Search: Web        
powered by
Le Templar: What I Know ~

Archive for February, 2009

Berman’s wife retracts claim on campaign signs

February 27th, 2009, 11:38 am by Le Templar

We’re not supposed to enjoy saying “I told so.” So I promise there’s no smile on my face as I write to alert readers to the fact that Gilbert Mayor Steve Berman’s wife now says she never should have accused him of arranging to steal campaign signs.

I mentioned in this blog Tuesday that Berman critics have been trying to smear the mayor by spreading far and wide a January police report which quoted Michelle Berman as making this claim. There have been growing concerns about Michelle Berman’s reliability, and there’s no independent verification that Berman has any connection to disappearing campaign signs. But that hasn’t stopped some people from anonymously and repeatedly making reference to the January police report in the comments section of various Tribune stories.

So maybe this will stop them. Gilbert police filed a new report dated Wednesday from a follow-up interview with Michelle Berman that quotes her as saying:

“I know nothing about campaign signs. The truth is, I know nothing for sure about campaign signs. So, you can take that out of the report.”

As of this writing, the anti-Berman Web site that has been the focus of the rumor-mongering has not made any reference to this new police report or Michelle Berman’s recantation.

Posted in: Uncategorized • • | 10 Comments »

Berman’s critics need to focus on real issues

February 24th, 2009, 2:34 pm by Le Templar

Critics of Gilbert Mayor Steve Berman should stop trying to taint him with unsubstantiated tales. Their tactic is making them look petty and taking attention away from whatever real concerns might exist with Berman’s bid for re-election.

If you have read the comments section below the local news stories at eastvalleytribune.com in the past week, you’ve see someone post a claim that Berman’s wife, Michelle, has told police that the mayor arranged for some campaign signs to be stolen. In fact, Michelle Berman has gone to the police several times in the past year about her marriage. Steve Berman received a lot of negative publicity in the Tribune and elsewhere when her allegations first came to light, and he temporarily had to turn over his collection of firearms to authorities.

But Steve Berman has never been arrested or criminally charged with anything, even as Michelle Berman keeps coming up with new stories.

It’s election season, and Steve Berman’s opponents apparently believe even hints of a new scandal will push Gilbert voters to one of his five challengers. Someone has anonymously posted a copy of the police report online and one or more people keep referring to the alleged sign stealing in the Tribune comments section.

What these critics are doing is protected by the First Amendment. But it’s rumor-mongering, plain and simple. Furthermore, it gives the impression that Berman’s opponents have few legitimate reasons to object to his re-election, so they have to use salacious attacks instead.

It’s a tactic that easily could (and perhaps should) backfire as voters typically weigh the actual merits of the various candidates for the mayor of Gilbert.

Posted in: Uncategorized • • • | 3 Comments »

No, Mr. Thomas, speed cameras are not the witnesses

February 23rd, 2009, 5:14 pm by Le Templar

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas has set his sights on shutting down, or at least undermining, the statewide freeway photo enforcement program. Thomas said today he won’t prosecute any speeding crimes based solely on evidence from speed cameras as supplied by the state Department of Public Safety. Initially, Thomas argues his position reflects the intent of lawmakers who set penalties for speeding  violations as recorded by the DPS cameras that are weaker than those penalties from tickets issued by a law-enforcement officer who has pulled over a motorist. Quoting from his press release:

“Arizona Revised Statute Section 41-1722, the so-called photo-radar statute, provides for a photo-radar enforcement system to regulate vehicle traffic and speed in Arizona. Subsection D of the statute specifies that “the department of transportation shall not consider the violation for the purpose of determining whether the person’s driver license should be suspended or revoked.” The County Attorney concluded that because the legislature prohibited the use of photo-radar evidence for suspension or revocation of driver’s licenses, the legislature ipso facto could not have intended for such evidence to be used in the even more serious context of criminal charges.”

Thomas’ reasoning seems convoluted, but perhaps judges would agree with it. At least one West Valley justice of the peace has refused to consider any tickets issued from the photo enforcement program because the Legislature set lower penalties than for the same offensive when caught by a patrol officer.

My objection comes from what Thomas said next when he implied that even if the Legislature hadn’t set lower penalties, photo enforcement still has problems because it violates the Sixth Amendment right to confront your accuser in court. Thomas parrots long-time critics of speed cameras when he says, “In photo-radar cases, there are no witnesses, and defendants are not permitted to confront their accuser.”

That’s completely false, and Thomas knows it. The law enforcement officer or proper authority who signs the civil ticket (or requests that criminal charges be filed) is the witness. That officer must make the determination that he or she can identify the specific motorist who committed a specific violation at a specific day and time, based on a review of the DPS photos and any other evidence that the officer might gather.

If the officer who signs the ticket or makes the criminal allegation fails to show in court, then the defendant can assert a Sixth Amendment argument. Or, if the officer can’t convince the judge or jury that the right motorist is in court, then obviously the defendant should be found not guilty.

But it’s spurious to suggest that a speed camera can’t pass the Sixth Amendment test. A speed camera is a law enforcement tool to collect evidence of wrong-doing, just like fingerprint dust and a DNA cotton swab. Speed cameras accuse no one; that’s done by law enforcement and attorneys representing the state.

Posted in: Uncategorized • • • • | 1 Comment »

State Treasurer: Refund checks are in the mail

February 17th, 2009, 12:59 pm by Le Templar

Arizona Treasurer Dean Martin is promising that income tax refunds from this state are not in any jeopardy from budget woes, as has happened this week in Kansas and California. Martin says the budget fixes adopted by the Legislature and Gov. Jan Brewer in late January will make enough cash available to put checks in the hands of every Arizonan who overpaid their 2008 taxes. From Martin’s news release today:

“This is why I started warning everyone about our fiscal problems, so there would be time for action to prevent these types of drastic efforts from being needed.”

“Fortunately, our Legislature and new Governor acted quickly in a special session to fix the 2009 budget deficit. Their quick action has allowed us to plan for the rest of this year.”

“While the economy may still indeed worsen, we will do what it takes to make sure we have the financial resources to honor refund checks issued to you by the Department of Revenue.”

Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • • | Post a Comment »

Goldwater Institute says pay up to protect Luke AFB

February 17th, 2009, 11:18 am by Le Templar

Maricopa County officials have been worried they would face expensive lawsuits from property owners affected by a 2006 state law intended to protect Luke Air Force Base, and they were absolutely right.

Goldwater Institute just announced a little while ago that it’s now pursuing $20 million in claims against the county, only a week after a Superior Court judge ruled the state law didn’t violate the state constitution. That law significantly restricts property development around Luke AFB and its auxiliary fields in the West Valley to reduce the potential for noise complaints and jets accidentally crashing into homes.

Goldwater’s litigator Carrie Ann Sitren is now pursuing the theory that the law might be allowed, but the property owners deserved to be compensated under Proposition 207 for the inability to use their land. The claims might be hampered by the fact that Prop. 207 went into effect after the Legislature passed the law intended to protect Luke AFB. But the county has never enforced that law, so Sitren is going to argue that Prop. 207 provisions to pay landowners for government “takings” still apply.

From a libertarian perspective, Goldwater is absolutely right. Government power to basically stop any use of someone’s private property, without paying for it, should be severely limited in a free-market society. But the Air Force has decided it can’t afford to buy up enough land around its U.S. air bases to protect them from encroachment. Instead, the Pentagon leans heavily on local and state governments to use zoning restrictions to accomplish the same thing. The result is landowners usually are stuck with property they can’t use and they can’t sell, either.

Maricopa County shouldn’t be on the hook to pay the landowners near Luke AFB. The Legislature passed a state law because lawmakers decided the air base’s future is a priority for all Arizonans. And that means all Arizonans should share in the expense of compensating the individual landowners who are affected.

Of course, the state can’t afford to come up with $20 million (or more) for this cause. So I’m guessing Goldwater’s actions will spur Maricopa County to appeal last week’s judicial ruling in the hope that a higher court will overturn the state law.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Post a Comment »

The never-ending campaign to wave a sparkler

February 11th, 2009, 6:00 pm by Le Templar

One unusual exception to Arizona’s tradition of libertarianism and individual responsibility has been its long-standing ban on fireworks for personal use, even around the Fourth of July. Both the Sonoran Desert and the Arizona High Country tend to be dry tinderboxes at that time of year, and most people seem to accept that putting pyrotechnics on the open market would be a fiery disaster.

But there’s a segment of the population, frequently out-of-state transplants like myself, that wishes state law wasn’t quite so strict when it comes to sparklers. There are plenty of good childhood memories tied to these handheld fireworks that can light up the night. People assume sparklers are relatively safe because they don’t explode, although fire safety experts claim otherwise.

Anyway, there has been a long-running campaign to make sparklers legal in Arizona, going back 15 years or more. The cause has a deep well of enthusiasm from state lawmakers eager to champion the public’s right to show their patriotism with a white-hot glow.

But this campaign always has been doused in the end by firefighters who just hate fireworks  — because they are usually the first people to see the physical damage when fireworks are used improperly (as my grandfather, a volunteer firefighter for 55 years, told us kids all the time).

The sparkler issue is back at the Legislature again this year. Howard Fischer at Capitol Media Services has to be the only journalist in the state who has covered every flicker of this topic. He is suggesting that supporters have their best opportunty ever to finally fire up their 1,000-degree sticks. Gov. Jan Brewer voted for sparklers when she was in the Legislature, in this campaign’s early days.

Of course, Brewer might have different outlook now, especially after a parade of firefighters knock on her office door to tell her all sorts of horror stories about children with third-degree burns and missing eyes or fingers. Why do I suspect sparklers are going to remain illegal this year?

Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Governor • • • • | 1 Comment »

Maricopa County loses fight over Luke AFB

February 10th, 2009, 4:43 pm by Le Templar

Superior Court Judge Edward Burke has ordered Maricopa County to follow a 2004 state law and severely restrict new development around Luke Air Force Base. This ruling is a huge victory for state Attorney General Terry Goddard, and will test a commitment of the county Board of Supervisors to protect the air base vs. preserving its local power.

Goddard sued the county in August 2008 after state officials learned the county was still issuing building permits to landowners in areas that the state law designated as a safety hazard because of Air Force take-offs and landings at Luke. The county countersued on the same day, so it appeared the county was aggressively protecting its zoning power and the rights of those landowners. But county officials said they weren’t upset with Goddard and in fact they welcomed the opportunity to get a judge to clarify some tricky legal issues.

Well, Burke offered that clarification in spades as he ruled the county didn’t have a single issue to stand on and it should have been following the law all along.

The question now is will the Board of Supervisors accept the judge’s ruling or will there be an appeal? Accepting the decision means enforcing the state law and addressing the concerns of landowners who worry they have been stripped of their property rights. If the county chases an appeal, it will imply that county leaders are less interested in the future of Luke Air Force Base than they claim.

It’s a critical question because Luke is in the running to become a home base for the F-35 Lightning, originally known as the Joint Strike Fighter, which is slated to replace the F-16 in the next decade. Landing that fighter would guarantee that Luke would remain open for some time to come. But Air Force is likely to look elsewhere if it has to worry about a growing number of buildings within the flight paths and loud-noise contours of Luke and its auxiliary fields.

Posted in: Uncategorized | Post a Comment »

Are Republicans grateful for McCain now?

February 9th, 2009, 5:52 pm by Le Templar


Photo by the Associated Press

My blog has been on hiatus for a week or so as I adjust to the demands of my new post as opinion page editor at the Tribune, and I handled some of my volunteer work for local journalism groups. But I’m back, with a post I’ve been waiting to write for more than two years: Republicans should be immediately and eternally grateful that Sen. John McCain shut down the “nuclear” option when it comes to Senate approval for judges appointed to the federal bench.

Last week’s news that Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg underwent surgery for pancreatic cancer reinforced widespread belief that she will be the first liberal jurist to leave now that Barack Obama is president. Speculation on possible replacements already is rampant. Even a certain former Arizona governor is getting lots of attention.

While the next Supreme Court justice appointment probably will come from Ginsburg’s legal perspective, that person won’t be as wildly liberal as many in the Democratic Party would like. That’s because Obama will have to deal with a potential Senate filibuster from Republicans if he steps too far out of the mainstream. And Republicans are in a position to influence Obama’s judicial choices only because of John McCain and the so-called Gang of 14.

A quick recap: Almost from the beginning of former President George Bush’s first term in 2001, Senate Democrats who were in the minority used the threat of a filibuster to delay or block appointments of federal judges that were deemed to be too conservative. Time and again, Bush tried but failed to persuade enough Democrats to relent to get the 60 Senate votes needed to stop a filibuster.

So conservative activists came up with an alternative route for Bush to get the judges he wanted. They argued a filibuster of judicial appointments violates the Constitution because that document says nothing about needing more than a simple majority of senators to give their “advice and consent.” The idea was to have Vice President Dick Cheney (as Senate president) declare a filibuster as out of order so the Republican majority could ignore the Democrats and approve Bush’s appointments. The Senate loves its traditions and the filibuster is one of the oldest. Revoking it in this manner would have caused endless rancor and pushed partisan politics to a whole new level in Washington. Thus the reference to the “nuclear” option.

Republicans were ready to reach for the nuclear option in 2005, when Democrats were trying to block the appointment of John Roberts as chief justice. But many senators greatly feared chaos would result because most Senate work depends heavily on lawmakers getting along. Otherwise, the rules as written on paper could be used to prevent any business from getting done.

So a bipartisan collection of 14 senators met privately for days to find a way to avert the nuclear option. The result was enough Democrats withdrew their filibuster threats for Bush to get his nominees.

John McCain received much of the credit for the Gang of 14 agreement, so he should have been widely praised by fellow Republicans for protecting tradition but without bowing to the will of the minority. Instead, McCain was roundly criticized for his role, as GOP activists argued he had somehow betrayed the party by not steamrolling the Democrats.

However, McCain had enough experience and wisdom to envision a day down the road when Republicans would be in the minority and a Democratic president would be eager to put his stamp on the Supreme Court. That day is here, and if Republicans had invoked the nuclear option in 2005, the 57 Democrat votes in the Senate now would be free to completely ignore the GOP side of the aisle.

That’s not to say Republican will be able to prevent appointments of pro-choice jurists. But Obama will have to win at least few Republican votes. Or maybe just one, that of Arlen Specter, the ranking Republican (and former chairman) of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Specter’s support of an Obama appointment will swing enough Republican votes to avoid any filibuster.

But at least the Republicans won’t be completely ignored.

Posted in: Congress • Courts • Uncategorized • • • • • | Post a Comment »
ADVERTISEMENT