Subscribe to EspressoPundit

« Fast and Furious Went as Planned... | Main | Nothing Left but the Smile. »

Comments

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

Among the conditions listed in their lawsuit to show that Cortes is not a "real" candidate is that she doesn't have a website and she doesn't have volunteers. I can't recall seeing those requirements in the statutes, but they've got real lawyers working for them, so they probably know better. Oops, turns out she does have a website and she does have volunteers, so I guess they are wrong on their facts as well?

And its worth pointing out that when you say that "the left" is having convulsions, you mean Jerry Lewis and the rest of his team including Randy Parraz, Chad Snow and the rest of the left.

Greg,

Fake third parties and fake candidates are actually a serious problem in the U.S. I recently did a paper on how easy it is and how common it is for these impostors to sully the process.

I was thinking about putting a portion of the paper online.

I am just saying that in congressional race fake candidates can have powerful effects on the outcome. Whether a fake green candidate or libertarian candidate, taking in 5% can often mean the difference between victory and defeat.

I am concerned about the left's solutions to the problem but I do admit that it is a serious problem. You're right about having a judge make the determination, it is too difficult and dangerous.

The flip side is making it more difficult for candidates/parties to get on the ballot. This works in limiting fake candidates but also hurts legitimate candidates that don't have access to party resources.

I will put my paper online, but this is a bigger issue than you seem to be stating.

I actually agree with you Greg, but also suspect you wouldn't write about the issue if the phony third party was running AGAINST your boy.

An informed public is the true way to combat "fake candidates".

Oh wait this is the United States in 2011. There is no such thing as an informed public.

Amen, Greg. It is ludicrous to suggest that the judiciary has the power to examine the motive of any candidate who has met the ballot qualifications and remove that candidate from the ballot if they find the candidate's motive deficient. It is even more annoying when they apply some made up criteria reflecting the judge's personal preferences and characterize that criteria as constitutional requirements.

The reason this is happening is that while I like Tom Ryan (the attorney) a lot, he has become obsessed with getting pay back on anyone whom he feels was involved in a public show of disrespect to his brother Tim, a Superior Court judge, some years ago. Thomas sent Dennis Wilenchik to publicly ask Tim to recuse himself from all cases involving the county attorney, due to personal bias (a ludicrous motion that should not have been filed) and since that time, Tom has had it in for Thomas, Arpaio, Pearce and anyone else Tom feels was involved with Thomas.

So, those that are complaining about so-called "sham" and "fake" candidates, of whatever stripe, are really saying is: The electorate are so stupid they can't decide who they really want and can be easily manipulated. Sounds like the typical leftist approach to all governance. The left always knows better what to do with our money, our votes, our lives. Is that the crowd we want in charge?

Thomas, I'd be interested in seeing the provisions in the A.R.S. that delineates a "real" candidate from a "fake" one.

Certainly candidates without a possibility of actually winning are present (Ralph Nader was mentioned as an example). But as far as I know, the only requirements are the ones specified in the A.R.S. - anyone who fulfills those is a "real" candidate as far as the law is concerned, no matter what their motives.

Or, put it this way: if a so-called "fake" candidate actually pulled off an upset and won, would they be eligible - and obligated - to take office?

As Brian and RonJ said...

Amen. This seems like a fascism of the left, pure and simple.

Where was all the fake candidate talk when 'clean elecitons' was encouraging enterprising plumbers and landscapers to put their kids on the payroll?

Sounds like another to-do 'priority' issue for superhero Sandy Day O's bucket list, now that they have solved the fiesta fiasco.

The "Open Primary" initiative was filed today. If the anti-Cortes legal argument somehow works in court, what’s to stop similar ballot clearing efforts in the new “open primary” system? I haven’t thought through how this fevered line of thinking would actually work in the real world but do we want to live under a judicial regime that can decide which candidates deserve to be on the ballot based on their attitude or seriousness? Isn’t that the voters’ call?

Farrell is right. Nor do we want the State Bar telling elected prosecutors which politicians shouldn't be prosecuted.

If we define a "fake" candidate as one that appears to have have no real shot before a single ballot is cast, Janet Napolitano and Sarah Palin's first Gubernatorial races come to mind.

And Farrell makes an excellent point. Can you imagine Candidates and campaign managers presenting their strategies to a judge before becoming a "real" candidate?

There are perennial candidates for the legislature as well as several other offices who, by your definition are "fake".

Jim Deakin who ran for, of all offices, the U.S. Senate against Hayworth and McCain is a "fake" candidate? What about Ian whats-his-name who also ran for U.S. Senate or Bruce Olsen for that matter? Are they to be removed from the ballot because someone has determined what a "real" candidate is and what a "fake" candidate is?

How many minor political parties does Arizona now have? Are they all "fake"?

"The flip side is making it more difficult for candidates/parties to get on the ballot. This works in limiting fake candidates but also hurts legitimate candidates that don't have access to party resources."

And who is to determine which is which?

Perhaps the real problem is that our choices are typically so awful that one of these so-called "fake candidates" pulling five percent away from the others on the ballot even makes it possible for them to go down in defeat. Maybe if a candidate was actually popular with the electorate, instead of just barely tolerable, then that wouldn't be an issue to begin with.

But then, of course, we get into a host of other issues, such as the structure of districts, the bias of the media and their selection and presentation of information, the education (or lack thereof) of the electorate, and so on.

A bigger issue indeed. The real problem, however, is not "fake candidates". It is, instead, the nature of the beast.

In addition to the BIG problem of a Judge deciding after VALID signatures, whom is a "sham", I have a problem with the RECALL GROUP, misstating or leaving out WHO THEY ARE, and that the "publicly quoted" members are just little ladies with a cane, and politically non-experience. BS.
Ms. Mary Lou
http://www.azsos.gov/results/1996Primary/REP3229.htm
http://influenceexplorer.com/politician/mary-lou-boettcher/4649330ada864d018846d9647513222d?cycle=-1

At the above links you can view the election results of 1996 in which MS. Boettcher ran for district, LD 29 AND how much money and by whom, was donated to her campaign.

From AZ Central article, June 4th about the little "political experienced" volunteers highlighted: (june, '11)

"Every day, Mesa residents with little political experience suddenly found themselves in the limelight as they turned in recall petitions against state Senate President Russell Pearce this week."

"They included Todd Selleck, a golf course equipment manager; Amanda Zill, a registered nurse; Mary Lou Bettcher, a retired teacher who walks with a cane; and Julie Jorgensen, an adult education teacher."

Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/06/03/20110603mesa-russell-pearce-recall.html#ixzz1ZHHYh5kx

Todd Selleck, Democrat Party LD 18 official

Amanda Zill, Change.org list of her social change petitions (that she signed) http://news.change.org/members/1768075

Mary Lou Boettcher, in addition to the above post, was a Precinct Committee person

Julie Jorgensen teaches Adult Education for Rio Salado which is part of the "Hispanic Outreach". Julie also signed a petition to "End Arpiao's Abuses" supported by LUCHA, Living United for Change in Arizona. "Social Justice".

These people, set up as "examples" by the RAG and the Recall as the "ordinary citizens" upset by Pearce, all have backgrounds that are not, "politically naive" nor "lack an agenda".

Regarding AZCentral's attack and Randy/Chad on Russel Pearce signs, Mesa official quotes as saying a "new state law" doesn't allow signs for the RECALL election to be displayed until 69 days out from election.

Lewis campaign had signs out a month before that and no complaints?

From Recall Pearce FB, comment on Lewis signs and date:

Bill Stephens
I saw a Jerry Lewis sign in the neighborhood. Way to go neighbor!
August 18 at 12:53pm

I also find it hilarious that they are using the "illegal" word for signs, but Illegal Immigrants committing Fraud by using false documents, entering the country illegally, failing to abide by our laws, laws that American citizens and Legal Residents abide by, the "recall supporters" could care less.

They also are supporting (a few) the "deportation" of a Naturalized Citizen for her "sham" campaign.

Randy Parraz schooled by association with Saul Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation for 9 years before arriving in Arizona to cause "... transformative social changes"

Sounds like Obummer's "Hope and Change" ... but then he was a disciple of Saul Alinsky too

This trying to get a "Judge" to decide who is a "sham" or not, reeks of what happened to that town in the East (one of the Carolinas perhaps) that wanted to leave off the political designation of the local municipal candidates but were told by the DOJ, that 'Blacks wouldn't know who the Democrat was'.

It's legal to challenge petition signatures, and these should be verified. All the requirements have to be met. It's another thing entirely to challenge a candidate after they have submitted the signatures on the basis of "accusations" of a sham. Do we really want to go there? What's next if a "Judge" can interpret thoughts?

Chick - you are my new hero. Even more than Evan Longoria.

(excuse my soxenfreuden - any sports event that sends half of Taxachusettes into morning can't be all bad)

Chick can be my 'fake' candidate, my real candidate, my anything candidate.

It takes twelve justthefactsplease's to move a union ladder - and then only after the National Labor Reations board hands down a ruling. But only five Robert Woodmans to screw in a light bulb (all that education did amount to SOMETHING besides a marginal bank profit on the loans)

But give me five arizona CHICKS and half the money the left coast wackos threw at Parraz's version of sham wow reform - and we could solve this problem in less than an election cycle!

AND STILL HAVE A COUPLE OF HUNDRED GRAND LEFT TO GIVE TO GREGS FAVORITE CHARITY!

I guess I need some caffeine. lol

The City of Mesa was wrong on the signs going up to early. 60 days before an election is what they say, an election starts when ballots go out.

Funny thing is that Don Stapley is the one who forced the issue and won, now he is one of those supporting Jerry Lewis.

How much tax payer money is being spent on this unnecessary recall election? Never before do I remember having a recall election because we voted in a candidate that is doing what he said he was going to do? If you don't like him or her - we have a political process. It is called an election and that's the time to place your vote. Arizonans need to smell the liberal progressive politics of this Tucson outsider that has his own political agenda. As for Mormon Jerry Lewis - I do not know his agenda in this but it really is curious. Why isn't the liberal Arizona Repulsive media covering this angle?

http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/07/12/20110712pearce-recall-set-november-8-brewer.html

Okay, I answered my own question. According to the above article. The answer is $150,000 dollars we are paying for this ridiculuous recall. Thanks Randy Parraz for coming into our district to attack our elected officials. I sure hope #18 understands the agenda.

The comments to this entry are closed.