Archive for July, 2008
July 31st, 2008, 5:09 pm by Le Templar
Somewhere around a million Arizonans will vote this year by mail or in person at early polling booths before the dates of the primary and the general election. I won’t be one of them.
When I moved to Arizona in 1999, I was excited about the concept of early voting. I requested a ballot as soon as possible, studied it closely so I knew which candidates and issues I would vote on, and then held on to the ballot for a couple of weeks. I kept my eyes and ears open for information that could influence my vote, especially on more obscure races.
But after a couple of election cycles, I came to miss the Election Day ritual of finding my designated polling place, checking in with the poll workers and then marking my ballot at the same time as hundreds or thousands of other people. I also was a little nervous about mailing my ballot and then learning something about a candidate or issue that changed my mind too late to change my vote.
I tried twice to compromise by requesting an early ballot but waiting to fill it out until Election Day and then dropping it off at my polling place. At least I didn’t have to wait in any lines during the presidential election in 2004.
It was during that election I discovered the Maricopa County elections office doesn’t count early voting ballots delivered on Election Day until later. It was disappointing to learn my vote wasn’t included in the election night totals.
So I lost my motivation to get my early ballot done, and in 2006 I requested early ballots but then showed up at the polling place to vote in person instead. My ballot was cast provisionally so the elections office could verify I wasn’t trying to vote twice. I assumed my ballots were eventually tabulated, but I still didn’t feel like they counted like they do when I vote in person on Election Day.
The November 2006 general election also happened to include a statewide initiative requiring all voters to automatically receive an early voting ballot, and essentially eliminate in-person voting on Election Day. I considered the ballot measure an unnecessary attack on a core element of our democracy that I have come to really cherish. Fortunately, Arizona voters rejected the initiative.
But I’m guessing the idea will come back, as its supporters are convinced it would boost turnout and save money. I suspect the new permanent early ballot mailing list could serve as a step in that direction.
I favor the current system of letting any voter who wants to cast a ballot early to do so, but we shouldn’t try to pinch pennies by wiping out Election Day traditions.
So I’m not voting early anymore. And on Sept. 2 and again on Nov. 4, I will proudly display my “I voted today!” sticker.
Posted in: Election issues • Maricopa County | 1 Comment »
July 31st, 2008, 11:13 am by Le Templar
This blog took an unexpected hiatus for a few days as I worked to keep the Tribune’s opinion pages flowing while editorial page editor Bob Satnan took some well-earned time off and dealt with a death in his family. But I’m back, just in time for today’s start of early voting for the 2008 primary.
Back in July, I gave a two-part rundown of some legislative contests in the East Valley and around the state. Here’s a brief update on some of the races I have been watching.
The most heated race in the East Valley at this point has to be between Rep. Russell Pearce and Republican challenger Kevin Gibbons for a state senate seat from west Mesa.
Pearce says he isn’t responsible, but someone has been coordinating Republican party officials from District 18 and Maricopa County to launch daily attacks on Gibbons. The attacks have focused mostly on Gibbons’ support from business groups and political types (including Democrats) who dislike Pearce’s outlook on state immigration enforcement. The coordinated press release campaign is interesting because it supplements Pearce’s message at no charge, as he’s relying on state campaign funding with its strict fundraising limits.
Gibbons, the brother-in-law of U.S. Rep. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., seemed slow to respond to prominent members of his own party coming out against him in the Republican primary. But I’ve some evidence in the past week that he’s now answering various charges with news releases and mailers and statements from Republican supporters.
I haven’t heard of any polling in this race, so I can’t really gauge if Gibbons is a serious threat to Pearce or if this is a whole lot of noise easily forgotten once Pearce claims the nomination on Sept. 2. Pearce and his supporters seem worried, but the smartest politicians never take an election for granted.
Another prominent GOP primary race in Gilbert hasn’t been as fascinating as I thought it would be. Sen. Thayer Verschoor and Rep. Eddie Farnsworth have been downright friendly to each other as they compete for the District 22 Senate seat. The most significant difference between them appears to be Verschoor’s successful efforts to create a special taxing district near Eloy to support a music-oriented amusement park. The third candidate in District 22, Joe Bedgood, seems like an annoying fly buzzing around even though he has some dedicated and active supporters.
Most election contests in District 22 take place through grassroots networks rather than in the public spotlight with the real campaigning focused on door-to-door, one-on-one persuasion. So perhaps there’s more going on below the surface that we will hear about over the next month.
Finally, the District 20 House race on the Republican side has been every bit as competitive as I expected. Airline pilot Frank Schmuck has been the most visible of the four candidates, taking full advantage of his intriguing last name to write lots of “punny” news releases and to hold funky campaign events. Jeff Dial has tied himself closely to incumbent John McComish, as team campaigning has been quite effective for the two House seats in this district. Andy Swann has been flying lower to the ground, but he’s well-known in the district and appears to be taking the “win-in-the-trenches, not through the media” approach.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Election issues | Post a Comment »
July 22nd, 2008, 1:24 pm by Le Templar
 
KEN CHEUVRONT TIM BEE
State Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix, wants the full Senate to publicly chastise a colleague for using a dirty trick to stop a filibuster and make it possible for a final vote on a legislative referendum to permanently ban same-sex marriages.
Cheuvront filed a written complaint Monday against Sen. Jack Harper, R-Surprise, nearly a month after this year’s legislative session ended, Capitol Media Services reoprted. Unless there’s a special session, the next time the Legislature should meet is after the November general election, at which all 30 seats are on the ballot.
My first reaction to this news was someone should give Cheuvront another construction company or wine bar to run; he’s got too much time to pursue something that wouldn’t affect Harper’s ability to hold office.
But what’s Cheuvront is really after is to highlight the willingness of Senate Republican leadership to do just about anything to gain a victory, even if that means sullying the integrity of the institution they were elected to serve.
Support or opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment on gay marriage doesn’t change the fact that Senate President Tim Bee and company did serious damage to the Senate’s reputation as a civilized chamber that respects the rules and the participation of each elected senator, no matter how vicious the politics might get.
Some background: It was the final day of 2008 session. Sen. Bee, R-Tucson, already had cut a budget deal with Gov. Janet Napolitano that most Republicans hate. The only real item of substance left on the table for Bee’s party was the gay marriage amendment. One senator had interrupted a vacation to be on the floor as the 16th vote necessary for final passage, but another needed to leave near the end of the day to catch a plane.
Cheuvront sought to take advantage of this by working with Sen. Paula Aboud, D-Tucson, to essentially filibuster an unrelated tax bill that came to the floor first. Republican leaders were caught off-guard by the tactic and knew they didn’t have enough votes to stop the filibuster. So Harper, who was in charge of monitoring the debate, tricked Aboud into turning off her microphone, and then called on Republican floor leader Thayer Verschoor, R-Gilbert, to take the tax bill off the table so the Senate could move on to the gay marriage amendment. Harper ignored Cheuvront’s protests, which would have forced Harper to get a legal ruling on what he did.
The Senate rules attorney did later say what Harper did was wrong, but by then it was too late to fix it, Capitol Media Services reported. Bee and company got what they wanted, 16 votes to pass the marriage amendment.
Cheuvront told Capitol Media Services he filed the complaint in the hope of stopping similar slimy tactics in the future, to send a message that the ends shouldn’t justify the means. Maybe all he will accomplish is to remind some voters just how the constitutional amendment came to appear on their ballot.
Neither Harper nor Verschoor did themselves any harm with voters in their conservative districts.
However, Bee is in a tough bid to unseat U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Ariz., in a southern Arizona district that’s closely divided on the issue of gay marriage. If Bee loses that race, I wonder if he will regret the long-term damage to his reputation and to the Senate in general from those moments on the final day of the 2008 session.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Congress • Election issues | Post a Comment »
July 17th, 2008, 10:37 am by Le Templar
 
TOM HORNE TERRY GODDARD
A letter to the editor in today’s Tribune from the Goldwater Institute probably serves as the denouement for an odd public fight between state schools superintendent Tom Horne and folks who should be his natural allies – champions of the school voucher movement.
The feud was rooted in an early June decision by Horne to suspend funding for two year-old voucher programs for disabled students and children in state foster care. That action came after the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled the two programs violate the state constitution by benefiting private schools.
Goldwater released a statement saying Horne was wrong to suspend the two programs because the case already had been appealed to the state Supreme Court. Horne responded rather harshly, calling the people at Goldwater “liars” and urging the public to ignore anything they say.
Goldwater and the Institute for Justice, the public-interest law firm defending the voucher program, countered by saying Horne misread the appellate court decision and he took a needless step that threatened to disrupt the education of hundreds of kids.
In reality, Horne received bad legal advice from state Attorney General Terry Goddard. First, please note what the Court of Appeals actually said:
“For the foregoing reasons, we vacate the trial court’s judgment and remand with direction to enter judgment for (the plaintiffs), enjoining Horne from expending public funds pursuant to the school voucher statutes.”
That seems pretty straightforward; the voucher programs had to come an sudden stop.
But under Arizona appellate rules, the Institute for Justice said, that order was immediately suspended when the case was taken to the Supreme Court. The higher court confirmed the suspension in a special ruling earlier this month. So, in theory, there was no need to halt the voucher programs before the Supreme Court reaches an opinion on the underlying lawsuit.
Some have suggested that Horne should know that, since he’s a Harvard-educated lawyer. But if Horne had ignored the legal advice of Goddard’s office, Horne could have been personally liable for any money that was spent illegally. Extremely few elected officials are wealthy enough to take that gamble.
Besides, the attorney general really should be the expert on how appellate rules work, since he has an entire office devoted to handling such cases.
Unfortunately, Goddard’s bad advice had serious consequences. With the voucher funding already suspended, Gov. Janet Napolitano was able to justify stripping the $5 million from the new state budget.
So the Supreme Court said the vouchers could continue for now, but there’s no money to do it.
House Speaker Jim Weiers offered to replace that lost funding from $9 million in cash in his budget. But Goddard ruled just Wednesday that move would be illegal without a regular appropriation from the Legislature.
Goddard had better be right about that, or he’s going to start developing a reputation of incompetence in a fundamental aspect of his job.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • School choice • Schools | 2 Comments »
July 16th, 2008, 2:34 pm by Le Templar
Politicker.com is an up-and-coming political news Web site based in New Jersey that has a goal of establishing a local presence in all 50 states. It has been running an Arizona-oriented site for a few months. Now, it has posted a list of top 50 “insider” power players. The list is clearly designed to boost Web traffic (Yep, they suckered me in) rather give a clear picture of who can out-muscle whom, since Politicker intentionally excluded all elected officials and former governors from consideration.
A couple of quick thoughts about the list:
* Lobbyist Kevin DeMenna landing at No. 3 probably is over-inflation because he had a shockingly successful legislative session this year, including passage of the Decades Theme Park near Eloy.
* The brief and uninformative descriptions for a number of insiders on the list imply that the people behind Politicker don’t really know them, but someone Politicker trusts said these people belong on a top 50 list. (Full disclosure: I had not heard of about a dozen of the 50 people on the list, so I couldn’t evaluate whether they are a good fit.)
* Congratulations to Howard Fischer at Capitol Media Services as the only working journalist to make the list at No. 24. But Politicker couldn’t find a photo of him? Fischer works in the media. He owns his own camera and sells pictures to newspapers every day. Just ask him for one, for goodness sake!
* How does Jordan Rose come in at No. 32, but husband Jason Rose doesn’t make the list at all? Does that imply that Jason is all flash and no substance? Couldn’t be.
* Only one Democratic blogger on the list (Michael Bryan from Blog for Arizona at No. 45) seems odd since Arizona Democrats have been more active on the Internet, from what I’ve seen. Two Republican-oriented sites, Espressopundit and Sonoran Alliance, are on the list. My personal choice for another Democrat blogger would have been Ted Prezelski at Rum, Romanism and Rebellion.
* Who else is missing? There’s no one from the Phoenix firefighters union, which in fact is the most influential union in the state. Past union president Billy Shields would have been an obvious choice. And Cathi Herrod from the Center for Arizona Policy certainly belongs on the list, if only because the proposed state amendment to ban gay marriage is the single legislative referendum to be approved by lawmakers and go to voters this year.
Who would be in your list of Arizona’s most powerful political insiders?
Posted in: Arizona government • Phoenix | 3 Comments »
July 16th, 2008, 9:36 am by Le Templar
REP. RICK MURPHY
Gilbert gets dealt one bad hand after another on the issue of fire protection for its county islands, and Mayor Steve Berman somewhat childish outbursts on this issue continues to erode whatever public sympathy the town once received.
As Tribune writer Blake Herzog wrote for Wednesday’s Tribune, a three-person panel has been appointed and will meet Thursday to begin discussions on how much the county island fire district will tax its residents to pay Gilbert for fire service.
The panel is part of a 2007 state law designed to compel Gilbert to extend fire protection to county islands that refused to annex after a private fire company withdrew. The panel’s job is to settle any disagreements between Gilbert and the independent fire district on much it will cost Gilbert to answer fire calls, and therefore what the district should pay.
Both the fire district and Gilbert appointed one panel representative each. Naturally, the fire district picked Rep. Andy Biggs, R-Gilbert (county island), a former lawyer who has been the champion of getting municipal fire protection for his neighbors without annexation. Gilbert Town Manager George Pettit is a sound choice to represent the town’s interests.
But the third panelist, the swing vote who was supposed to be somewhat independent of the two sides, turned out to be Biggs’ nomination, Rep. Rick Murphy, R-Peoria.
I don’t believe Murphy is Biggs’ puppet. But he certainly seems less than neutral and more inclined to the fire district’s point of view, as illustrated by his comment to Herzog.
“The reason (Biggs chose me), I would think, is I worked closely with Representative Biggs in crafting the bill, because there are some areas in Peoria and Glendale, Peoria in particular, that may find themselves in the same position as the Gilbert county islands,” Murphy said. “I don’t anticipate the city of Peoria will behave in the same fashion as Gilbert. I hope they don’t.”
Let’s just say it’s a good bet the fire district will get the property tax rate it wants, which is much lower than Gilbert has proposed.
Murphy became the third panelist over Gilbert’s objections because he was confirmed by the Republican majority of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. That has Mayor Berman demanding, in his special manner, that East Valley supervisors Don Stapley and Fulton Brock be thrown out of office.
Berman’s stubbornness has tainted the thinking on this issue throughout Gilbert Town Hall, and I believe it has hurt the community in the long run.
Gilbert was right on the principle that town residents shouldn’t carry the costs for county island property owners who don’t want to annex. But county and state elected officials just wouldn’t accept that a group of people could be without any option for fire protection. Gilbert appeared to be the best organization to help, so it was stuck with that responsibility.
Once it become clear that Gilbert would no longer avoid the 2007 law, the town could have reached an amicable deal, even if that meant subsidizing the county island residents at first. Healing this bitter dispute could made it possible for Gilbert to approach the fire district later about paying more, once it had evidence from actual experience about the costs of providing fire protection.
Instead, the fire district is going to be hostile for long time to any Gilbert proposal, no matter how well-intentioned. And it’s going to take even longer to convince many of these county island property owners to eventually annex and become true Gilbert neighbors.
Posted in: Gilbert • Maricopa County | 1 Comment »
July 15th, 2008, 5:54 pm by Le Templar
REP. RICH CRANDALL
Education testing in Arizona could be headed for yet another transformational reform – this time with a focus on standardized tests for reading and writing in early grades instead of as a requirement for graduation.
As The Associated Press reported this afternoon, Rep. Rich Crandall, R-Mesa, is leading a revolt at the state Capitol to dump the high-stakes AIMS test that has applied to prospective high school graduates since 2006. AIMS has been heavily criticized because it has been rewritten several times, the passing grades have been lowered and some students receive extra credit from their regular school work. All of this was done with the intent of boosting graduation rates, when the AIMS test was supposed to tell us who had really earned a high school diploma and who had not.
AIMS also has come under attack because some test questions are designed by the state Department of Education as the means to compare Arizona students with students in other states. The AIMS results generally show Arizona students do well, but that doesn’t match other measures such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Crandall’s suggestion that Arizona focus on testing in lower grade levels seems to be heavily influenced by a new set of education reforms set out by the Goldwater Institute’s Matthew Ladner and Arywynn Mattix, associate director of BASIS schools. Goldwater is a Phoenix-based libertarian think tank while BASIS is a hugely successful charter school operation.
Coincidentally, Tribune education reporter Michelle Reese and I sat down today with Ladner to discuss the proposals summarized in a July 2 report, Fortune Favors the Bold.
Ladner said the NEAP test clearly shows Arizona has made almost no progress in raising the education levels, particularly in reading, for Arizona students. In 2007, only 56 percent of fourth graders could read at that grade level, he said.
Different experts and research groups have tried to justify Arizona’s overall lack of progress, Ladner said, as they point to Arizona’s large Hispanic population and large number of poor families. Both demographic groups have traditional lagged behind everyone else in education.
Ladner said it’s fair to say Arizona’s education system has done remarkably well given the challenges it must deal with. But the reality is, without dramatic changes, tens of thousands of students will continue to go uneducated each year, they will drop out of school before high school graduation, and they will become a net drain on society because they can’t find good-paying jobs.
“You’ve spent a pile of money and half of these kids can’t read,” Ladner said. “There’s no way that can ever be acceptable.”
Reforms should focus on standarized testing in lower grade levels instead of high school (Ladner suggests the third grade) because that’s the easiest and most cost-efficient time to help students address reading and other learning deficiencies. The older they get, the harder it becomes.
Starlee Rhodes, Goldwater’s vice president of communications, also pointed out it’s easier for parents to accept a child being held back in the third grade than it will ever be to deny diplomas to high school students.
A legislative commission has been charged with developing an approach to replace AIMS by next year. Hopefully, the group will give serious consideration to Goldwater’s proposed reforms.
Posted in: School choice • Schools | 6 Comments »
July 14th, 2008, 2:28 pm by Le Templar
 
TIM NELSON GERALD RICHARD
I came up with this description of the Democratic primary for Maricopa County attorney shortly after I first learned the race would feature Gerard Richard, who was the police director for the Phoenix Police Department, and Tim Nelson, who was general legal counsel for Gov. Janet Napolitano. My impression of their strengths and weaknesses has shifted only slightly after the Tribune Editorial Board had a chance to chat with each candidate one-on-one.
On paper, Richard’s resume would seem to match perfectly for what’s widely viewed as a law-and-order office. His career started as a law clerk with the county attorney, rising over three years to handling felony prosecutions. Then he went to work for Phoenix police as a legal adviser. Over 18 years, he became the department’s highest-ranking civilian and oversaw a wide range of functions while working every day with police officers.
What Richard lacks is a traditional political base. Until this campaign, he has had little involvement with the Democratic Party. In speaking with Richard, I discovered he does have experience dealing with law enforcement from political and policy perspectives, as he worked quite closely with the police chief and mayor’s office. But for this campaign, Richard had to start from ground zero in building grassroots support and the necessary machinery to attract primary voters.
On the other hand, Nelson has political experience in spades, as illustrated by his fundraising advantage through the first half of this year. His support comes both from Napolitano’s statewide network and his 12 years in private practice when he was a money-making partner in one of Arizona’s largest law firms.
Nelson’s political connections can’t be underestimated when the winning Democrat will have to upset a tough-on-crime incumbent (Republican Andrew Thomas*) who comes from the party with a decided advantage in registered voters.
But nearly all of Nelson’s legal work is dealing with complex civil matters, such as the tobacco master settlement. The county attorney’s office actually does a lot of civil legal work, but voters seem to care much less about that than how it prosecutes crime.
Democrat voters have to decide whether Richard or Nelson has a better chance of attracting independents and cross-over Republicans frustrated with any missteps of Thomas’ office such as the prosecution of the Phoenix New Times. That choice is complicated by the fact that both Richard and Nelson are likely to not have enough money to run a mass media campaign (television/radio/newspaper ads). The winner will have to rely on direct mail, viral/Internet publicity and unpaid news and blog stories to counter Thomas’ general name recognition and staunch support among likely voters who rank illegal immigration as a top concern.
In other words, either Democrat would have two-month, uphill battle to stop Thomas from winning re-election.
*I reluctantly linked here to the official Web site of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office because Thomas apparently hasn’t yet established a campaign Web site. That’s seems a little strange in 2008.
Posted in: Election issues | 17 Comments »
July 7th, 2008, 11:21 am by Le Templar
RUSSELL PEARCE
Taking no chances, Rep. Russell Pearce of Mesa, is lining up support from the Republican Party infrastructure to help cinch his election to replace Karen Johnson in the Arizona Senate.
The Maricopa County Republican Committee voted Thursday night to make a rare primary endorsement of Pearce over GOP challenger Kevin Gibbons. In general, elected leaders of political parties are supposed to stay out of primary contests and let party voters decide which candidates will carry their standard in a general election. But the county committee prefers loyalty and a devoted following of the party platform over other traditions.
Gibbons is seen in some quarters as a genuine threat to Pearce and jumped quickly to put up campaign signs around District 18 in west Mesa.
The county Republican committee said in a news release that it doesn’t trust Gibbons because he has raised funds from business groups supporting a ballot initiative that Pearce believes would weaken the state’s new employer sanction law. Gibbons also has been endorsed by some Democrats, which the hardcore activists on the county committee consider to be a true betrayal of their party.
The committee endorsement could aid Pearce in picking up support from Republicans who vote in every election, usually the key factor in victories for low-turnout primaries.
ANDY SWANN
Meanwhile, Andy Swann, a House candidate from District 20, tried Friday to take advantage of a new trend for average Americans to step into the spotlight by singing the national anthem on some stage. Swann sent out a news release with a link to a YouTube video from “a few years ago” when his band performed an acoustic version of the Star Spangled Banner at a Arizona Diamondbacks game. Note that Swann and his bandmate are wearing uniforms from the Department of Public Safety. Swann retired from state law enforcement last year, clearing the way for his bid for the state Legislature.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Election issues | 3 Comments »
July 3rd, 2008, 1:45 pm by Le Templar
Upper Photo: Original diorama of Battle of Palmetto Ranch (Tribune file); Lower photo: Reconstituted diorama now on display at Texas Military Forces Museum (submitted photo).
There has been some interesting reaction to a prior post this week about the Civil War battle diorama from Highland High School that’s again on display at the Texas Military Forces Museum in Austin. Supporters of museum director Jeff Hunt seem to be ignorant of a fundamental fact about dioramas that has shaped my thinking on this issue.
I didn’t understand this fact, either, until Highland history teacher Glen Frakes explained it to me during a lengthy interview a couple of months ago. Frakes said battle dioramas are a single scene intended to represent events that take place over the course of minutes, hours, days or even weeks. So dioramas have to compress both time and space to create a coherent, comprehensive picture that viewers can understand and learn from.
As such, dioramas always include some artistic interpretation of these events by their crafters and never offer a competely accurate telling of the story as might be offered in a video or the written word. Sometimes, a diorama maker might add something (or leave something off) that would seem wrong to a historian seeped deeply in knowledge of the diorama’s subject. But that intentional act conveys important information to the uninitiated, or removes distracting clutter.
For example, a diorama might leave off the roof or wall off of a particular building so viewers can peer inside to gleen additional details. Military units and equipment might be placed closer together than is porportionally accurate in order to fit other relevant items onto the same diorama.
And sometimes, key details are simply unknown to modern historians and the diorama maker has to make a good guess. Frakes said when he worked with his students to create the first of Highland’s five dioramas at the Texas museum — about the Battle of the Alamo — it wasn’t known where some of the major players were killed that they wanted to represent. So the students tried to place those figures in logical locations or where they were more likely to be seen by viewers.
What all of this adds up to is dioramas never should be changed or rebuilt without at least consulting with the original crafters, when possible. Frakes made it clear that serious thought and planning goes into every detail of a diorama.
Hunt has claimed he tried to consult with Frakes before he took the diorama apart, but Frakes didn’t want to make any changes. Frakes has told me that never happened. Based on my research, Frakes’ version of events has held up as more credible so far.
Posted in: Gilbert | 5 Comments »
|
|
Twitter