Arizona Capitol Times Your Inside Source for Arizona Government, Politics and Business

I’d be lying if I said I was not extremely disappointed by being voted out in a recall election. It has been an honor to serve the people of Arizona in the legislature for the last decade and I am sad to go under these circumstances.

There is still much to be done, even though we lead the nation in many areas, such as economic recovery, safer neighborhoods, job creation, quality education, 2nd Amendment freedom, lower taxes, less regulation, defense of the unborn, protection of property rights, and yes, a return to the principles laid down by our Founding Fathers.

Reid Buckley, brother of the late political commentator William F. Buckley, Jr., used to ask audiences, “Do you know how high a pile one million bucks would make in thousand dollar bills?” After a pause, he would answer: “Seven inches.” Then he asked, “Now, do you know how high a pile one billion bucks would make in thousand dollar bills?” Again, after a pause: “Well, 28 feet higher than the Washington Monument.”

When the drafters of Proposition 106 took their idea to the ballot in 2000, they knew they had to address the possibility of the state needing to remove a member of the Independent Redistricting Commission. They wrote that a commission member could be removed by the governor, with the support of two-thirds of the state Senate, for acts considered “gross misconduct” or “substantial neglect of duty.” Thank goodness they included that in the proposition approved by Arizona voters.

The best defense is a good offense. I’ve heard that all my life, but have never seen it more cleverly demonstrated than in Arizona’s current redistricting process. The governor’s latest attempt to de-rail the independent redistricting process elevates this axiom to a new high (or low).

Arizona’s now infamous SB1070, the tough anti-immigration law, was to be only the start for Senate President Russell Pearce. Upon passage of this legislation, he set about to get a series of bills so extreme that they were rejected by even his conservative legislative colleagues, the very same people who had just passed SB1070.

Arizona election law is outdated and needs reform. A few issues in the current system receive perennial attention in the media. For example, liberal groups commonly cite anonymous funding of political speech as a major defect in our system, while conservative activists frequently question the constitutionality of the state’s extraordinarily low contribution limits. Many other gaps in Arizona election law are just as real, but not as well-known.

It seems that sleazy political tricks are oozing through every crack in the sidewalk. From Washington to Chicago to Mesa, political figures will say and do just about anything to get elected — or to prevent someone else from getting elected.

If a silver lining exists to the explosive growth of national power over the past several years, it is that Americans are turning to their federal and state constitutions, reading them, understanding them, and invoking them to protect their rights.

The Arizona university system fiscal year 2013 budget request asks the state to begin reinvesting in higher education. It represents the end of a nightmare that students and parents have been living through with the past four years of budget cuts that have resulted in 90 percent tuition increases.

The Arizona Constitution, Article 7 section 12, charges the Legislature with the duty to “maintain the purity of elections.” Arizona case law has held that attempting to place a “diversionary candidate” on the ballot is illegal. A “diversionary candidate” is one who is in the race solely to divert votes from a particular candidate so as to give an advantage to another candidate. The recent lawsuit to have Olivia Cortes removed from the race was filed to honor the rule of law.