What the hell is wrong with Howard Fischer?

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Craig posted about a different aspect of this story earlier, Jack Harper wants the taxpayers to give Russell Pearce a quarter-milliion dollar going away gift, but I want to focus on the Capitol Media Services report by Howard Fischer which apears in newspapers across Arizona today: What lies ahead for Pearce? Campaign reimbursement? Sheriff run? – East Valley Tribune:

Arizona voters may not be quite done with Russell Pearce.

Questions of Pearce’s political future aside, a little-known provision of the Arizona Constitution requires the Legislature to act to reimburse any recalled public official his or her “reasonable special election campaign expenses.’’

Only thing is, no one knows exactly what that means — or how it works. That includes Secretary of State Ken Bennett, who is the state’s chief elections officer.

“Our office has no statutory authority to determine the provisions for providing reimbursement of campaign expenses,’’ said spokesman Matt Roberts. He suggested checking with the Senate.

But Wendy Baldo, the Senate chief of staff, said how the statute might work remains an unexplored issue.

* * *

Arizona history provides no guidance, either, as this was the first-ever recall of a state elected official.

What the hell is wrong with Howard Fischer? This is some of the worst reporting I have seen in quite some time.

Fischer's very next paragraph contradicts his previous statement that "Arizona history provides no guidance":

A recall campaign was launched against Evan Mecham after he became governor in 1987. But there never was an election, as the Legislature impeached Mecham and removed him from office first.

Despite that, Mecham requested reimbursement of more than $828,000 for both his campaign expenses and well as what it cost him to mount his unsuccessful impeachment defense. In the end, lawmakers approved — and Mecham accepted — $405,000 to settle both claims.

So there is a precedent. As I recall, Mecham was not compensated due to any legal proceeding or legal opinion regarding the Arizona Constitution and statutory law pertaining to recall. It was some sort of special dispensation from the GOP-controlled legislature as a parting gift to settle all claims in his impeachment. Fischer was a capitol reporter reporting on the Evan Mecham impeachment at the time, if I recall correctly. Go back and review your work, Howard.

There have been several recall elections in Arizona for elected boards and commissions, city council members and mayors, county officers, and elected judges, some of which were successful. They are all subject to the same constitutional and statutory provisions. So there are precedents. Were any of these recalled elected officials reimbursed for “reasonable special election campaign expenses"?

I don't believe so, because this would be a fundamental misreading of the law. The Arizona Constitution, Article 8, Part 1, Section 6 is the constituional provision at issue:

Section 6. The general election laws shall apply to recall elections in so far as applicable. Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted, including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer.

If you want to know what it means, look to the implementing statutes at Title 19, Chapter 2, Recall and Advisory Recall, A.R.S. §§19-201 to 19-234.

A.R.S. §19-208.05 provides for a Special Fund for Reimbursement of County Recorders which covers the expense of validation of signatures and certification of a recall by County Recorders under A.R.S. §19-208.02.

A.R.S. §19-210 provides for Reimbursement for County Expenses in Conducting Special Recall Election:

The political subdivision or district in which a public officer subject to recall serves shall reimburse the county for all expenses incurred in conducting the special recall election.

Since Legislative District 18 is a state political subdivision, the state of Arizona is to reimburse Maricopa County for "the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer," i.e., the Maricopa County Elections Director, not the elected official recalled.

And, oh by the way, all of this is in the Arizona Secretary of State's Handbook for Initiative, Referendum and Recall http://www.azsos.gov/election/IRR/Initiative_Referendum_and_Recall.pdf. I suggest the Secretary's spokesman, Matt Roberts, be required to read the handbook as part of his remedial training.

There is no statutory provision in Title 19 that provides for the award of "campaign expenses" to an elected official who has been subject to a recall. If this was the intent of the legislature, it would have expressly provided for it in the implementing statutes in Title 19. It did not.

Moreover, awarding an elected official who has been subject to recall his or her "campaign expenses" would create a perverse incentive for an elected official subject to recall to run up campaign expenses and spend as much as possible, secure in the knowledge that he or she will be reimbursed for campaign expenses. Clearly this was not the intent of Arizona's Founding Fathers in including a recall provision in the Arizona Constitution. Why would they provide a windfall from the public treasury to an elected official whom the voters have turned out of office? This is nonsensical.

This kind of poor reporting should be giving editors and publishers pause in publishing Fischer's reporting without first vetting his reporting themselves. Here's a novel idea: instead of allowing Howard Fischer to exercise a near monopoly on capitol reporting, spend a few bucks and hire your own capitol reporters to cover Arizona government. The more eyes and ears scrutinizing what goes on in the government, the better. It also would provide for more perspectives than just Howard Fischer's.