Monday, November 26th, 2007...7:16 am
Lawall of Fame
Barbara Lawall sent out a letter this weekend that served as sort of an announcement for her re-election campaign. What struck me was at the top of her list of accomplishments was a brag about the low rate of plea bargaining and her high trial rate.
This is one of those bits that makes for good campaign rhetoric, but poor policy. An audit by the Board of Supervisors back in 2001 showed that this policy costs taxpayers an extra $2.9 million dollars due to the extra costs for the courts, paying expert witnesses and even overtime for law enforcement officers who testify at trials. It doesn’t even result in more criminals going to jail as overworked prosecutors have trouble preparing cases and juries convict of lesser included offenses that would have been the result of a plea bargain anyway.
The main feature of the letter is a long list of “community leaders” who support her campaign. The list is around 200 names (because I don’t feel like counting). It is definitely a step that was taken to dissuade someone like Paul Eckerstrom from running against her in the primary. Interestingly, the list includes Jim Click, who isn’t a name I’d include in a mailing to Democratic activists.
Something funny struck me when there near the top of the list is Daniel Benavidez. Of course Dan supports Barbara Lawall, he’s reportedly a paid consultant to the campaign. I don’t regard this as unethical, but it is darn cheesy to pad the list this way.
Heck, several of the people on the list are folks that work in her office. A quick perusal of the list shows names like David Berkman, Tracy Miller, Chris Straub, Ken Janes, David Smutzer, Kathleen Meyer, Brad Holland and Rick Unklesbay. I’d hope they are supporting her, since she makes sure they get a paycheck every couple of weeks.
As I said, not unethical, but cheesy.
7 Comments
November 26th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
Haha! I’m glad you posted about this, Tedski. I was also confused as to why several of her ’supporters’ were listed TWICE (just in case I didn’t read them the first time, I guess).
I filed this mailing under “TMI” and put it where it belongs: in my recyclables.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:24 am
Surely Lawall doesn’t think that anything she does will dissuade Paul Eckerstrom from running. If she does, she is pretty deluded.
I think a better take on the letter is Lawall recognizing that she had better get on the stick now if she wants to survive this primary. Eckerstrom is going to devote himself to full-time campaigning for nine months, and he has the skills to build a good ground game.
Lawall needs to start getting her message out there early and often. Relying on her actual performance as county attorney is an incredibly risky strategy for her. She has to go with what she’s got.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:18 am
Ted, what is MOST interesting about this post is what you DIDN’T note when writing it. LaWall is ALSO backed by Janet Napolitano, Gabrielle Giffords, Clarence Dupnik, Sharon Bronson, Ramon Valadez, Shirley Scott, Dennis Deconcini, George Miller, Dan Eckstrom, Janet Marcus, Paul Charlton, a host of state senators and state representatives, several school board members and four current or former school district superintendents.
The endorsees from the community (admittedly and PROUDLY, my name is on the list) represent a broad cross-section of Pima County. You cherry-picked some names to try and make your point, but that does not detract from the fact that LaWall has the kind of support from the rank and file, party leaders and crossover voters that no one else will be able to counter.
November 27th, 2007 at 12:36 pm
Major office-holding endorsers are pretty impressive and generally signal that the community is pretty happy with an incumbent. But they are powerful because they are a reflection of widespread satisfaction, not in and of themselves. LaWall hasn’t done anything to overtly damage the party, so it is not surprising that major endorsers should endorse the incumbent of their own party; indeed, it would be very controversial for them to do otherwise.
In this case, those endorsements are simply Democratic officials playing it safe, not the reflection of a deep respect for LaWall in the community. Those who are still ‘proud’ to be a supporter of LaWall are either avoiding controversy (like these prominent endorsers), are not conversant with her record, or are ignorant of the effect her record has had on our community.
For the record, I think the estimate of $2.9 million is significantly conservative. Based on comparison to other comparable offices, I think the price tag is likely closer to $5 million a year in additional costs in the CA’s office alone. Factor in increased defense costs, increased court time, and increased officer time (especially overtime) and the costs only go upward from there. In all, LaWall’s policies likely cost the taxpayers of Pima County upwards of $10 million a year for no additional security or deterrence. In fact, the only positive consequence (and it’s actual desirability is highly debatable) of LaWall’s free-spending policy is to ease her re-election and provide a ready and simplistic counter to any attack on her leadership.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
What a shame that all the rest of us, including the people noted in my earlier post, are either “ignorant” or “playing it safe.” We must be in need of some tutelage from the sagacious and insightful Mr. Bryan. Thank God he is always here to watch out for the betterment of mankind.
Give me a break! If “the effect her record has had on the community” were as negative as Mr. Bryan purports, I doubt these other officeholders and leaders would risk their own good names and political capital to endorse LaWall. Two of the three Democratic county supervisors and the Democratic county sheriff (who are people that work quite closely with the county attorney) are backing her. If LaWall was the disaster Mr. Bryan asserts she is, these folks would back the other Democratic candidate, who they doubtless know because he was most recently the county party chair!
Mr. Bryan has already gone after LaWall in a post on his own blog. His loyalties in this race are thus on the table. I don’t doubt the sincerity of his support for the other candidate, but does that give him the right to say that those of us who proudly support LaWall are either stupid or expedient?
November 27th, 2007 at 6:39 pm
You folks obviously don’t know how this game works. Her Deputy’s “cherry pick” the cases they are sure they can win and don’t file on the rest. A lot of the bad guys get let go because the prosecutions case would be difficult to win not because they are innocent. I’d rather see her play “lets make a deal” than play with these rules. Any of you that think money should be a consideration in prosecution is playing on a dangerous and slippery slope.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:46 am
Walt, I generally agree with your analysis of how the system works, having worked in victim services for most of my career. I would take it a step further, though, and say that most prosecutorial agencies function under that same cherry-picking system. It’s crappy, but it’s not just limited to Pima County or Barbara LaWall. Of course there are other ways of deciding which cases to prosecute, but it takes a lot of conviction (no pun intended) to choose one that has more of a budgetary impact.