As I wrote previously, I created a petition to urge Arizona school superintendent candidates to make a pledge to reinstitute ethnic studies in public schools if elected. Interestingly, both Democratic candidates in this race responded back to me on the topic of ethnic studies.
Jason Williams
Jason Williams
Jason Williams is the former Executive Director for Teach for America in Phoenix, who ran for School Superintendent in 2006. His Director of Research and Policy, Kelly McManus, wrote this email to me on the subject of the ethnic studies ban:
Jenn,
Thank you for your message! Jason firmly believes instead of censoring content, we should celebrate diversity, recognize the contributions of all groups, and encourage different points of view. We live in a pluralistic society. A robust discussion of ideas is a cornerstone of what it means to be American. Teaching our students to critically think and allowing them to utilize those skills to come to their own conclusions makes a great educational experience. He believes in local control, as long as schools are improving student outcomes. When he is Superintendent of Public Instruction, he will support innovative programs that demonstrate quite clearly higher rates of academic achievement and work with the legislature to stop this trend of censorship.
Please let me know if you have any additional questions!
My best,
Kelly
Okay, so when I received this email from Kelly, I had to scratch my head. Does Williams support ethnic studies? Does he support diversifying our existing school curricula? It was a little tough to deduce from the email message, which spent more of its time celebrating diversity than discussing ethnic studies.
Then, I stumbled upon this video clip on YouTube, of four of the candidates discussing their positions on ethnic studies. And Jason Williams’ response — he is last on the video, starting around 5:00 — is positively electrifying.
Wow. Jason Williams’ position on the ethnic studies ban in Arizona is so cogent, so spot-on, and so well-reasoned, that I’m actually finding myself taking a second look at his candidacy in general. His answer is so far removed from the rather obfuscating answer given by his Director of Research and Policy that it’s almost like they came from different campaigns.
Note also that Penny Kotterman, who starts the video off, is the other Democratic candidate in the race, and she also appears to oppose the ethnic studies ban. However, her answer was a little tough to understand — I had to listen to it twice before I figured out that she is also opposed to the ethnic studies ban.
Sadly, I also received an email response from Penny Kotterman in the wake of the petition, but my overly-aggressive spam filter deleted it sometime last week. In any event, I gather it was very similar to what she says in the video clip above.
Act Now! The primary is next week, August 24th. On the topic of the ethnic studies ban in public education, the Democratic candidates couldn’t be further from the Republican candidates. If you are a Democrat who votes in Arizona, please go to the polls next week and choose between our two Democratic candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. With Arizona’s abysmal standing when it comes to public education, this race in November couldn’t be more important in dictating the future of our state.
One example I cited in this post was Arizona’s recent ban on ethnic studies in public schools. In brief, HB 2281 — which was signed into Arizona state law earlier this year — prohibited the teaching of ethnic studies in the state’s public schools. As I’ve already discussed, this ban will limit the diversity of perpsectives that students will be exposed to in their learning of American history, and even discourages student-centered teaching by ignoring the multiculturalism of Arizona students.
Earlier this month, I urged readers to sign this petition, which asks current candidates for Arizona’s school superintendent position to make a pledge to, if elected, work towards reinstituting ethnic studies in Arizona’s public schools. To date, more than 50 readers from around the country have signed the petition, alerting these candidates of the importance of ethnic studies classes.
Interestingly, the impact of these supporters have already been felt. Within days of starting the petition, I received email responses from three of the five candidates currently running for Arizona Superintendent of Public Education, detailing their stances on public education.
For the sake of length, this post will only reproduce Margaret Dugan’s response on the ethnic studies ban. In a second post, I will reproduce the responses from the other candidates.
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan
Margaret Dugan is a Republican and the current Deputy School Superintendent here in Arizona. She is running to succeed her predecessor, Superintendent Tom Horne, who helped push through Arizona’s ethnic studies ban in the first place. Not surprisingly, Dugan echoes much of Horne’s original criticism of ethnic studies. Here’s a video of Margaret Dugan openly lying about ethnic studies classes being taught in the Tucson Unified School District on CNN:
(Now, I don’t agree with Dr. Romero’s accusation that the ethnic studies ban has anything to do with Nazi Germany, but up until the last minute of the video, Margaret Dugan was getting absolutely schooled — pun intended — for misrepresenting what is being taught in ethnic studies classes in the Tucson Unified School District and around the country.)
Dugan’s main arguments against ethnic studies are that: 1) students shouldn’t be taught that they are oppressed, and 2) students are being forcibly segregated into ethnic studies classes based on their race. Yet, both of these arguments are flawed. First of all, while Dr. Romero points out that ethnic studies classes do not teach a culture of victimhood in TUSD, one must wonder why there is such a fervent effort on the part of Dugan and her GOP cohorts to prevent the teaching to racial minorities that they experience oppression. American history includes a history of oppression of racial minorities — we cannot avoid teaching minority students about oppression that their communities have and continue to face, unless we want to teach a flawed, ahistorical account of American history that does not address the fact of race-based oppression as part of this nation’s formation. And so, Dugan’s true colours are revealed.
Secondly, anybody with even a rudimentary exposure to ethnic studies programs knows that these classes are open to all students, and indeed students of diverse backgrounds are specifically encouraged to take ethnic studies classes in order to expand their learning.
Dugan hit the same notes as her CNN interview when she emailed me earlier last month. Here’s her email:
Dear Jenn,
Contributions of all ethnic backgrounds can be taught in our World History and US History classes. By separating students or calling a class by a certain ethnic name does not bring together students of all backgrounds. As a former teacher and high school principal, I believe is is far healthier for all students of all ethnic backgrounds to be enrolled together rather than in separate classes. In addition, I am of Hispanic descent and I was able to enroll in classes throughout my K-12 public schooling in Arizona with students of diverse backgrounds. We learned together and learned from each other.
Margaret Dugan, native of Arizona and product of the public school system. I have over 37 years experience as an educator- teacher, assistant principal, principal, district administrator and currently Deputy Supt at the Ariz Dept of Education.
Interestingly, Dugan highlights her “Hispanic descent” to me, as if somehow this should assuage my concerns. Yet, on the campaign trail, Dugan has been hiding from her Latino heritage by avoiding reference to her ”Spanish-sounding” middle name in virtually all campaign literature.
On her other points, I called Dugan to task, by responding with the following email:
Dear Ms. Dugan,
Thank you for your email.
With respect, I disagree with your response. Ethnic studies classes do not segregate or separate students by race (indeed, Brown v. Board of Education established that segregation in public schools by race is unconstitutional).
Ethnic studies programs provide a focused curriculum that teach specific topics not usually taught in general World History, US History, or Literature classes. For example, a Chicano American Studies class that was targeted by HB 2281 encouraged the reading of prominent Chicano authors because few Chicano authors were read in the general literature classes.
Ethnic studies history classes teach specific aspects of history not normally covered in-depth by general history classes. For example, I notice that in the Grades 9-12 American history content standards, there is no reference of any kind to any aspect of Chicano-American history, nor is there any discussion of the impact of the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act on contemporary American demographics and immigration. These topics are arguably important to understanding American history (particularly in Southern Arizona), yet they are probably only perfunctorily addressed (if at all) in today’s general US History classes.
Ethnic studies classes do not divide students by their backgrounds. Instead they bring students together by having them focus on diverse topics that reflect the multicultural demographics of the classroom. They teach all students to respect the multiculturalism of today’s America by encouraging students to find relevance in another student’s culture and history. I repeat, ethnic studies programs do not enforce or promote racial segregation of classrooms — all students of all ethnic backgrounds can (and are in fact encouraged to) enroll in ethnic studies classes.
You write that in your time as a student, you were enrolled in diverse classes where you “learned together and learned from each other”. I agree with this sentiment. If you believe that there are things you can learn from the Chicano American community, why are you resistant to having a full-semester, optional history course (for example) that would help non-Chicano students learn from the Chicano-American community? Would having such a class offering — and encouraging all students, regardless of race, to enroll in them — run counter to your vision of a diverse classroom?
Further, if you feel these topics belong in a general course on US history, what do you plan on taking out of the curriculum to make room for detailed coverage of these topics? African Americans and Asian Americans make up nearly 10% of the state’s population — if detailed teaching of the histories of these communities also belong in the general US history class, what else would you take from the curriculum in order to make room for a representative coverage of these topics?
I appreciate your response.
Sincerely,
Jenn F.
Given that in both her email to me and in her CNN interview, Dugan suggests that the curricula of ethnic studies classes should be incorporated into general U.S. history classes, I really wanted an answer to what Dugan planned on eliminating from state standards to make room for these topics. Because, in reality, I support the notion that general history classes should be more inclusive of topics generally covered in ethnic studies classes. But, with the already jam-packed curricula of required general history classes, the only way to advocate integrating ethnic studies topics into general classes is to cut something else out. Or to hand out time-turners to students.
Sadly, but not suprisingly, Dugan side-stepped the question — because answering that question would require having actually thought about the issue. Instead, she changed the topic — by acting as if I had offended her:
Jenn,
I am from the generation that is offended by my Hispanic background referred to as Chicano. The word Chicano is a radical term and most Americans with Hispanic descent like me do not like that word. When I was in school, I learned about the hisory and geography of Arizona and the culture and contributions that the Mexican people provided for our state. In fact, I was educated in a small town 7 miles from the Arizona/Mexico border. Why do we continue to point out our differences instead of identifying our similarities as individuals. I have always taught my students to treat each other with respect. My belief is out of many- one. I will check on the Arizona Academic standards relative to inclusion of other cultures. I have been informed that the social studies standards do include objectives of other cultures for our teachers to teach our students.
Margaret
At least Dugan reveals her true intentions. It’s not that she fears students will be segregated into race-based classrooms. It’s not that she believes in integrated, diverse classrooms. It’s not even that she would rather integrate ethnic studies topics into state standards for general history classes.
No, Margaret Dugan wants to wipe out Chicano American studies — specifically– because she finds Chicano a “radical” term.
Which begs the question: is it actually that La Raza teaches the overthrow of the U.S. government (which it doesn’t), or is it merely that Margaret Dugan and her ilk are trying to legislate based on their own stereotypes of ethnic studies?
Act Now! If you haven’t yet, please sign this petition calling for Arizona School Superintedent candidates to make a pledge in support of ethnic studies.
Also, on August 24th, Arizona voters will be going to the polls to choose their party candidates for Arizona School Superintendent. If you are a Republican, Margaret Dugan should not be your choice. She has already demonstrated a basic lack of understanding of the scientific method (she lacks even the proficiency expected of your average high school student); now, she also shows that she’s more interested in legislating her own biases than addressing the educational needs of Arizona students. She appears to have a frightening lack of knowledge of state educational standards, and seems ill-equipped to understand how these standards are translated into class curricula.
I don’t normally endorse candidates, but in this case, I just have to say it: Margaret Dugan is not even remotely qualified enough to be this state’s next School Superintendent. Please, Republicans, do not vote for her.
In an interview with Blog for Arizona writers, Parraz talks about how he thinks he is the candidate with the right values to replace Senator John McCain in November. “[Voters] need someone who understands the issues,” says Parraz, citing his history of working as a union leader and organizing against Sherriff Joe Arpaio. “We don’t need a traditional candidate,” Parraz continued.
In fact, Parraz spends a lot of time making the case for himself as the candidate with the right values to represent Arizona in the Senate. And, as a progressive and a grassroots activist, I appreciate Parraz’s background as a community organizer. After spending over an hour and a half on the phone with Parraz and his campaign staff, I am reminded of my days working with Obama for America. The same kind of grassroots excitement that fueled Obama’s presidential campaign, and the Dean campaign in 2000, is now evident in Parraz’s organization. I believe that Randy Parraz is a man who genuinely wants to fix Arizona.
Unfortunately, I just don’t think that Parraz’s good intentions are enough.
With all the buzz surrounding Parraz’s candidacy, I was excited to have an opportunity to chat with him about the substantive proposals he brings to the table. But, while researching Parraz’s platform and political stances, I soon came to a frightening realization: for the boatloads of evidence out there demonstrating that Parraz has the right values to be this state’s next senator, he’s got very few tangible ideas.
For example, in our interview, I asked Parraz to clarify his remarks on Arizona Illustrated two weeks ago, when he said that we “can’t secure the border” and that it would be insulting to try. Arguably, illegal immigration is the issue that will draw Arizona voters on both sides of the aisle to the ballot box this year; every aspiring politician running right now should have a polished answer on the subject available at a moment’s notice. Parraz is quick to say that he opposes sending additional National Guard troops to the border, saying, “I don’t buy into the argument that the border is insecure. How many agents do we need to feel the border is secure?” He further quipped, “Republicans only want bigger government on the border.”
However, when Parraz was asked about what his ideal comprehensive immigration reform package might look like, he was disappointingly thin on details. The usual Democratic platform was present – he supports family reunification, and the DREAM Act; opposes mass deportation of illegal immigrants. But on the question of whether illegal immigrants should pay a fine, Parraz is vague. At best, Parraz advocates raising our existing low-skilled job quotas, and allowing existing illegal immigrants to choose a pathway to citizenship, legalization or temporary worker status, but specific details on how to implement these pathways (without affecting America’s existing labour shortage) were absent. And as for whether or not his comprehensive immigration reform package involved re-examining our system for recruiting highly-skilled immigrants, Parraz offered only platitudes, saying, “America needs to maintain our competitive edge.”
Parraz at a press conference during his community organizing days, in 2008
Even on his “top priority” issue – jobs and the economy – Parraz offers few ideas. When I asked Parraz about the first bill he would love to sponsor in the Senate to address this issue, Parraz used the opportunity to attack John McCain by saying, “the top issue [in this state is] jobs and the economy. [On this], John McCain has been disengaged for 24 years.”
Parraz highlights the gap between the minimum wage and the living wage, saying that “people should be paid for the work they’re supposed to be doing.” Parraz criticizes the existing system, which he characterizes as a virtual “black market” of workers who are paid below the minimum wage. He further observes that Wal-Mart is Arizona’s largest employer, using this to support his argument that Arizona must attract high-tech jobs to provide sustainability for the state’s job market. But, again, Parraz avoids details when asked how we might accomplish this. Parraz says that, if elected, he would work to figure out if the state properly leverages its federal stimulus money in the fields of energy, healthcare and tourism. He further would like to examine how we might attract small businesses to the state by re-examining federal regulations on affected industries. Finally, Parraz would like to “engage the private sector.”
In fact, on many issues, Parraz seems intent on “engaging the private sector” – this was a phrase he repeated over and over again throughout the interview. On his website, Parraz emphasizes the failing quality of public education and suggests improving federal and private funding of Arizona’s public schools. When asked what role the private sector could have in public education, Parraz cited existing programs that allow private corporations to “create committees that provide computers and networking, and to adopt certain schools.” Parraz seemed surprised when I questioned whether inviting private corporations to sponsor schools could result in increased numbers of fast food outlets and vending machines in public school hallways, saying merely that part of the private sector would also be interested in reducing obesity and improving the health of our children.
The one substantial platform point I could find on Parraz’s website was on a proposed “financial transactions tax”. In brief, Parraz supports implementation of a tax on any purchase or sale of stocks or bonds, which Parraz feels would “provide a pot of money to deal with some of the damage done by financial institutions.”
“Banks have been getting a free ride,” comments Parraz, summarizing the nation’s general ill-will towards big banks. But, when asked about the effect such a tax might have on the nation’s economy, Parraz provided only limited discussion. The tax, which has generally been described in economist circles as a small fee to slow the market (and thereby discourage the kinds of strange distortions that can cause a market crash) can, by definition, slow economic growth by discouraging trading. Parraz seemed unaware of his proposal’s potential effects. Surprisingly, he also dismissed suggestions that the cost of the tax might be passed on by banks to consumers, saying only, “the tax will not bankrupt large banks.” When asked if a capital gains tax, rather than a financial transactions tax, might better accomplish his goal to target big banks and increase revenue, Parraz admitted he didn’t know much about capital gains taxes.
The press conference in 2008 was conducted the morning after Parraz was arrested by Sheriff Joe Arpaio's officers during a peaceful protest.
Finally, I asked Parraz about his stance on science research and technology. Again, Parraz was only able to fire questions back at me. Although he supports stem cell research, Parraz had no particular thoughts on how to improve federal funding of scientific research. He cited the fact that federal stimulus money has supported new research proposals (it has), but suggested that as senator, he would address additional lack of research funding by looking at what other research projects needed money. Never mind that the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation are the clearinghouses for research proposals – it almost sounded like, as senator, Parraz would be interested in adopting a side job as a grants reviewer.
I’ll admit that prior to this interview, I knew virtually nothing about Randy Parraz and his campaign to be Arizona’s U.S. Senator. In fact, I only knew of Parraz’s candidacy through the attacks of his online supporters against front-runner Rodney Glassman (incidentally, on this point, Parraz’s campaign only touts the freedom of bloggers to write whatever they choose – a position I’m generally in favour of). But, I figured that if Parraz was able to attract such fervent support in political bloggers – who tend to be a thoughtful and intelligent bunch – he must not be too bad.
And indeed, Parraz seems like a genuinely good guy, who won’t intentionally do wrong by Arizona in the U.S. Senate. Sadly, I think Arizona needs more than just a man with the right values to fix the problems in this state. We need a senator with the right ideas and the right values, who is capable of articulating both why we need a change and what we can do to tangibly affect that change. Parraz might have enough heart to be our senator, but with less than ten days left until the Democratic primary election, it may be too late to prove to voters that he’s also got the thoughtfulness to back it up.
Tom "Standing Next To Books Makes Me Look Smart" Horne
Arizona School Superintendent Tom Horne has lost his ever-loving mind.
In yet another example of state politicians abusing their power to harass the state’s minority population, Horne has filed a subpoena against researchers at the University of Arizona and Arizona State University. The subpoena seeks the release of confidential, personal information that can identify participants in a study looking at the effect of the state’s English Language Learning (ELL) policy.
Here’s the deal: Arizona’s ELL programs require that all ELL students be segregated from general classes for four hours every day, and taught English language skills, until the student is capable of passing a standardized English test. Critics of the program, however, assert that ELL classes provide sub-standard teaching of course material, causing ELL students to lag behind their English-speaking peers.
Researchers at The University of Arizona and Arizona State University addressed this question by looking at the quality of education in ELL classrooms. One investigator assessed ELL implementation in 18 classrooms in five school districts and found the instruction to be inferior than that received by other students. In January 2000, Arizona was cited by the U.S. District Court for Arizona for failing to provide equal funding for ELL classes compared to non-ELL classes, thereby violating the Equal Educational Opportunities Act.
Currently, the January 2000 decision is being reconsidered in a federal court case, Horne v. Flores, which contends that changes in Arizona’s ELL policy and funding once more make the program compliant with federal regulations. However, the studies cited above are being used as part of the case against Arizona’s ELL classes.
Which is why Horne’s lawyers have filed for a subpoena, demanding that the researchers involved turn over their raw data, which includes the names and addresses of study participants.
The problem is that it would be unethical for investigators to turn over their data. All researchers who work with human subjects — every single one — must have their studies reviewed and approved by their institution’s Institutional Review Board (IRB). This is a lengthy and detailed process that includes a requirement that the identities of subjects be protected under all circumstances. There are even instances in some studies where the identities of study participants (or other sensitive information) are even protected from certain investigators.
Horne’s lawyers argue that they require the raw data from the studies in order to determine if they were appropriately collected and analyzed. Magaret Dugan, Arizona’s Deputy School Superintendent, suggested that study authors may have deliberately picked school districts critical of ELL, and thereby biased their study.
However, Dugan and Horne fail to acknowledge that the study methodologies of these studies have been peer-reviewed by the IRB committees of their respective institutions. Any issues of bias or sample size have already been addressed by these scrupulous reviewers. Furthermore, if the study is to be published (I’m not sure if it has been), than the methodology will undergo a second round of peer-review. It’s naive for Arizona’s Superintendents to insinuate that the investigators in this study deliberately biased their sample, and that none of the study’s peer-reviewers caught on; they are, in essence, accusing an entire community of researchers of conducting bad science.
In fact, the accusation would be insulting, if it weren’t hilariously ironic. Explaining the state of Arizona’s reasoning for requesting release of the study participant’s information, Dugan characterized the classroom selection as“slanted”. She further said, “At least I would like for them to have surveyed districts and teachers who are positive about the model.”
In other words, Dugan takes issue not with the possibility that the studies were biased… but that they were biased in the wrong direction! And how should we correct it? Choose to sample classrooms in such a way as to fix the outcome.
I don’t think Horne and his colleagues can even spell “scientific method”, let alone recognize the flaws in Ms. Dugan’s proposed solution.
(And Ms. Dugan is running to replace Tom Horne as Arizona School Superintendent, folks. This state is so fucked.)
I posted, not four hours ago, about Andrew Thomas’ latest efforts to smear Tom Horne, a fellow Republican running in the primary for the attorney general race. Thomas’ campaign has apparently funded a slew of campaign posters and a website that pretty much charge Horne with being the worst person in the world.
Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down.
I was able to get Tom Horne on the phone and by email this afternoon for a comment on Thomas’ underhanded tactics to paint Horne as “too liberal” for conservative voters.
The sign pictured above accuses Horne of supporting taxpayer funding of abortion. Horne responds: “That is a lie. I have never been for taxpayer funded abortions. I am pledged to enforce all abortion laws. As a legislator I voted to restrict abortion, such as to ban partial birth abortion and to require parental consent.”
When I called to ask for a clarification on his vote on HB 2708, Horne responded that taxpayer funding of abortion was “already banned” when HB 2708 came up for a vote. Horne further explains that he voted “no” on HB 2708 because he “had technical problems with the bill, which itself made technical changes to a ban [against publicly-funded abortions] that was already in effect” but that he had no problems with the spirit of the bill itself. Horne reiterated his pledge to support all anti-abortion laws in the state of Arizona.
Which is, if you think about it, kind of ironic since he’s telling all this to a progressive, feminist, pro-choice blogger. But, y’know, whatever.
As far as Thomas’ attempts to smear Horne’s conservative street cred, Horne recognized that negative campaigning is part of politics, but he said, “even if a campaign goes negative, it should be truthful. [Thomas] made all this up.”
In response to the attack campaign launched by Thomas against Horne, Horne cited a letter from the Republican National Commitee that documents a history of Thomas using attack ads to smear his political opponents (read the .pdf here). Horne has put up a counterattack website at TheAndyThomasTruth.com. According to the website, Thomas is described as still being under federal investigation, and that a court remarked that Thomas’ actions as a prosecutor have the “appearance of evil.” Thomas also apparently hates women.
This looks like we’re gearing up for an all-out war on the Republican side for the position of attorney general. Clearly, there’s no love lost between Thomas and Horne. It remains to be determined whether or not the Arizona Illustrated debate scheduled between these two candidates next week will touch on these negative attacks.
Negative campaigning is part of politics, and it can be a useful tactic in distinguishing oneself from one’s opponent: but there’s also a danger that the hateful back-and-forth will drive independent voters away from either candidate (particularly in the general election), and towards the candidate of the other political party.
Oh, hey — on a completely unrelated note — did you know that there are three Democrats running in the primary for attorney general? They are, in no particular order: Vince Rabago, Felicia Rotellini, and David Lujan. And there’s been very little sniping between these candidates on the Democratic side; these folks are so friendly towards each other, their debates have been practically boring. Wow, how about that?
As if elections in Arizona weren’t exciting enough, we can always count on the ambitious to cross the line and go negative. And for our part, all we can do is sit back and try to avoid being caught in the crossfire of muckflinging.
In the Republican primary for attorney general, Tom Horne is squaring off against Andrew Thomas next month in a contentious, and hard to predict, race.
The following signs were spotted around Tucson this week:
Don't vote for Tom Horne -- he turns smiles upside down.
Just on a purely graphical note, these signs certainly do the right job in attacking Horne. Red triggers emotions of fear and anger. The text is large enough to read from any distance or lighting. And, really, who would vote for a guy who could make the bouncing Wal-mart happy face mascot cry?
The signs link to StopTom.com, a website that is saturated with righteous indignation against Tom Horne. The banner of the site accuses Horne of being a “RINO” – a Republican in name only. “Tom Horne is no conservative,” screams the header in stark blacks and greys, ”he is a confessed con artist.”
The website than proceeds on a long litany of accusations against Tom Horne, that supposedly demonstrate that Horne isn’t a true conservative — including the fact that Horne has received several speeding tickets. Because we all know that conservatives always abide by speeding laws. Reports are still pending as to whether or not Tom Horne also kicks puppies and steals candy from babies.
But the most inflammatory charge made by StopTom.com is the one also referred to in the campaign sign pictured above: that Tom Horne supposedly supports tax-payer funded abortions. And, it is true that while in the State Legislature, Horne voted “No” on HB 2708, which explicitly banned use of public funds to pay for abortions, in all or in part. The bill also required underage women to receive parental consent, and failed in the House by a vote of 28-28.
Interestingly, StopTom.com includes footer information revealing that it is paid for the “Thomas for AG Committee”. Horne is running as a traditional candidate, but Andrew Thomas is participating in Arizona’s Clean Elections Commission, which begs the question as to whether or not a potentially slanderous (or at least a clearly distasteful) negative campaign can be conducted on Clean Elections money.
Turns out it can. I called up the Clean Elections office today and found out that the Commission allows candidates to conduct negative campaigning with its funds. “We don’t regulate speech [in campaign materials],” said a representative of the Clean Elections office. Furthermore, a financial disclosure (which the sign pictured above lacks) is not required on small campaign materials, including campaign signs (regardless of the dimensions of the sign). So, as long as the expense is documented in the candidate’s financial reports, Clean Elections candidates are free to pay for attack ads out of their campaign funds – while hiding the fact that they’re paying for the ad on the materials themselves. Talk about loopholes.
The wonderful thing about democracy is that even the most radical political extremists can participate in our political process. But of course, this is also democracy’s curse — particularly if these radical extremists are noxious white supremacists that try to spout racist, intolerant hatred from the largest soapbox they can manage.New Hampshire’s Ryan Murdough is one such case. A fringe Congressional candidate running as a Republican — a man unknown to the state’s political powers-that-be — Murdough flew under the radar until earlier this month, when he wrote a letter to the Concord Monitor. In it, Mudough outed himself as the state chairperson of the New Hampshire branch of the American Third Position Party.
Sound innocuous? Actually, the Southern Poverty Law Center (which tracks hate groups in America) labels this group ”a fledgling political party…with the aim of uniting disaffected racists.”
Murdough is a textbook white supremacist who sees multiculturalism as a threat — not just to his cultural identity, but to his very safety. In his letter to the editor, Murdough wrote, “Statistics show that areas with high non-white populations have higher rates of violent crime.” In a one-on-one interview with the Concord Monitor, Murdough expands on this viewpoint by suggesting that non-whites are genetically predispositioned to committing crime. “I’d rather live in a place that would be safer for my kids, and most of those places happen to be white. New Hampshire is an example.”
Following on the heels of its notorious anti-immigrant law, Arizona is again taking aim at its resident people of color — this time through a seemingly innocuous ballot initiative.
The proposal sounds like this: This state shall not grant preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.
How many of us might support such a statement if we were asked to vote for it? Most of us probably would — it’s a disarmingly simple statement that appeals to our common hopes for a race- and gender-equal society. It suggests a dream of a better America, where racism and sexism no longer exist.
Yet a single statement like this one is what has successfully institutionalized racism and discrimination in California. In 1996, voters in California passed a ballot proposition based on these ideas. Since then, black and Latino enrollment in state universities has dwindled. Minority- and female-owned small businesses are less successful. Training programs and scholarships focused at underrepresented minorities have been decimated. (For a full discussion of the impact of this ballot proposition in California, read this report.) Similar efforts have succeeded in drastically reducing opportunities for minorities and women in Michigan and Nebraska, as well.
Connerly said he would devote money to see a “decisive” victory for the referendum in 2010.
“I don’t want to win by a squeaker,” said Connerly, who is seeking similar reforms in Missouri, Oklahoma and Colorado, where opponents of preferential programs narrowly lost at the ballot in 2008.
The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, a ballot committee registered last May (and bearing the same name as the group that lobbied in support of a similar measure that failed to garner sufficient signatures to make it on the ballot in 2008) has received more than $31,000 in donations in the last year. In addition to receiving roughly $1,000 leftover from the 2008 committee coffers, the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative has received three donations: $18,000 (on June 5, 2009), $8,000 (on December 2, 2009) and $5,000 (on February 5, 2010) from the American Civil Rights Committee (ACRC) — the committee responsible for ACRI. The ACRC is headquartered in Sacramento, California; thus, these donations represent more than $31,000 of out-of-state money being poured into Arizona from a single group in California, to change the Constitution of this state.
Of the $32,000.99 that the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative has received over the last year, $26,513.12 has been paid to a single source: KRB Consulting, a political lobbying firm in Phoenix. KRB received two payments of roughly $8,800 on June 29, 2009, and has a third payment of approximately $8,800 last December. This year, a web and graphics design company, Integrated Web Strategies, was an additional beneficiary of the ACRC’s deep pockets: they received a payment of $5,000 for “professional services – web/graphic design” on February 10th, 2010. For a group whose 2008 website was a carbon copy of the ACRI’s central website, $5,000 seems an awful steep price to pay for web services. But, I guess if you’re capable of funnelling more than half a milliondollars into another state to buy an election (as occurred for the 2008 attempt to place this measure on the ballot), a mere $5,000 is just pocket change.
We can conclude one thing from all of this: Ward Connerly’s not going to let a little thing like money stop him from buying himself a political victory in Arizona this November.
Are you asking yourself: who the heck is Barry Wong? My friend asked himself the same thing the other day while we were driving, and I — for no apparent reason — gripped the steering wheel with both hands and screamed the name “Barry WO-O-O-NG” at the top of my lungs. My friend nearly jumped out of the car in surprise.
Across the country, elections are just around the corner, and that means one thing: it’s campaign sign season. Here in Tucson, these signs touting the names of candidates like Barry Wong grace almost every street corner, sprouting like multi-colored weeds from the fertile sand of abandoned lots, construction sites and traffic medians.
In a state where Asian-Americans represent less than 3% of the population, it often feels like I’m the only Asian American in a two-mile radius. For that reason, I feel an electric thrill whenever I see a Barry Wong sign. Barry Wong was, and is, the only Asian-American in Arizona state politics, and he is running for re-election this year for Arizona Corporation Commission. (Don’t know what the the Committee does? Don’t worry — neither do most Arizona voters.) Nowadays, it’s a ritual for me to scream out my “support” for Barry Wong every time I pass one of his campaign signs — in part because they are hilariously over-sized, and in part because I feel a sense of pride and kinship seeing a fellow Asian-American run for office out here in crazy, crazy Arizona.
