Kevin Ross of Gilbert wants his reputation back, and Maricopa County Assessor Keith Russell just might have to get out of his way.
   Ross is challenging Russell in the Sept. 2 Republican primary for the office that Ross held for almost eight years before he was convicted in 2008 on a felony charge that was later overturned and dismissed. This race has received almost no attention compared to contests for sheriff and county attorney. But Ross did buy some splashy elections ads in the Tribune over the weekend, demonstrating that he’s serious about regaining a position of public trust.
   When Russell, then a Mesa-based private appraiser, first went after Ross as the incumbent in 2004, few doubted Ross would be re-elected. Ross was generally recognized for running a tight fiscal ship during his first two terms while working to limit the impact of rising private property values on county assessments which are used to calculate property taxes. Ross also had championed a constitutional exemption for low-income senior citizens so they could freeze county assessments on their homes.
   But then Ross was accused by state Attorney General Terry Goddard of misusing that new law and the assessor’s office to seek personal profit. Ross had reached a private business deal to use a list of senior citizens who applied for home assessment freezes to market reverse mortgages to them. Goddard’s office claimed Ross had to use confidential information to put the list together and filed felony charges against him.
   Ross didn’t make any money from the reverse-mortgage deal, but Russell benefited heavily from the criminal charges against his opponent and won the 2004 elections. Then Ross was stripped of his title in December 2004 after a trial court convicted him of conflict of interest.
    Almost a year later, the Arizona Court of Appeals threw out the conviction, saying the information that Ross used came from public records and he didn’t violate state laws. By this point, Ross had spent more than $100,000 in legal fees and his name was sullied.
   So in late January 2008, Ross filed notice that he wanted $8 million from Goddard’s office and Maricopa County. On Feb. 1, the Tribune wrote an editorial suggesting he would do far more to regain his lost reputation if he campaigned for and won back the office of county assessor.
   Ross told me in a telephone call shortly after the editorial was published that he understood the reasoning of the Tribune Editorial Board. But Ross explained he was looking at a lawsuit because he wanted someone to say in black-and-white that he had been wronged — and there’s no guarantee he could win an election.
   I responded there were no guarantees Ross could win a lawsuit, either, and it didn’t make sense to demand a huge amount of money from the same taxpayers that Ross had pledged to protect.
   Eventually, Ross took the high road, and now Russell has to make an affirmative case to Maricopa County voters that he deserves a second term.
   Russell’s stewardship hasn’t received any significant criticism. But he does face lingering resentment from a number of property owners because their market values have dropped this year but their county assessments are still rising.
   Russell has a credible explanation: state law limits the amount that a county assessment for individual parcels can climb each year. So many county assessments fell far behind market increases between 2005 and 2007 and still need to catch up.
   The question this year is whether enough Republican voters have heard and understand Russell’s explanation, or whether they believe Ross could handle the state limits differently.

   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.

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.