Monday, June 8th, 2009...8:19 am
What a Great Idea…All Problems Will Be Solved
Jump to Comments
For those are keeping score, Jonathan Paton’s bill to mandate non-partisan elections for city offices is on the calendar for the judiciary committee today. If this passes, it will force our city to have non-partisan elections and within weeks, we will be run by a cadre of Platonic guardians. Only the most civic minded people, free of petty political concerns, will be elected to office. And the buildings will be made of chocolate and cotton candy…and all childhood diseases will be cured…ABC will renew Pushing Daisies…the Wildcats will win March Madness…
30 Comments
June 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am
The Wildcats will win March Madness? That’s just crazy talk.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:57 am
Bush will be vindicated-as long as we are talking about things that will never happen.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:20 am
Is Paton advocating non-partisan legislative elections as well? How about a unicameral Legislature (i.e. one chamber instead of two, like Nebraska)? If non-partisan, single chamber government works so well at the local level, why wouldn’t he support it for the state?
June 8th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Let’s see,
The legislature down there in Phoenix wants to tell local governments how to run elections.
That’s after they took away all the local tax revenue the local governments were collecting so the local bodies will have to raise taxes again to replace the money the legislature “swiped” from them.
They also have tied all sorts of strings to the funds they do send to local jurisdictions.
I wonder how long it will be before they tell the city council of your town what brand of car they should buy, what dealer they should buy it from and what color they should paint it.
And here is some irony for you, they want to pass that ’sovereignty’ resolution to take a step towards Arizona seceding from the union.
I would say that it is becoming increasingly clear that they don’t really want to be the legislature anymore, the new title they will soon mandate is ‘Masters and Lords of the Universe.’
June 8th, 2009 at 2:25 pm
HAhahahaha if you missed it, please read Bill’s comment again above. It is RIGHT on.
This is all the typical, stupid, short term thinking that politicians dream up when they can’t win in the current system (e.g., Republicans are having a pretty hard time winning in the City of Tucson). However, such institutional changes typically come back to bite you in the BEEhind when things change.
If you aren’t winning the game, then play the game better, don’t throw out the rules and change the game.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Bill,
If we get to have non-partisan state elections, can we also give the voters of the entire state the option of determining who the elected representatives of district 27, 28, 29 are? Giving the people who don’t live in a district veto power of who represents the people of that district certainly makes sense, right?
Or do you like to supress local representation only when it suits your needs. Let’s face it, the current system has given us possibly the WORST city council in the US by any measure. How could things possibly be worse?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:46 pm
Framer, on that issue I’m with you. The hybrid combo of district and citywide council elections is quite bizarre and I’m not sure who’s interest is served. In the past it has worked to the advantage of Republicans; now that seems to be shifting but in either case there’s not a lot of logic. But the real question is why should the Legislature get involved? If Tucson voters like the goofy system more power to them!
June 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Let’s skip the non-partisan junk and go to a city wide vote my mail effort.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
…And by ‘my’ I of course mean ‘by’ (oops)
June 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
Framer-
Wow…I “supress” local representation when it suits my needs…kinda like state legislators trying to tell a city how to run its local elections, eh?
Funny thing…as far as I know, Paton’s legislation doesn’t mandate ward elections, does it?
June 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm
At the risk of offending all of you ( which I do admit to taking some personal delight ) the vote in committee today was 6-1 with Democrat cross overs.
The report I received was that no official from the City of Tucson or the city council testified against the measure. Nor did the Democrat Party. Interesting.
The only measurable opposition came from unions who have a vested interest in continuing their stranglehold on Tucson’s city council.
One would think that as a party elected official I would support the bill because it could lead to greater GOP representation on the council. That may or may not happen. Who knows? We have elected Republicans before and I suspect we may do so again in 2009 even without this bill.
I suppose if I had my druthers I would rather see Republicans in control of the council. Perhaps we would not have the turmoil and problems we currently face. But at the city level party really does not play a meaningful role in 1. keeping citizens safe 2. keeping the streets repaired 3. picking up the trash. The rest as the scholars say , “is commentary.”
Every other major metro city in Arizona holds non partisan elections. Why not Tucson? Are things run so well here that we should not be progressive as other towns and cities? The question here is not , “why is the Arizona Legislature interfering in Tucson’s business” but why hasn’t the change occurred sooner if the “progressives” in Tucson really been interested in meaningful change from the chaos that has plagued us for years.
June 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Because the voters voted it down in 1993 when people like you proposed it and got it on the ballot, plus the numerous failed attempts after and the 1997 fiasco with the forged signatures.
Gee what about when Walkup said in 2003 it wasn’t an issue.
It isn’t and plus why the hell is the legislature still meeting if they supposedly have a budget, blah, blah Bruce?!
It’s more than 100 days, now on 150 of this session at $63k per day to operate but digressing.
Why just one jurisdiction, why not go further, say the County offices, the State Legislature? It was the Republican, George Norris who proposed Nebraska go to a one chamber body, the Unicameral for which the 49 members of the “Senate” caucus based on issues?
Tucson’s charter hasn’t been reviewed in this aspect since 1929 Bruce but do you mention that?!
Arizona’s Legislature hasn’t been reviewed since 1912 thus this bunch of yahoos with a County Board which is solely an extension?
Give me a fricking break Bruce. Stan Abrams a Tucsonan. He doesn’t live in the City and barely operates there now.
Is Tucson’s government a good thing. No.
Does Tucson’s charter need a review. Yes.
There are some good aspects and those should be kept but there are others which need to go.
And Brucie, it is the “Democratic” party, you’re terminology is something that is not used throughout your ever shrinking elephantine colony!!!!
June 8th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Mark–Since I am a “uniter and not a divider” let me agree with you that the Tucson Charter probably does bare some serious review. There are many aspects which have not aged very well in the Charter.
It also sounds as though the luster may have been diminished for you with the crowd currently running things downtown. I wouldn’t care if Syve Kozachik was a Greenie as long as he could do the job. Same with Ben Buehler-Garcia. I doubt that they and I would see eye to eye on alot of GOP doctrine either much past cleaning up the swamp downtown. But that is good enough for me.
And to further make your point for you……. that is why if the so called “progressives” who lay claim to power in Tucson were truly interested in change ( instead of holding the power they desperately attempt to hang onto ) they would have made it already . It seems though they are more interested in status quo than enlightened Republicans who stand for CHANGE.
One last point Mark………Stan Abrams is a Tucsonan. Lives in Tucson’s political boundaries and has fought longer and harder to make this a better place to live than you and I will ever know. Just wanted you to know how I feel about a very good man–Stan Abrams.
June 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Tucson Mark,
A few problems with your comments (and, no, not just your inability to distinguish “your” from “you’re”): Stan Abrams does live in the city– in the heart of the city too, for that matter (near libbed out neighborhoods at Country Club and Broadway). Secondly, I’m not sure what you mean by a state “charter”. If you mean “constitution” it has been changed multiple times — practically every two years. It’s also been specifically changed in respect the legislature (see, Voter Protection Act, Resign to Run, compliance with the voting rights act, independent redisctricting commission, term limits, etc, etc. If you mean senate and house rules, those too have been changed many times. But, hey, Tucson Mark, don’t let the facts get in the way of your brilliant arguments.
As for the legislature being partisan, I think there are legitimate differences between democrats and republicans at the state level. Those don’t really apply at the city level. Will democrats continue to win at the city level if this passes? Of course, they will. I would expect them to, but the freaks that emerge from the primaries that are ruining our city would not. In addition, we would see more independents run and win under this scenario.
Tom,
Yes the bill does mandate ward only elections. For all of those who are advocating a “local control” argument, how can you say that and then advocate for a system that denies that right to individual wards to elect their own people? So local control only applies to the City? Why does it stop at city hall?
Paton’s bill sailed through committee today. Even two democrat senators voted for it. It’s going to pass and be signed into law. Get over it. Sorry Karen and Nina, but you’re going to have to appeal to a broader group of people than just the freaks who vote in democrat primaries.
To the democrats that post on this board (or just read it quietly),
Every single city council in the past 20 years has sucked. Ds and Rs. This current council, is probably the worst ever. They have accomplished nothing. They have bungled Rio Nuevo. They bungled the police chief. They went back on every promise they made on the garbage fee (um, like the very ones they crucified their opponents on). Heck, they can’t even get the 4th of July right. We are at rock bottom right now. And the Republican candidates? They are awful too. We have idiots running our city and third tier candidates running against them, because partisan elections discourages real people from running.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
The convoluted nature of Tucson’s municipal election system has always troubled me. Why nominate from within the ward, but then ask the nominees to run citywide? Aren’t we then saying that ward representation doesn’t fully matter? If that is the case, why not elect six “at large” council members and eliminate wards?
Since it apparently is important to elect someone to represent each ward and its interests, the logic of ward-only elections is evident. I am also willing to concede that partisanship at the local level means very little, including in Tucson. If Paton’s bill were a charter amendment, I would give it strong consideration.
What is truly arrogant and intrusive about this bill, however, is that state government is attempting to intrude on a municipality that has chosen to be run by charter government. Tucson’s voters should be the only people allowed to make this decision, through the charter amendment process. If Paton, Ash or anyone else thinks these are good ideas, ask local voters to make the call.
I also hope that Ash will post again in this thread so that he can continue to contradict himself. On the one hand, he says that if Republicans ran the City Council “we would not have the turmoil and problems we currently face.” On the other hand, he says that “at the city level, party really does not play a meaningful role.”
Ash’s last statement is the more accurate one. He is also the same guy who is currently running a radio commentary accusing President Obama of nominating an “activist judge” to the Supreme Court, who Ash fears will “legislate from the bench.” I guess Ash is OK with one branch of government imposing its will on another in other instances…as long as the person who has that idea is one of Ash’s party brethren.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:58 pm
Jack:
The charter is the city’s “constitution.” Check tucsonaz.gov, go to the City Clerk’s Page and then click on “Municipal Code.” Since you don’t know how the City is run, by which document,
http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=11294&sid=3
You’re was a typo, and I appreciate it but I don’t appreciate when history is being so conveniently overlooked. And I refer to the following articles:
non-partisan elections and the City of Tucson:
“Demos hope to halt GOP surge,” Arizona Daily Star – Oct. 24, 2001.
“Time cools once-hot issues for city ballot,” Arizona Daily Star – April 19, 2003.
“Leaders group wants election changes,” Arizona Daily Star – June 4, 2000.
“Ward elections, revisions to civil service trailing,” Arizona Daily Star, Nov. 3, 1993.
“No on Prop. 200,” Arizona Daily Star, Oct. 31, 1993.
“Tucson group files 14,616 petitions seeking non-partisan City Council-elections,” – Arizona Daily Star, June 16, 1993.
Those are the facts and Paton’s bill doesn’t deal with the fact about Tucson’s government, for which this Democrat agrees there are problems, for which the bigger picture needs to be looked at, and that starts with the document that sets down the rules and procedures, the City Charter.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
Bruce
It is so much bigger, starting with the form of government, which is a weak mayor and council and strong manager. Has this worked?
Next, staggered terms, why not have the elections simultaneously?
Should some aspects of government, municipal and county be consolidated, like the Nashville-Davidson County TN form?
This is up to the people, which you are part of the fourth estate, the media, should be advocating forth, not spewing items about Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court or the Country will go to hell in a handbasket if same-sex couples are permitted to have their loving, committed relationship recognized by government and the courts?
Oh wait, that was done last year through Legislative Fiat with Proposition 102, put on the ballot despite state law and court precedent but I digress!
Do you recognize and really see the problem. One wonders.
June 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
“As for the legislature being partisan, I think there are legitimate differences between democrats and republicans at the state level. Those don’t really apply at the city level.”
WTF, Seriously???
June 8th, 2009 at 10:47 pm
Yeah, seriously. Is there a Republican way to pick up trash? How about a Democrat way to police streets? At the state level you deal with vouchers vs. public education, pro-life vs. pro-choice. In short, you deal with items that you can easily find within the platforms of both parties at the national levels. At the local level you find, well, potholes.
The lame arguments that have been forwarded here, basically all go to how this is being brought up–through the state. Who cares? The council has refused to refer this to the ballot, because <> they don’t want to piss off the party hacks who help them win primaries.
It’s also an interesting argument when you consider there are large constituencies in Southern Arizona who have policies imposed upon them with no vote at all. A great example is the latest tax increase proposal on the water rates by the city council. If you use Tucson water but live in the city you can’t vote on it.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm
Jack:
Check out the articles and then check out Paton’s bill. It doesn’t deal with the whole problem.
It’s a bigger mess and it is time for everything to be reviewed first, not changing the printing on a ballot.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Mr. Ash – “enlightened Republicans”?? Are those like “compassionate conservatives”?? So long as your party venerates the likes of Jack Harper and harasses actual public servants like Carolyn Allen in Senate caucus meetings, the only “enlightened” Republicans are those who hold a light bulb in one hand and grab a live wire with the other hand.
BTW – while every other city in AZ may officially hold non-partisan elections, in all practical terms, they are wholly partisan. I live in Scottsdale, where the new mayor (a Republican) benefitted from thousands of dollars worth of “independent expenditures” from an organization funded and run by Republican operatives.
BTW2 – Perhaps the “only measurable support” for Tucson’s system comes from unions, but it was hard to tell – today’s meeting was held on such short notice that no one opposing the bill could make it to Phoenix. It’s telling that most of the people who showed up to support it were the ones who were lobbyists for well-heeled developers or business groups who stand to profit from having Republican allies on the Tucson City Council.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:44 pm
Yeah, I looked at your articles–1993? Are you serious? That was a great year for Ace of Base’s “All that she wants” and “Whoomp! There it is!” Are really banking on a vote that happened 16 years ago!? My guess is that with the incredible increase in independent registration you would see sizeable support for this measure. It still would be expensive to put on the ballot, especially with the unions paying any price to see it never went anywhere.
The articles don’t really address anything relevant today. Paton’s bill addresses the problem in Tucson pretty comprehensively because it deals with both partisan elections and city-wide (Jim Crow) voting.
Craig, Thursday is not enough notice? I think I read about it in the freaking paper as soon as it was posted. The truth is no one cared enough to oppose it and if they had they would have been liberal freaks who would have probably helped Paton get even more votes.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:06 am
Calling the other side freaks does little to assist the conversation along Jack.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:50 am
Jack:
Where did you check out the articles?
June 9th, 2009 at 12:58 am
James and Lily Potter will come back to life and be reunited with their son Harry. I live in the county so I can mock.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:20 am
Ward only elections lead to political fiefdoms and parochialism. A council person only needs to win in their ward and to hell with the rest of the city’s residents. As long as a majority of their constituents are are happy, they can be reelected forever.
The only chance the Republicans have of picking up any council seats this year is with a citywide election. If it is ward only, the election will be held in only Wards 3, 5 and 6 — heavily Democratic voter registration wards where the Democratic incumbents will be expected to win in a walk.
Paton’s bill demonstrates the law of unintended consequences. His bill assures that Republicans have no chance of winning any council seats this year.
This realization may explain why no city council members testified against this bill.
June 9th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Roger,
They probably didn’t testify because it doesn’t effect them at all (at least not this election cycle). It’s odd because I read similar comments over at that other blog. Apparently you don’t understand that this bill has nothing to do with the current candidates at all–at least not the candidates for council. It goes into effect AFTER this election and will effect the mayoral/council races for 2011. It does effect Nina and Karen because they are busy running for mayor now while they are pretending to run for council. Republicans never had a chance of winning these races anyway. The point is not to get Republicans elected. The point is to get good candidates to run in the first place that would never run because of the crazy primary. It’s pretty diabolical, actually, because while Nina and Karen are both fighting each other over who is the most left, they will be judged when they run for mayor by a much larger group of people in September of 2011 that includes Republicans and Independents. You might want to tell your buddy, AZ Blue Meanie, this, because apparently he has the same talking points you do.
June 9th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Do you really believe voters are so ignorant that Democratic incumbents running in democratic voter registration wards in 2009, 2011 or 2013 are not going to be reelected because they do not have a (D) behind their names on the ballot? Of course they will. They only have to concentrate on their own political fiefdom. We have experience with this at the county supervisor level – they are essentially reelected for life.
A candidate is only as good as the organization and the volunteers behind a candidate. This is the reason why independents do not get elected to office. That isn’t going to change with nonpartisan elections. Voters know which candidate is aligned with which party and is backed by its organization. I know this from experience working elections in Maricopa County.
June 9th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
“Yeah, seriously. Is there a Republican way to pick up trash? How about a Democrat way to police streets? At the state level you deal with vouchers vs. public education, pro-life vs. pro-choice. In short, you deal with items that you can easily find within the platforms of both parties at the national levels. At the local level you find, well, potholes.”
Nonsense, Jack. For over 3 decades national conservative groups have engaged in a well-funded and highly organized effort to stack local offices with a “farm team” of movement conservatives. They impose a litmus test on their key issues (abortion, teaching evolution, etc.) on all candidates, even for the lowest level and most mundane offices.
June 9th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
Actually Bill’s comment yesterday got me to thinking, “why not?”
In Arizona we elect three representatives per district.
You can’t convince me that a unicameral legislature would be worse (after all it does, as he points out, work fine in Nebraska).
What that would do would be allow us to have a legislature only one-third (or two-thirds if you mandate two per district) the size it is now, or possibly create smaller (i.e. more local) districts, or some combination thereof.
The only reason the founding fathers of the United States created a two-chamber Congress was because they needed to compromise between large states that wanted representation based on population and small states that wanted it based on equal representation between states.
Because of this nearly every state has a house and a Senate but unlike the U.S. Congress in every state representation in both bodies is based on population (in fact the Supreme Court once ruled in a Georgia case, in which Georgia had been electing legislators per county that it has to be done that way), so the two bodies essentially duplicate each other in purpose.
A unicameral (and possibly even nonpartisan) legislature like Nebraska’s would remove this redundancy.
I’ve not stopped to figure out how much it would save us to have a smaller, one-chamber legislature but I bet it’s not an insignificant amount.
Thanks, Bill. This may be a good idea for some future ballot initiative, if enough groups want to get behind it and get the signatures.