ARIZONA
CORNER
Special
Edition
Gov. Jan Brewer seeks earlier Arizona
primary
by Mary Jo Pitzl
- Jul. 22, 2011 12:00 AM
The Arizona Republic
The Arizona Republic
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer
plans to move the state's presidential-preference election up a month, to Jan.
31, to draw GOP candidates and national attention to the state.
Many of the issues
Arizona has dealt with in recent years, from illegal immigration to federal
health-care reform, are national issues that put the state at the forefront of
national debate, she said.
"It only makes
sense that our state have its voice heard loud and clear," Brewer said in a
statement.
earliest states to host
a presidential primary. Only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina and
possibly Florida will make their party picks earlier, according to Josh Putnam,
a professor at Davidson College in North Carolina who specializes in campaigns
and elections.
A Jan. 31 election,
Brewer added, would make Arizona voters "major players in the 2012
campaign."
By law, Arizona holds
its preference elections on the fourth Tuesday of February, which would be Feb.
28, 2012.
But the law also allows
the governor to change the date by proclamation, as long as she gives five
months notice to the state's counties.
The change effectively
matters only for the Republican Party, since it appears that President Barack
Obama will run unopposed for the Democratic nomination.
There is a downside: The
state risks losing some of its delegates to the GOP national convention in
Tampa by jumping ahead. Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/azelections/articles/2011/07/22/20110722brewer-arizona-primary-move.html#ixzz1Srwms9dr
DiCiccio gets grief
for endorsing Neely
Several say they are disappointed in him for not going with the "tea party" backed candidate.
Several say they are disappointed in him for not going with the "tea party" backed candidate.
Cave
Creek panel recommends approval for running of bulls
An American version of Pamplona's running of the bulls could be coming to Cave Creek this fall. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/
An American version of Pamplona's running of the bulls could be coming to Cave Creek this fall. http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/
Arizona Photo-Enforcement Notices Must
Now State the Truth: Motorists Have No Duty to Respond or Identify Driver
Starting
tomorrow, photo-enforcement-violation notices must finally state the truth
about what's going on -- namely, that you don't need to respond or identify the
driver in the picture.
Cities and, for a while, the state of Arizona, have for years employed something of a ruse to help get speeders and red-light runners caught by the machines to pay up. They sent an initial notice of violation that has no legal teeth, yet contained a passive threat that blowing off the notice might not be in the motorists' best interest.
A few years ago, we caught the city of Scottsdale lying blatantly in its notices, which it falsely called a "summons." The notice stated that those who didn't respond would be subject to fines, fees and driver's license suspension.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety notice of violation that we published two years ago shows the more-typical trick. Appearing below DPS insignia, the notice states simply that the motorist should fill out the form and sent it back by the "respond-by date." While the DPS freeway cameras were online, (that program ended last summer), thousands of people likely responded like sheep to those notices -- even though they didn't have to.
Cities and, for a while, the state of Arizona, have for years employed something of a ruse to help get speeders and red-light runners caught by the machines to pay up. They sent an initial notice of violation that has no legal teeth, yet contained a passive threat that blowing off the notice might not be in the motorists' best interest.
A few years ago, we caught the city of Scottsdale lying blatantly in its notices, which it falsely called a "summons." The notice stated that those who didn't respond would be subject to fines, fees and driver's license suspension.
An Arizona Department of Public Safety notice of violation that we published two years ago shows the more-typical trick. Appearing below DPS insignia, the notice states simply that the motorist should fill out the form and sent it back by the "respond-by date." While the DPS freeway cameras were online, (that program ended last summer), thousands of people likely responded like sheep to those notices -- even though they didn't have to.
As
numerous articles in New Times and
elsewhere have pointed out, ignoring those notices only meant the possibility
of a ticket being served at the offender's home by a process server. True,
having a server come out meant an additional $25 added to the fine. But if the
server never comes, or the motorist doesn't appear to be home when the server
comes -- always a distinct possibility -- then the photo enforcement ticket
becomes invalid.
Now, thanks to a bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed, notices of violation must confess that:
Now, thanks to a bill that Governor Jan Brewer signed, notices of violation must confess that:
a) the notice is not a court
issued document;
b)
the recipient is under no obligation to identify the person or respond to the
notice; and
c)
failure to respond to the notice may result in official service that may result
in an additionally levied fee.
Scottsdale
and possibly other cities sometimes use a trick called "alternative service" to nab
people they believe are dodging the process services. In that case, court
motions are made by the prosecutor to have a ticket taped to the front door of
a residence. The city reportedly has used alternative service frequently in the past,
but it's probably still worth waiting it out.
Whether
the ticket was personally served or was served through a valid
"alternative service" motion, the motorist must then treat the
citation as if it was issued by a cop in a traffic stop.
The
new law also mandates that $13 of every ticket goes to the "GITEM" task force, which has a
mission of "strict enforcement" of immigration and gang laws.
For
those who oppose such "strict enforcement" of immigration laws, this
could be yet another reason to ignore a photo enforcement notice. http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2011/07/arizona_photo_enforcement_noti.php
