All Hat, no Cattle

Have you ever had the experience of hearing somebody claim to be the exact opposite of what they are?

It can be jarring, but that's hardly surprising from Andy Tobin, the speaker of the Arizona legislature. Tobin has been wearing a new hat lately to try and convince voters in CD-1 that he fits into rural Arizona despite the fact that he doesn't actually live in the district and spends most of his time in Phoenix.  So I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised to hear Andy Tobin tout his 'bipartisanship' in a debate this week with Congresswoman Ann Kirkpatrick. He even had a statistic, claiming that 90% of what was passed by his legislature was 'bipartisan.'

In fact, if you were to lift the brim up and take a peek under Andy's new hat you will find a baldly partisan speaker.    Democrats have routinely been shut out of negotiations, denied the opportunity to offer amendments either in committee or on the floor,  and even been cut off to prevent them from speaking on legislation.

As for the 90% number, it is little secret that most bills passed by any legislative body are non-controversial, and will be passed unanimously or nearly unanimously.  Typical of this type of bill might (just for example) be HB 2307 clarifying the rules for driving golf carts.  It passed the House (and Senate) unanimously, as did numerous technical clarifications, memorials and resolutions (after all, who would vote against HR 2008, designating the first Friday in September as ovarian cancer awareness day?) 

Counting these sorts of bills helps mask the truly partisan nature of the Tobin legislature.  All of the important bills (such as HB 2305 last year, the voter suppression bill, or SB 1062 which would have allowed discrimination on the grounds of 'religious freedom' or the past few years' budgets which slashed hundreds of millions of dollars from education) you would find that all of them were written and sponsored by only Republicans and passed with only Republican votes. Which is exactly the way Andy Tobin wanted it.  As Speaker he had the right to hold a bill or get everyone on board but he put those bills on the floor anyway for a strict party-line vote. He does have that right since his party controls the legislature and he controls his party, but don't call him 'bipartisan' because he is NOT bipartisan. Not at all.

If you want 'bipartisan' where it counts, then look at the congresswoman he is trying to replace, Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick.  As most people know or should know, Kirkpatrick has put aside differences with Republican congressman Paul Gosar (the man who defeated her in 2010) and worked on moving a mine project forward that promises to deliver thousands of jobs.  Recently, in a Congress that is so warped by partisanship and divided control of the government that it has literally set a record for getting very little done (no Congress back to the founding of the Republic has passed into law fewer bills) it was Ann Kirkpatrick who became the first member of the Arizona delegation to do the ridiculously hard work of writing a bill that both parties could sign onto and shepherd it through the house and the Senate so that it eventually could be signed by the President. The bill improves service at the Veterans' Administration.  In the past, that might not have been that hard to pass but this year, with everything as a political football, it shows Rep. Kirkpatrick's doggedness and determination to do the work to get something done instead of political posturing. More recently, Rep. Kirkpatrick issued a press release  opposing publically the EPA's new proposed regulations on coal burning power plants.  And while Rep. Kirkpatrick has continued to support the Affordable Care Act, she has been among the first to suggest that it can and should be improved.

Further, some may recall that Republicans made commercials saying that Kirkpatrick voted '88% of the time' with Nancy Pelosi.  This is the other side of the coin we referred to above in regard to Andy Tobin's claim that his legislature is '90% bipartisan.'  Congress too, passes a lot of non-controversial bills over stuff like naming post offices or remembering somebody's service (I wonder if  a vote to adjourn is counted in their 88% statistic?)  But on the bills that Ann Kirkpatrick has differed on, they are substantive bills, but bills that matter to the district (for example she opposed bank bailouts and cap-and-trade legislation because this is a district where energy production is a lot more important to the local economy than Wall Street.)

And therein is the difference. Does anyone expect that Andy Tobin will reach across the aisle on VOTES THAT REALLY MATTER?  I don't.  Ann Kirkpatrick however does have the courage to do so when it will benefit her constituents.

Daniel Patterson End of the Line

According to recommendation in the Patterson report by a team of legal investigators hired by the House Ethics Committee (which Ted at his Rum, Romanism and Rebellion blog posted earlier today) the investigative team is recommending that Rep. Patterson be expelled from the legislature.

The investigation, prompted by a long, documented history of run ins with the police and violence against others on his part (and more specifically his latest physical assault on a woman as I wrote about a little over a month ago when it happened,) details misbehavior at the legislature itself, including verbal and physical threats of violence against other members of that body (of both parties,) offering to trade his vote on legislation for sexual favors and his repeated denials and outright lies, claiming that everyone else is conspiring against him.

The conclusion is very plain:

"Accordingly, based on our investigation, the results of which are more fully described below, we reluctantly recommend that, in light of his extraordinary and very predictable pattern of disorderly, indecorous, and deceptive behavior, coupled with the ineffectiveness of earlier counseling, reprimand, and discipline, Rep. Patterson should be expelled from the House."

Over the past couple of days, with the writing on the wall, Rep. Patterson's behavior has grown increasingly bizarre. First he resigned from the Democratic party (good riddance) and became an independent, railing against excessive partisanship and suggesting that he could bring the sides together. Well, he may be onto something. I suspect that maybe as early as tomorrow morning we will see an amazing show of bipartisanship and unity in the state House of Representatives as all of the other members vote to expel Daniel Patterson. For that matter, as critical as I've been of the GOP members of the legislature, I'm willing to give them another chance-- after all, it would be difficult to cooperate with the other side even if one was inclined to if one of their members was running around making personal threats against people who disagreed with him. So I'm willing to give it a few days and see if expelling Patterson clears some of the air at the legislature.

Then today, Rep. Patterson showed up in the legislature, and conspicuously sat directly behind Rep. Katie Hobbs, who formally brought the ethics complaint to the panel. As Patterson is known to carry a gun and has threatened other members of the legislature before with physical violence it was a tense situation and security was put on alert. Fortunately Katie (who has always been one of my favorite legislators, even before taking the lead on this) was surrounded by friends who made sure she was safe until she left the premises.

Honestly, I believe that Daniel Patterson needs some very serious mental therapy. However, as he is in denial that he even has an issue I only hope that he figures it out before he seriously injures or kills someone else.

State Legislative interactive map up

Specifically, it is up here.

KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS MAP IS NOT FINAL. Some adjustments can and likely will be made during the constitutionally mandated public comment period, but more or less these are the lines we will be using for the next ten years.

Again, I can't tell from the maps much about the rest of the state (because I don't know the partisan leanings on a block by block basis as much as someone who lives here) but it looks like we will be having an interesting time here in northern Arizona.

Roughly speaking, it appears as though the previously existing LD-5 and LD-2 have been largely replaced new districts 6 and 7. This is said approximately, because for example district 7 extends all the way to Nevada and portions of what used to be the southern end of district 5 including Globe and Safford have been put into other districts.

Flagstaff has been lobbying vigorously for years to get out of being put into the same district as the reservations and this in fact is the case; Flagstaff is in district 6 and the Navajo, Hopi, Hualapi and now also the Apache reservations are in district 7. All of Apache county is also in district 7.

The boundary line between the two districts is likely to be a matter of some controversy in Navajo County. Winslow and Pinetop-Lakeside (yes, you read that right) both join the reservations in district 7. Distict 6 includes Holbrook, Snowflake/Taylor, Show Low, Payson (which is actually in Gila county) and Heber/Overgaard. Probably in an attempt to make me zoom all the way in, Joseph City is in the most bizarre position of all. Joseph City is in district 6, but areas immediately to the north, west and south of town are in district 7. Jackrabbit is in district 7, and while it appears that all houses presently in Joseph City itself are in district 6, if people build very far outside of town in any direction except east they will be in district 7.

Politically, district 7 appears to be dominated by Native Americans and probably pretty close to safe for Democrats, especially with Democratic-leaning Winslow in the district (this won't make the 'Tea Party' crowd in the Springerville area or in Pinetop/Lakeside happy but then it would be difficult to make other adjustments in the boundaries without moving someone else into district 7 (and given the precarious position that Joseph City is in with regard to remaining in district 6 if someone from one of these areas convinces the commission to include them in district 6 rather than district 7 then I suspect we will be the first ones to be added to district 7 in order to rebalance the population.) Jack Jackson will likely represent this area in the Senate. One of the members of the legislature will likely continue to be Albert Hale, and the other legislative seat will likely be up for grabs but probably decided in the Democratic primary.

Distict 6 is clearly a competitive district. Flagstaff leans strongly Democratic and is its main population center, and is supplemented by Sedona (the rest of Yavapai county is mostly in another district.) Central Navajo County is heavily Republican, and this is likely to set up a head to head battle between two current legislators, present LD-5 Senator Sylvia Allen (R-Heber) and Rep. Tom Chabin (D-Flagstaff) who has made it clear that he plans to run for the Senate. LD-5 representatives Brenda Barton of (R-Payson) and Chester Crandall (R-Heber) will also likely run again but it is hard to see Barton's brand of conservatism (even farther to the right than Allen) appealing to people in Flagstaff or Sedona. Crandall would have slightly more credibility in areas like that but his failure to move away from the far right party line during his two years in the legislature will come back to bite him if he claims to be a 'different kind' of Republican. Democrats will have two openings for house candidates. All other things being equal, you could make a case that this district marginally favors Democrats because the population of Flagstaff/Sedona outweighs central Navajo County, but on the other hand Flagsaff is only fairly strongly Democratic while some of the areas in central Navajo like Snowflake and Heber are extremely Republican (80-90% GOP.) There is no question that this will be one of the most competitive districts on election day.

Jan Gump

In the movie, Forrest Gump, Forrest, as a man of limited mental capacity but strong convictions and played ably by Tom Hanks, always was just in the right place at the right time to gain fame and fortune and to be there during important moments in history.

It seems that in real life, we have something of a parallel here in Arizona. Good things keep happening to Jan Brewer, but in fact many of them come to her despite her own actions in the past.

Fifteen years ago, as the majority whip of the Arizona Senate, Jan Brewer was instrumental in pushing through the massive Symington-Brewer tax cuts. When combined with a 1992 referendum which made it virtually impossible for the legislature to raise taxes, these cuts undermined the fiscal stability of our state by plunging recklessly down a road which assumed that growth would continue forever and provide an increasing stream of revenue to fund state services. Accordingly, under the legislature that Brewer was one of the leaders of spending levels were cut to the point where many schools and state agencies were on a shoestring budget in good times, with no thought apparently given to what this would mean for bad times.

Common sense dictates that if you can't back up, then you would proceed forward with caution. But I guess not according to then State Senator Jan Brewer.

In 2001 and 2002 we got a taste of what bad times meant. Due to the incompetence of former Governor Jane Hull and the outright deception of former House Speaker Jeff Groscost, the legislature passed the 'alt-fuels' bill that essentially bought cars for a lot of Groscost's neighbors in Mesa at state expense and when combined with the recession of that year meant that incoming Governor Janet Napolitano entered staring down a $1 billion hole. She went to work and fixed the hole, but because of when Napolitano took office (at the beginning of 2003) Jan Brewer was given a ready made 'excuse' that she could use to claim years later that Napolitano had 'overspent'-- conveniently overlooking the fact that much of the spending 'increase' under Napolitano was simply climbing back up out of the hole the budget was in when she took office.

But the excuse was there for Brewer and she has been taking it liberally, blaming her predecessor for the problems that in fact Jan Brewer helped create years earlier by weakening the state's tax structure! Nobody remembers her role now. Wow, talk about catching a lucky break!

She caught another one in 2002. Because of the very tight gubernatorial race between Napolitano and Matt Salmon, nobody paid much attention to the race for Secretary of State, despite the fact that (now counting Brewer) the past six Governors of Arizona have all either left office without completing their terms or been the Secretaries of State who succeeded them. It would be like not bothering to ask who the Vice President is. But that's what happen so she escaped scrutiny of her far right record.

In January of 2009 Brewer acceded to become an unelected Governor the day after Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States in, demanding an expensive and exhorbitant ceremony much more like the swearing in of an elected Governor, rather than the very plain and unremarkable swearing in that the previous two Secretaries of State to become Governor (Rose Mofford and Jane Hull) had done. This despite the fact that the state was in fairly good fiscal shape for those two but already gripped by the collapse of the housing market for Jan 'Money is no object' Brewer.

But luck shined her way again. The legislature became ensnared in a months long fight between very conservative Republicans and extremely conservative Republicans. The unecessary expenses of Brewer's elaborate swearing in ceremony were soon forgotten. So, she was free to propose a 1 cent sales tax increase to help balance the budget without anyone asking why she had spent so much tax money on her own vanity, and as such she did propose the tax.

And she got even luckier. The House and Senate agreed to pass a budget with only Republican votes. But that put them at the mercy of the most extreme members of their own caucus, so that Jack Harper, Ron Gould and Pamela Gorman blocked all progress towards a budget that included Brewer's proposed tax. Things got so bad between Brewer and the legislative leadership from her own party that she even took them to court to make them try and send her the semblance of a budget they did pass just so she could veto it and throw it back to them. Because the GOP budget they finally did pass was so extreme, Brewer got to look like the more responsible party.

Of course vetoing a Republican budget made Brewer unpopular in her own party ranks. As a weak Governor who was never elected, if she faced a single challenger she would probably be a goner. But she has drawn at least three credible challengers, which means she could easily win nomination with 30% of the GOP primary vote. Yet another stroke of luck.

She was still in the midst of a heated primary with today's vote on the sales tax-- unpopular with key elements of the Republican base looming-- when she caught, yes, another stroke of luck. The legislature sent her SB 1070. This was a tough decision: sign a bill that will repel Hispanics-- now 30% of the population of Arizona but 40% of the under 20 population of Arizona and growing rapidly, or veto it to further alienate the GOP base. She cast her lot with the nativists. As the bill became national news, Republican activists both in Arizona and around the nation praised Brewer. So, today the sales tax vote is an afterthought.

The timing couldn't be better. But remember this: Forrest Gump was a movie. Jan Brewer's string of good luck is bound to end sooner or later, and when it does Arizona will likely be on the receiving end.

We can't afford any more GOP control in Arizona

Sometimes when I tell people what a weird, wicked place Arizona has become courtesy of our GOP legislative leadership they have trouble believing it.

Sure everyone in the country knows about Sheriff Joe and his pink underwear, but that's about the extent of what is common knowlege.

But with the new bill that has now been passed it's likely to put more of a focus on undocumented workers. The bill will require local law enforcement to begin investigating, arresting and locking up people who have no proof of citizenship. Of course there is no money forthcoming from the legislature to pay for it (of course local law enforcement has been cut to the bone and beyond just like every other state agency or department,) just the unfunded mandate coming down from Phoenix.

Only in the Arizona GOP is a guy like Buzz Mills, a developer who is spending millions of dollars on the race and promising to revoke all state taxes (That's right, he is pledging 'no tax' and to put the state government, including schools and other agencies effectively out of business) a serious candidate for Governor.

This is a state where the birther bill stands a decent chance of passing the legislature. This bill would not allow a Presidential candidate onto the ballot in Arizona unless (s)he has produced a valid birth certificate showing that (s)he is eligible to serve in that office.

In fact, only a minority of Arizona voters agree with this kind of stuff. But they form a majority bloc in the Republican party, and the Republican party has controlled the legislature for four decades. So not surprisingly we have the results of dogmatic governance, including the biggest by percentage hole in the state government in the country despite ranking below most other states in both per capita spending and taxation rates (courtesy of the Symington-Brewer tax cuts of the mid 1990's combined with a law pushed by the right and passed by the voters in 1992 that makes it virtually impossible to ever raise taxes back again if you find you've cut them too far.

There is an easy solution to that.

It's the arrogance, stupid!

Some things are just incomprehensible.

The Arizona legislature, after the unmitigated disaster that occurred last year (when the Governor essentially created a budget out of their failure by vetoing-and-pasting parts of bills together) and apparently unbuoyed by the fact that a poll last year showed their approval ratings are lower than those of Congress has been looking to reward themselves with more power, more prestige and promotions.

It started when they began seeking to change the right of voters to retain or not retain certain judges to it being done by the legislature. Constitutional issues regarding seperation of powers aside (especially since some of those judges have to rule on the constitutionality of laws the legislature passes,) I guess they just don't trust the voters to make those decisions. I can almost understand that, after all look at who we've been electing to the legislature for so many years.

Judges? Why not Senators. Republican lawmaker David Stevens has proposed that