McSALLY MAKES IT OFFICIAL: 1st To Sign and File For 2020 Senate Special Election

Arizona's appointed Senator-To-Be Martha McSally made it official last night when she signed and filed her Statement of Candidacy to retain her seat in the Senate in the 2020 Special Election.

It is not uncommon for Members of Congress (including Senators) to file their Statement of Candidacy shortly after the just-passed election, because it allows them to continue to accept contributions from individuals, PACs, etc. In fact, Sen.-Elect Kyrsten Sinema filed her 2024 Statement of Candidacy on November 19, one week after McSally conceded the election to replace Sen. Jeff Flake.

Nearly half of Arizona's new delegation in the House of Representatives have also filed their statements to seek re-election in 2020. Perhaps more notable are a couple of the Representatives who have NOT yet filed - Ruben Gallego (D-CD7) has expressed interest in running for the Democratic nomination in the Senatorial Special Election, and Paul Gosar (R-CD4) had been interested in running to replace Flake. Less likely: Ann Kirkpatrick (D-CD2) previously ran against the late Sen. John McCain (2016), and Andy Biggs (R-CD5) and David Schweikert (R-CD6).

(Four challengers have already filed for various House seats, with the best-known of those being Dave Giles (R) in CD9.*)

McSally will enter the Senate with more than $1M already in her re-election war chest. Arizona's Politics reported on her latest campaign finance filing earlier this month. ("McSally Locked, Loaded and Ready For 2020 Run - Well, Definitely Loaded")

Arizona's Politics previously reported on the lawsuit to attempt to force Governor Doug Ducey to hold the Special Election for McCain's seat this year, by declaring Arizona's replacement law unconstitutional. An Amended Complaint was filed last week, and is pending response.

(If the embedded filing below is not working, you may click on this link to open it in another window.)

   McSally Statement of Candidacy, for Senate Special Election in 2020 by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

*The others are Robert Musselwhite (D, CD8), Scott Menor (U, CD5), and James Schmidt (R, CD2).

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

One of Arizona's retiring Senators may be a lame duck, but it appears Jeff Flake is quacking - that IS part of the job description for both, after all -  through the closing bell. Politico included his actions in their narrative of the frantic negotiations to avert the partial government shutdown today.

Flake - along with fellow retiring Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) - initially withheld votes to open Senate debate on the House-passed bill that includes $5B for a border wall. After they - along with Democrat Doug Jones (D-AL) - opened debate, that allowed Flake to apparently conduct some shuttle diplomacy on a compromise that could both pass the Senate and gain both House and presidential approval.

Here is how Politico describes it, after noting that Senate leaders Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer were barely speaking Friday morning:

In fact, things were so bad and GOP senators so disgusted with the state of play that two of them, Sens. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), couldn’t be convinced to even open debate on a doomed House-passed bill that delivered $5 billion for the border wall. The vote stayed open for more than five hours as Perdue and Gardner backchanneled with the administration, and as Schumer spoke to Trump officials and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Eventually, Flake, Corker and Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) voted to move forward on the bill and allow leaders to keep talking. Seemingly minor, the procedural move makes it possible for the Senate to act as quickly as a deal can be struck. 

“Mitch certainly doesn’t want to put us out voting on something that the president has not agreed to. The key is that the president has to agree that he will [sign] this,” Flake said. 

Flake met with Corker, then with Schumer, McConnell, and finally the two leaders together to move the Senate’s funding effort forward. Yet while that procedural fracas was playing out, Republicans were frantically trying to come up with something they could put on the floor. 

The shuttle diplomacy continued throughout the day. 

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

BREAKING: 2019 Special Election To Replace McCain/Kyl Less Likely After Court Filing

Plaintiffs pushing Arizona Governor Doug Ducey to call an immediate special election to re-fill the late Sen. John McCain's have backed off a bit after consulting with Gov. Ducey's attorney.

The suit claims the Arizona law permitting Ducey to name the again-retiring Jon Kyl - and, now, a 2nd appointment for a full two year Congressional session - is unconstitutional.  Filed Nov. 29, the suit asks for a court order which would set an election within 6 months.

Mike Liburdi represents the Governor and conferred with plaintiffs' counsel last week. Subsequently, plaintiffs have asked the judge to NOT setoral argument on their motion for an injunction. Instead, they would like to amend their Complaint.

Arizona's Politics has requested comments from both sides and will update as necessary.

http://arizonaspolitics.blogspot.com/2018/11/az-law-unconstitutional-special.html?m=1
If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

BREAKING: Sen. Kyl Will Still Need To File Financial Disclosure Statement - Even If He's Already Gone

It has apparently become a universally-accepted fact that a key reason Arizona Senator* Jon Kyl is resigning on December 31 is so he will not need to file the Senate's Personal Financial Disclosure statement that all federal elected officials (and, some in their offices) are obligated to file. It is unlikely that it was a motivation, because Kyl will still be required to file his statement.

The widely-accepted speculation centered around Kyl's inter-Senatorial stint (2013-18) as a high-powered lobbyist at one of the nation's biggest lobbying law firms (Covington & Burling). Arizona's Politics first reported on Kyl's financial disclosure statement back when he first announced his retirement from the Senate, in 2011. He then had a mid-range net worth estimate of $554k, which ranked him as only the 82nd richest member of that body. (Bonus fun fact: he said then he did not want to be a lobbyist.)

Soon after Governor Doug Ducey appointed him to fill out at least a portion of the late Senator John McCain's term, Kyl asked for an extension from the October 5 deadline to file his new disclosure statement, and it was granted. His new filing date is January 3.

So, the extension request combined with Kyl's initial announcement that he might only serve a few months to create the impression. And, the savvy Senator seemed to encourage that impression to flourish. Arizona's Politics has asked him, his staff and associates several times during the past 2+ months whether or not he would file the disclosure statement. (We have been asking many other questions, as well.) Crickets.

The assumption that the filing requirement would vanish if he was not in the Senate on January 3 thus flourished. However, the law does not allow for such a work-around.

The Ethics In Government Act (which Sen. Kyl helped amend in 2012), published in part below,  require reports to be filed by an individual who serves in an office for at least 60 days. And, even after leaving the government position, the individual has 30 days to file a report for the calendar year that he was in office. (Subsections (d) and (e).) Kyl will have served 117 days as of December 31.

Interestingly, the law does permit Senator Kyl to request a WAIVER of the disclosure statement requirement if he served fewer than 130 days. However, the Secretary of the Senate could only approve such a request if he was not a full-time employee, if his services were "specially needed by the Government", if his "outside employment or financial interests" were unlikely to create a conflict of interest, and if the disclosure "is not necessary in the circumstances." Even if Kyl requested such a waiver, it is highly unlikely the Senate could reasonably approve it. (Subsection (i).)

Arizona's Politics has (again) reached out to Sen. Kyl for comment, and will update as needed.

(Arizona's Politics has published several articles about Sen. Kyl, his lobbying and sherpaing, and his disclosures. Here are a few:

BREAKING, WATCH: Arizona Senator Kyl's Presentation Supporting Kavanaugh Confirmation http://bit.ly/AZp1636

NEW! AZ Sen. Jon Kyl Did Work For Dark Money Giant JCN In Preparing For This Supreme Court Vacancy - How Much Involved Kavanaugh?http://bit.ly/AZp1631 

MOUNTAINS OF MONEY: Arizona's Sen. Jon Kyl Is Top Sherpa For Trump Administration, Lobbyist For Dark Money Judicial Crisis Network 

"16-Year (So Far) Senate Career Has Not Been (Financially) Rewarding For Arizona Senator Jon Kyl...Yet"http://bit.ly/AZpKylNetWorth   (a real oldie!))

   United States Code_ Title 5a,101. Persons Required to File _ LII _ Legal Information Institute by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

*Technically, "former-, current- and future-former-Senator".

(This article was contributed by Tempe attorney Paul Weich.)


If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

BREAKING: MCSO Deputy arrested for stealing money from a dead person in Mesa, while on duty.

MCSO Deputy arrested for stealing money from a dead person in Mesa, while on duty. This happened on October 28.

   Deputy Arrest, Maricopa County Sheriff's Office by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

BREAKING: McSally Locked, Loaded and Ready For 2020 Run - Well, Definitely Loaded

Outgoing Rep. Martha McSally is locked, loaded and ready for another run at a U.S. Senate seat from Arizona. Or, at a minimum, she is loaded. The former fighter pilot, who narrowly lost an expensive campaign to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake, keeps more than $1M in the McSally For Senate bank account.

Considering that she spent more than $19.7M on the race against fellow Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, keeping approximately 5% in the tank may not seem like much. But, given that there is already pressure on Governor Doug Ducey to appoint her to take Sen. Jon Kyl's place serving out the term for the late Sen. John McCain, having a significant head start has already increased speculation that she will soon join Sinema in the Senate.

The ongoing war-chest numbers come from the campaign's latest FEC filing, which is re-produced below in all of its 5,073-page glory. For comparison, the Sinema campaign has $212k in the tank, although she will not be running for re-election until 2024.

We have requested a response from the McSally campaign, and will update as needed.

McSally Post-Gen FEC by on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

<p  style=" margin: 12px auto 6px auto; font-family: Helvetica,Arial,Sans-serif; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 14px; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal; -x-system-font: none; display: block;">   <a title="View AAN v State - Clean Elections Sb1516 - ME Granting SJ on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/document/395015729/AAN-v-State-Clean-Elections-Sb1516-ME-Granting-SJ#from_embed"  style="text-decoration: underline;" >AAN v State - Clean Elections Sb1516 - ME Granting SJ</a> by <a title="View arizonaspolitics's profile on Scribd" href="https://www.scribd.com/user/218365445/arizonaspolitics#from_embed"  style="text-decoration: underline;" >arizonaspolitics</a> on Scribd</p><iframe class="scribd_iframe_embed" title="AAN v State - Clean Elections Sb1516 - ME Granting SJ" src="https://www.scribd.com/embeds/395015729/content?start_page=1&view_mode=scroll&access_key=key-aDL8MlDp9x3lMnJT9lT9&show_recommendations=true" data-auto-height="false" data-aspect-ratio="0.7729220222793488" scrolling="no" id="doc_19594" width="100%" height="600" frameborder="0"></iframe>

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 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.

NOT BOTTLED UP: Embattled Interior Secretary Zinke Goes "Full Trump" On Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva

Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-CD3) is set to become the Chair of the House Natural Resources Committee next year. After publishing a column in the USA Today calling on Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke to resign, the embattled Secretary went "Full Trump" on the Arizona Representative.

Questioning Rep. Grijalva's alcohol intake and payments made to a former committee employee who had made hostile workplace claims, Zinke took to the President's favorite forum for slinging insults. (In order to free himself from Twitter's character limits*, he fashioned his rant as a public statement from the "Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke".)

My thoughts on Rep. Grijalva’s opinion piece. #TuneInnForMore pic.twitter.com/VMGxdtHwvU

— Secretary Ryan Zinke (@SecretaryZinke) November 30, 2018

To be clear, although Grijalva's call for Zinke to resign focused on the Secretary's scandals and ethics, he did not call Zinke names. He did make the case that Zinke lacks "credible leadership" and warned that scrutiny of the Department will intensify in January when Democrats become the majority party.

Zinke's impolitic and nasty tweet also slurs what little is known about the severance package that became public knowledge last year. The unsourced report claims that the Committee employee was prepared to file a lawsuit that alleged that Grijalva "was frequently drunk and created a hostile workplace environment." There is no specific allegation that any drunkenness was in the workplace, and the Congressman has publicly and flatly denied ever being impaired or drinking while on the job. He also said that he does not have a drinking problem.

The former employee was paid $48,000 as part of an agreement authorized by the House Employment Counsel in 2015, and no complaints or lawsuits were filed. Grijalva states that the ex-employee would not release him from the confidentiality clause to speak further.

*A strange (non-sexual) double entendre if ever there was one.

(Edited to remove reference to the hashtag used by Zinke.)

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

COMMENTARY: Arizona Republicans "Monkeyed" With Law To Replace Senator McCain, Made It Unconstitutional

The following is a commentary by Chandler election law attorney Tom Ryan, in response to the lawsuit filed Wednesday challenging the constitutionality of Arizona's law to replace the late Senator John McCain, and calling for a special election within six months:

I think it is overdue! Look, the AZGOP in the Legislature monkeyed with the statute re: replacing a U.S. Senator to give Ducey this kind of power to make serial appointments. The purpose of the 17th Amendment was to give the power of direct election to the citizens of each state. There is a power of temporary appointment but that is intended to be just a stop gap measure until the special election can be held.  Here we hear rumors of Kyl resigning and Ducey getting a 2nd appointment!!  All the while critical issues are popping up in the Senate that the citizens of Arizona are being deprived of the opportunity to elect their own voice, not the voice of just one individual.  Think about that for a moment! We passed the 17th Amendment to remove the appointment of U.S. Senators from the state senates, and gave that power to the citizens. If it was bad to let the state senators wield such power, how much worse is it to give that same power to just one person – the governor?!

So the Gov has set the replacement election for McCain’s seat for the 2020 election cycle. That is more than 2 years from the date McCain passed away. Why do we need to wait 2 years?!  Trent Franks resigned on December 8, 2017 because of his sex scandal. The Gov set the dates for the special election to replace Franks so quickly that Debbie Lesko was put into office just five months later on May 5, 2018. If you go back and look at the newspaper accounts of when the AZ GOP was monkeying with Title 16 you will see they were doing so in anticipation of McCain’s passing and giving Ducey this power of serial appointments.  That’s just wrong.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

AZ LAW UNCONSTITUTIONAL? A Special Election To Replace Senator McCain Must Be Held In 6 Months, Claims New Lawsuit (BREAKING, READ)

The constitutionality of Arizona's law giving Governor Doug Ducey the right to control the U.S. Senate seat vacated by the passing of John McCain has been challenged in federal court.

A group of plaintiffs led by William Tedards filed the action against Ducey and Senator Jon Kyl yesterday and asks that the Governor be required to call for a special election within six months. Their contention is that the 17th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (text below) which requires that U.S. Senators be elected invalidates the Arizona law (also below) that the special election for a Senate vacancy can only be held at a biennial general election.

17th Amendment, U.S. Constitution

McCain passed away in August, too late for Governor Ducey to add a primary and general election to be held by November 6, 2018. Instead, he appointed former Kyl to the seat, even as Kyl indicated that he might very well only stay in the position through the end of 2018. That would permit the Governor to make a new appointment for another two years, for a total of 28 months.

When asked by Arizona's Politics about the timing of this action, nearly three months after the Kyl appointment, lead attorney Mike Persoon stated there was no plan to wait until after the November 6 election: "Lawsuits -- particularly those brought by ordinary citizens -- take some time to pull together. They rarely happen overnight. That said, the lawsuit is proceeding quickly.”

Persoon - who also represented the plaintiffs in a similar case in Illinois in 2010 - and local attorney Michael Kielsky have asked for a preliminary injunction which would order the Governor to call a special election within six months.

Arizona election attorney Tom Ryan has been speaking out on this subject since the Governor appointed Kyl. Today, he told Arizona's Politics that it is about time: "the AZGOP in the Legislature monkeyed with the statute re: replacing a U.S. Senator to give Ducey this kind of power to make serial appointments. The purpose of the 17th Amendment was to give the power of direct election to the citizens of each state."

(Ryan's full comments are posted as a sidebar editorial here.)

Governor Ducey's office has been asked for comment on the new suit, and this article will be updated as necessary.

(This article was provided by Tempe election law attorney Paul Weich.)

   tedards v ducey complaint - re mccain seat.pdf by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

   A.R.S. 16-222 - Vacancy in the office of United States senator or representative.pdf by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

BREAKING: Judge Allows Navajo Nation To Withdraw Request That Could Have Delayed Arizona Election Certification

(UPDATE: Judge Lanza did permit the Navajo Nation to withdraw its TRO application today, thus permitting Arizona to finish certifying the results from this month's election on time next Monday. The Court's simple explanation (below) is that he wanted to learn more about the basis for withdrawing the request that approximately 100 Navajo Nation voters be permitted to cure their early ballots this week. This indicates that the Navajo Nation is dropping that request and focusing more on ensuring better voting access for residents of the large area in future elections. The headline has been edited to reflect the Judge's decision, but the article below remains intact.)

U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza DENIED the Navajo Nation's request to vacate a court hearing this morning on a case that could delay the certification of Arizona's November 6 election results.

The Navajo Nation filed suit last week to give approximately 100 Navajo voters the chance to cure their early ballots which were properly filled out but not signed. The suit also seeks other measures in the future to make it easier for Navajo Nation members to access their right to vote in future elections.

Sunday, attorneys for the sovereign government asked Judge Lanza to vacate the hearing on the Temporary Restraining Order set for Monday at 10am, saying that they now believe that they will be able to work with elections officials in the three Arizona counties which include portions of the Navajo Nation. It appeared that they were prepared to forego a reopening of the cure period for voters in this month's election.

Judge Lanza denied the request to vacate the hearing, and said the hearing will address the motion.

   Navajo Nation v. Reagan - Minute Entry by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

   Navajo Nation v Reagan - Motion to Withdraw TRO by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

WATCH: "Go Get Him, Acosta! Do Not Back Down" - Sen. Flake's Exhortation To The Press, In a "Search For Truth" Keynote

https://cs.pn/2RWLfxs

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

DEFAMATION: Arpaio Serving NY Times, Immediately Ready To File A 2nd Defamation Suit - Rolling Stone Calls Him "Ex-Felon"

(UPDATE, 4:15pm: The Rolling Stone has changed its description of former Sheriff Arpaio and removed the "ex-felon" descriptor. The article now reads "presidential pardonee and former Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio. (Arpaio was convicted of contempt of court, a misdemeanor, in 2017 and pardoned by Trump less than one month later.)"

As a (very) public figure, Arpaio has a higher legal burden to prove defamation than does an ordinary citizen. Arpaio will have to be able to prove "actual malice" for his lawsuit against the NY Times (or, the potential suit vs. RS) to go anywhere.)

Former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his attorney are serving the New York Times with their defamation lawsuit today, and sighted their second media target today.

Rolling Stone published an article this afternoon about Rep. Kyrsten Sinema's apparent victory in Arizona's U.S. Senate election. In it, the article notes that Rep. Martha McSally had beaten Kelli Ward and Joe Arpaio in the August primary; Ward was described as a "tea party conspiracist" and Arpaio was touted as both the former Sheriff and an "ex-felon."

This grabbed the former lawman, who immediately tweeted that he "was never arrested or charged with a felony."  He calls the Rolling Stone description "completely, misleading, defamatory statements by Rolling Stone is calculated to harm his reputation. Fake news, Already suing large newspaper for 147.5 mil. (all, sic)"

Rolling Stone says Sheriff Joe Arpaio is a ex-felon. Arpaio was never arrested or charged with a felony. Arpaio says the completely, misleading, defamatory statements by Rolling Stone is calculated to harm his reputation. Fake news, Already suing large newspaper for 147.5 mil.

— Sheriff Joe Arpaio (@RealSheriffJoe) November 13, 2018

Of course, Arpaio was convicted of criminal contempt of a Court Order for his role in the racial profiling lawsuit Melendres v. Arpaio. The conviction carried a maximum 6-month jail, and was thus considered to be a misdemeanor. Arpaio was pardoned by President Donald Trump before sentencing, and the former Sheriff is currently trying to expunge that finding of guilt. (It is in the 9th Circuit, and the Arpaio legal team is appealing the appointment of a special prosecutor to the U.S. Supreme Court.)

Last month, Arpaio and his attorney Larry Klayman did file a $147.5M defamation lawsuit against the New York Times and columnist Michelle Cottle. Cottle celebrated Arpaio's defeat in the primary and compared Maricopa County jails under Arpaio to "concentration camps". As a (very) public figure, Arpaio has a higher legal burden to prove defamation than does an ordinary citizen. Arpaio will have to be able to prove "actual malice" for his lawsuit against the NY Times (or, the potential suit vs. RS) to go anywhere.

Klayman told Arizona's Politics today that the "ex-felon" descriptor is also defamatory. He declined to indicate whether he had already discussed this article with Arpaio, and said that "the New York Times is being served today." He also promised that things "will heat up soon."

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

THROWING IN THE TOWEL? White House, Senior Republicans Think McSally Should Be Pushing Their Vote Count Trickery Messages; Suspect She's Just Waiting For Ducey Appointment To McCain Seat

Wow! Trump's top political aides - inside and outside the White House - and other national Republicans believe that Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) has not been pushing their desired party line that some sort of trickery is happening in Arizona's ballot processing and counting. Some speculate that she is silent because she believes re-elected Governor Doug Ducey will appoint her to fill Sen. John McCain's seat if she loses the election to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9).

This reporting from Alex Isenstadt and James Arkin at Politico help fill in some of the missing puzzle pieces. When Trump Campaign Manager Brad Parscale tweeted about "tricks" in Arizona and speculated about "rampant fraud", followed quickly by the President's implications that there was corruption on display in Arizona, it was a sudden 1-2 that caught many off guard.

But, when that was followed by Arizona Senator Jon Kyl chiming in and RNC Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel calling it intentional "corruption" and "election meddling" on Fox's Sean Hannity's show, it was apparent that a strategy had been formed that left out McSally. Trump's over the top tweet from Paris this afternoon - just as a court hearing on the Republicans' suit to stop Maricopa and Pima County Recorders from contacting voters was about to begin - brought the chorus to a crescendo.

Just out — in Arizona, SIGNATURES DON’T MATCH. Electoral corruption - Call for a new Election? We must protect our Democracy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 9, 2018

Politico's reporting fills in some of the behind the scenes details.

At the highest levels of the national party, there’s frustration with McSally — and a sense that she’s not being aggressive enough throughout the process.

While Florida Gov. Rick Scott has lashed out at election officials over the vote counting in his state, McSally has been largely silent. Top officials with the White House and Republican National Committee, who’ve been prodding the McSally campaign to amp up its efforts, have expressed frustration that the Arizona congresswoman hasn’t tried to drive a message that there’s something amiss with the vote count.

On Thursday evening, senior Republicans joined the McSally campaign for a conference call to discuss the state of play. On the call, Justin Clark, the White House director of public liaison, and Mike Roman, a veteran opposition researcher who is working with the RNC, pressed the McSally campaign on what was being done. 

RNC Chairwoman Ronna Romney McDaniel, meanwhile, has spoken with Lines, and has expressed a desire for more aggressiveness.

The article then outlines McSally's and Lines' tepid statements trying to re-brand the lawsuit as an effort to stop disenfranchisement of voters in rural counties*, rather than pushing the corruption/trickert/fraud line.

The kicker comes next, when the reporters note that some Republicans suspect a motive for McSally's supposed lack of fight.

Among some senior Republicans, there is suspicion about why McSally has chosen to hold back. Some are convinced that she’s willing to let the race go and instead hope for an appointment to the state’s other Senate seat. Kyl, who was picked to replace the late Sen. John McCain, has yet to commit to serving for a full term.

*The Complaint and Motion for a TRO filed by four GOP County Committees on Wednesday repeatedly indicate that they were primarily targeting the voter contact procedures in Pima and Maricopa Counties. While the legal basis for the claims was that all 15 counties should utilize the same procedure for curing mis-matched signature issues, at no point did they indicate that the desired solution would be to require the rural counties to employ the same procedures that Pima County has used for several elections and that Maricopa County adopted last month under a threat of litigation.

Here is a quote from the Complaint: "27. On information and beliet however, certain County Recorders - specifically those of Maricopa and Pima Counties - will allow voters to cure non-compliant early ballots for a period of five days after Election Day, a contingency that finds no statutory authorization and threatens to beget an extended period of confusion and uncertainty following the election."

Joined by the Arizona GOP (and the Arizona Public Integrity Alliance), the Plaintiffs agreed today to allow Maricopa and Pima Counties to continue contacting the voters, and allowing and/or instructing other counties to quickly start doing so, as well.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

BREAKING: As Sinema Increases Lead To 20k Votes, Sandra Kennedy Slips Into Corporation Commissioner Lead

With more vote counts being released tonight, Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) increased her lead for the U.S. Senate seat to 20,203 votes. Also, Democratic candidate Sandra Kennedy slipped into 2nd place for the two open Corporation Commission seats.

Kennedy, a former Commissioner, now leads Republican Rodney Glassman by nearly 1,700 votes.

In other developments, Republican Steve Gaynor has maintained his 50.3%-49.7% edge over Katie Hobbs for Secretary of State (+10,609), and Democrat Kathy Hoffman has increased her lead for State Superintendent of Public Instruction over Frank Riggs (+31,886).


If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

Settlement Agreement - Parties Disagree On Impact Of Settlement Of GOP's Suit Re: Curing Mis-Matched Ballot Envelope Signatures

To the surprise of many - including some of the parties in the GOP's lawsuit - a settlement agreement was announced at Friday afternoon's court hearing. The GOP had sued all of Arizona's County Recorders in order to stop four counties from reaching out to early voters if the signature on their envelope did not match the voter registration signature on file.

The Settlement Agreement announced instructs those counties to continue - until Wednesday, Nov. 14 -  the same "cure" procedures that they were practicing before Election Day. The other counties are also supposed to follow the same procedures that they were following before Election Day.

And, that is where some confusion arises. Brett Johnson, the attorney for the plaintiffs, announced again that their goal was to create parity between all of Arizona's counties. However, his later comments did not make it at all clear that the 11 "other counties" now need to go to the land of mismatched signatures and contact the affected voters. Many of those counties either did not contact voters with problematic signatures or ceased doing so several days before Election Day.

However, Kory Langhofer, attorney for the Arizona Republican Party, claimed victory after the hour-long hearing,  "This is a really big win for Republicans and Martha McSally. These rural counties that were not going to count Republicans votes in rural areas got caught with their pants down."

He quickly shifted the focus, however, claiming that it is unfair that Republicans only have 3 observers watching Maricopa County process the remaining hundreds of thousands of ballots. "You kidding me? That's not real transparency."

He acknowledged that that is the same number of observers they have had in past elections, and the Democrats have the same number. He declined to answer Arizona's Politics' question if that meant that the GOP will go to court to seek to increase the number of partisan observers.

Today's settlement will likely not be greeted warmly by President Trump, who tweeted shortly before the hearing that there was corruption going on in Arizona's vote counting.

Just out — in Arizona, SIGNATURES DON’T MATCH. Electoral corruption - Call for a new Election? We must protect our Democracy!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 9, 2018

Earlier in the day, the President had hinted that he felt it was corrupt, in televised remarks. Arizona's Politics reported on those remarks and you can watch his FULL response here.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

WATCH: Trump Implies Corruption In Arizona Vote-Counting - "All Of a Sudden Out Of the Wilderness They Find a Lot Of Votes"

President Donald Trump went after Arizona's electoral process and the Democrats' influence on it. Without any evidence to back it up, he implied that corruption was to blame for Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) taking a slim 9,000 vote lead in the Senate contest against Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2).

The President was asked a question about the size of the Democrats' majority in the U.S. House of Representatives next year. He quickly segued into a boast about how he has rooted out corruption in the FBI and Department of Justice - "We're getting to the bottom of it and I've done a helluva job" - before raising the Arizona vote-counting.

"But, it is interesting. It always seems to go the way of the Democrats. Now in Arizona, all of a sudden, out of the wilderness they find a lot of votes. And she’s – the other candidate – is just winning by a hair."

Here is President Trump's entire response about the Tuesday election, as the context is important. The Arizona comment is at the 1:05 mark.

Will open in new tab: https://cs.pn/2F99UNA

Trump then quickly repeated a rant about corruption in the elections process in Broward County (Florida). The Arizona comments were sandwiched by his corruption remarks, and was in concert with comments today from his 2020 campaign chair. Brad Parscale, alleging fraud.

These democrat counties in Florida and Arizona are playing tricks because they just can’t accept the fact they lost. I will not be shocked if investigations lead to rampant fraud. Republicans need to send every lawyer we have to protect the legitimacy of these elections.

— Brad Parscale (@parscale) November 9, 2018

There is no evidence of any "found" votes or any "trickery" or "fraud" in Arizona's ballot processing and counting process, and unfounded accusations against the integrity of Arizona's elections - especially coming from the President - is irresponsible, reckless and could be construed as un-American.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

HELP WANTED: Can't Wait For The #AZSen Results? Help Maricopa County Process The Flood Of Last Minute Ballots

Democracy wants you! Especially if you are impatiently awaiting the final tallies on the extremely close races, and you have some time to help move the process along!

(Help these lonely ballots!)

The Maricopa County Recorder's Office has set up an EventBrite sign up sheet for about 300 Republicans, Democrats and Independents to take a shift to help process the flood of last minute ballots they received on Election Day (and just before).

Shifts are available from 7am-2pm, 3-10pm, or an after work shift from 6-10pm, and the pay is $10.50/hour.  Currently at the link, the schedule requests workers through Sunday, but Chief Deputy Recorder Keely Varvel tells Arizona's Politics that new shifts for next week will be posted soon.

The sign-up has separate slots for Democrats, Republicans, and "Others", because the ballots are processed by mixed teams, to prevent any funny business. The work entails checking the envelopes and the voter information on there before separating the secret ballot from the identifying info, removing any stray marks on the ballots which would prevent them from being properly scanned, and duplicating ballots that do not properly scan.

Here is the link to sign up: http://bit.ly/ElectionBoardSignUps

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. http://bit.ly/AZpDonate 

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.

BREAKING: Arizona Democrats Fire Back, File The 2nd Complaint Against Maricopa County Recorder

UPDATE, 6PM: We have received and are posting below the Complaint filed by the Arizona Democratic Party. It is a public records suit asking for information on any "conditional provisional ballots" cast on Tuesday, and for lists of those early or provisional ballots where the signatures did not match. The request was made one week before Election Day and the Recorder's Office had promised to provide the information immediately after the polls closed.

As the Republicans and the County Recorders discussed in today's hearing in the other case, the deadline for voters to cure any defects in their ballots is next Wednesday. Both parties are requesting the information so that they can assist their party members in ensuring that their ballots are counted.

Keely Varvel, the Chief Deputy Recorder for Maricopa County, tells Arizona's Politics that the lists are not yet ready and will be provided to both parties as soon as it is.

The Arizona Democratic Party has fired the 2nd shot today in the legal battle over counting ballots in the tightly-contested #AZSen (and, other) race. The new lawsuit is only against the Maricopa County Recorder's Office, where the vast majority of yet-uncounted ballots (and the

Arizona's Politics has not yet received responses from the parties or the court about the specific

subject of the new complaint, but it follows yesterday afternoon's lawsuit filed by Arizona Republicans. The GOP is trying to prevent Maricopa, Pima, and Apache counties from reaching out to voters who signed their early ballot outer envelopes in a way that does not match voter registration records.

The Republican lawsuit had its initial hearing in court this morning. Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney emphatically rejected the plaintiffs' effort to order the counties to segregate any ballots that may be subject to the suit. Daniel Jurkowitz argued that state statutes would not permit the ballots to be kept with the identifying envelopes once the signature is verified indicating that it is a legitimately mailed (or, dropped off) ballot.

Jurkowitz also indicated that the Pima County Recorder has moved to dismiss the GOP lawsuit.

The Arizona Republican Party is attempting to intervene in the initial lawsuit, and its attorney (Kory Langhofer) is also trying to intervene on  behalf of the Arizona Public Integrity Alliance - a group that does not disclose its financial backing.  Other parties attempting to intervene are the Arizona Democratic Party and the League of Latin American Citizens and the American Civil Liberties Union. (The latter two working together.)

The U.S. Senate race is still too close to call, with Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) currently leading Rep. Kyrsten Sinema (D-CD9) by less than 17,000 votes (out of 1.75M cast). Several hundred thousand ballots are still being verified and counted.

   ADP Public Records Suit by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

BREAKING: READ Arizona Republicans' Legal Challenge To Verifying Early Ballot Signatures

Arizona Republican groups filed legal action yesterday afternoon to prevent County Elections Departments from calling voters whose signatures on their early ballot envelopes do not exactly match their voter registration signatures.  A hearing on the motion for a temporary restraining order is being held this morning.

Here are the Complaint and the TRO Motion filed by the Republican Committees for Maricopa County, Yuma County, Apache County and Navajo County. It names all of Arizona's County Recorders and the Secretary of State.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Margaret Mahoney is conducting an emergency telephonic hearing at this hour. Arizona's Politics was not permitted to monitor the hearing, but will report on the outcome as soon as possible.

The Arizona Republic broke the news of the suit last night, and the outcome may effect an unknown number of late-cast early ballots. In response to a threatened legal action a couple of weeks before the election, Maricopa County announced that it would join other counties in asking voters if they did, in fact, sign the green return envelope. (Such phone calls are routinely made for questions arising from quickly-returned early ballots.)

   Maricopa County Republican Party Complaint by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

   Maricopa County Republican Party Motion for TRO by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

BREAKING, READ: Green Angela Green's Last-Minute Withdrawal; Her Votes Will Be Counted, Polling Places Will Post The Withdrawal

(UPDATE, 8:40am: Arizona Election Director has announced that the text of the withdrawal form is outdated, and that any ballots cast for Ms. Green "WILL be tabulated.")


In today's nationally-watched Arizona Senate election, here is the last-second withdrawal filed by Green Party candidate Angela Green.

As noted, the withdrawal will prevent any votes that either have already been cast for her or will be cast for her today to not be counted or announced.

Arizona Elections Director Eric Spencer indicated yesterday afternoon that all of Arizona's County Recorders have been notified of the withdrawal. Arizona's Politics has received reports that some polling places will post a notice of the withdrawal - near where eligible write-in candidates will be posted.

Last week, Green told KPNX's Brahm Resnik that she was withdrawing and asking people to support Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in the tight battle against Republican Martha McSally.

Angela Green formally withdrew her candidacy for U.S. Senate in the last hour with @SecretaryReagan.  All counties have now been notified.

— Eric Spencer (@Eric_Spencer) November 5, 2018

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.

BREAKING: Both Candidates Raising Money At Equally-Furious Clip - >$1M/Week - But McSally Heads Into Home Stretch With $1.2M More In Bank

Both candidates for Arizona's open Senate seat raised more than $3M in the first 2 1/2 weeks of October, yet Rep. Martha McSally (R-CD2) headed into the final three weeks of the hotly-contested campaign with $2.5M in the bank compared to Rep. Kyrsten Sinema's $1.3M.

The new filings (below) are the last reports before the November 6 election, and it proves that the race is nearly even in more ways than just the polling.

McSally's campaign took in $3.6M between October 1-17, which brought its total to $16.2M. In those 17 days, it spent $4.4M ($13.7M total).

By comparison, Sinema both raised and spent about $300k less for the October 1-17 period. However, her campaign totals are higher, having received $19.3M and spent $20.3M.*

As Arizona's Politics has noted on several occasions, the ginormous amounts being spent by outside groups in this race - making it the 3rd most expensive race in the country (in a year that will be the highest-spending Congressional elections in history) - almost make any differences between the candidates' committee numbers meaningless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, $57M has been spent on the campaign to replace the retiring Jeff Flake.

Related coverage: 
NO WINGMEN OR WINGWOMEN: @MarthaMcSally ONLY Major Senate Candidate With No Employees, Paying No Payroll Taxes

OOPS, I Did It Again: FEC Tells McSally Campaign Its "Best Compliance Team" Still Not Cutting It

   Mcsally Pre General by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

   Sinema Pre General by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

* The seeming imbalance in the Sinema figures was explained earlier this year, in that Sinema started the 2017-2018 election cycle with $2.3M cash on hand and converted her House campaign committee into the Senate campaign committee. McSally started 2017 with a similar amount socked away, but had to open up a new committee for the Senate race because an audit of her House campaign committee was still ongoing at that point.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

BREAKING/READ: Arizona Supreme Court 5-2 Opinions Removing Invest In Ed Initiative; Factual Error (In Majority Opinion) Detailed

Less than two weeks before an election in which two Arizona Supreme Court Justices are on the ballot for retention, the Court today released its 5-2 opinion on why it removed the Invest In Ed initiative from the ballot.

The two Justices on the ballot - Clint Bolick and John Pelander - both signed on to the majority opinion (which does not list a specific author). Chief Justice Scott Bales and Justice Ann Timmer each wrote brief dissenting opinions.  The opinions are published below.

The majority determined that the initiative's language would jeopardize bracket indexing and that that was a "principal provision" of the measure. Therefore, they reasoned, "Our failure to determine whether the description omits a principal provision before the measure appears on the ballot would reward sloppy or even deceptive drafting, and would render the statutory transparency requirement meaningless because it would allow a measure to proceed even if voters signing the petition were not made aware of principal provisions." (Paragraph 27)

Bales' dissent acknowledged that better drafting could have prevented the decision, but noted the incongruity of requiring drafting perfection from initiatives but not from the legislature's bill drafting. "But we have never required perfection in drafting as a condition for the valid exercise of legislative authority, and doing so with initiatives would infringe upon the people’s constitutional right to enact laws independently of the legislature."

He did not believe the 100-word description created a "substantial danger of fraud, confusion or unfairness sufficient to invalidate" the measure without a vote of the people. That challenges the language used on August 29, when the Court issued a brief order removing it from the November 6 ballot.

Interestingly, that order did not specify whether the seven Justices all agreed or who - if anyone - had voted to not remove the initiative; however, the Governor's office appeared to have inside information about how each justice had voted. (Arizona's Politics filed a records request with the Court to see if there were communications between the different branches on the subject; the court determined there were not.)


As a lead-in to addressing the specific language of the Invest In Ed proposal, the majority cited other cases where they prevented measures from being placed on Arizona ballots.  Then, to emphasize their fairness, they listed one example where they also required challengers to an initiative to conform to statutory requirements even if there was an addressable issue with the measure.

The example they attempted to use was against the Minimum Wage initiative two years ago. (Not coincidentally, the interests and attorneys on either side of that measure overlapped in the present measure.*)

The Supreme Court falsely states today that the trial judge in the minimum wage challenge had determined that not enough valid signatures had been filed. (The challenge was dismissed because it had not been timely filed.) The facts are that the trial court judge did not make such a determination and was unable to do so.

   Arizona Supreme Court - Invest in Ed Opinion by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

*Disclosure: The attorney/author of this article (Paul Weich) was peripherally involved in the minimum wage case.

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits.  

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.

GONE NATIONWIDE: APS Uses Bernie Sanders In New, Federal-level Phone Calls In Fight Against Prop. 127

In a surprising turn of events, APS opened up a new federal front in its fight against Arizona's Proposition 127 (renewable energy mandate) - spending $330,791 in phone calls "opposing" Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders. Confused? Rightly so. Here is the explanation.

APS' parent company is Pinnacle West ("PinnWest"). Yesterday, PinnWest transferred another $3M to its committee primarily dedicated to opposing Prop. 127, Arizonans for Affordable Electricity. That is not surprising, as APS/PinnWest had already contributed more than $22M to AAE.

However, today is the first time that AAE has disclosed a PinnWest cash infusion to the Federal Election Commission. (It was not concurrently filed with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office.*) And, the first expenditure from this new $3M pool of money was the flurry of phone calls "oppos(ing) Vermont Senator Bernard Sanders".

(Arizona's Politics has extensively covered (and uncovered) APS' political contributions on the state and local levels since 2014 - whether they have been to dark money organizations, to those national organizations that have funded campaigns supporting Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, or to SuperPACs that have spent money on federal races.)

AAE spokesman Matt Benson tells Arizona's Politics that the calls  were made to Arizonans as "a continuation of our GOTV efforts as part of hte No On 127 campaign." The federal disclosure was made "out of an abundance of caution" since the calls referred to Senator Sanders. (The FEC form would have supported a more complete explanation of the purpose of the phone calls and the disclosure.)

The calls were apparently made to Arizona voters to coincide with Sanders' Arizona visit yesterday, where the former Presidential candidate rallied students at the UA and ASU in support of David Garcia, the Democratic candidate for Governor.

Sanders did not directly mention Prop. 127 in his Tucson rally, but he did say "the time is now to transform our energy system away from fossil fuels to (energy efficiency) and solar energy and renewables. This state can be a leader in solar energy." Neither AAE nor the committee supporting the Proposition that would require utilities to obtain a minimum of 50% from renewable sources mentioned Sanders' visit in their social media feeds yesterday, and both told Arizona's Politics that they were unaware of Sanders' comments about solar energy.

Benson indicates that he will soon share with Arizona's Politics the content of the live phone calls.

Arizona's Politics has extensively covered (and uncovered) APS' political contributions on the state and local levels since 2014 - whether they have been to dark money organizations, to those national organizations that have funded campaigns supporting Governor Doug Ducey and Attorney General Mark Brnovich, or to SuperPACs that have spent money on federal races.

   AAE IE Rept vs Bernie by arizonaspolitics on Scribd

*The only AAE filing with the state today was that of a $28k mailer supporting state lawmaker Cesar Chavez.

Just saw today's FEC filing for Arizonans for Affordable Electricity, and wow, it surprised the heck out of me! So many questions that I hope you can answer quickly:

Spend side:

1) The report lists $330,791.70 in "phone calls" opposing Bernie Sanders. Were these calls to Vermonters or Arizonans?

2a) If calls were to Vermonters, why? What was the subject and the messaage?

2b) If calls were to Arizonans, was the subject Prop. 127 or was it Sanders or was it something else?

3) Were they timed to coordinate with Sanders' rallies in the state?

4a) Were these live calls or robocalls?

4b) If live calls, can you provide a script? If robocalls, can you provide a copy?

5) I did not cover either of the Sanders rallies yesterday, and as far as I can tell, he did not address Prop. 127. Do you know if he did?

Contribution side:

6) According to the report, PinnWest contributed $3M to AAE yesterday. Is this $3M specifically for the Sanders expenditure and similar, federal-level efforts? (Segregated?) Or, is it simply a $3M contribution to AAE that will be spent on federal/state/etc efforts?

7) What other contributions has PinnWest made to political organizations (e.g. Arizona Grassroots, RAGA, RGA, etc) since October 1?

8) What is the current total of all contributions PinnWest has now made to AAE (at all levels)?

If you would like to show your appreciation for Arizona's Politics reporting, please consider donating to our pool to support OTHER journalism-related nonprofits. 

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.