Good idea, but it's, well...premature.

When a bill provides a good solution to a real problem and is unassailable on the merits, the last refuge of desperate opponents is to recognize that the bill is good, but claim that it's somehow too early or the bill isn't ready.   Opponents stroke their chins and announce with as much mock gravity as they can muster that the bill is "premature."  This argument is generally met with eye rolling by the members of the committee who support the bill.

The only think weaker than the "premature" defense is the "wrong venue" defense.  This happens all the time at the legislature.  The legislature will have authority over some board, agency, process or procedure that everyone concedes is screwed up.  The apologists for this entity can't even claim that a legislative solution is "premature" because everyone concedes that the situation is a mess right now.  So they claim that the legislature shouldn't fix it simply because, you know, the legislature shouldn't fix it. 

Eventually, the apologists will be forced to concede that the organization is broken and that the legislative solution is the right solution, and that the organization has proven itself to be incapable of fixing the problem itself.  But the group will stubbornly announce that the legislature is the "wrong venue." 

Here's a text book example from the Arizona Daily Star. In fact, the example is so good that I will translate the first half of the Star editorial in its entirety.

We have editorialized in the past about the need for a nonpartisan City Council system to replace Tucson's deeply partisan government, but so far voters have disagreed.

The Star sees a problem; they have opined against the problem, but to no avail.

The most recent vote was in 1993. Since then, proposals for a nonpartisan council system have failed to make it to the ballot, including an initiative drive in 1998 and lobbying campaigns to get the council to put a measure to the voters in 2001 and 2003.

They are actually losing ground and it's clear that a local solution isn't possible.

We hope such efforts will continue, because we think reform is necessary.

It's still a problem. Of course, we've had 15 years to fix it...

We believe a council that is not mired in political party obligations and is not straitjacketed into partisan ideological positions would be acting more often for the general good. Furthermore, as we've noted before, most of the time the city government deals with issues that are neither Republican nor Democrat.

In fact, it's still a serious problem.

Now comes Tucson native and State Sen.-elect Jonathan Paton, who agrees with us.

 

Someone from Tucson has the power to fix the problem.  He's not from Mars, or Phoenix, he's a Tucson native who agrees with the Star on this critical issue.

 

Under a nonpartisan council system, he told the Star's Rob O'Dell, "You get more people who are interested in getting things done than they are in party politics. It would be harder for interest groups around parties to control the process."

 

Wow, this Tucson native is exactly right about the issues.  Finally, someone local who is now saying the same thing that we have been saying for years.

 

But Paton, a Republican, is planning to introduce legislation in the Legislature to to impose a nonpartisan City Council system on Tucson, according to a story Monday by O'Dell. Please note: In January, this body will be dominated by Maricopa County and by highly partisan Republicans.

Que the scary music.  Paton may be a Tucson native who agrees with the Star, but we learn that Paton is...a Republican and he's part of a body that dominated by...Maricopa County Republicans.  After all, non-partisanship is a good thing unless it's pushed by Republicans...not that we are partisan or anything.

Well, don't tread on us, Phoenix.

That's right.  Just because it's a good idea and we support it and the local officials have proven incapable of implementing it, and it's being pushed by one of our own elected representatives...don't tread on us.  We've had 15 years to fix this but by golly, you people from north of the Gila were made part of the United States via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo while we were admitted via the (sniff) Gadsden Purchase.  

You think I'm kidding, but the editorial writer chose that phrase "Don't tread on us" intentionally.  The "Don't Tread On Me" flag is actually the Gadsden family flag.  Phoenix was acquired by war, Tucson was purchased from Mexico.  Growing up in Tucson I was taught that distinction from pre-school.  I don't know how many book reports I've turned in with the "Don't Tread on Me" flag on the cover, but it was a lot.  Just ask Mr. Petri at Townsend Junior High.  

If Tucson's City Council system is to be reformed, the changes must flow up to the ballot from local citizens and must be accepted or rejected by Tucson voters. Our local governance choices are none of the Legislature's business, nor Paton's.

We hold these truths to be self evident that Tucson must govern itself.

It appears, based on O'Dell's research, that if Paton were to compose such a bill carefully, the Legislature could, in fact, legally impose a new governmental system upon Tucson.

Dang, Paton is smarter than he looks.  (That's nice of the reporter to check up on the attorneys at Legislative Counsel.  I look forward to reading his memo.)

There you have it.  The only thing the Star values over bipartisan ship is parochialism.  The Star offers no legitimate reason not to support the bill.  They obviously can't disagree with the issue. They can't even complain about Paton as the sponsor.  But the Tribe of Pima has counted the Tribe of Maricopa its enemy for many moons.  Arguments that are usually the last bastion of fools have become official policy of the Star. 

The only thing more troubling than the people of Tucson being the last city to tolerate partisan elections is their toleration of such a weak third-tier newspaper.

Comments

[Charlie]

"third-tier"??? That's a little generous, isn't it? I heard about this editorial on the local radio this morning. Its (the paper and editorial) a joke.

Good stuff Greg.

[SonoranSam]

I can't disagree with your low opinion of a newspaper that Jim Corbett once described as "The Morning Mistake," but your loooooong argument simply boils down to the fact that you think Tucson needs to change the way it elects council members.

Why? Because it will make it easier to elect Republicans to local office.

There's just one problem. The voters spoke, and they said no. Since you're obviously smarter than the average Tucsonan, you think it's OK if Paton uses the power of the Legislature to force it on Tucson voters.

If it's a good idea, put it on the ballot and pass it. Otherwise, run your hospital board your way, and let people in Tucson run their own affairs.

[ron]

Phoenix has a council elected by districts. The assumption is that the election is non-partisan. However, in the last two elections for city council partisan issues have come frequently.

Personally, I don't care what party my councilman comes from. I do care if he or she will consider my community and care for it.

[Stewie]

The Star wants Tucson to be run by nonpartisan liberal whackos instead of Democrat liberal whackos.

[todd]

But Greg the editorial does offer a very good reason not to support the bill - people in Tucson don't want it.

[Sam]

Same could have been said about 102 here and Prop 8 in California....

[Gretchen]

How about making state office elections non-partisan too?

[Budget Brainstormer]

Interesting idea for a bill but time will run out at the legislature before the bill makes it through the process. The budget has to pass before Paton's bill even gets assigned to a committee. Of course the House has not made the same commitment to passing the budget first, so their members will get their bills through.

Welcome to the Senate, Mr. Paton.

[Saxdrop]

it might be "premature" to label non-partisan local elections as "unassailable on the merits."

Research by my George Mason University colleague David Schleicher (Law School http://www.law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/schleicher_david) proposes that because of the low-information nature of local elections, partisan elections may actually be social welfare increasing:

http://volokh.com/posts/chain_1228735775.shtml

[todd]

Sam
How so?

[Sam]

Hmm...most people did not support gay marriage, ergo both propositions passed.

DeVry or ITT?

[todd]

Sam - that fact is so obvious I guess I was looking for some deeper meaning in your comment. My mistake.

[Sam]

Well Todd, considering you are one of the denser posters around here, I figured I'd spell it out for you. I even typed it slow since I know you don't read quickly.

My mistake.

[todd]

Sam. The issue Greg is writing about and Prop 102 have one large difference. Care to take a guess?

[Klaihauer]

So, budget brainstormer, there won't be any bills passed in the senate besides budget bills? I think you should stop listening to what the legislature says it plans on doing and pay attention to what it actually does. So, no bills pass and I suppose none of Brewers appointments get confirmed either while we're at it? Sorry, but a basic understanding of politicians would dictate that they have to have something to bring back to their districts besides budget cuts. Non money-related bills are definately in that category. Not only would I expect this bill to get heard but I can forsee the most bills signed into law since Napolitano took office. Welcome to the legislature and the real world yourself, Mr. Brainstormer.

[Retrorv]

"It appears, based on O'Dell's research, that if Paton were to compose such a bill carefully, the Legislature could, in fact, legally impose a new governmental system upon Tucson." Yes, O'Dell is a great legal theorist. Greg, you may want to study the powers of charter cities in Arizona. You can start with this case: McMann v. City of Tucson 202 Ariz. 468, 472, 47 P.3d 672, 676 (Ariz.App. Div. 2,2002). If the issue is soley a matter of local concern the Legislature is powerless to change it. This is from McMann: "Municipal affairs subject to local control, independent of any state legislative interference, are those subjects of “solely local concern,” rather than subjects of statewide or mixed statewide and local concern." I don't know how a court would rule on this but my opinion is that the election of city council members is a matter of local concern and that the Legislature cannot impose its fiat here.