Arizona Senator John McCain (R-AZ) took his turn on CBS' "Face the Nation" program this morning. He used the situation in Egypt to reiterate his criticism of President Barack Obama's leadership.
If you prefer to watch the entire program, here's a link. A transcript of the McCain interview is available at this link.
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.
Sunday, July 7, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
SIGN, SIGN, EVERYWHERE A SIGN: Firefighters Union Pays For Signs To Claim That Lobbyists and Developers Support The Opponent!
New signs that sprouted up during the Independence Day holiday around Ahwatukee, the Arcadia are and central Phoenix kick the Phoenix City Council race between incumbent Councilmember Sal DiCiccio and challenger Karlene Keogh Parks into a new dimension. The signs pretend to be supporting the incumbent, but are claiming that "lobbyists" and "developers" are behind DiCiccio - two groups that candidates do not generally put front and center.
DiCiccio (City Council District 6) has claimed that Government Union Bosses (his term and his caps) are the ones out to prevent him from winning re-election, and has pointed - as recently as today - to the Campaign for Better Neighborhoods ("CBN") as evidence (see, DiCiccio's Facebook page).
But, the signs are put up by a new political committee called "Phoenix Truth and Safety" ("PTS") that is upfront about its origins. The signs disclose at the bottom "Paid for by Phoenix Truth and Safety with major funding provided by Arizona's Firefighters, 61 E. Columbus ave (sic) Phoenix AZ 85012; Contact Don Jongewaard 602-277-1500. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
Unlike CBN, PTS has filed with the City of Phoenix Clerk's Office as a Political Committee. (The Statement of Organization is reproduced below.) The Chair of the group is Don Jongewaard, the President of the Tempe chapter of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, and the Treasurer is Anthony Butch, a Glendale firefighter listed as a Staff Representative for the PFFA. The listed address for PTS is the headquarters for the PFFA.
The PTS website is a compendium of all of the attacks against DiCiccio from various sources.
The new signs are more clever than usual, considering that they came days after the "firefighters", "police" and "paramedics" supporting Parks signs blanketed the district, and that they almost - but not quite - mimic DiCiccio's signs' color scheme. The tactic does have some risk, in that signs are generally used chiefly to bolster name recognition - and these signs only display the name of their intended target. Not everyone reads - or, thinks about - the message of the sign, though the name may stick in their brain.
The new wave of signs comes less than one month before early ballots are mailed to voters for the August 27th election. (It also comes only a few days before a Maricopa County Superior Court hearing (July 8) on a lawsuit filed by DiCiccio opponents claiming that he violated campaign finance laws surrounding surplus funds raised when he was the target of a recall effort in 2011.)
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.
DiCiccio (City Council District 6) has claimed that Government Union Bosses (his term and his caps) are the ones out to prevent him from winning re-election, and has pointed - as recently as today - to the Campaign for Better Neighborhoods ("CBN") as evidence (see, DiCiccio's Facebook page).
But, the signs are put up by a new political committee called "Phoenix Truth and Safety" ("PTS") that is upfront about its origins. The signs disclose at the bottom "Paid for by Phoenix Truth and Safety with major funding provided by Arizona's Firefighters, 61 E. Columbus ave (sic) Phoenix AZ 85012; Contact Don Jongewaard 602-277-1500. Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee."
Unlike CBN, PTS has filed with the City of Phoenix Clerk's Office as a Political Committee. (The Statement of Organization is reproduced below.) The Chair of the group is Don Jongewaard, the President of the Tempe chapter of the Professional Firefighters of Arizona, and the Treasurer is Anthony Butch, a Glendale firefighter listed as a Staff Representative for the PFFA. The listed address for PTS is the headquarters for the PFFA.
The PTS website is a compendium of all of the attacks against DiCiccio from various sources.
The new signs are more clever than usual, considering that they came days after the "firefighters", "police" and "paramedics" supporting Parks signs blanketed the district, and that they almost - but not quite - mimic DiCiccio's signs' color scheme. The tactic does have some risk, in that signs are generally used chiefly to bolster name recognition - and these signs only display the name of their intended target. Not everyone reads - or, thinks about - the message of the sign, though the name may stick in their brain.
The new wave of signs comes less than one month before early ballots are mailed to voters for the August 27th election. (It also comes only a few days before a Maricopa County Superior Court hearing (July 8) on a lawsuit filed by DiCiccio opponents claiming that he violated campaign finance laws surrounding surplus funds raised when he was the target of a recall effort in 2011.)
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.
Wednesday, July 3, 2013
BREAKING: It's Official: Martha McSally Files For Congressional Re-Match Against Rep. Ron Barber
Col. (ret.) Martha McSally has filed her papers to begin her quest for a Congressional re-match against now-incumbent Rep. Ron Barber (D-CD2), in the southeastern Arizona district including Tucson and a long stretch of the Arizona-Mexico border.
McSally's Statement of Candidacy was filed on July 1, but was just posted on the Federal Election Commission's website this morning. McSally was narrowly defeated by Barber last November, by less than 3,000 votes.
As of March 31, 2013, McSally had approximately $20,000 in cash on hand from the 2012 campaign; Barber has more than $325,000 (and has the power of incumbency). Barber has also filed his Statement of Candidacy.
Congressional District 2 is largely the same as the district that now-retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords represented before the attempted assassination in 2011; Barber was her district director and was wounded in that mass shooting.
McSally is the first U.S. female combat pilot, and was also the first female to be a combat squadron commander.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has made no secret that this is one of the Democratic-held seats they are targeting to change parties in 2014.
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.
McSally's Statement of Candidacy was filed on July 1, but was just posted on the Federal Election Commission's website this morning. McSally was narrowly defeated by Barber last November, by less than 3,000 votes.
As of March 31, 2013, McSally had approximately $20,000 in cash on hand from the 2012 campaign; Barber has more than $325,000 (and has the power of incumbency). Barber has also filed his Statement of Candidacy.
Congressional District 2 is largely the same as the district that now-retired Rep. Gabrielle Giffords represented before the attempted assassination in 2011; Barber was her district director and was wounded in that mass shooting.
McSally is the first U.S. female combat pilot, and was also the first female to be a combat squadron commander.
The National Republican Congressional Committee has made no secret that this is one of the Democratic-held seats they are targeting to change parties in 2014.
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.
Tuesday, July 2, 2013
Pro-Arpaio Attorney Larry Klayman Out Of Arpaio Recall Lawsuit, Hadn't Filed Necessary State Bar Application
(UPDATE, 4:30pm: Just received response from Burnell Smith's office, clarifying that the "error (was) on the part of the applicant", and not on the part of the State Bar of Arizona.)
Nationally-known attorney Larry Klayman is no longer representing anti-Arpaio-recall plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the now-failed effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It turns out that Klayman had asked the Superior Court to permit him to represent the plaintiffs, but had failed to seek permission from the State Bar of Arizona. (Court filing reproduced below.)
In the Notice filed last week, Klayman's co-counsel, former state lawmaker, David Burnell Smith, seems to indicate that the problem might lie with the State Bar of Arizona not providing Klayman (or Smith) with a Notice of Completed Application, and that the State Bar should have provided it. However, Burnell Smith's office notes to Arizona's Politics that the "error (was) on the part of the applicant", and not on the part of the State Bar of Arizona.
However, State Bar Chief Communications Officer Rick DeBruhl confirmed to Arizona's Politics this afternoon that Mr. Klayman never has submitted an application to the Arizona Bar. DeBruhl could not comment on the status of the State Bar's investigation - reported by Phoenix New Times - into Mr. Klayman, beyond confirming that it is still active. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the investigation is related to the case.
Neither Mr. Klayman nor Mr. Burnell Smith has responded to Arizona's Politics requests for comment.
However, the attorney for the main defendant - the Respect Arizona committee that led the recall effort - did comment. Christopher Ford stated that Klayman was "quick to grab the microphone and pontificate (usually erroneously) on matters relating to this case but apparently a bit slow in complying with our state's rules of practice. I am grateful that the State Bar of Arizona is vigilant in protecting the public and legal profession from would-be interlopers such as Mr. Klayman."
A status hearing is set for July 11.
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.
Nationally-known attorney Larry Klayman is no longer representing anti-Arpaio-recall plaintiffs in the lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the now-failed effort to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. It turns out that Klayman had asked the Superior Court to permit him to represent the plaintiffs, but had failed to seek permission from the State Bar of Arizona. (Court filing reproduced below.)
In the Notice filed last week, Klayman's co-counsel, former state lawmaker, David Burnell Smith, seems to indicate that the problem might lie with the State Bar of Arizona not providing Klayman (or Smith) with a Notice of Completed Application, and that the State Bar should have provided it. However, Burnell Smith's office notes to Arizona's Politics that the "error (was) on the part of the applicant", and not on the part of the State Bar of Arizona.
However, State Bar Chief Communications Officer Rick DeBruhl confirmed to Arizona's Politics this afternoon that Mr. Klayman never has submitted an application to the Arizona Bar. DeBruhl could not comment on the status of the State Bar's investigation - reported by Phoenix New Times - into Mr. Klayman, beyond confirming that it is still active. However, it would be reasonable to assume that the investigation is related to the case.
Neither Mr. Klayman nor Mr. Burnell Smith has responded to Arizona's Politics requests for comment.
However, the attorney for the main defendant - the Respect Arizona committee that led the recall effort - did comment. Christopher Ford stated that Klayman was "quick to grab the microphone and pontificate (usually erroneously) on matters relating to this case but apparently a bit slow in complying with our state's rules of practice. I am grateful that the State Bar of Arizona is vigilant in protecting the public and legal profession from would-be interlopers such as Mr. Klayman."
The case continues even though the recall effort has failed. Plaintiffs' attorneys asked the Court to make a decision on the constitutionality of the recall petition on the grounds that future recall efforts could similarly be filed with six months of an elected official's new term, and the issue could continue to evade judicial review (much like in the famous Roe v. Wade abortion decision.
A status hearing is set for July 11.
Monday, July 1, 2013
BREAKING: Two Arizona Reps Co-Sponsor Constitutional "Marriage Protection Amendment" Banning Same Sex Marriage
Two of Arizona's four Republican Congressmen have signed on to co-sponsor a new "Marriage Protection Amendment" to the U.S. Constitution (text below), in the wake of last week's Supreme Court decisions overturning the federal Defense of Marriage Act and letting stand an injunction against Arizona's decision to eliminate health benefits for same sex partners of state workers.
Reps. David Schweikert (R-CD6) and Trent Franks (R-CD8) are among the 29 Republicans seeking to amend the U.S. Constitution to define "marriage" as "only... the union of a man and a woman" and stating that "(N)either this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman." (full text below)
Schweikert issued no public statements following last week's Supreme Court decisions, but Franks blasted the Court with the following statement on his Facebook page:
***
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
H.J.RES.51
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] (introduced 6/28/2013) Cosponsors (28)
Latest Major Action: 6/28/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COSPONSORS(28), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
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.
Schweikert issued no public statements following last week's Supreme Court decisions, but Franks blasted the Court with the following statement on his Facebook page:
Rather than confining themselves to their Constitutional duty of deciding cases, the Supreme Court has more and more become the default arbiter of all major issues in America. If the American people allow this trend to continue, we can board up the Capitol and White House and send the people and their elected representatives home to henceforth live and breathe at the pleasure of a tyrannical judicial oligarchy.Primary sponsor of House Joint Resolution 51, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-KS), used very similar language yesterday in his interview on NBC's Meet the Press.
Society as a whole has long granted special privileges to traditional marriages to encourage and empower parents to remain committed to one another and to their children; and ultimately to ensure stronger families and a stronger nation. Incontrovertible data indicates that, in nearly all major indicators of life success, children raised in a traditional family structure significantly outperform their contemporaries raised in other family structures. The decision by the Supreme Court today will undermine the traditional family and its irreplaceable contribution to society, and history will mark and will hold those advocating and responsible for this decision accountable for its inevitable consequences to this and coming generations.
***
- Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
- This joint resolution may be cited as the `Marriage Protection Amendment'.
SEC. 2. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
- The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its submission for ratification:
`Article--
- `Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.'.
H.J.RES.51
Latest Title: Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage.
Sponsor: Rep Huelskamp, Tim [KS-1] (introduced 6/28/2013) Cosponsors (28)
Latest Major Action: 6/28/2013 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
COSPONSORS(28), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Barton, Joe [TX-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] - 6/28/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 6/28/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] - 6/28/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/28/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/28/2013
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 6/28/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 6/28/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Bridenstine, Jim [OK-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Brooks, Mo [AL-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Broun, Paul C. [GA-10] - 6/28/2013
Rep Duncan, Jeff [SC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Fleming, John [LA-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Franks, Trent [AZ-8] - 6/28/2013
Rep Gohmert, Louie [TX-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hall, Ralph M. [TX-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Harris, Andy [MD-1] - 6/28/2013
Rep Hultgren, Randy [IL-14] - 6/28/2013
Rep Johnson, Sam [TX-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jones, Walter B., Jr. [NC-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Jordan, Jim [OH-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Lankford, James [OK-5] - 6/28/2013
Rep Meadows, Mark [NC-11] - 6/28/2013
Rep Neugebauer, Randy [TX-19] - 6/28/2013
Rep Palazzo, Steven M. [MS-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pearce, Stevan [NM-2] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pittenger, Robert [NC-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Pitts, Joseph R. [PA-16] - 6/28/2013
Rep Schweikert, David [AZ-6] - 6/28/2013
Rep Shuster, Bill [PA-9] - 6/28/2013
Rep Smith, Christopher H. [NJ-4] - 6/28/2013
Rep Stockman, Steve [TX-36] - 6/28/2013
Rep Walberg, Tim [MI-7] - 6/28/2013
Rep Westmoreland, Lynn A. [GA-3] - 6/28/2013
Rep Wolf, Frank R. [VA-10] - 6/28/2013
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.
Friday, June 28, 2013
READ, IN CONTEXT: New Referendum Filed Targeting Common Core Education Standards
The second referendum coming out of the Arizona Legislature's contentious Special Session has been filed, and it aims to prevent Arizona schools from implementing new, national Common Core curriculum standards. (text of referendum and contact information posted below)
"We the People AZ Against Common Core" filed the referendum on Wednesday, and they are seeking a statewide vote on one portion of the K-12 education budget reconciliation bill passed by both Houses of the Legislature and signed by the Governor earlier this month. They must collect at least 86,405 valid signatures before September 11, 2013 to get it placed on a ballot.
Rather than trying to prevent the entire education bill from going into effect, the organizers have singled out the small portion that doubles the bonding capacity of school districts. Interestingly, the increase applies to bond "elections held both before and after the effective date of this act."
We the People AZ Chair Wesley Harris, formerly a leader of the Original North Phoenix Tea Party organization, tells Arizona's Politics that he is "certain it is aimed at funding Common Core since all such funds were removed from the budget." Harris believes that the section was part of a quid pro quo to get support from some Republicans for the Medicaid (AHCCCCS) Expansion - a measure that is also subject of a referendum drive.
Harris indicates that he intends to get the petition in the hands of the volunteer circulators already working on the AHCCCS Expansion referendum, and that he is playing "catch up" because this bill came up in the Special Session "as a bolt out of the blue."
Common Core is a new set of math and English curriculum standards that are gaining attention throughout the country, and is being encouraged by the U.S. Department of Education. Arizona is one of 46 states that have adopted them, but many conservative groups around the nation are trying to keep them from being implemented. Earlier this week, there was an interesting report on NPR explaining the opposition.
Harris was last in the news last year, when he proposed recalling Senator John McCain (R-AZ), following the Senator's defense of Huma Abedin.
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.
"We the People AZ Against Common Core" filed the referendum on Wednesday, and they are seeking a statewide vote on one portion of the K-12 education budget reconciliation bill passed by both Houses of the Legislature and signed by the Governor earlier this month. They must collect at least 86,405 valid signatures before September 11, 2013 to get it placed on a ballot.
Rather than trying to prevent the entire education bill from going into effect, the organizers have singled out the small portion that doubles the bonding capacity of school districts. Interestingly, the increase applies to bond "elections held both before and after the effective date of this act."
We the People AZ Chair Wesley Harris, formerly a leader of the Original North Phoenix Tea Party organization, tells Arizona's Politics that he is "certain it is aimed at funding Common Core since all such funds were removed from the budget." Harris believes that the section was part of a quid pro quo to get support from some Republicans for the Medicaid (AHCCCCS) Expansion - a measure that is also subject of a referendum drive.
Harris indicates that he intends to get the petition in the hands of the volunteer circulators already working on the AHCCCS Expansion referendum, and that he is playing "catch up" because this bill came up in the Special Session "as a bolt out of the blue."
Common Core is a new set of math and English curriculum standards that are gaining attention throughout the country, and is being encouraged by the U.S. Department of Education. Arizona is one of 46 states that have adopted them, but many conservative groups around the nation are trying to keep them from being implemented. Earlier this week, there was an interesting report on NPR explaining the opposition.
Harris was last in the news last year, when he proposed recalling Senator John McCain (R-AZ), following the Senator's defense of Huma Abedin.
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.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
UNCONSTITUTIONAL: U.S. Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Governor Brewer Petition On Eliminating Health Benefits For Same Sex Partners Of State Employees
(updated 12:30pm to add video from Attorney General Tom Horne)
One day after its major ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. Supreme Court - with two brief words - struck down Arizona's law attempting to eliminate health benefits for same sex partners of state employees.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal (the writ of certiorari) from Governor Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne, refusing to review the opinion by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the 2009 law (reversing the Executive Order by then-Governor Janet Napolitano) violated the U.S. Constitution.
Brewer had taken a very vocal stand in favor of the state measure, and had deemed it to be a states' rights issue when she announced the appeal to the highest court in the land last year. Arizona also argued that the law was not discriminatory because it also effected other groups when it redefined "dependents" to include "spouses" - a "domestic partner" not qualifying as a "spouse".
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne also went to the media to declare that he believed the Supreme Court would rule in his - Arizona's - favor, and noting that it was just one of the many cases he was bringing in the Arizona-vs-the-feds states' rights battle.
CBS 5 - KPHO
Here is the 9th Circuit opinion that the Court refused to review. Arizona's appeal had also been supported by legal briefs (amici curiae) filed by the Center for Arizona Policy, the Eagle Forum, and several states (Indiana, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia)
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 day after its major ruling striking down the federal Defense of Marriage Act, the U.S. Supreme Court - with two brief words - struck down Arizona's law attempting to eliminate health benefits for same sex partners of state employees.
The Supreme Court denied the appeal (the writ of certiorari) from Governor Jan Brewer and Attorney General Tom Horne, refusing to review the opinion by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals finding that the 2009 law (reversing the Executive Order by then-Governor Janet Napolitano) violated the U.S. Constitution.
Brewer had taken a very vocal stand in favor of the state measure, and had deemed it to be a states' rights issue when she announced the appeal to the highest court in the land last year. Arizona also argued that the law was not discriminatory because it also effected other groups when it redefined "dependents" to include "spouses" - a "domestic partner" not qualifying as a "spouse".
Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne also went to the media to declare that he believed the Supreme Court would rule in his - Arizona's - favor, and noting that it was just one of the many cases he was bringing in the Arizona-vs-the-feds states' rights battle.
CBS 5 - KPHO
Here is the 9th Circuit opinion that the Court refused to review. Arizona's appeal had also been supported by legal briefs (amici curiae) filed by the Center for Arizona Policy, the Eagle Forum, and several states (Indiana, Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina and Virginia)
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.
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Status Conference Re-Set On Anti-Arpaio Recall Lawsuit; Constitutionality of Recall Waiting Period (Still) At Issue
Less than two weeks after the original judge in the lawsuit that was filed to stop the recall of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio disqualified himself, the new judge has set a status conference on the practically moot case. (Minute entry below)
Superior Court Judge Lisa Flores has set up a status conference for July 11 to help her decide how to proceed. Recused Judge Michael Herrod had chosen to set oral argument on the central issues of the case, even though it had appeared at the time that the recall would possibly not qualify for the ballot. Somewhat surprisingly, anti-recall attorneys asked that the hearing be set even if petitions were not turned in, claiming that the issue of the constitutionality of recall efforts filed within six months of an officeholder's re-taking of the oath of office (upon re-election) was one capable of being repeated and avoiding judicial review.
Recall organizers did not turn in the signatures they had gathered, and the recall effort died. However, recall attorneys continued fighting the lawsuit (they are seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs) and asked that the judge be disqualified because of his potential conflict.
At the May 29 conference, Judge Herrod disclosed his potential conflict, that the law firm he had previously been a partner in (before becoming a judge) was representing Sheriff Arpaio in the federal civil suit Melendres v. Arpaio. A couple of weeks earlier, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ruled that the Sheriff's Office had engaged in racial profiling.
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.
Superior Court Judge Lisa Flores has set up a status conference for July 11 to help her decide how to proceed. Recused Judge Michael Herrod had chosen to set oral argument on the central issues of the case, even though it had appeared at the time that the recall would possibly not qualify for the ballot. Somewhat surprisingly, anti-recall attorneys asked that the hearing be set even if petitions were not turned in, claiming that the issue of the constitutionality of recall efforts filed within six months of an officeholder's re-taking of the oath of office (upon re-election) was one capable of being repeated and avoiding judicial review.
Recall organizers did not turn in the signatures they had gathered, and the recall effort died. However, recall attorneys continued fighting the lawsuit (they are seeking sanctions against the plaintiffs) and asked that the judge be disqualified because of his potential conflict.
At the May 29 conference, Judge Herrod disclosed his potential conflict, that the law firm he had previously been a partner in (before becoming a judge) was representing Sheriff Arpaio in the federal civil suit Melendres v. Arpaio. A couple of weeks earlier, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow ruled that the Sheriff's Office had engaged in racial profiling.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)