Strike Everything

Heading into the final stretch of the general election campaign, Democrat Jon Hulburd is making a last-ditch effort to court women voters in Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District.

It’s clearly a group he’s appealed to before, as earlier Christian radio ads used a female moderator to attack his opponent, Republican Ben Quayle, for contributing to the predecessor of the sex-themed website TheDirty.com.

This time, though, Hulburd is veering away from the negative campaign tactics and is going positive.

Actually, it’s his wife, Carrie, who is going positive with what is designed to look like a personalized, hand-written, “woman to woman” letter talking up her husband.

She’s even included a small glossy photo of the couple on their wedding day in 1984.

A wedding photo? That was a new one for me.

Hulburd’s campaign would not disclose the cost of the mailer nor would it reveal the number of female voters who received it. Josh Abner, Hulburd’s spokesman, would only say it was sent to “tens of thousands” of women voters of all political stripes. In the letter, Carrie discloses that she’s a lifelong Republican.

Even political veterans such as Democratic strategist Mario Diaz said he’s never seen a wedding photo dropped as an accompanying piece to a political mailer.

But overall, Diaz said it’s smart to go after independent and moderate Republican women, who might be more persuadable to the Democrat in the heavily Republican district. The mailer also did a good job of painting Hulburd as a candidate with character, without veering into a negative contrast piece that voters are, late in the campaign, growing tired of, he said.

“This is a great, in my opinion, closing argument for Hulburd’s campaign,” Diaz said. “If Quayle had not had the character issues, I would say it probably would be a piece that should have been sent out as an introductory piece at the beginning of the campaign.”

But will it work? Hulburd battles Quayle in a district that has 50,000 more registered Republicans than Dems. He’s also outmatched in fundraising and name ID.

An Oct. 18 poll by Public Policy Polling showed Hulburd faring slightly better among men than women, despite his attempts at courtship.

- Bill Bertolino

David Schweikert’s campaign appears to be falsely claiming that a Democratic activist and Harry Mitchell’s campaign conspired to damage Schweikert’s signs.

The claim, issued in a press release Oct. 26 with the headline “We Caught Them!,” stems from a dust-up between a Schweikert supporter and a man who allegedly pushed down two anti-Mitchell signs and was cited by police for doing it.

But the Oct. 23 altercation between the two men appears to be isolated and did not directly involve either campaign, according to both the Schweikert supporter who filed the police report over the incident and the man accused of damaging the signs.

The man accused of knocking down the anti-Mitchell signs, 73-year-old James Arnold Lucas of Tempe, told the Arizona Capitol Times that he has never worked or volunteered for the Mitchell campaign, nor has he ever been involved with the Arizona Democratic Party beyond being a registered Dem.

Both the Mitchell campaign and Democrats say they also have never heard of Lucas, and the Schweikert campaign also could not provide evidence that Lucas was a political operative.

Lucas said he was on a morning bike ride Oct. 23 in south Tempe when he saw what he believes were the illegally placed signs that were obstructing the view of a Mitchell sign. He also claimed that the signs did not have the required “paid for” disclosure, and he felt angry about the situation, but disputes a Tempe police report that he kicked one sign and ripped another from the ground.

When asked what he did, Lucas replied: “One of them was bent. You are asking me to admit to what may be a criminal action,” he said of the alleged bent sign.

“I wouldn’t have cared if it was a Republican or Democrat (sign). If you are attempting to stop to get someone’s message out, I am infuriated,” Lucas said. “My wife is a Republican. If anybody thinks I’m going to do something to have a major fight with my wife of 27 years, I don’t think so.”

The man who filed the police report was identified as Donald R. Sanders, who told police he has a sign company called Jet Media, which has done campaign sign work for Schweikert.

But Jet Media owner Jim Torgeson said that Sanders’ signs were not commissioned by the Schweikert campaign, and that they personally belonged to Sanders, not the company.

“That’s all Donny, all the time. This is not something that is billed to David Schweikert,” Torgeson said. “This is not a Jet Media promotion.”

Sanders said he witnessed Lucas bend over two signs that were placed by a Mitchell sign. One of them said, “Mitchell a part of the problem since 2006.” The other possibly said, “Voted for Obamacare,” Sanders said.

He said he plans to pursue prosecution of Lucas. He said his signs did not have the “paid for” disclosure because he spent only $220 on the signs, well below the $500 threshold that would have triggered disclosure under state law.

“If he thought I was wrong, then he should have called the authorities,” Sanders said. “I’m pretty offended that this guy seems to think he can step all over my First Amendment rights.”

Sanders also said he was working on his own behalf, not Jet Media’s.

Meanwhile, the Schweikert press release called the man a “Democrat activist” and went on to say that “Mitchell’s campaign team knows better,” and rehashed allegations from 2000, when Mitchell was accused, and later admitted to the Arizona Republic, of stealing an opponent’s signs.

Schweikert’s campaign manager, Oliver Schwab, defended the press release to reporter Jeremy Duda today.

“Who else would be ripping down political signs?” Schwab said. “If you are taking down signs you are clearly an activist.”

- Bill Bertolino

I was on the way home Oct. 15 when my editor called to tell me that Sen. Jorge Garcia had died.

I spent the next few hours confirming it and calling his colleagues to ask for their thoughts about the Democratic leader.

It was only later that night that I had a chance to reflect on the last four years that I had known him. I keep a distance from my sources, but it was difficult not to be friendly with Garcia, and I was often in his office the past two years to interview or simply chat with him.

He was a good source. He helped me get documents or information that I couldn’t get through the usual channels. If you needed to get his caucus’ pulse on issues, he was also the go-to lawmaker.

But he also always gave his honest assessment of the situation, and he had an independent streak that sometimes irritated his party-mates.

What immediately struck me about Garcia was how unassuming he was. He spoke plainly, and he had this habit of shifting his weight in tiny steps while giving a floor speech. He also always wore this smile as if he was thinking about the punchline of a joke that only he knew.

I learned from his family that he was just as austere at home. His wife and daughters said he jettisoned anything wasteful – that applied to buying “Vitamin Water.” He often ordered only a side salad whenever his family dined out because he knew there would be enough left over on their plates to fill him.

I asked him once what he did to get away from the hassles of work. He replied that he enjoyed cleaning the pool.

I began really paying attention to what he said after a Republican senator – it might have been Sen. John Huppenthal of Chandler – told me Garcia had an uncanny grasp of budget issues. The two lawmakers sat opposite the table when the two parties negotiated past budgets.

I sought his take on the 2008 elections, when many of his party-mates were predicting or hoping that Democrats would upend the Republican majority. He told me the best they could hope for was to come out of the election with the same number of seats. He was right; Republicans made gains that year, including grabbing a Senate seat held by a Democrat.

I often challenged him on his positions, even while we were just chatting. I remember repeatedly asking him why, for example, Senate Democrats weren’t more aggressive in pushing their agenda. I argued that the minority could, for example, throw monkey wrenches in the legislative process by challenging Republicans on every procedural point. He responded that it wouldn’t change things and would merely irritate colleagues.

In hindsight, maybe he simply didn’t want to get in the way of accruing munitions that his party could use against Republicans. But maybe he also saw that grandstanding or putting up temporary roadblocks only delayed the inevitable; that is, if the majority had the votes, they would inevitably be able to do what they want.

Garcia, 57, was intelligent; one colleague said you underestimated him at your own peril. But he was often too honest, and I didn’t think he excelled at playing political games. He once advocated for an alternative budget plan last year that didn’t include cuts other than what Republicans already approved in the year before, even though the state was deep in deficit. He said he wanted to show the majority that there were other options; I thought the move merely helped solidify Republicans’ opinion that Democrats weren’t serious in solving the budget problem.

Garcia had been in politics for a long time, but he never displayed cynicism. He didn’t verbalize it, but I sensed his belief in the system – that it could effectuate changes and that his involvement could produce some good for his community.

The last time I saw Garcia was before the primary election. I asked him how his campaign for the Corporation Commission was going, and he said he’s unlikely to qualify for Clean Elections funding. When I asked him why, he said his energy was zapped out of him.

I spoke to him on the phone a few more times, and each time his voice sounded more and more labored. He died on Oct. 15; he had been suffering from a rare disease that affected his heart.

It wasn’t his politics that I remember most about Garcia. It was that one night – one of several nights when the Capitol community kept vigil trying to solve the state’s budget woes – when he said I could use his office sofa if I needed to rest.

Jorge Luis Garcia (file photo)

On the morning of Oct. 15, I spoke with Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia over the phone. Little did I know that my first interview with him would possibly be the last time he would talk to a reporter before passing away later that day.

I was writing a story about proposed regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries, which would become legal in Arizona if voters approve Proposition 203. And I wanted to talk to him about SB1222, which was a bill he sponsored this past legislative session that would have placed a sales tax on medical marijuana.

I wasn’t even sure if he would be willing to do the interview considering that it involved a bill that ultimately never passed, but I was able to get in touch with the Senate minority leader after making just one phone call, and he was more than willing to answer all of my questions.

I’m an intern at the Arizona Capitol Times and a journalism student, so I didn’t know what to expect during my first interview with Garcia, but I remember thinking that he sounded tired. I didn’t think much of it at the time, considering legislators have busy schedules and are routinely interviewed by the press to the point where it must become mundane.

Even though he may not have been feeling well he was still willing to be interviewed about a bill that he had probably been asked about a hundred times before, which proves to me that he truly was very dedicated to public service.

I was just trying to gather some background information to help with my story, but it’s now one of the interviews that stands out when I look back on the others I have conducted during my career in journalism thus far.

Thanks again for your time, Senator.

- Alexander MacLean

Jon Hulburd, Ben Quayle

The publicly released polling data on Arizona’s 3rd Congressional District is like a scrap of food to a starving man – it may not be the best information, but it’s all we’ve got.

North Carolina-based Public Policy Polling on Oct. 18 released an automated poll showing Democrat Jon Hulburd with a 46 to 44 lead over GOP nominee Ben Quayle in the heavily Republican district, with 10 percent undecided. The poll was commissioned by the liberal blog Daily Kos.

The poll came on the heels of a blog post by the website RareJazzCongress.com that showed Quayle up by about 2 points. The website said the poll was conducted by a conservative 501(c)(4) group, though it didn’t say who commissioned the poll or who conducted it.

Neither campaign has released its own polling data, and Public Policy Polling was the first group to release its own survey on the race. Pollster Michael O’Neil, of Tempe-based O’Neil Associates, said many people might be inclined to dismiss the poll because it was commissioned by such a partisan group. But the biggest reason for skepticism is that Public Policy Polling uses robocalls to survey voters, which O’Neil said are far cheaper and far less trustworthy than polls that have real people asking the questions.

“This is what you get when nobody’s willing to pay for it,” O’Neil said. “I don’t think the methodology is inherently biased. It’s just not reliable.”

As for the poll cited by RareJazzCongress.com, which used a live operator to survey 331 likely voters, O’Neil said the lack of information on who conducted the poll and who paid for are bad signs, as is the 4.1 percent margin of error. A poll of 331 voters should have a margin of error of about 5.5 percent, he said.

Hulburd has hammered Quayle repeatedly over his connections to a racy, sex-themed website, and the poll showed those allegations stand out in voters’ minds. Fifty-two percent of respondents said they had an unfavorable opinion of Quayle, compared to 34 percent who said their opinion of him was favorable.

O’Neil said the unfavorable opinions aren’t surprising, given the crush of negative publicity Quayle has gotten over his ties to DirtyScottsdale.com, now known as TheDirty, as well as a perception among some that he is unqualified.

“Ask anybody what they know about him and they’ll tell you the racy website and his daddy used to be vice president,” O’Neil said.

But some of the numbers don’t quite add up, said GOP consultant Chris Baker. Hulburd has aggressively courted female Republican voters, even running an ad on a Christian radio station bashing Quayle over his ties to the website. But the PPP poll showed Hulburd faring better among Republican men than women.

And 281 of the 655 respondents listed themselves as moderates, with 66 percent choosing Hulburd. The poll, however, didn’t break down the party affiliation of the self-described moderates. Baker said 60 to 65 percent of Republicans usually identify themselves as conservatives.

“My sense is the poll itself is heavy on moderate Republicans, and that’s probably what’s throwing Hulburd’s numbers up,” he said.

Aside from the robocall methodology, the poll didn’t have any glaring deficiencies. Its sample of 655 likely voters leaned heavily on Republican and independent voters, and the “who would you vote for” questions were asked first, before other questions that could’ve swayed the respondents’ answers, O’Neil said.

The Hulburd campaign played up Quayle’s unfavorable ratings. Campaign spokesman Josh Abner also touted Hulburd’s whopping 66 to 27 lead among the 281 respondents who identified themselves as moderates.

“Arizonans have seen Ben Quayle in action – he miscalculated the federal budget by $11 trillion and they know about his ever-changing story on writing for a sex-steeped website,” said Hulburd spokesman Josh Abner. “Voters also know Ben Quayle doesn’t have the chops to get our economy moving again and is simply another politician trying to cash in on a last name.”

Quayle campaign spokesman Jay Heiler’s only response was that Quayle is “very confident about the progress of the race.”

“We … advise the Hulburd campaign to rely heavily on the data,” Heiler quipped.

O’Neil doesn’t put a lot of faith in the poll but said it’s better than nothing, as long as people recognize its flaws.

“Here’s your choice – you either have no information or information from a methodology that I don’t put a whole lot of stock in. I’ll go for imperfect information over no information, but would I stake my life on it? Nope,” O’Neil said.

-Jeremy Duda

Arizona Capitol Times captured 20 awards in this year’s Arizona Newspapers Association Better Newspapers Contest, including eight first place awards.

Judges recognized the Capitol Times with overall first place honors in the page design, special section/supplement or magazine and website categories. The paper earned second place in general excellence.

Managing Editor Matt Bunk said the awards reflect the newsroom staff’s expertise in parsing complex legislative and political issues for readers.

“These awards are an affirmation that our reporting has helped readers understand some of the most complex and dynamic political issues of our time,” Bunk said. “But more than that, we hope to provide a meaningful contribution to the public discourse and, in ways big and small, to the improvement of our state as a whole.”

Fifty-three Arizona newspapers submitted more than 1,300 entries in this year’s contest, which was judged by the Nevada Press Association. Papers submitted entries in nine general quality categories and 18 individual categories. The Capitol Times competes in the non-daily, circulation less than 3,500 division.

Award winners were announced during the ANA’s 2010 Fall Convention at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication on Oct. 16.

The complete list of awards won by the Arizona Capitol Times team is below:

Overall Awards
Division: Non-daily, circulation less than 3,500
Page Design Excellence: 1st
Newspaper Online Site/Web Page: 1st
Special Section, Newspaper Supplement or Magazine: 1st (Going Green)
General Excellence: 2nd
Reporting & Newswriting Excellence: 3rd
Community Service/Journalistic Achievement: 3rd
Individual Awards:
Division: Non-daily, circulation less than 3,500
Best Headline: 1st – Echo Chambers: Long session led to many missed votes (Josh Coddington)
Best Headline: 3rd – Taxes on smokes, cokes and booze might save AHCCCS (Don Harris)
Best News Story: 1st – How did we get into this mess? (Jim Small)
Best News Story: 2nd – Tyne’s ouster a sign of things to come (Jeremy Duda)
Investigative Reporting: 2nd – Coming up short (Jim Small)
Enterprise Reporting: 2nd – Gun fight brewing at Legislature (Jim Small)
Enterprise Reporting: 3rd – States’ rights showdown (Jeremy Duda, Luige del Puerto)
Best Column, Analysis or Commentary: 1st – Put Diaz back in the ring (Matt Bunk)
Best Column, Analysis or Commentary: 2nd – Sheriff Joe, a non-existent U.S. law and the next crime sweep (Matt Bunk)
Best Column, Feature or Criticism: 1st – Lawmakers’ first duty: Show up and vote (Matt Bunk)
Best Column, Feature or Criticism: 2nd – Bankruptcy filings show Tribune publisher was paid $334,000 last year (Matt Bunk)
Best Multimedia Storytelling: 2nd – Palin lends star power to McCain at Tucson rally (Evan Wyloge)
Best News Photograph: 2nd – Protesting SB1070 (Matt Bunk)
Best Feature Photo Layout: 1st – Reading, Riding and ‘Rithmetic (Bill Coates)

Click here for the complete list of the 2010 ANA Better Newspapers Contest winners.

- Josh Coddington

U.S. Rep. Raul Grijalva

This year, if you are a Democratic congressperson who voted for the federal health care law, didn’t call loudly enough for tough new immigration laws or supported the stimulus act – then voters feel as though you have a lot of explaining to do.

Three of the five Democrats who represent Arizona in Congress are in serious trouble this year. Polls show Democrats Harry Mitchell, Gabrielle Giffords and Ann Kirkpatrick are running neck and neck with their Republican challengers.

Each of those Democrats is running in a district that is split fairly evenly – neither Republicans or Democrats have a wide voter registration advantage. And each of them supported those unpopular policies, which is now coming back to hurt them on the campaign trail.

But perhaps the most revealing indication of just how big the Republican wave could be in Arizona is the race in Arizona’s 7th Congressional District. Incumbent Democrat Raul Grijalva seems to be in a fairly tight race in what has been a Democratic stronghold ever since the district lines were drawn.

Republican newcomer Ruth McClung has gained a lot of traction this year by running an anti-establishment campaign, and she is presumably getting a big boost from Grijalva’s announcement earlier this year calling for the boycotts against Arizona after the state immigration law was passed.

The fact that Grijalva’s race is even close illustrates how significant the Republican movement is in this state – and it shows how voters are reacting to politicians who are soft on immigration.

- Matt Bunk

A condemned inmate asked the Arizona Supreme Court Oct. 13 to postpone his execution until after the gubernatorial election.

Jeffrey Landrigan argues in legal briefs that Gov. Jan Brewer has political incentive to go forward with the Oct. 26 execution even if the Arizona Board of Executive Clemency recommends against it.

Landrigan is scheduled to go before the clemency board Oct. 22 in a last-ditch effort to save his life.

Landrigan argues that Brewer’s opponent, Democrat Terry Goddard, has made an issue out of recent prison escapes and she can repair any political damage he has caused by not appearing weak on the death sentence, especially since Landrigan committed his murder in Arizona after escaping from an Oklahoma prison.

“For Landrigan, the issue of prison security has arisen in a contentious political campaign at a most inopportune time,” wrote Sylvia Lett, Landrigan’s federal public defender.

Lett pointed out that Goddard as Attorney General is also aggressively trying to kill Landrigan in his representation of the state in the capital case.

The prison break has been a hot topic in the governor’s race.

Goddard pointed out that Brewer cut the corrections budget by $67 million and he has been critical of her ties to the private prison industry. Some of her closest aides have ties to the industry.

Goddard has also hammered Brewer on the issue in campaign ads.
Three convicted murderers escaped from a privately run state prison near Kingman July 30.

Two of them were captured within days, but the third, John McKluskey, stands accused of killing an Oklahoma couple during his 19 days on the lam.

An investigation found that the state was lax on its oversight of the prison and a series of failures, including a broken alarm system and two unobservant detention officers, led to the escape.

“. . . Governor Brewer will confront the question of whether to show mercy to a prison escapee after prison escapes have exposed a weakness in Governor Brewer’s record as governor,” Lett wrote.

Landrigan, now 48, was sentenced to death in Maricopa County for the 1989 stabbing and strangling of Chester Dyer of Phoenix. The killing occurred a month after Landrigan escaped from an Oklahoma prison where he was serving terms for a 1982 murder and a 1986 prison stabbing.

When Landrigan goes before the Board of Executive Clemency, he will present an affidavit from the Maricopa County Superior Court judge who sentenced him to death.
Judge Cheryl Hendrix, who retired in 2001, said if she knew now what she didn’t know in 1990, then she would have spared his life.

Hendrix said that Landrigan’s outbursts during the sentencing, his criminal record and paucity of mitigating evidence presented by his attorney left her no choice but to sentence him to death.

Hendrix said she has since learned that Landrigan has evidence of organic brain damage from fetal alcohol syndrome, she has learned about his genetic predispositions and his birth mother’s abandonment. Those circumstances would have outweighed the aggravating factors in the case, Hendrix said.

- Gary Grado

Let’s talk about polls. More specifically, let’s talk about the polls that have recently generated headlines claiming Terry Goddard has erased what some said was a 20-point lead for Jan Brewer, and that Felecia Rotellini and Tom Horne are neck and neck in the contest for attorney general. There are two things driving those stories: inattention to detail by reporters and sleight of hand by the pollster.

The poll on the governor’s race was released Oct. 11 by Behavior Research Center as part of its periodic Rocky Mountain Poll series, which largely focuses on politics and campaigns. Publications across the country latched on to the story, as it makes for good copy: Jan Brewer appeared invincible after signing SB1070, but now she’s about to be toppled by her Democratic challenger. That story line was promoted by BRC in its release announcing the poll, which touted Brewer’s slim three-point lead.

If that were true, it certainly would be news. But it’s not. The poll was of 555 registered voters, but a sizeable number of them said they didn’t plan to vote this year. In fact, only 405 of the respondents said they were certain they would vote. Among those people – really, the only ones that matter – Brewer was up by double digits, leading Goddard 46-35, a far cry from the 38-35 lead the poll’s narrative claimed she had.

Likewise, today’s Rocky Mountain Poll on the attorney general race touts the results from the larger pool of voters in its headline: “Attorney General a Dead Heat.” Among all of the surveyed voters, the race is tied at 34 points, while Horne has a 40-36 lead among the likely voters. (The margin of error on the likely voter figures are 4.96 percent, which means the race is very close – just not as close as the pollster indicates.)

Many of my colleagues in the Fourth Estate treated the polls as gospel and unflinchingly reported as fact in both print and on television the “news” that Brewer’s large lead had magically evaporated. That shouldn’t have passed the smell test for reporters, especially when Rasmussen Reports said less than two weeks ago that Brewer had a 55-39 lead. Yes, Rasmussen’s methodology – the firm uses autodial polling, not interviews from live operators – is routinely questioned, but its figures on the governor’s race largely match figures from private polling other reporters and I have heard about.

Some got it right: Both Howie Fischer, dean of the Capitol press corps, and Arizona Capitol Times reporter Jeremy Duda wrote stories that either ignored the poll results from the “registered voters” or correctly noted they were announced, but weren’t the most important figures in the poll.

We need to be more diligent, especially when it comes to reporting on polling. Polls are important, but they are not infallible. They are not gospel, but merely a snapshot of a specific moment in a race. Reporters have a duty to carefully examine polls, not just take their results at face value and parrot those numbers to the public.

Grant Woods’ critics on the right may not be able to expel him from the GOP, but they may get the next best thing if they can strip him of his voting rights at the Maricopa County Republican Party.

The county GOP’s 30-person Executive Guidance Committee is set to vote at its Oct. 7 meeting on whether to take away the former attorney general’s voting rights under a by-law that prohibits precinct committeeman from endorsing Democrats. Woods riled many in the party by endorsing Democrat Felecia Rotellini for attorney general over Republican Tom Horne.

The committee will also decide whether to strip the voting rights of PCs Kahryn Nix and Sue Gerard, former state senator and ex-director of the Arizona Department Health Services. Both are Republican precinct committeemen who, like Woods, publicly endorsed Rotellini as part of her “Republicans for Felecia” event.

Woods isn’t taking the affair quite as seriously as Maricopa County GOP Chairman Rob Haney. In an Oct. 6 letter filled with sarcasm and one-liners, Woods mocked Haney and expressed scorn for the process.

“I am disappointed that I won’t be able to vote on your important resolutions on ‘issues’ such as secession from the union and the never-ending pursuit of the president’s birth certificate, but I will get over it,” wrote Woods, who served as attorney general from 1991 to 1999.

Woods scoffed at the notion that he can’t support the candidate he believes is best for the job, and stood by his backing of Rotellini, whom he hired during his time at the Attorney General’s Office. Just several months ago, he noted, many Republicans who supported former Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas in the GOP primary said Horne wasn’t fit for the job.

“According to you, if there was a hypothetical race between Thomas Jefferson, Democrat, and Lindsay Lohan, Republican, I could not endorse Jefferson over Lohan,” Woods wrote.

Haney, however, said the issue is not whether a Republican can support a Democrat. It’s whether an elected official of the party can do so.

“We’re not talking about just a mainstream Republican. A Republican precinct committeeman is obligated, by the very name, to work for Republican candidates,” Haney said.

The Maricopa County GOP approved a by-law in 2006 to deal with just such an occasion after numerous Republicans – including Gerard, Nix and Woods – joined up with former Gov. Jan Napolitano’s reelection. Woods referred to the by-law in his letter as the “Haney rule.”

“There were a number of people enraged who said we should kick them out of the party or do something like that. My position was you cannot do that but you probably can remove their voting privileges internally in the party,” Haney said.

Haney said the by-law was last used in 2008. He wouldn’t say who the targets were, but said several PCs lost their voting rights after endorsing third-party candidates over Sen. John McCain in the presidential race.

Woods said he doesn’t care what happens at the committee meeting. He can’t attend because he’s out of town, he said, but wouldn’t attend if were back in the Valley either. Woods said he hasn’t attended a county GOP meeting since the 1990s, when he was attorney general.

As for Haney, Woods said he doesn’t know the chairman personally, but said his sharp words for Haney may have rubbed him the wrong way. In recent GQ article about McCain, whom Woods has close ties with, Woods said he referred to Haney as “a nut.”

Woods noted that Haney has been a sharp critic of McCain’s, and in his letter he accused Haney of spending “most of the past decade publicly condemning and working against many of our Republican elected officials, including our last nominee for president.”

“The only thing I know about him is hearing stories about him in action,” Woods told the Arizona Capitol Times. “He has a long history of berating people and haranguing people who are anywhere to the left of Atilla the Hun.”

At Rotellini’s Sept. 23 press conference to announce “Republicans for Felecia,” the former banking regulator said she felt Woods was representative of most Republicans in Arizona. Woods said his Republican credentials were strong and pointed out his prominent roles on McCain and Gov. Jan Brewer’s campaigns.

Haney, however, disagreed, and dismissed Woods’ assertion that, as the former AG and the only Republican elected to the position in the past 20 years, he is in a better position to judge who is most qualified to serve as attorney general.

“That didn’t show a lot of sense to me, because he endorsed JN, and look what we got with JN. So if that’s an example of his legal acumen, I’m not impressed with his decision,” Haney said.

-Jeremy Duda