Judgement Day in LD 10 – Quelland Ordered Out!

***** BREAKING NEWS *****

From AZCentral.com

Arizona legislator ordered removed from office

Arizona’s public campaign finance commission has ordered Rep. Doug Quelland removed from office for violating rules on outside election financing.

The Citizens Clean Elections Commission made its decision to oust Quelland after meeting on Friday. The Phoenix Republican had been accused of violating laws and rules by bolstering his publicly funded 2008 campaign with private spending.

Quelland acknowledged hiring a campaign consultant but said he ended the arrangement and never paid the fee. But the commission obtained billing records and other documents contradicting his testimony.

Quelland’s attorney says his client plans to appeal and is interested in a settlement that would keep him in office. He would remain in office pending that appeal.


Today, the Citizens’ Clean Elections Commission meets to possibly issue a verdict on the complaint against State Representative Doug Quelland.

Mary Jo Pitzl ran a post on another variation on a theme of this political whodunnit episode. When the whole “he-said, he-said” incident started, Quelland dismissed Davis because Davis wanted to “go negative” on Quelland’s incumbent opponent, Jackie Thrasher. Quelland refused and supposedly, they parted ways.

For the record, this blog has defended Quelland taking his word over Davis’ because of character issues surrounding Davis.

I would like to return to the issue over Thrasher and hopefully set the record straight. Last November, Sonoran Alliance received the following email from Thrasher in an attempt to clear her step-son’s name. Here is the text and photo from that email. If Thrasher is correct, this means neither Quelland nor Davis did their “opposition research” on Thrasher’s family.


I have been intrigued by recent newspaper stories and blog postings about a possible Thrasher family member being incarcerated or that there was a Thrasher family secret that if exposed would make headlines.

For such a boring person, even I was getting interested in my story…..

Upon further research I found that there is a “Jayson Thrasher” DOB 9/1977, listed on the ADOC web site with a criminal record.

My stepson, Jason Thrasher DOB 2/1975, has no criminal record and is happily living in Portland. Here’s a picture of Jason Thrasher, his girlfriend Alison and their mutts:

Happy Thanksgiving! –Jackie

So what does it matter and why drag in a supposed troubled family member anyway? If Quelland assumed Davis was going to resort to that type of tactic, Quelland was correct and ethical in getting away from Davis.


  1. I can’t help but think of all of the Spotted Owls that could have been saved if Thrasher and his girlfriend hadn’t spent so much money on Obama gear. That might even be animal abuse.

  2. Ethical for getting away from Davis..Unfortunately, that story turns out not to be true. Unless of course this was a big scheme with doctored bank statements, and made up emails all with the intention of smearing his name.
    Legislators are not above the law. This was not a “mistake” or “clerical error” either. This was flat out lying.

  3. Considering the consultant produced the check that was given to him as a retainer and e-mails showing he had authorization to use Quelland’s campaign credit card for campaign expenses and correspondence about the design of mailers, I think it’s pretty damn clear this guy was working for Q’s election effort.

    Asserting otherwise at this point is the ultimate head-in-the-sand defense of a person because of their political registration.

  4. TIm Johnson says

    Quelland Is Nothing But A Pathetic LIAR!!!!!

  5. Jim Middleton says

    “ultimate head-in-the-sand defense”

    Well it aint over until the fat lady sings. A decision by a regulatory board, a board who thinks like regulators, is not the same as a verdict. There will be a full airing out of all the facts of this matter, not a one sided regulatory hearing. When the whole story unfolds I certainly hope all those folks who are so sure of their ability to rightly judge a man will come back and admit they got it wrong.

    Stay tuned folks. There’s more to come.

  6. Jim Middleton says

    “Unless of course this was a big scheme…”

    Keep an eye on the rest of the story. There is way more to this than has been reported. The “accuser” has a very interesting history. A history that has of yet gone unreported due to the nature of the hearings. But it will be open for a full investigation all too soon.

    I just love how folks are so certain they have enough information to label and judge at this point. Quite absurd in today’s media presentations of the “facts”.

  7. Jim are you saying the bank statements and emails were doctored? Unless, the full investigation is a jury trial for perjury I don’t see what else is supposedly coming down the line.

  8. TIm Johnson says

    ASU JIM! Go Sun Devils!!!

  9. Jim Middleton says


    The “hearing” that has concluded was not what you or I would define as a hearing. What is coming is a full blown hearing that resembles a trial. It is at that time that full disclosure, cross examination of “facts”, people, etc., rebuttals can take place. It is in that process that the FULL truth will come out.

    It is always interesting to me to see how the news is so mis-reported and then people jump on a person based on that reporting.

    Even a term like “verdict”, a term used in several of the stories, is an inappropriate term for what came out of the process that has just concluded. “Verdict” carries with it certain implications, assumptions about a process. Given the nature of the process that has just completed, “verdict” is NOT the right word. Yet it has been freely used in articles that both condemn Mr. Quelland AND paint Mrs. Thrasher as a near virginal victim who deserves to be the winner.

    There is much going on with this entire situation that has not been reported, much that has been misreported, and much that has been pre-judged.

    Before Mr. Quelland is crucified, by many on his own cross, the full process, all parts of the process, need to unfold and be completed.

    Then and only then will we know exactly how this thing unfolded, who is guilty of what, who is behind it all.

    Too bad its just local politics so its not getting the attention of enough folks so that the light shining on it ALL is of brigthest intensity.

  10. Jim Middleton says


    This article is asking some of the questions that will head this investigation into a whole new territory….


  11. TIm Johnson says


    Are you really Doug Quelland?

  12. Matt Sh. says

    “Jim”, do remember David Burnell Smith saying all of the same things that you said?

  13. Jim Middleton says

    You know Tim that is an interesting question and goes a long way to identify the kind of thinking that goes on in matters like these.

    Just what answer do I give a person who asks such a thing on a forum like this that makes any difference?

    Doug Quelland does not stand behind the apron strings of any one. If he wanted to take time to mess with forums/blogs like these he would do so on his own.

    So Tim are you really Tim Johnson?

  14. Jim Middleton says


    Not sure what your point is. The issue at hand with Mr. Quelland has not finished a course of due process. I caution any one in general about such matters to not rush to judgment. If you want to rush to judgment with the information the media has released please do. God knows that is always works out well hey?

  15. Jim Middleton says

    “God knows that is always works out well hey?”

    God knows that is always a good idea and works out well hey?

  16. Put this on a bumper sticker. “When Lori Daniels votes you off, you know it’s bad.” It’s sad actually that this blog is blindly supporting Quelland on the belief that Larry Davis is lying or something. Especially when a strong argument could be made that a commission like this should not have the authority to overturn the will of the voters. At least that argument has some legs.

    Larry Davis might have some ethical questions, not related to this story, but please, he produced all the evidence and one only needs to watch a single episode of “Judge Judy” to know this one fact: the party that produces the paper, wins 9/10 times.

Leave a Reply to Roger Cancel reply