Sponsored by

Comments on

Despite GOP lawsuit, judge's ruling seems to favor city-wide elections

The shark has just poked his head out of the waves and watched the Pima County Republican Party sail over his head on water skis. The party that refused to mount a full-fledged campaign and has called city elections "Jim Crow" oppression now wants to sue incumbents Paul Cunningham and Shirley Scott out of a job.... Read more»

have your say   

9 comments on this story

1
10 comments
Nov 16, 2015, 11:52 am
-0 +1

Ironically, Former Councilwoman Dunbar lost her own ward in 2001 and would not have been elected under the system she is advocating.

2
555 comments
Nov 16, 2015, 1:02 pm
-0 +1

@Tom Prezelski,

Friday, Dunbar was carrying a newspaper clipping that noted the circumstances of her election (a Blake Morlock report for the Citizen, no less), along with a clipping of a contemporaneous letter to the editor saying that she shouldn’t have been allowed to serve because she lost her ward.

3
30 comments
Nov 16, 2015, 1:33 pm
-1 +0

*sigh*

The “stamp” is called franking and a copy of a court document stamped in that way is called “franked”.  It doesn’t change the legitimacy of the document; it merely proves it was accepted by a clerk of a court.  That may not even be the right clerk or the right court.  In other words, it’s just a stamp.

The rest of this meandering piece appears to ply three different themes, none of them conclusive in any way except for the final conclusion that yes—this will cost CoT to defend the lawsuit.

Judge Kozinski is awesome (except for Garcia v Google which the en banc 9th district overturned) and his analysis spot on. 

The City will have to change how it runs the nomination process.

The losers in this election are *STILL* and *ALWAYS* the losers in this election.  They cannot be made to take the job by court order.  At best they could hope to invalidate the election and have a redo of the process.

One would think if you’ve been writing about this stuff for fifteen years, perhaps somewhere in the two or three years before that you could have learned how it works.

4
555 comments
Nov 16, 2015, 1:44 pm
-0 +1

@Mark Parity,

Blake’s point was that, absent a stamp on the document, he wasn’t positive the copy he received was the final one submitted to a court. But it’s the one that the candidates provided.

If you’ll read the companion news report, you’ll see that the document included errors, such as stating that Burkholder was the winner of the Democratic primary.

5
1770 comments
Nov 17, 2015, 3:51 pm
-0 +0

I will agree that these candidates asking for a retroactive victory under these circumstances is bizarre, to say the very least. But, can’t anyone see that this court ruling is a victory for common sense? This “hybrid” election system was devoid of all logic and reason, and no one could ever give me a good answer as to why it even existed in the first place. Either have wards or don’t have wards.

6
30 comments
Nov 17, 2015, 4:21 pm
-1 +0

@Bret Linden - totally agree.  It makes zero sense from a fairness or constitutional point of view.

I can only imagine (in a weird gerrymandering-conspiracy sort of thing) that at some point in the past it behooved the incumbents to set it up this way to preserve their coveted office.  I have no proof of this, just a natural liking of the self-preservation political officeholders have with the utmost of disregard for their alleged constituents.

Enough big words.  It’s getting near 1700! :)

7
22 comments
Nov 17, 2015, 7:04 pm
-0 +0

Bret,
ONE T—I actually think the hybrid system was more or less okay but I see Kozinski’s logic too. A ward-only system would probably better represent the various parts of the city. I would too see them more competitive so R’s have a chance at power—is the thing. My only caveat is that we’re pretty balkanized as it stands. This is a 60-40 call to me. I see the value of citywide elections, too.

8
555 comments
Nov 17, 2015, 8:04 pm
-0 +3

@Bret Linden,

The argument for the hybrid system is that it creates a tension between two masters that keeps members of the Council accountable. They each have to represent the interests of their wards, or they’re unlikely to be nominated. But they can’t be too parochial, or the entire city won’t vote for them in the general. So, at least in theory, it balances the need for focused representation in each ward with the interests of the city as a whole.

9
22 comments
Nov 18, 2015, 1:52 pm
-0 +0

Mark,
Set up in 1929 when the East Side was Tucson Boulevard. Tend to agree though that incumbents would prefer to select voters than the other way around.

Sorry, we missed your input...

You must be logged in or register to comment

Click to enlarge

Dylan Smith/TucsonSentinel.com

Lawton and Burkholder announced their suit on Friday.

Categories

news, politics & government, local, arizona, opinion, analysis, breaking, columnist
Sponsored by

Top Commenters

  • Bret Linden: 1767
  • Dylan Smith: 553
  • Cactus Dave: 339
  • buddhaboy: 316
  • Roberto De Vido: 270
  • EllieMae: 197
  • Brittanicus: 176
  • Quietwoman2: 172
  • TucsonGirl: 116
  • janamg: 88
Sponsored by

Yes!

I want to help TucsonSentinel.com offer a real news alternative!

We're committed to making quality news accessible; we'll never set up a paywall or charge for our site. But we rely on your support to bring you independent news without the spin. Use our convenient PayPal/credit card donation form below or contact us at donate@tucsonsentinel.com today.

Subscribe and stretch your donation over time:

$10/mo. Cub Reporter
$15/mo. Printer's Devil
$20/mo. Stringer
$40/mo. Correspondent
$50/mo. Senior Correspondent
Enter your own monthly amount (number only)

Or give a secure one-time gift with PayPal or your credit card:

$5,000 Newshound
$2,500 Trusted Source
$1,000 Copy Desk Chief
$500 Correspondent
$250 Stringer
$100 Printer's Devil
$50 Cub reporter
$25 Informed Source
$10 Dear Reader
Enter your own amount (below)

TucsonSentinel.com is an Arizona nonprofit organization. Your contribution is tax-deductible.

User Guidelines

Please be respectful and relevant. Thought-provoking. Or at least funny.

We want comments to advance the discussion and we need your help. Debate, disagree, yell (digitally) or laugh, but do it with respect.

We won't censor your comments if we don't agree with you; we want viewpoints from across the political spectrum. We're dedicated to sparking an open, active discussion. We believe people with differing opinions can spark debate and effect change.

Comments are open to registered users of TucsonSentinel.com.

Keep in mind:

  • A conversation involves sharing and respect. Support your viewpoint with facts, not attacks.
  • Ask questions. Search out answers.
  • Remember that being part of a community requires tolerance for differing views.
  • We can't ensure that all comments are based in truth. The only comments we endorse are those we write ourselves.

TucsonSentinel.com does not allow:

  • Hate speech. Blatantly racist, sexist or homophobic slurs or calls for violence against a particular type of person, etc. will be removed.
  • Obscenity & excessive cursing. Sometimes a well-placed curse word - if you're creative enough to get it past our auto-censor - can express your point in just the right way. But we say '%*$& no' to cursing for cursing's sake. And lose the explicit sexually-descriptive language. It doesn't contribute to the debate and there are plenty of other places on the Internet to find it.
  • Flaming. During a heated discussion, unkind words may be spoken. We can live with a certain amount of rudeness in the name of provocative conversation, but a pattern of personal attacks (name-calling, mocking, or baiting) is not acceptable nor are threatening or harassing comments. Show some respect, please.
  • Explicit political endorsements. As a nonprofit we can't allow electioneering. Analysis and explanation of political issues and candidates are encouraged, but specific calls to vote for or against a measure or politician should be done elsewhere.
  • Spam. Solicitation of products or services isn't allowed; contact us about advertising, we'd love to talk to you. Links to off-topic sites may be deleted.
  • Copyright or IP infringement. Lengthy quotes and violations of 'Fair Use' aren't allowed. Anything you post should be your own work.
  • Overposting. Don't bore people and waste electrons with identical comments on multiple stories or repetitive comments that don't advance a conversation.
  • Trolling, sockpuppetry, and other abusive behavior. Please don't feed the trolls and don't pretend to be someone you're not.
  • Gossip. Don't bring up others who can't defend themselves. We don't give out personal information; you shouldn't either.

Comments that violate these guidelines may be removed. We reserve the right to make up the rules as we go along.

Flagging

Commentors are solely responsible for the opinions they express and the accuracy of the information they provide. Users who violate these standards may lose their privileges on TucsonSentinel.com.

Sentinel editors can't read every comment. Trolls, spammers and other troublemakers can slide under the bridge. We rely on you to help maintain a healthy conversation - more than likely, you're reading these comments before the editors.

What if you see something inappropriate? Use the 'Flag' button to send it to a moderation queue. Help us out and tell us why you're reporting it; please don't report someone just because you disagree with them. Boy who cried wolf and all that. We'll take appropriate action on violations.

We will not edit comments to alter their meaning or censor comments because of political content.

We will not remove comments solely because they are heartless, cruel, coarse, foolish or just plain wrong. Your disapproval can maintain a decent signal to noise ratio. Ultimately, however, self-policing is the best method.

Bottom line, don't be a jerk.

Sponsored by

Sign up for TucsonSentinel.com email newsletters!

Sponsored by
find us on facebook
Sponsored by
Sponsored by
Sponsored by