Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
Ah, senator-elect Jonathan Paton (R-Dist. 30) is up to his old tricks again. Paton is in the business of "gimmicks-R-us" to generate news ink to keep his name in the newspapers. (Unfortunately, I will have to indulge his narcissism once more here.)
Who could forget when Paton got the vapors and his delicate sensibilities were offended by a speech given by labor activist Dolores Huerta at Tucson High in which she said that "Republicans hate Latinos." Paton and his Republican cohorts immediately turned to demagoguery by branding Huerta's comment "hate speech" and held a committee hearing to consider limiting the First Amendment rights of free speech and political expression in public schools. (Why is the first inclination of every Republican to always attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?) Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and a more reasonable compromise was reached.
More recently, Paton staked out a new role as the defender of children and families against the big bad Child Protective Services (CPS). In the interest of full disclosure, I have in the past represented clients against CPS and I would be the first to agree that reforms were both needed and necessary. Principally the obvious fact that CPS is woefully understaffed, overworked and underfunded by the Arizona Legislature to enable that agency to do its job in the manner expected by the Legislature. But Paton was moved by his penchant for demagoguery on this issue, once again. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed and more responsible reforms were enacted.
Now Jonathan Paton suddenly fancies himself some kind of an expert on election law. With recent speculation about Congressman Raul Grijalva going to the Interior Department and touching off a series of resignations and appointments of state legislators and county supervisors, Paton proposed a new law requiring that a special election be held to fill any vacancies which occur in office. Even though we just held an election in November. And even though the state would never offer to reimburse the counties for the expense of a special election. Paton's true interest was the purely partisan interest of a second bite at the apple, so to speak, in a special election. Hopefully his lame-brained proposal is dead on arrival.
The news story that his proposal generated must have whetted his appetite for more news ink, because now Paton is proposing that the Arizona Legislature override the City of Tucson Charter, and the express will of its voters, by dictating that Tucson's city council elections must be both "nonpartisan" and "ward only." Tucson's election process is under fire Oh, this totalitarian dictate has generated Paton some news ink alright, but not quite what he expected.
The Arizona Daily Star correctly noted that "Tucsonans have rejected nonpartisan elections at the polls many times, most recently in 1993. Efforts since, including an initiative drive in 1998 and lobbying campaigns in 2001 and 2003, failed to make it to the ballot. Initiative drives to change the city's ward system have failed as well, most recently in 2007."
Paton's bill would "also abolish Tucson's unique system where its council members are nominated by ward but are elected citywide.
That system has been in place since 1929 and has survived several public votes and failed initiative drives."
The Arizona Daily Star editorialized on Tuesday Tucsonans should decide how city is run:
[P]aton, a Republican, is planning to introduce legislation in the Legislature to to impose a nonpartisan City Council system on Tucson, according to a story Monday by O'Dell. Please note: In January, this body will be dominated by Maricopa County and by highly partisan Republicans.
Well, don't tread on us, Phoenix.
If Tucson's City Council system is to be reformed, the changes must flow up to the ballot from local citizens and must be accepted or rejected by Tucson voters. Our local governance choices are none of the Legislature's business, nor Paton's.
The editors concluded that we "see it purely as a matter of local autonomy. Tucson voters should run Tucson city government."
Rep. Phil Lopes (D-Dist. 27) weighed in with a guest opinion on Thursday Republicans imposing their will on Tucson in which he wryly noted that:
State Sen.-elect Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican who is slated to chair the Senate Judiciary Committee, plans to use his power in Phoenix to mandate ward elections. Apparently he doesn't care that Tucson has repeatedly rejected the idea. Democracy, it seems, is a messy process that must be discarded when it gets in the way.
Lopes pointed out that Paton claims the current system, in which candidates are nominated at the ward level but are elected citywide, disenfranchises certain segments of the city's populace.
And who would that be? Would it be minorities?
Currently there are two Hispanics serving on the council. This level of Hispanic representation is on the low side. Previous councils have had three or more Hispanic members. For eight years we had an African-American council member.
Are women disenfranchised? Currently four of the seven members are female.
Business owners? Several current members have small-business backgrounds, and Mayor Bob Walkup once was a manager for one of Tucson's largest employers.
Just about the only group that lacks much representation is the Republican Party. In 2005, city voters removed two GOP council members from office, leaving Walkup as the sole Republican. In 2007, voters rejected all the Republican candidates.
If people wanted more Republicans on the council, they could elect them, but apparently they're happy with the current ratio.
Now Paton and his fellow Republicans have several ways to address this inequity. They could nominate candidates who are capable of winning city elections. They've done it in the past, and presumably they can do it again. Walkup, after all, has won three elections in a row.
Or if they truly believe that the City Charter needs to be changed, they can refer the question to voters again, and let the political process decide.
* * *
If Paton believes his own party's rhetoric, he should leave the issue up to the people. If he wants to argue for ward elections, he ought to present his case to city voters, and let them decide.
Even long-time "ward only" elections advocate Jim Sinex of FairElect.org agrees that "The problem with Paton's call for nonpartisan elections is that he hides his partisan proposal under the ideal of fair elections. Removing information from a ballot does not improve an election and allows ideologues to hide behind a veneer of nonpartisanship." Tucson's election system is unfair, but Phoenix should back down Sinex correctly notes that "The state… gives power over local elections to chartered municipalities; so he should therefore concentrate on state elections. There is much to be done there."
Jonathan Paton's narcissistic need for news ink, and his penchant for demagoguery and to dictate to others has grown both tiresome and worrisome. We should keep a wary eye on Jonathan Paton.
(The Gadsden Flag from the American Revolutionary War)