Archive for July, 2009
July 28th, 2009, 4:28 pm by Le Templar
I’m about to leave town for a few days to take part in my brother’s wedding, so I’m going to miss Wednesday’s effort by Republican lawmakers to adopt an update to the state budget that Gov. Jan Brewer would approve. For a few days during this lengthy special session, it appeared Republican and Democratic leaders would strike some kind of bi-partisan deal to finally get a budget finished and catch up with California.
However, Rep. David Lujan, the House Democratic floor leader, told his Twitter followers Monday that Brewer was again trying to negotiate privately with rank-and-file Democrats, bypassing their own leaders. Then today, Brewer abandoned that effort and went back to a Republican-only plan.
The result is a proposal that looks similar to the agreement she struck with Senate President Bob Burns and House Speaker Kirk Adams back in late June. Capitol Media Services reports the new deal seeks to entice other Republicans who previously refused to endorse an election for a temporary sales tax hike by raising the immediate spending cuts from $650 million in the previous plan to $1 billion. The new deal also would add $400 million in reductions to corporate and personal income taxes starting in 2012 (on top of an immediate and permanent elimination of $250 million in state property taxes). Finally, along with a November election on the proposed sales tax increase, voters would be asked to amend the state constitution so lawmakers wouldn’t have to fund education, health care and other programs at the levels required by formulas established in previous elections.
Given the howling from Democrats, Brewer, Burns and Adams had better make darn sure they have votes in their own party this time. The damage to their public image is going to be extensive if they fail yet again to get a budget done after raising expectations.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • Bob Burns • Jan Brewer • Kirk Adams • state budget | Post a Comment »
July 28th, 2009, 11:53 am by Le Templar
Six Valley imams who were ejected from an U.S. Airways flight, then detained and questioned for hours, have received permission from a federal judge to seek a jury’s ruling on possible violations of their constitutional rights.
The month-old court ruling from U.S. District Court in Minnesota hasn’t attracted nearly as much attention as when the imams and the Council on American-Islamic Relations filed the lawsuit claiming religious discrimination. In November 2006, the imams were removed from a flight before it left for Phoenix after they attended a clerical conference in Minneapolis. The imams were accused of “suspicious behavior” for praying to Allah in the terminal before the flight, for sitting in seats spread throughout the plane, for criticizing the U.S. involvement in Iraq, and for requesting seat belt extenders.
The lawsuit prompted national consternation, in part, because it sought to include other passengers who had reported their suspicions to the flight attendants and the pilot. That was so controversial that Congress passed a law granting immunity to people who report suspicious activity on federally regulated transportation.
U.S. District Judge Ann D. Montgomery said in her ruling that the various circumstances added up to reasonable suspicious about the imams at first glance, but those suspicions should have disappeared after just a few brief questions from law enforcement. The imams never have been considered dangerous by the federal government. They have a right to pray, even in Arabic, and they also can criticize government policies, she said. Most of the imams sat in seats assigned by U.S. Airways (one imam switched seats with a fellow passenger to move closer to a colleague who is completely blind). And while the seat belt extenders possibly could be used as weapons, Montgomery said they are no more dangerous than clothing belts that passengers are routinely allowed to wear on planes (and one of those seat belt extenders was requested by the blind imam, anyway).
For these reasons and technical legal issues, Montgomery dropped U.S. Airways from the lawsuit but will allow the case to go trial against the federal law enforcement agents involved.
“Plaintiffs have presented evidence that could lead a reasonable jury to conclude that they were arrested at least partly on the basis of their race, religion, or national origin,” Montegomery wrote.
The Tribune Editorial Board noted in 2006 that the treatment of the imams was deeply troubling in a nation where people are supposed to be able to worship freely and to speak their minds. I’m still bothered by U.S. Airways’ refusal to accept the imams as passengers after they were cleared of any wrongdoing. But I have to agree with Montgomery that the most egregious conduct was by federal law enforcement, which didn’t release the imams for hours after it should have been clear they weren’t a danger to anyone.
Posted in: Libertarian values • Islam • Minneapolis • U.S. Airways | 5 Comments »
July 27th, 2009, 3:14 pm by Le Templar
 John Paul Mitchell Early voting for Arizona’s state primaries is about a year away, but a candidate for governor scheduled to hold the first public event is already looking ahead to the November 2010 general election.
John Paul Mitchell hopes to qualify for the state ballot as an independent, which would allow him to bypass the primaries and go head-to-head against the Republican and Democratic nominees (and the Libertarian and Green alternatives, if those parties decide to get into the race).
I have written before about Mitchell, who is a manager at a Phoenix credit card call center. I continue to be impressed with the energy that Mitchell is throwing into what has to be a long-shot campaign. He’s got a robust Web site, is active on social media and has taken on some campaign staff. Now on Thursday, Mitchell will hold his first public forum before the Republican incumbent and the most likely Democratic challenger have even become candidates.
Mitchell is striving to run an unconventional campaign that uses rapidly evolving social technology to appeal to voters who are not longtime activists in the two major parties. In keeping with this theme, Mitchell will hold a two-hour online town hall to answer questions from the public. The chat, or liveblog, will feature Web software from Scribblelive, which allows users immediate access to such events through existing social media accounts such as Facebook, Twitter and Flickr.
Now, it’s hard to see how Mitchell will have a major impact on next year’s election. After all, a central tenet of his politics is running government without any taxes and the 16th Amendment never was legally ratified. The latter position tends to held by extreme, anti-tax protesters who sometimes wind up in prison.
But Ron Paul surprised a lot of people with his 2008 success in fundraising, if not with the popular vote, and pioneered some Internet techniques that Mitchell will try to expand upon. So it will be worth watching to see what Mitchell does.
Posted in: Congress • Courts • Election issues • Governor • 2010 elections • John Paul Mitchell | Post a Comment »
July 24th, 2009, 11:58 am by Le Templar
Here’s a quick look at some interesting news items to wrap up the week:
More budget cutting unravels – The state Supreme Court ruled today the Legislature illegally took $7 million in interest from a special program created by a 2006 initiative to fund early childhood education and health-care programs. Lawmakers knew they couldn’t touch the money raised directly from cigarette taxes assessed as part of 2006 law. But they hoped they could use the bank interest collected on the paid taxes waiting to be spent. The Supreme Court says “no.”
This becomes the latest setback for the Legislature in a series of lawsuits that have challenged various efforts to reduce a multi-billion dollar budget deficit. The courts have said the Legislature can’t force cities to pay back state funds; it can’t take funds paid by farmers and ranchers for specialized research and marketing; and it might not be able to cut programs that serve the disabled. Other challenges still waiting resolution include the removal of funding from Science Foundation of Arizona and the Arizona Industrial Commission. One would wonder if the Legislature has any budgeting authority left, except the courts did rule in favor of the state’s right to reduce wages and layoff employees.
The sales tax question — Many political activists have wondered if Gov. Jan Brewer or anyone else has a clear sense of what the general public wants for potential budget solutions. A new poll released Thursday by the state Realtors’ association suggests that Brewer is on the right track to support a temporary sales tax hike while opposing the Democrats’ proposal to lower the sales tax rate but expand the list of goods and services that are covered (which would ultimately bring in more tax revenue). The survey seems to be reliable (trustworthy polling outfit, statewide and randomly selected participants, tightly worded questions). The only fallacy I noticed is that the poll underrepresented independent voters (only 22 percent of the total questioned vs. 30 percent of all voter registrations). But the huge margins on the two main questions (two-thirds favoring a temporary sales tax increase but opposing a broader tax base with a lower rate) imply that one disparity didn’t affect the results.
But I’m not sure the poll results actually help Brewer’s cause with the Legislature. Democrats want permanent tax reform, not a temporary solution. And some Republicans have been reluctantly coming around to sending Brewer’s proposal to the ballot under the assumption that it would get defeated. Those Republicans might vote against Brewer now on philosophical grounds if there’s a good chance that voters would support the sales tax hike.
The push for ‘racinos’ — At the beginning of the week, the state’s horse and dog tracks launched a publicity campaign to convince lawmakers to allow slot machines and other forms of banned gambling at racetracks, as a alternative way to balance the budget (More taxes would be collected on gaming revenues). The effort includes an online ad appearing at several political news sites featuring the words, “Mine that bird” and “Mine that budget jockey.”
I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean. I didn’t make any connection to the ‘racino’ campaign, not even with the annoyingly loud sound at the start of the ad that’s apparently a combination of coins dropping and the starting bell of a horse race. But maybe the wording served its purpose, as after seeing it the ad a couple of times I clicked on it to see where the link sent me. I traveled here, a Facebook page called the Race for Revenues where the tracks are making their case with testimonials and fact sheets.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Courts • Election initiatives • Governor • Arizona Supreme Court • First Things First • Racinos • Realtors | Post a Comment »
July 23rd, 2009, 11:27 am by Le Templar
 Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s deputies (and along with Pinal County deputies) have started another “crime suppression sweep” across a wide swath of the East Valley. Today just happens to be Mesa’s formal goodbye party for the city’s police chief, George Gascon, who is leaving for San Francisco.
Given the story about Gascon that the Tribune printed online Tuesday night, I have no idea how Arpaio says the following this morning and expects anyone with a modicum of intelligence to believe him:
“I don’t care about this guy,” Arpaio told Tribune writer Gary Grado. “I don’t know his birthday, I don’t know his last day.”
This contrasts with what was sent on Twitter Wednesday to followers of @RealSheriffJoe:
“I wish the Mesa police Chief a safe move to San Fran,and if I’m ever in san Fran? maybe he’ll invite me to an italian dinner.”
Arpaio has gone out of his way to tell people that this is his real Twitter account. So he can’t pretend now that he didn’t say it. Whether or not Arpaio was being sincere on Twitter, clearly he cares about Gascon’s departure.
And today’s crime suppression sweep is no coincidence.
Posted in: Immigration • Maricopa County sheriff • Pinal County • George Gascon • Joe Arpaio | 4 Comments »
July 22nd, 2009, 2:18 pm by Le Templar
The Goldwater Institute is claiming it won big Wednesday in its bid to prompt more government transparency in possible taxpayer giveaways to a major-league sports franchise. The institute went to court to compel Glendale to turn over any records related to that city’s attempts to convince a future owner of the Phoenix Coyotes hockey team to stay at Jobing.com Arena. But the ruling isn’t quite as sweeping as the institute’s news release implies.
Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Edward Burke said Glendale gets to keep secret any documents that touch on the city’s actual negotiations with a potential Coyotes owner, including any possible tax incentives or sweetheart lease deals for use of the hockey arena. Burke has demanded that Glendale bring him those records the city wants to keep secret, so he can make sure the city isn’t trying to hide documents that really should be public now. But I doubt the records released at this point will give outsiders any idea of what Glendale has been up to in these private negotiations.
The best part of Burke’s ruling is Glendale has to release all negotiation documents as soon as the city schedules a proposal for the council to publicly consider, or when any ownership bids are filed in U.S. Bankruptcy Court. That means the judge will protect negotiation privacy only until the talks appear to be over, and then the public gets immediate access to records that might shed more light on what has been going on. Even then, Glendale won’t have to turn over records that reveal how much the city was willing to spend to complete a deal.
The outcome isn’t perfect, but at least a variety of records likely will be available for review in time for taxpayers to influence what Glendale does before the city signs any final agreement with the Coyotes.
Posted in: Courts • Freedom of Information • Goldwater Institute • Maricopa County Superior Court • Phoenix Coyotes | 1 Comment »
July 21st, 2009, 5:21 pm by Le Templar
 The national 2009 Capitol Christmas Tree from Arizona is similar to this blue spruce pine (but this isn't the official tree). Photo courtesy of the U.S. Forest Service. The first-ever Capitol Christmas tree from Arizona has been selected, and the pine will enjoy its last summer in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests before it is taken in November and eventually moved to Washington, D.C., according to U.S. Forest Service spokesman Jim Payne.
The selection came a little later than expected and was finished with the help of the superintendent of the Capitol grounds, who will manage the tree’s decoration and lighting ceremony. The winning tree is a 85-foot blue spruce, but its exact location will remain a secret for national security reasons until it is cut down, Payne said.
The tree won’t be just whisked away to the Capitol lawn, but will go on a meandering tour that’s expected to include a visit to Mesa.
Posted in: Holidays • Capitol Christmas Tree | 3 Comments »
July 21st, 2009, 3:49 pm by Le Templar
 Secretary of State Ken Bennett Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has released the latest voter registration statistics, and the results should scare the willies out of both Democratic and Republican activists.
The two major parties both basically have the same number of registered voters as they had in April (within a couple of thousand), with Republicans at 1.135 million and Democrats at 1.045 million. But nearly 18,000 new voters registered with nonballot parties or are truly independent, bringing their combined total to 897,989. That’s a 2 percent increase over just three months, a rate that would push the number of independent voters higher than registered Democrats by 2012 if nothing else changed.
To be fair, the two major parties are doing almost no voter recruitment during the summer of an off-election year. But barring some huge shake-up in the political landscape, the number of registered independent voters will move higher than Democrats or Republicans within the next five to 10 years.
At that point, won’t it be impossible for the Democrats and Republicans to maintain the two-party dominance of the Arizona election system? Candidates of the Libertarian and Green parties do automatically get on state ballots now. But their party registrations remain incredibly low because most voters view becoming a Libertarian or a Green as useless; only Republicans and Democrats actually are elected to office. So dissatisfied voters are protesting the present system in droves by registering as “other” instead.
Once those dissatisfied voters make up the largest percentage of registrations, it would seem that Republicans and Democrats will be regarded as representing minority views. Large minorities to be sure, but minorities nonetheless. Won’t voters demand changes to the election process so that candidates are elected who represent “the majority”?
This process likely will be accelerated by a federal court ruling earlier this year that Arizona must make it easier for credible independent and small-party presidential candidates to qualify for the state’s general elections. This crack in two-party control potentially could start a flood.
The Republican and Democratic parties are contributing to this erosion of voter strength by continuing to support Arizona’s open-primary system, which allows independent voters to cast ballots in state primaries of one of those parties. I have pointed out before that open primaries appear to be unconstitutional, but only the Libertarian Party has pursued its rights in court and closed its primaries to outsiders.
Maybe it’s already too late, but Republicans and Democrats likely would encourage more voters to join a major party if their primaries were closed as well.
Posted in: Arizona secretary of state • Election issues • Libertarian values • Arizona voter registration • Ken Bennett | 1 Comment »
July 21st, 2009, 11:15 am by Le Templar
 Photo by Capitol Media Services Arizona’s horse and dog tracks stepped up their latest campaign Monday to get access to slot machines and possibly other forms of gambling. Such a move would violate the 2002 gaming compact with the state’s Indian tribes that was put on the ballot by initiative and narrowly approved by voters. But the racetracks’ new strategy, crafted by Scottsdale uber-publicist Jason Rose, makes the case that the Tonoho O’odham already have broken the compact with plans to build what would be the state’s largest casino in Glendale. That site isn’t anywhere the state’s second biggest reservation, but apparently would be allowed under an obscure federal law quietly approved by Congress before the 2002 vote. The Tohono O’odham tribe has purchased the land and is waiting for the federal government to declare the location as part of its sovereign territory.
The racetracks are arguing voters had no idea in 2002 that renewing an exclusive monopoly for Indian tribes on slot machines and blackjack (and adding poker) would enable them to build new casinos in areas not part of their existing territories. Sheila Morago, executive director of the Arizona Indian Gaming Association, objects to the notion that voters might have been fooled or kept ignorant during the 2002 campaign.
“That’s your perception,” she told Capitol Media Services. “Has anybody ever asked them?”
Well, as someone who covered the 2002 campaign, I can definitely say that no one ever mentioned the possibility of one or more tribes opening casinos on land not previously recognized as eligible. In fact, there was some debate about the distinct competitive advantages that the urban tribes such as Salt River and Gila River (and the Tonoho in Tucson) had over tribes in rural areas. That was one reason why the compact (as previously negotiated by then-Gov. Jane D. Hull) allows the tribes to sell or lease their designated slot machines to another tribes. The idea was that rural tribes who would face real challenges in attracting casino customers might find it easier and more profitable to sell their share to an urban tribe.
The tribes seem to like their current monopoly. They remain opposed to allowing more gambling at the race tracks, even though that would trigger a “poison pill” in the 2002 compact that would lift most restrictions on tribal casinos. But the tribes need to prepare themselves for a potential backlash that could benefit competitors if the Tohono O’odham tribe goes through with its plans in Glendale.
Posted in: Arizona government • Congress • Election initiatives • Election issues • Governor • dog tracks • horse tracks • Jane D. Hull • Jason Rose • tribal gaming | 1 Comment »
July 20th, 2009, 1:20 pm by Le Templar
The Arizona Legislature “met” again Monday afternoon in special session called by Gov. Jan Brewer after she vetoed much of the budget adopted July 1. Today, lawmakers prayed; they pledged allegiance; they promised to return in another week. All of the real action remains behind closed doors in sporadic negotiations.
Well, at least lawmakers aren’t paying themselves for work they aren’t getting done.
Posted in: Arizona Legislature • Arizona government • Governor • Jan Brewer • state budget | Post a Comment »
|
|
Twitter