Two for One: Recall of Two Democrats in Legislature Being Considered

Sonoran Alliance has learned that a group of conservative activists are considering launching recalls on two Democrat members of the Arizona Legislature.

The conservative group is citing egregious and “conduct unbecoming” activities of the two Democrats who they believe are too extreme to represent the image of Arizona.

A recall election could pose a serious problem for Democrats when the next legislative session convenes in January as they attempt to build for the 2012 election cycle.

Republicans would certainly gain the upper hand in the legislative session with Democrats scrambling to address recall challenges brought on by scandals.

The group, who has asked to remain anonymous until filing any committee organization papers, is also preparing to take on liberal activists who were behind the Pearce recall effort. They believe the recall electoral process can be used just as effectively by conservatives as it was by the left.

All this begs the question whether recall elections will be the new political weapon of choice between Arizona’s conservatives and liberals?


  1. No go with me. (ie: my 2 cents)
    Only 12 months to the next election. Put the efforts to unseating on the proper schedule. This will have a corrosive effect on the general election – and it’ll be the big one 2012 – FOCUS FOCUS FOCUS.

    • Conservative American says

      I agree with you 100%, wanumba. Recalls right now are a very bad idea and a waste of time, effort and money.

      The Pearce recall was very well planned, very well thought out and they had all of their ducks in row. It wasn’t something hastily entered into. If we are to attempt to recall Democrats, we need to take the time to do the same careful preparation that was done with the Pearce recall.

      Furthermore, those considering this action should think about what the impact will be if their hasty actions fail! That would be a huge boost for Democrats!

      You’re right, wanumba! FOCUS!

  2. Marty Smith says

    but you force them to spend money on the recall, and make them focus on that instead of the 2012 elections

    seems like a good idea to me

    • It reminds me of the Dixie Chicks. They got pissed when their fans complained and then announced they were going to shift to pop. An industry analyst made a prediction that the DC were presuming that the coutnry fan base and the pop fan base behaved the same way. BUT, the country fan base are apparently big concert ticket buyers. The pop fan base are not. The Dixie Chicks were planning to do their usual gigs with the expectation the pop fans would buy the way country fans do. They don’t. Don’t see much of the Dixie Chicks anymore.

      Sooo. In an analogy stretch, the Conservative and Republican bases aren’t as geared or warm to recalls the way the Democrat base is organized to accept and run. As a Conservative, I don’t like it right off the bat, from the gut, even though it “appears” like a logical tit-for-tat. I prefer the George Foreman approach, just pound ’em into the mat at the scheduled match.

      • YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!, Where so I sign up to help them. I have heard there is going to be a recall against a Republican Senator for voting against every bill Russell Pearce ever wrote. That sounds intriguing to me. And I am for fighting fire with fire, I am sick and tired of turning the other cheek. If the Repubs want to fight I will fight with them. I am sick of the Republicans eating their own constantly.

  3. If you’re doing it for politics or payback, it’s wrong.

    If your doing it because they truly deserve to be recalled and they are in a position to harm the interests of their district and the state, then go for it. In other words, if it doesn’t matter what they do because they don’t have any real power at present, then it’s not important enough for a recall. The general is a good time to get rid of them.

    Bottom line: do what’s right, now what you can get away with.

    As I don’t know which two you’re considering, I can’t comment on whether they need to go.

    A final consideration: if you fail to score the necessary signatures, you will hurt the conservative cause in those districts.

    Let your conscious be your guide, I have faith you will make the right decision.

    • PearceBOT5000 says

      Dems get elected in Arizona because they live in Dem districts. To be successful, you’d need to:

      a) gather enough *valid* signatures
      b) fund and employ one, possibly two, highly-trained and charismatic, full-time recall leader(s); Randy Parraz didn’t work for free, ya know!
      c) marshal enough dedicated volunteers to serve as lieutenants to your recall leader
      d) find a suitable Democrat to run against the incumbent, one who can turn Democratic voters against the incumbent
      e) fund and prepare for likely court challenges
      f) excite enough Republicans and Libertarians in the Dem district to get out and vote
      g) prepare for likely “sham” candidates to siphon away votes from “your” candidate

    • PearceBOT5000 says

      Forgot to mention that the impact of recalling two Dems in Arizona would be about zero. The time, effort, and money spent recalling them would probably be better spent in competitive general elections.

    • “conscience”

      Though the way you apply values, “conscious” is quite accurate.

      • another victim of predictive text typing

        – Don’t make me break out an AP Stylebook on your posts 😉 (What’s the AP Stylebook? if you have to ask …)

  4. PearceBOT5000 says

    Best of luck on this. It’s your constitutional right to recall politicians. However, it seriously undermines any argument that the Pearce recall was “wrong”. How can what was wrong for Reps be right for Dems? It also comes off as, for lack of a better term, childish.

    Part of what made the Pearce recall effective was Russell Pearce’s extraordinary polarizing of the electorate. It was enough to make people who were otherwise apolitical (ahem) stand up and participate. Which Democrats are as polarizing as Pearce?

    Pearce has lost too many supporters- they just weren’t there this time. I attended his rally at Hohokam stadium and the turnout was pathetic. Very little of his campaign’s funds came from inside LD18. These were both very telling about the political climate.

  5. Nordine Crub says

    And think of the money Constantine could make!

    He’s got plenty of time on his hands and dirty tricks up his sleeve. ; > {)

    • Nordine, shame on you, I think you dont know that Constantine is refunding his payment for the election since they lost.

      • Nordine Crub says

        Who gets the money….the donors? Were the printers paid for Olivia’s signs?

      • Which payment is being refunded, Fred?

        Pearce’s signs with his name on them or Pearce’s signs that were Green, White and Red and had “Si Se Puede!” on them?

      • Constantine and Chad Willems SHOULD return every penny Pearce paid them. That was the worst run campaign in Arizona history. How do you take an incumbent Republican in the most conservative district in the state, who won his last election by 20%, who outspent his opponent 3 to 1, and still lose 55-43?

  6. Chandler Conservative says

    This is exactly why people hate politics. How many folks cried foul when the recall started on Pearce. Then some of these folks turn right around and become hypocrites. Come on…

    Unless these folks have broken the law then we should be principled and focus on the next races.

  7. Recalls should be reserved for legislators that are abusing their power. The D’s were dead wrong recalling Pearce for doing exactly what he promised to do, and doing it on the up-and-up. Two wrongs do not make a right. Walk the high road. If the GOP takes on the same gutter level tactics as the D’s then it only justifies a lot of taxpayer money being wasted on dirty politics and leaves no differentiation in the voters’ minds between the integrity of the parties.

  8. Sgt. Flapjaw says

    Recalls were never weant to be used against office holders who you want removed because you disagree with their votes or political beliefs. They were meant to be used for serious malfeasence or other illegal activities. Using recalls as a ploitical tool is what happened to Pearce. The will of the people was negated by anti democracy leftists. Change the recall laws so this type of fraud will not happen from either side.
    There is no reason to be like “them”.

    • WRONG!

      That’s the standard for impeachment.

      Recall was always meant as a means for pulling someone out for whatever reason a majority may have.

      Whether to use that power is matter of principles. If these targetted two represent a real threat to AZ, then go after them. If not, wait. If you go after them and lose, expect them to become entrenched.

      BTW: how a free and fair election in which all had the opportunity to participate can be called “anti democracy” is recondite to me.

    • Sarge, “the will of the people” was 55% to 43% in favor of Lewis. That is the very definition of democracy.

  9. YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!, Where so I sign up to help them. I have heard there is going to be a recall against a Republican Senator for voting against every bill Russell Pearce ever wrote. That sounds intriguing to me.

  10. hmmm, mine posted twice.

  11. Go For It! Assuming you could get the signatures, I doubt you’d find anyone that would run as stupid and sleazy a campaign as Pearce.

    Running sham candidates? Using your brother (Justice of Peace) to threaten people, having family members gather signatures for sham candidates, making up lies about stealing from children, banning the media from a meeting at a public place, etc, etc, etc.

    Bring it on! I need a good laugh, now that this election is over.

  12. If one of the targets is Raul Grijalva, I’d normally jump for the chance of removing him. But we have a great candidate that has better than 50-50 chance of beating him. She is a Mex. American, legalized the right way, and very conservative. Married to an anglo and very determined. Her name is Gabriela Saucedo-Mercer. And she’s got grit! I say we let her take a shot at dethroning the pro La Raza and on-the-take Raul. She’s got a lot of Tea Party backing her.

  13. Apparently, a lot of people didn’t get the message of the Pearce recall. Russell Pearce had become unpopular with even the Republicans in his own district. Jerry Lewis beat Pearce 55-43 in the most conservative district in the state, winning a majority of the REPUBLICAN vote in the process. If you keep believing the fantasy that this Recall was the work of a bunch of crazy left wing activists, the Republican Party is missing the message that was sent. The majority of voters, including R’s, want a return to civility in our government, and leaders who will focus on a variety of issues that are most important, including job creation, economic growth, and education.

    • Conservative American says

      LOL! Hogwash, as usual, Snow!

      The recall and the election were a brilliant piece of political work by the radical left. The key to their success was that they saw a very rare and unique opportunity and capitalized on it perfectly.

      First, the left recognized that the LDS Church held great sway in LD18. Secondly, they knew that a great many Mormons feel that it is a matter of faith and loyalty to adhere to and support the positions of the Church. That is a very, very unique political situation in a legislative district.

      The lefitsts knew that if the LDS Church were to oppose Pearce and his approach to illegal immigration and illegal aliens, that Pearce would, without question, be toast. They also knew, and even admitted, that they would need a Mormon candidate running as a Repulican.

      In June of this year, the LDS Church issued a NEW statement on immigration. Here is an excerpt from that new statement:

      “Immigration: Church Issues New Statement”

      “10 June 2011 — Salt Lake City”

      “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:”

      “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.”

      “The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.”

      So five months prior to the recall election, the LDS Church took a position regarding illegal immigration and illegals aliens which direcly opposes the approach of Senator Pearce and even states that Pearce’s approach “…is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.”

      At the same time, Lewis incorporated into his website statements on illegal immigration and illegal aliens language taken directly from the LDS statement. For example, Lewis stated that he wanted to “help” illegal aliens to “get square with the law”. That’s a rather unusual and unique way of stating things yet the LDS statment includes the phrase, “square themselves with the law”.

      Did the leftists “make” the LDS Church take the position they hold on illegal immigration? They couldn’t have done that even if they wanted to. Was there something behind the LDS position other than what was being stated publicly? I have no idea.

      The point is that with the stated LDS position on immigration released in June of this year, leftists KNEW that if they played their cards right, and they did, that Pearce would be toast.

      In essence, it was the positon taken by the LDS Church on illegal immigration and illegal aliens, as expressed their June statement, which meant that if the recall effort were to succeed, that Pearce was done. All that was needed was a Jerry Lewis, a Mormon running as a Republican and backing the LDS position, and the game was over.

      This should cause Republicans to consider very, very carefully whether or not it is prudent to attempt to recall any Democrats at this time. LD18 was a very unusual and unique situation. In how many legislative districts is there an entity like the LDS Church which holds great sway and a great many of whose members will strongly feel that they should follow the policies and positions of that entity?

      The leftists recognized the perfect storm and were able to ride their surfboards to political victory on it.

      • Raising Arizona says

        As usual CA, you are dead wrong. Tons of Mormons voted for Pearce despite the Church statement. I might have myself if Pearce hadn’t tried to claim that he supported everything about the church position (among a host of other ridiculous falsehoods, OK come to think of it, I probably wouldn’t have voted for him). Pearce lost because his campaign was the suckiest suck that has ever sucked a flying suck. He flat out blew it, and his present inability to see that he blew it is exactly why he blew it. He lacks the capacity for public or private rapprochement or conciliation.

        • Conservative American says

          As usual, RA, you are dead wrong.

          The LDS Church demands loyalty and obedience from it’s members. That loyalty goes beyond obedience of belief or obedience to Church doctrine. It extends to the Church’s many facets of activity.

          “The gift of loyalty”

          “Published: Saturday, Sept. 4, 2010”

          “I think of loyalty in terms of being true to ourselves. I think of it in terms of being absolutely faithful to our chosen companions. I think of it in terms of being absolutely loyal to the Church and its many facets of activity.” – Gordon B. Hinckley, 2003

          Chad Snow always refers to “Republican voters” but he conspicuously fails to refer to “Mormon voters”. Why is that?

          The LDS Church has adopted the “progressive” Democrat position on illegal immigration and illegal aliens. While it speaks of that group as children of God, it fails to express concern for the American citizens, who are also children of God, who suffer in terms of costs, unemployment and in being victims of violent crime at the hands of illegal aliens.

          It was ultimately the stated position of the LDS Church on illegal immigration and illegal aliens combined with the Church’s expectations of loyalty and obedience which brought down Senator Pearce. Pearce’s position made him a black sheep with the Church.

          The LDS Church seeks to avoid backlash from conservative Republicans by keeping it’s role in the recall of Pearce as low profile as possible. There is not one, but rather there are two Mormons who have thrown their hats in the ring to contend for the Republican presidential nomination; Romney and Huntsman. If it were to become clear and nationally known to conservative Republican voters the key role that the LDS Church played in ousting Pearce, Romney and Huntsman would be viewed with suspicion, suspicion that they would be loyal and obedient to the LDS Church by supporting and promoting the “immigration reform” of B. Hussein Obama, just as did Jerry Lewis.

          When a church can determine the outcome of an election, an election to recall a sitting state Republican Senator and President of the Arizona State Senate, it is time to take note and to be wary of the influence that church has in determining who will particpate in governance.

          • Get over it, amigo.

            Raising AZ spoke the truth: “Pearce lost because his campaign was the suckiest suck that has ever sucked a flying suck.”

            Just face it. He lost that race because he showed himself to be a dissembling hack who associates himself with the slimiest elements of the right. Good. Riddance. Now we can move on from Police State Paranoia to Common Sense Conservatism.

            • Conservative American says

              Give it over yourself, amigo!

              Pearce lost not because of his campaign, not because of education issues, job issues or eonomic issues. Pearce lost because the LDS Church dictated that he should lose.

              Of course, that’s not supposed to come out in public, LOL! You know, internal church business.

              • Raising Arizona says

                On second thought, CA, you are so right. I hope Pearce runs again and hires you to manage his campaign. By adding the conspiratorial Mormon church to the list of those groups out to get Pearce, you can really portray the reasonable side of the candidate that was so lacking in the recall. Who knows? He might pull 30%?

              • Conservative American says

                Conspiratorial? When ever liberals are confronted with facts they can’t refute they always attempt to use the “conspiracy” smear. Feeble!

                “Immigration: Church Issues New Statement”

                “10 June 2011 — Salt Lake City”

                “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints today issued the following official statement on immigration:”

                “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is concerned that any state legislation that only contains enforcement provisions is likely to fall short of the high moral standard of treating each other as children of God.”

                “The Church supports an approach where undocumented immigrants are allowed to square themselves with the law and continue to work without this necessarily leading to citizenship.”


                The Church did everything short of calling Sentor Pearce by name. It even went so far as to specifically refer to “state legislation”.

                “I think of it in terms of being absolutely loyal to the Church and its many facets of activity.” – Gordon B. Hinckley, 2003. Hinckley was speaking of “loyalty”. Or, as he put it, being “ABSOLUTELY loyal”.

                So don’t try to pretend that the LDS Church played no role in this. It issued it’s NEW statement on immigraton while the Citizens for a Better Arizona recall effort was under way. How convenient!

                The LDS Church has made it clear where it stands on illegal immigration and as that becomes more and more known, it is going to have a negative impact on potential candidates like Romney and Huntsman. What goes around comes around.

  14. GeeGollyMissMolly says

    Bad idea. Another example of Republicans over reaching that will end with another black eye.

    • The best part? This plan is being hatched by the strategic geniuses who ran Olivia Cortes in the LD18 race. The keystone cops, Laurel and Hardy, and the three stooges all look like Lee Atwater next to those clowns.

  15. Those in the Republican party who consider themselves “Conservatives” are thrashing about focusing on everything except WINNING.

    Stop the nonsense and get focused.

    Real conservatives are working on reducing spending, getting rid of public employee unions and shrinking the size of government.

    Guess what, if you aren’t doing that, you’re NOT REALLY A CONSERVATIVE.

    • You nailed it. These Tea Party RINOs have co-opted the name Conservative but are really war-mongering, police-state-loving Neo-Cons who would be more at home in the 1950s Democratic Party.

      Don’t forget that Russell Pearce was advocate #1 for increasing unfunded mandates on the cities and state through his immigration policy, that he enhanced the power of public employee unions and even gamed the pension system himself (retiring at age 44 and collecting over a million bucks in taxpayer paid pensions by now, with another million of our money to go if he lives another 15 years….)

      I’m tired of the Tea Party RINOs saying they’re for limited government but growing it like mad..

  16. AZ Independent says

    No. Liberals win in AZ with low turnout. Recall elections naturally have much lower turnout. So liberals are predisposed to win recalls.
    Furthermore, if the people planning this are who I think they are, this will be a debacle, and could very well be a tipping point to turn AZ blue.

Leave a Reply