Blog For Arizona

Maricopa County Judge tells anti-Medicaid expansion litigants to pound sand

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

No standing. That’s the verdict of Maricopa County Superior Court to the whiny cast of idiots suing the state to block the Medicaid expansion. Judge Katherine Cooper handily dispatched with all their baseless arguments.

There's something eerily familiar about Chris Christie

Crossposted from DemocraticDiva.com

 

So it’s been revealed that NJ Gov. Chris Christie probably knew about the lane closures on the George Washington Bridge last year. Shocker! What this means is:

1. It is Christmas in February over at MSNBC

2. There is an important lesson in this for Dems who turn into big, wobbly piles of goo at the slightest sign of decency in a Republican.

Christie famously hugged President Obama after Hurricane Sandy and then bamboozled the public and credulous pundits desperate for a Moderate Republican Savior^TM for months after. He won his reelection for Governor easily – getting one third of the Democratic vote in the state – last November. Since taking that office in 2009, Christie had taken a sledgehammer to unions and public pensions and been a total dick to public school teachers but none of that mattered. Christie’s PR machine worked overtime to portray him as a likable guy with the “common touch”.

WaPo investigates the 'Kochtopus' dark money network; Arizona's political media ignores the political corruption in its own backyard

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Both The Arizona Republic and the Arizona Daily Star rely heavily on the Washington Post for reporting and syndicated columnists. But the editors are highly selective in the reports they choose to publish. For example, neither Arizona newspaper thought it newsworthy to publish the big investigative report by Matea Gold in the Washington Post on Monday about the evil bastard Koch brothers. Hmmm, is Arizona's GOP-friendly media still protecting Sean Noble and the "Kochtopus" dark money laundering organization Center to Protect Patient Rights? Koch-backed political coalition, designed to shield donors, raised $400 million in 2012:

The political network spearheaded by conservative billionaires Charles and David Koch has expanded into a far-reaching operation of unrivaled complexity, built around a maze of groups that cloaks its donors, according to an analysis of new tax returns and other documents.

The filings show that the network of politically active nonprofit groups backed by the Kochs and fellow donors in the 2012 elections financially outpaced other independent groups on the right and, on its own, matched the long-established national coalition of labor unions that serves as one of the biggest sources of support for Democrats.

The resources and the breadth of the organization make it singular in American politics: an operation conducted outside the campaign finance system, employing an array of groups aimed at stopping what its financiers view as government overreach. Members of the coalition target different constituencies but together have mounted attacks on the new health-care law, federal spending and environmental regulations.

Key players in the Koch-backed network have already begun engaging in the 2014 midterm elections, hiring new staff members to expand operations and strafing House and Senate Democrats with hard-hitting ads over their support for the Affordable Care Act.

Crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio's cartoonish side-kick thinking of running for governor

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I thought this was a headline from The Onion when I first saw it, but sadly it is from the AP (which is not satire, but frequently is also not real). Calling The Daily Show: Steven Seagal says he may run for Ariz. Governor:

Action-movie star (sic) Steven Seagal says he is considering a run for Arizona governor.

The "Marked for Death" actor told KNXV-TV that he is considering a shot at the state's highest office and has had a talk about the bid with the self-proclaimed toughest sheriff in America.

The 61-year-old made the comments while talking about his newly released reality series "Steven Seagal — Lawman: Maricopa County."

Seagal teamed up with Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for the show that was shot in Arizona and airs on cable TV's Reelz Channel.

So crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio's cartoonish side-kick and bad movie actor Steven Seagal is thinking about running for governor. Why God? Hasn't Arizona suffered enough already as the laughingstock of the nation?

I thought, surely the Phoenix New Times is all over this latest development, but the New Times is reporting on that godawful cable reality TeeVee show that the AP somehow glossed over. Joe Arpaio Hyping "Controversial" Episodes of Steven Seagal Show to Air on Obscure Network:

The Steven Seagal: Lawman show, which was filmed for two seasons in Louisiana and aired on A&E now has a "lost" third season. This one was filmed with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office and is set to air starting tonight on a channel most people probably haven't even heard of.

Arpaio's press team has been circulating a flyer promising "controversial" episodes for this season featuring Seagal and Arpaio's boys in beige.

Seagal's presence has indeed been controversial, and you don't need to see a TV show to tell you that.

An inauspicious start to the Secretary of State race

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

On the very same day that the current Secretary of State certified the referendum ("citizens veto") of HB 2305 -- the Voter Suppression Act -- to the ballot in 2014, the co-author of that bill, Sen. Michele Reagan announced her candicacy for Secretary of State. Awesome! Sen. Reagan enters race for secretary of state post:

State Sen. Michele Reagan formally entered the race for Arizona secretary of state on Tuesday, touting her experience in business and election matters. [Such as drafting voter suppression bills.]

* * *

She noted her experience this year as chairman of the Elections Committee.

That background, she said, makes her well-suited to be secretary of state, a job that includes overseeing elections and managing business filings.

We note your experience as chairman of the Elections Committee as well -- you are the face of voter suppression in Arizona. You also refuse to consider any bills that would bring transparency and disclosures to campaign finance laws to end the practice of "dark money" contributions from anonymous sources. You are a terrible candidate for Secretary of State.

Sen. Reagan will face a GOP primary against self-funded millionaire Wil Cardon, who lost a bid for U.S. Senate last year, and Rep. Justin Pierce, who is running Clean Elections because Wil Cardon accused him of a conflict of interest with his father Gary Pierce serving on the Arizona Corporation Commission. So much nepotism and sense of entitlement among rich kids.

Vintage Lemons: Bill Montgomery Exposed

Posted by Bob Lord

I've said before that Steve Lemons is the best journalist in Arizona. His Feathered Bastard post today, Bill Montgomery's Actions Argue in Favor of Ethical Rule He Opposes, helps make my case. 

This seems simple enough. There's a proposed amendment to the ethical rule that requires prosecutors to turn over exculpatory evidence. The amended rule, Lemons reports,

would require prosecutors to reveal to defense counsel or a court any "new, credible, and material" evidence that creates a "reasonable likelihood" a convicted defendant did not commit the crime in question.

Under the suggested guidelines, a prosecutor must "make reasonable efforts" to look into the matter or have the "appropriate law enforcement agency" investigate the new evidence. And if there is "clear and convincing" evidence of a convicted person's innocence, the prosecutor must work to "set aside the conviction."

Seems that any ethical prosecutor would have no problem with this amendment. After all, nobody wants to keep wrongly convicted defendants locked up.

Well, nobody except Bill Montgomery. Montgomery is adamantly opposed to the amendment.

Phoenix CD8: Questions For Our Civil Rights Leader and Member of the Clergy

Posted by Bob Lord

[Disclosure: I have contributed to and support Kate Gallego in the CD8 Phoenix City Council Race]

On Wednesday, I posted on the campaign waged on behalf of Warren Stewart in Phoenix's CD8. Several hours after posting, I became aware of an email in which Warren Stewart had characterized as despicable a mailer sent out, by an unidentified person or group, likening Kate Gallego to Paula Deen. Accordingly, I updated my post to give Stewart credit for having sent the email. 

Turns out, I may have been too kind. You see, the email, which was all about how Stewart was going to win this race the "right way," together with a subsequent comment to my post, raises a host of questions.

Phoenix CD4: When Honesty Is Not The Best Policy

Posted by Bob Lord

Honesty generally reflects favorably on a candidate.

Except of course when it unmasks a worldview that by itself is a disqualifier.

On that front, this statement reportedly made by Justin Johnson in the Phoenix CD4 race is a doozy:

Q: Starting with Justin, which City Council and mayoral candidates have you financially supported?

A: (Johnson): I would say, every single council member that’s on the City Council today. I’m in the construction business. I’m a general contractor, and we often submit plans to the City, and it’s nice to have people to call down there, to ask for help on what the process is, how we can make it smoother, how we can make it better.

This was reported by the Pastor campaign, but it actually was caught on video here.

No commentary necessary on this one, huh? 

Phoenix CD 8: Diaz Bails From Stewart Sleaze

Posted by Bob Lord

[UPDATE: Late yesterday, the Stewart campaign blasted an email denouncing as "despicable" the recent mailer as likening Kate Gallego to Paula Deen. I only learned of that email after this post went up earlier today. Had I been aware of the email at the time of posting, it certainly would have been taken into account. In any event, Stewart's denouncement of the recent mailer is commendable. It represents the way a candidate should respond in this situation. In the email, Pastor Stewart also seemed to walk back the allegations that Gallego was using her husband's last name to fool the voters. although the email was a bit cryptic on that point. Should the Stewart campaign speak more directly on this last point, I will report further. Obviously, a direct apology would do a lot for Pastor Stewart's image, at least in my view.]

When Warren Stewart's supporters launched unethical attacks against his opponents during the primary campaign, I expected him to distance himself from those attacks and keep his supporters in line. After all, he's a member of the clergy. Moral character is supposed to be what he's all about. When Stewart failed to speak up, I called him out for his failure, but I still assumed it was more likely that it was his general consultant, Mario Diaz, not Stewart himself, who was masterminding the attacks and advising Stewart not to condemn them.

Given that Diaz stated repeatedly that he "stood by" Mary Rose Wilcox and Stewart, it was not an unfair assumption to make. Nonetheless, it now appears the attacks were more Stewart's idea than Diaz's. 

Shortly after the Phoenix City Council election a month ago, Diaz announced that he and Stewart had parted ways and he would not be running the show for Stewart in the November runoff. In a tweet, Diaz stated:

 I and my firm were honored to have represented @Stewart4phx for the primary election. Others are in charge now. Good luck to both candidates. 

Good luck to both candidates? Wow. Those are code words for "I don't have a dog in this fight. Whichever candidate wins, I'm okay with it." And when the guy saying them ran Warren Stewart's campaign through the primary, he's hinting that he's rooting for Kate Gallego. 

And good for Diaz. Very shortly after Diaz bailed, an independent expenditure group supporting Stewart sent an absolutely despicable mailer to CD8 residents asking "What do Paula Deen and Kate Gallego have in common?" The answer: "They both want to make money off minorities."

Apparently, the person behind the sleaze was not Diaz. 

Was The "Private Citizen" Behind The Laura Pastor Hit Piece A Pastor Supporter?

Posted by Bob Lord

[UPDATE: I went up with this post because I felt there were some oddities surrounding the Pastor hit piece that called for explanation. The whole thing just didn't feel right. After posting, I realized that what was most odd about this was that the initial response to the mailer came first from Mario Diaz's independent expenditure group, not the Pastor campaign itself. IE groups generally do not take the lead in responding to attacks. They defer to the campaign. Remember, they can't coordinate with the campaign, so they need to wait for the campaign to speak publicly to make sure anything they say is on message. 

The comments to my post, particular those from "you must be using some bad weed", raise further questions. I don't know who, besides Mario Diaz himself, would be motivated to look up his campaign contributions to me from 5 years ago in order to discredit me. And they're illogical. Logically, his contributions to me would enhance my credibility, because I'd be less likely to question someone who contributed as generously as Mario did to my campaign. It's hard to reconcile the personal tone of those comments with the source being someone off the street who just didn't like my post.]

Shocking timing - the first hit piece against any District 4 city council candidate landed Saturday - just three days before Tuesday’s election against Laura Pastor.  The anonymous mail piece -- paid for by a “private citizen,” -- suggested Pastor and socialite Paris Hilton have gotten ahead because of their fathers, and the messaging was made to look like it came from David Lujan or his supporters.  The piece was a call-back to an attack seen before – a hit back in 2007 when she ran for city council against Michael Nowakowski that accused her of being “Daddy’s Little Girl.”  

On Saturday, Pastor and her opponents Lujan, Carroll and Johnson immediately denounced the piece on social media.  Her opponents said neither they nor anyone from their campaign were behind it. The mailing appears to have gone out to a handful of Democratic activists to clearly get the base fired up on social media over the weekend. Mission accomplished. 

But reporters and activists should dig deeper and ask questions. There are at least a few strands of GOP DNA on the Pastor attack piece, and a lot of questions on who would execute such a ham-handed sexist attack, and who really benefits.

It's All Fun And Games Until One Of Your Deputies Gets His Eye Put Out

By Tom Prezelski

Re-Blogged from Rum, Romanism and Rebellion

Folks who claim that our modern border militiamen are part of a proud Arizona tradition would do well to read what Captain John G. Bourke, an officer who accompanied General George R. Crook during the pursuit of Geronimo, had to say about their 19th century antecedents. Bourke characterized them as "rum-poisoned bummers" and "senseless cowards who sought to kill a few peaceable Indians and gain a little cheap notoriety." The captain went on to describe how their gun-happy amateurishness did nothing but make a bad situation on the frontier even worse.

The latest manifestation of the worst of the wild west spirit comes, of course, from Maricopa County, where a member of one such band of self-styled "militia minutemen" is in serious trouble for having pointed a rifle at a uniformed Sheriff's deputy in the desert near Gila Bend.

The state of Maricopa needs to end this litigation

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors has a choice to make: Deny funding to crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio's appeal of a federal judge’s ruling that his office engaged in racial profiling, or concede that the supervisors condone his racial profiling. Sheriff Joe Arpaio appeal funding questioned:

[T]he Board of Supervisors refused to take a public stance on the issue last week, with the majority of supervisors saying the issue is not so black-and-white, and there are outstanding questions over legalities and logistics of the appeals process.

U.S. District Judge Murray Snow issued a ruling late last month that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office engaged in racial profiling against Latinos. In his 142-page ruling on Melendres vs. Arpaio, Snow outlined the constitutional violations sheriff’s deputies committed when they targeted Latino drivers and detained them on the side of the road longer than other drivers.

Arpaio’s attorney, Tim Casey, denied Snow’s findings and said he would appeal the ruling.

Casey said the sheriff should determine how the case moves forward as the elected official named in the lawsuit.

“It is my understanding that, because this case does not involve a claim for money damages and only involves a claim for declaratory and injunctive relief that relate to the operations of MCSO, that the elected sheriff as policymaker for MCSO and its operations determines whether to appeal,” Casey said.

Federal Judge enjoins racial profiling by crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio and his MCSO

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Remember when crazy Uncle Joe Arpaio, Sheriff of Maricopa County, told his ardent critics who accused him of having a policy of unlawful racial profiling of Latinos to "prove it" in court? Be carfeful what you wish for, old man.

Today, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow specifically found from the evidence presented at trial that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has a policy of unlawful racial profiling of Latinos, and issued an order enjoining that policy, with a 142 page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. (.pdf). Awesome!

If you don't have time to read 142 pages, Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times has his celebratory take, Joe Arpaio's Doomsday: Arpaio Loses ACLU Civil Rights Lawsuit, MCSO Enjoined from Racially Profiling Latinos:

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow just handed the ACLU, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the law firm Covington & Burling, all Latinos and everyone who has strived for justice in Maricopa County a reason to celebrate over the long holiday weekend by ruling against Sheriff Joe Arpaio in the big Melendres v. Arpaio racial profiling lawsuit.

Essentially, Snow found that the MCSO does engage in racial profiling and discrimination, and he has ordered it to stop.

Arizona House Busies Itself with Prayer

by Pamela Powers Hannley

The Arizona State Senate and the House of Representatives begin each session with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance.

On some level, I understand the inclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance. Since Arizona lawmakers often challenge the authority of the federal government, stating the Pledge of Allegiance may remind them that Arizona is not a sovereign country; it's one state in the United States.

But a prayer at the opening of an official meeting of US lawmakers?

Apparently, Arizona lawmakers take turns offering the opening prayer, and on Tuesday, all hell broke loose-- literally and figuratively-- when Rep. Juan Mendez (D-Phoenix) came out (as an atheist), asked people not to bow their heads, and offered this "prayer" to open the session.

"I would like to ask that you take a moment to look around the room at all of the men and women here, in this moment, sharing together this extraordinary experience of being alive and of dedicating ourselves to working toward improving the lives of people of our state."

I think this is a perfectly fine "prayer", but holier-than-thou Rep. Steve Smith (R-Maricopa) judged it a non-prayer. Smith insisted two prayers must be recited on Wednesday "for repentance" and asked everyone to stand and "give our due respect to the Creator of the universe."

This is fundamentalist hogwash. 

Again, I ask the Republicans in the Arizona Legislature: What Would Jesus Do? 

1- Jesus would pass Medicaid expansion and stop arguing about the elements that must be included in a proper prayer.

2- Jesus would say to Smith, "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

3- Jesus would give Mendez a high five for suggesting that legislators dedicate themselves "to working toward improving the lives of people of our state."

Stewart Campaign Lashes Out

Posted by Bob Lord

So, the Stewart campaign is lashing out at me for my post last night regarding comments Mary Rose Wilcox made about Kate Gallego that I found baseless and defamatory, and Stewart's failure to disown Wilcox's remarks.

These tweets from Mario Diaz, Stewart's paid consultant:

Will someone please tell Bob Lord that he is not relevant in AZ politics. Bob who?  Drive by Dist, 8 then u can talk.

Lord has trashed Pastor, Wilcox, & Stewart in his blogs. This is liberal hypocrisy. @KateWGallego control your goons

This Lord person first goes after Laura Pastor then slams Mary Rose Wilcox and Pastor Stewart.   What's your fear?

No fear on this one, Mario. I'll respond publicly.

First, Mario, if you feel the need to ask that someone be told he's not relevant, he's relevant.

More importantly, Mario, you've called me a goon, but here's what neither you, nor Mary Rose Wilcox, nor Warren Stewart have done: Either explain Mary Rose's remarks, or retract them.

By all appearances, Mary Rose baselessly ascribed a dishonest motive to something Kate did, which she (Wilcox) and millions of other women do routinely: namely, take their husband's last name. Wilcox insinuated this by noting that the name change was recent, but Kate only has been married 3 years now and took the name very soon after her wedding. If you ask anyone at SRP, where Kate worked, they'll tell you that the name on her SRP name tag changed to Gallego shortly after her wedding. But even if there had been a delay in taking the name, so what?

Look, Mario, ascribing motive is always a dangerous endeavor, but this was way, way over the line.

Instead of calling me names, why don't you etiher have Mary Rose substantiate her remarks or, if she can't do so, retract them and have someone from the Stewart campaign apologize.  

The Company Warren Stewart Keeps

Posted by Bob Lord

Disclosure: I have endorsed Kate Widland Gallego for Phoenix City Council in CD8

I missed this last month, not sure how. Because this is a shining example of how voters lose respect for politicians. 

According to The Phoenix New Times, Pastor Warren Stewart, held a telephone town hall last month, moderated by his buds and campaign supporters, Mary Rose Wilcox and Danny Ortega. Apparently, Wilcox couldn't help herself and resorted to full on ludicrous to disparage Stewart's opponents. It just doesn't get any more pathetic than this:

"The other candidate recently started using her married name from Widland to Gallego. I'm going to be frank with you, there are all kinds of political tricks to confuse the Latino and African-American communities, but in this election, those tricks are not going to work. Let me echo what Danny Ortega said: There are no Latinos or Latinas running for City Council, period."

WTF? She's actually accusing Kate Widland Gallego of taking her husband's last name to play a "political trick" on the voters and "confuse" them about her status as a Latina. Really, Mary Rose? Why, then, is it that Kate still includes her maiden name "Widland" in her name? But, while we're on the subject of playing tricks on voters, isn't it a tad deceptive to state that Kate "recently started" using her husband's last name, without mentioning that her use of the name Gallego is "recent" only to the extent that her marriage was recent? And does anyone really doubt that if Kate didn't take her husband's Latino surname the Mary Rose Wilcox's of the world would be maligning her for not doing so? 

Recall Joe Arpaio: Send the "Pink Underwear" man a message with a Pink Postcard

Respect Arizona, the group behind the effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, is closing in on its goal of collecting enough petition signatures to force a recall election.

It has now come up with a way to both send a message to Arpaio and to raise funds to support their efforts.

Pink Postcards.

For $2 each, or 3 for $5, people can send a message to Arpaio, letting him know why you think he should be removed from office.

Every Thursday at 5:30 p.m., the newest batch of messages from the people of the county, state, and country are delivered to Arpaio.  If you want to participate in the recall, if you want your voice to be among the thousands clamoring for justice and integrity to return to the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, sign up and order postcards here.

UPDATED with New Events: Progressives, Mark Your Calendars for April Events!

April3 Update: New events have been added for April 6 and 9.

It’s only April 1, but already there is an impressive line-up of progressive events taking shape this month. In addition to these educational events, there are multiple fund-raisers for candidates, parties, and causes in April.  The list below is not meant to be all-inclusive. (Check out Facebook and the Pima County Democratic Party calendar or the calendar on Blog for Arizona for other events-- including multiple opportunities to donate.) The Tucson events included here are all free and are related to one or more Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) core policy issues: economic and social justice, universal healthcare, clean elections, ending corporate personhood, clean environment, or ending the wars.

April 2: Community Vision for the Ronstadt Bus Center

The Tucson Bus Riders Union and the Primavera Foundation are sponsoring a community forum to gather Tucsonans’ ideas on what should be done with the Ronstadt Transit Center on Congress Street. For several years, developers have been eyeing the Ronstadt Center for demolition and relocation out of downtown. If you believe that it is important for a sustainable city to have a bus terminal downtown—near restaurants, retail shops, major employers, and the new street car line—come to this meeting at the Rialto Theater, beginning at 5:30. For more information, call 624-0312 or email [email protected] or go to the event’s Facebook page http://www.facebook.com/events/496939023698809/.

April 3: Solar Energy Efficiency vs the Status Quo

The Tucson Chapter of Drinking Liberally is sponsoring a joint presentation by Bruce Plenk, City of Tucson Solar Energy Coordinator, and Russell Lowes, Sierra Club Rincon Group Energy Chair and Research Director forwww.SafeEnergyAnalyst.org. The DL social hour begins at 6 p.m., with the speakers beginning around 7 p.m. on the patio of The Shanty. For more information, check out DL’s Facebook event http://www.facebook.com/events/104680899727634/.

More events after the jump.

Shorting Phoenix

Posted by Bob Lord

So, I stumbled onto this piece over at TomDispatch, Exodus from Phoenix, and couldn't not read it, even though I have a ton of work sitting on my desk. Then, I couldn't not share. Here's the teaser:

If cities were stocks, you’d want to short Phoenix.

Of course, it’s an easy city to pick on. The nation’s 13th largest metropolitan area (nudging out Detroit) crams 4.3 million people into a low bowl in a hot desert, where horrific heat waves and windstorms visit it regularly. It snuggles next to the nation’s largest nuclear plant and, having exhausted local sources, it depends on an improbable infrastructure to suck water from the distant (and dwindling) Colorado River.

In Phoenix, you don’t ask: What could go wrong? You ask: What couldn’t?

Interestingly, the piece doesn't mention Tucson, probably because Tucson's approach to climate is so much saner than ours. Unfortunately, the writer offers no advice as to how long I should wait before selling my house, an issue I've occasionally pondered. That of course is how you short a city (if you live there).

If you're a doom and gloomer, as I sometimes am, you'll love this piece. If you're not, you should read it anyhow. 

Dealing with the Devil: Should Maricopa County Latinos 'Play Nice' with Arpaio? (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

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. 

AZ Dem reorganization meeting: Not a good day for incumbents (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Saturday, January 26, was a day of surprises-- a bad day for incumbent Democratic Party officers but a good day for activists and young Democrats. It was the culmination of the Arizona Democratic Party's (ADP) statewide reorganization, which began with the election of new precinct committee (PC) persons in August.

These last two years have been somewhat tumultuous for the ADP, after the stormy election and eventual resignation of Andrei Cherny (of No Labels fame) as party chair. Both the county and state parties came under fire from candidates and activists for playing favorites, endorsing candidates before the primary election, and, sometimes, and actively working for or against certain Democratic candidates. As a result, many unhappy campers grumbled on Facebook, on the blogs, and in person, and some even protested the headquarters in Phoenix. Multiple groups-- including progressives-- used the past few months to gain power in the local party structure-- with an eye on Saturday's state committee meeting. 

On Saturday, 400+ elected precinct committee people elected the chair, eight vice chairs (four of each gender from different counties), a secretary, a treasurer, a DNC representative, an education coordinator, and an affirmative action moderator. 

The first upset victory of the day was for first vice chair. Former Carmona campaign manager and long-time activist Alexis Tameron beat three-term vice chair Harriet Young handily. After the jump, watch a video of Tameron, as well as more details, photos, and election results.

Mr Parraz goes to Washington (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

This past Saturday, Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) sponsored the People's Inauguration in Washington, DC. 

Citizens for a Better Arizona leader Randy Parraz was one of the speakers. Thanks to Loneprotestor, you can see a video of his speech after the jump.

Gun Appreciation Day: Did it backfire? (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Gun Appreciation Day was observed nationally on Saturday, January 19. Gun owners were encouraged to hold rallies, go to gun shows, go to shooting ranges, or participate in other activities in support of lax gun regulation ... er... unfettered gun ownership.

In Phoenix, a motley crew of gun nuts ...er... group of patriots rallied at the state capitol. I can't think of a better place for the rally, since Arizona Republicans are proposing a bill that would make any federal laws aimed at curbing gun violence... er... limiting 2nd Amendment freedoms unenforceable in Arizona. 

Here in Tucson, there was no Gun Appreciation Day rally, but KGUN managed to find a few guys on the shooting range. 

For me, the biggest news coming out of Gun Appreciation Day are the stories of shootings at gun shows held that day. Five people shot themselves or someone else at three different gun shows (accidently, of course). And they think guns make them safer?

Did Gun Appreciation Day backfire? (Videos after the jump.)

Let DREAMERS drive: Protesters arrested at AZ State Capitol (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Citizens for a Better Arizona (CBA) leader Randy Parraz and others protested Governor Jan Brewer's denial of Arizona drivers' licenses to undocumented people who are eligibile for deferred deportation under President Barack Obama's executive order regarding the DREAM Act.

"These people [DREAMERS] already have clearance to work in this state. What does she [Brewer] gain by denying them a drivers' license?" Parraz asked on Monday, January 14, the first day of the new legislative session.

"We want a new level of respect and civility in this state... I'm tired of second class citizenship [for DREAMERS]," he added. "They're good enough to graduate from ASU but not good enough to apply for a drivers' license? That type of mentality has to stop in Arizona."

For more comments and footage of DREAM Act protesters being arrested at the Arizona State Capitol, check out the video by Dennis Gilman after the jump.

AZ voting irregularities + misinformation + rule-bending + 600,000 uncounted ballots = statewide disgrace (video)

 by Pamela Powers Hannley

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?)

The 2012 Arizona election is one for the record books with the vast numbers of uncounted ballots, the largest number of provisional ballots ever, pre-election suppression of Latino vote in Maricopa County, polling place misinformation spread by Jeff Flake's campaign, questions about the integrity of Pima County's voting machines, and evidence that the Pima County Elections Department asked for and was granted permission by Bennet not to follow state law when processing ballots. (How many other counties were given a pass on the law by Bennett? An image of the letter is after the jump.) 

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?)

In 2008, the ACLU named Pima County #1 in the country for voter suppression when F. Ann Rodreguez's department threw out 18% of the provisional ballots-- rather than spend the estimated 45 minutes per ballot to verify addresses. (Why was she re-elected?) We can't let this happen again. This year we must hold her feet to the fire. Every provisional ballot must counted. If you are one of the 1000s of Pima residents whose vote has not been counted, go here to check on your early ballot and go here to check on your provisional ballot.  

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.

Arpaio is a chicken. Call him out! (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio knows that challenger Paul Penzone is nipping at his dusty cowboy boots this election season-- so Arpaio is taking the chicken shit standard Republican position of refusing to debate. Public pressure forced Republican Jeff Flake to debate Democrat Dr. Richard Carmona.

Maricopa County is a cesspool of corruption-- election fraud, tent city jails, sheriff's deputies shooting citizens, intimidation of elected officials and citizens, people being murdered in jail, immigration sweeps through neighborhoods, racial profiling ... need I go on? Arpaio is a big part of the problem. It's time for his retirement.

Let's put the pressure on Arpaio to debate Penzone. Here is a Facebook call to action from Randy Parraz.

 

Randy Parraz

Today is DAY 15 of Arpaio's NO DEBATE PLEDGE. On October 9th Sheriff Arpaio pledged to NOT debate Paul Penzone AND he thinks he can get away with it. Take action now - Call Arpaio's puppeteer, Chad Willems, at Summit Consulting and ask him why Arpaio is too chicken to debate Paul Penzone: (602) 235-9320. Please post your responses here.

Check out one of Penzone's early campaign speeches and a background video on Arpaio after the jump.

Maricopa County election fraud: Two official documents give Spanish speakers wrong election date (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Those pesky typos! (Yeah, right.)

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.

Here's the story from ABC Channel 15...

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.

For the rest of the story, go to ABC 15 here.

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.

Arpaio's deputy shoots and kills unarmed 19-year-old (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Unarmed teenager Trevon Martin is shot and killed in Florida, and the story goes around the world. 

On September 14, 2012, unarmed, 19-year-old Joel Smith is shot and killed in Guadalupe, Arizona by a Maricopa County sheriff's deputy, and the news doesn't even reach Tucson. WTF?

The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is beyond corrupt. It will be a national disgrace that Sheriff Joe Arpaio is re-elected. How long will Maricopa County voters support a racist octogenarian who sweeps through neighborhoods and arrests brown people; who forces prisoners to live in the blasting heat in the Tent City Jail; who wastes taxpayer money pretending to be the border patrol while ignoring criminal cases; who allows his guards to torture and even kill prisoners? The sheriff's department should uphold the law, not break it with impunity.   

Wake up and do the right thing, Maricopa County.

Watch a video about the Joel Smith shooting by Dennis Gilman after the jump.

Maricopa hullabaloo: Can the Dems beat Arpaio?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Maricopa County Democrats smell blood in the water. The notorious Sheriff Joe Arpaio is facing multiple legal battles-- finally-- and the Dems think that maybe... just maybe... they can oust him from the office he has held for decades.

There are two Democrats running in the primary: John Rowan and Paul Penzone. There is a lot of verbal wrangling amongst Maricopa Dems regarding who is the best candidate. (Hey, it's politics.) Rowan, who has come out strongly as anti-SB1070 and pro-reform-- is seen as the more progressive choice. Labeled a "party darling" by activists, Penzone is much better funded than Rowan-- but not anywhere near as well-funded as Arpaio, who has millions on hand to trounce a challenger. 

Is Maricopa County ready to clean up the sheriff's office? 

Watch videos of both candidates after the jump.

Saturday Editorial, July 21, 2012

In the flurry of news and opinion gusting out of our computer screens and smart phones, it is easy to become 'news blind' - so focused on the flakes and flurries that we forget where we are headed. We stumble confusedly ahead with no map to our destination. It's easy to get lost in the storm.

I personally read almost every news source in Arizona - and keep up with national reaction to our politics, as well - in bringing to readers of BlogForArizona the Arizona Donkey Feed, which appears on our right-hand sidebar every day (you may also have the Feed emailed to you daily). So I, too, often find myself in that blizzard without a map.

I decided I might like to sit down once a week and take some time to look around, and identify what I think are the most significant landmarks around where we stand now. It might not be a map that will tell us where we are headed, but maybe I can get some idea of where we are. Over time, perhaps it will become a map of sorts.

I would also like to let you all know that Matt Heinz, candidate for Congressm in AZ's CD 2, will be guest-host at Drinking Liberally in Tucson. Come down to the Shanty of 4th Avenue this Wednesday at 6pm and enjoy a beer with Matt.

So, here are some thoughts on what I think are the most important, or just most interesting, developments in the past week in Arizona's politics...

Close down the Tent City Jail: Part Deux (video)

On Saturday, June 23, 2012, thousands of protesters from Puente Arizona, the Unitarian Universalist General Assembly, the United Church of Christ, and left-leaning activist groups held a rally and vigil at the infamous Maricopa County Tent City Jail-- while Phoenix Tea Party and militiamen held a counter rally.

Immigrant rights protesters, bathed in candle light, sang and listened to speeches about standing up to Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his forces of hate-- while militiamen dressed in camouflage uniforms brandished their weapons and shouted angrily about their rights.  

Predictably, amateur videos and photos were uploaded as the scene unfolded, but for a more in-depth view of the demonstration, check out this video by Phoenix independent videographer Dennis Gillman, after the jump.

Conspiracy theories, circular firing squads, and party darlings: Have AZ Dems jumped the shark?

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Left-wing Facebook pages, blogs, and online-only radio news shows are on fire with charges and counter charges about the Arizona Democratic Party's backroom politics, party darlings, and the quest for party solidarity during the 2012 elections. For those of you safely ensconced down here in sunny Baja Arizona, here's a news flash you won't see in the Arizona Daily Star: for weeks, a tiny band of Democrats have been picketing in front of the Arizona Democratic Party headquarters and protesting the party's practices.

The crux of the matter is the appearance of favoritism by the Arizona Democratic Party, the Maricopa Democratic Party, and the Pima County Democratic Party. So, everyone has favorite candidates; what's the big deal you ask? It's OK for individuals to have favorites-- candidates they work for and raise funds for; it's decidely not OK for the party to choose "party darlings" and grease the skids for them during the primary season. Favoritism during a primary season squashes dissent, suppresses the candidacy of challengers, creates bad blood in the party, and hurts democracy. Here are a few examples.

Pima County 

In the CD8 special election to fill Gabrielle Giffords' seat, former Giffords' aide Ron Barber stepped into the race after several Baja Dems announced their candidacy or were thinking about it (publically)-- State Senators Paula Aboud and Matt Heinz, State Representative Steve Farley, and Southern Arizonan Nan Walden. Everyone expected Barber to be the sentimental shoe-in favorite and a placeholder Congressman for the CD8 seat but not to run in the general election for the new CD2 seat (a bluer district thanks to redistricting). After Barber announced he would run in the November general election, all of his would-be primary challengers-- except Heinz-- mysteriously dropped out. (Consipracy theorists like myself assumed people were strongly encouraged to step aside and make way for Barber.) In the Arizona Daily Star recently, Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers was qouted as saying there are people in the party who are encouraging Heinz to drop out. Personally, I think Blue Dog Barber has been a huge disappointment in the 2 or so weeks he has been in Congress-- most recently voting with Republicans and pandering to the National Rifle Association by voting to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress. I lament that the other Dems dropped out of the primary so quickly; Heinz should definitely stay in the race.

In the 2012 CD7 election, the Democratic Party decided to not allow Congressman Raul Grijalva's primary challengers access to party data, which would have facilitated targeted precinct walking and phone banking. (Don't get me wrong here; I am in no way criticizing the Congressman. I like Grijalva, one of the true progressives in Congress, and in the spirit of full disclosure, I have donated a whopping $90 to his campaign, and my husband has canvassed for him many times.) It keeps incumbents on their toes when they have challengers.

Speaking of incumbents, in the 2011 local elections, the Pima County Democratic Party Executive Committee endorsed the three City Council incumbents almost 6 months before the primary. Only Councilwoman Regina Romero had a primary challenger, but who knows how many would-be challengers were stopped in their tracks by this pre-emptive move. In addition, the party spent thousands of dollars to bankroll a website and smear campaign against Romero's Democratic challenger Joe Flores. This was unnecessary nastiness against a fellow Dem, in my opinion. There was no way Flores would have overtaken Romero, so why stir up bad blood in the party? Endorsing all of the incumbents is a bad practice. Councilwoman Shirley Scott (a died-in-the-wool Blue Dog who was tainted by the long-running Rio Nuevo scandal) should have been primary'ed. Councilman Paul Cunningham (a neophyte Blue Dog) had been appointed to his seat; the Democrats never got a chance to size him up against other Dems. 

Maricopa County

Facebook is on fire with charges that Maricopa County Democratic Party Chair Ann Wallack, Arizona Democratic Party Executive Director Luis Heredia, and newly elected Arizona Democratic Party Chair Bill Roe are determining which Dem primary candidates are "viable" and, consequently, are steering money and "boots on the ground" toward those candidates with the bucks-- thus ensuring that the lesser known and poorly funded candidates will fall by the wayside (according to the people making the charges). There is even a Facebook page created to oust Wallack from her position as county chair. (Here's a hint for the activists: find an elected precinct committee person to run against her for party chair when the party reorganizes after the November election.)

Two "party darlings" often used as examples are Ann Kirkpatrick for Congressional District 1 and Paul Penzone for Maricopa County Sheriff. There are charges that Wallack has strongly endorsed Penzone over reform candidate John Rowan and has manipulated meeting agendas to deny Rowan and his supporters time at the podium. This is clearly meddling with the primary process. As county chairs, both Wallack and Pima County's Rogers should give all primary challengers equal access to party resources, databases, and legislative district meetings (where said "boots-on-the-ground" meet to hear candidates and issues). 

There are further charges that the statewide party is acting in a racist manner-- particularly toward Kirkpatrick's challenger Wenona Benally Baldenegro. Benally Baldenegro, who has vowed not to take corporate donations, has raised less than one tenth the funds Kirkpartick has. I think the charges of widespread racism in the party maybe a bit thin (particularly since the Pima Dems' "party darlings" are Latinos), but there is evidence of favoritism before the primary. For example, there are charges that Heredia (a Latino) started an e-mail campaign encouraging people to drop their support for Benally Baldenegro (a Navajo who is married to a Latino). If this happened (and I say "if" since I have not seen said e-mail), it is definitely manipulative and inappropriate. 

My point is...

The party should not be choosing which candidates are viable. All Dems should be treated equally by the party and given an equal chance to succeed or fail on the merrits of their ideas and the strength of their campaign organizations. All declared candidates, who have filed papers, should be given equal access to party resources, voter data, and party foot soldiers and should be allowed to speak at statewide and local party functions. 

The people should choose candidates in the primary election; it is NOT the party's role to take sides.

The bottomline is...

The bottomline is that we need to get money out of our election system. It appears as if a primary deciding factor in the party's determination of candidate "viability" is money. According to the Federal Elections Commission website, Progressive candidate Benally Baldenegro had raised around $75,000 by March 31, 2012. Blue Dog corporate candidate Kirkpartick-- who had more than that in her coffers last year before Benally Baldenegro even entered the race-- had raised over $990,000 by March 31, 2012.

Psychologically, people want to back a winner. Rightly or wrongly, the vast money difference between these two makes it appear as if Kirkpatrick is the better candidate because she has the big bucks.

Dream with me for a while about a publicly financed elections-- not unlike the Arizona Clean Elections system or Tucson's clean elections system. What if after qualifying with a certain number of signatures and $5 donations, all candidates received the same amount of money to run their campaigns? What a concept-- a truly level playing field. Although there would undoubtedly be far less advertising, maybe we would have improved communication and real messaging-- instead of spin, lies, and smear campaigns.

With publicly financed elections, maybe the voice of "the little guy"-- as my Mom would put it-- would be heard.

Thousands protest Arpaio's Tent City Jail (video)

by Pamela Powers Hannley

As anticipated, 1000s of protesters from the Unitarian Universalist Church, the United Church of Christ, Puente Arizona, and other groups descended upon Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Tent City Jail last night.

Here is a news round up for the event, since it was not covered by southern Arizona news outlets.

Stories

Several thousand protest Arpaio's Tent City

PHOTOS: Huge Anti-Arpaio Protest Outside Tent City

Videos

Tent City Protester Calls Out Sheriff Joe Arpiao on His Abuses!

Massive Crowd at Tent City Protest!

06-24-2012 Tent City Vigil - Dennis and Stephen talk to the tea party

Photos

Photo Collection

Arpaio's Tea Party Patriots Face Off with the Unitarians at the Tent City Jail

by Pamela Powers Hannley

Tonight-- June 23-- the Unitarian Universalists, Puente Arizona, and members of other liberal groups, including Progressive Democrats of America, will hold a peaceful vigil at the Maricopa County Tent City Jail to protest cruel and unusual punishment of immigrants and other prisoners.

Or... as the Greater Phoenix Tea Party Patriots put it... 

Just as we all had expected, another stunt meant to undermine enforcement of immigration laws, the passage of SB1070, and of Sheriff Arpaio who enforces those laws has been launched! Left-wing and Marxist agitators are planning what their organizers claim to be a "massive protest" on Saturday evening, June 23 at 8 PM at Sheriff Joe's "Tent City".

Many of these agitators are being bussed in from out of state in order to do the dirty work required to unseat the good Sheriff in November. RidersUSA has been called upon by a number of organizations, including our friends at Sons of Liberty Riders to stand with them against the enemies of this country, our Constitution and the American way of life!

It’s time again to support the Rule of Law and show that "we the people" will not stand for outsiders, criminals and their supporters to take over our streets without facing resistance from dyed in the wool, American Patriots! We need to send a strong message, that the Rule of Law reins Supreme in this Country and no amount of pressure from these assorted groups of anarchists, open borders proponents, Socialists, Marxists and general malcontents will ever gain the upper hand! "Not in our house, not in our town, not in our country" is our firm commitment!!! If you would like, please meet with fellow RidersUSA members and our friends at Sheriff Joe's Tent City. Parking of the bikes will be at 3226 West Durango Street (35th Ave & Durango), Phoenix. We will begin grouping here between 7:00 and 7:30 PM. Bring water and a flashlight.

Bussed in to do their dirty work? Approximately 4000 Unitarian Universalists from across the country are in Phoenix this week for their Justice General Assembly-- four days of social justice workshops, worship, and witness actions... like the action tonight at the jail. As for "dirty work", it has been reported that the Unitarians were caught singing in downtown Phoenix the other day.

The vigil starts at 8 p.m. I'm hoping that the Side of Love will wash over the Tea Party, Sheriff Joe, and that abominable Hell Hole they call the Tent City Jail. 

 

 

The 'Side of Love' Confronts Arpaio: Saturday Night at the Tent City Jail

by Pamela Powers Hannley

There's going to be a showdown at the infamous Maricopa County Tent City Jail this Saturday, June 23, at 8 p.m.

No, Sheriff Joe Arpaio won't be shooting it out with Randy Parraz.

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 Justice because, obviously, there is no justice for the inmates in the Tent City (especially when the temperatures are over 110 degrees).

From the Standing on the Side of Love website...

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.

 

 

Former Maricopa County Attorney and GOP Arizona Attorney General Candidate Andy Thomas Has Been Disbarred

By Michael Bryan

Shame. That's what disbarment amounts to. It is the ultimate sanction of an attorney for acts that are inconsistent with the professional ethical standards for practicing law: frankly, that's sometimes not a terribly high bar to clear. But Andy Thomas missed it by a mile. Thomas was disbarred today by a three member disciplinary panel of the Arizona Supreme Court. (coverage in the NYT, Arizona Republic, and AP Wire)

Thomas joins such notable disbarred attorneys as Alger Hiss, Spiro Agnew, Richard Nixon, Mike Nifong (of the Duke lacross case), and local ne'er-do-wells such as Lourdes Lopez (of the Bradley Schwartz murder) and Ken Peasley (knowingly eliciting false testimony in a capital murder case).

Of the 31 ethical violations alleged against Thomas, clear and convincing evidence was found that he actually committed 27 of them. These included the very serious allegations that he used his office to file charges solely to burden or embarrass his political enemies, engaged in fraud and deceit, and even committed perjury in pursuit of his political vendettas.

I can only imagine the impact Thomas' corruption would be having on the already sullied image of Arizona should he actually have been nominated and become Arizona's Attorney General. Given the margin between Horne and Thomas was about 1/5th of one percent, it was quite a narrow miss. That would have been a historic disbarment, indeed.

Of course, now Tom Horne is facing his own problems with the FBI... The AZGOP, folks, the gift that keeps on giving.

Republican Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley, one victim of Thomas' witch-hunts, had this to say:

"I listened to Judge O'Neil's public statement from the bench this morning. I was flooded with feelings. The strongest among them came when Judge O'Neil found, ". . . by clear and convincing evidence, that Mr. Thomas and Ms. Aubuchon acted with no substantial purpose other than to embarrass and burden Don Stapley." 

"Three years ago, I was indicted for all the wrong reasons. The burden imposed on me, on my sweet wife Kathy and on our children is almost impossible to describe. I listened with mixed feelings when O'Neil said "Andrew Thomas is hereby disbarred for his conduct." 

"Part of our burden is lifted with the disbarment order. Sadly, the burden will never be fully assuaged."

"I have had personally confirmed that "a prosecutor's power is a dangerous power." The new County Court Tower has a significant phrase engraved on its face. It says "The First Order of Society is Justice." The court today has served justice."

Thomas made the following statement upon learning of the Panel's findings:

"Today corruption has won and justice has lost. I brought corruption cases in good faith involving powerful people, and the political and legal establishment blatantly covered up and retaliated by targeting my law license. Arizona has some of the worst corruption in America, according to a recent national survey. The political witch hunt that's just ended makes things worse by sending a chilling message to prosecutors: Those who take on the powerful will lose their livelihood."

"I will be holding a news conference tomorrow, not today, and have no further statement to make today on the travesty we have just witnessed. I will have further details on the time and location later today or tomorrow morning."

I certainly agree with Thomas that Arizona has some of the worst corruption in America; we just disagree where the corruption lies. Today's findings make it clear and convincing exactly who is corrupt: Andy Thomas, his supporters and conspirators in the AZGOP machine.

Thomas resorts here to the all-too-common GOP tactic of calling the kettle black: allege that your political opponents are doing the exact thing you are accused of in the hopes that it makes your opponent's very well-founded and reasonable claim seem implausible by your baseless and misleading use of the same terms. Accused - and found responsible for - political witch-hunting and corruption? Claim your accusers are engaging in a "political witch-hunt" and "corruption", so that people will tune out the newly meaningless "he said, he said" noise that ensues.

It should be very interesting to see what Thomas will say at his planned press conference. I suspect that it will involve an elaboration on how his oppenents are conspiring against him, and I expect to hear the words "political witch-hunt" and "corruption" ad nauseum.

Thomas' disbarment brings a new, and surely unwelcome, focus on his partnership with Sheriff Arpaio. Arpaio's involvement in the very investigations and cases for which Thomas has been disbarred was so uncomfortably deep and compromising that Arpaio had to sacrifice his own chief deputy, Dave Henderschott, in order to claim his hands were clean. Perhaps the DOJ may finally come to realize that expecting Arpaio to cooperate with their years-long investigation of discrimination and civil rights abuses under Arpaio's leadership of MSCO is a fool's errand.

BTW, You can sign Steve Muratore's (of the excellent blog Arizona Eagletarian) petition to encourage the DOJ to stop negotiations and just take Arpaio to court already.

I just hope that the come-uppance of Thomas, and the coming lawsuit against Arpaio, will teach the people of Arizona a lasting lesson about the damage that hyper-partisan, vindictive, self-agrandizing, scapegoating, race-baiting, and ideologically-motivated politicians like Arpaio and Thomas can do when placed in law enforcement roles with nearly unfettered discretionary powers. I guy can hope, can't he?

See video of the Panel's findings and and local coverage of the findings after the click...

Arpaio Redefines Chutzpah in Response to the DOJ's Finding Letter

Posted by Micheal Bryan

Sheriff Arpaio responded to the DOJ's Civil Rights Division by the deadline set by AAG Thomas Perez, but he did so in a rather unusually passive aggressive fashion (see his attorney's letter [pdf link]: he's made his own discovery demands (106 of them!) and set his own deadline. He seems to be acting like the DOJ's investigation is under investigation.

He did not respond personally, but through a letter signed by his attorneys at Jones, Skelton & Hochuli, P.L.C., Popolizio and Jones, hereinafter, 'the mouthpiece'. The letter contained two "Exhibits" and was all on the attorneys' letterhead.

My overall impression of the document is that is ultimately a rather detailed and aggressive discovery demand for every bit of evidence on which the DOJ based the conclusions laid out in their letter of investigative findings. Considering there is currently no litigation pending, it's a very unusual response. What makes it even more odd is that all of the evidence that Sheriff Joe's mouthpieces demand was originally produced by the MSCO itself in response to the DOJ's lawsuit seeking disclosure for its investigation.

Nearly everything Sheriff Joe demands was disclosed by him to the DOJ, and thus are presumably his own records. Did he not keep copies? Is he just too lazy to review his own records? Does he want the DOJ to draw him a road map to defending against a lawsuit against his office?

Those items Joe wants the DOJ to produce that did not come from his office strike me, quite frankly, as demands for attorney work product and consultations with experts which, even if litigation were pending, would not be discoverable. Essentially, Sheriff Joe wants the DOJ to give him every scrap of evidence they might use against him, and the entire paper trail of their investigation of his office.

To say that the DOJ will not assent to his demands is putting it mildly. This response is more of a propaganda tool than a response. Joe's propaganda spin will go like this:

"I wanted to cooperate. I provided everything they ever asked for. All I wanted to know was what evidence they based their conclusions on, and they won't say. Their investigation is just a secretive political hit job. How can I possibly help put my office in compliance when they won't even tell me how they determined my office was violating the law? All I want is some help understanding why they think there are violations occurring, and they have just proven they are just out to get me. I offer to help them, and they just filed suit. Blah, blah, blah..."

Poor Joe.

Let's start with the cover letter.

First, there is the bald-faced lie with which it begins. The mouthpiece claims Joe has made "good faith voluntary efforts" to achieve compliance with the DOJ's investigation. Bullshit. He stonewalled the investigation and it required a federal lawsuit to get him to allow DOJ investigators access to MSCO records, facilities and personnel. The mouthpiece alleges that 'the dispute' between them over the 'scope' of the investigation 'was ancient history': if you call a year ancient, perhaps...

It just gets worse from there. The mouthpiece alleges the MSCO and Joe stand ready to cooperate "regardless of this political gamesmanship, the undisclosed broken promise, and the misleading portrayal of this matter in the media..." You are seeing a press release, not a response to serious allegations of systemic civil rights violations.

The mouthpiece then claims that Joe wants a "constructive dialogue" but "will not cower at the threat of litigation, either." Further, such a "constructive dialogue" can only occur "if the DOJ provides the underlying facts and information for its findings." Why? Because "only with all of the underlying facts and information relevant to the DOJ's conclusions in hand... can we truly evaluate these findings, determine their merit and make any neccessary changes and adjustments to the MSCO..."

Did you get that? Joe wants to judge whether he thinks the DOJ's investigation has merit. He's so stuck in authoritarian law-enforcer mode that he does not seem to realize that he's being accused of being the lawbreaker.

Imagine if the next perp that MSCO picks up wants to investigate how MSCO came to accuse him before he'll accept that he's under investigation? The perp wants the names and addresses of all his victims and the individual cops who picked him up. He wants every internal email or memo regarding his case. Discovery by an accused is one thing, but what Sheriff Joe is proposing is outrageous.

His mouthpiece goes on "if the DOJ's stance is to conceal the facts underlying its findings unless forced to reveal them in litigation, that stance is absurd, counterproductive, unfortunate, and contrary to it guidelines." What, did you run out of adjectives, mouthpiece?

What is actually absurd is the list of 106 civil discovery demands contained in 'Exhibit 2'. It is entitled "Requests for Facts and Information" and repeats the baldfaced lie about "the complete cooperation of the MSCO you have enjoyed", then asserts that "the DOJ is obligated to make every effort to secure the voluntary compliance of the MSCO which, at this juncture, depends on the DOJ's mere provision of the factual detail behind its findings."

Merely respond to these 106 extensive demands we are making. Oh, is that all?

The letter proceeds step-by-step to demand definitions, documentation, and all factual and procedural background for every factual assertion in the DOJ's finding letter.

Now, call me crazy, but I think Joe knows exactly what the DOJ based its findings on. The mouthpiece outlines in great detail in 'Exhibit 1' exactly what the MSCO provided the DOJ: 230 interviews (145 inmates, 85 staff, more with Joe and command staff), 86,398 pages of documentation, 931 Gigs of records and documents, 165 boxes of documents, etc. Could it be that the DOJ used all that information to make its findings? Imagine that...

So what does Joe demand as his price of cooperation? Let's take a look at a few sample 'requests'.

"1. Please provide a complete copy of the recent statistical study that the DOJ commissioned regarding MCSO traffic stop activities on Maricopa County roadways  which purportedly concludes that Latino drivers are four to nine times more likely to be stopped than similarly situated non-Latino drivers."

Seems like a reasonable sort of request. No big thing. Just show us the goods and we'll judge whether the report is reliable. Right. Now the accused gets to judge whether the evidence against him is good enough. But wait there's more...

In 'request' 2, we get this:

"2. ... Please also provide the identity, files,reports, notes, writings, relevant to the conclusions of each law enforcement expert consultant who concluded that these HSU stops were in violation  of the Fourth Amendment. The curriculum vitae of each expert is also requested."

Now, I'm not a civil litigator, but I'm pretty sure that such material (except the c.v.s) would not be discoverable. What Joe and his mouthpiece are demanding here are the means by which to investigate and attempt to undermine, discredit, or intimidate those experts. The part about notes and writings is especially disturbing; those materials are work for hire in anticipation of litigation and thus absolutely non-discoverable work product.

Joe wants the DOJ to strip naked before he'll consent to even talk to them.

Even odder, Joe wants the work product of every expert the DOJ ever consulted in their investigation (see 'request' 22), whether their advice contributed to the DOJ's findings or not. That's so not going to happen.

Now, that's all pretty disturbing, but check this out:

"3.  Please describe, with particularity, each "individual account" regarding MCSO deputies stopping Latinos on the basis of their appearance. In doing so, please identify the individual by providing a name and contact information so that we may conduct our own interviews. We would also request any statements  provided to the DOJ, either recorded or written, which memorialized  these individual accounts and any factual information regardingthese alleged discriminatory stops including, but not limited to, the date and time of each stop."

OK, now this is getting bizarre. Joe wants the names and contact information of the victims of MSCO racial profiling, so they can 'conduct their own interviews'? This is like a rapist wanting to inview his own victim. It's absurd. The MSCO is asking for the exact tools they need to further intimidate and attempt to undermine the victims of their own civil rights violations. 

That may seem bad, but they are just getting started.

They want the same particularized victim information for people who reported the police misconduct underlying every allegation the DOJ makes. This includes immigration detainees, prisoners in MSCO's own jails, even citizens who reported MSCO retaliation against individuals who criticize police practices! He wants that information for victims of retaliatory detention, arrest without cause, and unfounded civil lawsuits! He wants the DOJ to identify and lay bare to retaliation the very people his office is accused of victimizing!

This has the danger of retaliation and initimidation written all over it!

Joe and his mouthpiece actually think the DOJ is going to identify whistleblowers, some of whom are in Joe's own custody, in his own jails, or under his own command, for him to 'investigate' their allegations? He's clearly insane.

Or just full of shit.

This is not a request for any sort of reasonable information sharing or discovery, it is an excuse not to cooperate and give himself a legitimate sounding excuse for his continued non-cooperation. "They won't tell me what I did wrong! Wah, wah, wah."

This skein of utterly non-responsive clap-trap and out-right lies, in combination with Joe's recent announcement that he will seek reelection signals just one thing: Joe's hunkering down.

The DOJ will get no cooperation. Voluntary compliance is not going to happen. Joe knows he's going down, and he's digging in for a protracted propaganda and legal war, and he'll do anything, including going after whistleblowers in his own office, in his own jails, and among the public he was entrusted to keep safe and instead victimized, to continue running things the way he likes.

Andy Thomas is in Big Trouble

Posted by Michael Bryan

We here at BfAZ have expended considerable pixels over the past few years following, and criticizing, the abuses of Andrew Thomas as Maricopa County Attorney, and then his campaign for Arizona's Attorney General - and what a nightmare Attorney General Andrew Thomas would have been...

We've been harsh, and we've been critical. And we've been justified.

We saw an attorney violating ethical norms of the profession of law, and abusing his office in a flagrant and professionally offensive manner. We did not think him fit to excercise the tremendous discretion granted to a County Attorney. We feared the damage he might have done as Attorney General of our State.

His conduct during and prior to the State Bar hearing certainly did not improve my own opinion of him. He was arrogant. He displayed no recognition that anything he had done might be wrong, and no remorse. He tried mightily to derail the process, arrogating a position for himself above the ethical standards of our profession.

Now he faces almost certain disbarment. And I've literally never heard of any case where such a sanction was so well deserved and, more importantly, so necessary to restore public trust in the institutions of justice.

The closing argument of the Bar's Counsel has been filed and it is a doozy of a read. It is well-crafted and makes a powerful and undeniable case for disbarment of Andy Thomas, and Lisa Aubuchon, as well. Truly, even though I have followed Andy's career and the case against him, I had only a fragmented impression of the course of intimidation, abuse of power, and downright criminality that characterized Thomases time as County Attorney.

Reading the closing gave me a much clearer view of the utter abandonment of principle and obsession with revenge that Thomas unleashed upon the people and government institutions of Maricopa County. I now have a better appreciation for how a politically ambitious media-hound devoid of principles can wreak utter havok with the impartial administration of the law.

I can only summarize and give some choice tidbits here. I strongly recommend that you read the closing in full if you want to understand what has been going on with the Court Tower issue and Thomases legal vendetta with the Maricopa Board of Supervisors and the County Courts. It is 24 pages that reads like a novella of political skullduggery.

Thomas is accused of 22 violations of 5 different ethical rules:

• 7 violations of the rule prohibiting conflicts of interest
• 6 violations of the rule prohibiting the use of means to burden or embarrass another
• 4 violations of the rule prohibiting conduct that prejudices the administration of justice
• 3 violations of the rule prohibiting engaging in dishonesty
• 2 violations of the rule prohibiting engaging in criminal conduct

The heart of the complaint, and by far the most serious ethical charge, is that he and Aubuchon filed felony charges against Maricopa Superior Court Presiding Criminal Judge Gary Donahoe with no evidence of any criminal activity whatsoever. That action involved comitting the crime of perjury and accounts for Claims 24 through 30 of the closing.

In the course of that monstrous misuse of the criminal process, he and Aubuchon filed completely false charges that did not describe any criminal conduct. "There was never any evidence that he (Donahoe) had obstructed an investigation or hindered an investigation. Filing false charges against a sitting Superior Court judge is dispicable misconduct for a prosecutor."

This Claim standing alone would fully justify Thomases disbarment. Indeed, restoring the public's trust in the system of justice requires that Thomas be sanctioned in such a severe manner. 

Any public figure who would defend Thomas after this hearing quite simply has no respect for the rule of law and is a partisan fanatic who will excuse any illegal, immoral and unethical conduct so long as it is done by a member of his own faction.

Of course, there are also Claims 1 through 23 and 31 though 33, all of which also describe serious unethical behavior, these include:

• conflict of interest and dishonesty about a Grand Jury proceeding to Gila County Attorney Daisy Flores
• filing an incompetent and meritless RICO indictment without statutory authority, against their own clients and persons with statutory and constitutional immunities for decisions claimed to be conspiratorial conduct (the closing notes this episode "displayed massive incompetence, total lack of judgment and extreme arrogance")
• a vendetta against Supervisor Don Stapley and his associates that embraced conflicts of interest, misrepresentations to the courts, improper attempts to influence judges decisions, charging crimes without jurisdiction because of statutes of limitation expiry and improper public statements about a pending case

Perhaps the Claims that will have the most resonance and continuing relevance to Arizona's politics is that begining with the first charges against Supervisor Stapely and continuing through the attempt inimidate Judge Donhoe with false criminal charges, there was a concerted effort and conspiracy among Thomas, Aubuchon, the embattled Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his then-Chief Deputy Hendershott to take control of the Board of Supervisors. Henderschott even testified during the hearings that their goal was to force the County into recievership by their harrassment and misuse of criminal process.

There is a certain delicious irony that Arpaio may end his own career with MSCO in federal recievership.

Disbarment is a well-deserved and necessary end to the public career of Andy Thomas. His disbarment in Arizona is sufficient foundation for disbarment in any other jurisdiction where he may be licensed to practice, and sufficient cause to deny him a license should he seek to reapply to any jurisdiction in the future. Thomas has amply demonstrated his unfitness for the practice of law, let alone discretionary control of the devastating power of the state in criminal matters.

I expect that someday, and I think that day is not too far off, when Thomas is disbarred and Arpaio is no longer Sheriff, the tale of their crusade of intimidation and misfeasance of office will make some enterprising reporter a very fine book. I would be the first to line up for a copy. The tale of Thomas and Arpaio would make a modern American morality tale of how power can corrupt small-minded men given power and discretion they haven't the judgment or ethical compass to use safely.

The upcoming week - Special session (maybe), special meetings, and more

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

Note to Southern AZ readers:  Feel free to ignore the stuff after the redistricting info; it's mostly Maricopa County-related anyway.

 

...The biggest meeting of the week is only a rumor at this point, but it is a rather persistent one.  There is a strong rumor going around that Republican Governor Jan Brewer is going to call a special session of the legislature to remove the Independent and Democratic members of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  One of the rumors going around was that the special session would be on Monday, but that seems to be off of the table.  It may have been R posturing, or it may have been due to an inability to line up enough votes to do the deed on Monday (they need 20 of the 21 Rs in the Senate to be in attendance and on board to pull this off, if they go the special session route.

Details if/when they become available.

...In a perhaps related development, the AIRC has scheduled a business meeting for Monday at 6:20 p.m.  at the Adams House in Phoenix (1100 W. Washington Street).  The one action item on the agenda:

Legal advice, direction to counsel, discussion and possible action regarding actions relating to letter from Governor Brewer concerning Commission conduct. Commission may vote to go into executive session, which will not be open to the public, for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and providing direction to counsel (A.R.S. §38-431.03 (A) (3) and (4)).

...The AIRC has a full slate of public hearings scheduled for the week - Phoenix on Tuesday, Cottonwood on Wednesday, Scottsdale on Thursday, Marana on Friday, and Casa Grande and Green Valley on Saturday.

However, stay tuned - if the Governor and her associates in the legislature go through with their craven scheme to ignore the will of the voters and blow up the independent redistricting process, that schedule of public hearings on the new lines for Congressional and legislative districts will change to a schedule of court appearances, dates and times TBA.

- Also on Monday, the Joint Republican "Legislative" Committee on Messing With The Redistricting process and Commission is scheduled to meet at 1:30 p.m. in HHR4.


...In other areas of interest...

- The Arizona Corporation Commission's hearing schedule is here.  In addition to the hearings, they are holding two special open meetings for Tuesday/Wednesday and Friday.

- The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors is meeting Monday and Wednesday.

- The Scottsdale City Council is meeting Tuesday, both in a special meeting for appointments to City boards and commissions and a regular meeting.  One item of interest to political geeks: an item to remove John Washington from the City's Airport Advisory Commission.  Recently, the Council has OK the building of well more than 1000 apartments near the Scottsdale Airport, something that Washington thinks is ill-advised and more importantly, a violation of some agreements with the FAA that the Scottsdale airport operates under.  Washington has contacted the FAA directly, and because of that contact, Mayor Jim Lane has agendized a motion to remove Washington from the Commission.  I can't say for certain how the vote will turn out, but whatever happens Tuesday, don't be shocked if Washington runs for Council or Mayor next year.

- The Tempe City Council is meeting Thursday.


Early notice:  On Wednesday, December 7, the Community Involvement Group of the North Indian Bend Wash Superfund Site will meet at 5:30 p.m. in the Scottsdale Center for the Performing Arts.  More details as the date gets closer.

The Arpaio Scandals: It's getting where you need a scorecard to tell them apart

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

With the latest scandal to hit Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Maricopa County Sheriff's Office this week, the arrest of three MCSO employees for involvement with drug and human-trafficking cartels, it seems as if the scandals could form their own baseball team.  Here's the lineup:

Leading off and playing center field, the fleet-footed rookie above

Batting second and playing second, the politically motivated investigations and indictments of Maricopa County supervisors and Arpaio political adversaries Don Stapley and Mary Rose Wilcox

Batting third and playing left field, the politicall motivated investigation of and charges levelled against a county judge who failed to kiss Arpaio's behind

Hitting cleanup and playing first, the news that Arpaio and his office misspent almost $100 million of jail funds

Hitting fifth and playing the hot corner (3rd base for the heathens out there :) ), former Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott, who's as famous for taking one for the team as he is for hitting them out of the ballpark

Batting sixth and catching, Joel Fox and the SCA laundered campaign contributions/depraved attack ad

In the seventh spot and playing shortstop, the new linchpin of Arpaio's defense, Bill Montgomery and the hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of campaign finance violations

Batting eighth and playing right field, the Taj Mahal of buses, ostensibly purchased to transport prisoners, but now used to throw loyalists under in hopes that the bodies will stave off a federal indictment

And batting ninth and pitching, the master of distraction, Joltin' (rhymes with Revoltin'), Joe Arpaio.

The MCSO scandal bench is pretty deep - dead bodies at the hands of his detention officers, millions of dollars in lawsuits, junkets to Honduras to "train" the military there, just months before a right-wing military coup there, and more await their turn at the plate.

His team does have one glaring weakness - his star relief pitcher and biggest ally at the legislature, State Senator Russell Pearce, has troubles of his own.  Like a growing recall effort and a son who has been sentenced to a year in prison.  Wonder if he's going to do his time in  a luxury hotel room one of the private prisons that his father so ardently supports?

Fortunately for Arpaio, if this lineup ever sees a game, the umpire will be a federal judge, not any of the Maricopa County judges that he has tried to intimidate.

Unfortunately for him though, if this lineup ever sees a game, the opposing team captain won't be the prosecutor he's hired for his team, it'll the the US Attorney.

Arizona Legislature Week In Review...

By Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

BfA readers probably won't care about the Maricopa-centric stuff at the end.  Feel free to skip that section.  :)

The non-legislatiion highlights of the week:

- Senate President Russell Pearce announced that his "hold" on his anti-immigrant legislation was off.  Last week, he had announced that those bills would be "held" until the state's budget was completed.  I could speculate on his reasons for rescinding the hold (nativist orthodoxy is more important to him than fiscal responsibility?  ...the budget negotiations between Pearce, House Speaker Kirk Adams, and Governor Jan Brewer aren't going as smoothly as some thought?), but the end result is the same - the nasty stuff is moving again.

- State Sen. Scott Bundgaard (R-Domestic Violence Incident) is spinning as fast as he can.  He's gone from sending out press releases proclaiming his "good guy" status, to tearing up on the Senate floor, to staving off removal as the leader of the Republican caucus in the Senate by claiming that his now ex-girlfriend, Aubry Ballard, pulled a gun on him during the incident that has precipitated the furor that currently surrounds him.

Now, he is giving interviews where he displays a pistol that he claims is the gun in question, and is promising "more" details to come.

If there are many more "details" like those that Bundgaard has spouted so far, next year, Jason Rose is going to be eligible for an Oscar for his writing.


Passing the Senate this week ("party line vote" = bill passed with all Rs supporting and all Ds opposing):

SB1553, school vouchers, under the name of "Arizona Empowerment Accounts" - party line vote

SB1561, giving the legislature the ability to sweep and reappropriate "non-custodial" federal monies such as community block grants - party line vote

SCR1027, a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution to require that voters reauthorize any ballot measures that reserve or expend monies for a specific purpose (things like First Things First, placing AHCCCS eligibility at 100% of FPL, mandatory education funding, etc.) - party line vote

SCR1051, a proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution to mandate that any voter-approved measure (initiative or referendum) that doesn't identify a funding source other than the state's general fund, then the measure is subject to legislative appropriation (or non-appropriation, as is more likely); a move to circumvent the Voter Protection Act, without seeming to do so - party line vote

SB1188, mandating that when placing children for adoption, DES must give preference to married couples.  Single people will need to jump through some serious hoops, and same sex couples need not apply - mostly a party line vote (one R crossover)

SB1288, giving professionals who refuse to do their jobs properly because of their religious beliefs an out - they get to keep their licenses.  Plus there is a clause that is clearly targeted at the Arizona Commission on Appellate Court Appointments for refusing to approve a candidate for the Independent Redistricting Commission when that candidate stated that he wanted more religious involvement in/control of secular society - party line vote.

SB1329, barring public employees from engaging in lobbying or political activities during work hours.  Aimed at teachers - party line vote.

SB1363, protecting employers from the horror of labor actions - party line vote.

SB1495, establishing a state guard that is answerable only to the governor, but is funded by money siphoned from the Arizona National Guard - party line vote.

SB1598, micromanaging the ability of cities and counties to conduct zoning, inspection, and related regulatory activities, to the point of it becoming the "inability" to do so - passed on a party line vote.

SB1610, proclaiming the Colt Single Action Army Revolver as the official state firearm - passed 18 - 12 (three Rs crossing over).

SCR1026, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution reducing the state's revenue expenditure limit, basically a version of TABOR - party line vote.

SCR1040, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution politicizing judicial appointments - passed 19 - 11 (2 Rs crossing over).

SB1282, exempting religious entities that engage in political activities from having to register as political committees - party line vote.

SB1365, barring payroll deductions for political purposes, targeted at unions, except for those for law enforcement personnel (there's a specific exception carved out for LEO organizations) - party line vote.

SCR1016, calling for a constitutional convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to mandate that the approval of a majority of state legislatures is required before Congress can raise the federal debt limit - FAILED 13 - 17 (8 Rs crossing over).

SB1433, creating a legislative committee to oversee the nullification of federal laws and regulations - FAILED 12 -  18 (9 Rs crossing over).  YES!!!

SCR1019, another TABOR-like amendment proposed for the AZ constitution - party line vote.

SCR1029, banning photo radar from Arizona - passed 18 - 12 (3 Rs crossing over)

SCR1032, a proposed amendment to the AZ constitution to require a 60% vote of the voters to raise a tax, levy a new tax, or to reduce or eliminate an existing tax credit - passed 16 - 14 (5 Rs crossing over)


Passed the House -

HB2523, expanding current law so that someone driving on a license that is suspended or revoked for any reason who is involved in an accident resulting in death or injury is guilty of a class four or class five felony - passed on reconsideration, with bipartisan support and opposition.

HB2707, further shackling state expenditures (TABOR by another name) - mostly party line vote (three Rs crossed over).

HCM2002, a postcard to the U.S. Congress requesting that they take the gray wolf off of the Endangered Species List - party line vote.

HB2565, giving students the right to not do coursework, if they cite religious belief as their reason - mostly a party line vote (1 D crossed over).
 
HB2718, Kirk Adams' $5 million gift to Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu - mostly a party line vote (1 D crossed over).
 
HB2099, restoring hospice care coverage to AHCCCS; expected to be cost neutral - passed 38 - 22 (18 Rs crossed over).  Yes, an actual good bill has passed a chamber of the legislature in 2011.
 
HB2501, micromanaging state agencies, counties, and municipalities by mandating that any ambiguous language in a rule, ordinance, or law be interpreted in a manner favorable to applicants or licensees (relating to permits, licenses, and zoning) - a mostly party line vote (1 D and 1 R crossed each way).
 
HB2581, expanding and basically uncapping STO tax credits - mostly a party line vote (1 R crossed over).
 
HB2617, limiting the ability of workers involved in workers' comp cases to reopen cases if something new but related arises - party line vote.
 
 
In non-legislature campaign news this week -
 
- Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley has formed a campaign committee for reelection to his seat (SD2)
 
- Jean McGrath, former legislator and current member of the governing board of the Central Arizona Project, has formed a committee to run for the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors District 4.  SD4 is currently represented by Max Wilson.  A call to Wilson's office inquiring about his plans for next year went unreturned.
 
- Timothy Coomer of Phoenix has formed a committee to run for Maricopa County Sheriff next year as a Democrat.  He's done this before. 
 

Response to John Kavanagh's comment

By Craig McDermott

Earlier today I wrote a post about the recently-released 2009 crime statistics and how they serve to undermine Jan Brewer's campaign plank of "Fear The Dastardly Brown-Skinned People."

That post elicited a comment [on the original Random Musings post] from LD8 State Representative John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), a comment that deserves a post of its own in response.

First, his comment -

It is all but impossible to use statewide crime statistics to measure the impact of a "shadow group," such as illegal immigrants, on crime. Of course if you were so inclined, the decrease in crime between 2008 and 2009 is consistent with illegals causing more crime because that is when the jobs and illegal immigrants both began to leave Arizona. But again, it is stretching the data to arrive at any conclusion.

A better indicator, although once again not a complete one, is to compare the number of known criminal illegal aliens with their portion of the population. Using the often cited Pew estimate of 500,000 illegal immigrants in Arizona, we can conclude that they comprise about 7.7% of the population. However, they make up about 14% of persons “booked” into Maricopa County jails and constitute about 14.7% of Arizona’s prison population. Thus, known data supports the view that illegal immigrants commit more crime, beyond being here illegally, than legal residents.

State Rep. John Kavanagh

My response:

Let the spin begin.

OK, that's too snarky.

First, I want to thank Rep. Kavanagh for his comment. 

I may disagree with him on pretty much everything that Ds and Rs can disagree on, but his comment was a serious one and deserves the courtesy of a serious response.

His first paragraph was actually correct, as far as it goes - the data gathered and published by the FBI doesn't specify the demographic origin of the people who committed the criminal acts that make up the statistics.  The criminals behind the acts could be undocumented immigrants, legal immigrants, citizens (native born or naturalized), or little green men from Mars*. 

Nor does the data explain the reduction in criminal activity, only that there *was* a reduction.

However, he should have left it at that.  While Kavanagh feels, perhaps with some justification, that the crime data released by the FBI is incomplete, he tried to buttress his anti-immigrant rhetoric with statistics of questionable provenance.

He cited statistics generated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (MCSO) to prove his point that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a rate out of proportion with their numbers in society as a whole.

Specifically, he trots out the percentage of undocumented immigrants booked into county jail as proof of his position.

The problem with that?  MCSO targets undocumented immigrants (and documented immigrants, and citizens who happen look like they have ancestors with some familiarity with the Spanish language) for harassment and arrest out of proportion to their numbers in Maricopa County as a whole, to the point that MCSO has sacrificed service of felony and misdemeanor warrants, a prime function of sheriff's offices all over the country, in order to divert resources and personnel to headline- and camera-grabbing anti-immigrant sweeps.

The stats coming out of the MCSO may be accurate in terms of what the MCSO does, but that doesn't mean that those stats accurately reflect Arizona or even Maricopa County as a whole.

In other words, while undocumented immigrants may make up 14% (or more) of those arrested by MCSO, they aren't necessarily responsible for 14% (or more) of the crimes committed in Maricopa County.


* - If little green men from Mars are involved, the Men In Black want to know. :)

Huppenthal petitions challenged: I *love* being able to say "I told you so"

Posted by Craig McDermott

Yes, I'm a bad man, but I really enjoy it when something I more or less predicted (more than a year ago!) starts looking like it will come to pass.

From my post a from a year ago -

Hi. Your snarky (but oh-so-friendly and helpful) neighborhood liberal blogger and Democratic activist here. I don't normally write for you folks, but this one is for you.

Some of you have signed nominating petitions for one John Huppenthal for next year's race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction.

{snip}

Under the laws of Arizona and the rules from the Arizona Secretary of State, a candidate must form a committee (file paperwork with the state formally declaring the candidate's interest in a particular office).

From the Secretary of State's candidate handbook (page 29 of the .pdf) (emphasis mine) -

4. Statement of Organization OR $500 Threshold Exemption Statement.
A Statement of Organization registering the candidate’s campaign committee OR a $500 Threshold Exemption Statement must be filed before making any expenditures, accepting any contributions, distributing any campaign literature or circulating any petitions. If the candidate has an exploratory committee open at the time of filing, then the candidate, chairman and treasurer must file an amended Statement of Organization to change the committee to a candidate’s campaign committee.

So far, Huppenthal has only formed an "exploratory" committee - filer ID 201000065, formed and last amended on March 16, 2009. As such, any signatures he has collected to date are invalid.

So check out this AZ Republic story today -

John Huppenthal, a Republican state senator vying for his party's nomination as state superintendent of public instruction, is being challenged by the state Democratic Party on the basis that many of his 11,000 petition signatures were gathered before he had formally entered the race.

His case is scheduled for a June 18 hearing in Maricopa County Superior Court.

Yessss!

Now, there is no guarantee that the challenge will be successful - we *are* in Maricopa County, Arizona, where somedays it seems as if the principle of "the rule of law" has been replaced by the principle of "IOKIYAR*".

However, the law seems clear - he had to change his exploratory committee to a candidate campaign committee *before* collecting sigs. He amended his campaign paperwork on January 14; he submitted his petitions on January 20.

I'm guessing that he didn't collect 11K sigs in 6 days.

Anyway, the complete list of challenges received by the Secretary of State's office is here; the current list of withdrawn candidates is here.

*IOKIYAR = "It's OK If You're A Republican

Later...

Candidates dropping already

Posted by Craig McDermott

Tomorrow (June 10) is the last day to file challenges to try to remove candidates from the August ballot, but candidates are already being knocked off or simply withdrawing to avoid the embarrassment of being removed.

In Maricopa County -

- Democrat Israel Correa has withdrawn from the race for Justice of the Peace in the Downtown Justice Precinct, leaving Democrats Jeff Farias and Armando Gandarilla (incumbent) as the only two candidates.

- Democrat Bruce McDougall has withdrawn from the Manistee JP race, leaving incumbent Republican Gary Handley as the sole candidate on either side of the ballot.

- Democrat Jeffrey Brown has been removed from the ballot due to a challenge in the race for Encanto Constable, leaving Democrat Maria Ligocki-Russell as the only candidate on the ballot.

In state-level offices -

- Republican candidate for governor John Munger (he of the low single digit support in recent polling) withdrew a week ago because he said that he felt that he couldn't outspend Clean Elections candidates who would receive matching funds. Funny, but he didn't jump back in after the Roberts Supreme Court stopped payment of matching funds for this cycle.

- Democrat Martha Garcia withdrew as a candidate for the LD13 State Senate seat because her petitions weren't going to stand up to a challenge. That leaves former State Rep. Steve Gallardo as the only candidate.

- Republican Wyatt Brooks has withdrawn as a candidate for LD3 House. I couldn't find a reason listed anywhere, but it could be related to the fact that while his campaign organized with a Kingman address (in LD3), the SOS' website now has shows an address of a P.O. box in Hualapai (in LD2, or maybe LD1, but almost definitely not LD3). His withdrawal leaves three candidates in the race, all Republicans - Ray Cullison II, Doris Goodale, and Nancy McLain. Goodale and McLain are incumbents.

In "getting into the race, sort of" news, a few folks have declared their write-in candidacies (primary here, general election here) -

- William Koller of Tucson filed for the Democratic primary for U.S. Senate

- Richard Grayson of Apache Junction has filed as a Green for the Congressional seat currently held by Republican Jeff Flake in CD6. As no other Green candidates have yet filed for the seat, Grayson needs 221 votes in August's primary to qualify for the general election ballot (221 is the number of sigs he would have needed to appear on the primary ballot)

- Sydney Dudikoff of Tucson has filed as a general election candidate for U.S. Senate

As of this writing, the only non-legislative originated ballot question to qualify is the Medical Marijuana Act. Other citizen-originated questions have until July 1 to submit their petitions, so that list may grow (though that seems unlikely at this point.)

Note: Pima County's list of candidates is here.  They don't, however, have a separate list of withdrawn/removed candidates up at this time.

Later...

In any other state...

Posted by Craig McDermott, cross-posted from Random Musings

In any other state, would a candidate for state treasurer tout the endorsement of someone who is fighting an investigation into the fiscal mismanagement of his department?

Just one question - do Verschoor's signs in other counties contain the part about the endorsement, or is that a Maricopa-only phenomenon?

SB1070 Update: Show me your papers -- if you have any

by David Safier

I've posted about the mistaken notion that SB1070 pretty much just requires drivers to have driver's licenses with them. SB1070 "stops" can range from traffic stops to street stops to overgrown-lawn stops.

Oh, and even if it's a traffic stop, an out-of-state driver's license is no good. It needs to be an Arizona license.

And even with traffic stops, passengers can be asked for ID. In many cases, passengers are the prime suspects. Unless we institute a mandatory national ID card, passengers aren't required to have drivers' licenses or any other form of ID.

That means during any "stop," someone who looks reasonably suspicious to a police officer and is a U.S. citizen without a driver's license is likely to take a trip down to the police station to wait until someone else can bring the proper papers.

If the "proper papers" exist.

According to an Examiner article, lots of people don't have "proper papers."

[O]nly about 68 million Americans or 22% even have passports. Probably fewer than 30% have certified birth certificates. Therefore, Arizona SB 1070 may even lead to the legal long-term imprisonment and deportation of an American citizen.

I haven't checked the accuracy of the numbers, but even if they're not exactly correct, it points to a serious problem for U.S. citizens who are considered "reasonably suspicious" by a police officer. It could take a considerable amount of time and effort to determine that person's legality.

But I qualify as white, so I guess I shouldn't worry. It won't happen to me.

Though maybe I should think about how I would feel if I was wrongly hauled down to the police station simply because I didn't have papers on me, and my family had to dig up the proper papers, if I had them. 

Or how I would feel if it was my wife. Or my mother. Or my grandmother. Or my child. Or . . .

But there I go again, using that liberal, bleeding heart empathy gene that seems to be missing from most conservatives' DNA.

Arpaio Schadenfruede

Posted by Michael Bryan

I got a warm feeling in my tummy watching this. Thought I'd share the feeling...

This may be one of the biggest scandals to hit Arizona politics since, well, ever. Stay tuned for more Schadenfruedey goodness.

If you ever had any doubts as to whether Arpaio had drank of the right-wing-nut-flavored KoolAid, you only need to check out the contents of his own personal immigration lawsuit file he kept secret despite discovery orders to hand it over.

Arizona Week in Review

Some of you might have noticed that my posting has been rather slow of late. I hope that some of my fellow bloggers have been able to keep you informed and entertained, but I realize that Arizona political news and opinion has been rather too thin on the ground around here.

When I think about all the great stories in Arizona politics that deserve coverage and/or comment, I shrivel at the thought of all the posts that need to be written in so little time. And I end up not writing them.

So I'm going to take some of the pressure off by not demanding of myself that I write about everything in a separate post, but instead, throw everything that's been buzzing in my bonnet into a single weekly bout of blogorrhea. Sounds delightful, no? Well, then, here we go.

Bee Flees the Hive:

Perhaps the most fun of late is the on-going saga of how Bee is throwing his affiliation with the GOP under the bus: he tried not be photographed with Bush (though everyone knows he's using Bush to fund-raise, so, really, why bother? I guess the same reason we're not allowed to see pictures of dead American troops... some realities are just too harsh for mere citizens).

Furthering the story line is Bee's ads. Two of them so far and neither contains the words "GOP" or "Republican," instead using the line "Independence for a Change." Timmy, that seems rather derivative of and responsive to Giffords' tag "Because Change Can't Wait." Wow, with even conservatives wanting to run as change agents, and eshewing their party's label, it can't be more clear how utterly the GOP has fucked up.

Bee Stings Busy-Bodies:

Bee nixed the idea of an independent bi-partisan look into rule violations by Sen. Jack Harper to stop debate in the Arizona Senate so that the Gay Marriage Referendum could be considered. Standing in the breach to protect members of his caucus from accountability for dir1ty tricks isn't exactly the sort of co-operative, bi-partisan consensus building image that Bee is trying to sell to voters. Looks a lot more like "my party right or wrong" to me.

Endorse This:

It really grates on me to see elected officials taking sides in party primaries. The most irritating are Congressional primaries where Representatives from other districts endorse in a contested primary. Ann Kirkpatrick announced an endorsement from Harry Mitchell, adding to those she's already gotten from Governor Napolitano and Gabby Giffords.

It would annoy my immensely to have these folks stepping in to tell me who should represent my district if I lived in CD 1. It would annoy me were I supporter of another primary candidate. And it strikes me as an overbearing use of political influence on the part of the endorsers to try to determine the outcome of party primaries. Party officials can't be partial in this manner, why should far more visible and influential party members, our officer-holders, be allowed to play this divisive game? It's merely vanity and ambition, and I condemn it.

DiSimone Hits the Road:

Following an arrest on domestic violence, State Representative Mark DiSimone resigned from his office. I keep asking myself, "If Mark were a Republican, would I expect him to resign because of an allegation of domestic violence?" Just an allegation and arrest aren't really enough, in my opinion. A conviction would certainly do the trick. However, if you are a Republican, even a conviction for something as sordid as a DUI apparently isn't enough for Republicans to demand your resignation.

Mark maintains he didn't hit anyone, so why did he resign? Probably he's thinking of the good the Party and that his constituents should have the most effective advocate possible. Just another contrast between the way Democrats and Republicans approach politics and personal responsibility; and another chance for GOPers to demonstrate their double standards - one for us, and one for them.

Buddy, Can You Spare a TIME?:

Jim Nintzel has helped clarify this issue immensely for me by making sure to ask all and sundry for their positions on the TIME initiaitive, which adds a 1 cent sales tax to the state rate to pay for infrastructure. Having heard some of the most informed Democrats in the state express opinions on this, I feel I finally have a position on the matter.

I read the initiative (PDF) a few months ago (which is more than most will do) and my immediate reaction was "Great! But why a sales tax?" In Arizona we already have a high sales tax rate and are overly dependent on this cyclical revenue sources, which is why we have state revenue booms and busts that we try to even out with an inadequately-sized rainy-day fund (thank the GOP for cutting the fund's size). So, making our infrastructural development even more dependent on such a cyclical source strikes me as bad planning, and the regressive nature of sales taxes makes it bad policy, in my opinion.

Of course, I recognize the political constraints that shaped the TIME, but I don't think supporting something because their isn't currently a better option is politically useful: better to work to create better options than moot the issue by putting into place something that while useful, if unfair and far less than optimal. That's why I'm an idealist and critic, and not a politician. I don't get paid to compromise.

Those Democrats who support TIME (and only RINOs support it, because, you know, it's a tax!) make the bold claim that if you oppose it for the reasons I've given, you have to propose where we're going to get billions for infrastructure. No I don't. That's bullshit.

How about this: Democrats take over the State Legislature and pass some indexed gas taxes, some reasonable property taxes and impact fee allowances, and get rid of a whole bunch of corporate welfare, and we use that money to fund our infrastructure? Why isn't that a good plan? It's certainly a better plan that continuing to put the cost of government and investments for our future on the backs of the poorest and middle-class Arizonans.

The TIME would probably accomplish some good by addressing Arizona's worst infrastructural deficits (which Republicans have allowed to accumulate with their mania against taxes) but only at the cost of making Arizona's financial situation far more inequitable, and locking that inequity into the system for another generation. Better to fight to take back the government and fund infrastructure equitably, than just give up and allow the GOP to screw another generation with their misguided and plutocratic ideology. Politics isn't just the art of the possible, at it's best, it's also the art of the improbable. TIME is well intentioned, but it accepts the merely probable by playing by a set of political rules and constraints that are anti-theatrical to progressive governance. I can't support that.

Obamazona?:

Could Arizona become a battleground state in the Presidential election? With some polling putting Obama within single digits to McBush in the state, with a rich vein of independents and undecideds remaining to court, it is not outside the realm of possibility. With so much money being available to Obama, a few million to go on the air in Arizona and potentially embarrass McBush seems like a bargain. We will almost certainly get a few field organizers on the ground in AZ; maybe we'll even get a few events on a candidate swing through the state. With lots of new registrations and the Obama camapign energizing low-efficacy voters throughout the primary season, it seems that the traditional presidential campaign map may be changing. The very strong popularity of Obama in the Hispanic community (66% Obama, 23% McBush, 11% Undecided) could be a factor in pushing several Southwestern states, including AZ, into the blue this season.

Poor Joe:

Pity poor Maricopa County SheriffJoe Arpiao. Beaten in pinata-effigy by protesters at a book signing, his head came off and with carried about a bit by Pima County Legal Defender Isabel Garcia (full disclosure: Isabel used to be my boss). The rightwing rant radio and usual bug-eating-crazy suspects, got a hold of that and had a field day: calling for Isabel's firing by the Pima County Board, bar discipline, actual beheading... whatev.

Isabel and her pals have a perfect right to peacefully protest any way they like. What stikes me is 1) the Right's hypocritcal attack on free speech, and 2) the Right's quick retreat into victimhood.

The Right loves free speech: they hide their worst hate-speech behind it constantly. But let a liberal step out of line and express a controversial view and suddenly they boycott, and contact your boss to try to get you fired. No consequence they can possibly try to inflict, including a good beating, is out of bounds when a liberal says something the right doesn't like. Remember the Dixie Chicks? The digital brownshirts are on patrol. Don't ever forget which side of the political spectrum is constantly attacking that bulwark of the First Amendment, the ACLU.

The one area where I think Isabel and her friends made a mistake was providing an opportunity for Joe and his ractist buddies and supporters to play the victim. Reading the right wing coverage, if you didn't know the story intimately, you might think that Isabel's young friends had taken a stick to Sheriff Joe's very own carcass. Isabel and her krewe didn't attack Joe, they hit a pinata. But in making this symbolic gesture, they allowed Joe and the racists who stand with him to play the victim. There is nothing the Right adores more than the opportunity to play the victim.

It's inherent in the conservative psyche that they are constantly under attack and withstanding seige by the forces of chaos and corruption, i.e. everyone else. They thrive on their embattlement. They are always the victim, relatiating against the aggressors in their own minds: never attacking or acting as the oppressor, but merely the downtrodden defending themselves against outrageous and unjustified attacks. Even the shock-jock who promoted this story heavily, Jon Justice, is now taking the posture of victim in defense of his jack-ass antics.

This is why it is always a mistake to play into the Right's favorite narrative. Give them the slightest pretext to cast themselves and victims and martyrs, and they will riff on that theme for all they are worth. In the end, Isabel's protest probably generated a lot more sympathy and solidarity among Joe's supporters than awareness of Joe's abuses of the community he's supposed to protect. As such, it may have stregthened Joe's political support rather than undermined it, contrary to the protest's intent.

Andy Thomas' Bad Case of Fascist Disease

Andy Thomas, the Maricopa County Attorney, is asking the Arizona State Supreme Court [PDF] to declare him above the obligatory ethical standards of his profession. He wants to be declared exempt from the system of self-governance by which the ethical standards of the legal profession are enforced under the supervision and authority of the courts. Because he was elected, Andy claims to be untouchable, unquestionable and exempt from investigation by the state Bar.

His argument boils down to the fairly absurd idea that he is both the embodiment of the state and the attorney for the state; thus, everything he does in his job is protected by the attorney-client or executive privileges. He's claiming to be both client and attorney! Thus, even if there is an allegation that he has violated the ethics of his profession by his conduct in office, he asserts he cannot be held to account by a mere jury of his professional peers (which is an odd thing for a prosecutor to believe in...).

Andy has fallen victim to peculiar movement-conservative meme that posits elected officials are only accountable to the electorate, and then only at elections, and cannot be thwarted, investigated, or in any way made accountable by any other power. This is the fascist electoral theory of democracy and it has become a common virus circulating in certain conservative circles these days. I call it the "Fascist Disease". The most obvious symptom of the disease is criminal investigation, indictment, and conviction - as the disease causes its victims to believe themselves above the law. Many conservatives are showing these quite obvious symptoms these days.

Democrats aren't doing much to stem the spread of the outbreak, unfortunately. They allow a terribly virulent infection to fester at the heart of our political system, and it is spreading the contagion like wildfire: the Bush Administration, despite being a pack of criminals who have declared themselves above the law, continue to rule despite their obvious derangement by the disease. The Congress refuses to quarantine the infection by impeachment, and the disease is thereby encouraged to spread. Now it has claimed poor Andy Thomas.

The Arizona Bar, in their response to Andy's brief [PDF], use a nice analogy for Andy's theory about his immunity to the Bar's disciplinary system. The Bar's disciplinary system is essentially inquisitorial in nature: they function as both the police (investigating allegations of ethical violations instead of crimes) and the court (hearing evidence and making a decision on the merits). When the Bar receives a complaint, or creates a complaint based on press or court information, it first investigates to see if there is cause to continue taking evidence on the complaint. This is called screening and most complaints die a deserved death at this juncture.

Andy is asking the Court to take several complaints away from the Bar, even before a screening investigation begins. He doesn't want the Bar even to have the power to investigate complaints against him: it's as if he's a defense attorney asking an appeals court to take a case away from the police investigating a complaint and declare the police can't investigate the defendant - at all- for any reason - ever. It's about as bad an infection of Fascist Disease as I've ever diagnosed. Not only does Andy claim to be above the law, but he's above investigation by cops on his beat.

It's typical the fascist disease that its victims believe that the mystical power the electorate has invested in them cannot be abused, no matter how it's used. Well, we know better. Sorry, Andy, the law does constrain you; and the Bar, of which he is a member, has the power to discipline even a high-muckety office-holder like Andy, or Terry Goddard, or Janet Napolitano.

The Bar system is designed to screen complaints that haven't any merit. Already, 4 of the 7 complaints which Andy is asking the Court to take away from the Bar have been dismissed for lack of merit by the Bar. But the Bar is sensitive to any impression that the discipline process may not be perfectly objective and so they have offered to appoint a special master to handle the remaining complaints. If Andy was really so sure that these remaining complaints lack any merit, why not just let independent special master do his or her job? Or perhaps the problem is that Andy knows that these remaining complaints - specifically those stemming from his behavior during the New Times Affair - have a bit too much merit to risk allowing any objective screening of them? Perhaps the cop on the ethics beat will notice how badly Andy screwed up in his zeal to punish the newspaper hounding his buddy, Sheriff Joe "Biggest Joke of a Sheriff in America" Arpaio?

I won't presume to prejudge whether the complaints against Thomas and his bestest Kahuna, Dennis Wilenchik, have any merit (oh, who am I kidding? These guys are as ethical as two-dollar whores...) or whether the Bar's independent special master will even proceed with them (I sure hope so...). But I will eat my hat if the Supreme Court grants Andy an endorsement of his Fascist Disease-inspired fever dreams of unchecked power.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas Fighting to Keep His License Abetted By His Merry Band of Fools

Link: Thomas to high court: Make Bar back off.

Thomas is in deep poop. Poop deposited with his own shovel, it should be pointed out. He's going on the offensive against seven bar complaints filed against him stemming from his office's miserable handling of the New Times affair and his unprecedented and irresponsible attempt to have the chief of the Maricopa bench disqualified from hearing any criminal cases.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving fellow.

But the reason I felt a need to comment on Andy's on-going humiliation and long-past-due comeuppance is the way the media has framed the bar complaints, and the response it has drawn from some of our esteemed legislators.

The Media Framing:

Repeatedly I'm seeing the media note that there were 10 complaints pending against Andy and that 3 have already been dismissed. That's true, but it creates an impression that the complaints share a factual under-pinning, and thus it's inevitable that the remaining 7 will also be dismissed in short order.

That is manifestly not the case. The dismissed charges are completely unrelated to the shameful selective and retaliatory prosecution of the New Times and Andy's irresponsible ideologically-motivated attack on the Maricopa bench. The merits of the remaining 7 complaints are not in any way related to the dismissed 3. The only commonality among the 10 charges is that Thomas has run his office in a manner that draws Bar complaints like flies to... well, you know.

The Merry Band:

In an interesting turn of special pleading for their ideological brethren, the ideo-savants of our state legislature have endorsed the idea of turning over professional discipline to "an idependent agency" or the courts. I'll guarantee the courts don't want primary responsibility for bar discipline, and they already oversee it in an appellate capacity. The alternative is... you guessed it... bureaucrats. Probably politically-appointed, pointy-headed ones.

Funny how free-marketers seem always to turn to government in a pinch. They yowl about how industry should police itself at every turn, but when an industry does (with a great deal of effectiveness, and with a long track-record of success, I might add), they want to abolish it because they don't like the outcome for their fair-haired boy, Andy.

I think this about as good an idea of turning over professional oversight of doctors to insurance companies or some politically-motivated and unaccountable government agency. Real professionals involved in the delivery of professional services should preside over issues of professional responsibility and discipline. Only other practitioners, disciplined by election and oversight by their colleagues should be entrusted with the livlihoods and reputations of their fellow professionals.

The suggestion by the dolts in the legislature that it should be otherwise is an inexplicable rejection of time-tested good sense and the wisdom of tradition and experience that clearly indicates that these jokers are not any sort of conservatives, but societal vandals intent on only getting their own way and protecting their political allies at any cost. Real conservatives should be outraged and utterly disgusted by the venality and recklessness of this group of revolutionaries.

In case you are curious who these fools are, here's a list:

Sen. Robert Blendu
Sen. Bob Burns
Sen. Ron Gould
Sen. Chuck Gray (former police officer)
Sen. Linda Gray
Sen. Jack Harper
Sen. Karen Johnson (worked for a Sheriff)
Rep. Andy Biggs (attorney)
Rep. Judy Burges
Rep. Doug Clark
Rep. Eddie Farnsworth (attorney?)
Rep. John Kavanagh (doctorate, criminal justice)
Rep. Warde Nichols 
Rep. Russell Pearce (former police officer)
Rep. Steve Yarbrough (attorney)

These folks just lost the right to call themselves conservatives with a straight face.

My particular contempt and derision is reserved for those who, due to their background and training, should understand the importance and deep tradition of the self-regulation of the Bar. Those who are attorneys, yet blithely advocate that hundreds of years of tradition should be thrown over for the convenience of a little schmuck like Andy are deserving of particular scorn.

Those without legal or law enforcement training could possibly plead ignorance of the role which the self-regulation of the legal profession has played in preserving our freedoms and vindicating our rights as free citizens: they are merely ignorant fools, easily led into folly. Those who have been police officers, or are attorneys have no such excuse for their perfidy. They are simply contemptible, and wear the name "conservative" as a mask for their true natures as politicians without any discernible principles.