 |
Arizona's own EspressoPundit Ruminations of an over-caffeinated political junkie |
||||
|
December 30, 2005 Montini Does Seinfeld I never really understood the genius of Jerry Seinfeld. I guess that's because during his heyday I, like, didn't own a TV. So when people made jokes about the soup Nazi or being the master of their domain, I had no clue what they were talking about. Apparently Seinfeld's genius was the ability to write an episode that was tightly woven and entertaining and yet when you looked back on it...nothing happened. While you were watching it, it seemed like stuff was happening. At the end of an episode, you got the impression that things had happened, but when you actually sat back and thought about the show, or indeed the whole season, nothing happened. That type of writing takes talent. EJ Montini gave us an example of that type of talent last Tuesday when he wrote about JD Hayworth, Jack Abramoff, Indian tribes, lots of money and Christmas. By the end of the column it was clear to the casual reader that JD Hayworth was part of the corrupt Washington money machine...but, wait a second. Did anything actually happen? Here is a remarkable example of Montini's talent Most Americans have never served as elected officials. Because of this, we operate under the quaint assumption that Christmas rolls around only once a year. Hayworth reminded us that for politicians, every day is Christmas. This is a brilliant "Us vs. Them" play. We only get Christmas once a year, but JD gets Christmas every day...and we know that's not fair. Our assumptions about Christmas are "quaint" implying that we are naive but in an old fashioned, positive way. We just don't understand how the world works, but Montini is going to explain it to us. This lesson became necessary after a few reporters from The Arizona Republic asked Hayworth if he planned to return approximately $150,000 in campaign contributions that had been funneled to him from Indian tribes and others connected with a controversial lobbyist named Jack Abramoff. This paragraph combines three techniques in a strategy worthy of any Chess master. First, Montini combines seven years of contributions into one big number--150,000 is a lot bigger than around 20,000 a year for seven years. Then he uses the word "funneled" instead of "contributed" in order to leave the impression that the contributions were under the table or nefarious without actually saying so. Finally, by throwing in the completely unrelated fact that the tribes have a connection to Jack Abramoff. He invites the unsuspecting reader to assume that somehow the "funneled money" has a tie to Abramoff. I'm not as talented as Seinfeld or Montini, but let me try my hand at the same trick. "Republic columnist EJ Montini has pocketed in excess of one million dollars during his tenure at the beleaguered paper--this despite the fact that industry-wide circulation is plummeting and the Republic has been especially hard hit. While some would consider these payments excessive, Montini has shown no inclination to return any of the money. Newspapers around the country have laid off workers, cut wages and reduced pensions, but not the Republic. Christmas comes every two weeks at the Montini household." How's that? Of course, if the guy has averaged 60K a year for the 20 years or so that he's been at the paper, he's obviously earned over a million dollars and he certainly has no reason to return any of it. Saying he "pocketed" it instead of simply saying he "earned it" is just a little trick to make you think it's unfair that he gets paid. The newspaper's financial position is meaningless. The financial position of other papers and their need to take drastic measures is meaningless as well. "Some would consider" is a great way to make up a quote where none exists, so I can imply that his salary is excessive without actually finding anyone who is willing to say that his salary is excessive. Hayworth is correct Montini comes full circle at the end of the column. Hayworth is correct. If he did nothing illegal or improper, and no one has suggested that he has, then he shouldn't return the cash. What? Montini admits that no one--including himself or the tribes--has suggested that Hayworth did anything illegal or improper and Montini concludes that Hayworth shouldn't return the cash. That's incredible. Why is there a column? Why did Montini spend the first 322 words connecting Hayworth to "funneled" money and lobbyist scumbag Jack Abramoff only to concede that: Hayworth is correct, no one is suggesting otherwise, and the appropriate response is the keep the money? Et tu Mr. Kennedy? The hypocrisy gets worse when we find out what Montini left out of the column. In 1997, Hayworth joined U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., to found and serve as co-chairman of the Congressional Native American Caucus, a pivotal group for legislation affecting tribes. Kennedy aide Robin Costello said Thursday that the Democratic congressman has no intention of returning money received from tribes affiliated with Abramoff. Widely differing estimates of Kennedy's receipts range from $42,500 to $131,000. "None of the political support has anything to do with Jack
Abramoff," Costello said, "so, no, we have not considered returning the
money." So Patrick Kennedy and JD Hayworth co-chaired the committee and both received contributions from the tribes. Both assert that there was no connection to Abramoff--and the tribes concur. Neither is planning to return the money and the tribes are not seeking to have it returned. No one--including Montini or the tribes--is asserting that either Kennedy or Hayworth did anything wrong, and all parties concede that Kennedy and Hayworth have a long history of fighting for tribal interests. So the column is tightly written, entertaining and placed a Republican Congressman is a bad light while in the end, it was 590 words about nothing. That's genius Not that there's anything wrong with that.
December 29, 2005
People of all Faiths and Ideologies mourn the passing of Monsignor Ryle
The first time I saw Msgr. Ryle,
he was leading the prayer at a luncheon meeting. He closed with
the words of Micah 6:8.
what does the LORD require of you, but
to do justice, love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?
As I got to know him
better, I realized how thoroughly he had woven the admonitions of the
Prophet into his daily life. Msgr. Ryle continues to walk with God but
now it is hand in hand.
Cover me...I'm going In. I'll be on Air America 1010AM this morning from 8:00AM to 9:00AM. I'm going to stay up late waiting for my call from Karl Rove. Let's see if I remember my talking points...The wire taps are legal, Joe Wilson's a liar, Valerie Plame's not an undercover operative, Iraqi secret service met with Al Qaeda before 9/11; the war is winnable, the Patriot Act saves American lives; "re-deploy to the perimeter" equals retreat. Yep, I'm ready.
D'oh, I forgot about Mahoney Yesterday I indicated that Governor Napolitano won with 50% of the vote. I knew that she had defeated Salmon by about 11,000 votes, so I didn't bother to look up the exact percentages. But I forgot about Mahoney. Seth Scott from the Democratic Party emailed to let me know that the number was actually 46.1%. My mistake.
Greg You wrote, “That means that in her first three years in office, with 60% approval ratings, the state showing a huge surplus and Republican fortunes dropping nationally, Governor Napolitano has managed to--maintain the exact percentage that got her elected.” Just a few things I wanted to mention: First, in this Rasmussen poll, the Governor’s approval rating was 68 percent, much higher than the 60 percent you report. Second, the Governor was elected with 46 percent of the vote in 2002 (46.1 percent to be exact), so a poll showing the Governor beating a former Senate President by a 56-23 margin is hardly “the exact percentage that got her elected.” Third, aside from the 20-30 percent margin of victories this poll shows, one previous poll showed the Governor beating your former boss 70 percent to 14 percent. Again, hardly “the exact percentage that got her elected.” That means that in her first three years in office, she’s managed to rescue the state from a $1.3 billion deficit, and even create a surplus, grow Arizona’s economy, and… she continues to earn the trust and support of the people she serves. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read my comments. I’m looking forward to your future posts. Best,
Seth Scott Press Secretary Arizona Democratic Party I'm still curious why the poll indicates that she has 68% support but only 50% of the folks indicate that they are planning to vote for her.
An Admission Against Interest Talton was in rare form last Tuesday. The reality is that the past five years have seen little progress in downtown Phoenix that hasn't been driven by tax money. Wow, really? You mean that nearly a billion dollars of public money pumped into downtown hasn't "primed the pump" and caused private investment dollars to flow down Central Avenue? I'm shocked. Next he'll be telling us that the light rail lines are over budget, clogging traffic and almost empty. Then he'll say that all day kindergarten costs $200 million a year and shows no lasting results. But hey, once we have a new civic center, publicly subsidized hotel, TGen and ASU downtown, it will be hoping. Yep, just another couple billion and things will be swell.
December 28, 2005
Latest Rasmussen Poll Numbers are Out First the good news for the Governor. Among likely voters, she's up by 20 points. But then it gets interesting. Her famously high approval ratings don't seem to translate into overwhelming support from voters. In just about every poll that I've seen in which voters are asked if they are going to vote for her, she tops out at about 50%. The Rasmussen poll is no different. That means that in her first three years in office, with 60% approval ratings, the state showing a huge surplus and Republican fortunes dropping nationally, Governor Napolitano has managed to--maintain the exact percentage that got her elected. Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano holds large leads against three potential challengers in her bid for re-election. The most competitive Republican challenger is Don Goldwater, nephew of the 1964 GOP Presidential candidate and conservative icon. Even with his famous name, he trails Napolitano by 20 percentage points, 50% to 30%. But there's a shadow looming... The only discouraging note in the survey for Napolitano may be that 56% of Arizona voters favor building a barrier along the Mexican border to help reduce illegal immigration. Thirty-seven percent (37%) are opposed. Napolitano is opposed to such a barrier. Nearly half (48%) of Arizona voters say that immigration is a more important issue than the situation in Iraq Among those who consider the immigration issue more important than Iraq, 73% favor building a barrier along the Mexican border. The Governor's soon to be famous quote is "Show me a 50 foot wall and I'll show you a 51 foot ladder." I would add, "show me a guy walking through the desert with a 51 foot ladder and I'll show you someone who's pretty easy to catch."
Speaking of Immigration, here's an interesting letter.
Greg-
Nice synopsis on
Napolitano's various conflicting positions on illegal immigration.
But you forgot that Governor-elect Napolitano and very recently
inaugurated Governor Napolitano supported driver's licenses for
illegal immigrants. See Arizona Daily Star, 11/30/02,
"Representation of Hispanics still Lags", Arizona Republic, 1/17/03,
"Bill would Let Undocumented Obtain Licenses."
Obviously, now she'd prefer that no one ever
mention that. But it's there for anyone to see, Napolitano on
record in support of driver's licenses for illegal aliens.
Name Withheld.
Here's the article and the letter writer's recollection is correct. Once again, an Arizona lawmaker will try to persuade his colleagues to let undocumented immigrants obtain a driver's license. Sen. Pete Rios, D-Hayden, said Thursday he will introduce legislation that would allow Arizona to issue driver's licenses to an undetermined number of undocumented immigrants. But he recognized the odds of success are long. Gov. Janet Napolitano's spokeswoman said the governor agrees the matter is about public safety and that she would sign a bill if one reached her desk. I wonder if she would still be willing to sign a bill to give undocumented immigrants driver's licenses. Or maybe she will say... "You know what?'' "Forget that. It was a comment that, we'll just go on.'' Hmm, what do you think the Rasmussen sample would think of that?
December 27, 2005 Here's an interesting Letter. (Read the update below) Greg
I liked your piece on Edward Ableser.
I don't know if you have noticed but he also never took down his 2004
campaign website. He filed his paperwork to run for 2006 in
August of 2005. This is considered campaigning before being able
to campaign, a clear violation of both Clean Elections and Arizona
elections!
Name Withheld. I had not noticed that Mr. Ableser still maintained a campaign website. But it is indeed right here.
Update I just received this letter. Dear Mr. Patterson, I would like you to file a correction on your website regarding Edward Ableser's website. The website was taken down after the 2004 election cycle and was only recently put back up. You are welcome to use my name. I don't believe that I mentioned that I am I am Ed's campaign manager. Since we are still developing our new website, we have re-posted the old one in the interim. I will be sure to let you know when we post our new website as I am sure it will give you a lot of new material. Thanks for the reply and for offering to post the correction. I look forward to future correspondence. Sincerely, Dennis J. Quinlan
Fair and Balanced. Some of you may have noticed that I'm occasionally critical of the Republic's political coverage. I'm quick to point out coverage that I perceive as biased, inadequate or offensive, so I think it's only fair that I make mention of stories that are well done. Sunday's insider contained such a story. The point of the story is that Len Munsil is ready to jump into the Governor's race. Reporters tip their hands when they label candidates and I've been critical of words like "ultra, neo, rock ribbed, extreme, right wing etc." that many reporters feel obliged to put in front of the word "conservative." So I was actually pretty impressed with this description of the Republican field. (The intro is a bit too snarky, but hey, it's the insider.) ...GOP field that includes former Senate
President John Greene, Republican activist Don Goldwater and retired Judge
Jan Florez. Of course, I had to read that part while on the floor, because before they described the rest of the GOP field, they described Len Munsil. Munsil, an outspoken social conservative who once edited ASU's State Press with a Reaganesque tilt, should shake up the Republican primary because his built-in grass-roots army of supporters. Until recently, Munsil headed an influential conservative advocacy group called the Center for Arizona Policy. What? No references to the Crusades or Joan of Arc? No little hints that women would wear burkas in a Munsil administration? No discussion of Pat Robertson or James Dobson? The Center for Arizona Policy is an "influential conservative advocacy group" and Munsil is an outspoken social conservative and edited the State Press with a Reaganesque tilt? That informative and fair. Well done. I'd buy the reporters an espresso, if, you know, they were speaking to me.
It's Going to be Graf. Before every election, I have lunch at Los Dos Molinos with some friends and we use a place mat or napkin to write down our predictions for the winners and losers. Those napkins are a monument to bad punditry. People who haven't seen those napkins often ask me who's going to replace Kolbe. I respond with confidence that it will be Randy Graf--they usually gasp. Conventional wisdom is that a pro-life conservative like Graf is hopelessly out of touch with the Tucson electorate and while he may win the primary, he will be crushed in the general. Furthermore, since the Tucson Republicans seem Hell bent to nominate the unelectable Mr. Graf, Karl Rove and his minions are working valiantly to find a moderate woman--like Lute Olson's wife Christine--to move into the district and save the seat. I think it's bunk. Graf is a zealot on the one issue in which the electorate is more conservative than the elected officials--immigration. If the issue is immigration, a Democrat can't win--not in District 8 and not state wide. They can only win by making sure the issue is education, health care, all day K etc. If they can't say "I believe we need to (insert policy proposal here) for the children." They will lose. And since they are unwilling to say I believe we need to "build a 700 mile wall" for the children. They had better change the subject. If Democrats try to triangulate and win on immigration, they will only succeed in joining Governor Napolitano while she impersonates a Chinese acrobat. In the rest of the state, smart Democrats may manage to focus on other issues. But in a district that borders Mexico and with Gabby Giffords' prior votes on immigration issues, District 8 is going to be all immigration, all the time. Graf wins. Now, please pass the salsa.
December 23, 2005 End of the Punking. Thank goodness that all the Punk'd signs are finally down.
Here's a letter from Senator Harper to Mr. Schweikert Dear Treasurer David Schweikert I'm writing to protect the authority of the Arizona Legislature against counsel provided to you by Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas that advocates unconstitutional and illegal conduct.
Round off, Flip Flop, Double Back with a Full Twist Governor Napolitano added another trick to her immigration gymnastics routine this week. But first let's review the women's floor event thus far. Fall 2004 Governor Napolitano Opposes Proposition 200. Spring 2005 Governor Napolitano vetoes the bills that implement Prop 200. She vetoed SB 1186 which incorporated into statute Prop 200 requirements for proof of citizenship when registering to vote. ...Vetoed SB 1306 Which would have allowed police officers to enforce immigration laws. ...Vetoed SB 1511 which would have banned state agencies and law enforcement from accepting consular ID Cards. ....Vetoed HB 2709 which would have built a prison in Mexico to house undocumented immigrant criminals. ...Vetoed SB 1118 which would have prevented people from casting a provisional ballot if they could not produce ID. ...Vetoed HB 2030 which would have banned undocumented immigrants from adult courses and government-sponsored benefits and prevented them from paying reduced in-state tuition. Summer 2005 Governor Napolitano calls a private summit of law enforcement agencies to address illegal immigration….but doesn't attend because she is traveling to Moscow. Key legislative leaders are not invited but show up anyway and are turned away by DPS. August 2005 Governor Napolitano criticizes the federal government for "moving too slow" on border security, and declares a state of emergency along Arizona's border with Mexico. September 6, 2005
Ignoring her previous
opposition and conveniently forgetting half a dozen vetoes, the Governor's
office claims that: The Governor asks for Huricane Katrina relief funding to be diverted to the “disaster” on Arizona’s border. Later that month JD Hayworth expresses outrage at her Katrina play and says she is no better than the looters. A FEMA spokesman said while FEMA would review any request the state would file, the request for federal disaster aid dollars is inappropriate. "This is not the intent of the law,’’ November 15, 2005 Governor Napolitano quietly drops her request for "disaster" relief, and continues to insist that the issue requires a federal solution "The federal government has failed in its responsibility in securing our border,’’
December 22, 2005 The federal government votes to secure the border by adding 700 miles to the existing walls. Mexican officials oppose the plan and after Hectoring the Bush administration and Arizona's congressional delegation for months that they must secure the border...the Governor sides with the Mexican Government. The governor also found herself in agreement with several officials from the Mexican government who denounced the whole idea of a border wall. That includes Mexican President Vicente Fox who called the idea "disgraceful'' and "shameful.'' The governor said Wednesday the proposal, part of a House bill approved by a 239-182 vote, would be a waste of money. Full Twisting Back Flip This latest double back flip dismount gets additional points for an enhanced degree of difficulty because it contains a full twist. The full twist occurred during the back flip when she briefly compared the border wall the the Berlin Wall. She recalled 1987 speech by then President Reagan, standing near the Brandenburg Gate, at the Berlin Wall. There, Reagan called upon the head of the Soviet Union to "tear down this wall.' But when pressed, Napolitano insisted she was not comparing the plan to build a fence to keep illegal entrants out of the United States from the wall which kept citizens of Communist East Germany in from escaping to the West. "You know what?'' she said. "Forget that. It was a comment that, we'll just go on.'' Somehow I don't think that will be the last time we hear the Governor address a previous immigration statement with the words.... "You know what?'' "Forget that. It was a comment that, we'll just go on.'' Yes, I guess we'll just go on.
December 22, 2005
Here's a letter about my Horizon Post Re: Nice Takedown on Fischer Greg Makes me wonder if it might not be a good idea to watch the Horizon Journalist Roundtable on Fridays and then post a Horizon "Whopper of the Week" on your blog. I have the feeling that those guys feel free to bloviate anywhich way (a la Fischer), and some feedback might keep them honest. Name Withheld That's a great idea, but I'm not much of a TV guy, so I haven't watched Horizon in about 5 years. I had a tip that they were going to discuss espresso pundit so I recorded it last Friday and when people emailed to let me know that Howie had gone off the deep end, I played that part of the tape.
Here's my Award for Funniest Christmas Video Try this video gift from Copper State made just for you, proving once again that we have no shame. Merry Christmas http://www.copperstate.net/greeting.wmv
Becky Fenger Points out who Deserves Coal This Year Gov. Janet Napolitano’s appointment of former U.S. Senator Dennis DeConcini on Dec. 12 to the Arizona Board of Regents. This Tucson Democrat is a highly-paid D.C. lobbyist who seldom graces the state of Arizona. Even more galling to me is the fact that one of the disgraced “Keating Five” should be in charge of our state’s university system. Regents should be above reproach. Becky raises an excellent point. I'm looking forward to pulling Mr. DeConcini's attendance record about this time next year. The next lump goes to Skip Rimsza. Former Phoenix Mayor Skip Rimsza’s plan to run for Arizona Secretary of State and to expand the description of the office to include transportation planning. Never mind the state Constitution. Now he could play toy train with the entire state instead of just screwing up the traffic flow in Phoenix. Not cute at all.
December 21, 2005 The District 20 Recount is getting increasingly bizarre. (Update: Senator Harper emailed his version of events to me this morning, together with a copy of a letter that he sent to President Bennett. They are presented at the bottom of the entry.) Senator Jack Harper showed up at the County Treasurer's Office this morning with a film crew and "ballot expert" and attempted to enforce his Legislative Subpoena seeking to examine the ballots in the District 20 race. Harper presented this handwritten emergency motion. Click here to see a full copy. (This one is a must see.) Schweikert was not in the office and the staff said that Harper's "tone was very unpleasant at this point. Much different from the day before when he came in." The scene escalated from that point and the staff reports that "since security had not yet responded to our call, I went into the front lobby and requested assistance. The security officer asked them to leave per my request, no cameras or filming in our lobby. It took 3 to 4 requests from security before they would leave." The exchange caused County Attorney Andy Thomas to present the following letter to Senate President Ken Bennett. Dear President Bennett: It has come to my attention that Senator Jack Harper, Chairman of the Senate Government Accountability and Reform Committee is engaging in a series of bizarre and erratic actions that, I submit, cast serious doubt on his fitness to serve as a committee chairman and to possess the subpoena and police powers attendant to that position. The following is a synopsis of some of those actions.
Harper Responds I received this email from Senator Harper this morning. Hi Greg, Actually, the Deputy Treasurer handed me the response letter and angrily told me that they were not handing over the ballots. The "camera crew" was one person, me. And, I got out of there as soon as I could. Just because four people told me to "get out" does not mean that they told me repeatedly, as is vaguely described. The documentary will be of historical interest when this matter is complete. I apologize that it makes county officials uneasy. Jack Here's Harper's Letter to Bennett President Bennett, I did file a motion yesterday that was NOT hand-written. After weeks of the Treasurer and the County Attorney promising that they would not oppose a court order, the County Attorney's office did just that. After what appears to be stalling the entire day, at 4:55 pm the judge said the court order was being contested. This was a double-cross to the citizens of Maricopa County on the only day that the elections expert was able to run the ballots from the LD-20 primary election. As to Thomas' accusations about threatening phone calls, in one conversation, I told Bruce White that the press would be all over the issue if they did not cooperate with the court order as they had promised. White said that they would not sign on to the motion as the judge had stipulated for an uncontested court order. He said that they had promised to not oppose a court order, but will not sign onto the motion to ask for the court order. He said that was a different thing. I said, "Legally, it is. Politically, it is not." I then warned him that if they stop the court order by not helping with the judge's stipulation, the press "would be all over this." I do not think that constitutes "threatening" phone calls as they have vaguely accused. Mr. President, there are serious questions that have not been answered about that election. Thomas' efforts to have me removed as a committee chairman will only add to the public perception of a lack of election integrity. Thank you for not giving in to those that would want to hinder this investigation. State Senator Jack W. Harper
December 20, 2005 Terror in Chandler
Doesn't it seem odd that a man named Ali tries to blow up a Home Depot in Chandler yesterday and the Republic buries it on B2?
A man who police
say drove his car through the front doors of a Chandler Home Depot told
authorities that he wanted to cause an explosion in the store, according
to court records released Monday.
Court documents show that Ali Warrayat, a 24-year-old Gilbert man and former store employee, said he wanted to be killed or deported from the United States.
Fischer Cut Bait There are only two facets of professional punditry—the facts and the analysis. Howie Fischer discussed the Ted Downing controversy on Horizon last Friday and botched both. Regular espresso pundit readers will know that I questioned the legality of Representative Downing serving in the Legislature while working at the University of Arizona. Here's the original post. I also reported that Senator Blendu is checking into the legality of the arrangement now that Downing is seeking an appointment to the state Senate. Horizon picked up on the story last Friday. Phil Riske was giving the background and had just credited espresso pundit when Howie Fischer interrupted. Ok, here’s the interesting thing about that weblog, the blog which is put out by former lawmaker Greg Patterson only selectively quotes what is in Ted Downing’s own background and what he does as a researcher and leaves out the part where he says he actually works with students. That is, of course, demonstrably false. I have been very clear that my concern is not that Downing doesn’t ever teach. My concern is that if he teaches at all, it is merely an incidental portion of his employment. Here is the passage from the December 11th post in which I print Downing’s teaching experience from his own website. Teaching and Research Completed over 15 major interdisciplinary research projects and presented seminars, lectures and courses to impart this knowledge to students and the public. Directed research teams ranging from 3 to 25 scientists. Trained indigenous research teams. Responsibilities included responding to requests for proposals; writing research proposals; defining specific objectives; reviewing literature, statistical analysis, and structural analysis; training researchers; time scheduling and research task coordination; outlining, editing and writing final reports; and presentation of results to professionals and the public. Then I raised the key question... Can that possibly be construed as "primarily teaching?" I assert that it cannot. Howie’s assertion that I “selectively quoted Downing’s background and left out the part where he worked with students” is false and defamatory. I would like it corrected, but I’m not holding my breath. Facts to Analysis--Riske Proposition Phil Riske then challenged Fischer by switching from the facts to the analysis, but admitted that he didn’t recall the exact language of the rule. Riske recalled that the requirement for a teacher is to “impart knowledge,” but he forgot that the key provision of the attorney General’s opinion is the word “primarily.” Howie then followed a rabbit trail and demonstrated that despite being a good journalist, he would be a lousy lawyer. Here’s the deal. If he has one assistant, one teaching assistant one student assistant, that imparts knowledge. That’s the problem and no court is going to try to parse the…what is imparting knowledge is other than we’re not doing much of it on this show. Well the last part is right on. Howie wasn’t imparting much knowledge last Friday. Here’s the key passage from AG opinion 73-4 dated December 13, 1972. (Special thanks to the staff of the State Solicitor General’s office who are Westlaw gurus.) In the institutions of higher education an instructor is one who is hired primarily to impart knowledge to the students enrolled in the institution. All other employees in the public school system are subject to the constitutional prohibition against being a member of the Legislature while holding public employment. (Emphasis mine.) Clearly “imparting knowledge” to one teaching assistant does not meet the test of being “hired primarily to impart knowledge to the students enrolled in the institution.” My original question stands. Is Dr. Downing “primarily” a teacher, or is teaching an incidental component of his job as a researcher? His own website indicates that it is the later. I’m still open to someone proving me wrong. Downing may come up with proof that he is employed primarily as a teacher. An attorney out there may demonstrate that AG opinion 73-4 no longer applies. I’m open to being challenged on the facts or on the analysis. But whoever comes forward is going to have to do a better job than Howie. And by the way…I noticed that Pete Rios works for Maricopa County and Kyrsten Sinema works for ASU. I wonder if they were hired to primarily impart knowledge? Maybe that deserves a look see.
Speaking of Corrections. I got this letter yesterday. Great piece on Talton, although one small thing. I believe the intergenerational wealth line he uses comes from a study put out by Boston College. Some astronomical sum is going to be transferred from the baby boomers to their kids in the next 30 years or so. This doesn't have anything to do with Social Security, just the dying off of a rich generation. You can read more about it here… http://www.bc.edu/research/swri/features/wealth/ I stand corrected.
Harper Subpoenas Purcell Senator Harper issued a subpoena to County Recorder Hellen Purcell today. Word is that he showed up in his finest suit; brought a video camera and tripod; set it all up; handed her a subpoena; took it all down and went back to his office. Pundits are asking the obvious question...Why doesn't he just sue? Here's a copy of the subpoena.
Strange Bedfellows Indeed The Arizona Capitol Times is reporting that the New Times is funding Senator Harper's investigation. Here's an interesting letter on the topic. My response follows. Greg: Name Withheld You raise an excellent point. Can Kraft foods pay for an investigation of teen
obesity rates? Sure, but writing a check to the Senate Health Committee so
they can conduct the investigation is probably not a good idea.
Maybe Halliburton can provide some cash for Tom Delay to do a
redistricting study in Texas. If the Arizona Daily Star gave a bunch
of money to Toni Hellon so she could conduct an investigation of education
issues, the state would come unglued. Financial entanglements between
legislators and business--even newspapers--are inherently suspect.
December 19, 2005 Schweikert Responds to Harper If you have been following the District 20 Recount, you will know that The New Times and Senator Harper want to get their hands on the ballots in order to determine why nearly 500 new ballots appeared on the recount. Harper issued a Subpoena to Schweikert who promptly gave it to the County Attorney. Here's Schweikert's response to Harper. It looks like they have worked it out. I've printed an email from Harper below the Schweikert letter. Dear Senator Harper: This letter responds to the subpoena you served on me in my official capacity as the Maricopa County Treasurer. In this subpoena, you have requested that the District 20 ballots of the primary election of September 2004 be turned over to an “independent expert.” After consultation with the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, it is their conclusion that A.R.S. §16-624 prohibits the Maricopa County Treasurer from transferring possession of the ballots cast in the September 7, 2004 primary election in the absence of a court order. To read the rest of the letter, click here.
Possible Compromise--Here's a letter from Senator Harper. Greg
David said he would go with me to court on
Monday to assure the judge that the court order will not be contested.
He even offered to chip in on the legal expenses. David
understands that when someone seeks to hold government accountable, they
usually end up battling the full resources of that government.
Jack
A Random Walk on Talton I received a lot of responses about this Talton piece. Here's a funny letter. Re: Dude Great Column Greg Great job on Talton…I’m still laughing. I took your idea about reading it backwards and went a bit further, I counted 17 paragraphs (though I hate the new trend of one-sentence paragraphs…) and I literally randomized the 17. There was NO rhyme or reason to the random assignation – none. And yet… The attached is the random assignation of Talton’s column. You’re right. It is none the worse. Paul Walker I actually think Walker's random version is a bit more lucid than the original. It's hilarious to read both columns. Here's Talton's original and here's Walker's randomized version. The numbers at the end of Walker's paragraphs represent the order the paragraph appeared in the original Talton piece. Enjoy.
Too Much Rum... My fellow blogger from the Old Pueblo is more savvy than the traditional media types, but he blew this one. In responding to my December 16th entry (immediately below) Tedski made this point. In a recent entry, (Patterson) criticizes oft quoted numbers that show Kyl's approval rating in that dangerous sub-50 range. He takes a look at the cross tabs and sees that Kyl, unsuprisingly, does better among self-identified conservatives, and poorly among Hispanics and moderates. So, I am hoping that Patterson isn't saying that the Republicans are counting on low turnout among Hispanics and moderates. No Ted, my point is that the Business Journal continues to take the SurveyUSA poll of ADULTS and say that the results can be assigned to VOTERS. That would be fine if nearly every adult voted. And it would be fine if those who don't vote tended to have the same opinions as those who vote. But we know that neither one is the case. A large percentage adults don't vote, and the groups that have high turnout don't usually have the same opinions as those who have low turnout. The Business Journal pointed out that Kyl's support was lower among Hispanics and Moderates. My point is that we know that Hispanics and Moderates have lower turnout percentages. Therefore the Business Journal's mistaken interpretation of the sample obviously skews the result and makes Kyl's numbers look lower than they are.
December 16, 2005 Come on guys, read the fine print The Business Journal gets it wrong. A new poll by SurveyUSA found that 46 percent of Arizona voters approve of Kyl's job performance: 39 percent of those surveyed disapprove and 15 percent were not sure. Really? If you read the methodology, the Survey USA poll wasn't a voter poll. It was an adult poll. 600 adults age 18+ in each of the 50 states were interviewed by SurveyUSA 12/9/05 to 12/11/05. Back to the Business Journal: Kyl enjoys support from conservatives and fellow Republicans, but receives less than stellar approval ratings from Hispanics and political moderates. Now, let's think about that last sentence for a second. Of the aforementioned adults, who do you think is more likely to vote--the conservatives and fellow Republicans, or the Hispanics and political moderates? Did you hear the story about the moderates who staged a march in front of the Capitol. They chanted "What do we want?...Gradual Change! When do we want it?...in due time!" Moderate views are often accompanied by moderate intensity. "You mean there was an election yesterday? Dang, I can't believe I missed it. Who won?" "Jon Kyl." "Bummer, I was going to vote for the millionaire strip mall guy, you know, what's his name, Pederman."
December 15, 2005 Rules Chairman Seeks Opinion on Downing's Eligibility.
Senator Robert Blendu announced today that
he is seeking a legal opinion regarding Ted Downing's eligibility to
serve in the Senate. "The rules apply equally to everyone.
If Dr. Downing is ineligible to be seated we will not look the other
way." Senator Blendu is the Senate Rules Chairman and
Parliamentarian.
Blendu cited Article 4 section 5 of the
state Constitution says that:
No member of the legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed shall be eligible to hold any other office or be otherwise employed by the state of Arizona or, any county or incorporated city or town thereof. This prohibition shall not extend to the office of school trustee, nor to employment as a teacher or instructor in the public school system.
Downing is employed by the
University of Arizona. An Attorney General's opinion concerning
the teaching exemption states that the Legislator's state employment
must be devoted primarily to instructing students.
Downing's website describes his University employment this way: Responsibilities included responding to requests for proposals; writing research proposals; defining specific objectives; reviewing literature, statistical analysis, and structural analysis; training researchers; time scheduling and research task coordination; outlining, editing and writing final reports; and presentation of results to professionals and the publicRep. Downing, Rep. David Bradley as well as Paula Aboud are the three finalists in the effort to replace State Senator Gabrielle Giffords who resigned her seat in order to run for the Congressional seat being vacated by Jim Kolbe. The final selection will be made by the Pima County Board of Supervisors which much choose a Democrat to fill the spot.
December 14, 2005
Prezelski calls for Downing's Resignation...Ok, maybe not. Old Pueblo Uber blogger Ted Prezelski is unimpressed with my comparison of Ted Downing's shenanigans with Kim Sheane's troubles. (Scroll down a few entries.) One of my main points is that Downing is not allowed to serve in the Legislature while working for the University of Arizona unless he is primarily engaged in teaching. Downing's own website indicates that he is not a teacher. In his rebuttal of my argument, Ted makes an excellent point. So, to counter this, Patterson brings up Rep. Ted Downing. Downing works for the University of Arizona. Now, Patterson brings up a state law that may actually prohibit Downing from serving because of his position. If this is true, which would be odd given how many university employees have served, then he should step aside. Yes, Ted it's true, and indeed he should step aside. Surely Downing won't be able to resist the overwhelming pressure if BOTH of us think he should step aside. Hah, I mock myself. Ted's right, there have been several Legislators who were simultaneously employed by Universities. I served with three of them. John Wettaw was an NAU Chemistry professor who taught thousands of undergraduates and did little else. He was clearly a teacher. George Cunningham had an administrative position at UA, but I recall that he took the honorable (and legal) route by resigning when he got elected. (Perhaps he was appointed the first time. I don't recall.) Dr. Andy Nichols was probably in violation of the statute but tragically died in office before the point was ever seriously raised. Downing should either demonstrate that his position at UA primarily involves teaching, or he should step aside.
Ableser Settles Arizona State University faculty associate Ed Ableser violated rules for in-kind donations during his unsuccessful 2004 campaign for a District 17 seat in the state House of Representatives, according to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. He will pay a civil penalty of $1,566.03 for what one state official called "sloppy" bookkeeping. You will recall that Ableser is the candidate from Tempe who pulled a Clean Elections hat trick by writing a reimbursement check to his dad for a party. Respondent agrees to pay to the Commission,
within 30 days of the date of this Settlement Agreement, a civil penalty
in the amount of $1,566.03, which is the sum of the reimbursements for
expenditures that were not reported on the same day the expenditures were
made. Respondent acknowledges that the Commission has the authority to fine Respondent ten times the amount by which expenditures exceeded the applicable limits pursuant to A.R.S. §16-942(B), which is $15,660.30. Authority or Duty? Ed Ableser may have to acknowledge that the Commission has the authority to fine the him 10 times the amount of the expenditure, but the Clean Elections Commission needs to acknowledge that it has a DUTY to fine the respondent 10 times the amount of the violation. Here's the language of A.R.S. §16-942(A) and A.R.S. §16-942(B) A The civil penalty for a violation of any contribution or expenditure limit in section 16-941 by or on behalf of a participating candidate shall be ten times the amount by which the expenditures or contributions exceed the applicable limit. B. In addition to any other penalties imposed by law, the civil penalty for a violation by or on behalf of any candidate of any reporting requirement imposed by this chapter shall be one hundred dollars per day for candidates for the legislature and three hundred dollars per day for candidates for statewide office. The penalty imposed by this subsection shall be doubled if the amount not reported for a particular election cycle exceeds ten percent of the adjusted primary or general election spending limit. No penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection shall exceed twice the amount of expenditures or contributions not reported. The candidate and the candidate's campaign account shall be jointly and severally responsible for any penalty imposed pursuant to this subsection. Since section 941 was approved by voters, even the Legislature lacks the authority to reduce the fine.
Instead of circulating his same three columns, the Republic's Jon Talton decided today to randomly cut and paste from them. I estimate that Talton costs the Republic just under $1,000 a column in wages and benefits. This one reads like a random sample of sentences. Surely it was slapped together in under 15 minutes. Maybe he's facing a deadline on one of his novels. The White House Conference on Aging, a once-a-decade gabfest, has begun. Considering that the Bush administration did little to adopt the 9/11 commission findings to make the country safer from terrorism, it's unlikely much will be done to make the country safer for retiring baby boomers. That's a standard Talton opening, a cynical
reference to conference or study that will never be mentioned again and a
gratuitous slam of the Bush administration. It's often said that the boomers will be the beneficiaries of the
"greatest intergenerational transfer of wealth in history." I guess we all
know some fortunate son or daughter who doesn't have to work too hard as a
result. But wait . . . What? That greatest
transfer quote is about social security, not inheritance. I
certainly don't know anyone who doesn't have to work because their parents
are giving them a lot of money. There's that large low-wage workforce that services the swells in
their resorts, McMansions and golf courses. They're getting older, too.
And they won't be buying at the Biltmore.
Huh? These paragraphs read like a wardrobe from the Gap. They can be used in any combination and make the exact same sense. Seriously, read the column backwards--starting at the McMansions and ending at the gabfest--and the column reads exactly the same. It's like the world's longest palindrome. But hey, for $1,000 in 15 minutes, the guy's not going to retire on cat food. But eventually, the Republic columnists who actually work for a living are going to get pretty ticked off at Talton's random rants.
December 13, 2005 The March of Folly I enjoy the work of Barbara Tuchman. Here's an excerpt from the March of Folly. A phenomenon noticeable throughout history regardless of place or period is the pursuit of governments of policies contrary to their own interests. Tuchman goes on to point out that the dogged pursuit of policies contrary to self interest is not limited to government. Her examples--the Renaissance Popes, Vietnam strategists, British labor unions--demonstrate the tendency of those who are in power to follow a road to self destruction despite its being well marked. I believe we are experiencing two modern iterations of this phenomenon in the movie and newspaper industry. Both are in steep decline. The movie industry had another bad year.. Here's Tammy Bruce's take on it. Not only will we not go see films which insult us, we refuse to support an existential worldview. We happen to think life does matters, that decency is a good thing, and that people are inherently good, not bad. We also have stopped believing the lie that Americans are bad people. We looked away for 4 decades as that lie was spread, but that time is over. Newspaper circulation continues to be in freefall. Average weekday circulation of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. 1. USA Today, 2,296,335, down 0.59 percent 2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,083,660, down 1.10 percent 3. The New York Times, 1,126,190, up 0.46 percent 4. Los Angeles Times, 843,432, down 3.79 percent 5. New York Daily News, 688,584, down 3.70 percent 6. The Washington Post, 678,779, down 4.09 percent 7. New York Post, 662,681, down 1.74 percent 8. Chicago Tribune, 586,122, down 2.47 percent 9. Houston Chronicle, 521,419, down 6.01 percent 10. The Boston Globe, 414,225, down 8.25 percent 11. The Arizona Republic, 411,043, down 0.54 percent The Republic's drop may seem minor, but it occurred in one of the fastest growing counties in the nation and it came on the heals of last year's precipitous drop. The average daily circulation for Monday-Saturday distribution of The Republic is 413,268. That's a 4.4 percent drop from its 432,285 paid subscribers in September 2003 and a 7.9 percent drop from 2002. Yet Hollywood continues to wallow in Michael Moore type conspiracies like George Clooney's Ishtar on the Euphrates epic Syriana. Newspapers, unable to see their own bias and poor quality, continue to blame the internet and Ipods for their steady decline. In my real job, I work with lawyers and accountants in their 40s and 50s. Very few of them subscribe to the Republic, and it's not because they spend their time listening to Eminem on their Ipods. Its because they are tired of Talton, the sophomoric political coverage and junk like this. Skin Cabaret has entertained thousands of visitors and residents for 30 years, quietly co-existing with its south Scottsdale neighbors as a low-profile contributor to the city's hospitality industry. How's that for a biased lede? Golly, the Skin Cabaret is just like an arcadia fruit stand or independent pharmacy it just quietly co-exists with its neighbors. Can we figure out what the reporter thinks of the proposed zoning ordinance? How's this for a hint? The impact on Scottsdale's two adult clubs - Skin and Babe's Cabaret - is so draconian the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Commerce is protesting the move. Draconian? Reporter Lesley Wright isn't quoting someone here; Draconian is her term. Is that a neutral term to describe legislation to regulate strip clubs? Here's my favorite part. Possible religious linkThe Community Defense Counsel is tied to the Alliance Defense Fund,
a Christian-affiliated non-profit group that fields attorneys across the
nation. When Hollywood and the newspaper industries start to provide a high-quality product that doesn't insult the intelligence of the entire audience, or the values of half of it, maybe they will sell some tickets or papers. Of course, General Westmorland and the Renaissance Popes never figured it out either.
December 12, 2005
Powerful the Dark Side Is. From today's Star At least eight Democrats want to be named to the Arizona Senate seat given up by Gabrielle Giffords, a party official said. Also seeking the nomination are... Ted Prezelski, the brother of Rep. Tom Prezelski of Tucson; It should read: Ted Prezelski, author of the definitive South-of-the-Gila political blog Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.
My Source for Future Readers I took my kids to the dentist yesterday and saw this sign.
The All Day K Debate is Heating up Gov. Janet Napolitano is expected to make a hefty budget request next year -- as much as $75 million to $100 million -- for all-day kindergarten, which could spark an election year budget battle with Republicans who favor tax cuts and tighter spending. Providing state money for public schools to offer voluntary all-day K has been a priority for Napolitano since she took office in 2003. The program would have a $200 million to $250 million annual price tag when fully implemented. However, the most comprehensive study of all day kindergarten demonstrates that early benefits fade quickly and by third grade, the kids who had half-day Kindergarten are actually ahead of those who had full-day kindergarten. (Click here to see the graph.) Here's an op ed piece from the Wall Street Journal that details the downside of a similar proposal in California. The real victims would be low- to middle-income women who run nearly all private early-care centers that comprise 70% of California's child-care industry. The onerous credentialing requirements and union mandates that the initiative would trigger would devastate the industry's entrepreneurs without improving instruction one iota. If Governor Napolitano has an extra $200 million a year to burn, maybe she can find a program that has the potential to do some good and doesn't wipe out an entire class of small businesswomen.
Another good Wallflower Letter
Hurrah for you bringing the
"Wallflower" book to the attention of adults in AZ. Your assessment
about the book being in the library of schools is entirely correct. This
represents just a foot in the door if it goes unchallenged.
Although I don't have any children in schools now, I still believe I should have a say where my tax dollars are spent.
Jerry W Bains MD
The Republic Reports and Important Story... But Treats it as a Joke.
Catch me if you can . . . Sen. Linda Gray,
R-Glendale, and Rep. Laura Knaperek, R-Tempe, are trying to shore up
support for the 2.0 version of last session's higher education bill, which
would have allowed community colleges to give four-year degrees. Hah, that's a hoot. Dr. Downing sabotaged a meeting in which legislators were seeking to advance a provision that the universities vehemently oppose--and did we mention that he's an employee of one of the universities that he's trying to protect? Golly that's funny. That Ted Downing, he's the life of the party. The saga of a university professor using his position as a Legislator to sabotage legislation that his employer opposes should be a serious story. If a Legislator working in the private sector sabotaged legislation opposed by his employer, it would be news--and it should be. But there are a few twists that convert Downing's actions from a good story, to a great story...and finally, into a sad story. Downing's Legislative Service is Illegal Article 4 section 5 of the state Constitution says that: No member of the legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed shall be eligible to hold any other office or be otherwise employed by the state of Arizona or, any county or incorporated city or town thereof. This prohibition shall not extend to the office of school trustee, nor to employment as a teacher or instructor in the public school system. There is an Attorney General's opinion adding that teaching must be the primary component of the employment. So you can't be a Legislator and state employee at the same time unless you are a trustee or teacher. And if you claim the teaching exemption, you need to be employed primarily as a teacher--not as a full-time administrator--or researcher--who picks up a class or two. The reason for this Constitutional provision is clear. The framers were concerned that if a Legislator worked for a state agency...that he might, you know, sabotage legislation that was opposed by his employer. The fact that Dr. Downing advocates on behalf of UA during budget negotiations goes without saying and would be a bigger deal if he actually had any influence on budget negotiations. Is Downing a Teacher? Dr. Downing's website lists his title as: Research Professor of Social Development. Does that primarily involve teaching? Here's how he describes his professional work. Teaching and Research Completed over 15 major interdisciplinary research projects and presented seminars, lectures and courses to impart this knowledge to students and the public. Directed research teams ranging from 3 to 25 scientists. Trained indigenous research teams. Responsibilities included responding to requests for proposals; writing research proposals; defining specific objectives; reviewing literature, statistical analysis, and structural analysis; training researchers; time scheduling and research task coordination; outlining, editing and writing final reports; and presentation of results to professionals and the public. Can that possibly be construed as "primarily teaching?" I assert that it can not. Double Standard? Contrast the Republic's reaction to Downing's conflict with the case of the hapless House staffer who had a conflict on the same issue. Here's an article written by the same reporter. It ran in the same section on the same day and involves a conflict on the same legislation. The Maricopa County attorney and Arizona attorney general are reviewing whether a top state House policy adviser had a conflict of interest when she was secretly paid for public relations work by the lobbying arm of the community college system. I guess this one's not as funny. Did Kim Sheane sabotage any meetings? Did she deny a quorum? Did she use her position to publicly sabotage legislation that the University of Arizona opposes while she was being paid a full-time salary by the UA? Does she earn two full retirements from the state of Arizona at the same time? Does she hold her position illegally? Obviously not. Yet the Attorney General, County Attorney, and Arizona Republic are investigating Kim Sheane while Ted Downing's activities are treated as a cute story to entertain political junkies while they eat their French toast. Why the disparate treatment? Well, Dr. Downing is a Professor, a Stanford Graduate, an elected official, a liberal Democrat, a respected member of the community and powerful advocate for the University of Arizona. Kim Sheane is a mid-level Republican staffer. Ted Downing is untouchable. Kim Sheane is expendable.
Schweikert Responds I mentioned last week that Senator Jack Harper has issues a subpoena to Maricopa County Treasurer David Schwiekert in order to compel Schweikert to present the District 20 Ballots to Harper's Government Reform Committee. Schweikert turned the subpoena over to the County Attorney. Harper is less than satisfied. Schwiekert sent me this letter Friday. Greg,
Sunday December 10th If you are looking for entries on Wallflower, click here.
December 9, 2005 District 17 Ableser Update:
Thank you to the Republic's Jahna Berry for the hat tip. The commission initiated the probe after Greg Patterson, a former state lawmaker, raised questions on his blog, espressopundit.com, about Ableser's campaign reports.
Clean Elections Staff: "Ableser Violated Campaign Law" The Staff of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission has concluded that District 17 House candidate Ed Ableser reported payments to individuals during the 2004 election cycle for reimbursement of goods and services. The expenditures exceeded both the aggregate and individual personal money limit by &646.12. Therefore in violation of A.R.S. 16-945 (A)(1), 16-945 (A)(2), 16-941 (A)(1), 16-941 (A)(2). Additionally, two expenditures totaling $1,653.10 were considered in-kind contributions until reimbursement of payments were made. During this time Ableser violated A.R.S. 16-945 (B) Here's the penalty for the 16-941 violations: The civil penalty for a violation of any contribution or expenditure limit in section 16-941 by or on behalf of a participating candidate shall be ten times the amount by which the expenditures or contributions exceed the applicable limit. Clean Elections staff confirmed today that the statutory penalty for these violations is over $22,000. However, staff indicated that Clean Elections has adopted a rule that caps the total fine at $10,000. Hmm, more on that in the next entry...
Can a Commission pass a Rule to Change a Statute? Doesn't it seem odd seem odd that the statute says the fine "shall be ten times the amount" But the Clean Elections Commission passed a rule that caps the amount at $10,000? CCEC staff confirmed to me today that they believe they can decrease the amount even further in settlement negotiations. The statute doesn't say "may impose a fine up to 10 times the amount." Even with broad rule-making authority, they shouldn't be able to adopt a rule that directly conflicts with a clear provision in statute. In fact, I believe that this portion of the statute was passed in the initiative itself. If that's the case then even the Legislature can't reduce the penalty provision. (The Legislature can further the language of an initiative with the vote of a super majority, but it would be pretty tough to argue that reducing the statutory penalty is in furtherance of the initiative.) I asked an attorney who has many years experience with election law and he confirmed this is beyond their authority and added that he believes the CCEC has numerous rules and policies that exceed their authority or conflict with statute. So when I served in the House, why did I waste so many nights debating "shall" and "may."
More on District 20 Greg, Saw your comments today on District 20 recount and Senator Harper’s subpoena of the ballots. Assume for a moment that Schweikert’s statement is true, I.e. He would love to comply with the subpoena, but needs a court order. If this is the case, then it really becomes gut check time for Andy Thomas. Does he allow his office to go into court and oppose a court order for the ballots and therefore remain complicit in the attempt to bury this whole tawdry incident with the County Recorder’s office. Or does he show the kind of leadership we all know he is capable of and say “you know what, the people of this state deserve to know what happened in that race, and more importantly they deserve to have 100% confidence in the integrity of their election process.” Thomas can be a real hero here and gain political points with the public (a la Eliot Spitzer in NY, maybe a bad example for conservatives, but I think you get the point) by working with Harper to get to the bottom of this. Unfortunately, I suspect his office will work with the County Recorder’s office to find a reason to keep these ballots under lock and key. They don’t want anyone looking at them. Name withheld Correction on the Schweikert post Several people have written to express disagreement that the statute I quoted applies in this case. Since I used the line that "Schwiekert pointed out the relevant statute," they are wondering if he is getting bad advice. I need to be more clear. Schweikert told me that his attorneys said he needs a court order. Then I looked up that statute and assumed that it was the one to which they referred. Here's what 16-624 says. It looks to me like it applies, but I shouldn't have assumed that his attorneys were using this section. A. Upon receipt of the packages and envelopes containing the returns and the voted ballots, the officer in charge of elections shall deposit the package or envelope containing the ballots in the safe of the county treasurer, who shall keep it unopened and unaltered for twenty-four months for elections for a federal office or for six months for all other elections, at which time he shall destroy it without opening or examining the contents. B. Irregular ballots shall be preserved for six months after the election and the packages containing them may be opened and the contents examined only upon an order of court. At the expiration of such time, the ballots may be disposed of in the discretion of the officer or board having charge of them. C. The officer in charge of elections shall produce the other packages or envelopes before the board of supervisors when it is in session for the purpose of canvassing the returns. D. If a recount is ordered or a contest begun within six months, the county treasurer may be ordered by the court to deliver to it the packages or envelopes containing the ballots, and thereupon they shall be in the custody and control of the court. I don't see a lot of wiggle room in that, but I'm not a lawyer.
I Got This E-mail From Arizona Together. Check out the link at the bottom. In search of the perfect gift for that special someone?
This holiday season, Arizona Together and RSVP Vacations have your shopping problems solved! Arizona Together, the campaign to defeat the "protect marriage" amendment, is currently auctioning a LUXURY, one week Mardi Gras cruise for two through the Western Caribbean, courtesy of RSVP Vacations, an all gay and lesbian travel company.
There is no better gift for that special someone (and yourself) like a week in paradise-- taking in the breathtaking sites, sipping drinks by the pool, and RELAXING in your deluxe room with a private verandah! PLUS, the winner will receive a gift that truly keeps on giving--100% of the proceeds of the auction go to Arizona Together!!! | ||||
