Bundgaard we know, but what about...

Then there's Daniel Patterson.

State Rep. Daniel Patterson (D-LD29), by all accounts a passionate environmental activist in Tucson, is currently embroiled in his own domestic situation.

Both Patterson and his wife, Jeneiene Schaffer filed for divorce last summer.

Schaffer sought an Order of Protection based on a history of domestic violence in their marriage.  Patterson has also, in the past, been charged with assault and disorderly conduct in situations not involving his wife.

There are a number of issues to sort out regarding the Pattersons' divorce and Daniel's temper, but some things are clear and evident.  At minimum, it appears Daniel has anger issues which have gotten him in trouble on multiple occasions and in a variety of situations.

Tucson blogger Three Sonorans wrote about this situation a couple of days ago.  Patterson left a comment on that blog saying:

This one-sided wrong blogger, who regularly attacks Arizona Democrats and pretty much everyone, has never attempted to contact me for the truth.
My wife and I agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family.
Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. Don’t believe the hype.
I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to.
Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.

The Arizona Eagletarian interviewed Schaffer and has made several attempts, by phone and email to get Patterson's side of the story. 

The ONLY response from Patterson sounds eerily the same as his comment to Three Sonorans AND like it was written by an attorney:

My wife and I have agreed to get a divorce. This is a hard time for me and my family. Sadly, there are some rumors around that have no merit. Don't believe the hype. I have always supported my family, I still do and I will continue to. Divorce is a difficult private personal family matter and I am asking people to please respect that.

However, Patterson is a public figure.   He has had multiple police reports filed which clearly reflect the fact that his temper/anger have gotten him in trouble.  There should be no question that this has become a matter of public concern. 

IF Patterson and his wife had AGREED on the divorce, having filed last summer, the litigation would not have been drawn out, it would be over by now.  As of today, there is no divorce decree, several hearings have taken place and a trial date has been set.  Those facts do not support a claim that he and his wife agreed on anything except that they needed to get a divorce.

Patterson further claims that he has always supported his family, still does, and will continue to do so.  What does Patterson mean when he uses the word "support?" 

Patterson's employer (other than the Arizona House of Representatives) is Washington, DC based non-profit Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).  PEER was served with wage assignment orders from the Pima County Courts in January. 

According to documents issued by the Pima County Child Support Clearinghouse, PEER has not yet responded to the order or forwarded any support for the Pattersons' daughter.  Schaffer's situation clearly shows that Patterson has not provided financial support as required by Arizona Revised Statutes Section 25-320 and ordered by Pima County Superior Court.

Is the irony in Patterson's comments along with the fact that whistle-blower organization PEER appears to be stonewalling on Patterson's behalf lost in the shuffle?

Anyone who has been through a divorce with children involved knows it puts a tremendous amount of stress on the family and on the children.


Many of Patterson's colleagues in the state legislature are aware of his anger issues.  Some have noted as much in communications with Schaffer.

While there are parallels between Bundgaard and Patterson and their situations, there are also major differences.  Bundgaard doesn't, as a result of his freeway encounter with Aubry Ballard, have to deal with supporting a child.

I can speculate as to why Tucson area Democrats didn't deal with Patterson's situation last summer.  It was election season.  Patterson represents a "safe" (another irony, perhaps?) district for Democrats in state legislative races. 

The Arizona Coalition against Domestic Violence has called for both Bundgaard and Patterson to resign.  In that call, the Coalition states:

Media reports and public statements about the current cases send a dangerous message to victims suffering through abuse that their calls for help may not be believed or answered.   

If they were to resign, Arizona law provides that those appointed to replace them would have to be from the same party as the resigning official.  What is the downside, from the perspective of the voters or political parties?

Have people forgotten the lessons of history, or did they ever learn in the first place?

In December, 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, "These are the times that try men's souls," at the beginning of his essay on the American Crisis.   

Was that the first time that tried men's souls?  Or the last?

Not only did Paine foment the American Revolution, he rebutted, in the Rights of Man, Edmund Burke's attack on those responsible for the French Revolution.   Burke wrote Reflections on the Revolution in France to dissuade Brits from getting any idea about doing the same thing.

 From EarlyAmerica.com:

When The Rights of Man was printed in America, it created a new sensation. Not because of the principles outlining American Jeffersonian democracy, but because the publisher had printed in the front of the book remarks from a letter from Thomas Jefferson, in which Jefferson pointed a finger at Vice-president Adams.

In England The Rights of Man encountered a response like no other in English publishing history. The poor pooled their pennies, supplementing it with meager savings to buy the book. The Rights of Man became an underground manifesto, passed from hand to hand, even when it became a crime to be found with it in one's possession.


The book became a bible to thousands of citizens who dreamed of a free England. Time after time, when men were tried for treason, invariably the Crown offered as evidence to the jury the fact that these men possessed a copy of The Rights of Man.

Outlawed for treason, Paine fled to France in 1792, never to return to England again.

And what of the revolution that Paine had started in England? Three generations would pass before even a small part of the things Paine pleaded for in his book would see fruition. Observed biographer Howard Fast: "Yet one cannot say that the book had no effect. It shook the government; it set thousands of people to thinking. It stirred the currents in what had been placid water, and once stirred, those currents never stilled themselves. And not only in England, but everywhere men longed for freedom, Rights of Man became an inspiration and a hope."

All of Paine's works reflected his belief in natural reason and natural rights, political equality, tolerance, civil liberties, and the dignity of man. (emphasis mine)

Can there be any question that Paine would have enthusiastically approved of what has taken place recently in Egypt and Tunisia?

But we are not England or France.  We are not in a repressive regime in Northern Africa.

Are these times, here in Arizona, that try men's souls?  Or women's or children's?

In the name of God, politicians at the state capitol in Arizona and Congress in DC are working to deprive women of fundamental rights to decisions that each woman must make between herself and her God.  In the name of God, those politicians declare that freedom is only for the privileged, not for all Americans. And that is but two of many issues whereby modern day theocrats are causing frustration and controversy.

Paine, "had a grand vision for society: he was staunchly anti-slavery, and he was one of the first to advocate a world peace organization and social security for the poor and elderly." (from a link provided above).

Perhaps it's time for a refresher course on the philosophical foundation of our great nation.  And the writings of Thomas Paine would be a very good place to start.

It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is!

During the first meeting of Arizona's Independent Redistricting Commission last Thursday, Linda McNulty framed questions to the five interviewees by saying that they (the IRC) wanted the public to be proud of both the final product (the district lines/maps) AND the process.

To that end, they voted that day to give themselves some time to reflect on the candidates, their applications and interviews.  So far, so good.  Thoughtfulness and reflection are good things.

The commission reconvened today at 1pm to complete the selection process.  After three people offered public comment (including this blogger), the commission went into executive session, for the apparent purpose of receiving legal counsel.

Emerging an hour and a half later, they promptly -- and without ANY public deliberation -- voted to appoint, by unanimous acclamation, Colleen Mathis to serve as commission chair for the next ten years.

Enter former President Bill Clinton.  "It depends on what the meaning of the word "IS" is."

Consider some of the meanings of the word, "deliberation."

de·lib·er·a·tion  (d-lb-rshn)n.

1. The act or process of deliberating.

2. deliberations Discussion and consideration of all sides of an issue: the deliberations of a jury.

3. Thoughtfulness in decision or action.

4. Leisureliness in motion or manner: The girl stacked the blocks with deliberation.

Following adjournment, the room erupted in a dull roar of many congratulations and handshakes, reporters asking questions of each of the five commissioners, and an undercurrent of concern about the complete absence of public deliberation.

This blogger asked three of the first four commissioners about this issue.

Democrat Jose Herrera flat out (emphatically) denied that ANY deliberation took place during the hour and a half long executive session.  I then asked if the entire time was taken up by the Assistant Attorney General, James E. Barton II, giving them legal advice.  Herrera claimed that was what happened.

Republican Richard Stertz described a process of discussion BY the COMMISSIONERS of each of the candidates.  When asked if that constituted deliberation outside of the public view, he denied it.  Then asked if he cared what the public thought about the fact that the deliberations were done privately, he skillfully danced (verbally) around the question, carefully avoiding any direct answer, though I posed it at least three times.

Democrat Linda McNulty also described deliberations and actually used that very word to describe what they had done.  However, when asked directly, she said that they actually had NOT made their decision about who to vote for until the motion was made to unanimously select Ms. Mathis.

Given that there was literally NO discussion after Ken Bennett struck the gavel to reconvene publicly after the executive session, prior to the motion being voted on, it seems -- on its face -- that the four commissioners DID deliberate behind closed doors for what should have been done in open, public session.

Two attorneys I spoke with gave interesting replies when I asked them about the propriety of the closed deliberations.  One said that he "could make an argument" that the selection of the fifth commissioner was a "personnel decision."  In which case, executive session would be appropriate.  Of course, when an attorney says he "could make an argument," that's a clear indication that the situation is, at best, questionable.

The other attorney expressed the belief that what the IRC had done today was illegal.

Don't get me wrong, Colleen Mathis is, by all observations, a fine person and will likely do well in her role as IRC chair.  However, in light of Commissioner McNulty declaring repeatedly last week her concern that the public be proud of the PROCESS they are about to undertake, the way the commission conducted itself today is a dubious start toward that goal.

Those wacky state senate Republicans... or at least one of them

News reports today indicate that Arizona state Senate Majority Leader Scott Bundgaard (R-LD4) was involved in a domestic violence incident in NE Phoenix on Friday night. 

Bundgaard was briefly taken into custody after Phoenix Police responded to calls of a man pulling a woman out of a gold vehicle stopped on Arizona highway 51 (Piestewa Freeway).  Officers reported that both Bundgaard and his female passenger, (Bundgaard's girlfriend) Aubry Ballard, 34, showed signs of having been in a physical altercation.

Ballard was arrested for assault but Bundgaard invoked immunity as a lawmaker with the state legislature in session and therefore was not arrested.

This is not Bundgaard's first run in with the law.  According to a report in the Phoenix New Times, he "served two years' probation for his part in a scheme to steal automotive equipment from a Smitty's he worked at in 1986. (His rights to vote and hold office have since been restored.)"

Is the beginning of the unraveling of state Republican lawmakers?

When all was said and done, not all was said or done

Secretary of State Ken Bennett facilitated a reasonably smooth flowing meeting this afternoon. 

After the four redistricting commissioners -- Republicans Dick Stertz and Scott Day Freeman (no relation to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor) and Democrats Jose Herrera and Linda McNulty -- took the oath of office, they took turns posing questions to the five independent candidates hoping to become the fifth member, and chair of the commission.

After roughly two and a half hours of interviews, the commission went into executive session to confer with legal counsel.  Roughly a half hour later, they returned to the public meeting and announced their decision to wait before voting on the fifth commissioner. 

Therefore, the three women and two men, Kimber Lanning, Colleen Mathis, Margarita Silva, Paul Bender and Ray Bladine are all still in contention.

Each had a chance to show their strengths, and all did reasonably well.  I have my impressions, but nothing stands out drastically enough to expound on at this time.

This was also the first opportunity to observe how the commissioners would approach their duties as a public panel.  Each commissioner asked good questions, trying to probe into the substance of what would make each candidate a good choice.

My impression of the commissioners is, overall, favorable.  They are all personable and bright and thoughtful.  To me, the latent partisanship of Republican Dick Stertz stood out.  No doubt all four intend to do the very best they can in what they know will be a dramatically difficult task.  All of them realize they will be under a microscope the whole time.

Obviously, I will not be the only one watching.

Two things stood out from the public comment period.  Norris Norvold indicated that in discussions he had had with a budget analyst for the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC), legislative leadership has said that if the chairman chosen is at all partisan (I'm paraphrasing), there will be dramatically less money appropriated for FY2012 (which begins July 1, 2011) for the commission to do its work.  That sounded very much like a threat.  Not that Norvold was threatening, but what he relayed did seem like a threat.  If this issue is explored by other reporters, I will update as necessary.

Former IRC commissioner James Huntwork spoke during the public comment period and launched into essentially the same nonsense he has spouted at other meetings -- about his concern that if Bender is chosen, then Arizona Indian Tribes will have a representative on the commission.  Huntwork's tiresome screed attempted to re-open or re-litigate an issue on which the Arizona Supreme Court already ruled.  The state's highest court said that Professor Bender's service as a part-time judge for two tribes does not conflict with the requirements of the Arizona Constitution as amended by voters regarding the IRC.

The commission will reconvene to take its vote at 1pm next Tuesday, March 1rst.  Bennett indicated to me that he does expect an additional opportunity for public comment will be available at that time. 

Republican briefing on redistricting

The Arizona Eagletarian heard that a meetup took place yesterday (Feb 22) at the home of  Arizona Diamondbacks owner/general partner Ken Kendrick.  The purpose of the meetup was to discuss, from the rep'lican (extreme right-wing) perspective, the upcoming redistricting process and what to expect. 

I understand that this group is gearing up to do anything and everything it can to keep from having any more competitive political climate than currently exists in Arizona.
. 
And given that Russell Pearce and Kirk Adams are aggressively pursuing an extremely partisan agenda in the current legislative session at the state capitol, this dramatically underscores the urgency for the rest of Arizona to mobilize to demand competitive districts in the process set to begin next week.

The next milestone in Arizona Redistricting takes place tomorrow afternoon, Feb 24.  The Independent Redistricting Commission will meet at 2:30 pm in the State Library Conference Room, at the capitol, for the purpose of selecting the fifth commissioner, who will become the new chairman.

I will report on that meeting tomorrow evening.

Redistricting Commission meeting to select chairman

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett yesterday announced that he will hold an open meeting on Thursday, February 24th at 2:30pm to swear in the first four commissioners.  The commissioners will also interview, take public comment and a vote on which of the five Independent candidates will be selected to chair the commission for the upcoming redistricting cycle.

The agenda, linked above, states, but may be technically incorrect, that the commission may go into executive session (not open to the public) for any item on the agenda.  However, Item V., the vote on the fifth member, must be conducted publicly.  I spoke with Jim Drake to verify that to be the case, but he doesn't think he needs to clarify the agenda to that effect.

Also of interest, the public comment period will take place after the interviews of the candidates.  That's different from how the screening panel handled the public comment.  Hopefully, it will make for lively contributions from the public in addition to discussion by and among the voting members of the commission.

Given that a 30 minute period is allotted to interview each of the five independent candidates, and that public comment will take place after the interviews, the meeting will likely last at least until 6pm.

The Independent candidates are (with their scheduled interview time):

3:00pm  Kimber Lanning

3:30pm  Colleen Mathis

4:00pm  Ray Bladine

4:30pm  Paul Bender

5:00pm  Margarita Silva

Rather than in Bennett's office or conference room, this meeting will take place in the State Library Conference Room, 1700 W. Washington, Ste. 200, in Phoenix.  However, getting there can be a bit tricky.  In the Capitol building, there is the executive tower on the west end (entrance on 18th avenue), the Capitol Museum on the east end (entrance between the state House and Senate buildings).  But to get to this conference room, you must take an elevator in the hallway between the executive tower and the museum.  However, there should be people at either entrance who can show you how to find this conference room.

I plan to be there.  I hope you do too.

Tucson attorney McNulty becomes the Fourth Redistricting Commissioner

This afternoon, Arizona Senate Minority Leader David Schapira (D-LD17) appointed Tucson attorney Linda McNulty, a Democrat, to be the fourth member of the state’s Independent Redistricting Commission for the 2011 cycle.

McNulty, a 1988 graduate of the University of Arizona Law School, is a partner in the law firm Lewis and Roca.  Much of her practice focuses on real estate and natural resources law.  She holds a rating of AV/Preeminent with the legal profession peer review firm Martindale Hubbell.   

She also graduated from the University of Rochester in 1971 with a B.S. in Nursing. 

Among her civic activities, McNulty has been on the board of directors of the Wilderness Land Trust since 2005 and since 2008 has served as a director of the Pima County Sports and Tourism Authority.

On being a redistricting commissioner, Ms. McNulty stated, “If citizen participation is the essence of democracy and voting and equal representation are among the core principles on which the United States was established, a fair and balanced process for determining voting districts is foundational to preserving and enhancing government of the people, by the people and for the people.  The absence of such a process may negatively impact meaningful campaigning, electoral competition, fair and equal representation, the quality of elected officials’ representation of their constituents, citizen confidence, voter participation and government accountability generally.”

Kudos to Sen. Schapira for appointing Linda McNulty.

Next up, the first four appointed commissioners will meet at Secretary of State Ken Bennett’s office to select the fifth commissioner, an Independent who will serve as chair of the commission during this cycle.  As of yesterday, Bennett’s office said that meeting is tentatively scheduled for next Thursday afternoon, February 24.

A question also remains as to whether a lawsuit will be filed to challenge the appointment of Tucson Republican Richard Stertz. Stertz was appointed last week by Senate President Russell Pearce in spite of evidence uncovered that Stertz falsified his application by omitting material facts related to tax liens, overdue taxes and court judgments.

Despite glaring Red Flags, Pearce appoints Richard Stertz

The Arizona Daily Star reports this morning that Senate President Russell Pearce appointed Tucson Republican Richard Stertz to the Independent Redistricting Commission.

This after reports (here and here also) surfaced detailing numerous omissions on Stertz' application. 

Speculation surfaced in December that Stertz and fellow applicant Christopher Gleason, both of whom cited involvement with the Tucson faith-based nonprofit Vision 360 when applying to become commissioners, had close ties to Tea Party GOP Congressional candidate Jesse Kelly.

In its story on Tuesday, the Daily Star reported that Stertz "is not seeking to serve on the commission to draw friendly lines for Jesse Kelly, who ran in Congressional District 8 against U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords last year. Kelly has a joint Saturday morning radio show with him. Kelly also volunteered to record a public service announcement for his company, Vision 360, earlier this year.

"Stertz, who is a voter in Congressional District 7, said he only got to know Kelly last year. He said they share a conservative ideology, and he finds Kelly a "nice young man," but they've only done one show together."

Pearce is on record, on camera, on numerous occasions lately rationalizing his viewpoints on immigration, the US Constitution (particularly the 14th amendment), on lax firearms laws, and on setting aside any and all laws that do not suit him at any given moment.

It should therefore surprise no one that Russell Pearce has no shame and despite several, very blatant red flags in Stertz' background, would appoint a manipulative partisan who is equally able to minimize and otherwise rationalize away his deception by omission.  

Alas, this is not the end of the story.  Two more commissioners must still be appointed to the IRC, one by Senate Minority Leader David Schapira and then the first four commissioners will get together at Secretary of State Ken Bennett's office to choose the fifth commissioner, who will become the chairman, presumably an Independent.

However, the question remains as to whether anyone will initiate a court action (lawsuit) seeking to remove Stertz based on the material omissions in his application.

Eventually (probably sometime in March) the IRC will hire staff, including attorneys and demographic consultants, will receive official US Census data, and will begin holding hearings to compile input/suggestions from Arizona citizens on how to draw the Congressional and legislative districts for use until the year 2022.

Arizona's latest attack on gov't By, For and Of the PEOPLE

Prescott rancher and GOP state Sen. Steve Pierce has introduced SCR1025, a bill to again try to get Arizona voters to repeal, destroy or otherwise undermine Clean Elections.

1.  Article VII, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended by adding section 19 as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:

START_STATUTE19.  Public funds prohibited for political campaigns; definition

A.  Notwithstanding any existing statute, ordinance, regulation or rule, this state and its political subdivisions shall not:

1.  Spend public funds to provide campaign support for candidates for public office.

2.  Provide any tax credit or deduction in connection with providing public funds to candidates for public office.

3.  Assess taxes, fees or surcharges of any kind, if any portion of the taxes, fees or surcharges are used to provide monies to candidates for public office.

B.  Any public funds that may have been designated to provide campaign support for candidates for public office before the effective date of this section shall be deposited in the state general fund on the effective date of this section.

C.  For the purposes of this section, "public funds" means any monies derived by this state or its political subdivisions from taxes, fees, penalties, surcharges, payments or receipts of any kind.

According to the All Over the Map study by the nonprofit Public Campaign, small donors are able to contribute at greater levels than ever before.  "This can only help engage more people in politics."  In other words, government more responsive to the people of Arizona.

On Monday afternoon, Feb 7, the Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on SCR1025.

Don't let them get away with it. Make your voice heard.  Call AND email these lawmakers and tell them to vote NO on this bill.

Sen. Ron Gould, Chairman  rgould@azleg.gov  602-926-4138
Sen. Andy Biggs, Vice Chairman  abiggs@azleg.gov   602-926-4371
Sen. Adam Driggs  adriggs@azleg.gov   602-926-3016
Sen. Steve Gallardo  sgallardo@azleg.gov   602-926-5830
Sen. John McComish  jmccomish@azleg.gov  602-926-5898
Sen. Rick Murphy  rmurphy@azleg.gov  602-926-4444
Sen. Kyrsten Sinema  ksinema@azleg.gov  602-926-5058
Sen. Steve Yarbrough  syarbrough@azleg.gov    602- 926-5863

UPDATE Tuesday, Feb 8:

On Monday, Feb 7, SCR1025 received a Do Pass recommendation from the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 6-2 vote along party lines.  The two NAY votes were cast by Sens. Steve Gallardo and Kyrsten Sinema. 


One reason this bill did not raise much outrage is because most of the attention by the media and protesters at that hearing was focused on the Birthright Citizenship bills.  Subterfuge by misdirection.


The bottom line for Arizona is that there are many bad bills being processed during this year's regular session of the state legislature.


Even though the Birthright Citizenship bills were not voted on in this hearing (after hours of discussion), the bills are not dead.  Senate President Pearce today assigned the bills to the Appropriations committee instead because he believes he has enough Republican support on that committee to get the bills approved.

Pearce's IRC pick may be limited anyway!

Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who is on the clock for appointing a new commissioner to the Independent Redistricting Commission, may have been handcuffed by one of the candidates.

Mary Jo Pitzl of the Arizona Republic reports that Tucson Republican Richard Stertz, recently added to the list of candidates eligible for appointment failed to disclose material facts required of him when he applied to become a commissioner.  Tax lien records show that Stertz had owed money to the IRS.  He apparently also had judgments filed against him. 

Questions on the application to become a commissioner covered those issues but Stertz did not provide any indication that he had any tax lien issues or court judgments.

Pearce may still appoint Stertz, or he could opt for the other eligible Tucson Republican Bennie White.  But now, Stertz, who is closely tied to 2010 Tea Party GOP Congressional candidate Jesse Kelly, could be thrown off of the IRC if appointed.  That is, if someone were to file suit to challenge Stertz's credentials.  The Tucson Weekly has reported already that Jesse Kelly may want to try again to run for Congress.

Pearce has until Wednesday next week to decide how to proceed.  And we wait and watch and listen.

Congressman David Schweikert (R-5th District) will hold a listening session tomorrow

My new Congressman, David Schweikert (R -- AZ 5th District) will hold a listening session on Feb 3, Thursday morning, from 9 am to 11 am at the Granite Reef Senior Center, 1700 N Granite Reef Rd, Scottsdale.

AZ House Minority Leader Campbell appoints Jose Herrera

Marking the second appointment of the second cycle for Arizona's voter mandated Independent Redistricting Commission, House Democratic Leader Chad Campbell today announced selection of  Jose Herrera.  Mr. Herrera is a native Arizonan, born in San Luis, holds bachelor's and master's degrees from Northern Arizona University and is currently Director of Member Services for the Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants.

In his statement marking the appointment, Rep. Campbell said, "Mr. Herrera will serve our state proudly.  He will fight for legislative and congressional maps that represent the great diversity of our state, provide fairness and transparency to both the urban and rural areas of our state, and, perhaps most importantly, allow the voters of Arizona to have real choices when they go to the ballot box over the next decade."

Next up, Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, who now has one week to make his selection.

Phoenix attorney Scott Day Freeman appointed to the IRC

Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams announced today his appointment of Phoenix attorney Scott Day Freeman to be the first member of the Independent Redistricting Commission for the 2011 cycle.

Mr. Freeman is a partner in the law firm of Fennemore Craig.  His practice focuses on commercial and tort litigation.  He graduated from the Arizona State Law College in 1994 and also holds a degree in aerospace engineering from the University of Arizona.

He has volunteered with the Arizona Republican Party's Ballot Security Program for the last four election cycles.

Mr. Freeman also has been chancellor of the Barry M. Goldwater chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution since 2002.

UPDATE -- 11:30pm Monday, Jan 31.  Arizona House Minority Leader Chad Campbell tells the Arizona Eagletarian that he expects to make his appointment to the Independent Redistricting Commission on Wednesday, Feb 2, or at the latest on Thursday.

As soon as I find out, I will let you know.

National Congress on Your Corner Day

To honor Tucson Congresswoman Gabby Giffords and the others shot on January 8, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) last week introduced a resolution to declare a National Congress on Your Corner Day on the first Saturday in January after a new Congressional term begins.

Ms. Speier, herself a survivor of multiple gunshot wounds suffered when she accompanied the late Rep. Leo Ryan to visit the Peoples Temple cult in Jonestown, Guyana, also urges, in her resolution, that all Members of Congress observe such a day to honor those killed or injured in Tucson and to recognize the importance of Congress on Your Corner events throughout the year to engage with their constituents and fulfill the ideals of the Founding Fathers and precepts of the US Constitution.

I think this is a great idea.

What does new ACC chair Gary Pierce intend to do to Arizona?

At 10 am tomorrow morning (Monday, Jan 24), new Arizona Corporation Commission (ACC) chairman Gary Pierce takes his first stab at undoing the accomplishments of his predecessor, Kris Mayes regarding renewable energy standards and R&D (research and development).

Arizona Revised Statutes 40-252 gives the ACC the authority to re-open previous decisions/rulings.  However, there appears to be litigation history putting limits on doing so.

Even though the ACC prior to this month was made up of three Republicans and two Democrats, same as it is now, Republican Commissioner Kris Mayes was very much a proponent of renewable energy and a big advocate for the solar industry in Arizona.  ACC chair Mayes, no longer eligible for re-election due to term limits, was replaced by former Arizona Senate President Brenda Burns.  Ms. Burns presided over the state senate when the epic Alt-Fuels Debacle was passed without adequate public review, ultimately costing Arizona taxpayers several hundred MILLION dollars before emergency legislation could be implemented to stop the bleeding.

The decision ACC chair Pierce is attacking now involves Arizona Public Service (APS), a regulated Investor-Owned Utility (IOU).  APS submitted written comments on January 13 in anticipation of tomorrow's hearing.


From the linked comments,

"As APS understands it, the Commission’s proposed modifications are not in response to any change of conditions that has arisen since the final decision in this matter was entered or in consideration of any other new circumstance not contemplated when the Commission finally approved APS’s 2011 RES [Renewable Energy Standard] Implementation Plan. Rather, the Commission seeks to reopen a final decision solely to effectuate a contemplated post-election change in Commission policy."


This is the beginning of what Arizona voters asked for, most likely without realizing the actual ramifications, by re-electing Gary Pierce and electing Brenda Burns.

UPDATE -- Jan 25, 11am

No vote or decision was made during yesterday's hearing other than to continue the hearing. It will resume at 9am Friday, Jan 28.  I understand the ACC wants APS to provide back up and documentation for some claims it made yesterday during testimony.

The list is finished.

To comply with Wednesday's ruling by the Arizona Supreme Court to add two more Republicans to the list of those eligible to become Independent Redistricting Commissioners, the screening panel met today at 11:30am.

As expected, two Republican panel members (Mick Rusing from Tucson, and Doug Cole who has been a GOP operative in Phoenix for many years) tried to get Christopher Gleason, who is closely tied to Tea Party GOP Congressional candidate Jesse Kelly added to the list.  However, Tucson Democrat John Leavitt objected, citing Gleason's involvement with a group called Conservatives for Congress in Tucson that ran attack ads against Gabby Giffords in the run up to the 2010 general election.   Gleason's application cites his involvement with that group. 

The panel declined to select Gleason for one of the open spots.

Instead, the panel selected Gilbert attorney Chrystal Russell and Tucsonan Richard Stertz.

Mr. Stertz, however, is likely also closely tied to Jesse Kelly but his application and interview (on Dec 8) seemed to indicate a temperament more conducive to group decision making.  Mr. Stertz is currently CEO of 4-Tucson/Vision 360.  Read more about Mr. Stertz's organization on the Tucson Citizen website.

The next step in the process is for Arizona House Speaker Kirk Adams to make his selection.  He has until January 31 to do so.

Screening panel meeting set for Jan 21

To comply with the AZ Supreme Court ruling in Pearce/Adams' suit challenging the list of eligible redistricting commissioners, the Appellate Court Commission on Appointments will meet tomorrow at 11:30am.  According to the agenda, public comment will be taken, the panel may go into executive session to promote frank discussion of a given candidate or to conduct part of an interview of a potential candidate, and will ultimately vote to add two names to the list of eligible Republicans.

To recap, Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams filed suit at the end of December hoping to get Arizona State University Law Professor Paul Bender disqualified from serving as a commissioner in the upcoming redistricting cycle.  To make their case, Pearce and Adams threw Republicans Mark Schnepf and Stephen Sossaman under the bus, asking for them also to be disqualified.  Further, the two GOP legislative leaders made a stink because a Tucson Republican (Christopher Gleason) linked to Tea Party candidate for Congress (Jesse Kelly) was excluded from the list.  For more background on those issues, check archived posts to the Arizona Eagletarian (links on the right side of your page).

Yesterday, the Court granted partial relief, disqualifying the two Republicans.  However, saying that service as a tribal judge does not make him a "public official" for this purpose, Professor Bender was affirmed and will remain on the list.

If you have anything to say about any of the candidates, the open meeting at 11:30am tomorrow at the State Courts Building, 1501 W. Washington in Phoenix, will be the time to say it.

I will be there and will post the outcome tomorrow afternoon.

AZ Supreme Court issues ruling in Pearce/Adams' redistricting case

In an order dated today and signed by Vice Chief Justice Andrew Hurwitz, partial relief is granted as follows:

Having reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties and amici and the applicable law and having heard oral argument in this matter, the Court accepts jurisdiction of the petition for special action.

IT IS ORDERED granting relief in part, as to nominees Mark Schnepf and Stephen Sossaman, who are ineligible to serve on the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (Redistricting Commission) because their positions as directors of irrigation districts are "other public office[s]" under Arizona Constitution article 4, part 2, section 1(3). The issues Petitioners raise concerning Schnepf's and Sossaman's unwillingness to serve and the effect of any application withdrawals are therefore moot and will not be decided by this Court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondents shall promptly identify two eligible individuals from the other Republican candidates to replace nominees Schnepf and Sossaman and thereby allow appointment of the initial member of the Redistricting Commission by Speaker Adams on or before January 31, 2011.

The Court concludes Petitioners have not established that nominee Paul Bender is disqualified from or ineligible for appointment to the Redistricting Commission based on his service as an appointed tribal court judge. Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying relief as to the claims challenging nominee Bender's eligibility. An opinion of this Court will follow in due course.

----

So, I expect later today to find out when the screening panel will meet to comply with this order.  I will post that time as soon as I am able.

It's notable (and ironic) that Pearce and Adams get the desired relief regarding the two people they like and would consider appointing but the real target of their angst, Paul Bender is affirmed as eligible.

Five grey haired old white guys in robes!

It was 2pm at the Arizona Supreme Court.  Time for oral arguments in Russell Pearce's and Kirk Adams' lawsuit challenging the list of eligible Independent Redistricting Commissioners.

Arizona's chief justice, Rebecca White Berch, recused herself because she chairs the screening panel itself.  That leaves four old white guys.  To take Berch's place on this case,  recently retired Justice Michael Ryan was assigned to sit in.  I'm not knocking old white guys, per se... since I kinda am one too.  Just setting the stage, okay?

Peter Gentala, counsel for Pearce and Adams started off by beginning to recite the issues put forth in the initial filing in this case.  He didn't get very far before the justices interrupted to begin the questioning.  Did Gentala believe the screening panel acted in bad faith?  Why was a special action now better than suing if, after appointing someone, a commissioner is thought to not meet the constitutional requirements? 

To get at the heart of the question of the correct definition of "public office" Justice Bales asked what may have been the most pertinent question of the day.  Are the water district board members (Schnepf and Sossaman) required to file financial disclosure statements and campaign finance reports?  Justice Bales cited (but didn't quote) Arizona Revised Statutes Section 38-542.  The same question was asked of other counsel in the hearing.  NO ONE knew the answer.

ARS 38-542 states, in pertinent part " In addition to other statements and reports required by law, every public officer, as a matter of public record, shall file with the secretary of state on a form prescribed by the secretary of state a verified financial disclosure statement covering the preceding calendar year ending December 31."  The section continues on to list what the disclosure must include.  (emphasis mine).  While really the question regarding Schnepf and Sossaman is just a technicality, if Pearce and Adams have no legitimate claim to be bullying those two off of the list, that would likely also help to undermine their claim about Bender.

Apparently, Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk's interest in this lawsuit (at least one justice seemed to think) was with the lack of geographic diversity in those who made the final list approved by the screening panel.  In other words, the fact that only one of the Republicans on the list is from outside of Maricopa County.  One justice asked the attorney arguing for Polk what the percentage of Arizona's population live outside of Maricopa and Pima Counties.  Mr. Fields, Polk's counsel, said he thought it was about 30 percent. Justice Hurwitz said it appears that population (outside of Maricopa and Pima) is overrepresented on the screening panel and therefore, claiming bad faith on the part of the panel regarding geographic diversity seems unreasonable.

Speaking last, former Chief Justice Stanley Feldman argued on behalf of the group that included Lattie Coor.  That group limited its concern to the claims of whether Professor Bender is qualified to serve as a commissioner.  Ms. O'Grady, on behalf of the screening panel, argued that the court should NOT take jurisdiction in this special action lawsuit, but wait until someone is appointed and if they don't like it, let them sue then.  However, the Court asked Feldman for his thoughts on that very issue.  He paused, then jokingly quipped that Ms. O'Grady may have him indicted for this, but he believes they should take up this issue and rule on Bender now because the issue is before them now.  If they do not, it may harm Bender's chances of being selected by the first four appointed commissioners due to expectation of a lawsuit if they do choose him.

As I've said before, I'm not a legal analyst.  So, I will not even venture a prediction on the outcome.  Associate Chief Justice Hurwitz said they will take the matter under advisement.  However, understanding the urgency of the matter, they will rule as soon as they can.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Response and Amicus brief link

The Arizona Supreme Court's High Profile Case Update page now has all of the documents available for viewing as filed in Pearce/Adams' lawsuit challenging the screening panel for redistricting commissioner candidates.

The court also indicates that live streaming video will be available to observe the oral arguments in this case at 2pm (Mountain Standard Time) tomorrow, January 18.

The schedule (and order) for the hearing is:

2:00 PM
CV-10-0405-SA ADAMS/PEARCE v COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT

KIRK ADAMS/RUSSELL PEARCE - 20 min
P A Gentala, Esq.

JEFF FLAKE/T FRANKS/B QUAYLE/P GOSAR/YAVAPAI COUNTY - 10 min.
S W Tully, Esq.

THE COMMISSION ON APPELLATE COURT APPOINTMENT - 20 min.
M R O'Grady, Esq.

LATTIE COOR/PAUL JOHNSON/VALLEY CITIZENS LEAGUE - 10 min.
P F Eckstein, Esq.
----

I plan to attend in person and will post tomorrow evening about it.

Attorneys for Screening Panel file response to Pearce/Adams' suit

Today, the Arizona Attorney General, counsel for the screening panel, filed a response to the special action recently brought by Senate President Russell Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams.  In it, Pearce and Adams ask the Arizona Supreme Court to remove three names from the list of eligible Arizona Redistricting Commissioner appointees for the 2011 effort to redraw Congressional and legislative district lines.


The main arguments the AG presents in the response are:

• Pearce and Adams lack standing to ask the Court to order the screening panel to re-do its list because they have not been harmed in any way by what has been done by the panel; 
• Rather than anyone asking the Court to order any person to be removed due to being unqualified, IF anyone believes (after the fact) that an appointed commissioner is not qualified, the proper course of action is to file a "quo warranto" action; 
• The term "public office" was properly construed by the screening panel; and 
• To allow Pearce and Adams to get away with forcing persons included on the list to withdraw is a harmful precedent.

As I am not a legal analyst, I am certainly unqualified to predict how the Arizona Supreme Court will rule in this case, but I am encouraged by this filing.

I received the AG response by email.  It should soon be available for viewing online.  When I learn where it gets posted, I will update this blog to provide the link (should be Saturday morning).  Next up, I will read the amicus briefs filed today and will post on them shortly.

UPDATE -- Amicus briefs

Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk's brief alleges that the screening panel's inclusion of Bender, Schnepf and Sossaman on the list constitutes an "abuse of discretion" and was "arbitrary and capricious."  Further, her argument appears to revolve entirely around the notion that the Supreme Court should rule the panel did not provide sufficient political and geographic diversity to allow legislative leaders to make "meaningful" choices.  However, I don't find anywhere in this brief an objective standard or definition for what could be considered meaningful.  Overall, from my perspective (lacking a law school education), this brief seems notably uncompelling.  I was also unable to determine what her actual interest in supporting the Pearce/Adams' petition is.


Arizona's GOP Congressional Representatives (Flake, Franks, Gosar, Schweikert and Quayle) essentially argue that the definition of "public office" is "natural, obvious and ordinary."  In other words (they say), Pearce/Adams are right to ask for the court to intervene "just because."  Perhaps that's a bit oversimplified, but I don't see a compelling argument for overruling the deliberative conclusion that the screening panel came up with on its own.

The final brief was submitted by a group including former ASU president Lattie Coor, former Phoenix mayor Paul Johnson, the Valley Citizens' League (Phoenix) and the Arizona Latino Research Enterprise.  Listed as one of the attorneys for this group is former Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Stanley Feldman.  This brief largely echos the same points as the AG response summarized above.  Notable is the compelling arguments about why deference should be given to the way the screening panel construed the term "public office."  This brief, however, is limited to consideration of the situation with Professor Bender.  No mention is made of either Schnepf or Sossaman.

Oral arguments in redistricting action to take place 2pm Jan 18

The Arizona Supreme Court today allocated 20 minutes each for oral arguments by Pearce/Adams, attorneys for the screening panel, and for the Amici groups (friends of the court) who will file their amicus briefs not later than tomorrow noon.  The group of GOP Arizona Congressmen will get 10 minutes and the group with former ASU president Lattie Coor will get 10 minutes.

I expect to have copies of those briefs later tomorrow (Friday) afternoon and will post about them.  The court order does, however, indicate that the GOP Congressmen will be supporting Pearce/Adams' special action and the Lattie Coor group will oppose it.

Also, tremendous news today, as reports from the University Medical Center in Tucson state that Gabby Giffords has made great progress today, having sat up, opened her eyes for 10-15 minutes and has moved both of her legs and both arms.

Amicus briefs to be filed in redistricting suit; funeral protest

The Arizona Supreme Court has today issued an order approving the filing of three amicus briefs regarding case CV-10-0405-SA.  This is the special action filed by Senate President Russell Pearce and House Speaker Kirk Adams against the screening panel responsible for compiling the list of eligible candidates to become Independent Redistricting Commissioners.

The order issued today states the briefs have not yet been filed, but must before noon on Friday, January 14.

The individuals or groups who intend to file briefs are 1) Yavapai County Attorney Sheila Polk; 2) Arizona's GOP Congressmen (Flake, Franks, Quayle, Gosar and Schweikert) and; 3) Lattie Coor, Paul Johnson (former mayor of Phoenix), the Valley Citizens League and the Arizona Latino Research Enterprise.

When I can get access to those briefs, I will post about it and will include links to view them online.

In other news, the Arizona Legislature is now working to pass an emergency (so it will become effective immediately upon the signature of Governor Brewer) bill to make protests which disrupt funerals in Arizona a crime. This is a response to announcement by the Westboro Baptist Church that it intends to protest the funeral of 9-year old Christina Green, who was killed last Saturday when an attempt was made to assassinate Arizona Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson.

The bill, modeled after an Ohio law which has been ruled constitutional by a federal court, has already passed the state senate and is expected to be sent to (and signed by) Brewer today.  Ms. Green's funeral is scheduled for Thursday, January 13 at 1 pm.  Pima County Democrats and Republicans are organizing a counter-protest to gather citizens to provide a peaceful buffer zone around the locations of this and other funerals or services of victims of this horrific tragedy.

UPDATE:  The Arizona Republic is reporting that the state legislature unanimously passed this bill and it's on its way to Governor Brewer's desk for signature, which is expected to take place today.

Andrei Cherny for Arizona Democratic Party Chair

Former Democratic nominee for Arizona State Treasurer Andrei Cherny announced his intention to run for chairman of the state Democratic Party when it convenes on Saturday, January 22nd, 1pm at the Wyndham Hotel at 50 E. Adams in downtown Phoenix.

Cherny's campaign facebook page states, "...[he] is a former AZ prosecutor and economic advisor and a current husband and dad. As our next State Chair, Andrei will be a unifying figure and a strong messenger for a compelling vision of where Arizona needs to go."

Blogger Carolyn Classen posted a letter Cherny sent out on his announcement.

Based on his strong campaign for treasurer, his broad background and experience, and his compelling statement of vision and direction for the ADP during his term, I support Andrei for chair of the Arizona Democratic Party.

It's also noteworthy that his opponent, Master Rodney Glassman, has campaigned vigorously thus far for the chairmanship.  However, whenever and wherever the subject of Cherny's candidacy for the position has been mentioned in recent days, Glassman's supporters have commented that Cherny is not legally able to run.  The salient point in this aspect of the situation is that Rodney can only rebut Cherny's supporters on the basis of a perceived technicality.  Rodney Glassman does NOT have the experience, the vision or the ability to credibility articulate the concerns of Arizona Democrats.  All he has is the ability to whine and throw tantrums.

For more background on Andrei Cherny, go here.

State Supreme Court sets hearing

The Associated Press reported this morning that the Arizona Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for January 18 in the special action petition filed by Pearce and Adams challenging the screening panel on the redistricting commissioner candidate list.

You are there!

You are there!

Walter Cronkite, a long time ago, hosted a CBS News show by that title.  Well, now you may listen to the comments, discussion and votes from the December 29 meeting of the screening panel regarding the list of 25 names qualified to be appointed Independent Redistricting Commissioner.  The link is to an audio recording of that meeting.

Senate President-elect Russell Pearce's comments are noteworthy in that he declared his concerns to be, as I've reported previously, twofold.  First, that the list includes three people that he believes are not legally qualified to serve as Redistricting Commissioners; and that Tucsonan Christopher Gleason was excluded apparently because of his faith.

Pearce, in fact, declared that he does like and would, except for that they hold "public office," consider appointing Republicans Mark Schnepf or Stephen Sossaman.  This really helps get to the bottom line -- except for his deep concern (fear) about the possibility that Paul Bender could actually become a Commissioner -- he and his compadre Kirk Adams would not have filed the petition for special action to try to force the screening panel to change the list.

As soon as I have word on any further development about the lawsuit, I'll let you know.