He will be joined by Asst. Pima County Administrator Nanette Slusser, to answer questions about Pima County issues (i.e. bonds, roads, immigration, etc.)
Coming up in March, from Pima County's Republican District 1 Supervisor Ally Miller, newly elected in Nov. 2012 (info from her e-newsletter): "In the fourth quarter of 2013 I held three Town Hall meetings. These Town Halls provide an opportunity for the citizens of Pima County to learn more about the service my office can provide, discuss the issues impacting Pima County, and share their thoughts, concerns and comments on current issues facing our County. I hope you can join me for one of three upcoming Town Halls":
Thursday, March 13, 6:00 p.m. Pima County Natural Resources Headquarters 3500 W. River Road.
Saturday, March 15, 10:00 a.m. Kirk-Bear Canyon Branch Library 8959 E. Tanque Verde Road.
Thursday, March 20, 6:00 p.m. Oro Valley Branch Library 1305 W. Naranja Drive.
The other 3 Pima County Supervisors are all Democrats: Chair Sharon Bronson (D 3), Vice Chair Richard Elias (D 5), and former Chair Ramon Valadez (D 2).
On Tuesday, the Pima County Board of Supervisors voted to oppose the Rosemont Mine in Pima County. Supervisors OK formal objection to Rosemont Mine. "The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 Tuesday to send the Forest Service a formal objection to the agency’s tentative approval of the mine and its final environmental impact statement. The letter is expected to compel the federal agency to respond to Pima County’s long list of concerns over the planned copper mine in the Santa Rita Mountains."
So Rosemont Mine and its supporters have proposed a novel idea: they will seize part of Pima County and give it to to Santa Cruz County, where they apparently believe people are more amenable to being bought off with Canadian "loonie" to approve their mine. This is some in-your-face corruption.
State Sen. Gail Griffin on Tuesday breathed life into a bid to bring Green Valley, Sahuarita and the mines into Santa Cruz County, though the idea hasn't proven popular locally.
* * *
Griffin said she introduced the bill at the request of constituents, doesn't expect to have trouble getting it through the Legislature, and wants to hear “about any possible unintended consequences” it may bring about.
Griffin, a Republican whose District 14 skirts the eastern edge of Green Valley, introduced SB 1357, which would put a boundary change to a vote in Santa Cruz County and to those affected in southern Pima County.
That "constituent" is Emmit McGloughlin, " a former Tucson City Council member who now lives in Sonoita, and formed the Santa Cruz County Committee for Quality Jobs more than a year ago to explore moving the county line from Amado to Pima Mine Road, which is where Griffin's bill would put it."
Breaking news on the front page of today’s Arizona Daily Star is a 20″ story about dumping Tucson’s “Old Pueblo” nickname. Leaders of the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce think Tucson needs a new nickname that reflects our bustling, business friendly city– not a “dusty, old desert town”. From the Star…
“Tucson has a choice,” the chamber’s board Chairman Kurt Wadlington and CEO Mike Varney wrote in the program for the chairman’s lunch.
“We can remain the ‘Old Pueblo’ or we can do whatever is necessary to propel ourselves forward to grow, prosper and compete with other cities and regions for the bounties of free enterprise,” the duo wrote. ” ‘The Old Pueblo’ is great for history buffs, but a new mind-set and attitude toward prosperity is long overdue.”
Most of the story is dedicated to marketing and business types making the case for dumping the “Old Pueblo” because it’s an “archaic marketing motto”. More on the nickname controversy after the jump.
Earlier in February, Maricopa County Latino leaders, organized by Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski, met with Sheriff Joe Arpaio and offered prayers and support-- not protest signs or recall petitions.
Should Latinos play nice with Arpaio in hopes of winning him over, or should they work to recall the "toughest sheriff in the US", stop deportations of hard-working, law-abiding people, and push for immigration reform?
If there is any doubt in your mind that we all should fight back against the racism that Arpaio embodies, check out this video by Dennis Gilman after the jump.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is charged with keeping our air and water clean. Clean air and water are tied directly to public health and long-term well-being of our citiznes, so you'd think everyone would be on board with these goals.
Not so much.
Keeping air and water clean costs money. Capitalist polluters prefer low costs and high profits, and consequently, they fight EPA regulations at every level (particularly in the halls of Congress) or try to get someone else (like taxpayers) to clean up their subsequent messes.
Arizona has multiple coal-fired power plants. The EPA recently reviewed the Apache Generating Station operated by Arizona Electric Power Cooperative (AEPCO) in Cochise, Arizona and recommended extensive upgrades-- like $160-200 million worth-- to reduce emissions and minimize haze in Southern Arizona. AEPCO wants to make less extensive upgrades-- like $21 million worth-- and threatens to raise rates on consumers 20% if the EPA insists on continuing their quest for reduced emissions and haze in the valley near the Cochise Stronghold.
In a raucus public hearing, the people of Cochise County, said, "Hell, no!" to the EPA back in August. Environmental activists at this meeting were woefully outnumbered, and some were even booed when they spoke in favor of the EPA recommendation to the crowd of 250-300 people. Is it surprising that Bensonites prefer haze over the Chiricahuas? NO. What is Congressman Ron Barber's position? Keep reading after the jump.
Reorganization of state and county political parties is one of the more arcane processes of our political system.
Every two years, new and incumbent precinct committee (PCs) people are elected in August, during the primary. New and incumbent politicians are elected in November. Between the November election and February 1, legislative districts (LDs), then the county political parties, and lastly the state political parties reorganize and elect new officers. (Both the Democrats and Republicans do this.)
Many of the same people volunteer to be PCs, officers, and State Committee representatives. Sometimes there is a bit of drama -- like when the Three Sonorans tried to get me to run for county part chair against Jeff Rogers or when the state party bent the rules to elect Andrei Cherny-- but generally, there are few real surprises-- until now.
On Monday, while the eyes of Tucson were on the TUSD desegregation public forum, a coup took place on the west side. As a representative of Congressman Raul Grijalva read the Congressman's statement in favor of the restoration of Mexican American Studies, anti-Grijalva forces took the chair of LD3 and key positions on the county Executive Committee. Details after the jump.
Two local election integrity advocates--Jim March and Mickey Duniho--addressed the Pima County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, during the call to the audience.
Pima, Maricopa, Cochise and other counties are still counting ballots from last Tuesday's presidential election. Hundreds of thousands of uncounted ballots have caused delays in finalizing multiple races and ballot propositions. Main stream news sources and blogs have been on fire with stories about Arizona's election incompetence and stories of voter suppression-- before and after the election.
Let's face it. We have systemic election problems in Pima County, in Arizona, and nationwide. In the 2010 election, hundreds of thousands of ballots were counted throughout the week after the election. Why weren't these election problems addressed and fixed before the 2012 election? The Board of Supervisors needs to man up and face election integrity issues instead of stonwalling.
Read Election Integrity Commissioner Duniho's comments after the jump.
Eariler this week, Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett announced that more than 600,000 ballots from Tuesday's election had yet to be counted. According to the Wednesday Arizona Daily Star the breakdown is:
Maricopa County: 460,000
Pima County: 80,000
Pinal County: 27,000
Coconino County: 11,000
Navajo County: 5,600
Gila County: 3,400
Apache County: 2,457
Cochise County: who knows? (And why don't they know?)
Now, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow is using Arizona-- and specifically Pima County-- as the poster child for need for election reform-- because Pima has a history of voter suppression. (Us?)
After the jump, watch Maddow skewer Arizona for having more than 600,000 uncounted votes. No one should concede until all ballots have been counted. Today's Arizona Daily Star said that could take another week. We need election reform.
Since the 2006 Pima County election, which created the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), there have been ongoing gquestions about election integrity, the ease in which local vote-scanning machines can be hacked, and accusations of slip-shod procedures in the county's election division.
Last Friday, a group of local citizens-- Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, and Independents-- filed a lawsuit to force Pima County to comply with election laws in the way it handles ballots and ballot machines in this election. This action will be heard in Pima Superior Court tomorrow-- Nov. 1-- at 2 p.m.
In a Wake Up Tucson radio interview, Bill Beard (who is running against long-time Pima County Recorder F. Ann Rodriguez) and attorney Brad Roach said that the current court action alleges no past wrong doing by the county; it simply asks judge to order the county to comply with state law in handling the elections.
"Pima County has short-circuited some of the laws of the state of Arizona," Beard claims in the radio interview.
In the past, the Pima County Board of Supervisors has been less than cooperative with election integrity investigations-- hence the move to encourge the courts to force the county's hand. The plaintiffs want the judge to instruct the county to:
1- Have poll workers include in every Official Return Envelope a copy of the signed "tally lists" or results tape. (This is a record of the total number of votes a machine has on board before it leaves the precinct polling place and is taken to the elections department. When the machine reaches the county, these totals can be rechecked.)
2- Separate the vote by mail ballots by precinct (thus simplifying random sample rechecks of votes).
3- Conduct sufficient randomly selected hand count audits of the vote by mail ballots-- including county races.
4- Pay plaintiffs' attorneys' fees and the costs of expert witnesses and "reasonable" costs for any analysis and testing to verify results.
Why does a group of citizens have to file a lawsuit against the Pima County Board of Supervisors to force them to protect our votes? Videos and more informaiton after the jump.
Whose legacy would better serve Southern Arizona? That of a right-wing, anti-woman, every-man-for-himself, war-monger who never ventured south of his Tucson Foothills office or that of a reasoned, pro-choice, pro-public health Blue Dog who wasn't afraid to meet constituents?
As a long-time resident of Giffords' district, my experiences yesterday made up my mind. Yesterday, I thought I was going to meet the Warrior Woman who hopes to take the CD2 seat-- you know, the one who says she "resemble[s] Gabby Giffords more than the man who worked for her”-- but she was a no show.
McSally is no Gabby Giffords
Giffords was not afraid to face constituents and answer tough questions. McSally apparently doesn't have the nerve to answer questions that are not softballs from right-wing commentators. (Sounds like something Jon Kyl would do, huh?)
I had a scheduled interview with McSally to discuss women's issues (since she now claims to fight for women's rights, while being anti-choice); the multiple inconsistencies in her platform (believing in the "sanctity of life", while flying 325+ hours as a bomber) pilot; and rumors circulating about her two-year marriage to Donald Henry in 1997 (what's up with that annulment in Santa Cruz County, when you were married and lived in Pima County).
When I showed up at her office, video gear in tow, I was given mush-mouth excuses from her press secretary and campaign manager. "Gosh, she's so busy." (My guess is they Googled me and said, Yikes-- we're not talking with her!)
Not surprised that McSally bailed on a video interview with a feminist who wanted to ask about women's issues, I went to her constituent event at Nimbus, down the street. I waited with about 30 old white folks on the Nimbus patio for 45 minutes. Eventually, McSally staffers said, "Gosh... she's so busy. She doesn't have time to come and talk with you all today. Scheduling conflicts, you know... blah, blah, blah." Since when does a politician in a tight race not have time for a meeting with rich, old white folks? (Was it something I tweeted?)
More unanswered questions about Martha McSally after the jump.
For decades, people have grumbled about the Electoral College and how out of date it is. In more recent elections, layers of complaints have been heaped on the pile-- complaints about the long, drawn out campaign season; the stupid primary/caucus system; the over-reliance on the opinions of voters in two tiny white states (New Hampshire and Iowa); the unending and increasingly nasty commercials; the evil robocalls and push-polls; the lies and spin (which the current Republican presidential ticket has taken to new heights); hackable electronic voting machines; and-- this year in particular-- the obscene amount of secret, dirty money that is being poured into the elections.
Is anyone ready for real reform yet? Do you need more evidence that our "democracy" has been stolen by crony capitalists and big money?
A group of independent researchers caught a pattern of apparent vote flipping during the 2012 Republican primaries that consistently favored Mitt Romney. A form of election fraud, vote flipping occurs when votes are changed from one candidate to another or several others during electronic voting and vote tabulation... [more]
More examples of our broken system, some reform ideas, and a video after the jump.
The Maricopa County Elections Department has admitted to a second instance of voter suppression... er... poor proofreading. You'll remember that last week ABC 15 and Blog for Arizona reported that Spanish speaking voters were given the wrong date for the election on a document that was included with new voter registration cards.
This week, the elections department says that a bookmark with election details gives English speakers the correct date for the election (Nov. 6) but gives Spanish speakers Nov. 8 as election day.
Giving groups that you don't want to vote the wrong date is a tried and true voter suppression tactic. I didn't believe the first instance was a mistake; giving Latinos the wrong date twice is definitely not a typo oopsy. Seriously, how dumb could they be? Or how dumb do they think the rest of us are?
The Maricopa County Elections Department should be investigated by the feds-- now.
PHOENIX - A spokesperson for the Maricopa County Elections Department admits they once again gave voters the wrong date of next month's election.
Yvonne Reed confirms to ABC15 that bookmarks distributed by the elections department incorrectly listed the date of the general election in Spanish as November 8.
The flip side of the bookmark correctly lists the date in English as November 6.
Reed tells ABC15 the bookmarks were distributed at the three election counters throughout Maricopa County and that the department has no way of knowing exactly how many people received the bookmarks.
Randy Parraz, President of Citizens For A Better Arizona, says the blame lies squarely with Maricopa County Recorder Helen Purcell.
"It shows she's incompetent and not qualified," said Parraz.
What's really tragic about this suppression of Spanish speaking voters is that there have been gargantuan efforts to get out the Latino vote. This is an important election for all of us, but for Latinos in Maricopa County, it is there best chance in years to oust renegade Sheriff Joe Arpaio.
Check out the Adios Arpaio video by Phoenix videographer Dennis Gilman after the jump.
Information on tonight's election integrity event from the organizers...
Tonight, Wednesday, October 17, Bear Canyon Library, 6:30pm- 7:45pm. East Side Republicans will host a Point/ Counter Point on Election Integrity "Will YOUR Vote Count" speakers will be [Pima County election fraud lawyer] Bill Risner & Benny White.
Come ask questions, listen to the experts and know what to look for if you are a poll worker."
Election Fraud, Culture of Corruption in Pima County, why Early Ballots shouldn't be counted before Election Day and what all this means to us votes and more.
Address to Bear Canyon Library: 8959 E Tanque Verde, 85749 Tucson, AZ.
The event will filmed and available on Facebook at the AUDIT_AZ page.
For more background, check out the audio clip of Risner after the jump.
Backers of the Open Primaries initiative knew from the beginning that changing Arizona's two-party primary system to an open, "top two" primary system wouldn't be easy. They expected challenges from Democrats and Republicans, and that's what they got.
Earlier in the summer, Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature tinkered around with ideas to change or stop it. Secretary of State Ken Bennett tried to stop it by saying that it was unconsitutionally broad, but the courts squashed his attack.
The latest news is that the Open Primaries/Open Government folks have filed a suit to get the initiative back on the ballot. Supporters claim that Maricopa County erroneously rejected.
Stay tuned for the next volley in this ping pong game.
For more background on the Open Primaries initiative-- just in case you actually get to vote on it-- check out the video debate between former State Rep. Dr. Ted Downing (pro) and former Mayor Tom Volgy (con). The event was sponsored by Progressive Democrats of American Tucson Chapter.
I respect any politician, or either party, who speaks truth to power, especially when they are doing so to stand up for their community.
Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll is bound to get some flack for his recent comments at a Save the Scenic Santa Ritas meeting (hat tip to Sonoran Alliance). He was lamenting the fact that local newspapers are raking in cash for running Rosemont's propaganda ads, causing a financial conflict in covering fairly the issues involved in the controversial mine project. He said he wished that those news outlets would put stock in their community and "stop selling out to those pricks".
Hells to the yeah, Sugar Ray! This is one Republican who is not backing off what he believes because some Tea Party wackadoodles have gotten it in their heads that Ray's not conservative enough for them. Some think that Ray is insufficiently on board with the plan for some foreign corporation to bust in here, hose our views and our water supply, leave us with another toxic mess to clean up, and blow town with the profits.
Well, Ray's ::gasp:: representing the concerns and views of his constituents in the district on this matter. Rather than rolling over and showing belly to every multi-nat that rolls in, like every other Tea Party dupe is begging to do these days, Ray's actually fighting for the people he represents. I didn't even know that Republicans were still allowed to do that.
Saturday night-- at the Tent City, a symbol of shame and cruelty-- the side of hatered and bigotry (AKA Sheriff Joe) will meet those standing the side of love (AKA a few thousand Unitarian Universalists, parterning with Puente Arizona, and social justice other groups).
Approximately 4000 UUs from across the country are in Phoenix this week for their annual General Assembly, four days of workshops on social justice, community service, worship, and action.
Saturday's vigil at the Tent City is being billed as the UUs' Standing on the Side of Love Wittness for Justicebecause, obviously, there is no justice for the inmates in the Tent City (especially when the temperatures are over 110 degrees).
We will shine a light on the culture of cruelty perpetrated in our name by state governments that pass anti-immigrant laws like SB 1070 that lead to racial profiling and discrimination; and by a federal government whose practices both at the border and via an increasingly for-profit system of mass detention and deportation have created a culture of fear that terrorizes entire communities, makes us all less safe, and simply does not reflect our nation’s values.
From AZCentral...
"The main point is to show national disapproval of Arizona's immigration laws," [UU spokesman Steve] Carl said. "Arizona is at the forefront of human violations and leading the way for other states in the country."
In response to the thought of 1000-4000 liberal pacifists showing up at his doorstep, Sheriff Joe has decided to lock down all six of the Maricopa County Jails for Saturday. Come on, Joe, are you afraid of a few thousand old white folks? I guess you are. If they were brown, you could just beat them up, run them off with dogs and guns, or lock them up.
If you want to join in the peaceful demonstration, check out the event on Facebook or the UU website.
You can never have too many witnesses to injustice.
State Representative Jack Harper and State Senator Andy Biggs are planning a stealthy gift to Arizona businesses. They want to increase the property tax exemption for business by a whopping 3500%, while sticking homeowners with the bill for the difference.
This is how the grift works:
The current property tax exemption for business property is $68,000. So businesses currently don't pay taxes on the first 68K worth of property. Small businesses rejoice! Our GOP benefactors want to increase that by 3500% - to $2.4 million. Big businesses rejoice!
You might ask, "So what? Businesses pay less. Great! What does that have to do with me?" Great question.
Counties compute the property tax rates they need to charge every year with a formula that basically plugs in the taxable property in the county, and spits out the needed tax rates. By exempting a whopping slice of business property from taxation, the rate that homeowners will pay to maintain current service levels from their county governments will have to go up - way up.
Seems like it could be a problem for their little scheme.
So how do Biggs and Harper expect homeowners not to cry foul at this big shift of property taxes onto their backs? First, by applying the old frog in a pot technique. Second, by disguising the actual dollar amount.
The new exemption will only apply to new business property; the old exemption will remain for existing property. So as businesses buy new property and replace outdated or worn-out equipment, their share of the property tax bite will steadily decrease. It is expected that the full impact of the new exemption won't be felt for about 20 years. By that time Biggs and Harper will be long gone - and your property taxes will be sky high.
The language that they use to set the new exemption is a bit tricky, too. Instead of saying that the exemption will be increased to, oh, $2.4 million dollars, they instead use a little common-touch misdirection. The bill, and presumably the ballot measure, instead sets the exemption at the average wage of 50 Arizona workers. Well, doesn't that sound nice?
Only problem is no worker will actually benefit of it; it's only for businesses. So why the populist "50 worker" shuck and jive? Well, to conceal the amount of the exemption, of course.
So little Mr. Home-owning Worker Frog, feeling warm yet?
Sheriff Joe says, "We're going to work with them. We have for three years. But one thing I'm not going to agree to is to be controlled by some federal monitor or something. I'm the elected sheriff here, and I report to the 4 million voters in the county."
Arpaio doesn't seem to realise that a federal 'monitor' is exactly the means by which the DOJ enforces consent decrees under 14141. Perhaps he's only making sweet because his deputies just killed one of his prisoners with Tasers.
As for "working with them", that only occurred under a court order, not because Joe's happy to help. He stonewalled the DOJ on access to records, personnel and facilities for over a year, until the DOJ hauled his butt into court.
Even as Joe pulls back on the rhetoric and makes some conciliatory sounds, he remains under the impression that he has a choice whether to work with the Feds on fixing his deeply flawed agency. He will negotiate in good faith a consent decree which will include federal officers in key positions to ensure compliance, or he will serve out his term a virtual prisoner of his own office, with federal implementation and compliance officers running his agency in all but name.
Better change your tone, Joe. Arizona expects better.
The DOJ has released a public Letter of Findings concerning its investigation into the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office's (MSCO) practices which infringe on the civil rights of the citizens of Maricopa County. Most of those abuses and illegal practices concern Equal Protection and Due Process violations of Latino citizens and legal residents (not, as Arpaio would contend, the rights of undocumented aliens).
Here is some coverage of from the DOJ Civil Rights Division's (CRD) presser, and the full transcript of the CRD's Statement. Sorry for the use of FOX footage (and the annoying ad), but it was the most extensive excerpt of the DOJ's presser I could find.
You will note that in Arpaio's responses, he simply denies any pattern of infringement of civil rights and instead attacks the DOJ as trying to block Arpaio's efforts at enforcing immigration law. Here's more FOX coverage throwing softballs to Arpaio regarding the allegations for him to swat down unchallenged by any facts.
Note carefully the DOJ's stated intention to cooperate with Sheriff Arpaio in negotiating an agreement to address their concerns, and the contrast with the divisive polemical attacks in Arpaio's response.
What does the DOJ's finding under section 14141 (42 U.S.C. 14141) actually mean?
Firstly, what this is NOT, is any sort of demand by the DOJ that Arpaio resign.
Just the opposite, in fact. The Civil Rights Division specifically notes in both its finding letter and presser that it wants very much to work with Arpaio to remedy his agency's policies and practices to conform with best practices and stop the civil rights violations they found in their multi-year investigation of his office.
It is Arpaio who is failing to cooperate, and making this into a show-down. He stone-walled the DOJ's investigation for over a year, refusing to release records and make personnel and facilities available to DOJ investigators. Finally, the DOJ had to sue the MSCO to gain access to those resources to complete their investigation.
Section 14141 was enacted in 1994 as part of an omnibus crime package. It was intended to give more enforcement power to the DOJ's CRD to reform public justice institutions, including police departments, prisons and juvenile detention facilities. It gives the DOJ a right of action to seek injunctive and equitable redress in federal court of any patterns of practice resulting in civil rights violations.
The findings which the CRD have published establish that the CRD's investigation has found evidence that patterns and/or practices of the MSCO are resulting in constitutional violations. The letter puts MSCO on notice of the subjects on which the MSCO will need to enter into negotiations for reform under a legally enforcable consent decree, or face a federal lawsuit to force reform.
MSCO is not unique in facing such an investigation. Several police departments around the country have been similarly investigated and subsequently entered into consent agreements with the DOJ (24 that I'm aware of) concerning similar alleged practices. As far as I'm aware, however, this is the first time that the sort of systemic racial profiling and discriminatory practices have been the subject of a 14141 action against a police agency by the DOJ.
The CRD gave Arpaio a 60 day deadline during which they intend that he should begin to design and implement reforms of policies and practices, and enter into negotiations with the CRD on an enforceable consent decree. Instead of indicating that he would work with the CRD, Arpaio has publicly counter-attacked and denied any need of reform. It seems likely, judging by Arpaio's response to the CRD's findings that he will use this time to rally political support and throw mud at the DOJ. He does not appear to be amenable to negotiating a settlement.
That public and divisive intransigence is, so far as I'm aware, unprecedented. It could be that cooler heads will prevail and Arpaio will dial it back and sit down with the CRD to start work on an agreement. But he may not, and that puts us in some entirely unprecedented legal and political territory.
What are the tools DOJ can use to force reform?
The DOJ can obtain equitable and injunctive relief from the federal courts to ensure that procedures are put in place to address the alleged systemic violations.
Historically, this involves negotiating a consent decree outlining the needed reforms, procedures, systems, training and oversight needed to end the violations. Generally, one or more monitors or compliance officers are appointed to directly oversee the implementation process once a consent decree is in place.
That historical method of implementation of 14141 reforms seems, at least initially, unlikely to be workable with Arpaio at the helm of MSCO.
Ultimately, the consequences could include civil contempt judgements against MSCO, if Arpaio refuses to comply with court orders. It could even include a federal receivership of departments or facilities that demonstrate an ongoing pattern of non-compliance. I don't believe this has ever happened in the context of a police agency, but it has been done for specific detention facilities. Ultimately, it is possible that the Maricopa jails could be taken from Arpaio's control if violations continue and Arpaio refuses to address the problems CRD has found in his jails.
I can't stress enough that it is unprecedented for a police agency to seriously and publicly deny any problem and resist entering into negotiations toward a consent decree. I'm simply not aware of any situation that 14141 has been used against police agency headed by a political figure who bases his legitimacy on the very conduct the DOJ finds to be a violation of the Constitution. I have looked at the prior actions CRD has brought under 14141 and at the literature discussing those procedures, and have been unable to locate any real parallel to the situation with MSCO.
Part of this stems from the fact that 14141 has only been law for roughly 15 years. The real parallels with police agencies who stubbornly insist on maintaining discriminatory and illegal practices predate 14141, and where fought by the DOJ with inferior legal tools. It was, in fact, to more effectively combat problematic principals like Arpaio that Congress passed 14141, but the DOJ hasn't yet had to deal with open defiance of its autohority and findings in a 14141 action. In a sense, this might be a welcome opportunity for the professional staff at the CRD to really give 14141 a real test of its effectiveness.
Police agencies tend to be run by competent and reasonable professionals who are having problems with oversight and training that result in systemic violations. I don't know that 14141 has ever been used to try to reform of intentional policies and cultural norms tht promote constitutional violations. Principal directors tend to be quite cooperative and even eager to work with the DOJ to fix problems in their agencies. The MSCO and Arpiao seem likely to pose an entirely different set of legal and political challenges to CRD's enforcement strategy.
What the legal and political consequences could be when the DOJ and its CRD are faced with an intransigent and popular political figure intent on resisting any changes is uncharted territory. If Arpaio wants to double down and try to wait out the DOJ in hopes of a regime change in 2014, he might well succeed in the long term. That is, unless he decides at some point that he's had enough and retires when things get too hot. He is an old man, after all.
A high profile fight in the national media which airs all of Arpiao's dirty pink laundry would likely be very damaging both to Arpaio and to Arizona, but might well play perfectly to the local political constituency on whom Arpaio relies. Arpaio may relish the national attention he would garner by defying the DOJ so openly. The DOJ would have to get creative in crafting a legal strategy to address an obstreperous Arpaio; their only experience with 14141 enforcement seems to be predicated on a fairly good-faith attempt by the local stakeholders to reach a mutually satisfactory consent decree.
What would stubborn resistance to DOJ authority mean for MSCO and Maricopa residents?
It's hard to say, as its never really happened before, but we've already seen one compliance tool brought to bear by Homeland Security. Napolitano has already stripped Arpiao's agency of its 287g access to immigration status information based on the CRD's letter of findings. In her statement, Napolitano states that by continuing to allow MSCO personnel to participate in 287g programs, she would effectively be making DHS a party to the constitutional violations CRD found. It is understandable and correct that the head of DHS refuse to be involved, even vicariously, in enabling civil rights violations.
But Napolitano's principled stand is likely to be a very politically divisive move this early. Napolitano might have moved too quickly, before it is clear that Arpaio will refuse to implement any reforms. Loss of 287g certification certainly limits the ability of MSCO to violate the constitutional rights of Latinos, but it also makes immigration enforcement much more difficult for ICE in Maricopa county. The loss effectively reduces the number of boots on the ground doing immigration enforcement activities in Maricopa. it also gives Arpaio a fairly effective propaganda weapon in his claim that the Obama Administration is attempting to put MSCO out of the immigration enforcement business. The action further feeds into the paranoia and anger generated amongst Arpaio's supporters around the State by the Administration's ongoing effort to enjoin enforcement of SB1070.
Loss of access to immigration information could be only the tip of the enforcement spear; the MSCO and its jail facilities recieve millions in federal assistance and grants. That funding could ultimately be in jeopardy. Loss of those funds could sharply increase the cost of MSCO jails and programs to Maricopa residents.
Fines and penalties for non-compliance or contempt could ultimately be levied agains MSCO by the federal courts if Arpaio refuses to comply with court orders. Those costs would also ultimately be passed on to Maricopa taxpayers.
I don't know if it would be possible to hold Arpaio personally liable in any way, he likely enjoys at least some limited immunity as an elected official for his actions and those of his agency. It is possible that Arpaio might ultimately end up with some personal legal liability.
It seems likely that should Arpiao decide to pick a public fight with the CRD, there will be much less incentive for the CRD to keep its investigative findings private, as is generally done as a term of a consent decree. Should flurries of public records start coming out of the CRD regarding the violations it found, you might expect to see a lot of private section 1983 civil rights lawsuits filed on the basis of those documents and testimony.
14141 does not give a private right of action (only the DOJ may sue), but if the DOJ's investigations start producing documentation of violations that plaintiffs can get a hold of, it could produce a tidal wave of 1983 private civil rights violation litigation, which the County would be on the hook for, and which would pubicize much of the worst behavior of the MSCO under Arpaio. It is also not unknown for even elected officials to be hit with personal liability in some 1983 actions. This might be one way more than just Arpaio's political hide could be put into play by his intransigence.
What should we expect from Arpaio's camp in terms of political ploys?
We are already seeing the outlines of Arpaio's political defense. It is a mainly an aggressive offense.
In the short term at least it seems that Arpaio has decided that resistance and push-back are the stategy he wants to pursue regarding the civil rights violations against Latinos. First, he alleges that he is being persecuted for political reasons: pick you favorite flavor- Obama's presidential campaign's desire to court the Latino vote by attacking him, and/or AG Holder chumming the waters to cover the smell from the Fast and Furious scandal Arpaio's allies are out establishing these themes on the nets and all over FOX news.
The one area in which Arpaio seems to be pursuing a conciliatory line is his department's failure to adequately investigate hundreds of sex crimes. Arpaio has apologized publicly and vowed reform, including hiring an outside expert to oversee training and implementation of reforms.
I have not yet seen anything along this vein, but given the deeply racist views of Arpaio and many of his supporters, there is an obvious line of attack: Perez, the head of CRD, is Latino. I don't think will be a public ploy, but I am confident that it will play some part in Arpaio's more sotto voce propaganda campaign.
All of these counter-attacks are transparently false, given the long term nature of the investigation against MSCO and the well-supported findings (which Arpaio had best pray the CRD does not decide to further substantiate by releasing any raw data from its investigations), but they have propagandistic value and credibility to those whom Arpaio is appealing to.
It is unsurprising that Arpaio, faced with evidence of his mismanagement and the culture of bias he has created in his 20 years as Sheriff, would decide to double-down on further divisive and corrosive politics rather than focus on serving the people of Maricopa more effectively. After all, that is the modus operandi Arizonans have come to expect from a sadly dominant faction of the State GOP, which relies on demagoguery of immigration and race-baiting Latinos to maintain its power and distract from their incompetence and failures.
Senator Jon Kyl stands firmly for the plutocrats. And he's willing to throw Arizona's working families, small businesses, and any hope of economic recovery under the bus to do it. Kyl is spearheading the GOP 'alternative' to extension of the Obama payroll taxcuts. The Dem plan would fund the continuing cuts (imagine that! paying for the cost of tax cuts with new revenues!) with a tiny surtax on incomes over $1 million. Kyl's plan would instead fund the cuts with a payroll freeze for the next 3 years for all federal employees.
Kyl couldn't make it more clear that he will only tolerate taxcuts for working families at the expense of other working families. He'd rather attack federal workers than allow ANY of his precious plutocrat constituency pay more of the thier fair share.
Here's how much is at stake in Kyl's game of chicken (or is that pheasant under glass?) for average families here in Arizona, by county:
Unless Congress acts, the average family in Arizona may be paying almost $1000 more in taxes because of Kyl's little game! 2.9 million Arizonans will be impacted by Kyl's tax hike, but Kyl is siding with the three thousand or so Arizona millionaires who would pay the over-a-million surtax.
Kyl also seems perfectly content to kill American jobs. Continuing the Obama payroll tax cuts will create 50,000 new jobs a month. Kyl's payroll tax hike would kill 400,000 existing jobs while we are struggling with a sputtering economy and devastating unemployment due to the financial crisis that Kyl's coddled millionaires created.
The Obama payroll tax cuts are also a targeted method of helping struggling small businesses, which create most new employment, to expand and hire new workers. Payroll deduction cuts are the most efficient and quickest way to put more money in workers pockets, expand the workforce, and grow the economy - but Kyl is willing to withhold that benefit to Arizona and its struggling families if his precious 0.03% of the highest income people are asked to do a bit more for America.
Instead, Kyl wants to slash the pay of hard-working federal employees who actually spend their salaries, so that millionaires have a few more dollars to horde away or invest in Chinese factories.
Who does Kyl really represent? Every Arizonan's interest in a rebounding and growing economy? The 99% of Arizonans who work for a paycheck?
No. Kyl, and the GOP's annointed replacement for him, Rep. Jeff Flake, only work for the few rich folks who fund the GOP's corporate greed machine, and nobody else.
By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings
As usual, all info gathered from the website of the Arizona Legislature or other internet sources, and subject to change without notice (and given the time of year, expect changes)...
Normally, the committee schedules of both the House and Senate are combined into one post. However, the week, and probably for the next few weeks, committee agendas are incredibly full. In the interests of keeping this manageable, there will be a separate post for each chamber this week and any future weeks where necessary.
In addition, there are *so* many bills up for consideration this week, that I don't have time or space to cover them all. If you've got a particular area of interest, please read the pertinent agenda(s) to ensure you know about all of the bills you care about.
Senate committee highlights/lowlights this week (mostly lowlights) -
- Rules will meet on Monday in Caucus Room 1 upon adjournment of the Senate floor session. Long agenda, lots of bad bills, rubber stamp, short meeting.
- Natural Resources and Transportation will meet on Monday in SHR109 upon adjournment of Rules. Bad bills: SB1334, OK'ing hunting within city limits; SB1335, OK'ing hunting at night (for "varmints"); SB1388, adding the provision that incorporated municipalities can regulate the sale of consumer fireworks within city limits (currently, they can only regulate the use of same within city limits) and restricting Maricopa County from regulating use in unincorporated areas except "during times when there is a reasonable risk of wildfires in the immediate county."
- Judiciary will meet on Monday in SHR1 upon adjournment of Rules. This one is nearly *all* ugly, even though a few bills were removed from the agenda (and even those were bad). On the agenda: SB1201, a firearms "omnibus" bill. Rather than attempt to explain all of the bad in this one, just read the summary compiled by legislative staff; SB1308, directing the governor to enter into a neo-Confederate alliance with other states that create a 2nd class birth certificate/non-citizenship for immigrants law such as would be created by the following bill on the agenda...SB1309, the nativists' anti-14th Amendment bill; SB1465, barring the acceptance of consulate-issued ID cards as valid identification; SB1469, greatly expanding someone's ability to kill another person and escape justice with some sort of "defense" claim; SB1490, barring counties from issuing food service worker cards unless the recipient proves his citizenship/"authorized presence" first; SCR1025, a proposed amendment to the AZ Constitution ending Clean Elections; SCR1034, the secession-by-any-other-name/"nullification" screed declaring that Arizona doesn't have to follow any federal laws or rules it doesn't like.
- Education will meet on Monday in SHR3 upon adjournment of Rules. There's some bad here, but it doesn't even come close to the level of bad on Judiciary's agenda. This agenda includes: SB1422, changing procedures relating to school closures, including removing a requirement for a public meeting before any such closure; SB1263, with all sorts of changes to education-related law, including allowing for a shorter school year; SB1554, mandating that the Arizona Department of Education contract with a private insurer to provide personal liability insurance for teachers.
- Banking and Insurance will meet on Tuesday in SHR3 at 2 p.m. Looks quiet, but some of these are very technical and might warrant a looking-over by someone who has more expertise in these areas than I do.
- Appropriations will meet on Tuesday in SHR109 at 2 p.m. Another bad one. On the agenda: SB1231, SB1408, SCR1019, and SCR1026, all relating to mandating lower limits on state appropriations/expenditures. All are tea party favorites.
- Public Safety and Human Services will meet on Wednesday in SHR3 at 9 a.m. On the agenda: a possible strike everything amendment to a Russell Pearce-introduced "technical correction" bill, SB1012. The striker's subject is "fingerprint clearance cards; citizenship status"; SCR1056, an Al Melvin postcard to every county and municipality in the state urging them to utilize inmate forced labor for some of their public works projects.
- Government Reform will meet on Wednesday in SHR1 at 9 a.m. Almost as bad as Monday's Judiciary agenda. Items: SB1322, mandating the privatization of virtually all municipal services in cities with a population of more than 500K (definitely Phoenix, probably Tucson, possibly Mesa); SB1325, inhibiting labor unions from engaging in any political activity; SB1329, barring public employees from engaging in any sort of political activity, including lobbying, during "the employee's hours of employment." This seems to be targeted at agency and governmental lobbyists who advocate for their employers as part of their job functions and at teachers, many of whom had dared to participate in protests at the legislature; SB1339, repealing *all* agency rules unless they are enacted by statute; SB1345 and SB1347, mandating limits on the number of municipal employees and their compensation in cities with a population of more than 500K; SB1365 and SCR1028, barring payroll deduction for political advocacy without an annual authorization from the employee; SB1409, mandating that all government publications and documents be written in English; SB1420, mandating that school districts put placement of special needs students out to competitive bid, instead of placing them in a school/facility that serves their needs; SB1525, mandating all sort of requirements/restrictions on municipal development fees (this one should really be analyzed by someone who understands the subject better than I do).
- Commerce and Energy will meet on Wednesday in SHR109 at 9 a.m. On the agenda: SB1363, "protecting" employers from union activity.
- Healthcare and Medical Liability will meet on Wednesday in SHR1 at 2 p.m. Some seriously bad bills on the agenda: SB1246 and SB1265, doing all sorts of things to limit a woman's right to obtain an abortion, and SCR1017, "honoring" the fake pregnancy care centers that the anti-choice types use to deceive desperate women.
- Water, Land Use, and Rural Development will meet on Wednesday in SHR3 at 2 p.m. On the agenda: SB1319, a bill to require goverrnmental entitities that acquire property by whatever means must sell off an equal amount of property and SB1470, repealing all county water authorities.
- Border Security, Federalism, and States Sovereignty will meet on Thursday in SHR109 at 8 a.m. All bad bills. On the agenda: SB1392 and SB1406, new Confederacy/"interstate compact" bills regarding gray wolves and a border fence, respectively; SB1393 and SB1394, declaring that Arizona has supreme authority to regulate greenhouse gases; SB1546, proclaiming Arizona's "right" to seize federally-owned land under eminent domain; SB1342, authorizing the Arizona Rangers to engage in border security/anti-immigration activities upon proclamation of the governor.
- Finance will meet on Thursday in SHR1 at 9 a.m. Most of these are beyond my understanding, but one that stands out is SB1221, freezing until 2030 the amount of revenue the state is required to share with municipalities at the 2009-2010 level.
The county government is sending letters to its six representatives in the new state Legislature, both to congratulate them on their general election victories and to urge them to stop passing the state’s financial responsibilities on to Arizona’s counties.
The letters, approved by the board of supervisors on Wednesday, express confidence in the legislators’ leadership while at the same time criticizing the previous Legislature’s efforts to balance the budget “not by cutting state spending but by shifting state responsibilities to counties.”
The letters can be found here, starting at page 9 of the .pdf download.
Not to sound *too* pessimistic here (OK, that's foreshadowing - I'm going to be REALLY pessimistic), but the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors are going to be disappointed.
The few Rs at the lege who would even consider placing the interests of their districts ahead of staying in lockstep with extreme GOP ideology (Carolyn Allen, Tibshraeny, Konopnicki) are no longer there, and none of those had districts that covered Santa Cruz County.
Even with those members in the last session of the legislature, the Rs running the show on West Washington had no problem with shifting burdens onto municipalities and counties while at the same time restricting the ability of those municipalities and counties to adapt to the higher level of responsibility.
Santa Cruz County is so overwhelmingly Democratic that only one Republican candidate for state office, State Sen. Frank Antenori, won a majority of votes in the part of his district that includes Santa Cruz County (and even then, his margin there was only 88 votes). Just because of basic partisanship, they're not going to feel any love for Santa Cruz County to begin with.
Add in the fact that the population demographic in Santa Cruz County is 80% Hispanic and the overwhelming majority of the R candidates in the state in 2010 ran on a campaign platform that could best be summarized as "I'm a bigot."
Arizona counties in general are going to be screwed in 2011, but Santa Cruz County should expect to be targeted for "special" treatment.
Maybe it'll be a Jack Harper-sponsored toxic waste dump in Patagonia, maybe it will be a Russell Pearce-sponsored concentration "undocumented immigrant detention" camp in downtown Nogales, maybe it will be some other even more creative bit of nastiness, but the Santa Cruz County Supervisors should spend less time crafting meaningless letters and more time filling sandbags.
Tucson Chamber Wants Image Change: What Will Become of the ‘Old Pueblo’?
Breaking news on the front page of today’s Arizona Daily Star is a 20″ story about dumping Tucson’s “Old Pueblo” nickname. Leaders of the Tucson Metro Chamber of Commerce think Tucson needs a new nickname that reflects our bustling, business friendly city– not a “dusty, old desert town”. From the Star…
Most of the story is dedicated to marketing and business types making the case for dumping the “Old Pueblo” because it’s an “archaic marketing motto”. More on the nickname controversy after the jump.
Continue reading "Tucson Chamber Wants Image Change: What Will Become of the ‘Old Pueblo’?" »
Jul 7, 2013 9:08:12 AM | Campaigns, Commentary, Counties, Economics, Pamela Powers Hannley, Tucson