Pearce Recall Update: ‘Sham’ Candidacy Exposed, But Will the Court Act?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Based upon a compilation of reporting on Thursday's hearing challenging the candidacy of Olivia Cortes, here is what we now know:

– Cortes testified that she has given $500 of her own money to fund the campaign but admitted she hasn't yet spent any money.

Which begs the obvious questions, "who paid for professional petition circulators?" and "who paid for her campaign signs?," because these services typically want their money up front or on delivery. And that costs more than $500.

In addition, those Cortes campaign signs are missing the "paid for by" campaign committee disclaimer required by Arizona law.

– Cortes testified "I haven't personally paid for them" even though she lists herself as her own campaign committee chairwoman and treasurer.

Cortes is in legal jeopardy for campaign finance law violations depending upon the information she provides in her campaign finance disclosures. She may have in-kind contributions from third-party interest groups that have also not filed the appropriate campaign finance disclosures in violation of Arizona law — something the public has the right to know before voting.

– Cortes and East Valley Tea Party Chairman Greg Western, who has been helping her with her campaign, both testified that they do not know who paid professional circulators to collect the signatures to get her on the ballot.

– Cortes and Western both testified that they do not know who paid for the signs with her name on them that were put up around west Mesa.

– Cortes testified that she does not know who created her Web site.

– Cortes testified that she did not know about a press release that was recently sent out by her campaign, alleging Cortes is being targeted as a “sham” candidate because she is Hispanic.

– Cortes testified that she refused campaign volunteers because "They were trying to infiltrate my campaign," saying that even included "people from my own church."

– Cortes justified not talking with reporters until the night before Thursday's hearing, telling the judge that when she does agree to speak, "it will be "on my own terms."

Several petition gatherers for Cortes recruited by Western also testified. All admitted they had never met Cortes and knew very little about her before agreeing to collect signatures needed to get her on the ballot.

Maricopa County Republican Party officers Pat Oldroyd and Daniel Grimm were also involved in gathering signatures for Cortes.

Daniel Grimm, also a member of the East Valley Tea Party who lives in another district, testified that "We sought opportunities to find other" candidates. "(Olivia's) name was mentioned as someone who might consider running."

Pat Oldroyd, also active in Tea Party groups, testified that she collected signatures for Cortes, and said she had never met her and knew little about her political positions.

Franklin Bruce Ross, who lives in District 18 and filed an earlier, unsuccessful lawsuit opposing the entire recall, also collected signatures for Cortes at Western's request, despite saying that he and Pearce are "pretty close on political views." He also has never met Cortes and was unfamiliar with her political views.

Suzanne Dreher, one of the paid circulators hired to get Cortes on the ballot, testified she told Pearce supporters they should sign the petitions because having her on the ballot would dilute the anti-Pearce vote. She said that she was instructed by her employer to tell Pearce’s supporters that signing Cortes’ nominating petition would help Pearce keep his seat.

Judge Burke was astonished by all the professed ignorance by both Cortes and Western, especially over campaign funding, asking Cortes' attorney Anthony Tsontakis how that could be. "Honestly, I don't know how to answer that question,'' the lawyer responded. "It's a little hard to believe, isn't it, that some Good Samaritan out there did this for Ms. Cortes?" Burke asked.

Despite the abundance of evidence that Olivia Cortes is a "sham" candidate, in violation of Arizona law, there is the age-old problem in election law matters that judges are loath to get involved, despite what the law or equitable remedies may require. This appears to be a possiblity in this case.

As Howard Fishcer noted in his report, Cortes tells judge she's in recall race to win – East Valley Tribune:

All of that, however, may not legally matter.

Burke told Ryan that people run for office for all sorts of reasons, even those who know they have no chance of winning.

"And there's nothing wrong with that,'' the judge said. And Burke said it might even be argued that people are free to run even if their goal is to help someone else getting elected.

"What's wrong with that in the final analysis?'' he asked.

"You don't get to mislead voters,'' Ryan responded.

Tsontakis told Burke there's another problem with what Ryan wants. He said there is no law allowing him to remove Cortes from the ballot.

He said state law does allow pre-election challenges when a candidate is unqualified to run for office, whether by virtue of being too young, not a citizen or not living in the district, none of which is alleged here.

And Tsontakis argued that Arizona law prohibits election fraud claims to be filed before an election.

Ryan conceded that, strictly speaking, there are no laws to specifically address his claim that she is a sham candidate and have her removed from the ballot.

But he told Burke that waiting until after the election really is not an answer, especially if what he contends is a vote-siphoning scheme works and Pearce wins. He said the judge has broad powers of "equity'' to right a wrong.

Burke, however, indicated he is not convinced.

"The statutes don't seem to cover this situation."

A more practical concern is that more than 70,000 ballots already have been printed, 102 of them have been mailed to military and overseas voters and two of those already have been marked and sent back.

Ryan suggested mailing out new ballots with an explanation. And if nothing else, he said Burke can order the vote to go on, but with a court order that ballots marked for Cortes not be counted and that signs informing voters of that be erected in all polling places.

Judge Burke said he would rule by Monday. My guess is that he will not remove Olivia Cortes from the ballot.

But this court hearing has exposed Cortes as a "sham" candidate being manipulated by Tea-Publican operatives in Maricopa County to aid "King" Russell Pearce. If he is so confident of victory, why did he need a stalking horse candidate? The people who have handled this sham candidacy have bungled it so badly that it reflects poorly on the machinations of the Maricopa County Republican Party and "King" Russell Pearce. Their contempt for the voters and the democratic process has been exposed. Make them pay for their conmtemptuous arrogance by voting for Jerry Lewis.

UPDATE: Stephen Lemons at the Phoenix New Times posted his usual excellent analysis after I posted this. A must read. Russell Pearce's Tea Party on Trial: Olivia Cortes Plays "Useful Idiot" – Phoenix New Times.