Tribune political writer Paul Giblin has a short interview today over at his blog, "Checking in," with Jeff Hatch-Miller, a member of the Arizona Corporation Commission and another likely Republican candidate for the congressional seat currently held by Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Tempe. Giblin reports Hatch-Miller moved to Scottsdale in July to be within Mitchell’s district. Previously, Hatch-Miller had lived in a Phoenix house in the district of Rep. John Shadegg, a fellow Republican who is running for re-election.Giblin notes Hatch-Miller’s new abode might limit the ability of election opponents to paint him as a "carpetbagger."But legally, Hatch-Miller could have campaigned in Congressional District 5 from his former Phoenix address. The U.S. Constitution requires that House candidates must live in the state, but not necessarily in the congressional district itself. Arizona can’t impose additional residency restrictions on congressional candidates, like the state does for legislative districts. That

Jerry MitchellThe Arizona Newspaper Association held its annual fall convention last week in Scottsdale. The Tribune was honored Saturday as the Newspaper of the Year for the fourth consecutive time. But another moment earlier in day was particularly inspiring to me. Investigative reporter Jerry Mitchell of the Clarion-Ledger in Jackson, Miss., spoke about a nearly 20-year career devoted to revisiting unsolved murders from the civil rights era of the 1960s.Mitchell spoke at a Saturday luncheon during which he received the ANA’s Zenger Freedom of the Press award. Past notables to also receive this honor include UPI reporter/columnist Helen Thomas, CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite and investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.Mitchell is best known outside of his home state as the newspaper reporter in "Ghosts of Mississippi." This excellent movie starring Whoopi Goldberg provides a dramatic account of how the murder case against white supremacist Byron de la Beckwith was reopened more than 30 years after NAACP field secretary Medgar Evers was shot in the back outside his home.Mitchell says he was motivated to start looking into old shootings, lynchings and bombings after watching an earlier fictional movie, "Mississippi Burning." He received a tip about secret state records showing ties between police and Ku Klux Klan types that would provide a partial explanation as to why many of the murders of civil rights activists in the South never were solved.Along with de la Beckwith, Mitchell’s stories also led to the 1988 conviction of Sam Bowers for the murder of a voting rights activist and the 2002 conviction of Bobby Cherry for the bombing of a Alabama church that killed four children. In the second incident, Cherry had maintained his innocence for decades by claiming he was home watching wrestling on TV. Mitchell was able to prove no such program was broadcast in the area on the day of the bombing."In every one of these cases, the killers (had) walked free even though everyone knew they were guilty," Mitchell said Saturday.Mitchell speaks in the same lyrical and haunting tone that you can find in his most compelling stories. He talks with quiet passion about spending hours interviewing people such as de la Beckwith; racists whom Mitchell openly describes as "evil" but whose points of view were equally important to provide an objective accounting of the past and the present.As Mitchell continued to expose political and cultural corruption that had protected those who used violence and murder against the civil rights movement, he was asked to write about his newspaper’s own racist past. Mitchell said the Clarion-Ledger had been one of the South’s leading apologists for white supremacist attitudes during the 1960s. As an example, on the day after Martin Luther King gave his "I have a dream" speech, the newspaper’s headline about the civil rights march read, "Trash taken out in Washington." Death threats against Mitchell and his family have been a constant part of his life, and his newspaper has faced a lot of pressure over the years to leave the past alone. But Mitchell said no reporter worthy of the title should turn a blind eye to injustice."Good journalism doesn’t wait on public opinion to change history," he said.While Mitchell has received plenty of journalism awards, his real legacy will be the return of integrity to the Mississippi justice system and elsewhere. A total of 28 people have been arrested, and 23 convicted, because of Mitchell’s work. Six other states and the Justice Department have now reopened more than 100 other cases from that era.

Laura Knaperek (center)Laura Knaperek represents something of an enigma among the Republicans competing for the nomination to challenge Rep. Harry Mitchell, D-Ariz. Knaperek is generally well-regarded among party activists as thoughtful, a good researcher and loyal to common conservative principles. She has served in the state House of Representative and successfully chaired its Appropriations Committee for two years during the immediate fallout of the 2001 recession.Knaperek also has lost a head-to-head election against Mitchell, in 2002 when state limits on her House term prompted her to try to unseat him from a state Senate office. Knaperek returned to the House in 2004, only to lose another election last year when Democrats swept all three legislative races in District 17.So while people like Knaperek personally, many wonder if she’s snake-bitten as an election candidate. Another candidate, State Rep. Mark Anderson, R-Mesa, shares many of Knaperek’s qualifications but never has lost an election as a sitting lawmaker.Knaperek faces an additional challenge. Maricopa County Treasurer Kevin Schweikert is trying to position himself as the GOP establishment candidate, even though Knaperek also has long been a party activist, serving previously as county GOP treasurer and in President Bush’s re-election campaign. If Schweikert actually gets into the race, he wants to be seen as the frontrunner through endorsements by fellow Republicans and access to various political machines, which would spur his fundraising and create a sense of inevitable victory.(No, I haven’t forgotten about Jim Ogsbury as the other announced Republican candidate. You read more about him Monday on the Tribune’s Opinion 2 page.)Knaperek’s advantages include she’s expected to be the only woman in this race, in a year when America will seriously consider a woman for president for the first time. Knaperek’s fiscal conservatism never has turned into a "starve the beast" mentality. At times, she has advocated for increased spending for state colleges and grade schools, and she’s been protective of some social service programs that directly benefit children. These two issues have been proven to be important to District 5 voters of every stripe. She probably won’t use the term "compassionate conservative," but her politics are exactly what George Bush sought to invoke when he first campaigned for president.We’ll find out if those strengths are enough to convince Republican voters to give her another shot at an election showdown with Mitchell.

I don’t understand why Rep. Trish Groe, R-Lake Havasu City, is still in the state Legislature after her felony arrest for drunken driving last spring. And I am confused as to why her colleagues haven’t done more to encourage her to leave, for her own sake as well as for the reputation of the House of Representatives.The Associated Press reported Groe was formally indicted by a grand jury Tuesday for aggressive DUI and also on a misdemeanor charge of providing false information to the arresting officer. Groe was stopped in March while driving through Parker on her way home from Phoenix. The police report says testing showed her lowest blood alcohol level was .148, or close to double the state limit of .08. Groe has told the Today’s News Herald newspaper in Lake Havasu City that she had been drinking at her Phoenix apartment before starting her trip. She went into 30 days of alcohol addiction treatment shortly after the arrest became public knowledge, during the middle of the 2007 legislative session. The AP also reported Groe’s state driver’s license had been revoked at the time of her arrest, a contributing factor in Tuesday’s felony indictment. To make matters worse, Groe had a previous DUI conviction in California less than a decade earlier, according to the Arizona Capitol Times. A single DUI incident can be a honest mistake, a misjudgment about how much alcohol a person can handle and still drive safely. A second DUI usually is a clear sign that a person has serious problems with alcohol that can infect every aspect of his or her life and put other people in danger.A felony conviction would force Groe out of her legislative seat. She could avoid that fate if she could plea bargain her case to a misdemeanor (or somehow beat the charges at trial). But it’s hard to imagine that voters would accept a lawmaker who appears to have driven drunk for hundreds of miles in the same year that the Legislature approved some of the toughest DUI laws in the country.The Tribune went through its own painful experience with a repeat DUI offender last spring when then-news columnist Slim Smith revealed he was getting ready for a trial on his third arrest in five years. (Smith eventually decided to plead guilty and he served four months in prison).Groe apparently says she was unaware that she didn’t have a valid driver’s license. But the La Paz special prosecutor says she did know, and that’s a poor excuse anyway for someone entrusted to vote on laws the rest of us must obey.As far as I know, Groe has never harmed anyone with her driving. So I don’t want her life to be ruined and I hope she now has control of her drinking. But the Tribune Editorial Board has agreed elected officials must be held to much higher standards than private citizens, especially when their self-imposed problems interfere with their ability to represent their constituents.Groe’s constituents already lost a month of her service when it really mattered. For various reasons, her case has progressed rather slowly since her arrest. So there’s a good chance Groe will be in additional court hearings during the 2008 legislative session, costing her more time at the Capitol.Meanwhile, Groe suffered no obvious punishment when she returned from alcohol treatment for the end of the 2007 session. She wasn’t removed from any legislative committees. There was no ethics investigation nor was a single complaint filed. A spokesman for House Speaker Jim Weiers said Tuesday afternoon that House lawyers are now researching how the Legislature has dealt in the past with lawmakers who faced DUI charges.If recent history is a guide, then Groe will be free to return to the House next year as long as she avoids a felony conviction.In 1999, then-state Sen. John Verkamp of Flagstaff was sentenced to 10 days in jail for extreme DUI, which he served on weekends so he could continue his legislative duties during the week. Another arrest by Scottsdale police in 2002 (for resisting arrest and interfering with their ability to check his sobriety) occurred after that year’s session was over and Verkamp wasn’t running for re-election. So he quietly left the office at the end of the year.

Papago ParkIn Sunday’s Perspective section, the Tribune had a column by William Godfrey of Phoenix who joined a growing chorus of people who say Papago Park needs immediate and long-term attention to restore the sparkle of an aging desert gem. Godfrey focused primarily on the future of the Papago Park golf course, which made sense since he’s written a book about its history. While not providing many details, Godfrey seems to align himself with advocates who want to bring big changes to the park in order to attract new generations of users. They want more features to expand on what’s offered by the Desert Botanical Gardens and the Phoenix Zoo. In other words, these advocates want development appropriate to a desert climate but far more than preservation.This approach contrasts sharply with views of many people who live near Papago Park. These people (I happen to be one of them) generally like the park as it is now with its emphasis on walking, jogging or biking in a desert-like setting. Clearly, the park has problems. Too many trails go every which way. Features installed years or decades ago have been allowed to deteriorate beyond usability (the rock amphitheater on McDowell Road) or just seem completely out of place (a series of metal

Gov. Janet NapolitanoOne of the few clear gaffes during Gov. Janet Napolitano’s five years in office was the renaming of Squaw Peak in Phoenix to Piestewa Peak in 2003. Sure, some people just weren’t interested in changing the name. Others would have preferred some other choice than to honor Lori Piestewa, the Hopi woman killed during combat in Iraq and most likely the first Native American woman to die wearing a U.S. military uniform.But the real reason there’s lots of lingering resentment is because of the way the Napolitano administration rammed the change through. Her staff leaned heavily on the state geographic names board to waive a rule that landmarks can’t be named after people until five years after their death. Then-deputy chief of staff Mario Diaz (her campaign manager a year earlier) even went so far as to try to pressure the board chairman through his job with the Phoenix Police Department. When that didn’t work, the chairman was simply booted from his leadership post by other board members sympathetic to Napolitano’s request.There are several reasons why the issue didn’t become a bigger black mark with the public. This occurred during Napolitano’s first year, so many folks were willing to accept her apology for not handling the issue more delicately. Diaz disappeared into the background and departed the administration a few weeks later, so he paid at least a small penance. And, to be honest, the name of a particular mountain doesn’t have much impact on the lives of most people in Arizona. If you really care, you still call it Squaw Peak despite whatever the signs or state maps might say (the federal geographic names board never waived its 5-year rule).As the controversy died down, Napolitano said she learned a lesson or two from Piestewa Peak. I thought two of them were to do a better job of building public support before diving into highly charged controversy, and to be more subtle when she wants to skip the rules and just get something done.But Napolitano soon could repeat her mistake in a way that would affect the wallets and lifestyles of nearly every Arizonan.The governor seems determined to move ahead on her own initiative with a new requirement that automakers must more sell more fuel-efficient cars in Arizona, as well as other steps to reduce the state’s greenhouse emissions in half by 2040.When Napolitano signed a global warming deal with several other state governors last year, the Tribune Editorial Board was among those critics who asked how did the governor think she was going to enforce these goals unless she got the support of the state Legislature? Napolitano tried to claim she can act on her own under some slightly vague language in the state’s clear air law.Since the governors’ agreement was signed, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the EPA can’t avoid the responsibility of deciding whether manmade greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide are pollutants because they can contribute to climate change, and therefore should be regulated. One federal trial judge recently said Vermont should have the option of requiring automakers to reduce carbon emissions.Earlier this week, Napolitano joined 11 other governors in urging the EPA to approve California’s request to set its own standards for auto carbon emissions. Such approval would clear the way for other states to do the same.But Arizona law doesn’t currently list greenhouse gases as a regulatory item. Still, Napolitano repeated Friday in a comment to Capitol Media Services that she has legal authority to direct the state Department of Environmental Quality to enforce greenhouse gas reductions.Even if Napolitano can make some hyper-technical legal argument here, she shouldn’t act unless the Legislature formally endorses her plans.Regulating greenhouse gases would be expensive; probably both in state tax dollars and in what it costs to buy autos, fuel, electricity, possibly even houses and water. Lawmakers and the governor working together would send a powerful message that the threat of climate change is so serious that we all must sacrifice to protect the future.Napolitano simply imposing such regulations from her office will be viewed by many as imperial and arrogantly ignorant of the costs involve. Such a move could easily backfire, becoming an issue in the 2010 gubernatorial election that brings in a successor who reverses some or all of her mandates.Being an effective governor isn’t just about pushing against a tide to do what’s right. Sometimes, a governor has to fight to unite other elected officials and the public behind a controversial cause.Despite the mood in Hollywood and certain corners of Washington, many remain highly skeptical of any real dangers to climate change. Napolitano will do more damage than good for her agenda on this issue if she acts without following the traditional procedures for making long-term policy decisions. That includes getting the Legislature to change state law to make her authority clear. Convincing lawmakers to set aside a few tax dollars to enforce that authority wouldn’t hurt either.

Pro-life groups are being denied their right to free speech when it comes to Arizona’s bizarre system of specialty license plates. The question is whether the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will recognize this fact.The Arizona Life Coalition wants the state License Plate Commission to issue a specialty plate for pro-life supporters in the same manner that 11 other plates already are in use for a variety of causes. People who order a specialty plate are charged an extra $25; $8 for state "administrative" expenses and the other $17 goes toward a special government fund or a private group that works on behalf of the cause endorsed on the plate.The pro-life plate would largely resemble the standard Arizona license plate in design and colors, but with the words "Choose Life" in the right-hand corner and again on the left side in a crayon-like writing under a drawing of faces of a boy and girl linked by a yellow circle. The $17 would go toward private services for pregnant women who are considering abortion.The license plate commission has repeatedly rejected the coalition’s request with support from the office of Gov. Janet Napolitano, a strong pro-choice advocate. The commission claims it won’t issue plates dealing with controversial subjects.The coalition, which represents about 40 pro-life groups, sued in federal court citing its First Amendment rights. A trial judge ruled license plates aren’t a public forum, so the state has the right to discriminate against speech it doesn’t like.There’s a lot of speech going on among the 11 plates already approved by the state. They include two sponsored by the Professional Fire Fighters of Arizona and the Fraternal Order of Police, with the logos of these two unions emblazed on the plates. People who use these plates aren’t just showing they are police officers and firefighters; they are displaying support for specific unions with lots of political connections that represent their professions.What could be controversial about a license plate that supports spaying and neutering dogs and cats to prevent overpopulation with the phrase "Pets enrich our lives"? Well, some people are opposed to animal sterilization on the same basis that we don’t forcibly sterilize humans, that it’s a fundamental assault on the right to procreate. Also, extreme animal-rights groups argue no one should keep pets in the first place, and this license plate sends not-so-subtle message in the other direction. Animal-rights advocates also interpret the "Conserving Wildlife" license plate as code for maintaining the hunting fields, which they also oppose.U.S. District Judge Paul Rosenbatt’s 2005 ruling also refers to the Rotary International message of "Service Above Self" and the Red Means Stop Coalition "Stop Red Light Running" as examples of other licenses that were available.Rosenbatt said the state could suppress free speech of pro-life causes to avoid the risk of a pro-choice group also requesting a plate. But what would be the hardship in that? The fees for specialty license plates are designed to pay for the program and a requesting group must demonstrate it has at least 200 interested members to justify getting its own plate.Rosenbatt also acknowledged the state could respect First Amendment rights while still blocking obscene speech.Does this mean some group like the Ku Klux Klan could request its own plate? Perhaps, if such a group could somehow demonstrate it has enough members interested in publicly declaring their allegiance and a legitimate use for the $17 split.But that

Michael CrowArizona State University president Michael Crow said Friday he came to the aid of Arizona high school graduates who have to pay expensive, out-of-state tuition rates because they aren’t in the U.S. legally. But Crow also is essentially thumbing his nose at Arizona voters who said overwhelming last year they didn’t want higher education tax dollars to support such people.In the 2006 general election, voters approved Proposition 300, which requires all state universities and community colleges to verify legal residency for anyone receiving in-state tuition as well as tuition waivers and other public scholarships.Crow basically bragged at a luncheon Friday about a new financial aid program that helps some illegal immigrants attend ASU anyway, according to an Associated Press story in Sunday’s Tribune. The program connects people who have Arizona high school diplomas with privately funded scholarships so they can afford to pay out-of-state tuition. Crow estimated 150 to 200 students have received help so far to the tune of $1.8 million.Prop. 300 was tough issue last year for the Tribune Editorial Board. On the one hand, such a policy punishes people who are in the United States through no fault of their own. Usually, such students were brought here by their parents at a young age, educated in Arizona schools and immersed in American culture. And part of that culture these days is most high school graduates go on to some kind of higher education.On the other hand, it makes sense that limited government resources should be directed to U.S. citizens and legal residents who have better chance of staying here for the long haul. (An illegal immigrant in college, even with an Arizona high school diploma, has a good chance of being deported as we’ve seen with some high-profile cases recently.)The Editorial Board said Prop. 300 strikes a decent compromise. Immigrants could still attend a state-funded college. But they would have to figure out how to pay for tuition themselves without extra assistance from state taxpayers. In-state tuition is heavily subsidized by the state, which is why that issue was targeted along with tax-funded financial assistance.By using only private scholarships, ASU’s financial aid program doesn’t appear to violate Prop. 300. But the use of university personnel and other resources to specifically help immigrant students find and receive those scholarships certainly violates the voters’ intent.Crow might think Prop. 300 is mean-spirited and counterproductive. Heck, I’m not that fond of it myself. But Crow has a duty as a state official to respect policies approved by voters and taxpayers who fund his institution. He should not look for means to circumvent the law and then boast about it.Besides, he’s probably done more damage to overall future of immigrant students. With the passage of Prop. 300, it appeared that immigration enforcement activists were satisfied and would leave alone those who still could afford to attend college.But the next step could be to ban illegal immigrants from attending a state-funded college altogether. Given what Crow has done, I won’t be surprised if that idea is pushed hard in time for the 2008 general election.

Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton’s presidential campaign announced its first set of endorsements from Arizona Democrats Wednesday morning. The list includes the top Democrat in the state Senate, Marsha Arzberger of Willcox, leading Latina politician and Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox of Phoenix, and the father-daughter tandem representing Pinal County of Rep. Pete Rios and Sen. Rebecca Rios. (See the complete list below).The list doesn’t include some key figures such as state party financier Jim Pederson and only a couple of people from Pima County, the real stronghold for Arizona Democrats. It also doesn’t include the biggest prize of all, Gov. Janet Napolitano.During the 2004 campaign, Napolitano dangled the opportunity to win her support for months, which drove all of the candidates to spend time campaigning in Arizona. But she waited until John Kerry won the Arizona primary and already appeared headed toward claiming the nomination before she endorsed him. I expect her to be just as cagey for the 2008 election.Candidates of all persuasions are eager to trot out the names of other politicians who publicly back them. They are even more excited when they can point to someone from the other party (such as Republican John McCain picking up an early endorsement from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon, which has angered a variety of other Democrats).But I’ve always wondered just how much influence or benefit such endorsement lists provide candidates. I guess tiny endorsement lists are a signal to news reporters and political pundits that a candidate shouldn’t be taken seriously. And strong lists might help with some fundraising. But I don’t think voters usually care.In 2003-04, Sen. Joe Lieberman had the longest list of endorsements in Arizona among any Democrats running for president. He had started campaigning here much earlier, so he wrapped up a lot of commitments before folks even knew who else would be in the campaign. It became news in some circles when John Kerry’s campaign (with the help of Democrat strategist Mario Diaz) convinced a few politicians to switch their support before the Arizona primary.Lieberman’s lengthy list didn’t do much for him in end, either in fundraising or at the ballot box. Kerry rolled at the polls and went on to get soundly defeated by President Bush in the Arizona general election.Arizona Democrats endorsing Hillary Clinton for president:Senate Minority Leader Marsha Arzberger, WillcoxState Senator Paula Aboud, TucsonState Senator Amanda Aguirre, YumaState Senator Ken Cheuvront, PhoenixFountain Hills Councilwoman Ginny DickeyState Representative Martha Garcia, PhoenixMaricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Garrido WilcoxState Representative Linda Lopez, TucsonState Senator Richard Miranda, PhoenixState Representative Ben Miranda, PhoenixDemocratic National Committee Member Joe RiosHouse Democratic Whip Pete Rios, HaydenState Senate Minority Whip Rebecca Rios, HaydenState Representative Lena Saradnik, Tucson(Source: Hillary Clinton for President)

Russell Pearce (center)State Rep. Russell Pearce announced today (Wednesday) he has created his exploratory committee for a possible challenge to U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz. This would be a Republican primary race in Congressional District 6, which is dominated by GOP voters from Mesa and Gilbert. The Tribune first reported July 15 that Pearce was seriously looking at a bid as he has reached his term limit in the Legislature. Pearce is convinced Flake’s views on immigration reform make him vulnerable in a Republican primary.Former state lawmaker Stan Barnes tried and failed four years ago to use immigration as a wedge to separate Flake from the Republican grassroots that are so important in this district. But immigration has become a more hotly contested issue since the 2004 primary, and the differences between Pearce and Flake on this issue would be more clearly defined for voters. There are previous few other political disagreements between the two, which usually gives an overwhelming advantage to an incumbent congressman.Some other state lawmakers have used exploratory committees to raise campaign money while avoiding the state’s