READ: Court Ruling MCSO Racially Profiled, Granting Permanent Injunction

Six days before the deadline to turn in recall petitions against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, U.S. District Court Judge G. Murray Snow (Arizona) has issued a 142-page ruling that the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has engaged in racial profiling due to the Sheriff's emphasis on immigration enforcement.

Here is the initial Arizona Republic article on the ruling.  Here is a link to the entire ruling, from the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.  Below is the last page and a half of the ruling, spelling out the terms of the permanent injunction and setting a further hearing for June 14.

A status conference on the pro-Arpaio lawsuit in Maricopa County Superior Court against the recall organization is set for May 29, the day before the May 30 turn-in deadline.  Recall organizers need to turn in more than 335,000 valid signatures in order to force a recall election.

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 UPDATES: National Fact Checks Give Four Pinocchios To Gosar, Defend Flake; Franks & EMILY's List Get Local Treatment

Yesterday turned out to be a big day in fact-checking for Arizona politicians.  Besides the small blip made by Arizona's Politics' Fact Check on the Trent Franks/EMILY's List e-mail battle, the national fact checking organizations took on Rep. Paul Gosar's grilling of the former IRS Commissioner and the omni-present ad attacking Sen. Jeff Flake for his letter to the Arizona mother of a victim of the Aurora mass murder (and his subsequent vote).

Arizona's Politics' article accompanying the complete video of Gosar's (R-CD4) questioning of Doug Shulman noted that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) had said that he had obtained information about GOP Presidential nominee Mitt Romney's tax history from a Bain investor - not from a IRS/government source.  The fact check by the Washington Post's "The Fact Checker" (Glenn Kessler) emphasizes that hole in Gosar's line of questioning, along with the widely-accepted information from Romney's accountants that the nominee had, in fact, paid state and federal taxes in every year in question;  thus, the claim by Reid had been false and could not have come from a leak.

The Fact Checker thus gives Gosar the same rating it gave Reid last year: Four Pinocchios.  That is described as "a whopper" of a lie.

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) fares much better in FactCheck.org's article on the omni-present ad running in Arizona.  Mayors Against Illegal Guns, bankrolled primarily by New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, has been attacking Flake for his vote against the Manchin-Toomey Amendment that would have expanded the use of background checks before the purchase of firearms.

It features Caren Teves, the mother of one of the victims in last year's shooting rampage in a Colorado movie theater.  She has questioned Sen. McCain at a town hall, and received a responsive letter from Flake that has become the subject of this ad (below).

FactCheck.org finds that the ad blurs the definition of "strengthening background checks" - which is the term Flake used.  Teves and MAIG believe that the Manchin-Toomey Amendment was a compromise measure that was the test for that commitment; Flake believed his vote for the Grassley Amendment was the correct way of "strengthening background checks".

Therefore, FactCheck.org concludes that Flake did NOT break a promise to "strengthen background checks", as the ad claims.









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.

Arizona Congressional Delegation Votes Party Lines This Afternoon On Student Loan Rates

Arizona's four Republican Congressmen voted "aye" and its five Democratic Representatives voted "nay" this afternoon as the U.S. House of Representatives passed a measure to do away with subsidies on federal student loan interest rates.

The House passed what they called the "Smarter Solutions for Students Act" by a vote of 221-198, with only a dozen Congresspeople voting across party lines.  Arizona's nine Representatives were not among that dozen.

The bill to tie Stafford student loans to the 10-year Treasury note, with caps of 8.5% and 10.5% for undergraduate and graduate students (and parents), respectively, is expected to run into political trouble with the Senate and Administration.  Student loan rates have been a frequent political issue in Washington.

Here is the text of the bill that passed today.


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: VETOED! Governor Brewer Follows Through, Vetoes Five Bills As Medicaid Expansion Awaits

We just received five veto letters from Governor Jan Brewer's office.  She vetoed bills that she might have supported, and some that she might not have.  The text of the veto letters is substantially the same; one is reproduced below.

The bills are SB1323 (school buses), SB1445 (school and school district accountability), SB1236 (domestic relations committee), SB1178 (exercise of religion), and SB1088 (constables and private process serving).

  SB 1178 Veto Ltr 5-23-13 by arizonaspolitics

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 X 2: Trent Franks, EMILY's List Trade Misleading Abortion-Related Fundraising Pitches; WATCH: Franks' Cong. Hearing On 20-Week Ban

Well, it has been a day for abortion-related fundraising pitches and a Congressional hearing on one of Arizona Rep. Trent Franks' (R-CD8) bills attempting to outlaw abortions.

It started with a subcommittee hearing chaired by Franks on his bill to ban abortions in the District of Columbia after 20 weeks.  (Video below) His passionate opening statement was followed by a disclaimer from Democratic Ranking Member Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and questioning of a mixed panel (three women/one man, three in favor/one against).

(Click on picture below for hearing page, then click on "video webcast button";  the hearing inexplicably begins only after about 8 minutes of silence - don't give up.  In fact, move the slider a few minutes in.)

Immediately after the hearing, Franks' campaign office sent out an e-mail (below the jump), trying to  raise funds based upon his pursuit of outlawing abortion and that "NARAL, Planned Parenthood and their pro-abortion friends have targeted me".

Within hours, EMILY's List, a group that raises money to support female Democratic candidates, struck back with an e-mail (below the jump) trying to raise funds based on the fact that all of the Representatives at this morning's hearing were men.

Both of the fundraising e-mails were deceptive.

Franks' missive repeatedly claimed that he is "a top target of the abortion industry", and that that is why he needs contributions to his reelection campaign.  The truth is that neither NARAL nor Planned Parenthood (nor others ideologically opposed to Franks' positions, for that matter) have spent a dime trying to defeat him in his last three elections (according to the Center for Responsive Politics).  The e-mail attached by the Franks' campaign, from MoveOn.org, does target the bill that Franks - and the rest of the Arizona Republican delegation, as co-sponsors - are proposing.

The EMILY's List fundraising e-mail is equally deceptive.  It tries to replay the success that women's groups had last year when House Republicans held a hearing on birth control issues without having any female witnesses on the panel.  (There was a large outcry, and they are trying to get this picture to "go viral", too.)

However, the panel was mostly women, including one who spoke against the measure.  Second, the membership of the subcommittee is all male; but, interested female members of the Judiciary Committee would likely have been welcome to sit in.  (Many of the males in that picture were Democrats who strenuously oppose the bill.)  Third, the subcommittee did not even take a vote on the bill today, as implied in the e-mail.

Abortion is, by definition, a very personal and emotional issue.  It is very easy for sitting Congressmen - and for women's groups - to veer away from facts and honest arguments when attempting to raise passions... and money.  That does not make it right.

GRADES:
Rep. Trent Franks:  "C-"
EMILY's List: "C-"

READ: Pro-Arpaio's (Klayman's/Burnell Smith's) Response To Recall Arpaio's Motion To Dismiss and For Sanctions: Our Lawsuit's Not Frivolous, Your Motion Is

David Burnell Smith, former Arizona lawmaker and local counsel for the pro-Arpaio Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results ("CPFER"), filed a response to the motion filed by the Respect Arizona ("RA") defendants.  His office was kind enough to forward a copy to Arizona's Politics, and it is re-produced below.

CPFER filed suit to stop RA's petition drive to recall recently re-elected Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio.  RA has until May 30 to file more than 335,000 valid signatures to put the recall on the ballot.  CPFER claims that the recall effort is unconstitutional because it began less than six months after the Sheriff was sworn in for his sixth term.  While the Constitution is not clear whether the six month waiting period applies only to the first time that someone is elected to the office or whether it applies to each subsequent election, Arizona statutes clearly state the former.

RA filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, and asked for sanctions against the plaintiffs and their attorneys.  Here is CPFER's delayed response.

  Plaintiff's Oppositiopn to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss by arizonaspolitics

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: Court Hearing On Suit Against Arpaio Recall Day Before Filing Deadline

There will be a hearing on the lawsuit filed against the group attempting to recall Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and it will take place the day before the deadline to turn in the 335,000+ recall petition signatures.  (The Minute Entry is produced below.)

Unfortunately for Respect Arizona ("RA"), the recall proponents, Superior Court Judge Michael Herrod does not appear ready to rule on their motion to dismiss the case and to sanction the plaintiffs.  RA had requested an expedited hearing.

Nor does Herrod appear interested in ruling on Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results' ("CPFER's") - the Plaintiffs' - request for a preliminary injunction against the recall effort, and to prevent any signatures from being accepted by the County Elections Department before the May 30 deadline.

Instead, the judge has decided to simply find out "the current status of the case and for scheduling purposes."  The conference will be telephonic and is blocked on the calendar for 30 minutes.

Despite the court's designation, it is likely that both sides will try to argue the urgency of their motions.  However, it appears unlikely to matter much to either side 29 hours before the deadline to turn in the petitions.

Since shutting down the paid petition circulators that gathered the lion's share of the more than 200,000 valid signatures last announced by RA - for a 2nd time - the recall group has made little of a visible push with volunteers to collect the more than 90,000 signatures they said they still needed (in their May 17 e-mail).

Any boost that RA would receive from a favorable court hearing will come too late.  On the other side, CPFER (and their friend, Arpaio) is not as concerned about the petition drive without the paid circulators.  And, they have almost an equal chance to receive an injunction either before or after the filing deadline.

  Arpaio Recall suit Minute Entry 5/21/13 by arizonaspolitics

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: Arizona Rep. Gosar Accused Of Spouting "GOP's Crazy New Conspiracy Theory" Re: IRS Leaks; Watch Entire Line Of Questioning

Members of both Houses of Congress had a chance to take on former Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") Commissioner Doug Shulman today.  While most of the questioning focused on the recent mega-controversy surrounding the handling of applications for tax exemptions from conservatively-named organizations, Arizona Rep. Paul Gosar (R-CD4) gained some attention for expanding the battlelines.

The Huffington Post labeled Gosar's prosecutorial five minutes as the "GOP's Crazy New Conspiracy Theory", and attached the 31-second clip where Gosar asked Shulman about whether he investigated the 2012 claims by Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that he had heard from a Bain investor that Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney had not paid any taxes for ten years.

When Shulman replied that he had not investigated it, Gosar forcefully declared, "Shame on you!  Absolutely shame on you!"  He then forced Shulman to repeat that he had sworn an oath of office.

The Harry Reid portion of Gosar's questioning was just the last of three examples where he asked Shulman whether he had initiated investigations of media reports of tax-related information becoming public from government sources.  The first two entailed allegations that Administration economic adviser Austin Goolsbee had spoken out of turn about the business structure of powerhouse conservative funder Koch Industries, and that the IRS had divulged pending applications from conservative groups to Pro Publica last year.

Here is the entire back-and-forth between Gosar and Shulman:



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: Rep. Trent Franks Gives U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder A Break!

Most people reading this blog are probably already familiar with the Congressional grilling that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder received yesterday about the IRS and AP controversites.  Arizona Rep. Trent Franks (R-CD8) gave him something of a break, using his five minutes to question Holder about the conviction of the abortion provider in Philadelphia and whether the Department of Justice had prosecuted anyone for violating the Partial Birth Abortion law passed by Congress in 2002.

Holder noted that the law has been on the books since the Bush Administration, and that he would look into whether there have ever been any prosecutions.


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.