Arizona's Own Espresso Pundit

A Matter of Convictions

ASU Law Professor Michael Saks has been working on a project that intrigues me.  He points out that on rare occasions someone who has been in prison for many years is ultimately proven to be innocent and is simply released.  I assumed that the former prisoner would be able to sue the state and receive compensation.  After all, Ray Krone has received two settlements totaling over $4 million to dollars. 

Saks argues that not everyone who is released has a cause of action and if the person is truly innocent it's not fair to simply release them.  There should be a fund to compensate them for their time behind bars. 

I was pretty skeptical.  First, I want to make sure the person is innocent on the FACTS, not the just the law.  If someone is released because he didn't get his Miranda rights in his native Chinese, then I'm not too sympathetic. 

I also wanted real-life examples.  I couldn't imagine a case in which someone  was really innocent and didn't have grounds for a suit.  Dude, people who spill coffee on themselves or cut off their fingers trying to trim their hedge with their lawnmower manage to sue for millions of dollars.  So how could an innocent man who has been locked up for a decade not be able to sue?

Then I saw his Wall St. Journal article in yesterday's paper. (It may be subscription only.)

For more than half his 43 years, Mr. Williams had lived in the infamously tough Louisiana State Penitentiary at Angola. He had been convicted of raping and beating his school tutor when he was 16 years old. Only his family believed him when he said he was innocent.

DNA testing finally exonerated him, and he was released in March 2005. But since then, Mr. Williams has lived in a different kind of prison. After 24 years of estrangement, he says his six brothers and sisters want nothing to do with him. He has little education, no job skills and few friends.

Hmm, maybe this really is a problem.  If so, maybe we could talk to some legislators about setting up a fund that would compensate someone if he's been wrongly convicted.  I think Saks suggested $100 a day capped at $350K.  I know it's a tight budget year, but I don't think we are going to find dozens of these guys. 

Let me know what you think.

I asked Prof. Saks for some real life Arizona examples and he sent me these cases:

Ray Girdler

A fire at Ray Girdler's home in Prescott killed his wife and daughter. Although the fire was eventually determined to be of accidental origin, and therefore no crime occurred, investigators relied on erroneous "indicators" – nothing more than arson investigator folklore – to conclude that the fire was deliberately set. Based on that faulty conclusion, in 1982 Girdler was convicted of arson and two counts of murder, and sentenced to a total of 71 years of imprisonment.

Eight years later, the same court held an 11-day-long evidentiary hearing at which actual research findings from the field of fire science were presented against the guesswork that had been offered as expert testimony in Girdler's trial. At the end of the hearing, the court vacated Girdler's conviction, but kept him in custody pending possible re-filing of charges if the Yavapai County Attorney had any evidence with which to prosecute a new trial. A few weeks later, all charges were dismissed and Girdler was released.

At that point Girdler had his freedom but nothing else: no family, no home, and no help from the government that had convicted him in error and taken from him eight years of his life. "Forty-seven dollars in my hip pocket is what I was given by the Department of Corrections. I had that and the clothes on my back," Girdler said. "I knew this minister in Casa Grande who said I could stay with him for a few days. If I hadn't known that minister, what would I have done?"

Larry Younglblood

In 1983 a 10-year-old white boy was abducted from a church fair in Tucson for about 90 minutes, sexually assaulted by a middle-aged black man, and then returned. The child later identified Larry Younglbood as the perpetrator, and Youngblood was convicted of child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnaping.

Youngblood sought to have his own biological markers tested against material left by the perpetrator of the crime, in order to prove his innocence. But the Tucson Police Department's crime lab had failed to conduct the necessary tests promptly (which would have excluded Youngblood as the perpetrator) and had failed to refrigerate the evidence (so it had become impossible to do those tests). The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned Youngblood's conviction because evidence that might have exonerated Youngblood had not been properly preserved by the government. The case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court and became the landmark case of Arizona v. Youngblood (1988). The Supreme Court held that the Constitution does not require the government to preserve evidence that could prove a person's innocence. Only if the government intentionally destroyed potentially exculpatory evidence would an appellant like Youngblood be entitled to relief.

Years later, advanced DNA testing was applied to a swab from the sexual assault kit from the case. Not only did the DNA reveal that Youngblood was not the perpetrator, it also identified the actual assailant: a man who by then was in prison in Texas and who was quite similar to Youngblood in appearance. On the basis of the newly unearthed physical evidence, prosecutors agreed to have all charges against Youngblood dismissed. The Pima County Attorney said that he was "sorry [that Youngblood was] incarcerated for an offense for which he was not guilty." Youngblood had spent over a decade in prison, plus additional years wrongly labeled a sex offender, for a crime he did not commit.

Rafael Suarez

In 1996 Rafael Suarez made the mistake of "getting involved" and becoming a good Samaritan. While visiting in Cochise County, Suarez saw a fight break out between two men, and he intervened to try to stop it. These facts were known to witnesses and recorded on the 911 tape when one of the witnesses called the police to come to the scene and end the fight between her brother and another man. At the time, Suarez was a Tucson resident, employed by the City of Tucson, and studying to become a paralegal. He was married and had two small children and a third on the way.

Astonishingly, Suarez was charged with two counts of aggravated assault and one count of armed robbery. He hired a private defense attorney to help him prove his innocence at trial. The attorney presented no witnesses (even though he had interviewed the person who made the 911 call and she affirmed that Suarez's involvement was merely as a good Samaritan), nor did the attorney present the transcript of the 911 call. Suarez was convicted of aggravated assault and sentenced to five years in prison. For exercising his right to defend his innocence at trial, Suarez was sentenced more severely than was the actual criminal, who plea bargained.

After being incarcerated for nearly three years, the Cochise County Superior Court vacated Suarez's remaining sentence on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel. Once the contents of the 911 tape were brought to his attention, the Cochise County Attorney agreed that Suarez was guilty of nothing and did not re-institute charges against him.

Suarez lost much more than three years of his freedom. The erroneous conviction and imprisonment cost him his marriage, his parental rights, and all of his assets. He undertook various efforts to be compensated for his losses, but none bore fruit. The most nearly successful of those efforts, a lawsuit for legal malpractice against his trial attorney, resulted in a judgment of over $1 million, but none of that was ever received because the attorney had by then been disbarred, carried no malpractice insurance, and had declared bankruptcy.

Let's Play "Mock the Republicans"

The Republic's Amanda Crawford is positively giddy. 

It seems that Republican Party Political Director Brett Mecum was listing the recent political witch hunts against Republicans and mistakingly said that Sen. Pamela Gorman had been targeted by Attorney General Terry Goddard.

Crawford uses her position at the Republic as a platform to mock Mecum for his error.  Rather than concede that Mecum is addressing a real issue, Crawford feigns shock that Goddard might have investigated Gorman. 

It's understandable that Mecum could have been confused, after all, Goddard has recently humiliated himself and cheapened his office with eight high-profile investigations of Republicans.  Here's how the Tribune's Mark Flatten covered the story. 

In the last four years, Goddard and his prosecutors have filed charges against eight elected officeholders.

But in the cases that have played out in court, the assertions that corrupt politicians were cashing in on their offices have largely evaporated, replaced in many instances by charges involving paperwork or budgetary authority. The convictions that still stand have come through plea agreements to low-level felonies or misdemeanors, with requirements that the elected official resign.

Now Goddard’s critics, especially the politicians he has prosecuted, are accusing him of misusing his office to fuel his own political ambitions.

The Tribune Editorial Board pointed out that Goddard is in danger making a fool of himself.

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard risks turning into a 21st century Barney Fife if he continues to pursue costly, time-intensive conflict-of-interest cases against elected officials which end with either small-change plea deals or larger charges being thrown out in court.

So Mecum has a point about Goddard and rather than addressing that point, Crawford simply mocks him.   

But what about Gorman...has she been the target of a high profile witch hunt that involved Goddard?  Well, actually yes she has.  But Goddard's involvement was peripheral.  It was the Clean Elections Commission that selectively targeted Gorman.

It started in the fall of 2004, when Gorman's primary election opponent raised two allegations.  The first allegation was that Gorman's brochures were "too nice," so they "must have cost" more than she said they cost.  How's that for a solid allegation?  It's from her opponent and he offers no evidence. 

The second allegation is even more spurious.  Gorman wrote--and properly disclosed--checks to her political consultant.  The complaint argued that the consultant obviously spent money on labor, office expenses postage etc.  The complaint alleged that Gorman should have broken the expenses to their final components.

Here was the response from Clean Elections.

CLEAN ELECTIONS HIRES INVESTIGATOR

An independent investigator for the agency that oversees Arizona's publicly funded elections system believes three freshman Republican lawmakers have violated campaign finance laws.

The commission will decide in a special meeting on Thursday whether or not to look further into the campaigns of Sen. Ron Gould of Lake Havasu and Reps. Pamela Gorman of Anthem and Rick Murphy of Glendale. Investigator Gene Lemmon, who was hired by the Clean Elections Commission last week, said he believes the panel should move forward with an audit and investigation.

* The candidates didn't provide enough detail on how much they spent for mailers, phone calls and other campaign expenditures. Their finance reports mainly showed payments to their consultants, and not how much the consultants then paid to individual vendors for the work.

* In the Gorman case, her campaign produced and mailed out thousands of high-quality, glossy mail pieces that, her opponent alleged, must have cost more than her Clean Elections spending limits allowed.

PANEL TO AUDIT CAMPAIGNS OF 3 -
GOP LEGISLATORS FOCUS OF INQUIRY

The agency that oversees Arizona's system of publicly funded elections launched formal investigations Thursday into the campaigns of three freshman Republican lawmakers for reputed spending violations.
The Citizens Clean Elections Commission accepted the preliminary findings of its independent investigator, released earlier this week, and voted to fully audit the campaigns of Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu, and Reps. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, and Rick Murphy, R-Glendale.

Investigator Gene Lemon believes Gould, Gorman and Murphy didn't provide enough detail on how much they spent for mailers, phone calls and other campaign expenditures. 

And he alleged that Gorman's campaign may have gotten outside financial help because it produced more high-quality mail pieces than she seemingly could have afforded with her budget.

Notice how that last allegation is phrased?  "seemingly could have."  That's right, they dragged Gorman in because her mail pieces were nicer than she "seemingly could have afforded."

But then there's a twist in the investigation.  Remember the other charge involving lack of detail?  It turns out that nearly every candidate simply writes a check to his consultant.  None of them ask the consultant to break out the detailed expenditures.

So one of Gorman's constituents filed a complaint against Napolitano and Goddard and alleged the same offense for which Gorman was being investigated. 

CAMPAIGN COMPLAINT TARGETS TOP OFFICIALS

Fed up with what he views as selective investigations of conservative Republicans, an Anthem man launched Clean Elections complaints against Gov. Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Terry Goddard on Friday for alleged campaign-finance violations during their 2002 runs for office.

Napolitano campaign attorney Scott Bales said the campaign followed the rules as it understood them, and that the commission found no fault with its spending at the time despite some outside complaints.

"I haven't been involved at all with what's going on with the Republican legislators," Bales said. "I know (Meyers) is complaining that the commission is being stricter with these people, and I don't know if that's true or not. But I know we acted consistently with what we understood in 2002 was required.

"If they are now saying that a contractor can't subcontract without those subcontractors being disclosed, that's not something they were saying in 2002," he said.

So Napolitano and Goddard--together with nearly every other candidate--followed the same procedure for which Gorman is being investigated.

The situation became untenable for the Clean Elections Commission.  They declined to investigate Napolitano and Goddard and droped the investigation of Gorman.

Another freshman lawmaker, who was caught up in the same series of probes involving five socially conservative lawmakers and a pair of campaign consultants, was cleared of any wrongdoing by Lemon this week. Rep. Pamela Gorman, R-Anthem, was grateful for Lemon's findings but was annoyed it took months to finish her investigation.

Gorman's opponent had accused her of getting outside financial help because her campaign seemingly produced more high-quality mail pieces than it could afford. Lemon reviewed her receipts and found no wrongdoing.

It turns out that Gorman could prove that she didn't overspend on the brochures and that her reporting was consistent with other candidates.

Notice who was targeted?  Five socially Conservative Republicans.  There are 90 legislators not to mention the statewide elected officials, most of them use this type of accounting and the investigation didn't end until Napolitano and Goddard were dragged in. 

So Republican Political Director Brett Mecum was right that Goddard been selectively prosecuting Republicans.  And he was right that Gorman was the victim of selective prosecution in a case that involved Goddard.  But he was wrong on one point.  Gorman wasn't one of Goddard's victims, she was targeted by a different state agency. 

Rather than mock him, perhaps Amanda Crawford should have conceded that he might actually have a point. 

Not that she's biased or anything. 

CAP Bioethics Conference

This looks interesting.

The Center for Arizona Policy is sponsoring a bioethics conference on Saturday November 3. Respected bioethics experts from around the country will be speaking at “The Biotech Century: Facing Our Future,” a conference for individuals who want to become better informed on a range of bioethics issues within a biblical context. Topics to be covered will be end-of-life issues like palliative care, living wills, withholding of food and fluids, as well as the latest on embryonic stem cell research, assisted reproductive technology, embryo adoption, and cloning.

The nationally recognized experts addressing these issues will be:

Wesley J. Smith, Senior Fellow, Discovery Institute and Special Consultant, The Center for Bioethics and Culture
Carrie Gordon Earll, Senior Policy Analyst-Bioethics, Focus on the Family
Jennifer Lahl, National Director, The Center for Bioethics and Culture
Nikolas Nikas J.D., President, Bioethics Defense Fund
Dr. Fred Chay, Dean of Academics, Phoenix Seminary,
Dr. Jacque Chadwick, Associate Dean for Clinical Affairs for the Phoenix Campus, University of Arizona
The conference is  also cosponsored by Focus on the Family, Phoenix Seminary, the CBC Network, the Christian Dental and Medical Associations, and the Bioethics Defense Fund.

The Conference will be held Saturday November 3 from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm at Bethany Bible Church, 6060 N. 7th Avenue in Phoenix. Those interested in attending should visit the conference web site at www.bioethicsconference.com.

A Great Divide

This ad brilliantly demonstrates the cultural divide between the baby boomers.

Queen's Gambit Accepted

We have been reading about the employer sanctions legislation and I've noticed that the history of the bill seems to be getting lost in the coverage. 

Conventional wisdom is that Governor Napolitano was forced to sign the Employer Sanctions bill because Rep. Russell Pearce--flush with the success of five initiative victories--was going to the ballot with an even more Draconian version than the legislation that landed on her desk. 

The conventional wisdom could not be more wrong.  Employer sanctions were a pawn, offered up as a sacrifice to gain strategic advantage in the broader chess game of immigration reform.  Employer Sanctions began as a Democratic strategy to derail Republican efforts to toughen immigration laws.  The sanction strategy was a bold gambit that simultaneously made the Legislative Democrats and Governor Napolitano look tough on illegal immigration while driving a wedge into the Republican caucus. 

It was a brilliant move but it was overplayed.  Much to the shock of Democrats, the media and the local chambers of commerce, the gambit was accepted.

This is the story of how Arizona adopted the toughest Employer Sanctions law in the nation--approved by two thirds vote in each House and signed by a Democratic Governor.

Let me set the stage:  In late 2003, immigration issues are coming to a boil.  The Republic runs a 10 part editorial series on illegal immigration and concludes with this call to action.

We need new immigration reform. To be successful, that reform will have to:
1. Regularize the current undocumented workforce and assure a future supply of labor.
2. Give employers an easy and reliable way to verify immigration status.
3. Involve rigorous enforcement of sanctions against hiring the undocumented.
We know what didn't work. We can use that knowledge to design something that will.

In November of 2003, Elias Bermudez, executive director of Centro de Ayuda, a non-profit agency in Phoenix that advocates on behalf of immigrants raised the sanctions issue, albeit in a federal context. 

"If the federal government were serious about stopping human smuggling and the violence it has spawned, it would target employers who hire undocumented workers, Bermudez said."

Republicans strategy involves limiting benefits for illegal aliens and calling on the federal government to secure the boarder.  Efforts focus on a ballot initiative called Proposition 200 which limits certain welfare benefits and requires voters to show ID at the polls.  The Proposition is opposed by every newspaper, the state's entire congressional delegation and all but a few state legislators.  In November of 2004, Prop. 200 passes overwhelmingly.

In the 2005 legislative session, Republicans, led by Russell Pearce continued their efforts to deny benefits to illegal immigrants.  However, Democrats developed an effective tactic to shut down the Republican efforts.  Here's how the Republic covered the issue in April of 2005.

Democratic lawmakers may have found a way to kill or slow down two bills aimed at undocumented workers in Arizona.

On Monday, the Senate postponed action on House Bill 2030, which would deny immigrants child-care subsidies, literacy classes and other government-funded benefits.

The decision came after Republican senators were forced to vote for a provision that would suspend the business licenses of employers who hire undocumented immigrants.

Sen. Bill Brotherton, a Phoenix Democrat who offered amendments to both bills, said lawmakers must go after employers if they are serious about curbing illegal immigration.

"This is a supply and demand issue," said Brotherton, who offered the amendment that would require six-month business licenses suspensions for employers caught hiring immigrants seeking contracts with the state.

When Brotherton asked for a formal vote, the amendment passed overwhelmingly, but then his Republican colleagues opted to postpone action.

It was a brilliant stroke.  Republicans were in meltdown.  The Brotherton amendment had 20 votes comprised of all the Democrats and the Conservative Republicans.  The only hope that Republicans had was to try to strip the amendment off in a conference committee.

Later in May, Rep. Steve Gallardo tried a procedural move to eliminate the Republican's ability to move the bill into a conference committee.  Gallardo moved that the House concur in the Senate (Brotherton) amendments and send the bill directly to the Governor.

The Gallardo motion failed; the bill was sent to conference committee and the Republicans stripped out Sen. Brotherton's Employer Sanctions Language.

Here's how the Republic described events on May 12.

Arizona businesses caught hiring undocumented immigrants would no longer face the loss of their licenses and hefty state fines under a legislative decision made Wednesday.  A committee assigned to smooth versions of two immigration measures, House Bills 2030 and 2592 removed the employer sanction provisions from the bills.

Democrats appointed to the conference panel to smooth versions of the bills opposed removing the employer sanctions."We must send a message to both the business community and the federal government," said Rep. Steve Gallardo, D-Phoenix.

"Employers have to assume some degree of responsibility," said Rep. Pete Rios, D-Hayden, saying private businesses in general are enticing illegal immigration.

Here's the Republic's Linda Valdez in a May of 2005 "Quick Hit."

The hypocrisy meter exploded at the Legislature when state lawmakers tinkering with the federal problem of illegal immigration removed the only sensible part of their plan: penalizing employers who hire the undocumented. Democrats supported employer sanctions. What is it about cause and effect the GOP doesn't understand?

Governor Napolitano vetoed the bill.

If I may switch metaphors from Chess to Bridge, I will argue that it was at this point that the Democrats overplayed their hand.  After Democrats forced Republicans to vote on the sanctions language, attempted to prevent the removal of the sanctions, vetoed the bill for being too weak--Governor Napolitano used her 2006 State of the State address to call for new Sanctions language.

Then, on January 15th of 2006, the Latino Caucus announced its top legislative priorities--among them Employer Sanctions. Here's how the Republic covered it. 

ISSUE: Illegal-immigration workplace enforcement.

AT STAKE: Businesses could be sanctioned for hiring undocumented immigrants. Democrats have proposed stiff sanctions, including yanking business licenses of employers caught hiring undocumented workers. Employers have to assume some degree of responsibility for the immigration problem, Latino legislators say, and employer penalties could be their best answer.

PROSPECTS: Toss-up. In her state of the state speech, the governor proposed that employers who intentionally hire undocumented workers be hit with "substantial fines and penalties." Some Republicans and the powerful business community have opposed employer sanctions, with some saying it should be left to the federal government.

QUOTABLE: "We're frustrated by the fact the business community has not stepped to the front and taken a more assertive role with regards to influencing the kind of anti-immigrant legislation that has popped up," said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. "The only way that many of us see to bring (Republicans) to the table is to support employer sanctions."

In the 2006 session, the Republicans passed an immigration bill, but it didn't have a strong enough Sanctions component.  The Governor vetoed it calling it "Amnesty for Employers."  That powerful phrase signaled the end of a crushing debacle for Republicans.  But it's a phrase that would come back to haunt the Democrats.

Eventually, the pressure was too much for Republicans.  In 2007, Republican leadership put a full-blown sanctions bill on the Governor's desk.  House Majority Leader Tom Boone explains why.

Boone said lawmakers feel compelled to act, especially after Napolitano vetoed a GOP immigration bill last year, lambasting it as providing "amnesty" for employers who are found to have hired undocumented workers.

The accusation, which Republicans argue was false, hurt some of their members in last fall's elections and unfairly painted the Legislature as soft on immigration, he said.

The Latino Caucus, stunned by the turn about, urged the Governor to veto the bill.

Opponents say the bill could lead to discrimination as employers avoid hiring legal workers and Latinos to avoid the possibility of hiring an illegal worker.

"Businesses will be very reluctant to hire anyone who is even perceived to be an immigrant. Any person of color will be subject to (discrimination)," said Democratic state Rep. Steve Gallardo.

"I will make a prediction that sanctions will never be imposed because they can't ever become workable," said Rep. Ben Miranda, D-Phoenix. "It will never be implemented properly. It will never function."

Later that month, Napolitano put the speculation to rest.

Gov. Janet Napolitano signed a bill Monday that will create some of the toughest sanctions in the country for companies that hire illegal immigrants, breaking from some of her political allies who have opposed the measure.

End Game

So who won?  I've asserted that the Democrats overplayed their hand and ended up supporting the toughest sanctions bill in the nation.  That's clearly the case for the Latino Caucus.  They made employer sanctions a priority and fought hard for them, and then they were stunned when they became law.  I have spoken to an Hispanic activist who claims that the Hispanic Community is very unhappy with way the Latino Caucus mishandled the issue.

But what about Napolitano?  Don't be naive.  She's a brilliant politician with national ambitions.  She didn't lose this battle.  She didn't paint herself into a corner.  This was classic triangulation; it was Bill Clinton on welfare reform.  Napolitano has always been on record supporting sanctions legislation, she called for sanctions legislation and she got sanctions legislation.  In fact, she got a bipartisan bill that passed each house with over two-thirds vote. 

She drove a wedge between Republicans and the business community, signed a bill that is widely supported but opposed by her base, teamed up with Russell Pearce on a controversial issue and managed to call for the bill and sign the bill without really having her fingerprints on the bill. 

The Chamber is furious at the Republicans.  Democratic activists are furious at the Latino Caucus.  Russell Pearce is exploring a congressional bid. 

Steve Gallardo is wondering what the hell happened.

Bill Brotherton?  Napolitano just appointed him to the Superior Court .

And Napolitano?  She's perhaps the most savvy politician that the state has ever seen.  She is clearly the most powerful piece on the board.  Queen's Gambit Accepted.

Checkmate. 

Goddard on Thomas

Attorney General Terry Goddard using the dust up between Andy Thomas and the New Times as an opportunity to demand that Thomas' investigation of Goddard's office be dropped as well. 

The local media has plenty of coverage, but I thought the original letter was pretty interesting, so I thought I would privide the full text.

Here's a good example of the press coverage. 

A high-stakes political fight involving three of the state's top law-enforcement officials reached a boil Wednesday, with Attorney General Terry Goddard calling an investigation of his office a "political witch hunt" and Sheriff Joe Arpaio accusing Goddard of attempting to intimidate investigators.

In a three-page letter, Goddard demanded that Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas immediately transfer to another agency a bribery investigation involving a payment made from the state Treasurer's Office to Goddard's office last year.

Here's Bob Robb pointing out that Goddard is being opportunistic.

Terry Goddard is being opportunistic with his letter demanding that the investigation of his office be transferred to another agency and taken out of the hands of Andrew Thomas and Joe Arpaio. The duo are looking into whether Goddard went soft on former state Treasurer David Petersen in exchange for Petersen's office paying a legal fee to Goddard's office.

Ripley's Believe it or Not.

Over a month ago, I broke the story that the Tribune was going to be distributed for free.  There was a lot of skepticism about that post, but I had confidence in my original sources. 

I'm sure that you are aware that Tribune Editor Jim Ripley recently announced that versions of the Tribune would indeed be distributed for free.  Here's how the Tribune explains the change. 

I think it's a bold move, and I wish the Tribune luck in its new strategy.  But I have a couple questions about the implementation.

For example, I dropped my daughter off at her soccer game on Saturday and once she was safely with the team, I went to "park the car" by which I mean "quickly go to Starbucks and race back before the game starts."  That's when I saw an interesting sight and decided to take this picture.

The rack on the left provided Saturday's Tribune for free and the rack on the right provided Saturday's Tribune for 50 cents.  I examined the situation for a minute or so, used my extensive analytical skills and decided to take...the free one.  My guess is that I'm not the only one who made this choice.  It's going to be interesting to see how the part-free, part-subscription model works.  I assume that the red rack will stay so that the Sunday Tribune can still be sold for $1.75.

Later that night, I got  this email.

Greg,

Weirdest thing. It’s like Early Edition. I’ve already received the Sunday Scottsdale Tribune, but not much later than 10:30 p.m. on Saturday night. Another weird thing – it only has the Travel section (Section G) and the ads, Parade magazine, (maybe the comics, but it always takes a while to find them. Will they deliver the rest of the news tomorrow? Is that very efficient, delivering twice for one day’s paper? I guess I’ll see in the morning what’s up.

I received this follow up on Sunday morning. 

Greg,

I did get the rest of the paper this morning, and no the comics weren’t there last night, they came this morning. What do you make of this weird delivery scheme? I don’t know if everyone else with Trib delivery got it this way, but if it continues, they’ll be making eight deliveries a week instead of only seven.

I don't know about you, but I'm extremely curious to see how this experiment works.  (By the way we won the game 4-0, but the restrooms were closed for construction, so I was cursing that Vente French Roast by halftime.)

I Sure Hope Kris Mayes isn't Reading This.

Here's an interesting article from Forbes.

Pinnacle West Spent $1M Lobbying

(This is just federal spending.  Marty's Arizona-based efforts to raise taxes, build civic centers, champion light rail, consolidate school districts and establish all day kindergarten aren't in the total.)

Here's the article.

Utility owner Pinnacle West Capital Corp. spent more than $1 million lobbying the federal government in the first half of 2007, according to a disclosure form.

The Phoenix-based company, owner of utility Arizona Public Service as well as other real estate and energy businesses, lobbied Congress on climate change regulations, nuclear waste disposal, homeland security, energy efficiency tax incentives and railroad regulations, according to the disclosure form posted online Aug. 10 by the Senate's public records office.

Besides lawmakers, the company lobbied the Energy Department and the White House.

The company is co-owner of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station near Phoenix, the nation's largest nuclear power plant complex serving about 4 million customers in Arizona, New Mexico, Texas and California.

Under a federal law enacted in 1995, lobbyists are required to disclose activities that could influence members of the executive and legislative branches. They must register with Congress within 45 days of being hired or engaging in lobbying.

Democrats Concede Tucson

I think the conventional wisdom is that the Democrats are ascendant, so I find it truly stunning that the Democratic Party didn't manage to even field a token candidate against Republican Mayor Bob Walkup.  It's Tucson for gosh sake--the Democratic core of the Democratic stronghold of Pima County. Walkup should have been a one-term anomaly. 

Mayor Bob Walkup wants a third term in office, and for the first time he won't have to face a Democrat to get it done.

Despite Tucson being a heavily Democratic city, the Democrats have no candidate, meaning Walkup's only challenger is Green Party candidate Dave Croteau.

Croteau ran as a write-in candidate for mayor in 1999 and ran as a Green Party candidate for Pima County sheriff in 2000.

Home Sweet Home--Updated

You will recall that the Arpaio/Thomas debacle started because the New Times printed Sheriff Joe's home address.  Not to be outdone, the Republic printed Andy Thomas's address on AzCentral and then channel 12 broadcast the link. 

Here's how the Republic covered the story.

Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas lashed out at the media Tuesday after a TV reporter published an online link to public documents that listed Thomas' home address and the names of his wife and children.

On Monday evening, a Channel 12 (KPNX) reporter published the link in a story on azcentral.com, the Web site shared by Channel 12 and The Arizona Republic. The link and the story were removed Tuesday afternoon as soon as Republic editors became aware of Thomas' concerns.

Since the newspaper guys have finally figured out how to do basic internet searches, and since they think it's so funny to print the home addresses of elected officials, I thought you might want to know where some of the Republic Top Brass live. 

First, let me say that it must pay a heck of a lot better to be a publisher than a prosecutor.  Here's a nice view of Republic Publisher John Zidich's house.  Wow, 5 baths and 4,080 square feet.  Don't worry, he probably offsets his massive carbon footprint by paying to have trees planted in Bolivia.

Republic Editor and Vice President of News, Ward Bushee is quoted in the article.  Bellow is a shot of his house.  Golly, if I had been working in the newsroom for 20 years and was finally making $60K, I'd probably be pretty ticked off to see that both of these guys live in million dollar homes in Ancala.

UPDATE:  A friend of mine sent me an email pointing out that Zidich and Bushee are nice guys and they probably don't keep track of the day-to-day details enough to know about Thomas' address being printed.  So why should I print their addresses?

Here's my response. 

Newspapers are like dentists.  They are so used to inflicting pain that they can get a bit careless.  It's important for a dentist to have an occasional root canal.  I was in the legislature during the 1991 redistricting and the Sunday Republic printed a full double page fold out map of metro Phoenix and included little flags where all the legislators lived.  It printed our addresses in the side bar.  That was a decade before Google earth and the paper didn't seem to understand that I might not appreciate my home address being printed in 500,000 papers. 

It's worse in Thomas' case.  Printing Thomas' address was a spite move on the Republic's part.  New Times printed Arpaio's address as part of a feud and Thomas reacted badly, so the Republic printed Thomas' address in order to poke him in the eye.  The paper claims that they just wanted to show how easy it is to find this information on the net.  Give me a break, if that was their point, they should have printed Zidich and Bushee's information, not Thomas'. 

The paper is cavalier about the address issue specifically, and the privacy issue generally.  Printing Zidich and Bushee's readily-available information is a good way to give them a basic understanding of how it feels to be exposed.  Maybe they think twice before they do it again.