Currently viewing the tag: “Arizona”
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) “is still in the hospital, but some of her most ardent backers are so enamored of the idea of her running for the Senate that they describe the inevitable campaign commercials: the deep-voiced narrator recounting what happened to her, the images of her wounded, then recovering and speaking into the camera alongside her astronaut husband to call on Arizonans to unite,” the New York Times reports.
“While it might be wishful thinking, Ms. Giffords’s noncampaign is already having a major effect on Arizona politics; other prospective Democratic candidates say they feel compelled not to jump in unless she bows out, allowing Republicans to get a head start organizing their campaigns.”
Said one prospective candidate: “I’m in but only if she’s not. A Democrat running against
her would be doomed.”
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) signed on Tuesday a bill to criminalize abortions based on the race or sex of a fetus, making the state the first in the nation to do so.
The bill, H.B. 2443, makes it a felony for a doctor to perform such abortions, and a crime punishable by up to seven years in prison.
The law allows the father of an aborted fetus – or, if the mother is a minor, the mother’s parents – to take legal action against the doctor or other health-care provider who performed the abortion.
Proponents of the legislation argued that race and sex-based abortions were all too common. But opponents contended that there was no real proof that it was an issue in need of legislative action.
Also from AZCentral:
Rep. Steve Montenegro, R-Litchfield Park, said he pushed the legislation because of fears women would choose to abort because they didn’t like the gender or the race of the baby.
Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, said the only proof Montenegro offered was a magazine article on such practices in China and India.
 CBC.ca |
Fiesta Bowl report: Trouble may lurk for Arizona officials
AZ Central.com Arizona lawmakers who accepted tickets from Fiesta Bowl lobbyists to attend football games in Chicago, Boston, Pasadena and other cities may have violated state law. Since 2000, state statutes have included an … Barfknecht: Fiesta Bowl's scandal a stunner Fiesta fallout Fiesta Bowl Spending and Donations Questioned |
Rep. Trent Franks (R-Ariz.) hasn’t exactly been setting aside time to hang out with Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) lately. He opted against an opportunity to appear at a border event with Flake and other GOP members of the state’s congressional delegation last week.
But the two are slated to attend the same fundraiser in Washington early next week, just days after Franks will reportedly announce his entrance into the Senate race this Saturday, joining Flake in the GOP primary.
Both Flake and Franks are scheduled to appear at a fundraiser for Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu (R) on April 6 in Washington, according to an invitation to the fundraiser.
You may remember Babeu as the sheriff in Sen. John McCain‘s (R-Ariz.) 2010 “Complete the Danged Fence” television ad.
Former Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D-AZ) will seek a rematch against Rep. Paul Gosar (R-AZ), the Arizona Republic reports.
She’s the first lawmaker ousted in last year’s Republican tidal wave to announce a comeback bid.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
Washington (CNN) – The Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared to hold the cards Monday in a key campaign finance reform case involving an Arizona election law that would provide matching funds to underfunded candidates. The justices could continue a recent legal trend and strike down another effort at government restrictions on election spending.
The state law offers extra taxpayer-funded support for office seekers who have been outspent by privately funded opponents or by independent political groups. A key sticking point during the one-hour oral arguments was whether this law was designed to “level the playing field” through a public finance system, a legislative goal the court in the past has said is unconstitutional.
Chandler police Detective Carlos Ledesma was sitting at a card table when the drug bust went sour. He did not even have time to stand before being cut down by four rifle shots to the chest, and he died a short time later.
When the carnage ended, two other Chandler narcotics detectives lay bleeding on the floor of the home in west Phoenix last July. One suspected drug peddler died by the front door, another a short distance away in the back seat of a getaway car.
Officers from the suburban Arizona police department were not after drugs when the undercover operation went terribly wrong. They were after cash – a quarter million dollars that the violent and heavily armed men they were dealing with had agreed to pay for 500 pounds of marijuana the detectives said they could supply.
Police were running a “reverse sting,” a controversial and high-risk tactic in which undercover officers pose as sellers of large quantities of marijuana or other drugs.
In a traditional drug sting, the cops pose as the buyers and show up with the money. If successful, they walk away with nothing but suspects and evidence.
But in a reverse sting, the police get to keep the cash they seize under Arizona’s forfeiture law, which allows them to take property they say has been used in certain crimes and keep it for their own use. Police can spend the money to buy equipment, build new buildings, travel, or hire outside help. They can even use it to pay for more police to bring in more money.
Critics warn the built-in profit motive of forfeiture laws distorts priorities of police, enticing them to pursue risky operations in far away cities rather than more destructive street crimes in their own communities.
The most blatant example of abuse cited by critics is reverse stings.
“This has become a very sophisticated, very dangerous and very high revenue-generating speed trap,” said Tucson attorney Richard Jones, who has handled more than 100 forfeiture cases in his 27 years of practicing law in Arizona. “That’s really all it is. You are taking a less effective, more problematic law enforcement technique and choosing that because of the money it generates.”
Defenders of the law say money is not the motive in forfeiture cases. Police use the money to break up criminal gangs and strip them of their financial resources, they say.
Chandler has made extensive use of Arizona’s forfeiture law. In the last five years, Chandler police raised more than $ 6.8 million through forfeitures, according to disclosure reports.
Their favored technique for seizures is the reverse sting, according to a review of all cases that resulted in forfeitures for a one-year period that ended in July 2010, when Ledesma was killed. Of the $ 3.2 million Chandler police raised through forfeitures in those 12 months, more than $ 2.7 million came through reverse stings, court records show.
There were 35 forfeiture cases in all. Twenty of them were reverse stings.
The operations almost always take place far away from Chandler, most often in west Phoenix. In the year’s worth of cases involving reverse stings reviewed by the Goldwater Institute, only one resulted in the seizure of a large amount of drugs, which turned up in a vehicle search after the transaction was complete.
All 20 reverse stings staged by Chandler police targeted would-be marijuana peddlers, according to court records. Chandler police rarely go outside the city on traditional undercover operations to buy large amounts of marijuana. Last fiscal year they only did it twice, city reports show.
Money raised through forfeitures goes into special accounts for the exclusive use of the agency that recovered it.
Chandler police insist they are not going after money when they run reverse stings, such as the one in which Ledesma was killed. They describe the tactic as an effective tool – one of many they use – to target high-level dealers who use the Phoenix area as a hub to distribute marijuana and other drugs across the country.
Drug dealers do not respect city boundaries, said Commander Dale Walters of the Chandler Police Department. Closing down a would-be smuggling operation in Phoenix helps dry up the supplies throughout the Valley, which ultimately benefits the citizens of Chandler, he said.
“It’s not about the money,” said Walters. “For us, the ultimate goal is the disruption of drug organizations. If you take a large amount of money and a large number of people and put them in jail, that sends a significant ripple effect through a drug organization. The ultimate goal for us is to put bad guys in prison.”
Coming Tomorrow: Part 2, Arizona police collect millions from dangerous ‘reverse sting’ investigations
A Goldwater Institute Watchdog Report
By Mark Flatten
Mark Flatten is an investigation reporter for the Goldwater Institute, an independent government watchdog based in Phoenix, Ariz.
Chandler police Detective Carlos Ledesma was sitting at a card table when the drug bust went sour. He did not even have time to stand before being cut down by four rifle shots to the chest, and he died a short time later.
When the carnage ended, two other Chandler narcotics detectives lay bleeding on the floor of the home in west Phoenix last July. One suspected drug peddler died by the front door, another a short distance away in the back seat of a getaway car.
Officers from the suburban Arizona police department were not after drugs when the undercover operation went terribly wrong. They were after cash – a quarter million dollars that the violent and heavily armed men they were dealing with had agreed to pay for 500 pounds of marijuana the detectives said they could supply.
Police were running a “reverse sting,” a controversial and high-risk tactic in which undercover officers pose as sellers of large quantities of marijuana or other drugs.
In a traditional drug sting, the cops pose as the buyers and show up with the money. If successful, they walk away with nothing but suspects and evidence.
But in a reverse sting, the police get to keep the cash they seize under Arizona’s forfeiture law, which allows them to take property they say has been used in certain crimes and keep it for their own use. Police can spend the money to buy equipment, build new buildings, travel, or hire outside help. They can even use it to pay for more police to bring in more money.
Critics warn the built-in profit motive of forfeiture laws distorts priorities of police, enticing them to pursue risky operations in far away cities rather than more destructive street crimes in their own communities.
The most blatant example of abuse cited by critics is reverse stings.
“This has become a very sophisticated, very dangerous and very high revenue-generating speed trap,” said Tucson attorney Richard Jones, who has handled more than 100 forfeiture cases in his 27 years of practicing law in Arizona. “That’s really all it is. You are taking a less effective, more problematic law enforcement technique and choosing that because of the money it generates.”
Defenders of the law say money is not the motive in forfeiture cases. Police use the money to break up criminal gangs and strip them of their financial resources, they say.
Chandler has made extensive use of Arizona’s forfeiture law. In the last five years, Chandler police raised more than $ 6.8 million through forfeitures, according to disclosure reports.
Their favored technique for seizures is the reverse sting, according to a review of all cases that resulted in forfeitures for a one-year period that ended in July 2010, when Ledesma was killed. Of the $ 3.2 million Chandler police raised through forfeitures in those 12 months, more than $ 2.7 million came through reverse stings, court records show.
There were 35 forfeiture cases in all. Twenty of them were reverse stings.
The operations almost always take place far away from Chandler, most often in west Phoenix. In the year’s worth of cases involving reverse stings reviewed by the Goldwater Institute, only one resulted in the seizure of a large amount of drugs, which turned up in a vehicle search after the transaction was complete.
All 20 reverse stings staged by Chandler police targeted would-be marijuana peddlers, according to court records. Chandler police rarely go outside the city on traditional undercover operations to buy large amounts of marijuana. Last fiscal year they only did it twice, city reports show.
Money raised through forfeitures goes into special accounts for the exclusive use of the agency that recovered it.
Chandler police insist they are not going after money when they run reverse stings, such as the one in which Ledesma was killed. They describe the tactic as an effective tool – one of many they use – to target high-level dealers who use the Phoenix area as a hub to distribute marijuana and other drugs across the country.
Drug dealers do not respect city boundaries, said Commander Dale Walters of the Chandler Police Department. Closing down a would-be smuggling operation in Phoenix helps dry up the supplies throughout the Valley, which ultimately benefits the citizens of Chandler, he said.
“It’s not about the money,” said Walters. “For us, the ultimate goal is the disruption of drug organizations. If you take a large amount of money and a large number of people and put them in jail, that sends a significant ripple effect through a drug organization. The ultimate goal for us is to put bad guys in prison.”
Coming Tomorrow: Part 2, Arizona police collect millions from dangerous ‘reverse sting’ investigations
A Goldwater Institute Watchdog Report
By Mark Flatten
Mark Flatten is an investigation reporter for the Goldwater Institute, an independent government watchdog based in Phoenix, Ariz.
In a case that could deal another setback to campaign finance laws nationwide, the Supreme Court heard arguments Monday to determine whether governments are constitutionally allowed to help publicly financed candidates maintain financial parity with privately financed opponents .
The case, McComish v. Bennett, features a set of conservative business groups challenging the constitutionality of the Arizona law, which they contend undermines their 1st Amendment right to free speech. The law mandates public-financed candidates, after contributions exceed an original lump sum, receive additional subsidies for every dollar their privately financed opponents raise or every dollar spent on attack ads by third-party groups.
Supporters of the law contended that it encourages political speech and stymies corruption. Arizona voters originally passed the law, the Citizens Clean Elections Act, in 1998 after a string of corruption cases there. Critics of the law told the justices Monday that it limits free-speech rights for groups and candidates who opt against using public financing.
The attorney for the business groups, William Maurer, argued that the matching funds inhibit candidates and other potential donors from contributing money. Why make a $ 1,000 contribution, he argued, when it guarantees the same amount will be delivered to the other candidate?
Fox News |
Connecticut 65, Arizona 63
USA Today Anaheim, CA (Sports Network) – Connecticut won the West Regional of the NCAA Tournament and is headed to the Final Four for the second time in three years, but only after surviving two potential game-winning three-point attempts in the closing seconds … Just Short of Final Four, but Arizona Goes Home Proud Connecticut gets everything ironed out at the end and beats Arizona Huskies' toughness comes through when it counts most |
 TSN |
UConn earns Final Four bid, edges Arizona 65-63
Carthage Press By AP AP Jim Calhoun could scarcely watch when the most improbable postseason run of his coaching life at Connecticut came down to an open 3-point attempt by Arizona's Jamelle Horne. The shot clanged off the back rim. The clock hit zeros. … UConn Huskies riding high out of the West again Wet West Connecticut 65, Arizona 63 |
Fox News |
UConn Earns Final Four Bid, Edges Arizona 65-63
WBUR By AP ANAHEIM, Calif. — Jim Calhoun could scarcely watch when the most improbable postseason run of his coaching life at Connecticut came down to an open 3-point attempt by Arizona's Jamelle Horne. The shot clanged off the back rim. … Fans following Butler back to Final Four UConn Huskies riding high out of the West again Just Short of Final Four, but Arizona Goes Home Proud |
USA Today |
The final Horne: Dream shot misses the mark as Arizona Wildcats' season ends
Tucson Citizen ANAHEIM, Calif. — Jamelle Horne's first reaction was to bring his hands, balled into fists, near his face. Disbelief. Dismay. Time had run out. UConn was celebrating. Arizona was stunned. … UConn topples Arizona to reach Final Four UConn has surprise for Calhoun Walker has elevated his status in Calhoun's eyes |
Fox News |
UConn topples Arizona to reach Final Four
Boston Herald ANAHEIM, Calif. — A team doesn't come this far, find ways to suspend disbelief and prolong a most astonishing season without doing remarkable things along the way. UConn's journey has been built on incredible … UConn has surprise for Calhoun Arizona Wildcats fans should celebrate strong season Connecticut gets everything ironed out at the end and beats Arizona |
Already the bellwether of radical policy, the Arizona legislature is now poised to outdo other GOP-led states in the competition for most extreme gun legislation. Yesterday, a House panel approved a bill to let anybody bring their guns into “public establishments” and “public events.”
While current law allows public agencies to declare buildings as gun-free zones by “putting a sticker on the door,” SB 1201 will allow public buildings to keep guns out “only if there are metal detectors at each entrance with a security guards.” Without those measures, which can cost over $ 100,000, anyone may bring in their own gun.
Under the bill, “public establishments” and “public events” include buildings owned or leased by the state (including courts and libraries) and events conducted with a license or permit from a public entity. While the law exempts events or facilities that serve alcohol — making them provide “gun lockers” if they want to ban guns — events without alcohol would likely have to allow firearms without restriction. Such public places would include “major events such as Arizona Cardinals and Phoenix Suns games or rock concerts.” Or, as one major concert promoter noted, “Sesame Street Live” and “Disney On Ice”:
[President of major concert promoter Live Nation Southwes Terry] Burke said it appeared the bill would allow guns at family shows that don’t serve alcohol, such as “Sesame Street Live” or “Disney on Ice.”
Bob Merlis, an agent for rock stars John Mellencamp and ZZ Top, “couldn’t imagine” an artist agreeing to perform in front of a gun-toting audience. “The fear of every performer onstage is that some nut will shoot them,” he said. The Arizona Chamber of Commerce also balked, saying the legislation “could infringe on the rights” of building owners “to keep guns out.”
Sports and entertainment executives said the bill could affect venues like Phoenix’s Chase Field, US Airways Center, Comerica Theatre, Ashley Furniture HomeStore Pavilion, Glendale’s University of Phoenix Stadium, and the Mesa Arts Center — all “facilities are owned, leased, operated or controlled with an element of public funding.” Incidentally, Comerica Theatre will be home to Sesame Street Live this spring.
Defending his bill, state Sen. Ron Gould (R), the bill’s sponsor, said “stickers don’t really protect anybody” because they “[do] not really keep a criminal or a psychotic from walking into this meeting and shooting each and every one of us dead.” But letting anyone and everyone walk into the room with a gun somehow does.
