READ: Respect Arizona's Motion To Dismiss Constitutionality Lawsuit (Arpaio Recall)

Earlier today, Arizona's Politics posted a copy of the Motion For Sanctions that it had received from the attorney for Respect Arizona.  Here is the accompanying Motion to Dismiss.

Chris Ford, the attorney for the group trying to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, told Arizona's Politics that he is seeking an expedited hearing on the motions.

  Recall Arpaio Constitutionality Lawsuit - Motion To Dismiss

Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett has already filed a Motion to Dismiss the state defendants on the basis of the recall being a county matter that does not involve state elections officials.  The chair of RA, William James Fisher, was named personally, and has also apparently filed a Motion to Dismiss.

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: Arpaio Recall War of Words Headed From Media To Courtroom; READ: Respect Arizona Motion For Sanctions Vs. Pro-Arpaio Group, Attorney Klayman

Arizona's Politics has learned that the group attempting to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is seeking a rush hearing on its motions to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the effort's constitutionality and for sanctions against the pro-Sheriff group and its attorney.  Respect Arizona ("RA") attorney Chris Ford also fired back at the opposing attorney, telling Arizona's Politics that yesterday's quote from Larry Klayman was "a simpleton's sound bite".

Ford provided Arizona's Politics with copies of the motions to dismiss and for sanctions.  The latter is posted below the jump.  In it, RA details why it believes the lawsuit filed by Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results ("CPFER") is frivolous, has no basis in law, and was designed to harass and intimidate RA, its donors, its signature gatherers and potential signers.  

RA claims that the lawsuit has, in fact, succeeded in dragging down the effort, although they are concurrently claiming to have collected more than 200,000 valid signatures of the 335,000 necessary to put the recall on the ballot, and expressing confidence that they will reach the threshold by the end of May deadline.  

Ford tells Arizona's Politics that he is filing for an expedited hearing on the motions, based on the fast-approaching deadline.  (The mystery remains as to why RA did not retain him earlier to seek the hearing, though.)

Yesterday, CPFER attorney Klayman told Arizona's Politics that he had seen the motion to dismiss and "that it is not worth the paper it is written on."  Upon seeing the quote, Ford retorted "I await something more than a simpleton's sound bite from Larry Klayman in defense of his frivolous lawsuit, which amounts to nothing more than an abuse of a court system where he is not even licensed to practice for use as a political tool to help Joe Arpaio cling to power."

Larry Klayman: Respect Arizona's Motion To Dismiss Arpaio Recall Suit "Not Worth Paper Written On"

Larry Klayman, counsel for the pro-Arpaio group Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results ("CPFER"), tells Arizona's Politics that the motion to dismiss filed today by Respect Arizona ("RA") is "not worth the paper it is written on."

RA is the group organizing a recall petition effort against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  The CPFER lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the effort was filed more than one month ago; the motion to dismiss and for damages is being filed today, and RA is holding a news conference discussing it at 3:30pm.

Arizona's Politics confirmed that Klayman had received the motion and asked for response.  Klayman responded, leaving a voicemail: "Frankly, it is not worth the paper it is written on.  And, you can quote me on that."



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.

Recall Committee Moves For Damages and To Dismiss Constitutionality Lawsuit Filed By Friends Of Sheriff Joe Arpaio

After more than one month, the committee attempting to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio is moving today to seek damages and to dismiss the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the recall petition effort.

The lawsuit was filed by friends of the sheriff, who formed a committee called Citizens to Protect Fair Election Results ("CPFER").  They hired nationally-known conservative attorney Larry Klayman, filed the action contending that the recall effort violated the Arizona Constitution by beginning too soon after the most recent election (among other arguments), and has since allowed the suit to sit quietly in court.  (They did not pursue the injunction that they sought in the complaint, for example.)

The threat - and then, the presence - of the lawsuit likely has contributed to the difficulty that Respect Arizona - the committee organizing the recall effort - has had in raising money necessary to retain paid petition circulators.  The paid circulators gathered most of the some 200,000 valid signatures the committee claims to have, before RA was forced to cancel their services just as the suit was being filed.

RA announced this morning that they have filed motions seeking damages against those who filed the lawsuit, and to dismiss the lawsuit.  The Superior Court docket does not yet show that the motion(s) has(have) been filed.

Arizona's Politics and other media outlets posted legal analysis as soon as the complaint was filed;  RA has given Arizona's Politics no indication why it waited until this point to file its motion.

Arizona's Politics has also asked CPFER co-counsel Klayman and David Burnell Smith why they have not pursued the injunction they requested.



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.

READ: Back To The Future: Rep. Salmon Proposes Term Limits Constitutional Amendment; Proposal Just As U.S. Sets Record For Constitutional Amendment Drought

Arizona Rep. Matt Salmon (R-CD5) has filed a proposed amendment to the U.S. Constitution to limit the number of terms a Congressman or Senator can serve, hearkening back to the 1990's, when he was one of very, VERY few to actually make AND KEEP a term-limit pledge as that was a popular issue.

Salmon is joined by five co-sponsors in the House - including fellow Arizonan David Schweikert (R-CD6).  The text is simple, limiting House members to three two-year terms and Senators to two six-year terms.  It addresses the "Jan Brewer issue" slightly differently for House and Senate members by stating that if you are elected to fill more than half of a House term, it counts as one term; for the Senate, it counts if you are appointed or elected to fill more than half of the term.

Salmon believes that term limits would improve our democracy: “I have always believed that universal term limits will help make members of Congress more accountable to their constituents, not the special interests that often keep them in office."  However, he claims that Americans are "increasingly favoring" term limits; the idea was popular for awhile, waned, and has apparently picked up with bad feelings towards recent Congressional inaction and infighting.

Salmon would need to get the House and Senate to approve this resolution with at least 2/3 majorities and then have 3/4 of the 50 states' legislatures ratify it within seven years for it to become a Constitutional Amendment.

We have not amended the U.S. Constitution since 1992, when we prevented Congress from raising its own salaries .  In fact, just this month, we set the record for the longest period of time between constitutional amendments in the last 100 years!

In 1913, we ended a 43-year drought by ratifying amendments approving the income tax (16th) and popular election of Senators (17th).  Since then, we added amendments pretty regularly. But, April marks our 251st month without an amendment - the most "dry" months since just before the income tax amendment.

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.

FACT CHECK: Does New Poll Re: John McCain Indicate 2/3 Of Arizonans "Believe It Is Time For A New Senator"?

The well-respected Behavior Research Center is out with its new Rocky Mountain Poll on the approval ratings of Arizona's long-time Senator John McCain.  The BRC's news release suggests - and the Associated Press amplifies - that 67% of Arizonans think it is time for a new Senator.  However, the poll actually asks respondents if they believe McCain should be re-elected; his current term does not expire for almost four years (election in 3 1/2 years).

In this context, "it" clearly means "now", which is far different from the poll's actual November 2016 date.  (Earlier in that year, if Republicans defeated him in a primary.)

While the news release and the ensuing news coverage do reflect the numbers and the questions, they do not add the critical data of the next election date.  The wording of the re-election-or-new-Senator question is as follows:

Do you think U.S. Senator John McCainshould be elected to another six year term or doyou think it is time to elect someone with newideas and interests to represent Arizona in theUS Senate? 

Respondents were not told that McCain was elected to his most-recent (his 5th) 6-year term in 2010 and that the next election is in 2016.  Some respondents may have known that and figured that his advanced age would be reason for a new Senator, some may have thought that the question was similar to asking "if the election were held today".

Regardless, the confusion caused by the blurry wording of the question is compounded when it is reported without clarification.  Especially at a time when recall petitions against other elected officials are being circulated or threatened, this misleading reporting can be dangerous.

BRC's news release does not clarify that the re-election question is being asked one-third of the way through the long term, and has no true obligation to do so.  But, the AP's lead paragraph practically lifts the faulty wording from the news release's headline: "67% believe it is time for a new senator."

To be sure, McCain's poll numbers ARE lower than ever, and if the question WAS asked whether respondents wanted to replace McCain today, the same 2/3 might answer "hell, yeah".   But, that is NOT what was surveyed.  And, that should NOT be reported.

FACT CHECK'S GRADES:
--BRC: "C-" for unusually poor question.-wording and result-synthesizing
--Associated Press:  "D" for going along with the news release headline and wording without analyzing the questions.

(Arizona's Politics has requested responses from both BRC and AP, and will update as needed.)

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, READ: Fmr. Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe Testifies On Immigration Reform AND Publicly Announces Wedding; Reform Should Re-Include LGBT Families

Former long-serving Arizona Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-CD8) hit a rare double yesterday, testifying in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on the comprehensive immigration reform proposal AND publicly announcing his wedding next month to his longtime partner.  However, it was not just a point of personal privilege or a grandstanding ploy, the announcement was central to his testimony.

Kolbe, who spent much of his Congressional career as a closeted gay Republican, met and fell in love with a Panamanian teacher eight years ago in the U.S. on a Fulbright Scholarship.  Kolbe and Hector Alfonso were separated when Alfonso's visa expired and he had to return to Panama - Kolbe could not sponsor to keep him here and they were not legally able to get married.

Kolbe told the committee that he and Alfonso will be married in Washington, D.C. on May 18.  But, he also told the committee that the Unite American Families Act - which he first proposed in 2006 and has been introduced each year by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) - should be included as part of comprehensive immigration reform.  It had initially been suggested that it could be part of the gang of eight's proposal, but Republican members of that group acknowledged that that might hurt its overall political chances.

Kolbe made his argument not only personal, but economic, as well.  Here is the video of his opening statement, with a link to the text here.



Congratulations, Congressman!

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.

READ: Russell Pearce Pulls Out All Rhetorical Stops For Recall Bill; "Maybe" The GOP Senators Who Voted "Nay" Should Be Recalled; Recalls - Including His - Are "Nothing Less Than Voter Fraud Disguised As An Election!"

Recalled Arizona State Senate President Russell Pearce pulled out all the rhetorical stops yesterday in an e-mail to attempt to re-vivify the Arizona Legislature's proposal to revamp the recall election laws.

The State Senate defeated HB2282 by a bi-partisan vote of 18-10 vote on Thursday, but it is expected to come up this afternoon for reconsideration.

Yesterday, Pearce took to the e-mail lists to urge "fellow patriots" to immediately lobby five of the Republicans (Michele Reagan, Steve Pierce, Adam Driggs, Bob Worsley and Rich Crandall - none of them known as liberals or even "RINOs") who voted against the measure on Thursday.  (The entire e-mail can be read below the jump.)

Besides the expected rhetoric about how "the extreme left wing" benefits from the current recall election system (which has been in place for an awfully long time), and invoking the names of Randy Parraz, the ACLU, MALDEF, the SPLC and the Obama Administration, Pearce issues a warning to fellow Republicans (in a particularly-fevered piece of writing:

The bill is going to be reconsidered this coming Monday, April 22nd. Maybe those who support the hijacking of our elections by the left by using the recall process to unelect those that keep their promises of upholding the law or keeping their Oath’s of Office and returned to office by the People maybe those who refuse to fix the abuse should be recalled themselves. Maybe they should allow the opposite Party and the those that have always opposed their position be allowed to vote them out via recall as it is designed to allow a Jungle Primary if you will that the voters just tossed by a 3 to 1 margin last November in Proposition 121. We have different Parties because we have different values.

But, it was his use of multiple exclamation points that first caught my attention.  It came when he made the clear implication that the 2011 recall against him - as well as any similarly-motivated pending recall against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio - is "nothing less than voter fraud disguised as an election."  A strong accusation against the actual residents of his legislative district who signed recall petitions and voted for Jerry Lewis in the subsequent recall election; not to mention those who voted against Pearce in his 2012 primary effort in a slightly reconfigured district. Here's the quote:

If they can’t get you out in a legitimate election, then they will use voter fraud, recall or any means possible. It is nothing less that voter fraud disguised as an election. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The reconsideration is likely to take place sometime after 1:30.  Everyone's vote from Thursday is listed here, and here is their contact info.