Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Recall Total | Main | What's Wrong with this Estimate? »

Comments

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

If you want to describe Montini as the defacto Democratic Party spokesman, I hope you won't be offended if we describe you the same way,only on the other side of the aisle. Just because he has thousands of readers and you have a couple hundred..... just sayin.

Yeah, but Greg has higher quality readership! :)

@JustTheFactsPlease

Where are your Facts?

Greg laid down the AZ Constitution ... that is a Fact.

I noticed you laid down zero Facts, you couldn't attack him on the Facts, so you did what libs always do ... throw factless mud.

Let's see how many readers EJ has when he isn't propped up by a dying industry. Won't be long.

Greg does it on his own.

What are the *facts* regarding EJ's readership. Just because he's in the paper, doesn't mean that people read it. They probably just use him to line the bottom of their birdcage.

Nope, nice try though.

As the section states "Laws necessary to facilitate the operation of the provisions of this article shall be enacted,"; said laws have been enacted. End of discussion, Constitution has been followed. It is not "clear" that "those statutes WILL include the payment of recall expenses".

What's the matter Bob, can't you spell "Neener, Neener"?

It's shorter and contains all the same elements of your argument.

You're welcome.

In this legislature, representing the "other side of the aisle" also means representing Republicans.

Bob,

What part of "including" is not clear?
"...including provision for payment by the public treasury of the reasonable special election campaign expenses of such officer."

I'm no lawyer but in plain English this implies that if the legislature passes enabling laws that do not include such payment then it has not followed the constitution.

Please enlighten me as to your logic. Thanks.

We have the same problem with "shall not", amazing how simple English trips so many people up, particularly when they have a sheepskin on the wall.

Bob, is English your first language? Ken is right - the Constitution says "Laws shall be enacted... INCLUDING provision for payment..." So the only REAL question is, has a law been enacted providing for payment? If not, the laws that have been enacted are in violation of the Constitution. The remedy is not, as you seem to think, ignoring the payment for the election, but is instead actually passing laws providing such.

Of course, what do I know - I just have degrees that involve in-depth study of linguistics, semantics, and grammar...

"Greg does it on his own."......and unlike the Republic, he does it without "tax loopholes".

You're talking about recalling a legislator, but what about other officeholders? Can one read this part of the constitution to say the legislature will pay the expenses of the officer actually conducting the election, which means the city or county clerk or sec. of state, and not the person subject to recall?

Greybeard,

That interpretation does not make sense when you look at Article 8 as a whole. Viewed in context of that Article it is clear that the “officer” in question is the one that is subject to a specific recall.

Section 1 sets the tone when it states that “officers” are subject to recall. Section 3 states that “such officer” may resign and if he doesn’t, an election will be held to see if “such officer” should be recalled, and that the “officer” may include a statement on the ballot. Section 5 also refers to the “officer.”

Accepted principles of interpretation require the use of “such officer” in section 6 to be consistent with these other uses of that term.

So what does the statute say?

mahtso/thomas, I do concur and I was just stirring the pot.

And I therefore wonder about applying the constitution's provision about the Legislature funding the campaign of the official in question. If they favored Pearce, they could provide millions, right? If not, they could appropriate cab fare for Pearce to go vote for himself.

What matters, constitutionally, is how a district's right to elect or recall its representative is balanced against the Legislature's right to control membership in the chamber.

The comments to this entry are closed.