POLITICO discovers the Martha McSally gambit
June 19, 2012
Posted by AzblueMeanie:
Blog for Arizona told you about the Martha McSally gambit: her campaign was telling voters to vote for Ron Barber in the Special Election to defeat Jesse Kelly so they could vote for her in the August GOP primary.
(Anecdote: The hand-count auditors who audited the Special Election ballots in Pima County last Saturday tell me that there were some write-in votes for Martha McSally. These votes were not counted because McSally was not a qualified write-in candidate, so we will never know how many voters cast their ballot for McSally).
On Monday, POLITICO reported that Ron Barber staffer claims strange encounter with GOP aide – POLITICO.com:
In the waning days of last week’s hard-fought Arizona special election, Democrat Ron Barber’s aides said they received some unsolicited advice from an unexpected source: the campaign of a Republican who covets the House seat Barber will soon be sworn into.
On the Thursday before the election, a top aide to Republican Martha McSally, a retired Air Force officer and a tea party favorite, approached a Barber aide at an event on the University of Arizona’s Tucson campus. That’s when something strange happened, according to the Barber campaign: The McSally aide, spokesman Sam Stone, offered the 22-year-old Barber staffer advice on how to beat Jesse Kelly, the GOP nominee who was running against Barber in the special election.
Stone had plenty of reason to want Barber to win: His boss, McSally, is a candidate for the Southern Arizona seat in the regularly scheduled November election. Had Kelly defeated Barber, it would have all but ended McSally’s hope of winning the seat because she would have had to run against an incumbent Republican. A Kelly loss, on the other hand, would have made her the odds-on favorite to rival Barber in the fall.
Mission accomplished!
Jonathan ‘Payday’ Paton: ‘never mind’
June 19, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: One does not file an election challenge to a candidate's petitions unless one has done the research and knows for certain that there are enough invalid signatures to disqualify the candidate. Otherwise, what is the point? Jonathan "Payday" Paton pulled an Emily Litella on Monday: "Never mind." The Arizona Capitol Times (subscription … Read more
Americans support increased spending on their favored programs
June 18, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: At first blush, the American voter would appear to suffer from cognitive dissonance. They will say that they believe in a broad concept, such as reducing the federal deficit, but when you ask them about specific programs, Americans will say that they support more spending on such programs. This is largely the … Read more
The [not so] surprising reason Imagine Environmental School in Pittsburgh was turned down
June 18, 2012
by
by David Safier Ah, the joys of semi-focused googling. I just found with this gem from 2007. Imagine Schools wanted to open The Environmental Charter School at Frick Park, but Pittsburgh Public Schools turned them down. Get ready for the reason . . . Imagine's Environmental Charter School hadn't developed an environmental curriculum. True, they … Read more
Grand Jury investigating Tom ‘banned for life by the SEC’ Horne
June 18, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie: I wish I knew more about the FBI probe into Arizona politicians, but if I did, I would be in a position that I could not comment. I only know what I learn from the media. The Phoenix Business Journal reports Grand jury investigation looks at Arizona Attorney General’s campaign finance – Phoenix Business Journal: A grand … Read more
SCOTUS Watch: quick recap of Monday opinions
June 18, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The Justices are just toying with the media now. What everyone is waiting for will have to wait until this Thursday, or next week.
Here is a quick recap of the opinions announced today. Amy Howe from SCOTUSblog summarizes the cases, followed by a link to today's opinions. Remaining merits cases: In Plain English : SCOTUSblog:
Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak
Argued on April 24, 2012
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether the Quiet Title Act, which provides that the United States may not be sued in disputes about the title to land held in trust for Indian Tribes, applies to all lawsuits involving land in which the United States “claims an interest,” or whether it instead applies only when the plaintiff claims title to the land; and (2) whether an individual’s right to sue under federal law can be based on either (i) his ability to “police” an agency’s compliance with the law or (ii) interests protected by a different federal statute than the one on which suit is based.
8-1 Decision affirming the Court of Appeals with Justice Sotomayor dissenting. The opinion in Match-E-Be-Nash-She-Wish v. Patchak is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-246.pdf.
Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter
Argued on April 18, 2012
Plain English Issue: When Congress has authorized Native American tribes to take over federal programs from the government and receive reimbursement, but it has also capped the amount of money that can be spent for costs to administer and support the contracts for those federal programs, must a tribe still be fully reimbursed for its costs, or should the federal government instead divide the available funds among the tribes, even if that means that the tribes will receive less than their full costs?
5-4 decision in favor of the Tribe being paid for the full amount of contract support. The opinion in Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter is here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-551.pdf.
Imagine Schools: Clueless on Schooling?
June 18, 2012
by
by David Safier I have never witnessed as many ex-teachers and administrators with ill feelings toward a school as I have heard coming from people who used to work for Imagine Schools. I've received comments and emails from teachers, principals and upper level administrators in Arizona and across the country who left with very bad … Read more
SCOTUS Watch: Time to Decide
June 17, 2012
Posted by AzBlueMeanie:
The last two weeks of June are always viewed with a combination of trepidation and excitement by attorneys. This is traditionally the time that the U.S. Supreme Court announces its most controversial decisions of the term before the federal government leaves town for the July 4th break.
There were 67 cases argued this term, a lesser number of cases than in previous terms, but with several highly controversial political cases. Of the cases argued, 53 cases have been decided. Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog has a list of the Remaining merits cases: In Plain English, which includes these controversial cases that will have political repurcussions in the fall election that we will be following:
The health care cases:
Argued March 26-28, 2012
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to require virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty; and (2) whether the Anti-Injunction Act, which prohibits taxpayers from filing a lawsuit to challenge a tax until the tax goes into effect and they are required to pay it, prohibits a challenge to the Act’s provision requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty until after the provision goes into effect in 2014.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.
Plain English Issue: (1) Whether Congress can require states to choose between complying with provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or losing federal funding for the Medicaid program; and (2) whether, if the Court concludes that the provision of the Act requiring virtually all Americans to obtain health insurance or pay a penalty is unconstitutional, the rest of the Act can remain in effect or must also be invalidated.
Also, the federal preemption question regarding SB 1070:
Argued on April 25, 2012
Plain English Issue: Whether an Arizona law that, among other things, requires police officers to check the immigration status of anyone whom they arrest, allows police to stop and arrest anyone whom they believe to be an illegal immigrant, makes it a crime for someone to be in the state without valid immigration papers, and makes it a crime to apply for or hold a job in Arizona without proper papers, is invalid because it is trumped by federal immigration laws.
