Arizona House Ethics Committee to take up Rep Daniel Patterson Investigation

196 days ago, Sonoran Alliance called for the Arizona State House Ethics Committee to conduct an investigation on the behavior of LD-29 State Representative Daniel Patterson. That hearing will finally take place next Tuesday – exactly 200 days from our initial call. (Read Agenda)

Not knowing who finally conceded to this request for the investigation, this blog expresses its appreciation to that person for finally allowing these hearings to take place.

Where this will lead, is still to be determined but we believe that an indictment is likely to ensue by law enforcement authorities any day.

The frustration in all of this should be obvious. Everyone was quick to jump on Republican State Senator Scott Bundgaard over an incident that took place alongside State Route 51 last February, but no one dared raise the same complaint (except this blog and The Three Sonorans) over State Representative Daniel Patterson.

There was a blatant double standard.

Next Tuesday, Daniel Patterson will finally be in the hot seat and if Republicans want to be intellectually consistent in their practice of governance, they will need to prove to Arizona that justice is not only blind but that it’s courageous.


Comments

  1. Have to take issue with your statement: “Everyone was quick to jump on Republican State Senator Scott Bundgaard over an incident that took place alongside State Route 51…” Only one Republican, Ron Gould, “jumped” on him; all other Republicans were publicly silent on the Bundgaard situation. The Caucus removed him from his Majority Leader spot, but refused to ask that he resign.

    All things considered, it would have looked much better for the Republicans to take action against one of their own rather than waiting for Sen. Gallardo to file a complaint. And I believe that it was Rep. Katie Hobbs (D) who filed against Patterson; Dems are lining up demanding that he resign.

    Sure does look like a double standard…

  2. I don’t see the double standard. Bundgaard was a criminal BEFORE he was elected to the legislature — he was arrested, tried, convicted, and given deferred adjudication for stealing stereos from his employer in the late ’80s. He should not have been given deferred adjudication, and should not have been allowed to serve in the legislature. Once a criminal, always a criminal. The question I would ask is why are Republicans soft on criminals, like Bundgaard. How did he get deferred adjudication in the first place.

    Patterson doesn’t have a criminal record that I am aware of, and I believe that this is his first run in with the law. I think he ought to be expelled from the legislature, and will work to see that happen.

    • Veritas Vincit says

      “… doesn’t have a criminal record that I am aware of” Indeed. You have to go looking for one just as you did with Bundgaard. It would not be to Patterson’s advantage if his employer administered random drug testing.

Leave a Reply