Group plans ads attacking Arpaio

Sheriff Joe Arpaio's massive financial advantage over his challengers in the November election is well documented and on display on Valley airwaves daily as television advertisements tout his 20 years in office.

But an independent expenditure group formed late last month aims to raise money to highlight the sheriff's mistakes and buy airtime for ads focusing on fiscal mismanagement, misguided investigations and other issues. The group said its ads will be designed to appeal to a base of conservative voters who view some of the sheriff's projects with increasing skepticism.

The founders of Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement have a track record of success. The group's chairman, Phoenix attorney Jesse Wulsin, and its treasurer, Phoenix attorney Stephen Benedetto, were also behind a non-profit political group named Phoenix Citizens United that targeted Mayor Greg Stanton's opponent in last year's mayoral race.

Independent expenditure committees are not allowed to contribute money to a candidate, but they may spend money to influence an election. State law prohibits a candidate from having any involvement in the operation of an independent campaign committee.

Phoenix Citizens United was the subject of a complaint filed last year with the Arizona Secretary of State's Office alleging campaign-finance violations during the Phoenix mayoral race. That investigation is open and ongoing, according to a spokesman for Secretary of State Ken Bennett.

As an independent committee, the anti-Arpaio group does not expressly endorse either of his two opponents, former Scottsdale Police Lt. Mike Stauffer, an independent, or former Phoenix police Sgt. Paul Penzone, a Democrat.

The independent committee plans to focus on financial issues in Arpaio's office instead of attacking his treatment of inmates and undocumented immigrants, as many of his critics and prior opponents have with little success, said Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Phoenix, a co-chairman of the group. The recent decision by the U.S. Justice Department to close a long-running criminal probe into Arpaio's agency without filing charges does not detract from that message, he said.

"No matter what the DOJ came down with, if you look at the mismanagement, the lack of control over spending, the misappropriation of time and energy to chase down a conspiracy theory using taxpayer dollars, those are the issues that are appealing to these people, including to Republicans, with this campaign," Gallego said. "The history of Sheriff Joe in terms of misappropriation of funds, targeting political enemies and using tax dollars to do that is what's going to drive participation."

Arpaio has been criticized by his opponents for raising more than $7.5million for his campaign largely from out-of-state donors. Arpaio critics also have made an issue of the fact that a former sheriff's captain lost his job this year for lying to investigators about his role in the Sheriff's Command Association, a political-action committee that raised money from affluent, out-of-state donors. That money was used to run ads against Arpaio's opponent in 2008.

Complaints against independent expenditure committees are common, and Arpaio's camp could raise questions about Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement. But the nature of the committee allows Penzone and Stauffer to maintain a distance from the fundraising group while enjoying the benefits of campaign attacks on Arpaio.

"We feel, unlike with what the sheriff did with SCA, we're certainly going to be complying with the law and being transparent as possible," Gallego said. "Our goal is, at the end of the day, to inform the public about Arpaio's shortcomings, and we will be partnering with any donors and, of course, complying with the law in terms of financial disclosure."

Arpaio's campaign has dealt with a variety of other campaign groups, some targeting the sheriff and others ostensibly raising money on his behalf.

The sheriff's campaign had $4.3million on hand as of early August, and Arpaio's campaign manager, Chad Willems, said the campaign would show similar results on a finance report due late next week.

"There are several groups out there that are purporting to be doing a variety of different things. This is just another one of them," Willems said. "We're just going to continue to run our campaign."

A pro-Arpaio committee, Americans for Sheriff Joe, requested contributions from donors around the country based in part on the rumor that billionaire liberal George Soros was going to bankroll an anti-Arpaio group. Americans for Sheriff Joe has raised more than $2.2million, according to the most recent filing, but spent more than $1.8million on operating expenses.

Penzone, meanwhile, has reaped the rewards of the Democratic Party's work on his behalf. Earlier this week, state Democratic Party executive director Luis Heredia sent an e-mail to supporters as part of a "nationwide call to action" to generate financial support for television ads on Penzone's behalf. The effort raised $24,000 in a single day, according to Penzone's campaign.

Penzone's campaign welcomed the arrival of Citizens for Professional Law Enforcement as another sign that Penzone, the former public face of Silent Witness, was gaining the traction to unseat Arpaio.

Stacy Pearson, Penzone's campaign manager, said three things were needed to successfully challenge Arpaio this year: "A strong contender, which voters get in Paul Penzone. There had to be continuing missteps by Arpaio, which he's demonstrated in 'birther' investigations and ongoing sex crimes. And there had to be citizens that got involved beyond complaining. Those groups mobilizing, that's going to be the difference between what happened in 2008 and what happens in 2012."

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

Carmona's focus: Jobs, immigration

Richard Carmona's television campaign ads paint a rugged portrait of the Democratic Senate candidate: a decorated Green Beret, a trauma surgeon, a SWAT team leader and a U.S. surgeon general who battled "political interference" from higher-ups in President George W. Bush's administration.

Richard Carmona

Age: 62.

Education: Bronx Community College of the City, University of New York, associate degree, 1973; University of California-San Francisco, bachelor's degree in biology and chemistry, 1977; University of California-San Francisco, medical degree, 1979; University of Arizona, master's degree in public health, 1998.

Family: Wife Diane. Four children.

Work experience: Vice chairman, Canyon Ranch, 2006-present; president, Canyon Ranch Institute, 2006-present; and distinguished professor of public health, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, 2006-present. Past: Department surgeon, SWAT-team leader and deputy, Pima County Sheriff's Department, 1986-2002.

Previous public office: U.S. surgeon general, 2002-06.

Top issues:

Job creation.

Immigration reform.

Balanced budget.

Social Security and Medicare preservation.

National security and veterans issues.

Women's health care.

Source: Carmona's campaign website, carmonaforarizona.com/priorities

During the Vietnam War, Carmona was awarded two Bronze Stars, two Purple Hearts and a combat medical badge. His law-enforcement experience with the Pima County Sheriff's Department includes action-packed episodes such as a risky 1992 mountainside rescue of a helicopter-crash survivor and a 1999 gunbattle in which he killed a man who was menacing a woman. Carmona was wounded in the leg during a 1988 SWAT standoff in which an armed man was killed.

"He's a local hero and a national hero," said veteran Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, a Democrat. "I have nothing but admiration and respect for this guy. He's a brilliant doctor and an extremely talented individual."

But Carmona, 62, also has long been dogged by questions about his leadership style, which critics characterize as contentious.

The acting Health and Human Services Department deputy who supervised him as surgeon general told a congressional investigatory committee in 2007 that she felt threatened by him.

And his career in southern Arizona's health-care industry has been at times controversial, with him leaving two high-profile positions amid criticism.

Those episodes are providing fodder for Carmona's opponent, Republican Rep. Jeff Flake. Polls indicate the race is neck and neck.

But Carmona's experience working with members of both parties is complicating Flake's efforts to portray him as a "rubber stamp" for President Barack Obama, who with other senior Democrats encouraged him to seek the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Jon Kyl as a Democrat.

A lifelong registered independent, Carmona was nominated as the nation's 17th surgeon general by Bush, a Republican, in 2002 and strongly endorsed for that position by Arizona's two Republican senators.

Carmona, who lists on his campaign website priorities that include job creation, comprehensive immigration reform, women's issues and preserving Social Security, boasts that Republicans had previously tried to recruit him to run for governor and Congress.

"When I read his resume, I have to tell you that it seems it's like a resume from 10 different people," actress Lynda Carter, best known for her role as 1970s television superhero "Wonder Woman," said at a recent "Women for Carmona" event in Scottsdale. "I have played the role. He is the role."

A long resume

While his ads highlight his achievements, there is more to Carmona's resume than battlefield and law-enforcement heroics.

He helped establish Tucson Medical Center's trauma unit but was let go in 1993, according to contemporary media reports. He sued and secured a public apology and a confidential settlement that the Arizona Daily Star reported at $3.9million.

Later, he took over the financially troubled Kino Community Hospital in Tucson and ran Pima County's health-care system. Under pressure over financial issues, Carmona stepped down in 1999.

Some of those issues came up a decade ago, when Bush tapped Carmona as surgeon general. Only now are they becoming election-season fodder because, unlike Flake, a six-term congressman who won the Republican Senate nomination after a no-holds-barred primary fight, Carmona ran unopposed in the Democratic primary.

Now, Flake has started making an issue of Carmona's past in campaign mailers and ads.

For his part, Carmona pointed out that the issues in his health-care-management career were known to the senators who considered his nomination as surgeon general. He said he made tough leadership decisions at the time "with compassion for the people."

"But here's the important point: Every one of those allegations was investigated by the U.S. Senate when I went up for confirmation," Carmona said after the Scottsdale event. "And I received a unanimous confirmation from the United States Senate, so that should answer any questions as to the veracity of any of those allegations."

An exhaustive 2002 Los Angeles Times report on Carmona raised questions about his temperament and management skills, spotlighting allegations that he bullied a nurse in 1991, drove off Kino Community Hospital's veteran chief of surgery in 1996 and berated a member of the Pima County Health Care Commission in 1999.

The late Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., asked about his "confrontational" style at Carmona's July9, 2002, Senate confirmation hearing and specifically cited his publicized clash with Sylvia Campoy, the health commissioner.

Carmona said some personal friction was inevitable as an "agent of change," charged with introducing "contemporary management techniques to a dying system that is struggling to care for indigent patients."

"At times, that is upsetting to people who live in the status quo for a long time," Carmona said at the hearing. "And because of that, sometimes those of us who do step out might be characterized as confrontational. … But I would say emphatically that I always treated my patients, my staff and co-workers with the greatest respect."

However, questions about the way Carmona has treated colleagues did not end when he became surgeon general.

In May, Politico reported allegations against Carmona made in secret 2007 testimony before the Oversight and Government Reform Committee by Cristina Beato, who oversaw the surgeon general in her role as acting assistant secretary of health. According to the transcript of her testimony, Beato said Carmona "has problems with women" and "had a very difficult time having a female Hispanic supervisor."

Beato, a single mother, also alleged that twice Carmona pounded on her door after midnight in an effort to resume ongoing arguments and that she felt threatened by his behavior. Beato and Carmona both resided on the National Institutes of Health campus in Maryland.

The Carmona campaign has dismissed Beato's claims as fiction.

"This was a lady that was very politically motivated, who was aspiring to a higher position and then lied on her resume and got caught, and we held her accountable, so she lashed out," Carmona said. "But the fact is that Congress investigated those allegations, and they were all found to be false."

In a telephone interview, Beato said that her testimony was delivered under oath and was truthful and that Congress did not investigate her claims. She acknowledged making mistakes on her resume but said that Bush continued to stand by her nomination.

"No, I do not make this stuff up," Beato told The Republic. "And I did fear for my life, and I am not a little withering flower, either. It was personally very frightening."

Political leanings

In ads, the Flake campaign has tried to portray Carmona as a "rubber stamp" for Obama, arguing that a vote for Carmona equals a vote for the president's agenda.

Carmona counters that even as a presidential appointee, he was hardly a mouthpiece for Bush.

In fact, his battle with the Bush administration and his claim that officials tried to muzzle him on health issues such as stem-cell research and the dangers of secondhand smoke are part of his campaign narrative that he is not beholden to either political party.

Carmona, who is of Puerto Rican descent, has courted moderate voters and presented himself as an independent-minded problem solver who could forge solutions to lingering issues such as the broken immigration system and help restore the public's trust in government.

"I was an independent when I was surgeon general ? and always saw my job as really being nonpartisan in dealing with health and safety and security issues of the nation," Carmona said earlier this year in a Fox News Latino interview.

"But as I moved forward to be considering running for the U.S. Senate and I looked at where the Republican Party was on certain issues in my state, like on women's health, on immigration, some of the educational issues, I really couldn't align with them there. The fact is that the Democratic Party was more closely aligned with where my values were on key issues in our state."

'Take-charge guy'

Former Sen. Dennis DeConcini, D-Ariz., a Carmona supporter, described Carmona as "a take-charge guy" and speculated that might rub some the wrong way.

"When you are a leader, sometimes the people you lead don't always agree with you," said DeConcini, who held the Senate seat Carmona is seeking from 1977 to 1995. "That's what I chalk it up to. He may have a temper. Hell, I don't know who hasn't ever gotten mad. I have never seen that."

Rep. Raúl Grijalva, D-Ariz., another Carmona ally, was a Pima County supervisor when Carmona headed Kino Community Hospital and the county health system. Although Carmona's tenure was turbulent, Grijalva credited him with stabilizing the hospital and laying the groundwork for its eventual transformation.

Any personality clashes stemmed from Carmona's effort to move the hospital in a different direction and "was part of making the omelet," Grijalva said. "In the heat of the battle, I didn't always agree with him, but I'll give him his due. He was very persuasive and talked about the fact that if we are going to turn this hospital around, we're going to have to take some risks. … I'm glad we took some of those risks."

Carmona also has taken risks during his long association with the Pima County Sheriff's Department. Dupnik, the Pima County sheriff, praised Carmona as "a tremendously courageous individual" who saved lives when he returned fire and killed a violent, mentally disturbed man in a Sept.18, 1999, off-duty gunbattle in Tucson. The celebrated 1992 rescue, in which Carmona dangled from a helicopter, was so dangerous that Dupnik said he would never have allowed it had he been aware of what Carmona was planning to do.

"We have a joke around the department: When we see on TV some disaster or emergency happening on a national level, we always look to see if Carmona is there," Dupnik said. "He just has a knack for being in the right place at the right time."

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

Editorial: Romney's 47 percenters blur facts, message

In his now-famous video clip criticizing the 47 percenters, the rough share of people who pay no federal income taxes, Mitt Romney raises some legitimate points.

LM Otero, AP

Mickey Corsi protests outside a Romney fundraiser in Dallas on Tuesday.

LM Otero, AP

Mickey Corsi protests outside a Romney fundraiser in Dallas on Tuesday.

The nation's tax code does let too many people off the hook, undermining the sense that Americans are all in this together. And the many federal entitlement programs do threaten to create an unaffordable culture of dependency.

But as is too often the case with the Republican presidential candidate, he muddles things up. He confuses the 47% who pay no income taxes with the 49% who get government benefits. And he conflates both groups with supporters of President Obama. In fact, the three groups overlap only in parts, like rings of the Olympic logo.

Those who pay no federal income taxes are not made up exclusively of those Romney derides as dependent on government and lacking in personal responsibility. They include millions of senior citizens and low-skilled workers who consider themselves neither victims nor entitled to anything.

Government benefits are heavily skewed towards seniors, nearly all of whom paid Social Security and Medicare taxes for decades to earn them. Judging by the polls, both they and low-income workers are likely to give Romney respectable levels of support in November, unless they feel he is insulting them or cannot relate to their situation — the issue that turned Romney's remarks white hot.

In surreptitiously taped comments at a May fundraising event, leaked Monday by the liberal magazine Mother Jones, Romney plays to his donors' prejudices to sell a message that the Democratic Party is about dependency and the Republican Party is about free enterprise and limited government.

About Editorials/Debate

Opinions expressed in USA TODAY's editorials are decided by its Editorial Board, a demographically and ideologically diverse group that is separate from USA TODAY's news staff.

Most editorials are accompanied by an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature that allows readers to reach conclusions based on both sides of an argument rather than just the Editorial Board's point of view.

In reality, the number of people who pay income tax dropped largely because of the recession and tax cuts approved during Republican administrations. And Republicans defend many of the $1 trillion in annual tax expenditures -- deductions, credits and loopholes -- that represent another form of entitlements.

But what might be most troubling about Romney's strivers-vs.-moochers formulation is how he unnecessarily personalized a debate that should be about policy. Rather than criticizing a string of laws that has shielded too many adults from the obligation of paying federal income taxes, he disparages the non-payers themselves — apparently for the sin of complying with the law.

That presents a rich irony, because Romney has defended his own low tax rates (of 14% on $21.6 million in 2010, much less than the top rate of 35%) by saying that he was fully in compliance with the law, and that Americans should pay only what's required.

Inevitably, Romney's comments are being compared to Obama's in 2008, when he was taped saying that some voters not likely to vote for him "cling to their guns or religion." You'd think, after that experience, candidates wouldn't say things at closed fundraisers that they wouldn't say in public. At least Obama knew that he committed a huge gaffe and said he had misspoken. Romney keeps doubling down on his mistake, pushing a kind of resentment politics.

If Romney wants to end a psychology of entitlement, here's a better way to start: Propose a detailed tax simplification that strips out giveaways. That would include those that enable his own loophole-ridden rate and a raft of middle-class goodies such as the mortgage interest deduction, in the process of ending the free ride for a chunk of the 47%.

The principle should be that everyone above the poverty level should have at least a minimal stake in financing the nation's defense, highways, national parks and other needs -- with the burden distributed in the simplest, fairest, most efficient way possible.

Far more important, though, is bringing runaway benefit programs under control. Here Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, have made some constructive proposals. But their arguments would be far more effective if they'd put forth a vision that unites Americans to overcome a common threat rather than playing to stereotypes that divide them.

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.

View the original article here

Independents' vote crucial for Parker, Sinema in House battle

A tree-lined Phoenix street near the Arizona Biltmore offered a glimpse on a recent afternoon into the unpredictability of the 9th District congressional race.

Residents of three nearby houses were registered as Democrat, independent and Republican. Their varied affiliations reflect the nearly even split between the major parties in the district, as well as the prevalence of voters with "no party preference."

Republican Vernon Parker and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema will have to court the independent crowd more than candidates in any other U.S. House race in the state.

In Arizona, only the 9th District is dominated by independents, who outnumber Republicans by 15,000 and Democrats by 21,000. By definition, these so-called swing voters are not easy to pin down.

Arizona has two other competitive districts -- northern Arizona's 1st District and southern Arizona's 2nd District -- but neither has as many independent voters.

"I don't like to classify myself with one or another. It's like belonging to one religion," said 58-year-old interior designer Karen Rapp, the independent living on the Phoenix street. She said she often votes Democratic for state offices and Republican for federal offices because she likes the idea of parties splitting power and thinks their platforms work better in those positions.

This time around, though, she plans to deviate and vote for Sinema because a neighbor -- the nearby registered Democrat -- works for the former state lawmaker's campaign and has sung her praises.

To attract more independent voters like Rapp, Parker and Sinema are touting their crossover appeal and accusing each other of being "extreme."

The candidates tell stories of overcoming childhood poverty through education and hard work. They argue that their ideas about taxes and the economy will help middle-class families. And on some issues, such as immigration, they advocate positions closer to the middle than some in their parties.

For instance, Sinema voted in the Legislature for sending National Guard troops to the border and stiffening penalties for owners of drophouses. In Congress, she wants to require banks to freeze suspected drug-cartel accounts.

Parker, on the other hand, recently told The Arizona Republic he would support some version of the Dream Act or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio's alternative to provide a path to legal status for young immigrants brought to the United States illegally by their parents, though he did not specify what changes he would make to those plans.

Wes Gullett, a political strategist at the nonpartisan consulting firm FirstStrategic Communications and Public Affairs and a former Republican candidate for Phoenix mayor, said 9th District voters are among the most politically engaged in the state. Much of the district is expected to vote this fall.

An Arizona Republic analysis of voting data shows primary turnout, though small overall, was highest among independents in north and central Phoenix, suggesting the battle between Parker and Sinema may be fiercest there. The district also covers parts of Paradise Valley, Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa, Chandler and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Gullett, who is not supporting either candidate, said north-central Phoenix neighborhoods like Arcadia and areas near Piestewa Peak are always highly contested in city, legislative and congressional races. Voters in those areas pay attention, he said.

"There's lots of opportunity there for both campaigns to do well," Gullett said. "It all comes back to those swing voters and figuring out who those swing voters are."

Campaign battlegrounds

The Republic's analysis of 9th District primary data shows:

Independent turnout was small, offering only limited clues to the general election. A variety of factors, including the challenge of requesting a primary ballot, deter independents from voting in the primary. But campaigns use the information as one indicator of where to spend resources for the general election, when many more independents and party voters will cast ballots.

North-central Phoenix, followed by parts of Tempe, Mesa and Ahwatukee, drew the strongest independent turnout during the primary. Those areas are likely to draw high participation in the general election and could become campaign battlegrounds.

Independents voted like their neighbors. In precincts where registered Republicans cast more primary votes, independents also swung Republican. The same was true for precincts that leaned Democratic. Parker and Sinema will likely garner the most support from independents in areas where their party bases are enthusiastic.

Though independent registration continues to grow in Arizona, independents who vote in primaries remain rare, as is the case with all voters. Only 8.8 percent of ballots cast in the 9th District primary came from independents, according to data provided to The Republic from the Maricopa County Elections Department through the state Democratic Party.

One reason independents turn out in low numbers is the extra step to receive early primary ballots, said Paul Johnson, a former Phoenix Democratic mayor. While party voters on the permanent early-voting list automatically receive primary ballots, independents must tell the county Elections Department which party ballot they want.

That keeps many independents from voting, said Johnson.

He is advocating for passage of Proposition 121, which would eliminate the party-ballot system and allow voters, regardless of party, to vote for any candidate during the primary. Independents then would receive early ballots as party voters do. Opponents say in practice the system is unlikely to boost independent turnout.

Rapp, the independent Phoenix voter, didn't vote in the primary because she didn't receive an early ballot.

"It wasn't convenient," Rapp said.

Other independents may sit out primaries because they don't feel strongly enough to vote or don't think it's right to participate in a partisan primary, said Michael O'Neil, president of Tempe polling firm O'Neil Associates Inc.

Since many more independents are expected to vote on Nov. 6, the primary patterns provide some insight but aren't enough to predict the general-election outcome, O'Neil said.

"It might be suggestive, but it's not necessarily predictive," he said.

Still, independents are key to the race, he said, because party registrations are so close. If party voters turn out in equal numbers, swing voters could determine whether Parker or Sinema win.

The closest correlation between the primary and the general is turnout, said Jim Haynes, president of the Phoenix-based polling company Behavior Research Center. Areas that drew heavy participation from independent voters in the primary are likely to stay that way in the general.

Precincts with the highest independent turnout were in north-central Phoenix, where both Parker and Sinema drew strong support from party voters because of their long ties there. Parker served near the area as Paradise Valley mayor and councilman. Sinema was a state legislator and social worker in the area. Both resigned this year to focus on their campaigns.

The north Phoenix Madison Heights precinct, which abuts Paradise Valley, had the highest independent participation, 15 percent. Precincts with independent turnout higher than 9 percent also occurred in west Mesa, south Tempe and Ahwatukee Foothills.

Residents in those neighborhoods typically have higher incomes, higher education and deeper roots in the community, Gullett said. Those factors are often linked to turnout.

One anomaly may be in the Tempe precincts around Arizona State University, according to Gullett, where primary participation was tiny. Those areas could become more active in the fall when students are settled in school, he said.

Many unknowns

Though it's harder to predict how independents will vote in the general election, Republic maps of primary returns show independents largely followed the party leanings in their neighborhoods.

Independents went red in Republican-leaning northeast Phoenix, west Mesa and west Chandler, while independents went blue in Democratic-leaning central Phoenix, Tempe and downtown Chandler.

Campaigns will use that information, coupled with voter profiles compiled by the state parties and past elections results, to determine voters and neighborhoods to target with direct mail, phone calls and door-knocking.

Haynes said he wasn't surprised to see independents leaning in the same direction as their party-registered neighbors. Some independents may be disaffected party members who still vote with the party they dropped.

But much remains unknown about many independents, he said, such as whether they are former Democrats, former Republicans or independents from the start. If he were a part of a campaign, Haynes said, his biggest effort would be to "find out who these people are and how to reach them."

Much work ahead

Though the Parker and Sinema campaigns see value in understanding the primary voting patterns, they promise to go after both independents and party voters and to compete across the district.

The candidates' work is cut out for them.

Jeanette Irwin was watering her garden while she talked politics. The 68-year-old retired teacher and registered Republican said she's open to voting for either candidate, though she likes what she's heard about Parker.

"I'm still deciding," Irwin said. "We have many times voted Democratic if the candidates are better. … I wouldn't vote party totally. I financially support the Republican Party, but hey, if somebody else is better ?"

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

3 fined for Clean Elections violation

Election regulators voted Thursday to fine three Republican candidates for the Arizona Corporation Commission a total of about $29,000 for misusing public money during the primary election.

All five members of the Citizens Clean Elections Commission voted there was reason to believe that candidates Bob Stump, Bob Burns and Susan Bitter-Smith violated election laws. But they disagreed on what the financial penalty should be.

With two commissioners, Louis Hoffman and Thomas Koester, abstaining, the other three voted to approve an offer that the Republicans made earlier in the week. The deal calls for them to return $9,617.50 each by Monday to the Citizens Clean Elections Commission.

They will return the money from the $137,800 in public funds each of them received to spend on the general election.

The Democratic Party filed a complaint that said the mailers Republicans sent during the primary election violated the law, which requires public money given to candidates during the primary election be used only for the primary. The law specifies that any leftover funds must be returned to the public before general-election campaigning begins.

With three open seats on the five-member commission this election cycle, both parties are running three candidates. That meant neither party faced opposition in the primary.

Each of the six candidates received nearly $92,000 to spend on primary campaigns.

The Republicans used $230,000 of their combined funds to print and mail brochures that attacked the Democrats they face in the general election.

Republicans disputed that their mailers violated the rules, which apply to candidates who don't finance their own campaigns and instead use public money. But they agreed to return some of the money to put the matter behind them.

Instead of returning all of the money spent on the fliers, they agreed to pay back the amount it cost to mail the brochures to independent voters.

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

Mitchell put back on fall ballot

Darin Mitchell will be a candidate for the Legislature after a whirlwind tour through the courts.

The Arizona Supreme Court reinstated the candidate Tuesday, minutes before elections officials started printing ballots for the Nov.6 election.

Mitchell's attorney Tim LaSota, said the candidate was pleased with the result and repeated Mitchell's assertion that he lives in the far-flung district.

Mitchell's residency was at the heart of a legal challenge launched 10 days ago when Rep. Russ Jones, who lost to Mitchell in last month's primary election, argued Mitchell should be tossed from the ballot because he lives outside Legislative District 13.

LaSota said he expected the legal fight to continue, "(b)ut we certainly like the position we're in because we're on the ballot."

Jones, R-Yuma, said he's "not giving up" on his effort to remove Mitchell from the ballot.

The legal quest is not about retaining the seat for himself, Jones said, adding that he thinks keeping the seat is a lost cause.

Jones said he is for pushing for integrity in Arizona elections.

On Monday, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge determined Mitchell lived outside Legislative District 13, which runs west from Litchfield Park to the California line and picks up parts of Yuma north of Interstate 8.

Mitchell gave elections officials different addresses on different documents, leading to a two-day vetting of his living arrangements, from where he slept to where he bathed.

Although he spent time with his fiancee at her Avondale home, which is in a heavily Democratic district, Mitchell testified that he lived in Litchfield Park in a nearly-vacant home that was being remodeled.

Monday's ruling knocked him off the ballot, prompting an emergency request to the state Court of Appeals to block the move.

The court agreed on the technical issue that Mitchell was not granted enough notice of the original suit.

Late Tuesday, the Supreme Court denied Jones' request to reverse the Appeals Court, guaranteeing Mitchell will appear on the ballot.

Jones said he does not believe he can run as a write-in candidate in the Nov. 6 election, but he will keep up his fight because Mitchell was reinstated on a technicality. The lower-court finding that Mitchell did not live in the district stands.

"It is an absolute abomination that we could go forward with this person," Jones said.

Mitchell and his running mate, Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, are the only candidates on the ballot, which virtually guarantees their election to the two House seats.

The Democratic Party does not have plans to run anyone as a write-in candidate, spokesman Frank Camacho said.

Meanwhile, Democrats used the hot-button residency issue to take aim at the sole candidate for the Senate seat in LD 13.

Camacho said Democrats believe Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, is renting a condominium in the district but still living in his longtime home in neighboring District 4, which is friendlier to Democrats.

They produced photos that show the senator's car parked at the house he owns in District 4 and said his landlord has failed to file a renter affidavit required by Yuma County regulations.

Shooter said he has "reams of documents" to prove he lives in the condo.

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

Not invited to the party

The ranks of Arizona's independent voters have surged 185 percent in the past two decades. They have surpassed the number of registered Democrats and are on a pace to eclipse Republicans.

The ever-growing bloc of voters is increasingly courted by candidates, who often need their swing votes to win.

But the political muscle of the 1 million-plus independent voters hasn't led to an increase in the number of independent candidates. There are only four independents on the statewide ballot this fall.

This disconnect traces back to Arizona's election laws, which were written by Republicans and Democrats and designed to tilt the political playing field to the major parties' advantage. They include higher hurdles for independents to qualify for the ballot, less public financing, and a rule that puts independents at the bottom of the ballot.

Independent candidate Brent Fine got a taste of that when he learned he could get only 70 percent of the public campaign-finance dollars available to his partisan colleagues. When he asked officials at the Citizens Clean Elections Commission why, the answer highlighted the circular nature of the barriers facing independents.

"They said, 'If you want to change it, you need to go to the Legislature,'" said Fine, who is running for the state House of Representatives in the Ahwatukee Foothills-Chandler area.

Fine's chances of making that change as lawmaker, however, are slim precisely because he's running as an independent. Arizona has never elected an independent to the Legislature, Congress or statewide office. Only 33 independents have even attempted to run in the past two decades, according to an Arizona Republic analysis.

"There's a growing sense that the parties are an institution that operate for their own self-preservation," said Jackie Salit, founder of IndependentVoting.org and director of New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's independent campaign. And although the major parties are shrinking in Arizona, "they control the political process in very authoritarian ways," she said.

Legal roadblocks

Tom Rawles, an independent running for state Senate, said he's more interested in trying to spotlight what he calls a dysfunctional political system than in winning his race.

"I'm running because I think the system is broken," said Rawles, who faces Senate President Steve Pierce, a Republican. "The two parties are more interested in acquiring power than in getting things done."

No newcomer to the political game -- he served on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors and then on the Mesa City Council -- Rawles was a Republican and a Libertarian before frustration drove him to become an independent three years ago.

Since launching a campaign as an independent, he's joined the elite fraternity of candidates who have been there, done that and have the loss to show for it.

Despite the odds, Rawles and other independent candidates say they press on because they don't feel they fit with the major parties. They disdain the gridlock that results from what often is a two-party standoff, and feel they offer an alternative to voters fed up with the status quo.

Their biggest obstacle to getting elected is the state's signature requirements to qualify for the ballot. All candidates must submit a minimum number of signatures on nominating petitions, but independents have to gather many more.

In Rawles' case, he needed at least 1,247 signatures, compared with 606 for Republicans and 251 for Democrats. A Libertarian who wanted to run in the central Arizona district would need only nine signatures.

The counts are based on a percentage of voter registration numbers. Established party candidates need 1 percent of their party's registered voters in the district in which they are running. In 1993, the Legislature amended the law and required independents to get 3 percent of the independent voters in their district -- a higher hurdle that is viewed as a barrier to nonpartisan candidates.

If they meet that hurdle, independents then face other challenges. They include:

Access to the voter-registration rolls. A decades-old law makes the list free for the political parties. Everyone else, including independent candidates, must pay. The cost can exceed $1,000. The data is a trove of voter information, from addresses to voting records.

Limited exposure during the primary-election season. Since independents have no partisan primary, their names are not on the sample ballots mailed to all voters. But the law requires all partisan candidates to be listed, even if he or she is unopposed.

The same no-independents-allowed rule holds true for the pamphlet the Clean Elections Commission mails to all voters; unchallenged partisan candidates still get to make a 200-word statement and have their photo published, valuable exposure for the coming general election.

Higher postage rates. State political parties can qualify for the non-profit bulk-mail rate, a 40 percent savings over the rate charged to commercial customers.

A smaller share of public campaign-finance dollars. Independents get 70 percent of the Clean Elections money allotted to partisan candidates in either legislative or statewide races. The rationale is independents don't face a primary race and thus need less money. Yet partisan candidates who face no opposition still get a nominal amount of public campaign financing.

Last place on the ballot. A law that rotates candidate names to ensure equal exposure on the ballot was amended 12 years ago to stipulate that independents must always be listed last.

The price of going it alone

There are other obstacles, consequences for candidates who decide to run outside an established party structure.

For example, independents walk away from the built-in support of a party. That means they lose out on a corps of volunteers ready to collect signatures, knock on doors and contribute to campaign coffers. It also sets them up for attacks from both the left and the right.

"They come at you from both sides," said Doug Quelland, a former Republican lawmaker now running for the state Senate as an independent. "And they're organized. There are no organized independent (parties) out there."

Quelland returned to the independent ranks (he ran for Congress in 1998 as an independent) after he was forced to resign his House seat in 2010 due to campaign-finance violations.

Mike Stauffer, an independent running against Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, a Republican, and Democratic challenger Paul Penzone, has felt the one-two punch of the major par-ties.

Democrats went after his nomination petitions, questioning the validity of the voter signatures. But they ultimately dropped their challenge.

Republicans also balked when he filed to run as a Republican because they didn't want Arpaio to have a primary contest.

In addition to the other obstacles, fundraising is a major challenge without the party support.

"Who's going to give me money?" asked Quelland. "It's a two-party dictatorship."

Money matters. The voter-registration list is a gold mine, containing voter addresses and voting records that help candidates target their message. By law, it's free to the political parties.

For independents, this gold mine costs a penny a name if they get the list electronically, a nickel a name on paper.

"As an independent, you have to pay for it," said Rawles. In his race, which straddles two counties, the cost for a digital file would be $1,231.

The political parties add their own data to the list they get for free, then sell it to individual campaigns. But they keep it in the family.

Pam Durbin realized it was easier to switch than fight. The Lake Havasu businesswoman filed to run as an independent, eyeing a state Senate seat in western Arizona.

Today, she is a Democratic candidate for the House.

Intimidated by the need to get at least 1,294 valid voter signatures, Durbin found the pitch from the Democratic Party too attractive to pass up. As a Democrat, she needed only 267 signatures to qualify, and there were people eager to help her collect them.

A game changer?

Some believe independents' electoral fortunes could change if Proposition 121 prevails on the November ballot. It would scrap partisan primaries in favor of an all-in primary with the top two finishers advancing to the general election, regardless of their party.

Ted Downing is a former state Democratic lawmaker who has thrown himself fully into the independent camp. He formed the Arizona Independent Candidate Coalition to share ideas. But being independents, the coalition fizzled as candidates went their own ways.

He got involved in the early efforts to draft the ballot initiative, convinced the system has to change. He chafes at the cost taxpayers shoulder for partisan elections.

He likes to note George Washington warned of the danger of putting party before country, and said that's a compelling reason for Proposition 121.

Rules 'are totally stacked'

Paul Johnson, chairman of the Open Government Committee which wrote Prop. 121, said the disadvantages independent candidates face was a driving force behind the measure.

"Everybody should be on a level playing field," he said. "The rules today are totally stacked against independents in every possible way."

He believes a revamped system would give independent candidates -- and independent voters -- a greater voice in the system by driving debate away from the extremes that he believes dominate the two-party system.

Others argue the system doesn't need to be blown up to make the process more amenable to independents.

"This idea of upsetting the entire system to get the top-two primary -- there's no evidence it works," said Randy Pullen, the former chairman of the state Republican Party.

He argued that lawmakers could simply roll back the laws that hinder independents.

But even with such changes, Pullen said, he doubts much would change. People align with parties for ideological reasons, so it probably would only marginally improve an independent candidate's chances, 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