreciate any challenge for leadership on election integrity within the Pima Republican Party that some might imagine Chairperson White's wife speaking up on the issue implies. In either case, Ray made it very clear that he's more than willing to take the case to the grassroots and let the PCs decide who should be leading the Pima County party, if the Whites don't step off.

Them's fightin' words, as they say. Ray is clearly sending a shot across Benny's, and by extension his husband Judy's bow. If Judy and Benny don't trim their sails, Ray seems quite ready to un-mast them, or put one below the waterline.

Asked if he had anything nice to say about the Whites, Ray deadpanned, "They're not the Clintons."

The Presumption of Innocence and the Assumption of Guilt

Innocent until proven guilty. If ever there were a legal motto that is observed more the breach than in the main, this is it.

The Presumption of innocence is a nice formality, but everyone, and especially conservatives, are generally ready to lock up a criminal who is merely charged with a crime. Regardless of the legal Presumption, there is a factual and common sense Assumption that someone who is arrested and charged is very likely guilty: and it's neither unjustified, nor in conflict with the Presumption.

What is self-serving and insidious in Dick Renzi's case is how the legal Presumption is treated as absolute dogma because the person charged has power and authority - and especially because there is an (R) after his name.

Tricky Dick Renzi's defenders in the GOP insist that Dick is absolutely innocent until the moment the word "guilty" is spoken in court and must be treated as such. Legally, that is true and well. But they insist on extending the Presumption beyond its proper scope, to preclude anyone from reaching the natural and common-sense conclusion that Dick is factually guilty of some very corrupt acts.

Presuming factual innocence is not the purpose of the Presumption. The Presumption is a guarantee of criminal due process, nothing more. The Presumption cannot be invoked to assert Dick's factual innocence and thus support a conclusion that he be allowed to retain the seat in Congress that belongs to the people of Arizona's CD 1, not to Dick.

And Dick's office is an honor, not a legal entitlement.

The Presumption is just a rule that helps enforce our Constitutional values, it cannot be relied on to actually tell one whether an accused is guilty or not. One has to look at and evaluate the evidence for that. Those who are experts at evaluating evidence of criminality, the police and the prosecutors, have concluded that Renzi did in fact commit the crimes they allege. That's good enough basis for most folks to make a rational Assumption that the man is guilty.

There is a purposeful elision of ideas at work here. The legal Presumption of innocence cannot, and should not be at war with common sense. Common sense indicates that 35-count indictments are not filed against innocent people, except perhaps in a vanishingly small number of cases involving catastrophic mistake or malice. Common sense leads one to the Assumption that a person in Renzi's position is guilty as hell, not that he's factually innocent until the magic word is spoken.

And there is no conflict between the legal Presumption of innocence and the common-sense Assumption of guilt.

The Presumption prevents society from pronouncing Dick definitively and legally guilty as charged until he's enjoyed the full protection of the civil rights our Constitution affords all criminal defendants. But the Assumption still allows us to visit a whole host of consequences upon those accused of crimes, including loss of privileges, loss of freedom, and the social ostracism that should accompany anti-social and criminal behavior alleged by credible authorities, such as the FBI and U.S. Attorney for Arizona. The Assumption is a perfectly adequate basis to say that Dick no longer deserves the trust of the public required to hold the honor of high office.

If we can stick a criminal who is Presumed innocent in the pokey pending his trial because there is very good evidence on which to Assume he's guilty, we sure as hell can strip a criminal like Dick of an office of public trust on the same Assumption.

A legal Presumption of innocence is important and wise public policy, but we shouldn't allow it to be elided into a Presumption of actual innocence, as guilty folks are wont to insist upon. They wouldn't be charged with a crime if we didn't have very good reasons to suspect they have broken the law and no longer deserve either trust or respect. When a guy like Dick insists he continue to be afforded the respect due an upstanding member of society, even after having been charged with very disreputable deeds, he makes even hardened criminals envy his brazenness.

The very idea that a mere multi-year investigation by the FBI, one of the finest investigatory organizations on earth, and a 35-count indictment from the U.S. Attorney's office, containing enough detail to choke a law student, could be enough to disqualify him from continuing to hold high office is greeted with derision by the GOP, because Dick is Presumed innocent. Please.

Nobody wants to throw Dick in jail or force him to pay restitution - yet - because we respect the Presumption. Many do, however, want to see him step down - because they respect the Assumption.

"But Mike, you are a lawyer. Don't you think defendants should get the benefit of the doubt?" you ask.

Yes, but I'm not a Pollyanna. Defendants have to prove their innocence in the real world outside of law books. They enjoy a legal Presumption, but everyone in the criminal justice system operates on the Assumption, most especially jurors.

One routinely hears howls of protest by conservatives (and often liberals) when a notorious and obviously guilty criminal is admitted to bail. One can hardly understand what their objection could be: after all, the accused is Presumed innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers in a court of law, isn't he?

Meh. Not so much.

Even in setting bail, a judge has a great deal of discretion to hold the accused in custody when the evidence of his guilt is glaringly obvious. The truth is that the public, and the legal system as a whole, seldom wastes any time treating a defendant as if he were anything but guilty - the system is designed to Presume legal innocence, but to Assume actual guilt.

Most of those who are arrested and charged with criminal activity are, in fact, guilty as hell. Probably over 90% are getting what's due. And as a result, those in the criminal justice system tend to operate on the Assumption of guilt, despite the Presumption of innocence.

Frequently, the evidence of guilt in a case is very great. The perp got caught red-handed. The officer saw the crime. There was an informant, multiple witnesses, a confession, lots of physical and/or circumstantial evidence, whatever - the accused clearly did the deed. In such cases, the only question for a defense lawyer is how to pull at any loose threads to try to unravel a deal, and how to ensure that the accused is afforded procedural due process. To prevent the system from cutting corners and respect the defendant's procedural rights, the Presumption applies to all 100%, even though 90% are fairly, and rightly, Assumed guilty by everyone involved.

Tricky Dick is clearly among the 90% who are fairly and sensibly Assumed guilty, and he richly deserves to have visited upon him right now the social opprobrium, loss of respect, privileges and trust attendant upon breaking the law, even as we continue to respect the legal Presumption of his innocence. There is no conflict between these two attitudes, even though there is an apparent logical contradiction between adopting both a Presumption of innocence and an Assumption of guilt at the same time. In practice, that seeming contradiction is the norm.

But when the criminal is a powerful and wealthy and well-connected, like a Congressman, they will attempt to confuse the public into stretching the legal Presumption to combat the people's common sense Assumption. The only reason they get away with this is because of their privileged position and ability to manipulate the media.

To question the Presumption then becomes unpatriotic, prejudicial, and unwise. The Presumption becomes the bulwark against tyranny, as American as apple pie. And despite the overwhelming evidence of Mr. Mucketymuck's guilt, nobody had better treat Mr. Mucketymuck like a criminal, because there is a legal Presumption of innocence, after all, don't you know.

Except, as I've pointed out the Presumption simply doesn't apply to the common sense question of actual guilt, only the evidence speaks to that ultimate question.

And the evidence in this case is overwhelming and damning. The Presumption says nothing about whether we can and should think of him as a corrupt rotter who needs to be tossed out Congress on his ear and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

I certainly don't want Renzi thrown in jail without a trial, but I sure as hell don't think he's fit for the honor of serving in high office. Yes, I am Assuming he's guilty, but with very good, common-sense reasons. The evidence supporting the Assumption of Dick's guilt is powerful enough that Renzi has already lost the respect and trustworthiness required to carry out the duties of public office.

Renzi's case is one of those where a defense lawyer reading the indictment reaches for his bottle of scotch and crawls into it. It's that bad. The defendant was stupid and obvious about his crimes and got caught. In hind-sight, it is hard to imagine how the defendant expected not to get caught. One wonders if he actually wanted to get caught.

It is a common sense Assumption that the dozens of people who produced or reviewed the investigation of Renzi, and the indictment that resulted, are at least as trustworthy, and probably more so, than Renzi. They aren't conspiring in an elaborate plot against Renzi. They are telling the truth about Renzi's crimes, and their story is cogent, well-supported, and damning - otherwise all those people would not have put their reputations on the line to accuse a U.S. Congressman of such serious crimes.

Republicans who want to stretch the benefit of the Presumption of innocence to make us treat Renzi as if he were factually innocent need to visit the real world, where a criminal, even one with a pristinely white collar like Renzi, is Assumed to be guilty, when there is such compelling evidence against him.

If Dick Renzi was a common criminal who embezzled $400K of his customers' money and then extorted over $1 million for himself, and not a Republican Congressman, do you honestly think that Republicans would do anything but spit on the man? Alright, they would probably call him for a campaign donation first, but then they would spit on him, and it is all down to a perfectly sensible Assumption of guilt.

There is at least one criminal in Congress today: Dick needs to pull out.

RenziGate Roundup 2/27

Governor Napolitano says Dick is depriving CD 1 voters of effective representation by not resigning • "Arizona Gov. Napolitano Urges Indicted Rep. Renzi to Resign"

The Tucson Citizen editorial staff agrees that Dick cannot effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances and should resign • "Indicted Renzi Should Resign"

Notable Quotes:

• Ann Kirkpatrick, former state legislator and Democratic candidate for the 1st District U.S. House seat, says, "We, the people of this district, have witnessed firsthand the declining leadership and representation Renzi has provided over the past year and we cannot have another eight months pass without our voice being heard in Congress. It is time for Rep. Renzi to do what is right and to do what is in the best interest of this great district - resign and resign immediately."
• House Minority Leader John Boehner of Ohio called the charges against Renzi "completely unacceptable for a member of Congress," and said Renzi should "seriously consider whether he can continue to effectively represent his constituents under these circumstances."
• "Can he do his job now? I don't think so," said Jan Smith, Yavapai County Republican Party chair. "There's no way under the circumstances that anyone could concentrate on their job."
• One of the candidates running for Renzi's seat, Democrat Howard Shanker also said the congressman should leave office. "It is unfortunate that we can hold so little faith or trust in our elected representatives."
• Congressional Scholar and Historian at the American Enterprise Institute, Norman Ornstein says Dick's indictment "... is an equaling compelling indictment against a Congressional ethics process that once again proves its utter impotence." He goes on to urged Congress to reexaimne the idea of an independent ethics body (Note that Ornstein is too sanguine about Congresscritters' willingness to entertain such reforms, even now, as the bill was just pulled from the floor because it failed to get enough support):

  "All of this is prelude to the critical choice facing the House this week. At long last (and I mean long--some of us have been working for nearly 30 years to create a meaningful reform here) the House is going to take up a plan to create an independent office for preliminary ethics investigations...

  "The panel would consist of six members jointly appointed by the Speaker and Minority Leader, with staggered four-year terms (a limit of two for any members.) It has reasonable standards and thresholds for the group to consider potential ethical violations, with reports sent to the ethics committee laying out the facts of the group's investigation alongside the relevant rules and/or laws. There are reasonable time limits for the ethics committee to act on the report--and importantly, provisions that would eventually require release of the independent panel's report to the public if the ethics committee simply sat on the report."

Public interest groups such as Taxpayers for Common Sense, and the the Project on Government Oversight are following Dick's case closely.

Local press homing in on scandal as the Yavapai County Daily Courier, the Kingman Daily Miner cover the story.

My View:
The Hill is hedged in its headline, pointing out some possible weak points in the indictment. "The indictment does not detail when or if Renzi crafted that bill and a review of Renzi’s bills in 2005 and 2006 shows that no such measure was introduced."  The article opines, "The Renzi case on allegations of quid pro quo legislative maneuvers is more nuanced than Ney’s and Cunningham’s cases where gifts and money were linked to congressional activities such as statements that were put in the Congressional Record and earmarks."

This is a sharp observation by The Hill, but very likely all the evidence the feds have has not been alleged or alluded in the indictment alone. There is likely a ton more evidence against Dick; especially very credible witness evidence, not to mention the likely testimony Dick's co-conspirators will cough up in exchange for a deal.

However, the absence of an introduced bill would be a major problem in proving at least some of the first 27 counts of the indictment. If The Hill's observation turned out to be true, it could be problematic for the prosecution. However, The Hill's concern is not an issue at all for Dick's earlier embezzlement of $400K to fund his 2002 campaign alleged in counts 28 - 35, which has nothing to do with his legislative actions.

I don't think The Hill did nearly enough diligence to conclude that the 'smoking bill' doesn't exist just because Renzi doesn't seem to have filed it; this sort of legislation gets lodged in omnibus bills all the time, and I'm sure Dick did his level best to keep his prints off it.

Although Dick's lawyers are currently only making implausible generic and blanket denials, Dick will eventually have to get much more specific and credible in order to justify his staying in office. This could be a huge problem for his defense.

It is never a good idea to lock yourself into a theory of defense before you know what evidence the prosecution has got and is likely to be able to present at trial. This is why high-profile cases are such a bear to defend: the public wants answers more compelling than merely telling them that the charges are baseless: the public isn't stupid.

They know that 35 count indictments don't get cooked up whole and that there is always some factual basis for such charges, even if the authorities may have misinterpreted events and acts that are perfectly legal - especially when the charges are against a man as powerful and well-connected as Dick, who has the power to defend himself vigorously and to do damage to careers and government departments should there have been any impropriety in bringing the indictment.

The voters will want to hear Dick's explanation of what looks quite damning, indeed. If he and his lawyers can't start to produce a narrative explaining why the charges are mistaken without tying Dick's hands in his eventual defense in court, forget about his staying in office, the issue becomes solely keeping him out of jail. When it comes right down to it, if I were more concerned about the rest of my client's life than preserving his job, and the GOP's electoral chances in CD 1, I would be pushing Dick to resign in order to avoid the need to go on the record with more specific denials and explanations that could possibly compromise his defense later.

Politico points out the GOP would be seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to hold CD 1 by an early Dick departure. They would fare much better, though they are likely still in deep trouble, if the seat were up for grabs in November, instead. They cite the large funding advantage held by both the DCCC over the RNCC, and between the parties' candidates on the ground.

Interestingly, Politico also compared Sydney Hay to Randy Graf - poison to her national fund-raising potential. Personally, because of Hays' ties to charter and home-school advocates, I think a better political parallel would be to Gov. Mike Huckabee, who home-schoolers did yeoman's work for in making his Presidential bid viable.

The Raw Story echoes Washinton Post reporter Ben Pershing's comments on RenziGate that indicate the formation of a conventional wisdom that the GOP is considerably better off running in a November election, rather than a quick special election, because of McCain's presence at the top of the ticket:

"If Renzi hangs around the rest of the year, he may generate some more bad publicity, but the race to replace him in Arizona's 1st District should at least be manageable for the GOP in November, especially with home state Sen. John McCain at the top of the ballot."

I've entertained this thought myself a for a while, but I'm increasing dubious about McCain's coattails in light recent polling by Bruce Merrill indicating a narrowing margin for McCain in Arizona, and the finding that most Arizonans don't expect McCain to actually win the Presidency, even if they plan to vote for him.

With softening support, a surging Democratic ticket, and pessimism even among Republican voters about McCain's chances, he may not have the coattails in this state that so many, including myself, have expected.

Dick's stench being dragged around Arizona for an extended period of time could even pox McClean's image as he battles his own allegations of campaign finance shenanigans.

McCain is rightly viewed as the real leader and paterfamilias of the Arizona Republican party, now that he's practically the GOP's nominee. It says something to voters that McCain sits on his hands and says nothing about Dick's troubles and his refusal to step down.

Considering the robocall McCain left CD 1 voters, it may be hard for his to put day-light between himself and Renzi at all:

"This is Senator John McCain. I'm calling to urge you to support my friend, Representative Rick Renzi for Congress. Rick has represented the first district of Arizona with tenacity, honesty and integrity beyond reproach. I work with Rick every day and can report to you his total dedication to the people of Arizona and the United States. Please join me in supporting rural Arizona's workhorse Congressman on November 7."

 

The longer Dick and John are easily associated in the public's mind by the nature of the their ethical troubles and their party affiliation, and the longer McCain tacitly condones Dick's behavior by not overtly condemning him and calling for his resignation, the more McClean's own shine may tarnish.

In the end, Renzi may wind up doing much more damage to McCain than any benefit the GOP may get from a November election rather than a special election to replace Arizona's own Tricky Dick.

McCain, Bee and Mayes: There They Go Again

Many of you will have seen coverage of McCain's use of federal matching funds to secure a loan for his campaign prior to his win in New Hampshire. He promised the originating bank that if he didn't come within 10% of winning, he would re-enter the federal finance system, giving them a secured interest in those funds as collateral for the million-dollar loan. The FEC says that McCain's use of those funds to secure other financing binds him to the program, and that he must obey the restrictions that come with that money.

McCain's response to the FEC was basically, "Meh. Try and make me." The DNC is filing a complaint with the FEC, and you can help. Here's what Chairman Howard Dean had to say:

"There was a lot of talk last week about John McCain's blatant hypocrisy on ethics and integrity in Washington.

Here we go again.

McCain is now breaking the law by ignoring the campaign spending restrictions for the Republican primary that came when he asked for federal matching funds -- funds he used as collateral on a loan that helped keep his campaign going.

But now that the lobbyist and special interest money has started pouring into his campaign, he's trying to back out of the promise he made just a few months ago. They're feeding so much cash into his bank account, this "reformer" wants nothing to do with federal campaign finance laws anymore.

That's why today, we're filing a formal complaint with the Federal Election Commission demanding that John McCain be held to the campaign finance laws. Trying to back out shows a total lack of integrity and honesty -- he made a deal with the American people to to abide by the law, and in return, he was guaranteed taxpayer money that he used to back a loan."

            

Good luck with that, Howard.

I'm beginning to see a pattern of disrespect for campaign finance laws among Republican candidates. I know, I know. I must be slow on the uptake, or have a very trusting nature not to have seen it before this.

I complained about Tim Bee's Schrödinger's campaign (in September, and October, and finally in January when he got around to announcing - conveniently within a year of the end of his term, so he didn't have to resign under Arizona law) and asked the Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard to look into the matter, to no avail.

Now McCain has his own novel theory of how to skirt the law to get his piece of cake on loan and and eat it, too.

These Republicans are eroding respect for campaign finance laws by finding any ambiguity or unanticipated maneuver and using such blind spots to their own political advantage. And the lesson seems to be sinking in.

Now Kris Mayes, the ACC member who is 'exploring' a bid to replace Dick Renzi when he finally perp walks, seems to be heading down the same Schrödinger's campaign trail that Tim Bee blazed. Certainly, the Arizona Democratic Party suspects so. But you can justifiably ignore what one party says about the other... can't you?

She is going all out in organizing, putting in place her team, fund-raising, and pressing the flesh, yet still claims she is just exploring a bid. You can practically hear the words, "...just like Tim" hovering over her campaign. With Renzi heading for the dock, I can't fault her strategic choice to ensure that any Republican is viable in that district following Renzi's criminal enterprises before giving up the plum appointment that her old boss, Governor Janet Napolitano, secured for her - but I can, and will, question her fidelity to Arizona's constitution and election laws.

Ultimately she's going to have to say 'in' or 'out' and it needs to be soon. If she hits the next FEC reporting period and forms a Tim-Bee-style qualified candidate committee (i.e. "I am forming a candidate's committee, but I'm really just exploring. And I'll be obeying the FEC rules that only candidates have to follow, but I'm not yet a candidate. Really. I'm not.") and reports her finances for that candidate committee, as only a candidate (but not a water-testing citizen) is obligated to do - again, like Tim did - but she still hasn't resigned her ACC seat, then she's making campaign finance chicanery official Republican policy, if it's not already.

And who can fault her, really? She's only following the example of our esteemed Arizona Senate President, Tim Bee, and now the distinguished presumptive Republican Presidential nominee, Senator John McCain. Surely one can safely emulate the behavior of such eminent men, who are entrusted with enormous legal power and discretion, and who set the tone and norms of political life in Arizona and beyond?

When those who make the laws are themselves lawless, what hope is there for our Republic, or for the rule of law on which our democracy rests?

GOP Goes Nuts Over Giffords Talking with Constituents About Impeachment of Bush/Cheney

Upon learning that Rep. Giffords sent her Chief of Staff, Maura Policelli to meet with DFA/Tucson about impeachment, the Pima County GOP issued a press release which stated:

"Gabby Giffords' Chief of Staff Maura Policelli tonight will be the special guest at a meeting of the Tucson chapter of Democracy for America, a far left-wing activist group bent on seeing that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are impeached.

"'There are real problems facing southern Arizona like border security, healthcare and education,' Pima County Republican Party Chair Judi White said. 'It's hard to believe that Congresswoman Giffords would dispatch her top aide to such a frivolous event.'

"According to the agenda posted on the group's Web site, Policelli will participate in a discussion over topics relating to impeachment, including H. RES. 799, a resolution calling for the impeachment of the Vice President introduced by Congressman Dennis Kucinich."

Yet at the meeting with Policelli, the Congresswoman's Chief of Staff told the crowd that Giffords agreed with the view that this Administration is out of control, and further that Giffords would be in favor hearings in the House Judiciary Committee to determine if acts of Bush Administration officials might constitute impeachable offenses. Giffords did vote to refer articles of impeachment to the Judiciary Committee for further consideration. Policelli indicated that the Congresswoman takes her oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution quite seriously. Video of the conversation between Policelli and constituents favoring impeachment will be available online soon.

DFA/Tucson leaders were very pleased by the common ground they found with Giffords' Chief of Staff and the Congresswoman's views, and are excited to continue working with Rep. Giffords to hold the Administration to account according to Dr. Ray Graap and Dick Kaiser, two of the organizers of the impeachment movement in Tucson. They are looking forward to Gifford's response to their letter suggesting that she sign on to Rep. Wexler's petition to begin just such an inquiry.

As to criticism from the GOP of Giffords for sending her staff to meet with community leaders on the issue of impeachment, such rhetoric is certainly not unexpected from a party so badly out-of-touch with Pima County's voters. But Chairwoman Judy White's characterization of citizens who are insisting that impeachment be considered by the Congress as the sole means of countering this Administration's abuses of power as "far left-wing" and "frivolous" is deeply undercut by the caliber and ideological disposition of those who are leading advocates of impeachment inquiries nationally. Serious legal professionals such as the American Lawyers Defending the Constitution support enforcing the rule of law through impeachment inquiries. Prominent conservative legal experts, such as Reagan Administration Justice Department official Bruce Fein, strongly support impeachment from a principled, conservative constitutionalist viewpoint. Apparently, these upstanding citizens are all frivolous and far left-wing in White's estimation. No wonder the GOP keeps losing ground in Pima County.

The Pima County GOP's characterization of use of Founder's cure for an over-reaching Executive as a marginal, left-wing issue only illustrates how out-of-touch with even their own electorate they have become. A swiftly growing minority of their own party members are alarmed by the Bush Administration's abuses of our civil rights and the rule of law, and many are becoming reconciled to position that impeachment is the only way to restore the balance of power in the federal government before what looks likely to be a Democratic President takes power in 2009. Nationally, a strong and growing minority of self-identified Conservatives (33%) and Very Conservatives (28%), and self-identified Republicans (23%), would support impeachment for wiretapping of Americans' telecommunications without a warrant according to Zogby polling. Apparently, a quarter of her own party members are frivolous far left-wingers according to White.

Members of DFA/Tucson would surely welcome (considering that they tried to invite representatives of an anti-impeachment viewpoint to their recent forum, and found no takers) an opportunity to discuss the impeachment issue with leaders of the Republican Party rather than merely engaging the shallow rhetoric and divisive politics that has led the current Administration so badly astray and relegated their party to minority status nationally, and near irrelevance locally.

 

The Human-Readable Renzi Indictment

The following is based on allegations and purported evidence contained in the US Attorney's indictment, not personal knowledge. Renzi and others named in the indictment are considered by the law to be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law - but that's lawyer-blather for "he's guilty as sin, we just gotta get 12 folks to see what's plain as day."

There are two major conspiracies at the heart of the case against soon-to-be-former Representative Rick "Dick" Renzi: how he stole from his own insurance clients to buy his way into Congress in the first place and then lied repeatedly to try to cover it up, and how he then abused his office to bully legitimate businesses into a shake-down and kick-back land deal to cover his own debts and then lied to cover that up, too.

Continue reading about what the indictment means after the click...

Big Dick Renzi is Undone

I won't even pretend to hide my delight at the news of Dick Renzi's long-anticipated indictment. There was a strong appearance of political interference by the White House to stave off Renzi's just deserts by firing Arizona USA Paul Charlton during the pendancy of his investigation of Renzi's dealings, so it is much to the credit of Diane Humetewa, the new Arizona USA, that she persevered and put this prosecution at the top of her agenda despite the obvious interest of the Bush Administration in making this matter go away.

Of course, that interest has become much more costly now that Bush's fingers were burned in the Attorney-gate scandal, and the benefit of continuing to support Renzi's criminal lifestyle had diminished markedly once the GOP was no longer fighting to maintain a majority in the House. These factors undoubtedly combined to give Humetewa the breathing room needed to do her job without undue political pressure. The very fact that such political considerations can even be contemplated to have been a factor in the prosecution of public corruption are just one more of the many damning indictments of this Administration and the ethics of the modern GOP.

“Among the allegations contained in the indictment, Congressman Renzi misused his public office by forcing a land sale that would financially benefit himself and a business associate, and in so doing, he betrayed the trust of the citizens of Arizona,” stated U.S. Attorney Diane J. Humetewa. Here's Humetewa's press conference presenting the indictment:

Offsite video

Learn more about the indictment and what it means for the McCain campaign after the click...

The New GI Bill (continued)

by David Safier

A few days ago I posted about the new GI Bill Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va) has been pushing (The New GI Bill). I've been meaning to post a comment by Jeff Latas but kept putting it off.

Jeff, for those who don't know him, is a retired Air Force Lt. Col. who was one of the 2006 candidates for U.S. Representative from CD-8. He is currently the chairman of the Arizona Democratic Party Veterans' Caucus.

The legacy of the original GI Bill created a standard of living which we Americans still enjoy today. Veterans of WWII were given an opportunity to attend universities which only the privileged of our society were allowed prior to the war. Millions of veterans became educated, moving our country into a time of prosperity like none other.

My father and seven of his brothers and sisters were some of these veterans who were able to attend college, the first college educated generation in this family. My father became an educator. The original bill, enabled by the investment of a Democratic-led Congress, no doubt did more for our country in terms of increasing the standard of living we still enjoy. Now, two generations later, our government is going myopic and refuses to see this as an investment in the future of our country.

After fifty years the opportunity has eroded for our veterans to attend college, stymied by red tape and difficult hurdles to jump. Every veteran should be able to attend any college or university which receives federal funding with little to no hassles. No matter your age, when or where you served, combat or peace time, the veteran should have a free education.

The Arizona Democratic Veterans’ Caucus is currently working on this issue. I encourage anyone, veterans and veteran activist, to join this caucus to help push for better education opportunities and health benefits. You can contact me at jeff@latasgroup.com.

Send Jeff an email if you want to take part in the work the Veteran's Caucus is doing.

The New GI Bill

by David Safier

Joseph Galloway has an op ed in this morning’s Star, Today's combat vets deserve new GI bill. According to Galloway:

Sen. James Webb, D-Va., a Vietnam veteran, has been doggedly pursuing passage of a new GI Bill aimed at helping these new wartime veterans get that education by giving them much the same educational benefits that were extended to their grandfathers after WWII.

Under his bill, which has attracted three dozen other sponsors, the government would resume paying full college tuition for these veterans for a period linked to their times in uniform, but for no more than 36 months or four academic years. Every eligible college veteran also would receive a check for $1,000 a month to help cover living expenses.

This would cost the government about $2 billion a year, which is about what we're presently spending every 36 hours in Iraq.

President George W. Bush and the Pentagon oppose any such improvement of this miserly benefit for our young veterans. Why? The president says it would cost too much and be too hard to administer, and he's threatened to veto Webb's bill if it ever passes.

Giving GIs tuition plus living expenses is so obviously a good, cost-effective concept, I have trouble understanding how people who care about our soldiers could be against it. These often aimless ex-soldiers would have an opportunity to improve themselves, to open new vistas for themselves, new possibilities. They are older now than when they enlisted, and more experienced, and possibly more disciplined. Even if they weren’t ready to give college a try back then, they may be now.

And our currently weak economy which would have trouble absorbing all these young people into the work force now will benefit from the influx of skilled, educated workers who graduate a few years down the line.

I’m reminded of a few passages from “All Quiet on the Western Front,” the classic novel about World War I. The narrator, a young man who went to war straight out of high school, said:

The war swept us away. For the others, the older men, it is but an interruption. They are able to think beyond it. We, however, have been gripped by it and do not know what the end may be. We know only that in some strange and melancholy way we have become a waste land.

Later in the book, he commented about his generation:

We are forlorn like children, and experienced like old men, we are crude and sorrowful and superficial – I believe we are lost.

The timeless accuracy of those lines, first published almost exactly 80 years ago, sends a chill through me. The technology changes; the soldiers remain the same.

Bush & Co. only believe in “supporting our troops” when they’re part of our fighting machine (though even then, adequate body armor and properly protected vehicles aren’t much of a priority). But once the troops are no longer troops, once they have outlived their usefulness as soldiers, our current administration stops caring about them. Good veterans’ hospitals and quality health care apparently are unimportant. Psychological help is for sissies. And a college education? If you want one so bad, pay for it yourself!

Tim Bee's Big Surprise

Tim Bee stunned the Arizona political scene with a completely unexpected announcement that he is challenging Gabby Giffords for the CD 8 Congressional seat.

Seriously, though, Tim made it official -- he's in. I know, I was there. And, no, I didn't get tazed, Bro.

It was the kind of non-news news event one expects in the kabuki dance of American politics. But there were a few interesting bits.

Much more after the flip...

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer Draws a Line in the Sand on RealID

Link: Montana Governor Foments Real ID Rebellion.

"Today, I am asking you to join with me in resisting the DHS coercion to comply with the provisions of REAL ID, " Schweitzer wrote. "If we stand together either DHS will blink or Congress will have to act to avoid havoc at our nation's airports and federal courthouses."

I love this man. He is the Left's answer to Ron Paul. Fiercely principled, populist, and undaunted by any political fight; a man you would like on your side when the it comes to a throw down. And he loves his dog -- brings Jag to the office every day. That says something damn positive about a man, in my opinion.

Read his whole letter to the Governors.

I wonder why our Governor isn't joining in on this? I know for a fact that she would find a lot of support across the aisle on this issue.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas' Self-Promotion and Unethical Electioneering

Andrew Thomas, who is up for re-election this November, is again doing what he seems to be best at (other than blatantly harassing the media should they criticize him): pushing the ethical envelope to serve his political ambitions and ideological viewpoint.

He distributed a crime prevention booklet to Maricopa residents (Download the booklet) through the distribution networks of local newspapers (at an as-yet undisclosed cost to taxpayers) without any notice to, or specific funding from the Maricopa Board of Supervisors.

Deanne Poulos, the communications director for the board of supervisors, said the members were not told about the project and only found out after the booklets were distributed Friday morning. “At this time we’re still searching for a funding source,” she said. [E.V. Tribune]

Nor is this the first time that Thomas has blatantly used taxpayer money to get his name prominently before the voters of Maricopa. "Recently, Thomas has been criticized for spending $2.5 million in public money since he took office in 2005 to pay for public service advertisements that promote his name." [E.V. Tribune]

Most recently, Thomas kicked off an anti-DUI billboard campaign where his name is splashed in a broad red strip with large lettering across the bottom. The letters used for Thomas’ name are nearly as large as the letters in the board’s message.[E.V. Tribune]

Let me make perfectly clear that I think the idea of a County Attorney issuing a crime prevention guide is laudable and forward-thinking. To the extent that the purpose and effect of this publication is to reduce crime, I applaud and credit CA Thomas for publishing it.

But the devil lies in the details, as always...

Pima County Election Integrity Standoff Ends

And so it ends, not with a bang, but with a whisper of data flowing between two computers. The Democratic Party and it's staunch allies, the Republicans (try to get used to that idea, at least on this issue...) and the Libertarians, and a great number of Independent active citizens, have prevailed in the battle for the databases.

Pima County activists have won an absolute first: the first ever complete time-series GEMS databases of multiple elections in progress. This is a national treasure for the election integrity movement. Now, of course, comes the hard work of analyzing that which has been won, fully understanding the architecture of the normal data operations of an honest election, and building tools to sniff out signs of fraud. A team of top experts from across the political spectrum is assembling from across the county and they are calling themselves: The Royal Purple Team.

They are setting up a wiki to collaborate on analysis of the data and the tool building and distribution. Let the word go forth to the world, Pima County has the map to the Diebold fortress of security through obscurity, and we fully intend to take over the fortress and replace their silly, increasing etiolated topiary maze with real security measures and millions of citizens' eyes on the prize which that fortress protects: our democracy.

Huzzah!

Pima Couny Election Integrity Goes Back to the Board of Supervisors

The Pima County Supervisor's regular meeting on January 8th at 9am is swiftly approaching this Tuesday. If election integrity matters to you, you should be there. Discussion of the lawsuit will be one of the very first items on the agenda, so try to be at the Board's Chambers by 9am.

One of the best things you can do is to contact the Supervisor's offices and let them know that is a critical issue for you. Sources near the case indicate a belief that the Board will vote to appeal unless Ann Day decides to vote with Ray Carroll. She should be the target of heaviest lobbying. Ray Carroll is already in support of election integrity; call and thank him for his leadership on this issue.

Ann Day, District 1
(520) 740-2738      

Ramón Valadez, District 2
(520) 740-8126   

Sharon Bronson, District 3
(520) 740-8051      

Ray Carroll, District 4
(520) 740-8094

Richard Elías, Chairman, District 5
(520) 740-8126

The County Attorney has filed an apparently unauthorized notice of appeal, presumably purely on the word of County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry or on the initiative of County Attorney's office itself. Only the Board has the right to make a decision as to whether to appeal the court's ruling, and they haven't yet met and made any decision on the matter. See the Democrat's Motion to Strike (Download Mot_to_Strike.pdf) for more details.

The Democrats have also taken issue with several of Judge Miller's findings of fact as not supported by the testimony, and some of his conclusions of law as erroneous. See Democrats Motion to Amend (Download Mot_to_Amend.pdf) for more details. I will take a closer look at this when and if the County Attorney responds. In my first reading, however, Bill Risner make a powerful case that Judge Miller would be hard-pressed to ignore that the Judge quite simply got several points wrong in his under-advisement opinion.

Pima County Election Integrity Trial: Judge Miller Orders Release of 2006 Primary and General Election Databases, But Not RTA Election

Please see the Election Integrity Homepage for complete coverage and the latest news.

Judge Michael Miller, in a carefully reasoned and balanced opinion, today ordered the release of the final MDB and GBF database files for the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections. The judge denied without prejudice access to every MDB and GBF file for the 2006 elections, which would include the RTA election, until and unless the plaintiffs can address remaining security concerns which might arise from that larger release.

For background and commentary on the case and why it is critical to election integrity, please see my earlier posts cataloged on the trial's home post.

The immediate goal of the Democratic party - to be able to look closer at the final election databases - is satisfied by the ruling. But the broader goal of being able to look at a time series of backups for discrepancies or discontinuities that could indicate manipulation of the RTA election specifically is stymied for the moment. John Denker has some very useful additional commentary on the judge's apparent strategy.

It is still unclear whether the judge will grant on-going injunctive relief to turn over the final database files from every election going forward. The denial of access to the entire series of database files indicates that the court may still need to be satisfied as to any remaining concerns about security resulting from on-going and multiple disclosures of this type of data before granting such an injunction.

The ruling will allow the Democratic party to perform the forensic analysis required to search for any evidence of wrong-doing. It will also allow the experts for the Democratic party to begin to more closely address the unquantified and unspecified potential security threats from the public disclosure of the data in these files claimed by the County. This access will be crucial in satisfying the court that there is little or no practical threat to elections integrity posed by this information being in the public domain. Once that task is complete, broader public access to these files (the entire backup history of the election and that of future elections) can be secured.

There is no doubt that the factual findings of the court and this ruling are an resounding and unqualified victory for transparency in our elections process. However, there are further battles that must be fought: to access the entire time-series of backup database files, and to gain permanent injunctive access to the files of future elections without having to litigate each time.

As I digest the ruling and get feedback from the principals in the case, I will continue to update this post.

Here is Judge Miller's ruling in PDF format: Download MillerRuling.pdf

UPDATE:

Having had a chance to digest the ruling fully and consult with Bill Risner, I have a few additional comments.

The bottom line is that the public will get access to the final databases in the 2006 RTA election primary and general elections and all future elections, though the timing of future releases remains indeterminate.

The possibility for getting all database versions throughout the election process remains open pending further demonstration that there is no security issue. To my mind, the judge has adopted the County's burden shifting standards of 'plausible' or 'possible' security harms, when the legal standard requires that the County demonstrate a specific probable harm attendant to the release of a public record. However, I don't think this final reservation will long stand in light of the factual findings the court announced in this ruling.

A question that comes up often is whether this ruling will be appealed by the Board of Supervisors. I think there is really only one person who know that answer to that question: Chuck Huckelberry. My recommendation is that if you are concerned about his decision whether to appeal, you should call his office and let him know how you feel about that possibility.

Detailed analysis of Judge Miller's Under Advisement Ruling after the flip...

Feingold Speaks Against Flawed FISA Revision

UPDATE: VICTORY! Reid pulled the version with immunity. It will likely creep back on the calendar in January, but for now the beast is slain.

If you aren't sure what the fuss is about regarding granting immunity to telecoms for the assistance in the Administration's past violations of FISA, then this is the video to make the issue and what's at stake crystal clear for you.

Senator Dodd is in the midst of a filibuster against Majority Speaker Reid's version of the FISA revision that grants retroactive immunity. Despite Reid's own Intelligence Committee reporting out a version with no immunity, Reid has insisted on introducing the House version which does include it. He's going out of his way, and ignoring an openly acknowledged Senatorial hold by Dodd, seemingly just to mollycoddle the telcoms and to cover Bush's backside. Looks to me like it's time for our out-of-touch Majority Speaker to go, too.

If there is one Senator above all others whom I would like to see lead our majority forward in a principled and intelligent fashion, it would be none other than Senator Feingold, who demonstrates in the above video why he is so manifestly the right man for the job in this time of crisis for our society.