Ted Downing and the Rio Nuevo Project Reauthorization

The Facts

In the contentious LD 28 Senate primary race, the recent successful reauthorization of Rio Nuevo has been fashioned into a sort of political litmus test for loyalty to Tucson's interests. Paula Aboud has repeatedly accused Ted Downing of not supporting the reauthorization, even though he voted for the final bill. This has been a consistent theme, if not the dominant theme in her campaign, including her debate with Downing for the Clean Election Commission.

She recently produced and distributed a mailer that, according to Downing, twists the truth about his votes on Rio Nuevo and other matters. Downing has filed a complaint (Download downingcomplaint.pdf) with the Pima County Democratic Party asking for them to take action on this matter: the hearing will be this Tuesday, Aug. 22nd at 6pm, presumably at the Pima County HQ. (UPDATE: At the urging of David Waid, State party chairman, who felt that Pima County was moving too quickly, the hearing has been delayed. Instead, there will be a meeting to determine the rules of the meeting next Friday, and then the actual meeting possibly on Sept. 5th, just a week before the election. Downing responds to this delay in a letter to Pima County Chair Donna Branch-Gilby (Download DowningGilby.pdf).) It could prove to be the most contentious and explosive meeting in recent party history.

Here's Aboud's mailer:

Downing asserts that all the 'contrasts' are distortions of the record, but the one which is certain to be the most explosive and seems to be having the most political traction is Aboud's charge about Rio Nuevo:

Downing voted to pass the bill, but was not a sponsor of the Rio Nuevo reathorization. Aboud passed and was also a sponsor of the legislation. Sponsorship could be considered a vote of confidence in a bill, and act of solidarity with the Tucson delegation, so it is not trivial, and it is an issue, but this lit concatenates the minor with major and plainly misrepresents Downing's vote to pass Rio Nuevo as a "NO"; in my opinion, this is what might be termed, Truthiness.

The likely effect on the average reader is to convey the false impression that Downing did not vote for passage of the Rio Nuevo reauthorization. I don't think a primary opponent has any duty to go out of their way to explain an opponent's vote, that's a candidate's job; but I do think that every candidate has a duty to the electorate to not actively mislead people about the facts. You decide what side of the line this falls on. No doubt, the Pima County Party will be asked to do so on Tuesday.

There is no doubt that Downing had reservations about the reauthorization of Rio Nuevo, though he did end up voting for passage. Some may be inclined to think that Downing's reservations were crankish, irrelevant, obstreperous, unhelpful, and even dangerous to the successful reauthorization of the Tax Increment Financing (TIF) district of Rio Nuevo given the intensity of the political negotiation. Those people might be right. But Ted is a sophisticated and principled policy-maker, whatever faults he may have. I don't find his reservations to be in any way trivial, or I wouldn't spend the time to explain my own understanding of the issues that he says motivated him. Before anyone can judge Downing's actions in regard to Rio Nuevo, they should at least understand the issues.

Downing's concerns center around two main issues: the voters' right to determine how their taxes are spent, and accountability for those public funds over the long life-span of the Rio Nuevo project.

Voter Authorization

Rio Nuevo is a multi-use redevelopment district which diverts a portion of the tax revenues collected in the district, in this case Sales Taxes, and places them in a fund for redevelopement projects. A TIF district like Rio Nuevo must be authorized by a public vote. In 1999, voters approved Prop 400 which authorized the Rio Nuevo TIF for a period of 10 years.

Or did it?

Many in support of reauthorizing Rio Nuevo (disclosure: I personally support it), felt that it would be unwise to ask Tucson's voters to reauthorize the Rio Nuevo TIF. The most honest accounting of that concern I have yet heard was from LD 28 state legislature candidate Steve Farley, who opined that if Rio Nuevo went back to the voters, it wouldn't win. The dithering, incompetence, lack of visible progress, and repeated redrawing of the plan with new and better boondoggles, has left many Tucsonans with an impression, not entirely unjustified, that Rio Nuevo is a failed experiment.

So how could those who support it avoid sending it back to voters? Just have the legislature reauthorize it. There's just one pesky little detail: the law. ARS 48-4237, which authorizes multi-use TIF districts has a requirement: Section D states "The board shall state on the ballot the purpose of the tax, the maximum rate of the tax and the maximum number of years for which the tax will be authorized." Well, that's a pickle; Rio Nuevo expired after 10 years.

Supporters of the 'legislative only' reauthorization approach found a solution. They proclaimed far and wide that Rio Nuevo could be extended without refering it to the voters because, though the voter pamphet distributed to voters, and all the press coverge leading up to the vote, specified a period of 10 years, that limit wasn't actually on the ballot. Thus the Rio Nuevo TIF was not technically limited to 10 years and could be extended indefinitely. Only problem is, then that ballot violated state law.

Hair-spitting gone wild. But water under the bridge. But it leaves those advocating for the 'legislative only' approach without any real, good-faith basis for their argument. Well, actually, there is one. Back to Steve Farley's honest assessment. We won't have a vote, because it won't pass. So, no vote. If you really think Rio Nuevo is nifty and you don't care much about those pesky rules we call the law, there's no problem.

Unfortunately for Downing, he did care about the law. And he cared about the right of taxpayers to decide how their money is spent.

You see, the hundreds of millions that 'would just go to Phoenix' if not devoted to Rio Nuevo is only half the story: literally, half. Every dollar of Sales Tax that get diverted to Rio Nuevo by the TIF, must be matched with revenues by the local government. So, reauthorizing Rio Nuevo wasn't just keeping Tucson dollars in Tucson, it was also a decision to spend hundreds of millions of local tax dollars to match those funds, all of it tagged only for use on Rio Nuevo projects. So a handful of state legislators, no matter how well intentioned, took it upon themselves to decide how hundreds of millions of Tucsonans' general fund tax dollars would be spent: on Rio Nuevo. And we don't get any say about it.

Downing may have thought that was wrong. He might have thought that the reason we have a democracy is so that we get to make important decisions through elections where everyone gets a say. Even if we don't like what they say. Some have another approach when they don't like what voters say - ignore the vote, or, even better, don't have one.

Downing offered an amendment to the Rio Nuevo bill (H.B. 2702) which provided for a new general election vote on the extension of Rio Nuevo for another 30 years to be held on November 7, 2006. It failed, of course. For this he is roundly criticized. Who knows? If the case were made to the people of Tucson, and if there were some public accountability for the mistakes that have been made, instead of shoveling them under the carpet, then voters might have a newly approved TIF for another 30 years that the people of Tucson believe in, rather than one for 12 years that some people feel got foisted on them in exchange for muzzling our public access cable program, and who knows what else, in backroom deals. But that would be rather hard, and risky, and honest: can't have that.

Downing was willing to trust the voters; that's his biggest crime.

Accountability for Public Funds

There is one other problem with TIF districts. They set up a board of directors and a budget process that is at one remove from democratic accountability, even though they are using public money. Generally, this does not become a problem, but when you rely on the probity and honesty of human beings to any degree, you are eventually bound to be disappointed.

During the reauthorization battle, the Rio Nuevo Board of Directors released their accounting of the funds received and used thus far. Downing was given one spreadsheet by the board dated 12/31/05 (Download rionuevo001.pdf), and then saw a different one from a lobbyist dated 2/03/06 (Download rionuevo002.pdf). He noticed that over 8 million dollars in the Pre-Development and Operating Expenses category had mysteriously moved from the TIF Funds column to the Public Funds column. There is no good explanation of the discrepancy.

It is still a fairly fishy diddle of the numbers, but it seems that the city 'loaned' Rio Nuevo over 8 million to cover or disguise some very large expenditures in a very flexible category. It is instructive that at the same time new City Manager Mike Hein was taking control, one of his first major actions to was roll a number of heads out of the Rio Nuevo project, and make the project report directly to himself. Clearly, he was dissatisfied with the project's performance, or worse.

Like to know what Rio Nuevo spent a total of over $10 million in Pre-Development and Operating Expenses on? Me too. For perspective, that's 40% of the TIF funds expended. I haven't gotten any answers yet. Maybe if enough citizens demand that every penny of that money be accounted for, the information will flow.

So, perhaps Downing was reasonably concerned about the lack of proper accounting controls and oversight in the Rio Nuevo project. He offered an amendment that inserted into the bill, "THE MUNICIPALITY SHALL INCLUDE IN ITS ANNUAL MUNICIPAL BUDGET THE AMOUNTS, SOURCES, AND USES OF MUNICIPAL REVENUES DEDICATED AS MATCHING MONIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBSECTION, AND THE AUDITOR GENERAL SHALL ANNUALLY AUDIT AND REPORT THESE DATA TO THE GOVERNOR AND TO THE LEGISLATURE."

In short, Downing wanted fiscal accountability for our investment. He wanted to use an independent government auditor to make sure everything was kosher.

Let me put this in context. Our State Treasurer is in dutch for widespread misuse of public funds in his office. Our State Mine Inspector is in dutch for widespread misuse of public funds in his office. Both of those officials are Republicans. Suggesting to the politicians in the legislature that pesky civil servants like the Auditor General or Comptroller get near any real money is like offering garlic to Dracula. Needless to say, Downing's motion failed. Steve Huffman rose to speak in opposition to Downing's amendment. His reason? It might be too expensive. $600 million, or more, in taxpayer funds, and accounting for it might be too expensive?

So, those are the actions Downing took to in regards to Rio Nuevo. Did he endanger its passage? Maybe. Were his actions wise? Some say no. I say only that the issues he raised are important and valid. Did he do the right thing? Perhaps he would be comfortable with your judgment on that point if you have read this far. You should decide based on real data. Don't allow this issue to be simplified and misrepresented.

I believe Downing had the public interest in sight the whole time. Perhaps Paula doesn't see it that way. I'm sure she has the public interest in sight too, though perhaps from a different perspective from Ted's. She should aim to explain that difference to voters, and her mailer falls far short of accomplishing that.

Since the Rio Nuevo issue came out OK (though hardly perfect), I think it is unproductive that this election, which is about the future, is being framed by recriminations about the past in such a misleading way that it sheds so little light on either candidate's philosophy. However, Rio Nuevo is an important issue in discovering differences between these candidates when handled in a mature and substantive fashion. Voting records are important and powerful lenses with which to discover the real convictions and values of a candidate, it is never illegitimate to examine and question a candidate's voting record. But like any lens, it can create more heat than light if misused. In the end, the Rio Nuevo vote, and the way it is being used in this campaign, does speak volumes about both Ted Downing and Paula Aboud as candidates for this office, and voters should take note.

UPDATE 8/20: A helpful Commenter supplied an analysis from the Star of Aboud's mailer. I thought I would move in out here with my own comments in brackets. Given that the 'fact check' bears out that every single one of Aboud's contrasts was misleading, the title of the Star piece is mystifying, "Aboud's pro-Tucson flier mostly on the money". It's like titling a news article about the Watergate break-in "Nixon's Plumbers mostly obeying the law".

ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Today: We look at an ad for Democrat Paula Aboud.
The Race: State Senate District 28.
Medium: A direct-mail flier.
The Message: The advertisement begins with a headline that reads "The Clear Choice Senator Paula Aboud" over a photo of Aboud at a desk, flanked by U.S. and Arizona flags.

Beneath the photo is a three-column chart characterizing how Aboud and her rival, Rep. Ted Downing, differed on four bills that are described as "issues."

The first issue says, "Sponsored and passed Rio Nuevo funding, keeping our tax dollars in Tucson, not Phoenix."

Beneath Aboud's name, there is a "Yes" in green letters. Beneath Downing's name there is a "No" in red letters. [This is was the subject of this rather extensive post, had you failed to notice...]

The evaluation continues:
● Fought to maintain Tucson's local control to levy impact fees on developers. Aboud yes. Downing no.
● Voted for $597 million for crucial Democratic budget priorities. Aboud yes. Downing no/absent.
● Real solutions, not gimmicks for our public schools. Aboud yes. Downing no.
At the bottom she further criticizes Downing and his commitment to Tucson.

The Intent: To portray Downing as someone who does not truly represent Tucson, choosing instead to make concessions to Maricopa County lawmakers.

Fact Check: Downing did not sponsor the extension for the Rio Nuevo special-tax district. But he did vote for the bill's final version, which extended the district for 12 years. Downing was critical of the original bill, which extended the district 30 years.

[This is  essentially correct, but Ted was not, as implied this 'fact check', opposed to the original bill because of the 30 year period. His own amendment allowing Tucsonans a vote to reathorize Rio Nuevo also specified a 30 year extension. The 12 year period was not a factor; that period was the result of an intense, top-level, negotiation from which most law-makers were excluded. The Rio Nuevo bill was presented by leadership as a take it or leave it proposition, Ted's attempts to amend were crushed. One of the reasons Ted's amendment on a local vote was so hated, was that it would have allowed a 30 year TIF instead of the 12 years the GOP leadership was willing to give.]

It's correct that Downing supported a bill that would have limited how municipalities collect development fees. Aboud voted against the bill, which passed but was vetoed by Gov. Janet Napolitano. The bill didn't strip local control, but increased state regulation.

[And that increasd regulation would have prevented munipalities from buying airplanes with their developments fees; not exactly your standard public improvement. And Downing was joined in his vote by his colleague Rep. Bradley. I guess he hates 'local control' too... Note that this is the only time the reporter uses the words 'it's correct': how is one out of four 'mostly'?]

The $597 million in "crucial Democratic budget priorities" were part of the final budget bill introduced by Republican Speaker of the House, James P. Weiers. Downing didn't vote no. He didn't vote at all. He was absent. The final house vote was 46-9. Twelve of the 21 House Democrats, a majority, either voted against the budget or, like Downing, did not vote.

[For once I have nothing to add. Except that equating a missed vote with a NO vote in just plain dishonest. And given that a majority of our caucus voted against the bill or bugged out in a fit of ennui or sheer futility over such a tragic budget, one wonders why Aboud would highlight her YES vote.]

The reference to "real solutions, not gimmicks for our public schools," relates to Downing's vote to require a U.S. flag in every public and charter school and public college classroom. Downing voted for the bill after introducing an amendment to also require the Constitution and Declaration of Independence be displayed.

[The real problem with Aboud's mailer on this one is the framing of the 'issue' of gimmicks vs. real solutions. Those are generalities, not issues. They are prejudcial descriptions of a issue not mentioned except as a little footnote. If Aboud has just said "Putting flags and the Constitution in every classroom vs. Not", well, it wouldn't have the desired effect, but also wouldn't be misleading. She got the vote right, but deprived the voters of any real information with her characterization.

The original bill was undoubtedly pure symbolic drivel, and it was actively harmful and jingoistic. And it was certain to pass. At least Downing injected some instructional content and a positive slant into the bill, and got more than one GOPer to rub a few neurons together for a change. Instead of just futilely voting NO, Downing turned a pure turd of a bill into a half turd, half gold bill. When a Democrat turns one of these dreadful wedge issue/patriot baiting bills into a win for our side, criticizing him for it is the last thing on my mind.

So much for the 'Gimmick' Aboud refers to, but that leaves the issue of those "Real Solutions" that Aboud voted YES on, which presumably Downing did not. What exactly are those?

We should also note the use of the same jingoistic symbolism Aboud denounces in our schools in the accompanying picture of herself flanked by not one, but two flags, but not a single Constitution. I do so love irony.]

FURTHER UPDATE 8/20: I just got a call from the Aboud campaign letting me know that it is important to keep Senator Aboud in office. When asked why, the very first response was because Downing did not support Rio Nuevo. If that isn't in the call script, but merely the extemporizing of an enthusiastic volunteer (which is what I hope), I would invite the Aboud campaign to send me the script. I'd be happy to post it.

Comments

[Cave dweller]

Michael,

I loved your post titled ‘Steve Huffman, Arizona Minuteman’ but it looks like Sonoran Alliance has you beat on the Google search for ‘huffman minuteman.’ The site comes up number five on the search.

Thanks from the knuckle dragging, too stupid to think, can’t form a sentence, far right-wing.

[Dwight D. Leister: Chair: Committee To Elect]

Just like "Road Kill" says on the "Imus In The Morning Show" on MSNBC "Lets GET'er Done!"

[Pam Sutherland]

The AZ Daily Star just ran an article today on Senator Aboud's mailer: http://www.azstarnet.com/sn/politics/142884

Published: 08.20.2006

Aboud's pro-Tucson flier mostly on the money
By Josh Brodesky
ARIZONA DAILY STAR
Today: We look at an ad for Democrat Paula Aboud.
The Race: State Senate District 28.
Medium: A direct-mail flier.
The Message: The advertisement begins with a headline that reads "The Clear Choice Senator Paula Aboud" over a photo of Aboud at a desk, flanked by U.S. and Arizona flags.
Beneath the photo is a three-column chart characterizing how Aboud and her rival, Rep. Ted Downing, differed on four bills that are described as "issues."
The first issue says, "Sponsored and passed Rio Nuevo funding, keeping our tax dollars in Tucson, not Phoenix."
Beneath Aboud's name, there is a "Yes" in green letters. Beneath Downing's name there is a "No" in red letters.
The evaluation continues:
● Fought to maintain Tucson's local control to levy impact fees on developers. Aboud yes. Downing no.
● Voted for $597 million for crucial Democratic budget priorities. Aboud yes. Downing no/absent.
● Real solutions, not gimmicks for our public schools. Aboud yes. Downing no.
At the bottom she further criticizes Downing and his commitment to Tucson.
The Intent: To portray Downing as someone who does not truly represent Tucson, choosing instead to make concessions to Maricopa County lawmakers.
Fact Check: Downing did not sponsor the extension for the Rio Nuevo special-tax district. But he did vote for the bill's final version, which extended the district for 12 years. Downing was critical of the original bill, which extended the district 30 years.
It's correct that Downing supported a bill that would have limited how municipalities collect development fees. Aboud voted against the bill, which passed but was vetoed by Gov. Janet Napolitano. The bill didn't strip local control, but increased state regulation.
The $597 million in "crucial Democratic budget priorities" were part of the final budget bill introduced by Republican Speaker of the House, James P. Weiers. Downing didn't vote no. He didn't vote at all. He was absent. The final house vote was 46-9. Twelve of the 21 House Democrats, a majority, either voted against the budget or, like Downing, did not vote.
The reference to "real solutions, not gimmicks for our public schools," relates to Downing's vote to require a U.S. flag in every public and charter school and public college classroom. Downing voted for the bill after introducing an amendment to also require the Constitution and Declaration of Independence be displayed.
● Sources: Arizona Legislature archives, Arizona Daily Star archives.

[Pam Sutherland]

Ted Downing's vote against increasing the penalty for spousal rape was just plain wrong. See, http://www.janabommersbach.com/pm-fea-sept05.htm

Rape is Rape
Feature Story Phoenix Magazine
September 2005

Men rape women all the time. Without a doubt, it's one of the most heinous crimes in society, which is why rapists are sent to prison for a long time. That is, unless the rapist is the husband of the victim - when it comes to "spousal rape," the penalties can be as little as a slap on the wrist. That's how it was in Arizona, when Deb was raped by her husband. Instead of just accepting it, though, she single-handedly took on the Legislature and got the law changed. Today, thanks to her, rape is rape - married or not. In an exclusive interview with PHOENIX magazine, Deb tells her story.

She found the VHS tapes by mistake, and was on the phone with one of her friends when she pushed the "play" button. "Hey, there's a woman on this tape that looks just like me," she told her friend, as she watched an unconscious female being raped. And then her world shifted off its axis.
"Oh my God! It is me."

That's how "Deb" discovered that her estranged husband had drugged her, raped her and memorialized the event by taping the entire thing. Her husband was eventually convicted of two counts of sexual assault and one count of surreptitious viewing, but the state of Arizona determined that a husband raping a wife was a minor crime, and, as a result, he faced a maximum of only 18 months in jail. If he had raped anyone else, however, he would have been looking at a maximum of 15 years in prison.

As it turned out, he didn't even get the lesser maximum - he got probation. In fact, he would have faced a harsher sentence if he'd organized a dogfight, or if he'd been convicted of littering. But for drugging and raping his wife, and then videotaping the assault, he got a slap on the wrist and was told to go home and be a good boy.

According to Deb, it felt like she was being abused all over again - this time by the laws of the state. In Arizona, it was less of a crime to rape your wife than anywhere else in the nation. Deb called it the "get-out-of-jail-free card."

So, she decided to do something about it. Her efforts wouldn't help her own case, but she couldn't bear the thought of anyone else having to experience the same kind of pain and humiliation that she had experienced.

At that moment, nearly three years ago, this Phoenix woman - her name has been changed to protect her identity - had no idea what to do. Eventually, somebody suggested that she go to her legislator, and that started her on a path that has consumed her ever since. For two long legislative sessions, Deb tried to convince reluctant or hostile lawmakers that "rape is rape" - that being raped by your husband should be just as much of a crime as being raped by a stranger.

But on the day that she started, she was about as unprepared for this kind of experience as anyone can get.

At the time, she'd never spoken into a microphone, other than to sing karaoke.

She'd never given a speech.
She didn't know the difference between the political parties.
She didn't know what legislative district she lived in.
She didn't know who represented her district in the House and Senate.
She didn't know what a "statute" was.
She didn't know how a bill became a law.
She didn't even know where the Arizona Legislature was located.

Since then, all of that has changed. She's testified in front of several House and Senate committees, sometimes facing malicious comments; she's learned how the political game is played in Arizona; she's "ambushed" lawmakers to tell her story; and she's become a fixture at the state Capitol.

Oh, and by the way, she also got the rape laws changed.

So, let everyone beware - let every wife and husband know - because of this woman and her refusal to go away, rape is rape in the state of Arizona, and a wedding ring is no longer a defense.

The emotions are still so raw that even three years after the unfathomable rape, recounting her story still makes her cry. "This experience has been debilitating," she says over lunch.

Part of it is the anguish of knowing she'd spent most of her adult life with a man who would do something like this. "I honestly believed he couldn't survive without me," she says. "And he never thought I'd leave him."

Another part is the regret that her mother's last months were focused on the rape. "This situation governed every discussion

I had with my mother during the last six months of her life."

She's also bothered by the fact that this man still has unsupervised visits with their children. As much as anything, though, she struggles with the realization of how naive she really was.

"I thought I'd have to hire an attorney, until someone told me to report it to the police," she remembers. "The prosecutors took 10 months to bring the charges against him. And then he got probation!"

But underlying all of that is the incredible betrayal that comes with spousal rape - this kind of rape carries with it a special agony. Specifically, the rapist is someone who stood before family and friends and vowed to love, honor and cherish; the rapist is the father of the victim's children; and the rapist was once the victim's best friend and lover.

In Deb's case, she turned her outrage into political action, but she remembers how "devastated" she was at the initial reaction of Arizona's lawmakers.

"To my face, most were very considerate." Behind her back, though, or when they spoke during committee meetings, it was something else. "They'd talk about it like the victims weren't even there," she recalls. "As though I hadn't just testified. How did they not get it?"

One lawmaker, according to a longtime lobbyist who was working on the case, called it the "she says no and I go to jail bill." And another actually said, "Isn't it part of the deal?"

As long as she lives, Deb will never under-stand how anyone could think that getting raped by your husband is just part of the deal that comes with the marriage vows.

Arizona has never been Johnny on the spot when it comes to rape. In fact, the state didn't even have a tough rape law until 1977, when sexual assault finally came "into the 20th Century," according to Bill Hart, executive director of the Arizona Sexual Assault Network. That law basically said that rape applied to "anyone" who didn't give consent to sex. And the law imposed harsh penalties, saying that rape was a Class 2 felony. But, in 1983, the Legislature took a giant step backward and declared that it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife. And thus, it passed a law that said marriage was an "affirmative defense for sexual assault." In other words, you couldn't be convicted of sexual assault against a spouse.

It wasn't until 1988 that it became illegal for a husband to rape his wife in Arizona, and even then it was just a Class 6 felony - the lowest possible felony. What's more, that law also required a special criteria for spousal rape - the woman had to prove "force or threatened use of force."

In 2001, the Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence tried to repeal the exemptions and raise the penalties to match the other rapes. The organization found a lawmaker to sponsor the bill - a requirement, because citizens alone can't introduce legislation in Arizona - but Hart remembers they were laughed out of the caucus, where one lawmaker called it the "honey I have a head-ache bill."

In 2002, the coalition couldn't find a sponsor for the bill. In 2003, they didn't even try to find a sponsor, knowing it would be dead on arrival. Then, in 2004, Deb showed up on the doorstep, unaware of anyone else's efforts, but anxious to get someone to listen to her story.

After one person was nice enough to tell her who her district representatives were, she approached Representative Clancy Jayne, R-Phoenix, and he agreed to sponsor the bill. But when she approached her local senator, Dean Martin, R-Phoenix, not only would he not "sign on" to the bill as a sponsor, but he wouldn't answer her phone calls, either, Deb remembers.

Jayne organized the effort to make spousal rape a Class 2 felony, just like all of the other rapes. It was introduced into the 2004 legislative session with 20 co-sponsors in the House, one-third of all the House members. In general, if the right names are on the list - with Republicans in control, it's essential that most of those names be Republican, and they were - that can be a good sign. In this case, though, it wasn't.

While the bill in 2004 had almost unanimous support among Democrats, as well as healthy support among some Republicans, it was strongly opposed by a small group of the GOP. The most significant was Eddie Farnsworth, the House majority leader from Gilbert. Hart remembers a conversation that took place one day on the Capital Mall. As he remembers it, Farnsworth told him, "Some would argue there are conjugal rights that exist within a marriage." Hart says he responded by saying, "Some would argue that that idea comes from the days when women were seen as chattel."

When Deb confronted Farnsworth herself, she asked him, "Don't you have any daughters?" and she was told he had seven. She wondered why that hadn't made him see the light. But, apparently, it never did.

Ironically, rape is an issue that has profoundly touched the Farnsworth family.
One of Eddie's nephews, Albert Stephen Farnsworth, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2003, when he was 21 years old, for kidnapping and raping a 12-year-old Gilbert girl as she was walking to school.

In addition to the opposition in the Legislature, there was the fear that repealing the exemptions would "inspire women to come forward with false charges." Deb heard lawmakers argue that "women will be vindictive, and wives will say they've been raped just to get back at their husbands." She also heard them argue the opposite. As Mark Andrews, R-Mesa, worried out loud: "It would seem like even less reporting would go on, because now [the victim] figures that it's a much more serious penalty that my husband is going to face, and I've got kids, and he's going to jail for 10 years."

Hart remembers how hard it was for Deb to realize she was dealing with a Legislature that was displaying everything "from simple ignorance to downright misogyny."

A crucial lawmaker that held the "vindictive" worry was Steve Tully, R-Phoenix, who was chair of the powerful House Judiciary Committee. He wouldn't even let the bill be heard in his committee without a com-promise - he wouldn't support raising the penalty to the Class 2 level, but he would support bringing it up from a Class 6 to a Class 4 felony.

"This was a defeat, but still a small victory," Hart remembers. "We had to compromise, or the bill was dead."

That bill passed the House Judiciary Committee unanimously, and then it went to the Human Services Committee. Deb testified again, and so did a woman who was raped on her wedding night.

"The women on the committee were crying," Deb remembers, as the bill passed the second committee unanimously.

Having passed two House committees, the bill then went before the full House, where it again passed unanimously - an al-most unheard of accomplishment. (Farnsworth didn't cast a vote.) Things were looking very, very good.

From there, it went to the Arizona Senate. Its first stop was the Senate Judiciary Committee, where Jim Weiers, R-Phoenix, was chairman. From his comments in the committee hearing, Deb worried that he wasn't even going to let the bill have a hearing. But then she "ambushed" him in the hall. "We sat on a couch in the Senate lounge for a half-hour and he changed his mind," she explains.

He not only let the bill be heard - it got another unanimous vote for approval - but he came to see the value of the bill, which would be crucial later on.

The bill then had to clear the Senate Rules Committee, before the entire Senate could vote final passage. That's when it ran up against Robert Blendu, R-Litchfield Park.
For two months, he held the bill, refusing to let it come to a vote. (This is why committee chairs are so powerful - they can single-handedly kill legislation by simply stuffing it in the bottom drawer.)

Some speculated that Blendu was being vindictive because the bill's sponsor had been part of the "moderate Republican" bloc that helped pass a state budget that was strongly opposed by the right-wing Republican leadership. Deb was told "paybacks" have become more common in the Legislature as the level of civility has dropped, and she didn't think that was fair.

Nonetheless, even when Arizona Republic columnist Laurie Roberts started blasting Senator Blendu in print, he wouldn't bend to pressure, and personally killed the bill. To explain himself, he started saying things like: This was just a "feel-good measure" without any substance; there shouldn't be a separate law for spousal rape (as though he didn't understand that that's exactly what the bill was trying to change); lawmakers were secretly lobbying him not to let the bill out because they had been "forced" to vote for it, as though all of those unanimous votes had somehow been coerced.

If Deb had felt like making a joke, she would have joked about how she was powerful enough to force 89 members of the Legislature to bend to her will. But she wasn't laughing. The defeat of the bill made her sick - she took it as a personal assault on her and what she'd been through.

But, as the old saying goes: That which doesn't kill you makes you stronger. And Deb felt pretty strong by the time the 2005 legislative session began in January.

Who would have ever guessed that Robert Blendu would become the hero in this story, but that's exactly what happened in the 2005 session. As he faced re-election in the fall of 2004, his opponent was hounding him about the spousal-rape bill, and he was being forced to defend his position. Eventually, the time came when he realized that it wasn't defensible. Two weeks before the election, he called Hart at the Sexual Assault Network and told him he intended to sponsor a bill that made spousal rape the same as any other rape.

"When we saw the bill, it was a straight repeal of the old law," Hart says in astonishment. He couldn't have been more delighted. Likewise, Deb was ecstatic.

This time around, the bill originated in the Senate, under Blendu's sponsorship, and was assigned to the Senate Judiciary Committee headed by John Huppenthal,
R-Chandler. Although the committee agreed to raise the penalties to a Class 2 felony, they insisted on maintaining the requirements on force. Blendu said he'd accept those amendments to get the bill out of the Senate, and it ultimately passed.

Over on the House side, a familiar face became a friend. Jim Weiers - who'd had the heart-to-heart talk with Deb the year before - had given up his Senate seat and run for the House in the last election, and ended up with the powerful position as House speaker. One of his duties as speaker is to assign bills to various committees - a move that can signal doom or success, depending on the politics of the committee chair. If he had followed tradition and sent the spousal-rape bill to the House Judiciary Committee, it would have been doomed.

That committee was headed by Eddie Farnsworth, the same lawmaker who wouldn't even cast a vote on the issue the year be-fore, and probably would have never let it get to a hearing.
However, Weiers proved himself a champion by not sending the bill to Judiciary, and instead assigning it to the House Human Services Committee, where chair Pete Hershberger, R-Tucson, was a known advocate.
Nonetheless, the committee defeated the bill. Representative Warde Nichols, R-Chandler, one of the co-sponsors of the bill the year before, voted "no." So did Representative Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe; Mark Anderson, R-Mesa; and John Allen, R-Scottsdale. Deb was so upset that she ran out of the room in tears.

Senator Blendu, who was at home sick, was just as stunned by the outcome. He told Hart he would have shown up on a stretcher if he'd known the bill was in trouble. So, Senator Blendu called Representative Nichols to find out what was going on. Nichols had apparently misunderstood the bill, and agreed to call for its reconsideration (something only a person on the prevailing side of the vote can do). Meanwhile, Knaperek wanted data. How many cases had there actually been? How did this number stack up with other states?

She was told that in the last five years, 30 cases had been filed, but only 17 had been prosecuted, including Deb's. She was also told that a law like Arizona's had been declared unconstitutional by two other states - rapists had argued that they were getting harsh sentences, while husbands who raped their wives weren't. It was the opposite side of the coin, but it argued for exactly the same thing - rape is rape.

Then, into the fray came Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas, who personally called key Republicans and helped "turn it around," Deb says.

The committee's reconsideration of the bill turned out to be a godsend. The bill be-fore them still included the requirement that wives had to prove force. However, the committee decided not to impose that extra demand, and passed a straight repeal of the spousal-rape law. In the full House, there were only four votes against it - three Republicans and one Democrat: Republicans Ed-die Farnsworth, Chuck Gray (Mesa) and Russell Pearce (Mesa), and Tucson Democrat Ted Downing. The Senate concurred with the House, and the bill went to the governor.

In May of this year, Governor Janet Napolitano signed the bill into law.
Although the fight had been long and hard, its passage flew under the radar for many, including the media. A month after it was signed, Channel 12 reported on a spousal-rape case up in Flagstaff, and said officials hoped it was the kind of case that "will help change the state law."

Hart worries that if the media doesn't even know about the change, there's much to do to ensure that wives and husbands understand there are new rules now.

Deb looks back on the two years she spent getting the law changed and realizes how much she didn't know. "I was probably naive enough to believe it was easier than it was," she says. "I was not intimidated by the Legislature in the beginning, because I didn't know any better - I became intimidated when I saw the power one man can hold."
Hart remembers that when he first met Deb, he suggested she call herself a "survivor." And he can still quote her response: "No, call me a 'victim,' because until this statute is changed, I will continue to be victimized by the law."

These days, she agrees that she's a survivor. "I feel an overwhelming sense of calm that we're now all protected," she says with pride. "No one else will ever go through my experience."

Although she doesn't want to be identified - The Arizona Republic withheld her name in its news stories, as well - she's proud of what she's done. So is the Arizona Attorney General's Office, which has given her its Distinguished Service Award for 2005. And so is the Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which has named her Woman of the Year.

"I am moving forward," she says. And she's continuing to work on her degree, although, she says, "I've switched my major to political science from business because of this experience." She's also raising her children, and she's still fighting her ex-husband over unsupervised visitation, which she finds unbelievable - under the circumstances.

[Pam Sutherland]

Ted Downing has been solidly opposed to the legislature reauthorizing funding for Rio Nuevo, no matter how hard he tries to spin it now. the Tucson Weekly called Downing Rio Nuevo's "buggest obstacle."

See, http://www.tucsonweekly.com/gbase/currents/Content?oid=oid:78949

PUBLISHED ON FEBRUARY 23, 2006:

The Skinny

By JIM NINTZEL

AGAINST THE CURRENT-- WITH BANJOS!
Legislation to extend downtown's Rio Nuevo district for an extra 30 years is rolling right through the Arizona Legislature, with the House of Representatives giving it a tentative OK last week.
Most Southern Arizona lawmakers of both parties have signed on to the plan, which would allow the city take a portion of the sales taxes that would normally be sent to the state and instead invest those dollars in downtown revitalization. Even those with misgivings about the progress of downtown revitalization reckon it's better to keep the pie down here than give it to Phoenix.

The biggest obstacle so far hasn't been Maricopa County conservatives, but Rep. Ted Downing, a Democrat who represents central Tucson.

Downing went amendment-happy during a recent Committee of the Whole session: He offered one provision to require city voters to approve any extension of Rio Nuevo and another to make the city undergo quarterly audits of how the downtown revitalization dollars are being spent.

In heat of the moment, Downing tried to force a roll-call vote that would have required his colleagues to go on the record, rather than a simple voice vote where they all just yell out "aye" or "nay." But he bungled his motion, and Speaker Pro Tem Bob Robson, who was running the show, told him: No takebacks.

Ted did remember the magic words--which we believe to be "Simon says"--on one amendment, so the House resoundingly smacked him down on a 48-6 vote.

Downing insists he's a big booster of Rio Nuevo--some of his best friends are redeveloped downtowns--but says he's worried that too much city revenue will be required to match the state funds. And he says the city could waste those redevelopment dollars on an arena or resurrecting the idea of burying Interstate 10 along Congress Street.

"All that crap--they're going to have so much money from this extension, and the current City Council is going to take that money, put it in their pocket and spend it," warns Downing.

Hey, Ted, that's the new progressive Democratic City Council you were celebrating with down at Hotel Congress on Election Night, isn't it? Bet they're happy to see how hard you're working to derail their gravy train.

Downing complains his colleagues don't share his commitment to "transparency and accountability." And he was incredulous that Rep. Tom Prezelski would suggest that Rio Nuevo's appointed board--which includes his own mom, Carmen Prezelski--amounts to any kind of meaningful oversight.

"Prezelski tells me his mother's on the damn board, so it's accountable," Downing says. "If we're going to set up the bureaucracy of this town where the accountability of all public officials and money is based upon putting your relative on a board--saying, 'Look, my brother's on the board'--I mean, shall I go back to Mexico where I used to work?"

Prezelski says Downing's comment sounds "borderline racist," but there's not much he can do, because "Rep. Downing is very difficult to work with."

Prezelski is among the members of the Southern Arizona delegation with the crazy notion that extending Rio Nuevo will capture a billion dollars of state tax revenue. As he puts it: "Do we want the sales-tax revenues to be spent to improve infrastructure in Tucson or to build another monument to Barry Goldwater in Phoenix?"

Downing, who is laying the groundwork for a campaign against appointed Sen. Paula Aboud, knows full well that he's not making many friends with his Rio Nuevo crusade, but he's not bothered by pedestrian political concerns.

"I don't decide what's right and wrong by who's standing behind me," Downing says. "If it cooks me, so be it. ... I went into the Folk Shop down here where the banjo is, walked in there, and somebody said ... 'Go at it. Find out what's going on with our money.' That's my crowd, the banjo shop."

Downing's other political complaint: The bill is a vehicle to help Rep. Steve Huffman, a Republican who recently announced he's in the running for Congressman Jim Kolbe's seat, come out on top in the crowded GOP primary. You know, if something as mind-numbingly boring as tax-increment financing is central to Huffman's secret plan to beat Randy Graf, he might as well just drop out of the race right now.

By the way, Professor Downing isn't making any friends among his paymasters at the University of Arizona with his opposition to the proposed arch/science-center bridge that would span I-10.

"Give me $10 million, and I'll put up two 500-foot plastic statues, one of Ronald Reagan and one of Bill Clinton," says Downing. "And I'll have them dance. It'll have the same impact on people."

[Pamela Powers]

Great coverage regarding the negative campaign tactics of Paula Aboud. (You really riled up her operatives--above.) The Democratic Party has no place for Karl Rove-style dirty tricks. In addition to the mailing, I received a highly deceptive phone call from the Aboud campaign about a month ago. The caller pushed Downing's negative vote on Rio Nuevo (not mentioning that he voted for it in the end) and touted Aboud's stellar record as a senator (not mentioning she was newly appointed, not elected). The caller also alleged that if Downing lost this election he would keep his representative's seat-- obviously not true. I'm very disappointed that the Democratic Party has put off acting on Downing's complaint.

I'm glad that Tucson received the Rio Nuevo funds in the end, but what is wrong with asking for accountability from our local officials?

How about truth in candidacy? Can District 28 become a no spin zone?