JUST SAYING NO TO PROP 200
The opposition to the Public Safety First Initiative on the Nov. 3
ballot continued to grow last week.
The latest business group to come out against Proposition 200: The
Metropolitan Pima Alliance, a wide-ranging group of commercial
real-estate developers, contractors, engineering firms and architects.
Wow, what a bunch of lefties!
Michael Guymon, executive director of MPA, says the
initiative, which would require the city to hire 333 new police
officers and 70 new firefighters in the next five years, strips the
Tucson City Council of too much authority to make decisions for the
city.
“We think that the tenets of the proposition are commendable, but we
cannot support tying the hands of our elected officials, who we elect
to make budgetary decisions on our behalf,” Guymon says. “With a
charter change, if anything were to change in the future—if
standards change, or what have you—it would have to go back to
the voters. To us, that’s not responsible public policy.”
The Metropolitan Pima Alliance joins several other business
organizations, including the Tucson Metropolitan Chamber of Commerce,
the Arizona Multihousing Association and Cox Cable, in opposing the
initiative.
The organizations are savvy enough to realize that if Prop 200
passes, the city is eventually going to have to find an estimated $63
million a year to pay for it, which is likely to mean higher taxes on
businesses and utilities—and, ultimately, you.
The initiative has been largely funded by the Tucson Association of
Realtors, which has protection against tax increases thanks to a ballot
proposition they paid for last year.
Meanwhile, some reluctant members of the Tucson City Council are
finally sacking up and coming out against Prop 200.
Ward 6 City Councilwoman Nina Trasoff, who had previously
stopped short of telling voters to reject the initiative, announced her
opposition to Prop 200 during press conference at the Reid Park
Zoo.
That was a weird get-together: How often do you see Chamber of
Commerce honcho Jack Camper standing next to Brian Flagg of the Casa Maria soup kitchen?
City Councilman Rodney Glassman also came out against the
initiative last week. Glassman succinctly announced via e-mail: “I will
not be voting for Proposition 200 and do not support it. I support
increasing law enforcement, but this is the wrong way to do it.”
One day later, Ward 3 Councilwoman Karin Uhlich joined the
growing chorus of opponents to Prop 200. In her statement, Uhlich
announced: “In the past couple of weeks, the rhetoric around this issue
has greatly intensified, and the proponents of Prop 200 have attempted
to mislead the voters. Because of this, it is important that I speak
out more strongly: I have my ballot in hand; I will be voting this
weekend, and I am voting no on Proposition 200.”
With City Council members Steve Leal and Regina Romero already opposed to the Public Safety First Initiative, that leaves only
Ward 4’s Shirley Scott supporting it. Or at least issuing a statement
in support of it; she wouldn’t tell Arizona Illustrated anchor
Bill Buckmaster whether she was voting for it. What kind of
hair-splitting is that?
Speaking of Arizona Illustrated: The program will air a
one-hour live forum on Prop 200 from the Leo Rich Theatre at 6 p.m.,
Monday, Oct. 26.
DEMOCRATS SAY: ENOUGH, ALREADY
The Pima County Democratic Party’s executive committee seems to have
had enough of attorney Bill Risner‘s ongoing legal battle over
the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority ballots.
The committee voted 13-9 on Monday, Oct. 5, not to appeal a ruling
that allows Pima County Treasurer Beth Ford to destroy the
ballots.
But it’s still not over. Election-integrity activists continue to
pursue the ballots, despite Attorney General Terry Goddard’s investigation that determined no fraud had occurred during the special
election. Goddard’s office seized the ballots from a storage facility
in Tucson and did a hand-count in Maricopa County.
In September, Pima County Superior Court Judge Charles
Harrington ruled that those ballots can now be destroyed.
Harrington determined that according to state law, the election wasn’t
challenged within five days of the RTA canvas, which makes it too late
to demand the ballots if the point is to challenge the election
results.
Last year, Ford announced she was going to destroy the ballots as
dictated by state law. Risner, however, sued to prevent the ballots
from being destroyed while pushing Goddard for an investigation.
Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers confirmed this
week that the party voted not to pursue an appeal—a big change,
considering the party has generally given Risner approval for
election-integrity legal challenges. When asked if it has to do with
Goddard’s anticipated run for governor, Rogers says the party consensus
is that it is time to focus on city and state elections.
“Look, we’ve done a lot of work on these public-records lawsuits,
but it is time to move on,” Rogers says.
Risner says there was never a discussion during the executive
committee meeting about whether an appeal would get in the way of
Goddard’s bid for governor.
“The individuals who had questions at the meeting asked about costs
related to an appeal,” Risner writes in an e-mail.
If the party had approved the appeal, it would have had to pay about
$2,500 for filing fees and RTA-ballot storage. However, Risner tells us
that the Libertarian Party, which has worked with the Democratic Party
on election-integrity issues, will take up the appeal and foot the
bill.
“I’m glad they are doing so, as the legal question is a fundamental
one that needs to be answered,” Risner says.
Another case that remains before Harrington is the future of the
poll tapes—the election results printed from each precinct
computer at the end of the election. Election-integrity peeps want a
chance to look at those and compare them with the RTA election results
and Goddard’s hand-count. Those tapes are in the RTA ballot boxes, and
so far, Pima County has agreed with the Democratic Party that the tapes
are public records. But Risner needs the court’s approval to retrieve
the tapes in order to prevent them from being destroyed along with the
ballots.
Rogers says the Democratic Party gave Risner approval to pursue the
poll tapes on behalf of the party.
Risner wrote that his efforts aren’t about changing results of the
election, as Harrington asserts in his ruling, but about preventing
election fraud in the future.
“Our view is that the court system must have a role in protecting
the vote, which is the bedrock of our democracy,” Risner says. “That is
the fundamental question. Does the court have the
ability—jurisdiction—to consider the facts and consider a
remedy in a fatally flawed system? We think the answer must be
yes.”
OPEN RECORDS, OPEN MINDS
On Page 11, you can learn about all the big awards we won in the
Arizona Newspapers Association journalism contest. (The Skinny even
picked up a second-place honor, proving that we’ve totally sold
out.)
But we’d like to mention that District 30 state Sen. Jonathan
Paton won the 2009 Legislative Freedom of Information Award for the
third year running. While Paton tends to be a wee bit too conservative
for us on some issues, we appreciate his efforts to ensure that the
government keeps information available for those of us in the
press—and those of you in the public.
Find early and late-breaking Skinny at The Range, our daily
dispatch.
This article appears in Oct 15-21, 2009.
Gosh and Golly: Risner would CONTINUE to pull down Big Coin for continuing the fight, would he not?
He reminds me of the lawyers who tell me:
“Roy, we NEED the money that comes from representing the various interests involved with the crime committed by and against the Illegal Aliens. You send the Illegals home and half the local bar will be broke in six months!”
Concerning election integrity, it’s interesting that the most important leg in this journey is abandoned by the Democratic party over $2,500.00. The cost argument is disappointingly weak. This case was about whether the courts could intervene when both the executive branch and the legislative branch have failed in providing adequate remedy if it is discovered that an election is rigged. Both branches in this case have certainly failed. The case is far more important than finally getting to the bottom of the RTA election. It’s a civil rights issue.
If this specific judicial pursuit is not continued, everybody loses.
Concerning election integrity, it’s interesting that the Democratic party would abandon the most important leg of it’s journey over $2500.00. The issue of costs is disappointingly weak argument and has already been removed from the table.
The point of this case is to determine whether the courts can intervene if the legislative and executive branches of government have failed to provide adequate remedy when an election is rigged. Five days to challenge an election is not adequate and lawmakers are elected, so the legislative branch fails in this case. Attorney General Terry Goddard refused rudimentary auditing procedures and forensic checks and, instead, performed an exercise in public relations, so the executive branch fails. In any circumstance like this that arises in the future, the courts should serve in its role of “checks and balances” to provide prospective relief. It’s a civil rights issue.
Everyone loses if this issue of prospective relief by the courts is left unchallenged.
Sorry about the double post. Thought it didn’t go the first time!
What was said by MPA is exactly why I oppose Prop 200. All of us have witnessed how mandated spending has tied the hands of our evil Phoenician overlords in addressing the state budget. Much of state funds are mandated for various places, legislature has no authority to redirect those funds to schools or other painful budget cuts. Why the hell would we want that here in Tucson? Granted the city clowncil hasn’t always been the best steward of the general fund. I’d rather they still have control and we can give them hell later if they screw up.