Arizona Politics for Conservatives: Sonoran Alliance
Arizona Politics, News, Commentary and Information with a Blatantly Conservative Worldview Presented by an Alliance of Writers, Activists, Consultants and Government Insiders.
Cedar RapidsGazette/KCRG-TV poll, of likely Iowa GOP Caucus Attendees, conducted Nov/1-13
Rep. Bachmann (MN) at 8%
Speaker Gingrich, at 5%
Sen. Santorum (PA), at 5%
Gov. Huntsman (UT), at na%
This poll is exclusively Iowa Caucus attendees. National polling is too generic to accurately reflect the mood of Iowa Republicans and fluctuates with the mainstream news-cycle.
Early this evening, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling reinstating the so-called ‘Independent’ Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
This is a victory for leftists and Strategic Telemetry who were attempting to manipulate the Arizona Constitution to gain political power by leveraging data to the left’s advantage.
Three members of the commission decided to disregard the mandates outlined in the Arizona Constitution and solely utilize the element of competitiveness to draft Arizona electoral boundaries.
The law states the following under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1:
(14) The independent redistricting commission shall establish congressional and legislative districts. The commencement of the mapping process for both the congressional and legislative districts shall be the creation of districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state. Adjustments to the grid shall then be made as necessary to accommodate the goals as set forth below:
A. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the United States voting rights act;
B. Congressional districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable, and state legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable;
C. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous to the extent practicable;
D. District boundaries shall respect communities of interest to the extent practicable;
E. To the extent practicable, district lines shall use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts;
F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.
The two Democrats and Independent member, Colleen Mathis, established “F” – the competitive provision – as the main criteria in drafting the maps.
This was a blatant redistribution of votes.
With Mathis now reinstated, the commission can move forward working to further divide and leverage minority power against the rest of the State of Arizona.
We would assume that Governor Brewer is furious over the court’s action (A statement was just released.)
This may also set the stage for a constitutional crisis.
This also should give the legislature further motive to move quickly to enter a special session with the exclusive objective of referring a repeal of the law that gave us the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.
The Legislature has until November 30th to pass a referendum in order to place it on the ballot on the same day of the Presidential Preference Election on February 28th.
If you support repealing the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and restoring this authority to 90 elected accountable people instead of 5 un-elected un-accountable people, contact the Arizona Legislature and let them know.
Time is running out for the legislature to act.
Lets restore this important authority to those who will not manipulate the law using slick Democrat consulting firms.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 2011
CONTACT: Matthew Benson
Statement from Governor Jan Brewer
Supreme Court Reinstatement of IRC Chairwoman
“Today’s decision by the Arizona Supreme Court is deeply regrettable. I am disappointed, certainly. More important, this misguided ruling bodes ill for the integrity of redistricting in this state.”
“Only after much deliberation did I act to remove the Chairwoman of the Independent Redistricting Commission. In doing so, I wielded a constitutional authority specifically granted by the voters of this state for cases in which the Governor – in his/her judgment – found that an IRC member had committed gross misconduct or acted with substantial neglect of duty. With today’s decision, the Court has substituted its judgment and authority for that which the voters specifically assigned to the Governor.
“Let’s not forget why we’re here: The IRC followed an unconstitutional redistricting process, conducting too much of its business behind closed doors and disregarding mapping criteria seemingly at will. They did all of this without explanation. Knowing that redistricting is a once-a-decade process, it is critical that Arizona get it right.
“With its reinstatement of the IRC Chairwoman, the Supreme Court has averted its eyes from the Commission’s misdeeds. The Chairwoman’s actions to meet in secret, arrange critical votes in advance of meetings and twist the words and spirit of the Constitution have been forgiven – if not endorsed outright.
“The clearest victim in this matter is a redistricting process that voters intended to be honest, impartial and transparent. In the coming days, I’ll be considering my options as to how best to proceed.”
###
By Jake Brown
How bad are things for the Arizona Democratic party these days? Apparently, it’s bad enough that they are celebrating Republican victories.
Democrat party chairman, Andrei Cherny, wrote of the recall of state Senator Russell Pearce, “Doesn’t it feel good to start winning again?” Sorry to rain on your parade, Andrei, but conservative Republican, Jerry Lewis, won that election. In fact, Democrats didn’t even bother to field a candidate against Russell Pearce.
I was always told you can’t win unless you play the game, but apparently that’s not how things work if you are an Arizona Democrat.
It is far-fetched to say the least that Democrats can claim this as a victory in Arizona, much less interpret the November 8th election results as foreshadowing Democratic victories in the 2012 election. No Democrat won in LD 18 because no Democrat ran in LD 18. Someone needs to help Andrei connect the dots.
Let’s be clear: Pearce lost because he’s an unlikeable guy who ran a lousy campaign fraught with dirty backroom games like recruiting sham candidate Olivia Cortez. Voters of all parties see through that—and no voter should stand for such tactics. Jerry Lewis’s victory was one for Republicans, who last week welcomed a thoughtful, fresh voice into their fold.
So, Andrei, celebrate our GOP state Senate victory all you want. We just hope you’ll be as thrilled when Jeff Flake gets elected to the U.S. Senate.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: November 17, 2011
CONTACT: Rachel Semmel
Washington, D.C. – Congressman David Schweikert (R-AZ), member of the House Financial Services Committee, made the following statement after the passage of H.R. 2112, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2012 or ‘minibus’:
“I found it necessary to vote against this appropriations bill because it leads us in the wrong direction.
“Earlier this year, I supported the House-passed budget that took significant steps toward fiscal discipline. I still support that budget. However, this measure violates the numbers in the House-passed budget by falling $24 billion short in savings originally promised.
“Secondly, cuts to discretionary spending can only take us so far. Until we address mandatory spending, these continuing resolutions are simply tinkering with the margins.
“We have a duty to be unwavering in our commitment to get Washington back on track and protect the taxpayer. I am disappointed that the House was unable to live up to its promise to the American people today.
“We must do better.”
###
Texas Governor Rick Perry discusses his plan to uproot and overhaul Washington with Sean Hannity.
by Stephen Slivinski
Goldwater Institute
The story goes like this: Policymakers identify what they believe to be untapped potential in the energy marketplace. They subsidize it in the hopes that the start-up boost can catapult it to a vibrant form of alternative energy.
This is the general approach that federal and state policymakers are taking to the prospect of a booming future for solar energy. Subsidizing the industry now, they say, will have payoffs in the future even if the industry faces some rocky times in the short-term.
But it’s an old storyline. In fact, it’s almost identical to past failed attempts by the federal government to play venture capitalist in the energy industry. A recent Washington Post article recounted the recent, but perhaps forgotten, history of government’s attempts to help create new sources of power.
Take the Synthetic Fuels Corporation, the brainchild of President Carter’s administration. It was a type of investment fund, capitalized in part with $17 billion in taxpayer money, to start up projects that would turn coal and shale into oil and gas. By the early 1980s, oil prices had fallen and the projects that the fund financed were no longer viable.
Then more recently there were the efforts to jump-start the hydrogen fuel-cell automobile and the quest to find a clearer-burning coal. Both petered out due mainly to each project’s economic infeasibility but only after billions of taxpayer dollars were spent.
Today, the main subsidies for the solar industry are regulatory (through renewable energy mandates on traditional energy providers), tax credits for purchases of solar panels, and property tax abatements for manufacturers and producers of solar energy and its related products. Yet it’s not clear that policymaker preference for solar will prove any more accurate than prior flirtations with new forms of energy.
Solar may one day provide a robust alternative to fossil fuels. But it’s probably going to require a set of market conditions that may not exist for quite some time. In the meantime, if enough venture capital investors think it’s a worthwhile gamble, let’s make sure government doesn’t get in their way. But putting taxpayer money on the line, that’s another story.
Stephen Slivinski is senior economist for the Goldwater Institute.
Learn More:
Washington Post: Before Solyndra, a long history of failed government energy projects
Marginal Revolution: What is the future of solar power?
