Reform Our Electoral System

Can we all agree that our nation’s electoral system is fucked up?  We have 50 individual states that set their own laws regarding the times, locations and who is eligible to vote resulting in 50 different sets of election laws.  Some of these laws make it easier for people to vote and some of these laws make it tougher for people to exercise their right to vote and these laws change year to year.  Add in that the various electoral subdivisions within each of those 50 states has different methods to cast a vote, plus that elections are overseen by partisan elected officials and you have a recipe for disaster on a grand scale.

If we wish to actually be that shining beacon of democracy that we as a nation claim to be, we need to make some serious changes.  These changes include standardization of eligibility and voting methods, standardization of voting times, creation of a national voting “holiday”, reform of the Electoral College, elimination of partisan elected electoral officials and campaign finance reform.  This is not exhaustive, but it is a good starting point.

STANDARDIZATION OF ELIGIBILITY:  This one should be a no brainer, but there are people in this nation who just don’t want other people to vote.  These “undesirables” include (but are not limited to) African-Americans, Hispanics, the poor, the elderly and those convicted of felonies.  Conservatives (of both parties) are the ones who push for the exclusions while liberals push for their inclusion.  Myself, I think that even those convicted felons serving time should be eligible to vote (they retain other rights, why not their right to vote?).

So, it is my belief that the easiest standardization of eligibility would be this: If you are at 18 years of age or older at time of the election and are a citizen of the United States, then you are eligible to vote.  Period.

STANDARDIZATION OF VOTING METHODS:  After the 2000 elections “hanging chads” fiasco, Congress deemed it wise to send billions of dollars to the states to “update” their voting methods.  There was no requirement for standardization across the nation, let alone within the individual states.  Each voting subdivision was allowed to choose which voting methods they wished to use.  Some chose electronic voting machines, some with printed paper “receipts” and some without.  Some “optical scan” paper ballot systems.

I prefer the optical scan paper ballots myself.  Even if the optical scanner breaks down, you can at least hand count the paper ballots.  With electronic voting machines, if the machine breaks down, there is the strong potential that all of the votes cast on that machine are lost.  Not to mention that these machines have been proven to be easily hacked and that bad software can “flip” votes cast.

So yes, my vote would be to require that all electoral subdivisions use optical scan paper ballots.

STANDARDIZATION OF VOTING TIMES:  We live in a 24 hour society yet in many states, the hours that one can vote on election day are set at times that don’t acknowledge that fact.

To me, the solution is simple: Voting on election day should be from 1:00 am until 11:00 pm in every electoral subdivision.  Couple this with making Election Day a National holiday and we may no longer need “early voting”.

MAKE ELECTION DAY A NATIONAL HOLIDAY:  I remember while watching the History Channel’s mini-series of the Hatfields & McCoys a couple of scenes regarding election day.  This was a day that they got dressed up and the entire family went to the polling location and turned it into a party.  The thought that kept running through my mind was: Why don’t we do that now?

So yes, I believe we should make Election Day a mandatory national holiday.

ELIMINATE PARTISAN ELECTED ELECTIONS OFFICIALS: As we saw in 2000, partisan elected election officials have political motivation to sway an election the way of their party.  We are seeing it again in 2012 with Ohio Secretary of State Jon Husted has become the poster child of what is wrong with partisan elected electoral officials.  A couple of states have countered this by creating non-partisan commissions that oversee elections.  I think the non-partisan commission is the best way to go.  It takes away the incentive to sway an election toward a particular candidate or party.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM:  It is estimated that $5 billion will be spent during this election cycle for all races combined.  This is an astronomical amount of money.  Other than putting severe limits on how much one can contribute to a campaign, who can contribute and who can receive campaign contributions, I am not sure what can be done.  Plus, without a constitutional amendment, the US Supreme Court’s decision to equate money with speech will contravene any such attempts to reform our campaign finance laws.

In the end, it is up to us to institute reforms and once these reforms are enacted, remain vigilant to see that these reforms are not undone.

Good Friday morning!  Only 4 days until the election.  Make sure you get your asses to the polls and make sure you are educated about whom and what you are voting for.

This morning, I bring to you Pretty Vegas by INXS.  Please enjoy.

Arizona Republic Gets It Wrong ... Again!

The Editorial Board of the Arizona Republic (TEBAR) would have you believe that President Obama made a huge mistake in regards to contraceptive coverage for employees of religiously affiliated organizations.  They believe that since the issue was about really about “liberty” and “religious freedom” that Republicans had a winning issue with which to beat President Obama this November.

“Once upon a time, Republicans had a very good issue going for them in their battle to replace President Barack Obama with one of their own.

It was something precious and universal: Liberty. Religious freedom.

Once, they had the chance to fight the federal leviathan, which sought to impose its will and its own set of morals on America's people of faith. And to carry the fight from the moral high ground.

In the face of Obama's mandates regarding insurance for abortifacients and sterilization and the rest, they had the First Amendment. They had a founding principle of the American way of life.”

Yes, TEBAR believes denying women healthcare coverage for contraception was a “very good issue”, that is, until Rush Limbaugh started talking about it.

“What does it say about the college coed Susan [sic] Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex.

She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception. She wants you and me and the taxpayers to pay her to have sex. What does that make us? We're the pimps.

The johns, that's right. We would be the johns -- no! We're not the johns. Well -- yeah, that's right. Pimp's not the right word.

OK, so, she's not a slut. She's round-heeled. I take it back.”

“So Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal.  If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

But TEBAR gets it wrong, again.  Requiring religiously affiliated institutions such as hospitals to provide health care insurance for their employees that included contraceptive coverage was never about “liberty” or “religious freedom”.  It was always about a woman’s ability to receive equal access to healthcare insurance with contraceptive coverage no matter if the woman is an employee of GE or St. Joseph’s Hospital.

A woman doesn’t have to use that coverage if their religious views don’t allow it, but that is their individual choice, not the choice of their employer.  No employer, religiously affiliated or not, should have the ability to deny anyone, male or female, access to certain coverage by insurance providers due the employer’s religious views or affiliation.

The Republicans were getting their ass kicked on this issue, even before Mr. Limbaugh decided to speak on it.  They made numerous missteps, including having only men testify about contraceptives in front of a Congressional Committee chaired by Congressman Darrel Issa.  Hell, just the fact that 98% of women who identified themselves as Catholic stated that they use contraceptives, against Catholic dictate, made the war on contraceptive coverage a losing issue.

Republicans are grasping at straws.  They know that the real issues are the economy and jobs.  They also know that they have no real remedies to help the economy or to create more jobs.  That’s why they thought the issue of contraceptive coverage by religiously affiliated institutions was a winning issue.  And that’s why The Editorial Board of the Arizona Republic tried to make the issue really about “liberty” and “religious freedom” when it was nothing of the sort.

United Christian States of America

A lot has happened in the three years since the 2012 election when Rick Santorum was elected president and social conservative Republicans secured a two-thirds majority in the House and filibuster proof majority in the Senate.  Within a month of the election, Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus presided over a reforming of the Republican Party into the United Christian Party.  President Santorum and his allies were able to push through Constitutional amendments to rescind the 13^th, 14^th, 15^th, 17^th, 19^th and 24^th Amendments. 

New amendments making the United States into the United Christian States, eliminating freedom of religion, banning abortions and contraceptives plus banning all political parties other than the UCP were also enacted.  Former leaders of the now banned Democratic Party were tried for treason, found guilty and executed on national television including former President Obama.  Any person of African or Latin descent who hadn’t “self deported” themselves were rounded up and sold to the highest bidder.  Gays and lesbians, such as myself, had their property seized and forced into “detainment camps” like the one I am currently in.

Public schools, colleges and universities were closed and sold off.  The military was ordered to burn Hollywood to the ground and all entertainment production has to be approved by the Department of Christian Standards.  The Department of Education was reformed into the Department of Christian Development.  The Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Health and Human Services were abolished, as were all social programs, including Social Security and Medicare.

The United Nations and NATO are no more.  Mexico is now a territory of the United States plus Iraq and Afghanistan are officially “protectorates”.  Iran is occupied after our successful invasion in 2014.  Now there are rumors that Saudi Arabia and other oil producing nations in the Arabian Gulf may be invaded as well.

Ah, the rumors.  Every day there is a new rumor or an expansion of an older rumor.  Rumors that only clergy belonging to the UCP may hold public office.  Rumors of executions on sight of Mormons and Muslims.  Rumors that gays and lesbians aren’t being deported, as the government ordered, but are instead being executed and buried out in the desert.

It is scary to think that all of what has happened since 2012 didn’t have to come to pass.  It is scary to think that President Obama lost the election because he tried to be Republican-lite and didn’t stand up for liberal ideals.  It is scary to think that Democrats thought they had an easy win and didn’t need to fight.

-------------------------

I was never very good at storytelling, but this dystopian future doesn’t have to happen.  This is a future that President Obama and other Democrats can prevent, but they need to see the error of their ways.  They need to see that embracing long held Republican ideals is not the way to win over progressives and liberals.  Democrats can’t be wishy-washy on renewable energy, equal rights, abortion, fair taxation or the social safety net.  They need to be something more than “Not the Republicans”.

Arizona Republicans: Destroying Arizona One Law At A Time

Elected Republicans in Arizona have done a lot of damage over the years.  Besides constantly cutting taxes they have:

Cut off new enrollment for adults without children in the state’s Medicaid program AHCCCS.

Voted against extending unemployment benefits to be paid for by the Federal government.

Created quasi-private “charter” schools in the name of “school choice”.

Created tax credits for those who donate to “scholarship funds” for private and parochial schools.

Enacted the infamous “living while brown” law known as SB1070.

Raided special funds of the Department of Transportation, forcing the closure of Arizona’s rest stops.

Raided special funds of the State’s park department forcing the closure of most of the state parks.

Sold off the state capital buildings in a complex lease-buy-back scheme.

Cut public school funding.

And that’s just some of the damage that elected Republicans have done to Arizona.  But Republicans aren’t content with the damage they have done.  Now that they face the prospect of losing their death grip on the Arizona legislature this November, they are hell bent inflicting even more damage upon Arizona.

One state legislator has introduced a bill requiring public schools to offer as an elective a course on the Bible and its influence on Western society.  Another legislator has introduced a bill requiring that a class devoted to the “free markets” be passed in order for a student to graduate from public schools.  Yet another legislator has proposed increasing the tax credit given to those who donate to private and parochial school “scholarship funds”.  It should be noted that the same legislator is the head of such an “scholarship” organization.

Speaker Andy Tobin is pushing to have his secretly designed redistricting maps approved by voters in a special election.  Other legislators are pushing to put up for vote the elimination of the AIRC and to allow the legislature once again to determine redistricting maps.

Now the Republicans want to strip all public employees at every level of government in the state of their right to collectively bargain.  It is not enough that Arizona is a so called “right to work” state.  No, they want to destroy the last major unions in the state, the public unions.  Firefighters, police, teachers, etc would all be disallowed from collectively bargain.  Plus, union dues could no longer be automatically deducted from their paychecks.

Elected Republicans know that any damage they do before the elections this November won’t be easily repaired or reversed, if at all.  They know that because constitutionally it takes a super majority of both house of the legislature for any tax increase, that their tax cuts will stand.  They know that because taxes can’t be reversed that their cuts to public education and the social safety net will stand.

So, the damage will continue and the future of Arizona isn’t looking so good.

Something To Believe In

It seems this presidential election year has been going on forever and its only January 22, 2012!  It doesn’t help that myriad candidates for the Republican nomination have been running since the election of 2008 ended with the victory of then Senator Barak Obama.  It also doesn’t help that there have been 17 (I know, the number seems like it should be much, much higher) Republican debates since May 5, 2011 with the 18^th scheduled for tomorrow night.

Even as someone who has politics running through their veins, I am getting worn out.  Politics is a blood sport, no matter how “civil” we profess we want it to be and in 2011 the blood flowed in many parts of the nation.  The upper Midwest was a key battleground for politics as Republican governors and their very supportive Republican controlled legislatures sought to eliminate the ability of public employees to collectively bargain.  In Wisconsin and Ohio the citizenry fought back and at least in Ohio have won and in Wisconsin Governor Walker is facing a recall election.

In an effort to diminish the ability of voters to participate in elections, many Republican controlled legislatures are attempting to enact draconian “voter identification” laws.  Hell, even federal probationer James O’Keefe looks like he headed a conspiracy to violate both Federal and New Hampshire election law to “prove” the need for voter identification laws.  Of course we all know that the Republicans’ love for voter identification laws is bullshit considering that no one had to provide photo identification to participate in the Iowa Republican Presidential Caucuses.

In Florida anyone receiving government assistance became required to be drug tested until a Federal judge halted the law.  Now it seems Congressional Republicans would like to have even those receiving unemployment insurance benefits to be drug tested.  I wonder if maybe we should require those in Congress and their staff to submit to drug tests.

In Arizona, author of the infamous “papers, please” SB1070 and State Senate President, Russell Pearce, was successfully “recalled” in historic election.  The Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission was attacked from the very start by the shadow group FAIR Trust and state “tea party” movement members, not to mention Governor Brewer and Republicans in the legislature.  AIRC Chairwoman Colleen Mathis was removed by Governor Brewer and Senate Republicans only to be reinstated by the Arizona Supreme Court.  The attacks against the AIRC and Chairwoman Mathis were about preserving the Republican super majority in the Arizona Legislature and the seats of incumbent Congressional Republicans.

In September, the U.S. military formally said goodbye to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” as gays and lesbians were finally allowed to serve openly for the first time in our nation’s history.  This, of course, caused undue stress for Republican Presidential Nominee Candidates as they promised to reinstate DADT while debate audience members booed a gay Army officer.

But now it is 2012 and President Obama is ramping up his reelection campaign, presenting “gifts” to all the liberals he cheated on when bowing Republican demands in 2011.  First he recessed appointed Richard Cordray to head up the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as well as Sharon Block, Terence Flynn and Richard Griffin to the National Labor Relations Board.  Then he tabled approval of the Keystone XL permit application until 2013.  Of course, these actions by the President are supposed to make liberals forget the last three years when we were chastised repeatedly for not supporting his milquetoast presidency.

As Senator Jon Kyl is retiring this year, Democrats will nominate someone who is Republican-lite to run against Congressman Jeff Flake and they will do the same in my new Congressional district.  I won’t be alone as a liberal Democrat since even after redistricting there are four “safe” Republican Congressional districts, two “safe” Democratic Congressional districts and three “competitive” districts.  That means that Arizona Democrats will be running Republican-lite candidates in at least seven of Arizona’s nine districts.

I just wish there was at least one candidate I could vote for instead of against their opponent.  I wish there was one candidate come Election Day who truly believed in and acted for the enactment of liberal ideals.  Is it too much to ask for a candidate to give me something to believe in?

The Quest To Protect The Republican Super Majority

The Republicans have a stranglehold on Arizona politics.  This is an undeniable fact.  Republicans control all state wide elected offices including Governor, Attorney General and Secretary of State.  They have a super-majority in the Arizona Legislature.  They also hold six of eight seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and both seats in the U.S. Senate.  A pretty good feat considering Republicans make up only 36% of registered voters in Arizona.  Democrats make up 33% and independents (those with no party affiliation) make up 30%.

In a state where even most Democrats are moderate to conservative, party affiliation does mean a lot.  To be a Republican means you are almost guaranteed a seat at the table of power.  To be an ultra-conservative Republican improves those odds even more.  Independents are deemed to be the deciding factor in close races and even they tend to vote Republican when push comes to shove.

In a state with a registered political make up that is split almost evenly between Republicans, Democrats and independents, you would think that the Republicans couldn’t enjoy such success.  In steps the affect of redistricting:  The process of creating congressional and legislative districts that is mandated by the U.S. Constitution.  Before 2000, the Arizona legislature was tasked with creating the various districts and it did everything possible to secure a permanent Republican majority in the state legislature as well as congressional representation.

In 2000, voters were so fed up with the protection of incumbents that they stripped the legislature of its authority to redistrict and put that authority into the newly created Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission (AIRC).  The AIRC isn’t tasked with simply redrawing existing districts to meet its charge.  It must start from scratch, thus ensuring that the state’s congressional and legislative district maps change dramatically decade from decade.  To give a quick example of the dramatic change: I currently reside in what is Congressional District 3, but under the draft map, I would be in Congressional District 6.

Now, the AIRC is composed of 5 members.  Two are Democrats, each of who were nominated by the respective Democratic leaders in both houses of the legislature.  Two are Republicans, each of who were nominated by the respective Republican leaders in both houses of the legislature.  The registered independent is picked by the other 4 members of the AIRC.  In my opinion, there should be 3 Democrats, 3 Republicans and 3 registered independents, but that will require a voter modification that could turn very messy.

Throw into the redistricting mix the fact that Arizona is one of the states required to receive “pre-clearance” of their efforts by the U.S. Justice Department before the new districts can go into effect.  The 2001 AIRC was actually rebuffed by the Bush Justice Department for not protecting minority voters and had to reconfigure their maps to meet the requirements of the Voting Rights Act.  We are all hoping that the 2011 AIRC doesn’t repeat the same mistake.

Now that I have some of the background laid out, let’s fast forward to 2011.  The AIRC members were chosen in great controversy, some with court challenges, all due to the machinations of state Senate Majority Leader Russell Pearce and Speaker of the House Andy Tobin.  After the members of the AIRC were formally seated, the “tea party” movement tried to call into dispute the AIRC’s legitimacy, even getting Attorney General Horne to open an “investigation” into accusations of the AIRC violating Arizona’s open meetings law.

Through all of this, the five members of the AIRC have done their job and have approved draft maps of congressional and legislative districts.  Now that the draft maps have been adopted, the public has 30 days to comment and recommend changes.  In steps the Republican elected officials and their bold claim that the draft maps represent too much competiveness and threaten their respective incumbencies.  They are hell bent on protecting the Republican super majority in the legislature and the Republican majority of held seats in the House of Representatives.  Of course, they are bitching about draft maps, not the final product.  And like it or not, they will probably bitch more after it the final maps go through pre-clearance.

 I myself am not happy with the draft maps because they allow for safe districts for both Republicans and Democrats while only proposing three competitive districts.  I think every district should be competitive, giving anyone running a real chance to win.  No district should be “safe” for one party or for an incumbent.  No one party or incumbent should feel they are entitled to their elected seat.

I think the goals of meeting the requirements of the full mandate of the AIRC can be done with full competitiveness and without gerrymandering.  The AIRC just has to have the will do so and I don’t think they do.  I think, they will bend to Republican political pressure and adopt final maps that won’t be pre-cleared by the DOJ.  I am hoping the AIRC does the right thing.  I just don’t think it will, which will be a huge disservice to the voters of Arizona.

For more information about meetings of the AIRC, please take a look at The Arizona Eagletarian and his great work.

More Q & A with Lieutenant Mike Stauffer, Primary Challenger to Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Maricopa County Sheriff Candidate Mike Stauffer

Earlier this week I emailed Lieutenant Mike Stauffer, Sheriff Arpaio's Republican Primary challenger for Maricopa County Sheriff, with a number of questions.  He has kindly responded and below is our exchange unedited.  I have also emailed Sheriff Arpaio with numerous questions but have had no response.

Phoenix Justice: This past Saturday, the Arizona Republic printed a story regarding the Maricopa Correctional Health System and the latest report regarding their progress and lack thereof in providing quality medical care to the detainees. After spending tens of millions of tax payer dollars only to fail in meeting court ordered minimums and losing accreditation, do you think it might be time to reinvent the wheel and start from scratch, possibly with the inclusion of a non-profit private medical company to take over the services?

Mr. Stauffer: I will enlist the aid of the medical experts in the Maricopa County Health system to find a solution to the problems due to neglect by the current sheriff. My goal will be to restore MCSO's health accreditation. Any reasonable recommendation as to how to accomplish this will be considered.

Phoenix Justice: Sheriff Arpaio has used the MCSO to go after those who speak out against him and his policies, including elected officials and especially campaign opponents. Do you expect Sheriff Arpaio and his allies to use dirty tricks in this campaign against you and how do you plan to deal with those dirty tricks?

Mr. Stauffer: I do expect Arpaio to continue in his abusive ways. However, I have faced far more intimidating people in my years as a police officer than Arpaio and am not afraid of his desperate ploys to stay in office. I will counter his tactics by continuing to speak the truth and holding him accountable. I will stay the course of standing up for the principles of true American, ethical, effective law enforcement.

Phoenix Justice: The MCSO has in the past streamed live the booking of detainees (which was found unconstitutional by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals) and has been running a "Mug Shot of the Day" contest on the MCSO website. If you are elected sheriff, will you continue this practice?

Mr. Stauffer: I will not continue the tactics of humiliation instituted by Arpaio. These tactics only serve to discredit and demean the dedicated men and women of Maricopa County law enforcement.

Phoenix Justice: We all know that Sheriff Arpaio loves the media spot light, if elected sheriff, how often do you plan to in front of the press and why?

Mr. Stauffer: I will always be available to the press if they wish to discuss the operations of the sheriff's office. I will not be a desperate publicity hound like the current sheriff.

Phoenix Justice: According to Sheriff Arpaio's last campaign finance report, filed in 2010, he had over $2.8 million. We can all safely surmise that has accumulated even more campaign cash with his frequent calls for "help" this past year. How do you plan to combat so much campaign cash?

Mr. Stauffer: It is not always about the cash, but about the quality of the message.

Phoenix Justice: One of the responsibilities of the MCSO is detainee transport back and forth to the courts. Over the last two years, there have been several days where detainees were not delivered to the courts, causing disruptions to the point where the deputy in charge was held in contempt. Do you foresee any further "disruptions" by the MCSO should you be elected sheriff?

Mr. Stauffer: The duties and responsibilities of the sheriff's office will be carried out in a timely and professional manner. These "disruptions" will not be allowed to continue.

Phoenix Justice: The US Department of Justice recently closed its investigation regarding the costs of MCSO deputies transporting extradition detainees back to Maricopa County. If elected sheriff, would you change extradition transportation policies?

Mr. Stauffer: As sheriff, I will institute tight controls on the extradition duties of the sheriff's office.

Governor Rick Perry Hates Our Nation's Constitution

What is it with social conservatives and their apparent hatred of our nation's constitution?  As noted by Yahoo!'s The Ticket, Governor Rick Perry doesn't want to just add and amendment, he wishes to transform the document entirely.  His proposed changes would turn our founding document from one of protecting us from the tyranny of the majority to one that removes those protections.

Governor Perry proposes to remove lifetime tenure of Federal judges, eliminate the income tax by rescinding the 16th Amendment and eliminate the election of Senators by the voters of the various states by rescinding the 17th Amendment.  He would also make marriage equality unconstitutional, allow Congress to effectively "veto" decisions of the Supreme Court with a 2/3rds vote, impose a false balanced budget requirement and forever remove the right of women to choose whether to take a pregnancy to term.

The question that no one is asking is will these proposed changes to our nation's constitution make us better or make us worse off.  In my opinion, these proposed changes will only reverse years of progress.  That is something we cannot allow.

Questions and Answers with Lieutenant Mike Stauffer

The Phoenix New Times was kind enough to hold a town hall "Ask & Answer" session where both Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his Republican primary challenger Scottsdale Police Lieutenant Mike Stauffer were invited to participate.  Only Mr. Stauffer accepted the invitation to interact directly with the readers of The Phoenix New Times and below are my questions to him and his answers.

It should be noted that I am awaiting clarification on one answer below from the Stauffer Campaign and will update this post when I receive it.

Phoenix Justice: Good Morning Mr. Stauffer,

I remember from a New Times interview with you that you want the MCSO to refocus on the unincorporated areas of Maricopa County and to leave the various cities to their respective police forces.  With this refocusing, will that allow MCSO to downsize its staffing levels, thus relieving some stress on the county's budget?

Also, if elected, do you plan on getting rid of the Sheriff's Posse and possibly create a professional MCSO reserve force?

Mike Stauffer: Phoenix Justice, thank you for the question: I will conduct a work load study of the MCSO districts and jail facilities to determine appropriate staffing levels that will reduce response times and allow for appropriate public safety operations and investigations. Appropriate staffing levels are important for the control of unnecessary expenditures in staffing.

I will retain the Sheriff’s Posse as they are an outstanding source for support of the mission of the MCSO. I will restructure the Posse so that there is a centralized command and control of the Posse. I will standardize their training and equipment as well. The Posse will be integrated into the command structure of MCSO and report directly to the Office of the Sheriff.

Phoenix Justice: Mr. Stauffer,

Thank you for answering my earlier question.

I consider "Tent City" to be an abomination created as a media ploy to project the image that Sheriff Arpaio is the "toughest sheriff".  I also know that to state publicly that one wishes to close "Tent City" to be the death knell for anyone wishing to become Sheriff.  I also know that in your previous interview with New Times that you had no plans to close "Tent City".  My question is, why not close this concentration camp that serves no real or ethical purpose in the incarceration of convicted criminals?

Furthermore, do you intend to improve the conditions for those who are in the various jails in the MCSO system that are awaiting trial?

Mike Stauffer: Phoenix Justice:

You are welcome. In response to your most recent question: The original purpose for the tent city facility was to alleviate overcrowding at the various facilities without having to release inmates prematurely. It was also intended to be a money saving project.

Clearly, this facility is not saving money due to the numerous lawsuit payouts for inhumane conditions.

I will have to assess the continued need for this facility as I understand the MCSO inmate population has been on the decline for a number of years.

I also see a purpose to maintaining a more secure and modernized version of a military-camp style facility for first-time and low risk classified inmates. I believe that this segment of the inmate population will be more likely to benefit from this type of incarceration than some of the more hardened repeat offenders.

Phoenix Justice: Mr. Stauffer,

For years Sheriff Arpaio has garnered both positive and negative press attention regarding his treatment of pre-trial detainees, especially in regards to food (green bologna).  Do you plan on continuing the current practices in regards to pre-trial detainees?

Mike Stauffer: Phoenix Justice:

Good question. The U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. It also provides guarantees of fair, equal, and humane treatment for those who are incarcerated. I will bring the MCSO jail facilities up to constitutional standards of treatment. The serving of spoiled food to inmates is not in keeping with our American standards of treatment. Improper treatment also has led to the filing of over 6000 lawsuits by inmates and their families against the MCSO. I will insure that pre-trial inmates are segregated from those who have already been sentenced. I will improve the classification of inmate threat levels to insure the safety of our detention officers, the inmates, and the public.

Phoenix Justice: Sheriff Arpaio has had a very adversarial relationship with the Board of Supervisors, especially when dealing with funding for the MCSO.  Often times, when Sheriff Arpaio is "blocked" by the BoS, he has gone to his allies in the Legislature.  Would you continue such an adversarial relationship with the BoS and would you run to the Legislature to do end runs around the BoS?

Mike Stauffer: Phoenix Justice:

Thanks for this question as well. Remember that the sheriff is also an elected official in Maricopa County and is a co-equal officer of the county with the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors is responsible for the budget of the county and provides the budget to the sheriff's office. From there, the sheriff is responsible for the appropriation of funds to run the office within the confines of the law.  Arpaio has not done any "end arounds" so much as he has broken state procurement laws. I will foster a cooperative, mutually productive relationship with the Board, keeping the common goal of the economic well-being of the county in mind.

(I am awaiting clarification on this answer as there were different attempts in the Legislature this year to strip the Board of Supervisors of their oversight authority of the MCSO.)

Phoenix Justice: Mr. Stauffer,

Would you support the creation of a Citizen Review Board to do away with "conflicts of interest" dealing with possible wrongdoing within the MCSO?

Mike Stauffer: Phoenix Justice:

As I stated in an earlier response, I will foster an open, transparent atmosphere for the MCSO. Once this new philosophy is implemented, I would ask for some time for it to take hold before assessing the need for a citizen review board. Thanks for your question.

I want to thank Mr. Stauffer for taking the time yesterday to answer all of my questions and the questions of the other readers of The Phoenix New Times.  It is too bad that Sheriff Arpaio chose to not accept the invitation to interact with the voters of Maricopa County.  Then again, it seems to be par for the course.