Many people have asked me whether I believe there is a real chance for bi-partisanship, political civility and statesmanship to prevail in our current political climate. They are surprised when I say yes! The majority of legislation passed in every session at the capital is very much a product of bipartisan cooperation. Though said bills may be characterized as non controversial or “simple” they are numerous and have a real impact on people’s lives.

In times past, bipartisanship was only possible when bountiful state budgets provided ample capital with which to negotiate. This used to serve as the basis for bipartisan statesmanship and “compromise”. Regardless of what it is presently called what is obvious is that the elements of the art of statesmanship and compromise have now changed which must now be accomplished without the use of once seemingly limitless budgets.

It is an irrefutable fact that we no longer have discretionary funds. Those funds have been exhausted and we now find ourselves in debt. We could continue to borrow in order to support our operational costs but at some point we must recognize that such practices will cease to be an option.

Despite our circumstances I believe cooperation in our capital is still possible. In the last three years, we addressed the structural deficit through permanent spending reductions and through tough negotiations to only temporarily raise revenues. With these solutions behind us, it is now time to engage in meaningful policymaking. This will require us to put aside partisan bickering in order to concentrate on what is right and necessary for the good of all Arizona’s citizens.

We do also need to examine the hearts and minds of Arizonans to learn about their desires which with this state will move forward. Some desire their state government to secure everyone’s chances to their pursuit of happiness, individual competition as well as charitable opportunity. Others desire the redistribution of private wealth and increased dependency on the public funds of the state. It is time for the people to decide which philosophy will provide them with the best future.

Despite these conflicting ideological differences, I foresee what can hold us together is not unlike what cements the bonds between the men and women of our military. Our armed forces are comprised of Republicans and Democrats alike. They fight as one to defend our nation’s freedom. This serves as a great example of how people whom ascribe to extremely differing philosophies can still fight for a common cause.

Therefore, if we collectively hold a soft, unproductive economy and an insurmountable debt as our common enemy I propose we find the common ground with which to defeat it. If Democrats can’t agree to cut without raising taxes and Republicans won’t vote for increased taxes then let’s cap the budget where it is and dedicate future revenue increases and spending savings to service our debt and emergency contingencies.

So if bipartisanship is to be known as the act of people being intellectually engaged and ready to fight then surely there is room in the legislature for it. No good will be accomplished and our economic woes will never be resolved if the representatives of the people temper their passions and beliefs while trying to combat our common enemy.

We cannot allow for those whom seek to promote infighting in the pursuit of partisan advancement. The people of Arizona sent us 90 leaders to move Arizona forward. I am proud to honor and serve with this talented and resourceful group of public servants. I expect that in our 100th year of statehood we will live up to our obligation to provide for the common good, the security of the American Dream and to authentically come together to fight our common enemies. This is my New Year’s wish for my beloved Arizona.

Governor Jan Brewer has declared that one of her priorities in the coming session is to pay down the state’s debt. The idea, mirrored by leadership proposals in the state house and senate, is both timely and refreshingly frank.

By any straight-face test, the state has continuously violated the Arizona Constitution’s mandate that current-year expenses be funded largely on a “pay as you go” cash basis — not through debt. Now that the state anticipates as much as $650 million in surplus tax revenue, it is time to square Arizona’s fiscal policy with the state constitution.

Enabled by legal precedents that embraced fiscal gamesmanship decades ago, the state has long skirted the Arizona Constitution’s $350,000 debt limit using a variety of budget tricks. Officials have sold and leased-back buildings, used credit lines and warrants to cover huge gaps between spending and revenue, and rolled-over liabilities from one budget year into the next.

While last year’s budget was relatively gimmick-free, hundreds of millions of dollars of past fiscal gimmickry remain on the books.

An unretired debt is a tax on future generations. Our state’s founders largely banned debt to protect those voiceless future generations from taxation without representation.

Arizona’s “pay-as-you-go” constitutional policy properly imposes political accountability on current politicians for their fiscal choices. For this reason, constitutionalists, tax hawks and fiscal responsibility mavens should agree with Governor Brewer and legislative leadership: Use the surplus to retire the state’s unconstitutional debt.

Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.

Learn more:

Arizona Republic: Plans for Arizona Budget Vary

Goldwater Institute: Living Debt Free: Restoring Arizona’s Commitment to its Constitutional Debt Limit

This spring, a group of California Democrats gathered at a modern, airy office building just a few blocks from the U.S. Capitol. The meeting was House members only — no aides allowed — and the mission was seemingly impossible.

In previous years, the party had used its perennial control of California’s state Legislature to draw district maps that protected Democratic incumbents. But in 2010, California voters put redistricting in the hands of a citizens’ commission where decisions would be guided by public testimony and open debate.

The question facing House Democrats as they met to contemplate the state’s new realities was delicate: How could they influence an avowedly nonpartisan process? Alexis Marks, a House aide who invited members to the meeting, warned the representatives that secrecy was paramount. “Never say anything AT ALL about redistricting — no speculation, no predictions, NOTHING,” Marks wrote in an email. “Anything can come back to haunt you.”

In the weeks that followed, party leaders came up with a plan. Working with the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee — a national arm of the party that provides money and support to Democratic candidates — members were told to begin “strategizing about potential future district lines,” according to another email.

The citizens’ commission had pledged to create districts based on testimony from the communities themselves, not from parties or statewide political players. To get around that, Democrats surreptitiously enlisted local voters, elected officials, labor unions and community groups to testify in support of configurations that coincided with the party’s interests.

When they appeared before the commission, those groups identified themselves as ordinary Californians and did not disclose their ties to the party. One woman who purported to represent the Asian community of the San Gabriel Valley was actually a lobbyist who grew up in rural Idaho, and lives in Sacramento.

In one instance, party operatives invented a local group to advocate for the Democrats’ map.

California’s Democratic representatives got much of what they wanted from the 2010 redistricting cycle, especially in the northern part of the state. “Every member of the Northern California Democratic Caucus has a ticket back to DC,” said one enthusiastic memo written as the process was winding down. “This is a huge accomplishment that should be celebrated by advocates throughout the region.”

(Read the entire article)

From the French, coup, meaning a quick strike and état meaning state, and playing  on the similarity of  état and the word for head,  tête,  the concept describes a decapitating strike aimed at the top office-holders and leadership of a sitting government in order to quickly insert a rival power structure, a targeted blow at the head of state to enable a minority to upset the status quo maintained by the majority.

With the United States being a unity of fifty states, which under our Constitution function more like independent countries, with their own locally elected governments, a politically partisan recall orchestrated against the duly-elected governor, actively being organized in Arizona and Wisconsin, seems uncomfortably close to fulfilling every criteria of a coup d’état or as it is known in  Central America,  a golpe de estado.

No guns are required; this would be how lawyers and political organizers wage battle, bloodless and cold, not the heat of hand to hand combat on the front steps of the presidency and in the hallways of parliament, in these cases, in the lobbies of the Governor’s Offices and the State Legislatures. The weapon used would be a cynical application of legal processes meant to provide relief in a tyrannical or criminally abusive situation, but in 2011 seized by a disgruntled losing party of 2010 to effectively throw out the results of general elections, and by that, the votes of the majority of the people.

The open bragging during the press conference the day after the recall of Senator Pearce displayed what appeared to be grander objectives than previously argued by the recallers. The organizers and supporters had for months insisted it was a simple issue of Russell Pearce’s character alone, but literally within hours of his defeat, it was exposed that the recall vision went far beyond Russell. As articulated by the organizers of the recall, in their own words as public record, upon contemplation seems uncomfortably like a rather focused strike at the top office holders of the State of Arizona … or in international diplomatic parlance, something like a golpe de estado, to destroy the results of the November 2010 elections. The Recallers named names:

Senator Russell Pearce: President of the AZ Senate
Governor Jan Brewer
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Hmm. The laundry list appearance of it brings to mind dynamics which are common elsewhere in power struggles. The first two represent the highest levels of Arizona government, the governor’s office and the top of the legislative branch. Though not a state-wide office holder, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s closest parallel in an actual independent nation would be a somewhat impartial chief of police or perhaps gendarmerie, not open to being swayed and with some wider popular public support, so in a classic coup d’état someone like him in that sort of position would have been pre-judged by coup plotters as an impediment to making such a strike to stick, and thus marked for removal.

The parallels are disconcerting or should be, but how many Americans have ever seen such political dynamics and would think of them?  What would make any Third World citizen sit up with alarm, goes unnoticed in First World … but many of what are called “Third World” used to be well on their way to “First World” until that first coup d’état smashed the electoral process by which the shared consensus of the people is normally established as to who has lawful authority to govern. Politics no longer was about the will of the People, but about whoever had the brute force to grab and keep the top offices, throwing political calculations into chaos.

Who can make alliances, coalitions, and consensus if the officer holders can be here today, gone tomorrow, with no warning? Shocked political office-holders at all levels react to this arbitrary uncertainty with a siege mentality of self-preservation, not by representing the People, so the entire system is degraded and damaged, top to bottom.

A recall denies an elected official their majority, voter-bestowed, lawful mandate to govern. A politically-motivated recall is never satisfied, because more than one office-holder has to go, demanding voters return again and again to defend their choices, exhausting voters, a cynical abuse of voters’ rights, budgets and energy.

In Wisconsin, the majority of the voters acting on their desire for change from decades of Democrat Party-controlled stagnation decisively put Scott Walker into the governor’s office. Yet, not even twelve months into his term, infuriated Democrats have dumped a massive stack of signatures of petitioners for a recall of him, and are feverishly working on a system-clogging million signatures from people who seemingly absolutely positively cannot live another minute with Walker as governor, an expected over twice the number required for the recall trigger, an astounding figure give the population of the state, and completely counter-intuitive to the plain will of the majority only twelve months ago.

Arizonans, who pooh-pooh any real threat to popular Governor Jan Brewer, should take what’s happening right now in Wisconsin to heart, as an open call to begin collecting signatures against her was made by Recall organizers in their press conference after Pearce’s defeat. The Democrat Party recallers in Wisconsin seem to be using the same script as the recallers here used against Pearce in Arizona; that they do not have any challenger as yet to Scott Walker, but they expect someone will step forward … what, a million signatures and not a thought of who would be governor if the governor is ripped out?

Walker had to campaign to all the people of the state of Wisconsin, he had to convince them he would carry their will through the governor’s office and the majority liked what they heard from him and voted him in. The Democrats want to put in a nobody? Someone the voters don’t know, haven’t had a chance to vet, and who necessarily would be voted in by fewer than the majority which Scott Walker required to win in the general election? How about a political neophyte with no experience, no record to examine, perhaps? Someone who the voters would have no idea what he or she would do once in office? What nonsense! Who would go for that? Russell Pearce banked on that common sense and he’s abruptly out of a job.

One wonders where those million were just last November. The sheer magnitude and practical feasibility of collecting a million signatures in such little time alone should provoke questions. If there were truly that many motivated, disgruntled opposing voters, then Walker wouldn’t have been elected in the first place, but there they are … upstanding Wisconsin residents including Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler could be the means by which a duly elected governor of an American state be ripped from office.

The GAB Petition Review board in Wisconsin overseeing this have publically shrugged; they stated that Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler if signed on the petition will stay on the petition so long as they have a valid Wisconsin zip code, unless Governor Walker challenges them, one by one. With a projected over a million signatures and only so many days, the Democrats seem to be supremely confident it isn’t physically possible for Walker to verify the validity of the signatures to lodge a protest, and the checks and balances of a supposedly impartial petition review board are not in evidence, to the detriment of Governor Walker.

Governor Scott Walker should feel vindicated that his rabid political opponents include the likes of Adolph Hitler, proving once and for all that the socialist Hitler is not and has never been politically or ideologically affiliated with Republicans in any measure, but there is no time to laugh out loud and the threat to our Constitutionally-established system of elections is too grave.

If the Democrats succeed in their recall strike at Walker, to haul him out of office long before his mandated term ends, then the socialist Hitler will have done what no one else has achieved, overthrown the existing political system, risen to power TWICE by raw manipulation of the lawful systems, and from the dead, no less. In Wisconsin, Democrats have actually physically inserted Mickey Mouse into the metaphor for a complete, bad electoral joke.

Ominously for 2012, instead of focusing on the presidential election, every local state and national popularly-elected Republican official is at risk of being embroiled in a two-front political war, harassed from the rear and the front by the Democrats who are increasingly remote from and hostile to the will and spirit of the majority, and cannot provide a political vision and governing competency which attracts voters in normal elections.

Instead of taking a hard look at the validity of their premises and philosophies, Democrats seemed to have cast their lot to invest in recalls, a decidedly undemocratic and tyrannical solution to ballot-box failure, via an increasingly well-oiled and organized blitzkrieg designed to overwhelming and stripping out Republicans in state after state sitting governments, as easily as Hitler’s tanks once overran the horse soldiers of unprepared Poland, a nation whose main fault was that it was prepared for the previous, non-mechanized war, not the one that ground them under the tank treads.   Immigrants, legal and illegal have long viewed America as a haven from this sort of political disaster, how tragic that they are being asked to facilitate the introduction of the chaotic conditions they fled.

Mickey Mouse and Hitler in Wisconsin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tELtKMPKAq4

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: December 13, 2011
CONTACT: Amy Rezzonico

PHOENIX (Tuesday, December 13, 2011) — Attorney General Tom Horne has found evidence that the Quartzsite Town Council has violated Arizona’s Open Meeting Laws (A.R.S. §§ 38-431 et. seq.) in connection with the conduct of Town Council meetings and dealings with a member of the public.

In a letter to the Quartzsite Town Attorney, Horne notes that on June 28, 2011, while addressing the Council, Quartzsite resident Jennifer Jones was removed from the meeting by a vote of the council. She had turned her back on the council and was addressing the audience, which the council reasonably could object to. Public bodies can eject members of the public for disruptive conduct, but they must first give a warning, which the council failed to do.

The second violation occurred on July 10, 2011 in which the Council convened an emergency meeting on at the Town Hall to discuss disruptions during previous meetings. The Council locked the doors to the meeting room and did not allow any member of the public to attend its meeting. Excluding the public from this meeting violated the Open Meeting Law.

In the third and related violation, the Attorney General notes that the Council did not fully comply with the posting requirements for emergency meetings. As of December 9, 2011, the minutes of the emergency meeting were not posted on the Town website.

The final violation involves the failure to comply with posting requirements for Notices and Minutes.

The Council did not post minutes for the July 10, 2011 emergency meeting. In addition, the Council failed to post minutes for a number of its meetings labeled as “work sessions.”

As a remedy, Horne is recommending that:

1. The Council will discuss the concerns listed in this letter with its legal counsel in open session during a properly noticed public meeting.
2. Each member of the Council and staff will participate in a training session with counsel from the League of Arizona Cities and Towns regarding the requirements of the Open Meeting Laws.
3. The Council will be subject to oversight by the Attorney General’s Office for a period of twelve months.

View a copy of the letter to the Town here.

###

Click here to view the embedded video.

Arizona continues to be a shining star in the midst of liberal darkness that shrouds our country. As we hear reports of inequality regarding the treatment of the Tea Party vs. the treatment of the Occupy protesters in Richmond and other locations, I wish to give thanks the leaders of our great State for their support and fair treatment of our groups over the last two and a half years.

Not once have we received resistance to our events, been unduly denied permits or access to public areas, nor harassed in any manner. On the contrary, the City of Phoenix has provided police protection for our members and has provided freedom of expression of our first and second amendment rights. We have always felt free to express our message, even when it is alongside the violent opposition.

Indeed, Arizona has been a beacon for those wishing to lift their voices in protest, not only for the Conservative voice, but also for the law-breaking entitlement groups who hate our State and our country. When a group of illegal immigration proponents threw a large American flag on the State Capitol grounds, placed a toilet seat on it and instructed their children to stomp their dirty shoes over it in defiance of our laws, the Arizona Capitol police protected their 1st amendment rights as well.

Yes, here in Arizona you can wave your Mexican flag on the porch of the Capitol and declare that it is truly Mexico, not the United States, and get away with it. As abhorrent as that seems, it is the nature of Arizona to uphold the law and the rights of her people, even when it hurts. We applaud our great State, and offer her example to those officials in other parts of our great country who have forgotten what it means to respect the protection of the Constitution.

Kelly Townsend is Co-Founder of the Greater Phoenix Tea Party.

When voters approved Proposition 106 in 2000, creating the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, they included a procedure for removal of a member of the commission. A member could be removed from the commission for “gross misconduct” or “substantial neglect of duty.” The determination is to be made by the governor, and the state Senate must sign off on the removal by a two-thirds vote.

Prop. 106 set a high bar for a person to be removed, but with all the evidence piled up, Colleen Mathis soars over that bar, and must not serve on the IRC.

The priority of the IRC and its chair is to produce constitutional maps every 10 years. Mathis presided over a process that produced unconstitutional maps. In fact, they were unconstitutional in all six criteria used to measure the validity of the maps.

Part of the sales job for the original passage of Prop. 106 was that it would take the redistricting process out from the closed doors of the Legislature and into the open for all of the public to see. Instead, the IRC faces allegations of open meetings law violations, and Mathis admits to taking the maps home with her on a weekend, making key changes to the congressional maps and then springing them on commissioners the following Monday for a vote. That is hardly the transparency Arizona voters wanted.

Mathis also apparently held clandestine meetings with Strategic Telemetry, the mapping company from D.C., without the knowledge of other commissioners. This partisan firm had no track record on mapping, never in Arizona, but Mathis made an aggressive pitch for ST outside the IRC meetings. Her husband also has reportedly attempted to broker side deals with Republican commissioners in blatant violation of constitutional transparency requirements.

The IRC allegedly shredded key bidding documents. The procurement process was so bad that the Arizona Department of Administration pulled out of it, sending a letter to the IRC saying that it was not complying with basic requirements.

Even in her application to the IRC, Mathis wasn’t completely open with information. She now admits she should have disclosed that her husband was campaign treasurer for Democratic Rep. Nancy Young-Wright.

When the IRC hired attorneys for each party, Mathis sided with the Democrats in hiring the Democrats’ attorney, and sided with the Democrats in hiring the Republicans’ attorney. That’s right – Republicans weren’t even allowed to hire their own attorney.

The Constitution requires that mapping be done by “adjustments to the grid.” Mathis appears to have ignored that requirement and used a mapping method she called a “doughnut hole.” It was an unconstitutional plan that left Arizonans looking to clean up the crumbs of that doughnut.

The evidence is overwhelming that Mathis has committed “gross misconduct” and “substantial neglect of duty.” And no matter what the Arizona Supreme Court justices may think, Prop. 106 makes it clear the determination is to be made not by men and women in black robes, but by the governor with the approval of the Senate. That has happened, and Colleen Mathis should no longer serve on the IRC.

In our own Yavapai County, we have the population to be our own district. It fits perfectly, and we are a community of interest. We all have the same issues in front of us. This commission saw fit to chop us up so we wouldn’t have the voice we now have. After all, we are a political powerhouse, and it is clear the opposition doesn’t want us to have the clout we currently have.

There is a long list of ways the Constitution has been disregarded and broken. I won’t go into further detail. The simple fact is, this extremely important redistricting exercise has been done in a very poor manner and its effects will last for at least 10 years – especially here in Yavapai County.

Sen. Steve Pierce, R-Prescott, is the Arizona Senate President-elect.

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Case against power brokers rebounds on county prosecutor  Even harshest critics call bar association case ‘gross overcharging’

Posted: October 28, 2011 By Dave Tombers © 2011 WND  The antics of President Obama’s Department of Justice are legion,from its insistence on employing only far-left attorneys, its threat to prosecute the CIA, its scandalous “Fast and Furious” gun delivery system to Mexican drug cartels, its battle to overrule residents of a city who wanted to dispense with party affiliations on ballots, its refusal to prosecute the nightstick-wielding New Black Panther Party members, its lawsuit against Arizona for trying to enforce federal immigration law, and on and on. It is in this atmosphere that a case has developed in Arizona that is blasting a former prosecutor and two associates for their attempts to follow the book and apply the law to actions by the systems power brokers as well as others. It is so egregious that it has even the former prosecutor’s harshest critics are saying that the overreaching “gives credence to [Andrew] Thomas’ claim that he is the victim of a witch hunt.” In 2009, left to right, are Supervisors Don Stapley, Fulton Brock and Max Wilson, Cardinals officials Steve Ryan and Luis Zendejas, and Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox That was from columnist Robert Robb, who has made made no display of supporting Thomas. “I have written scathingly about the gross abuse of power by former County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio,” he said. “Thomas and Arpaio proclaimed that there was a giant conspiracy involving the county board of supervisors, senior county management and several judges in which the judges agreed to protect county officials against criminal probes in exchange for the county constructing a new office building for the judges.” He said there was no evidence to support the racketeering and criminal complaints brought against Superior Court Judge Gary Donahue. But he said the complaint brought by the Arizona Bar Association against Thomas includes “gross overcharging,” which he called a “serious disservice.” Thomas, while not as famous as his county’s sheriff, the law-and-order Joe Arpaio, still was noted for his tough stances on enforcing immigration laws. But now a trial is under way there in Maricopa County on charges by the bar association, which is seeking to sanction or disbar Thomas and assistants Lisa Aubechon and Rachel Alexander. Attorney Don Wilson is defending Thomas, and summed up the dispute: “Clearly this matter is politically charged,” he told WND. “My client dared to challenge the judiciary and powerful politicians.” He continued, “Mr. Thomas was warned by his senior advisers that doing so could undermine his career, but he believed no one should be above the law, and that the electorate had entrusted him with the duty to enforce the law, even at the expense of his own interests. “He believed then, and continues to believe, that he was doing the right thing.” The case alleging misbehavior, however, was unsuccessful, and now the bar association has responded with an apparently politically charged 82-page complaint that so outraged the Maricopa County Republican Association that its members passed a resolution to denounce it. That resolution reads in part: “WHEREAS, former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Sheriff Joe Arpaio have been leaders in the fight to crack down on illegal immigration, taking on activist judges who tried to thwart Proposition 100 (no bail for illegal immigrants who commit serious crimes), and investigating corruption at the county level; “WHEREAS, in a politically motivated move due to its opposition to Arpaio’s and Thomas’s policies, the State Bar of Arizona, which is under the control of liberal attorneys and criminal defense attorneys, is attempting to take the license to practice law from Andrew Thomas, one of his former prosecutors Lisa Aubuchon, and discipline a third former prosecutor, Rachel Alexander; “WHEREAS, even a columnist for the liberal Arizona Republic, Robert Robb, has denounced the bar’s investigation, writing about the bar’s investigation, ‘Many of the alleged ethical violations are grounded in the claim that Thomas acted in bad faith for political retaliation. I doubt the evidence will clearly establish that.’ “WHEREAS, the state bar of Arizona has a history of refusing to take action against those who agree with their political philosophy; “NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee that it demand the state bar drop the baseless and politically motivated investigation into Andrew Thomas, Lisa Aubuchon and Rachel Alexander.” The bar association complaint describes Thomas, Aubechon, and Alexander in some areas as “incompetent,” and in other areas as “dishonest.” A reading of the complaint reveals it seems largely focused on Thomas and his relationship with Maricopa County Board Supervisor Don Stapley. In 2006 Stapley tried to rein in Thomas’ ability to hire outside counsel for the county, saying that Thomas based his “appointments upon who was favorable to him, not necessarily who was best qualified to represent the county.” According to the complaint, the board (under Stapley), wanted to oversee attorney selection and even hire outside counsel for the board itself. Thomas let them know on numerous occasions that this was illegal. The complaint quotes Thomas as saying, “Board members are immune from suit when they rely in good faith upon opinions of the county attorney, but no such immunity would apply and they may be personally liable for actions on advice of other counsel.” In other words, the citizens of Maricopa County elected Thomas to be the county attorney, and Stapley’s actions gave the appearance of circumventing the wishes of the voters, said analysts. The Arizona Bar Association took Thomas’ admonition of the county board to be a conflict of interest. A third party decision-maker, Colorado Supreme Court employee John Gleason, was appointed by Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Rebecca Berch White to the case, and said in his complaint Thomas placed his own interests – that of wanting to retain control over hiring outside attorneys – over the interests of the county board, who wanted to hire attorneys on their own. Thomas is then accused of using the office of the county attorney to investigate Stapley for criminal wrongdoing. In fact, a grand jury brought more than 100 charges against Stapley, ranging from failing to file financial disclosures, to accepting expensive gifts such as three-week long Hawaiian vacations and expensive ski trips for Stapley and his family. The allegations arose that Stapley raised political contributions to run for president of the National Association of Counties, even though he was running unopposed. The cash he raised was alleged to have been used to pay for personal luxuries instead. But several judges who handled various steps of the case threw out charges, even though outside investigators had cited the “merit” of the counts. And bar association officials said the one-year statute of limitations had expired on dozens of charges. Ultimately, none of the counts went to trial and Stapley testified before the bar that the investigation “ruined his life.” Thomas also was accused of making public statements about the county board, including that a number of complaints were due to the “unusual chairmanship” of Stapley. That generated the accusation that he was revealing information about his client. The assistants were embroiled in the fight because they had filed various paperwork along the path of the cases. Alexander played a small role in a racketeering case against the board and several judges that, before it was dropped, contained allegations concerning the use of $347 million of taxpayer funds to fund a court tower in the midst of an economic downturn. The tower featured penthouse quarters for judges and raised eyebrows as it was done at a time when county employees were being laid off. According to Thomas’ attorney, ” He [Thomas] believed (and still does) that his investigation was being hindered by the defendants in the RICO case.” Thomas was forced to turn that case over to the U.S. Justice Department, as the county board stripped him of resources he needed to continue the investigation. The DOJ, which also is suing the state to prevent it from enforcing immigration laws, has since refused to investigate. Alexander also maintains a conservative blog called theIntellectual Conservative, prompting supporters to say that’s why she is now facing accusations. The trial over the bar association’s allegations started in September and is expected to last into November. Thomas and Aubechon face disbarment, while Alexander may have her license suspended. The American Thinker wrote an Oct. 12 that, “Arpaio’s and Thomas’ attempt to end local corruption has come at a price: the State Bar of Arizona (SBA) has begun prosecuting Thomas and two of his deputies in a move that reeks of political retaliation.” And a rightwingnews.com article says the charges are “politically motivated” by the “Maricopa Machine.” The “machine that knows how to protect itself by having all of the criminal charges against Stapley assigned to judges that ultimately dismissed them.” The actions by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, and now the Arizona Bar Association have alarmed many, including Thomas’ political opponents. Ernest Calderon, a Democrat and former president of the ABA offered to review six charges against Thomas. His assessment? “I do not believe that any of the complaints have merit.” And what happened after that assessment. His pending renewal to a post in the ABA House of Delegates foundered. In its statement, the Arizona Bar Association said it already has spent more than $280,000 on the prosecution. And spokesman Rick DeBruhl told WND there was no political involvement. He said there are Democrats, Republicans and independents on the board. But Prof. Geoffrey Hazard, who helped write the bar association rules, also concluded the allegations have “no merit,” and he said the bar association itself has acted unprofessionally. Hazard noted that the chief bar association counsel had cited a Rule 53 – but then quoted only part of the rule. He said the part of the rule omitted gives Thomas, Aubechon, and Alexander legal justification for withholding information in the case. Whatever the outcome of the bar association process, the Maricopa County Republicans have decided: “We, the members of the Maricopa County Republican Executive Guidance Committee, demand that the state bar refrain from any future politically motivated investigations of attorneys due to its inherent left wing bias.” Read more:Case against power brokers rebounds on county prosecutorhttp://www.wnd.com/?pageId=361057#ixzz1c5dEuMTg

Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox skipped most meetings of Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Council she was delegate to Even liberal Arizona Republic is appalled by her arrogance

Supervisor’s actions muted county’s voice The Arizona Republic

If anyone tried to silence Maricopa County’s voice in regional planning efforts, the outcry would be instant.
Yet Maricopa County Supervisor Mary Rose Wilcox, the county’s designated representative on the Maricopa Association of Governments’ Regional Council, attended only one of the council’s eight monthly meetings this year, according to reporting by The Republic’s Michelle Ye Hee Lee.
The county deserves to be represented by more than an empty chair.
Wilcox told us she was frustrated with the way the county was treated by MAG and felt that the county wasn’t “listened to.”
Wilcox wanted the county to be put on MAG’s Executive Committee, she said.
She did “not set it as a priority” to attend the Regional Council meetings.
“It will become a priority,” she says, starting with this month’s meeting on Wednesday.
Wilcox points out that she has been an elected official in Maricopa County for a long time and that she regularly attends Board of Supervisors meetings. Fine. We don’t question her commitment to public service.
But she showed poor judgment by not going to the Regional Council meetings.
Her actions muted the county’s voice

If a silver lining exists to the explosive growth of national power over the past several years, it is that Americans are turning to their federal and state constitutions, reading them, understanding them, and invoking them to protect their rights.

So the time is especially appropriate to bring a part of the Constitution to the people.

A nonpartisan, nonprofit group called mybillofrights.org is doing just that, erecting Bill of Rights monuments in state capitols. Arizona’s Bill of Rights monument will be built in 2012, during our statehood centennial.

The monument will consist of 10 monoliths, each containing the text of one of the first 10 amendments to our Constitution. No editorializing—just the words of the Bill of Rights, speaking for themselves.

The location is Wesley Bolin Plaza on the Arizona Capitol Mall. There the monument will take its place alongside several veterans’ memorials, a monument to crime victims, and the Ten Commandments. Ten thousand students visit this part of the Mall every year. Fittingly, Wesley Bolin Plaza is a frequent site for rallies and protests, comprised of people exercising their First Amendment rights of speech, assembly, and petitioning their government for redress of grievances.

In an era of partisan rancor, honoring and publicizing the Bill of Rights is a cause that transcends ideological lines. And best of all, from the standpoint of frugal fiscal conservatives, the monument will be privately funded.

Perhaps never in our history have our constitutional rights been under such grave assault. Thanks to groups like the Goldwater Institute, some parts of the Bill of Rights—such as freedom of speech under the First Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment, and state autonomy under the Tenth Amendment—stand taller than before. Soon, we will have a physical reminder of the precious rights whose endurance requires our eternal vigilance.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

MyBillofRights.org: The Bill of Rights Monument Project

MyBillofRights.org: Major Progress in Arizona

Constitution.org: The Bill of Rights

Obamacare gives states an option: Either establish insurance exchanges by January 1, 2014, or the Secretary of Health and Human Services will establish one for them. An “exchange” is essentially a bureaucracy where federally-mandated and regulated health insurance may be bought and sold. Amazingly, some states that otherwise oppose Obamacare, including some who have joined the Florida lawsuit that is on its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, are choosing to implement these exchanges.

These states may be under the mistaken belief that if they set up an exchange, they will preserve a modicum of state sovereignty – a belief perpetuated by the supporters of Obamacare as well as by some insurance companies. But these exchanges will be governed by federal regulations and mandates, leaving no flexibility – exactly the situation that has put many states in a bind with runaway Medicaid costs. The State of Arizona has already received a $1 million planning grant from the federal government and just last week Governor Brewer’s office submitted a request for an additional nearly $30 million to establish Arizona’s exchange.

States that establish exchanges are doing nothing short of the federal government’s dirty work. Worse still, they are being complicit in enforcing and entrenching this unconstitutional law.

In its legal briefs filed around the country in defense of the health care law, the federal government has argued that the exchanges are critical to enforcing the law’s individual mandate. That is because the exchanges will be used to determine whether an individual is exempt from the mandate and will report to the federal government, by name and Social Security number, those individuals who are exempt, as well as those who are not in compliance with the mandate.

By 2015, while the federal mandates on exchanges will remain, federal funding for them will be gone. All that states get by establishing exchanges are more federal mandates. What they will give away will be much greater – state sovereignty and the liberty of their citizens.

The choice is very simple: states that oppose Obamacare should just say no to the exchanges. And for those states like Arizona that have already received money, they should follow the lead of Florida, Oklahoma, and Kansas and send it back.

Diane Cohen is a senior attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Coons v. Geithner (federal health care lawsuit)

Heritage Foundation: States should return Obamacare Grants

Mackinac Center: Michigan Creeps Closer to Obamacare Exchange

Cato Institute: Should Missouri Create a Health Insurance Exchange?

The Federal Health Care Blog: Preparing for the Exchanges

Open Elections/Open Government Act

“This measure will allow all Arizonans, regardless of party affiliation, to vote in a single open primary for the candidates of their choice. The two candidates who receive the most votes in the primary will compete in the general election. There will be a level playing field for all voters and candidates, and the current system of taxpayer-funded partisan primaries will be abolished. This reform will promote open government and encourage the election of candidates who will work together for the good of the state.”

The Committee is listed as follows:

Open Government Committee
Paul Johnson, Applicant & Chairman
5125 North 16th Street, Suite B226
Phoenix, AZ 85016
(602) 684-3143