« As if things weren't chaotic enough... | Main | That's Progress »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

How about making state office elections non-partisan too?

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.

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:


How so?

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

DeVry or ITT?

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

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.

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

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.

"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.

The comments to this entry are closed.