Strike Everything

Attorney General Terry Goddard has had quite the roller coaster ride while staking out his positions on S1070. He opposed the law and wishes Gov. Jan Brewer had vetoed it, but also opposed the lawsuit against it. He vowed to defend the state in court, but blasted Brewer for her failure to do so.

Along with accusations that Brewer is playing politics with illegal immigration and failed to do anything about border security, Goddard slammed his campaign rival for signing “a bill she could not defend in court.” The statement came shortly after U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton blocked key provisions of the law from going into effect on July 28.

It was a curious comment from an attorney general who denounced the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit over S1070, vowed to vigorously defend the state in court, and said a strong argument could be made that the landmark illegal immigration law is perfectly constitutional.

Goddard, however, said there was nothing inconsistent about the slap at Brewer.

“I said she couldn’t defend it in court. I didn’t say it couldn’t be defended in court,” Goddard told the Arizona Capitol Times shortly after the injunction was handed down.

Goddard said things might have gone differently if Brewer hadn’t exiled him from the state’s S1070 defense team, which he acknowledged is still a “sore point” for him. Brewer not only refused his offer to defend the state in the federal government’s lawsuit, but pledged legal action to remove him from the case if he fought her on the issue, saying his opposition to the law made him an unreliable defense attorney in the suit.

He noted that on his watch, the Attorney General’s Office successfully defended the state in illegal immigration-related lawsuits, such as the suit against the Legal Arizona Workers Act, which his office will defend before the U.S. Supreme Court later this year. Bolton’s injunction may have come with or without Goddard’s help, he said, but the state could have benefitted from his office’s expertise.

“She wanted to shoot all the baskets and grab all the glory and basically refused to have a joint defense,” he said. “Our lawyers are, I believe, the best in the country in issues like this. We’ve successfully defended two Arizona immigration statutes. I’ve never lost a motion. That’s a pretty good record.”

Brewer’s campaign said Goddard was flip-flopping on the issue and made fun of his recent comment in the New York Times that, “I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t” when it comes to S1070.

“Attorney General Terry Goddard hailed the judge’s ruling today a little over a month after fighting to defend the law and lamenting his position to the East Coast elite at New York City’s Harvard Club. That was, of course, following the first time he changed his mind after initially speaking out against it. It’s enough to make your head spin,” Brewer said in a statement released by her campaign.

Goddard said Brewer is the one who’s being disingenuous – she rails against the feds for not securing the border, but hasn’t done anything to improve border security herself, he said. Brewer has said numerous times that S1070 doesn’t do anything about border security, and Goddard said Bolton’s injunction gives the state an opportunity to move past the political rhetoric about S1070 and focus on the more important issue of fighting violent drug cartels and human smugglers – as he has done.

“Perhaps now we in Arizona can focus on effective steps to fight border crime and keep our families safe. Now we can focus on steps, such as the ones I have been taking, to go after border crime and cut off the cash that flows to organized criminal cartels that smuggle thousands into the U.S.,” Goddard said.

As to the constitutionality of S1070, which the Justice Department said usurps federal authority over immigration, Goddard said arguments could be made that it isn’t preempted by federal law and could be implemented in a constitutional way. But Bolton made some pretty persuasive arguments to the contrary, he said.

“I think she made a strong and defensible argument. I don’t think it’s a matter of agreeing or disagreeing. That’s the law,” Goddard said.

-Jeremy Duda

Arizona politicians reacted to today’s S1070 ruling as expected: Many Republicans were upset that federal Judge Susan Bolton halted the major parts of the law, and many Democrats were relieved that it was gutted before taking effect.

Here’s what they had to say:

Sen. Russell Pearce, Mesa Republican and sponsor of S1070:
“This law will go into effect.”
Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia, Senate minority leader:
“Senator Pearce is not going to stop at this. He’s hell-bent on interpreting the Constitution as he sees fit.”
Joe Arpaio, Maricopa County sheriff:
“I don’t think the activists should be dancing in the streets yet.”
Rick Romley, Maricopa County attorney:
“The federal government needs to understand they have not just failed Arizona, they have failed the entire nation. This is a time for them to step up and seal that border.”
Rep. John Kavanagh, Fountain Hills Republican:
“This is the first of what’s probably going to be a 20-round fight. And given that the judge relied solely on the preemption issue, I think we’re in good shape to eventually prevail.”
Roberto Villasenor, Tucson chief of police:
“ I have a sense of relief that we will not be treating people in ways that we should not be treating them based on the literal interpretation of the law, but I think this is far from over.”
Lyle Mann, executive director Arizona Peace Officers Standards and Training Board:
“(Local) officers will still work with immigration services on a daily basis, but whether this clarifies or makes a need for more clarification… I guess you could say we’re back to how it was in April.”
Rep. Ben Miranda, Phoenix Democrat:
“I know there was a lot of elation yesterday within the immigrant community. I just don’t mean to douse their fire, their celebrations, but it’s the status quo for me.”
Bill Montgomery, Republican candidate for Maricopa County attorney:
“While (Bolton’s) analysis resulted in the legal conclusions she came to, I don’t believe that federal preemption should prevent a state from defending its citizens. It’s a twisted application.”
Vernon Parker, Republican candidate in the 3rd Congressional District:
“I interpreted the decision as judicial activism, quite frankly. When you look at the decision it really gives me the impression we can’t even uphold federal law because when the judge is saying you can’t ask someone for their identification, the federal law requires that. It requires law enforcement to do that right now even without 1070.”

With the GOP primary just a month away, U.S. Sen. John McCain is pulling further away from rival J.D. Hayworth, and Rasmussen Reports is no longer listing the incumbent senator as vulnerable to an upset from his conservative challenger.

A Rasmussen Reports poll released on July 26 showed McCain with a 54-34 lead over Hayworth. Rasmussen conducted the automated push-button telephone poll of 595 likely Republican primary voters on July 21.

Seven percent of respondents said they would vote for another candiate, and 6 percent said they were unsure who they would cast their ballots for in the Aug. 24 primary.

McCain’s leads have varied wildly depending on the poll, with Rasmussen giving him an 11-percent lead in January and the Behavior Research Center showing him up by a whopping 45 points in mid-July. But every poll shows the four-term senator pulling away from his conservative challenger.

Rasmussen, which has conducted the most frequent polling, sporting single-digit leads in March and April but upping his advantage to 12 points in May and 11 points in the company’s last poll in June. Other polling hasn’t been any better for Hayworth, with a Magellan Strategies poll in late June showing McCain with a 13-point lead, and a Rocky Mountain Poll in mid-July showed McCain with a 45-point lead.

While many of Rasmussen’s previous polls described McCain as potentially vulnerable because his support consistently hovered around 50 percent, usually a bad sign for an incumbent. Rasmussen noted that McCain’s approval numbers were similar to those of U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, who lost in Pennsylvania’s Democratic primary.

But unlike Specter’s challenger, U.S. Rep. Joe Sestak, Rasmussen said Hayworth is not gaining any ground on his opponent.

“That comparison no longer works,” Rasmussen wrote of the Hayworth-Specter comparison. “In the Arizona match-up, Hayworth is falling further behind in the final month before the primary.”

McCain is likely reaping the benefits of a direct mail and television advertising blitz. According to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Elections Commission, McCain spent $15.6 million through the end of June, including $10.1 million in the second quarter of the year alone. Much of the money was transferred from his 2008 presidential bid. Only one U.S. Senate candidate, Connecticut Republican Linda McMahon, has spent more.

It seemed like a sign of the times that Attorney General Terry Goddard was in Congress to talk about Arizona’s efforts to crack down on money laundering by drug cartels, but the only thing the congressmen wanted to talk about was S1070.

Goddard on July 22 testified at a U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Homeland Security hearing on how to stop illegal immigration, and Goddard said he was there to discuss the steps the Arizona Attorney General’s Office has taken to stop the flow of money of Mexican cartels and human-smuggling groups. But members of the committee were far more interested in discussing Arizona’s strict new illegal immigration law and sanctuary city policies, and denouncing the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Arizona over S1070.

Goddard said he outlined Arizona’s six year-old program, but was surprised that committee members kept straying from the topic. He urged the committee to approve $50 million for anti-money laundering programs to Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas.

“It just went into … sort of unconnected statements about immigration. And the congressmen would come in, get in their seat, make their statement, ask a question and then leave,” Goddard said. “It was fascinating, but I’m not sure how productive.”

One committee member thought every city in Arizona was a so-called sanctuary city, Goddard said, and pondered whether the federal government should prosecute them. Another wondered aloud whether cartel leaders should be deemed enemy combatants, the same status given to many international terrorist leaders. Others simply wanted to make general denunciations of the federal government’s lawsuit against Arizona.

“I would say on both sides that was a bipartisan affliction,” he said.

Goddard said he was more interested in discussing Arizona’s anti-money laundering program and other efforts against drug cartels, and the ways those programs could be applied on a nationwide level. He suggested that greater cooperation on such issues between the four border states and the federal government could be a boon to the fight against violent drug cartels.

If Goddard had trouble diverting people’s attention away from S1070 in Washington, D.C., things don’t look like they’ll get any better once he’s back in Arizona. Goddard, the Democrats’ candidate for governor, has been taking a pounding in the polls since Gov. Jan Brewer signed the popular law.

S1070 has put Goddard in a tough spot. He opposed the law, but said he believes it is constitutional. He also tried to defend Arizona in the Justice Department lawsuit, but was removed from the case by Brewer, whom he will face in the November election.

Goddard’s campaign has focused largely on the economy and jobs, but the furor over S1070 has kept the attention of the public on illegal immigration. As Brewer’s erstwhile challengers for the Republican nomination learned – before they dropped out of the race – illegal immigration is a winner for Brewer, and anyone hoping to hit her on other issues may have a tough road ahead.

-Jeremy Duda

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio announced July 20 that he will be opening a new section of his tent city jail, just for those convicted under Arizona’s new immigration law. The new section of the outdoor jail will be called “section 1070,” according to a Sheriff’s Office spokeswoman.

The new section will be arranged inside the existing tent city area in south Phoenix, since expanding the boundaries of tent city would require approval from the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, with which the sheriff has had high-profile public fights involving budget issues.

But the board of supervisors told the Arizona Capitol Times before Arpaio’s announcement that any changes to tent city would need to meet safety and liability requirements, and that despite his assertion that he gets the final say on what happens at his jail, the board needs to provide the proper checks on his practices.

Arpaio will hold a press conference to formally announce and display his tent city addition at 3 p.m. July 21. The announcement coincides with the 17-year anniversary of the opening of tent city. The sheriff’s office will be giving “hot chocolate cake” to all the inmates to celebrate the anniversary. A spokeswoman for the sheriff’s office said all media except the Phoenix New Times is welcome.