Paton’s Law subjugates the City of Tucson to the State of Maricopa

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

An update to Jonathan's big day.

Earlier this year, the wannabe tin horn dictator of Tucson, Sen. Jonathan Paton, dictated the surrender of the City of Tucson with respect to the Rio Nuevo District board, ensuring that the GOP Taliban from the State of Maricopa would hand-pick their insurgents in Pima County to take control of the Rio Nuevo District board away from the citizens of Tucson.

Imagine, if you will, the reverse of this scenario: Tucson dictating to the City of Phoenix the membership of its redevelopment authority. It would never happen. Why? Because sixty percent of the state legislature comes from the State of Maricopa. The GOP Taliban uses the state legislature as a quasi board of supervisors to benefit the State of Maricopa, bypassing the entirely dysfunctional Maricopa County government. They would never stand for legislators from the Free Republic of Arizona dictating terms to them. The state legislature is their plaything to abuse power.

GOP Taliban insurgents in Southern Arizona have betrayed their Southern Arizona constituents in tribute to the GOP Taliban from the State of Maricopa. Their objective is to subjugate Southern Arizona, and to subjugate that "liberal bastion" of Tucson in particular, to GOP Taliban control from the State of Maricopa.

Paton's Law, voiding the elections provisions of the City of Tucson Charter and disregarding the principles of self governance and the will of the voters in a democratic election (Republicans have a real problem with democracy and respecting the will of the voters), imposed on the City of Tucson the requirement that it's elections must be "nonpartisan" — the irony in this partisanship motivated dictate is glaring — and that council members must be elected by ward only. The GOP Taliban Council dictated by fiat. The citizens of Tucson were denied their right to self governance to decide for themselves by a democratic vote in a democratic election. Tucsonans have been disenfranchised of their vote by the GOP Taliban Council. (Tucsonans have rejected nonpartisan elections four times in previous elections).

Unfortunately, "Tin Horn" won in the first round before the Pima County Superior Court yesterday. Judge tosses city's system of partisan elections:

A ruling Thursday by Superior Court Judge Michael Miller sided with the state Attorney General's Office, which argued the state needs uniform elections. Attorneys for the state also argued the current system disenfranchises voters because a candidate can win his or her own ward but lose citywide.

On the broader question, as someone who is familiar with the elections departments of the 15 counties in Arizona, I find the "uniform elections" argument laughable on its face. There is wide disparity in technology, staffing, capabilities, funding and operational rules and procedures among the 15 counties in conducting elections. The one thing we do not have in Arizona is "uniform elections" despite any claims by the Secretary of State or the Attorney General to the contrary.

Now of course, what the Court is referring to is the narrower question, i.e., state law requires municipal elections to be nonpartisan and ward only. Even on this narrower question there are not "uniform elections" in municipal elections in Arizona. Some communities are mail ballot only elections and some are traditional precinct polling place elections, and some are a combination of both. Some communities hold their council races in March and May in general election years, and others hold their elections in August/September and November (like Tucson) in off year elections.

And even though these municipal elections are purportedly "nonpartisan," the political parties actively support, finance and endorse candidates for municipal office. Only the most uninformed and ignorant voter — and really, do you want this person voting? — would not know which political party supports a particular candidate. One has to suspend disbelief to believe in the fiction of "nonpartisan" elections.

Tucson correctly argued that state lawmakers shouldn't be able to trump local control. State law does not trump the Arizona Constitution, which guarantees that incorporated cities are entitled to self governance under a City Charter. Self governance without interference from the state has been good precedent since the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city of Phoenix in Strode v. Sullivan, 72 Ariz. 360, 363, 236 P.2d 48, 50. (1951). (The case is distinguishable only on the fact that the City of Phoenix objected to the imposition of partisan elections and wanted to retain its nonpartisan municipal elections). I believe the Superior Court order is in conflict with controlling judicial precedent and is subject to being overturned on appeal.

The City of Tucson Council, however, having once already surrendered on the Rio Nuevo District board, appears ready to surrender yet again to the imposition of Taliban dictates over the conduct of City of Tucson elections from the GOP Taliban in the State of Maricopa.

Based upon experience here in Arizona, voter turnout in Tucson elections, already dismally low, will be even lower in nonpartisan elections. In some of the cities in the State of Maricopa, if you can get your family members, friends and coworkers to vote for you, it may be enough for you to be elected to the city council. Voter turnout is shockingly low in the State of Maricopa, and in effect, leads to governance by minority rule (which is what I suspect the GOP Taliban intended).

And for those Republicans who like to sneer about "Chicago style politics," ward only elections lead to the parochialism that alderman in Chicago have enjoyed for years. Ward only elections will create ward bosses who can retain political power in their ward year after year through political patronage and favors to special interests. This may lead to uncontested council races. This will further erode voter turnout as voters become disillusioned that their vote no longer counts.

Finally, I am going to have to call upon my enforcer, "Glove," to beat down the nonsense from "independent" voters. The Daily Star quotes Ellen Rauch, an organizer for Pima Independent Voters, who was thrilled. "It's a win for independents," she said.

With a candidate becoming more important than a party, she said, it will make it easier for independents to get on the ballot. "This is an issue of democracy."

What planet do you live on, lady? It is hard enough to get volunteers for boots on the ground and to raise money for candidates within a well established organized political party that has the infrastructure, resources and years of experience in running campaigns. Some novice independent candidate trying to build a campaign infrastructure from scratch doesn't stand a chance — unless, of course, that candidate is backed by special interest corporate money that provides the campaign its infrastructure. That belies any notion of being "independent," now doesn't it? Such a candidate is merely the tool of the special interest — like Jim Click or SAHBA, for example. What already occurs on an informal basis would become a formal arrangement. And that would not improve local government at all.

Update: Seven of the nine new members of the board that will oversee Tucson's Rio Nuevo downtown redevelopment district have been appointed by Gov. Jan Brewer and Senate President Bob Burns. Brewer had five appointments, Burns two and House of Representatives Speaker Kirk Adams has two, although they haven't been made yet. That's right, the people who have made an art of failure of governing and driving Arizona into bankruptcy were the one's given executive fiat to tell Tucson how to fix its Rio Nuevo project. Insanity.