The only thing worse than being a loser is being a sore loser. Team Napolitano rarely loses so it will be interesting to see if they know how to do it with some grace. So far, it doesn't look good.
While it's possible that the TIME and State Trust initiatives could still make the ballot, it's clear that both initiatives have been botched so far. TIME has been a disaster. We all know the story of the heavy handed treatment of the Homebuilders Association, the $100,000 "secret deal" and the 18,000 petition signatures that are still on Connie Wilhelm's desk. We know that the tactics caused TIME to get a late start, the signature gathering process was badly handled, nearly half of the signatures were invalid and TIME doesn't have enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.
Now the fight is in the courts. I have no problem with Team Napolitano fighting tooth and nail in the courts. I would expect no less.
But now the gang that can't shoot straight has a new theory--Republican Secretary of State Jan Brewer cheated. Did you see Democratic Party Spokeswoman Emily Bitner on Sunday Square Off? Bitner claimed that Jan Brewer sabotaged the initiative by messing with the sample. Bitner alleges that Brewer skewed the sample by picking pages that had obviously bad signatures and making sure that they were included in the sample.
Stan Barnes was a guest on the show as well and immediately called on Bitner to defend her remarks. When she reiterated her allegation of fraud, Stan pointed out that this was a huge story. This was no offhanded remark by a rank and file Democrat at a downtown coffee shop. Here was the spokeswoman for the State Democratic Party making a televised appearance in which she alleged that Republican elected officials had perpetrated election fraud by sabotaging the initiatives.
That's an incredible allegation.
It's incredible because it shows a fundamental ignorance of the petition verification system. It's incredible because it's an allegation of serious malfeasance with absolutely no evidence and it's an incredible allegation because it's such a classless demonstration of poor sportsmanship.
Bitner's conspiracy theory can be debunked with common sense. Why would Brewer only mess with the Maricopa County Sample? How could she sabotage both the TIME and State Trust initiatives so that they have the same failure rate? Why would she also sabotage the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative--which had substantial Republican support--as well?
However, we don't need to rely on common sense when we understand the way the random sample is conducted.
The Secretary of State segregates the petitions by county and then numbers them sequentially. The sample size is dictated by statute and is 5% of the total--for TIME in Maricopa County, that number is just under 11,000. Then a computer program generates a random list of the petitions that must be verified. The computer list tells the Secretary of State which petition and which signature on that petition must be checked. All 11,000 signatures that form the sample are mandated by computer print out. Brewer's staff then go through the entire universe of petitions and circle each one that was identified by the computer. Different staff verify that the circled petitions match the random list and the sample is sent to each county for verification. The random list is available for inspection.
There is no way that the Secretary of State can doctor the list. Bitner's allegation is unfounded and irresponsible. The Secretary of State's office and Maricopa County Elections office are staffed by professionals--many of them Democrats--who take their jobs very seriously.
Team Napolitano rarely loses, and they may win this battle in the courts, but they lost it in the streets. The least they can do is admit that they didn't play well, made some mistakes, learned some lessons and will do better next time. By falsely claiming that they were cheated, they demonstrate that they are not only poor sports, but lack the grace and class that most kids learn in Little League.
Post Script
Hannah, my ten year old daughter walked into the living room during Sunday Square off; she looked at the TV and said "What's up with Uncle Stan's clothes?" I told her that sometimes Stan decides to dress casual...even on TV. That's because she's not old enough to understand the real reason..Stan's appearance is a cry for help.
I first met Stan in 1990. I had just been elected to the House and he was just finishing his first term. We met at his Merrill Lynch office and he was wearing a navy blue suit that I later learned had been hand tailored for just over $1,000.
We were in a Committee meeting the next year and Stan pointed out his hero, Fennemore Craig lobbyist Jim Bush, who had been lobbying since statehood and who never wore a jacket or tie. Stan leaned over and said that if he ever became a lobbyist, he would dress just like that.
By the time Stan started lobbying, the navy suit was long gone. Stan had come home and held his infant son high over his head and young Stan III promptly threw up all over the suit. For a $1,000 I would have worn the suit no matter how it smelled, but not Stan.
When Stan started out as a lobbyist, he was very formal, but it didn't last long. The first time he went to the capitol without a tie was like the first time he shaved his head...a totally liberating experience. He still wore the jacket, but with a collared shirt--George Clooney style. Somewhere around 2004, he lost the collared shirts and just wore the jacket with a dress t-shirt. Then he lost the jacket. Now he's on TV in the same clothes he wears to the Starbucks grocery store in Mesa.
Pretty soon he'll be on TV in his pajamas. It's become an obsession like my inability to alter my route through Costco, or my collection of used Styrofoam cups. He will become more casual until we stop him. Stanley, put the Tommy Bahama shirt on the floor and step away from it slowly. Now go to your closet and get a jacket. It will feel strange at first, but wear it for a few minutes and see if the old feelings come back. You are not alone...Hannah's rooting for you.
