'Montgomery slate' rumor far-fetched

(PNI) From the political notebook:

Politics are full of wild rumors and conspiracy theories. Some even turn out to be true.

One running rampant through Arizona political circles is that there is a dark-money slate of candidates in Republican primaries for statewide office. The slate supposedly consists of Doug Ducey for governor, Justin Pierce for secretary of state, Mark Brnovich for attorney general and Hugh Hallman for treasurer.

"Dark money" is an epithet for campaign speech whose source of funding is obscure or undisclosed.

Supposedly huge sums of money from the vast right-wing conspiracy throughout the country will flow into Arizona to ensure the election of this dark-money slate.

The supposed mastermind and maestro of this attempt to hijack the Republican primary is none other than Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. Some are calling it the Montgomery slate.

Now, Montgomery is a politician of some promise and has done a good job of calming the infighting in county government. I don't know whether this is a good or a bad thing to say about him. But, in terms of this conspiracy, Montgomery just ain't that important or influential.

Montgomery has some standing in county politics. He's a minor figure in state politics, with considerable upside potential. But right now, at the state level, he hardly makes anyone shake in their boots. On the national level, he's a cipher.

The notion that Montgomery can summon big bucks from around the country for statewide candidates in Arizona is implausible, to put it mildly.

I don't doubt independent expenditure campaigns will play in the Republican primary, and some of them will have obscure financing. But the notion that some large, national effort will focus on down-ballot state offices in Arizona strikes me as implausible. The vast right-wing conspiracy has considerably bigger fish to fry in the 2014 election than who is Arizona's state treasurer.

Opponents of HB 2305, the multifaceted election law bill, apparently have succeeded in getting sufficient signatures to refer it to the 2014 ballot, keeping it from going into effect. Supporters of the law will flyspeck signatures for a potential challenge, but this appears to have been a remarkably well-run signature-gathering campaign.

If it indeed is on the ballot, the prospects of the opponents prevailing are strong. I say that as someone who generally supports the law.

There are a lot of parts to HB 2305, ranging from removing those who don't use them from early ballot lists to changing the standard for legal compliance with statutory requirements for initiatives.

If there is an election, it is unlikely voters will focus in any detail on the specific provisions of HB 2305, adding up whether the good outweighs the bad. Instead, it will be an overall framing battle.

Supporters of the law will frame it as protecting the integrity of elections and providing for their smoother administration. Opponents will frame the measure as voter suppression and dirty dealing by the Legislature.

Opponents are likely to win this framing battle for two reasons: First, they are more committed and are likely to have greater resources. Second, supporters will have the burden of the "yes" vote. In referendums, a "yes" vote is to uphold the law. In contested ballot measure campaigns, the" no" side wins most of the time.

Most of HB 2305's election law changes would be nice but they aren't vital, with one exception. The bill would have stopped the practice of political activists collecting early ballots in bulk and delivering them to the polls.

Democratic Party and Latino political activists defend the practice as increasing voter participation. But it smacks of ward-heeling and is ripe for fraud. In the last election, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office reported two incidents of people going door-to-door collecting early ballots and falsely claiming to be election officials.

The Legislature should repeal HB 2305 and re-enact the prohibition on collecting early ballots in bulk as a stand-alone measure. If there is to be a ballot fight, it should be over something worth fighting about.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

'Montgomery slate' rumor far-fetched

(PNI) From the political notebook:

Politics are full of wild rumors and conspiracy theories. Some even turn out to be true.

One running rampant through Arizona political circles is that there is a dark-money slate of candidates in Republican primaries for statewide office. The slate supposedly consists of Doug Ducey for governor, Justin Pierce for secretary of state, Mark Brnovich for attorney general and Hugh Hallman for treasurer.

"Dark money" is an epithet for campaign speech whose source of funding is obscure or undisclosed.

Supposedly huge sums of money from the vast right-wing conspiracy throughout the country will flow into Arizona to ensure the election of this dark-money slate.

The supposed mastermind and maestro of this attempt to hijack the Republican primary is none other than Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. Some are calling it the Montgomery slate.

Now, Montgomery is a politician of some promise and has done a good job of calming the infighting in county government. I don't know whether this is a good or a bad thing to say about him. But, in terms of this conspiracy, Montgomery just ain't that important or influential.

Montgomery has some standing in county politics. He's a minor figure in state politics, with considerable upside potential. But right now, at the state level, he hardly makes anyone shake in their boots. On the national level, he's a cipher.

The notion that Montgomery can summon big bucks from around the country for statewide candidates in Arizona is implausible, to put it mildly.

I don't doubt independent expenditure campaigns will play in the Republican primary, and some of them will have obscure financing. But the notion that some large, national effort will focus on down-ballot state offices in Arizona strikes me as implausible. The vast right-wing conspiracy has considerably bigger fish to fry in the 2014 election than who is Arizona's state treasurer.

Opponents of HB 2305, the multifaceted election law bill, apparently have succeeded in getting sufficient signatures to refer it to the 2014 ballot, keeping it from going into effect. Supporters of the law will flyspeck signatures for a potential challenge, but this appears to have been a remarkably well-run signature-gathering campaign.

If it indeed is on the ballot, the prospects of the opponents prevailing are strong. I say that as someone who generally supports the law.

There are a lot of parts to HB 2305, ranging from removing those who don't use them from early ballot lists to changing the standard for legal compliance with statutory requirements for initiatives.

If there is an election, it is unlikely voters will focus in any detail on the specific provisions of HB 2305, adding up whether the good outweighs the bad. Instead, it will be an overall framing battle.

Supporters of the law will frame it as protecting the integrity of elections and providing for their smoother administration. Opponents will frame the measure as voter suppression and dirty dealing by the Legislature.

Opponents are likely to win this framing battle for two reasons: First, they are more committed and are likely to have greater resources. Second, supporters will have the burden of the "yes" vote. In referendums, a "yes" vote is to uphold the law. In contested ballot measure campaigns, the" no" side wins most of the time.

Most of HB 2305's election law changes would be nice but they aren't vital, with one exception. The bill would have stopped the practice of political activists collecting early ballots in bulk and delivering them to the polls.

Democratic Party and Latino political activists defend the practice as increasing voter participation. But it smacks of ward-heeling and is ripe for fraud. In the last election, the Maricopa County Recorder's Office reported two incidents of people going door-to-door collecting early ballots and falsely claiming to be election officials.

The Legislature should repeal HB 2305 and re-enact the prohibition on collecting early ballots in bulk as a stand-alone measure. If there is to be a ballot fight, it should be over something worth fighting about.

Reach Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

Copyright 2013 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Kielsky takes on Montgomery

In the race for Maricopa County attorney, a heavily favored Republican incumbent is being challenged by a Libertarian who has run twice before for the office.

County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who took office after winning a special election in 2010, is facing Libertarian opponent Michael Kielsky. The Democratic Party did not slate a candidate in the race.

One of the sharpest contrasts between Montgomery and Kielsky is views on enforcing laws. Montgomery presents himself as a law-and-order stalwart who, in his career as a prosecutor, has pursued tough sentences. Kielsky's main campaign promise is that he will not prosecute victimless crimes such as marijuana possession and prostitution, using the slogan, "No victim, no crime, no time, no fine!"

Montgomery, 45, has done no television campaigning and bought no print ads. He and Kielsky will participate in a lunch forum tentatively set for Monday at the Phoenix School of Law.

Kielsky, 48, says, "It will be my most successful run yet" because the voters of Maricopa County will express their dissatisfaction with Montgomery's first two years as county attorney.

The last general election for Maricopa County attorney, in 2008, was a horse race in which then-incumbent Andrew Thomas edged out Democrat Tim Nelson.

But less than two years later, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office was thrown into turmoil because of Thomas' skirmishes with judges and county officials. Thomas resigned to run for Arizona attorney general.

Former County Attorney Rick Romley battled against Montgomery to replace Thomas, but Montgomery, the party's preferred candidate in the Republican primary, won and then rolled over Kielsky in the November 2010 special election.

Montgomery's tenure has been relatively uneventful compared with Thomas'; he has presented himself as a conservative lawman in contrast to Thomas' anti-corruption crusader. Montgomery has gotten criticism from political pundits for not pressing criminal charges against politicians who allegedly took favors from the Fiesta Bowl or against Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne for possible campaign-finance violations. Horne defeated Thomas in the 2010 GOP primary for attorney general.

Montgomery said that there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges and that seeking indictments "opens me up to criticism that there was a political reason to get an indictment."

Tempe-based polling expert Michael O'Neil said he thinks a Democratic opponent could have capitalized to some degree on the lack of prosecutions.

"You could say he's protecting his cronies and build a campaign on that," O'Neil said. But "nobody is willing to step up for a race that they would definitely lose."

Montgomery moved to improve relations with county managers and the county Board of Supervisors, and his press conferences often focus on community activities such as shred-a-thons to combat ID theft or anti-drug programs.

On broader political issues, Montgomery has hewed to Republican Party positions, such as supporting Senate Bill 1070, the embattled Arizona immigration law. In addition, he will defend the state's ban on abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals next month.

He has been outspoken against Proposition 121, which would create an open primary system instead of separate primaries for each political party. He also has opposed the successful citizens' initiative that allows for legal medical use of marijuana. Kielsky supports decriminalization of marijuana.

Kielsky, a former head of the Arizona Libertarian Party, ran for a seat on the board of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in 1992. He then ran for justice of the peace in 2002, Congress in 2004 and county attorney in 2008 and 2010.

As in his past campaigns, Kielsky, who has been an attorney since 2006, does not take stands on major political issues, instead focusing on not wasting resources by prosecuting victimless crimes, saying this will save money, lower the prison population and provide greater freedom and justice. He said he would not devote resources to prosecuting minor drug-possession charges, prostitution or immigration offenses.

"The job of the county attorney is to help protect individual rights by prosecuting those who harm other people," he said. "Bill Montgomery, like his predecessor, is spending a lot of resources on prosecuting people who aren't hurting anyone."

"How about if we just focus on the core issues of that office?" he said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

Kielsky takes on Montgomery

In the race for Maricopa County attorney, a heavily favored Republican incumbent is being challenged by a Libertarian who has run twice before for the office.

County Attorney Bill Montgomery, who took office after winning a special election in 2010, is facing Libertarian opponent Michael Kielsky. The Democratic Party did not slate a candidate in the race.

One of the sharpest contrasts between Montgomery and Kielsky is views on enforcing laws. Montgomery presents himself as a law-and-order stalwart who, in his career as a prosecutor, has pursued tough sentences. Kielsky's main campaign promise is that he will not prosecute victimless crimes such as marijuana possession and prostitution, using the slogan, "No victim, no crime, no time, no fine!"

Montgomery, 45, has done no television campaigning and bought no print ads. He and Kielsky will participate in a lunch forum tentatively set for Monday at the Phoenix School of Law.

Kielsky, 48, says, "It will be my most successful run yet" because the voters of Maricopa County will express their dissatisfaction with Montgomery's first two years as county attorney.

The last general election for Maricopa County attorney, in 2008, was a horse race in which then-incumbent Andrew Thomas edged out Democrat Tim Nelson.

But less than two years later, the Maricopa County Attorney's Office was thrown into turmoil because of Thomas' skirmishes with judges and county officials. Thomas resigned to run for Arizona attorney general.

Former County Attorney Rick Romley battled against Montgomery to replace Thomas, but Montgomery, the party's preferred candidate in the Republican primary, won and then rolled over Kielsky in the November 2010 special election.

Montgomery's tenure has been relatively uneventful compared with Thomas'; he has presented himself as a conservative lawman in contrast to Thomas' anti-corruption crusader. Montgomery has gotten criticism from political pundits for not pressing criminal charges against politicians who allegedly took favors from the Fiesta Bowl or against Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne for possible campaign-finance violations. Horne defeated Thomas in the 2010 GOP primary for attorney general.

Montgomery said that there was insufficient evidence to warrant criminal charges and that seeking indictments "opens me up to criticism that there was a political reason to get an indictment."

Tempe-based polling expert Michael O'Neil said he thinks a Democratic opponent could have capitalized to some degree on the lack of prosecutions.

"You could say he's protecting his cronies and build a campaign on that," O'Neil said. But "nobody is willing to step up for a race that they would definitely lose."

Montgomery moved to improve relations with county managers and the county Board of Supervisors, and his press conferences often focus on community activities such as shred-a-thons to combat ID theft or anti-drug programs.

On broader political issues, Montgomery has hewed to Republican Party positions, such as supporting Senate Bill 1070, the embattled Arizona immigration law. In addition, he will defend the state's ban on abortions beyond 20 weeks of pregnancy before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals next month.

He has been outspoken against Proposition 121, which would create an open primary system instead of separate primaries for each political party. He also has opposed the successful citizens' initiative that allows for legal medical use of marijuana. Kielsky supports decriminalization of marijuana.

Kielsky, a former head of the Arizona Libertarian Party, ran for a seat on the board of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District in 1992. He then ran for justice of the peace in 2002, Congress in 2004 and county attorney in 2008 and 2010.

As in his past campaigns, Kielsky, who has been an attorney since 2006, does not take stands on major political issues, instead focusing on not wasting resources by prosecuting victimless crimes, saying this will save money, lower the prison population and provide greater freedom and justice. He said he would not devote resources to prosecuting minor drug-possession charges, prostitution or immigration offenses.

"The job of the county attorney is to help protect individual rights by prosecuting those who harm other people," he said. "Bill Montgomery, like his predecessor, is spending a lot of resources on prosecuting people who aren't hurting anyone."

"How about if we just focus on the core issues of that office?" he said.

Copyright 2012 The Arizona Republic|azcentral.com. All rights reserved.For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here