Pima County election integrity update: Dems drop fight for cynical reasons; Libs soldier on.

Two weeks ago--I'm more behind than I thought, but nobody else is following this story!--David Euchner delivered a report at the Pima County Libertarian Party's monthly meeting on recent developments in the possibly "flipped" 2006 Regional Transportation Plan election.

The Democratic and Libertarian Parties both desired a hand-count to be performed; Pima County Superior Court Judge Charles Harrington ruled that challenges to election results are not allowed beginning five days from the announcement of the results.

As a result of the Osmolski Affadavit, Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard conducted his own investigation. It was less than thorough and the best election integrity watchdogs were not allowed to observe. The AG's office permitted the county's political parties to name several observers, and one of its choosing would observe. The Pima County Libertarian Party, for example, nominated election integrity guru Jim March, and the request was denied. Goddard could have settled the question once and for all, but by keeping the experts out of the room and failing to do obvious things like inspect the poll tapes, Goddard's affirmation of the election's results only called them further into question.

Destruction of the ballots has been stayed pending the outcome of the Libertarian Party's appeal. Ralph Ellinwood, working on the case pro bono, was said by Euchner to contend that Harrington had equitable jurisdiction and his hands were not tied by statute as he claimed. Bill Risner, the Democrats' counsel, is said to like to continue working on the case, and has sources of funding, but needs a client. The Democrats backed out.

Pima Association of Taxpayers vice-president Dick Bayse, a longtime Democrat, was in the room during Euchner's presentation. His explanation for the Democrats' sudden loss of interest: the matter became an embarrassment to Terry Goddard, a possible gubernatorial candidate. Willingness to pursue the matter was always less than unanimous, and when it became a question of supporting Goddard, it tipped the balance.

I can't speak to Goddard's chances or whether or not the Dems' support is rational behavior. I find him tremendously crass--not only for flaunting economic ignorance but also for his perpetual campaigning. For example, as the featured speaker at the ACLU-AZ Southern Chapter's Independence Day event a few years ago, Goddard had the nerve to spend his whole speaking time talking up populist efforts to sue tobacco companies or protect senior citizens from deceptive (and non-deceptive) business practices, devoting not a single minute to civil liberties. But I also find Sheriff Joe crass, and he's a perennial winner.

Let's hope the Pima County Democrats are right and this matter could hurt Goddard's chances. A man who conducts such a banana-republican "investigation" shouldn't be Governor or dogcatcher.

But enough with that digression. There was unanimous support in the room for the Pima County Libertarian Party to become Risner's client and continue the fight for fair and properly conducted elections. Former Pima LP chairman David Euchner deserves much of the credit for this; the LP's continued involvement in the case has been largely due to his efforts. I could write pages about how the Pima LP and the Arizona LP more generally acts like the sectarian, self-defeating third party that it is, but Euchner's involvement in the election integrity matter has been nothing short of professional.

The Libertarian Party is standing up for election integrity; the Democrats chose cynical loyalty to a born-privileged elected official over fighting for the right of the people to lawful, open government and fair procedures. If you had to consider sending a contribution to one of these groups, or registering as a member of one or the other, which would you choose?

From the road #1: Does this person sound familiar?

From a USA Today article that ended up on the front page, below the fold, of the San Diego Union-Tribune:

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, fears that violent confrontations will increase as more people carry concealed guns. "When someone's carrying a gun around and they're not fully trained, oftentimes they'll use it just because it's there," he says.

Ignoring the grating singular "they", I'd hate to say it, but Paul Helmke may be right. This does happen, and in Arizona we should be more aware of it than almost anyplace else. (This, of course, doesn't imply that it's better to ban firearms...)

Why should we be aware of it? One name: Harold Fish.

On a hiking trail, Fish was approached by dogs being walked off-leash by one Grant Kuenzli. Made uneasy by the dogs, he fired a "warning shot". It doesn't take a genius to understand that (1) concerning humans, there's no such thing as a "warning shot" in Arizona law and (2) Dogs don't understand "warning shots". Following this escalation, Kuenzli ran toward Fish, upset and thinking he's trying to kill the dogs; Fish shot him three times and claimed it as "self-defense". At best, it's probably "imperfect self defense", a mere mitigating factor, but with the only witness to the altercation being Fish, who knows?

In 2006, the Arizona legislature began a dangerous experiment. In our legal tradition, self-defense and other justification defenses are affirmative defenses, that is, the defense must be proved to the jury with presumption against the defendant. In Arizona, justification defenses are no longer affirmative defenses; the prosecution must now prove that a murder was not self-defense!

In Arizona, we are thus more likely to be shot by an angry man who thinks he can claim self-defense, and more likely to see conflicts that would ordinarily end in a shouting match be escalated by cowards like Fish and end in shootings. Fish is currently released pending the outcome of a remand; the Arizona Court of Appeals says that Fish should have been allowed to introduce testimony to the effect of "Kuenzli was protective of dogs". This session, primarily for Fish's benefit (!), the legislature passed a bill making the 2006 change retroactive. If there is a retrial, the prosecution will now have to prove that Fish wasn't acting in self-defense. Attorney General Terry Goddard has appealed the Appeals Court's ruling to the AZ Supreme Court. For once, I have nothing bad to say about Terry Goddard.

Fish's release has been celebrated by firearms enthusiasts and RKBA supporters in the state and elsewhere. That's a bad call. The incident on the hiking trail is equivalent, up to a change of scenery, to the "blood in the streets" "shot over traffic disputes" scenario brought up always by RKBA opponents. Fellow supporters of firearms rights: this is not anything with which we want to be associated.

An idiot in the AG's office, and how Arizona's Congressional delegation voted on HR 1252

Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard has, infamously flaunted his ignorance regarding the economic mechanisms setting gas prices.

To quote a sample:

Gasoline retailers and their trade associations claim that gasoline stations must immediately raise their prices in response to a threatened supply disruption because they must raise enough money to pay for their next shipment of potentially higher priced fuel. They call this arbitrary and speculative behavior “replacement cost” pricing. Whatever the reason, gasoline retailers actually seemed to be competing to raise prices during the Katrina episode. I personally observed that as soon as one station posted higher prices, others in the area quickly matched it. To do otherwise, retailers told my Office, would be to risk being overrun by customers and pumped dry.

Yes, avoiding being pumped dry is what replacement-cost pricing is all about. If you could undercut another retailer and be sustainably flooded with customers--or at least get more--you would. That's the process in effect when gas prices "come down like a feather." Apparently Goddard has yet to hear of "competition".

Read the rest. It's funny in a sick way, and stands as evidence that the man doesn't have either the brains or the knowledge to be a responsible Attorney General. Ignorance-based prosecutions are as intolerable as malicious ones.

Arizona's House delegation had the opportunity earlier this week to show whether or not they, unlike Goddard, get it, and whether or not they'd vote on something either pointless or blatantly unconstitutional for the sake of political posturing. Here's how they voted on HR 1252:

Aye AZ-1 Renzi, Rick [R]
Nay AZ-2 Franks, Trent [R]
Nay AZ-3 Shadegg, John [R]
Aye AZ-4 Pastor, Edward [D]
Aye AZ-5 Mitchell, Harry [D]
Nay AZ-6 Flake, Jeff [R]
Aye AZ-7 Grijalva, Raul [D]
Aye AZ-8 Giffords, Gabrielle [D]

Flake's "Nay" is predictable, as are the ayes of Grijalva and Giffords.

I'll throw in the first dollar for a collection to send each "Aye" voter a copy of Gwartney et al's Common Sense Economics, preferably by some postal method involving a whack on the head.