Arizona's Politics published the minute entry from yesterday's telephonic status conference (posted this morning), and noted that the Judge disclosed that he had a "potential conflict." Providing research, the article posited two possible potential conflicts - that Herrod's law firm (before he joined the bench) has been representing Sheriff Arpaio in the federal civil suit that reentered the public eye last week when District Judge G. Murray Snow permanently enjoined the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office from continuing to racially profile, and that Herrod and his politically super-active spouse have made political contributions to many Arpaio allies (including former County Attorney Andrew Thomas).
Klayman initially questioned how Arizona's Politics had learned of the judge's disclosure, but recovered after reviewing his copy of the minute entry and declared that "we are confident that the judge will remain on the case." Klayman apparently confirmed that the judge's stated potential conflict was Schmitt Schneck's (Tim Casey's) representation of Arpaio in the Melendres case when he noted that "One, he didn't participate in any way in the case. And, two, we represent the voters of Arizona and not the Sheriff." He indicated that he meant that the judge's previous firm represents Arpaio, and that he intended to say that he represents the voters of Maricopa County (not the state).
Klayman is also "pleased we have a hearing set for June 25th". Even if the recall effort does not make it to the ballot today or as signatures are verified over the next few weeks, he believes that this case should move forward. "It is just like Roe v. Wade" in that recalls can keep being attempted and evading review. "We've maintained that you cannot institute a recall within six months - and the Constitution has not been amended."
We welcome your comments about this post. Or, if you have something unrelated on your mind, please e-mail to info-at-arizonaspolitics-dot-com or call 602-799-7025. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment