Law, order and debate
Attorney General Terry Goddard, a Democrat, squares off against his Republican opponent, Bill Montgomery, on Channel 8’s Horizon. The Arizona Capitol Times co-sponsored the debate.

Candidates for the office of Arizona attorney general squared off Oct. 4, each accusing the other of engaging in political manipulation on the testy subjects of crime and illegal immigration, while the two largely agreed on upcoming ballot initiatives.
The debate was televised on KAET-Channel 8 and was sponsored by Arizona Capitol Times and the Citizens Clean Elections Commission. The debate can be seen on the CCEC Web site.
Republican candidate Bill Montgomery alleged that incumbent Democrat Terry Goddard has stood idly with “no plan, no vision” while Arizona, due to illegal immigration and drugs, has boasted the “worst crime rate in the nation” for six years, citing the latest FBI uniform crime report.
He said Mr. Goddard has hampered law enforcement efforts by failing to secure more funding during periods of high levels of government spending.
“Social spending increased 39 percent, public safety (spending) increased 18 percent and that was a missed opportunity,” said Mr. Montgomery, a former Maricopa County deputy prosecutor and Gulf War veteran.
Mr. Goddard contested the accusations; stating that crime has dropped each year he has served in office, and 15 percent overall since he was elected attorney general four years ago. And to bring up the topic is a discredit to law enforcement agencies, he said.
He said he has fought for additional salaries for highway patrol, prosecuting identity theft and methamphetamine abusers, but stated the Attorney General’s Office is primarily designed to combat fraud.
“We are primarily formed at the AG’s office to go after complex financial fraud,” he said. “That’s the authority of the statewide grand jury.”
Both agree meth proposition
Both candidates supported Prop. 301, which would amend a 1996 initiative to allow the incarceration in first and second time meth possession cases.
“Somebody that has a meth problem needs help immediately and one of the most powerful ways a judge can get them help is to have the threat of a jail term hanging over them,” said Mr. Goddard, who called the powerful stimulant the “number one cause of violence against children and spouses.”
Mr. Montgomery voiced support for the initiative, but said he would prefer to see mandatory jail sentences for people convicted of first-time meth offenses — and the option of life sentences for second offenses.
Consensus was also voiced in support of Prop. 100, which would amend the state Constitution to prohibit bail for illegal aliens charged with serious felonies.
“This is an important tool in the array of measures we can and should take to change that environment,” said Mr. Montgomery, referring to Arizona’s status as a smuggling hub for drugs and people from Mexico.
Prop. 100 is a good idea, but as attorney general, Mr. Goddard said he has urged bail denial in such cases for years, noting an August announcement that a $1 million cash bond from a suspect was seized in a case involving the Attorney General’s Office after a Maricopa County Superior Court judge was convinced it was from illegal drug sales.
The host of the debate, Michael Grant, asked for comments on Prop. 300, which he regarded as a “sequel to Prop 200,” a 2004 initiative that required that proof of citizenship is shown in order to qualify for most public benefits.
Many people, added Mr. Grant, felt that Prop. 300, which would limit child care assistance and education benefits to U.S. citizens, is on the 2006 ballot because a legal opinion issued by Mr. Goddard’s office had “gutted” Prop 200.
The attorney general said an original author of Prop. 200 had praised the legal opinion as capturing the spirit of the initiative as “if they had been in the original room where they drafted it” and said his legal staff had met to make sure they could defend the initiative before it even passed.
He said that he has also defended it against five lawsuits and that it should be the “law of the land.”
His challenger greatly differed on his comments, charging that Mr. Goddard had erred in the opinion, which as he claims cut down the amount of services not obtainable by illegal aliens to only five — with two of those pertaining to eyeglasses.
“It was narrowed to the point that Proposition 300 was needed, said Mr. Montgomery, who than added that the attorney general had improperly advised the secretary of state to push for further legislation to implement changes to statute in order to enforce voter identification requirements as part of Prop. 200.
“And twice she did it and twice it was vetoed by the governor,” Mr. Montgomery said.
That charge was rebutted by Mr. Goddard, who said the proposition would have been much easier to defend with the additions, and that similar voter identification requirements had been defeated in other states because they caused “undue burden” to voters.
“My opinion was right on and would have improved the odds to support Prop. 200 against legal challenge, he said.
The pair also dueled over whether illegal aliens who use the services of human smugglers can be charged with a crime under human smuggling laws passed last session.
Mr. Montgomery favored the idea and accused Mr. Goddard of undermining it, while the attorney general said the bill’s focus was on smugglers.
Prosecuting individuals who use the services is a waste of time when they could instead be deported, he said.