Jonathan ‘Payday’ Paton still trying to subjugate the citizens of Tucson

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

I told you about Jonathan's big day back in January, 2010:

The wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson, Sen. Jonathan Paton, had a big day on Tuesday.

First up was Paton's effort to punish the City of Tucson for being a "liberal bastion" by dictating to its residents how they are to conduct their local elections. Paton and his pals from Maricopa County got together and passed "Paton's Law," a special punitive measure aimed at the City of Tucson and of questionable constitutional validity.

* * *

Next up was Paton's attempt to dictate to the residents of the state of Arizona that you are all just a bunch of rubes for enacting Arizona Clean Elections, Proposition 200 approved by voters in 1998. Arizona Clean Elections has proved to be popular with both voters and candidates seeking office. (In 2000 only 26% of the primary candidates ran using clean elections funding. In 2008 participating candidates increased to 65%.)

* * *

Sen. Ken Cheuvront pointed out that Paton's proposal, while banning public funding of elections, does not spell out where the money still being raised would end up going. Paton conceded the point, saying he would have a separate measure later this session – and a separate ballot question – to deal with that.

"I'm not sure this is an honest way to do it," he said.

Paton, however, said he had a political reason for that decision: A straight-out repeal would be asking people to "repeal Clean Elections," something he said might cause voters to have second thoughts about killing the system.

Paton's deviousness and authoritarian streak ought to give people pause and concern.

"Paton's Law" attempted to dicate to the City of Tucson, a charter city, that its city elections had to be non-partisan and election by ward only. The City of Tucson challenged "Paton's Law" as violative of the Arizona Constitution, and the Court of Appeals agreed. Victory for the City of Tucson over 'Paton's Law':

The holding of the Court of Appeals:

The city argues the court erred because the Tucson city charter regarding local elections supersedes the legislature‟s 2009 amendments to A.R.S. § 9-821.01. Because the method and manner of conducting municipal elections is solely a matter of local concern, we reverse and remand.

That decision is now on appeal to the Arizona Supreme Court. The Court will decide on October 25 whether to hear the appeal. AZ Supreme Court to decide on hearing Tucson election, Glendale casino cases (Arizona Capitol Times, subscription required):

[T]he state is asking the high court to overturn the Court of Appeals ruling that provisions governing city elections in Tucson’s city charter trump a 2009 state law [Paton's Law] prohibiting cities and towns from holding partisan elections and certain at-large elections.

* * *

The Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Tucson, saying the “method and manner of conducting municipal elections is solely a matter of local concern.”

* * *

“. . . the legislative hearings make it clear that these amendments were an attack on the city’s form of government rather than any attempt to protect the state’s opportunity to bailout from the preclearance requirements of the VRA,” Judge Joseph Howard wrote.

Opponents of the bill have said it is another example of Phoenix meddling in Tucson’s affairs.

"Payday" Paton has a Plan-B should the Arizona Supreme Court reject the appeal or rule against "Paton's Law." Supporters have already filed an initiative to change the Arizona Constitution to do away with partisan elections and to impose a "top two" open primary system. Open primary system would kill Arizona's sole municipal partisan race – East Valley Tribune:

A proposed initiative to create an open primary system for statewide, congressional and legislative races would also wipe out the state's only municipal partisan race in Tucson.

If approved, city primaries would allow all registered voters to select among all candidates regardless of political affiliation. Then the top two vote getters would face off in the general election.

State lawmakers voted last year to ban partisan city elections, a move that sponsors conceded would affect only Tucson.

That law, however, was overruled earlier this year by the Arizona Court of Appeals. The judges said the state Constitution gives charter cities like Tucson broad authority over matters that are solely of local concern.

That ruling, however, would be overridden if voters approve the initiative next year, as it would amend the Arizona Constitution.

The ballot measure to kill Arizona Clean Elections, SCR 1025, was passed by the Tea-Publican legislature during the past session for the 2012 ballot. A legal challenge to that measure is now in court. Judge leery of Clean Elections referendum – Arizona Capitol Times (Subscription required):

A pending ballot referendum that would allow voters to decide the fate of publicly funded political campaigns in Arizona could be deemed illegal by a county judge, but a former lawmaker who has set his sights on Arizona’s Clean Elections system promises voters will have the last word.

During oral arguments held [Monday], Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Dean Fink strongly indicated that he is likely to remove SCR1025 from the ballot on grounds that it violates the single amendment requirement of the state Constitution.

During court arguments, Fink said he had trouble accepting that SCR1025 would effectively force voters to drain government funding accounts for public campaign financing programs for the state and the city of Tucson.

Fink told referendum supporter Clint Bolick, a Goldwater Institute attorney who argued on behalf of a ballot committee formed by former state Sen. Jonathan Paton, that the measure would be far less likely to face single-amendment scrutiny “had this been limited to Clean Elections.”

The judge noted that the referendum, if passed by voters in 2012, would divert both the state’s and Tucson’s money designated at the time for supporting political campaigns into the state’s general fund.

"Payday" Paton has a Plan-B should the Court reject the deceptively named ballot measure to kill Arizona clean elections:

After the hearing, Paton told reporters that he would again lobby the Legislature to pass a referendum aimed at crippling Clean Elections, Arizona’s public campaign finance system for statewide and legislative candidates, if Fink were to rule SCR1025 illegal.

“This is going to be on the ballot next year,” he said, adding that SCR1025 was challenged because supporters of public campaign financing were “terrified” that voters would elect to stop the system responsible for taxpayer money being used for candidate “junk mail and yard signs.”

* * *

Fink did not indicate when he intended to rule on the challenge.

Howard Fischer from Capitol Media Services adds a few more details from the court hearing. Judge scrutinizes leftover cash in public funding of candidates – East Valley Tribune:

Dennis McLaughlin, an assistant city attorney, said Tucson is required to set aside funds ahead of time for future elections. And he said once that has been done, the plain wording of the measure the Republican-controlled Legislature put on the ballot lets anything set aside money be taken.

The amount could be significant. It ranges from $200,000 to $400,000 a year, depending on whether there is an election coming up.

In other words, the Tea-Publican Arizona legislature gets the added bonus of stealing money from the City of Tucson.

This measure would add a provision to the Arizona Constitution making it illegal to collect or spend public funds to support candidates for public office. That same measure also would make it illegal for any government agency to raise revenues for candidate races through any tax, fee or surcharge.

But nowhere in the proposal does it use the words “clean elections.’’ Instead, it asks voter to approve a measure that lawmakers, all foes of the current system, dubbed the “Stop Public Money for Political Candidates’ Campaign Act.’’

Attorney James Ahlers told Fink all of that was done deliberately, calling the measure “the poster child for opaqueness.’’

“The measure goes out of its way not to use the words ‘Clean Elections’ anywhere or explain that it would repeal most of the voter-initiated Clean Election Act,’’ he said. Nor does it mention anywhere that it would kill Tucson’s similar system or “sweep’’ the city’s money into the state general fund.

Former state Sen. Jonathan Paton, a Tucson Republican who has been at the forefront of the latest bids to kill public funding, defended not pointing out to voters the name of the program that would be killed.

Paton, who was at Monday’s hearing, said it will not matter even if Fink declares the measure illegal and the appellate courts agree. He pointed out the Legislature meets again this coming January, giving lawmakers a chance to recraft the measure to meet any legal objections.

He also said he also sees nothing wrong with having a statewide initiative with one of its purposes being to specifically kill Tucson’s public funding system.

“This is a fundamental constitutional issue: Do you believe that funds within the state and its subdivisions should be used to pay for junk mail and yard signs?’’ he said.

Paton said it could have been handled locally. But he said that the Tucson City Council, which could place the measure on the local ballot, has so far refused to do so.

He conceded, though, that foes of Tucson’s system have another option: gather enough signatures for a local initiative. But he said there was a good reason for not doing that.

“It costs a lot of money, just like all ballot measures,’’ Paton said.

Yes, doing it the right way "costs a lot of money." Doing it the democratic way by holding a local election in Tucson means that he could lose and not get his way. So this authoritarian short circuits the democratic process by turning to our colonial overlords in the state of Maricopa to have the "big brother" Arizona legislature subjugate its renegade colony, the City of Tucson, by dictating to the city how it must conduct its elections — all to appease this wannabe tinhorn dictator of Tucson.

At this point, the outraged citizens of Tucson should be ready to run "Payday" Paton out of town on a rail. He is a top candidate for the Tucson Weekly's annual "Get out of Town!" column.