pro bono gavelI can’t let January slip away without pointing you toward a great column in Arizona Attorney Magazine. In the last-page column titled “Extra Value for Community Service,” attorney Gary Restaino reminds us all about a revised Arizona rule that is aimed to encourage pro bono work—and that could get you some CLE credit.

Here’s how Gary opens his essay:

“I suspect that if we made a list of lawyers who seek to give back to their communities, and a second list of lawyers who get some degree of agita from the State Bar’s continuing legal education requirements, lots of us would be on both lists. If you are among those counted twice, have I got a deal for you. Starting in January 2014, when providing legal assistance to the indigent through ‘approved legal services organizations,’ you can earn CLE for your pro bono service.”

“Supreme Court Rule 45, as amended, permits a lawyer to claim one hour of CLE for every five hours of pro bono service, up to a maximum of five self-study CLE hours per year. (This would get you halfway to the aspirational 50 hours of annual pro bono assistance.) Wholly apart from the personal satisfaction you can receive from representing those in need, you can save money on CLE videos and courses.”

Read Gary’s whole column here.

To make it easier for you to get started, I reprint here the column’s sidebar that points you to a few great agencies where you might offer your talents.

Offering Your Help

To enroll as a volunteer to provide general legal assistance, contact:

Community Legal Services (Maricopa, Mohave, LaPaz, Yavapai and Yuma Counties)

Southern Arizona Legal Aid (Apache, Cochise, Gila, Graham, Greenlee, Navajo, Pima, Pinal, Santa Cruz Counties)

 DNA-People’s Legal Services (Coconino County, Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe)

An image of Gary’s essay is below; click to enlarge.

My Last Word Gary Restaino Arizona Attorney Magazine January 2014

Most senior Arizona lawyer spread July Aug 2013Is it just me, or does it seem ridiculous beyond words that August is about to expire? The summer just started about yesterday, it seems.

Well, before the month passes, I will pass on to you today and tomorrow some items from the current issue of Arizona Attorney Magazine, in case you haven’t seen them. If you have already read them, read them again—it’s highly nutritious stuff.

The first item of note arose from a question posed by attorney Richard Bellah: I wonder who the oldest-living member of the State Bar of Arizona is? Or, more particularly, who alive has the lowest Bar number?

Easy squeezey, we both thought. We have databases that can answer that kind of query quicker than two shakes of a dog’s tale.

Of course, we were wrong, much to our surprise.

Here’s why:

  • The data only go back so far, and
  • When the first lawyers became members of the Bar, they weren’t given numbers, and
  • When the Bar began handing out numbers, they didn’t start at 1.Arizona Attorney logo

Much head-scratching later, we developed a way to determine a pretty serviceable answer to our question. The result is a great feature article slugged “Who’s Number 1?” It examines the four oldest-living members, and includes their own commentary on what’s right and not so right with law practice.

Here’s an excerpt:

“The four most senior living Arizona attorneys—each well into their 90s—seem a satisfied bunch. They are very bright and could, if they desired, competently represent clients today; in fact, one still does. They remember in detail their law school experiences, the bar exam and early career days. They remember their colleagues fondly, and they acknowledge how different the practice is today. More than one of them mentioned that when they were young lawyers, everyone in the legal profession knew each other. There was an atmosphere of community and camaraderie. And there was no such thing as a ‘billable hour.’”

Yes, you’ll have to click through to see who those four are, and to read their valuable lessons from a life of law practice.

I’ve gotten a lot of feedback from readers who found the piece refreshing and a surprising snapshot of Arizona legal history.

Tomorrow, I share a briefer but just as compelling piece from the issue. Fair warning: I’ve been told it’s brought tears to readers’ eyes.

Sure, you may be able to buy them. But are fireworks legal to set off in your community?

Sure, you may be able to buy them. But are fireworks legal to set off in your community?

Not to be a wet blanket, but there is an interaction between Independence Day and the law.

No, I don’t mean that obvious connection that involves Founding Fathers signing a letter to a king.

Instead, I refer to the annual question about fireworks: legal or illegal (or illegal but safe to set off)?

As you make your own ethical and legal decisions for the next day and evening, I point you to an Atlantic article about “The Great Illegal Fireworks Crackdown of 2013.” (Dramatic? Yes. But effective too.)

Here’s how writer Arit John opens:

“This Fourth of July, feel free to grill as many burgers and drink as many beers as your heart desires. But know that if you decide to partake in one of the most American traditions of all — driving over state lines and returning with a trunk load of fireworks — cops all across the nation will be waiting for you more than ever.”

Read the complete article here.

And click here for detail about your own Arizona community’s position on fireworks.

Have a great Fourth.

Letterpress BlogLearning what lawyers are up to is an avocation (and vocation) that occupies much of my time. And for that task, I can think of few other time investments as valuable as reading their blogs.

Sure, stopping by their offices and events is great, but that offers only a limited view inside law practice. But an aggregation of blog posts is revealing. It shows the multitude of challenges, pleasures and worries that lawyer brains are heir to.

Maybe because I’m a writer, I tend to believe that writing (when it’s substantive) reflects thinking. Therefore, if you want to know what folks are thinking, get reading.

That’s part of what drove the creation of our Arizona Attorney Magazine Blog Network a year or so ago. Let’s aggregate all of this brain power, and all of this writing, in one spot. Link them together, let the attorneys get some more traffic, and let readers enjoy the convenience of one-stop thinking.

In case you were wondering, here’s how it works.

On the bottom of the magazine News Center (launched alongside the Blog Network) you may have spotted a few blogs. That is our ever-changing roster of blogs I opt to highlight. They likely have new and interesting content. That changing list includes about five or six blogs. (And only one at a time can include the lawyer headshot.) See what I mean?

Arizona Attorney Blog Network screen shot 1More value awaits. If you click that button that reads “View All Blog Network Members,” then you can do just that.

Arizona Attorney Blog Network screen shot 2Once you’re there, you can scan the 50-ish attorneys currently in our network.

(Want to be added? Send me your URL and an author headshot. I’ll review it to be sure it should be in a lawyer network; if so, I’ll post it tout de suite. If you add your blog to the network, your blog remains your blog wherever it’s sited. We merely link to it, driving more readers—and SEO traffic—your way.)

Currently, you’ll see that our lead item points you to the blog of attorney Kim Brown. Her blog demonstrates perfectly the kind of valuable content you might get from reading lawyer blogs. Her lead item right now is asking the question of how similar a law firm partnership is to a typical marriage. She addresses the issue with humor but also with some serious takeaways that lawyers must consider when they review a partnership opportunity.

I hope you want to be part of the conversation. We always welcome new writers. And even if you’d merely view the thinking of Arizona attorneys, be sure to link to the page or sign up for the RSS feed. We’ll keep on blogging.

And I leave you with a hilarious blogging cartoon, shared with me by the great communicators at Association Media & Publishing.

blogging cartoon via AMP

legislative maps arizona

Like to draw? Get along well with others? Apply by June 10.

Looking for a unique opportunity to influence public policy in a state you care about?

On this Change of Venue Friday, I point you toward the fact that a new Redistricting Commissioner is being sought. There are a variety of qualifications to meet, and your deadline is Monday, June 10.

Below, I have included the language describing the position and including a link to the application.

If you read the newspaper, you know that the job is not without its, um, challenges, shall we say. The opening was created by the resignation of the Vice Chair. You could read more about that here.

Still interested, aren’t you? That’s what I like about attorneys: the dogged commitment to effective public policy!

Here’s the detail. Have a great weekend.

“Applications are currently being accepted by the Commission on Appellate Court Appointments for a vacancy on the Independent Redistricting Commission, which is charged with mapping Arizona’s congressional and legislative districts. This vacancy was created by the resignation of Commission Vice Chair Jose M. Herrera.”

“Residents of all Arizona counties are eligible to apply. To be eligible, applicants must be registered Arizona voters who have been continuously registered with the Democratic Party for the last three years. People who have held or run for a public office (other than a school board), served as an officer of a political party or a candidate’s campaign committee, or worked as a registered paid lobbyist during the past three years are not eligible.”

Application forms are available here, by calling (602) 452-3311, or at 1501 W. Washington, Suite 221, Phoenix, AZ.”

“Applications must be submitted by 5:00 p.m. on June 10, 2013.”

“Redistricting Commission members are barred from seeking or holding any public office in Arizona or for registration as a paid lobbyist during their term on the commission and for three years following.”

“The Commission on Appellate Court Appointments will review the applications and nominate a pool of three candidates. Representative Chad Campbell, Minority Leader in the Arizona House of Representatives, will appoint the new member of the Redistricting Commission.”

Energy and water story ideas wantedWhen you tell Arizona folks you want to talk about water resources, they listen. In fact, they may well want to chime in themselves.

That’s what I discovered recently when I drafted my April 2013 Editor’s Letter for Arizona Attorney Magazine. Like every editor, I am always seeking content that advances the conversation, and we’re always on the prowl for stories that are pertinent and timely.

Based on numerous dialogues I’ve had in the past six months, it occurred to me that a few of the areas we should be covering are water resources and energy generation. So I asked.

Happily, I heard from a good number of people with their ideas. But I’d like to hear from even more. And that’s why I’m including that April column below (you can read it and the complete issue here). If you want to be part of the conversation—either as a published author or as someone we should quote in a story—write to me at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

Dept. of Power, Water, More Power

In a desert climate, more effort may be expended on energy issues than in other places. And the horse-trading among powerful interests will only increase in 2013.

Back in 2010, we heard from University of Arizona Law Professor Robert Glennon. The water expert said, “What we do to water is what we did to the buffalo: Harvest it to the brink of extinction.”

Even with H2O, what we value is connected to how much we pay: “Water lubricates the American economy just as much as oil does, but Americans pay less for water than we do for cellphone service or cable television.”

The Navajo Generating Station near Page is at the center of a legal dispute that involves the Salt River Project and the Navajo Nation.

The Navajo Generating Station near Page is at the center of a legal dispute that involves the Salt River Project and the Navajo Nation.

An intriguing panel last month on water in a desert climate addressed that and other issues. It opened with the question, “Do we really have enough water? Really?” (I also wrote about the panel online at http://wp.me/pEOwt-2rX).

The interrelatedness of energy issues was clear as speakers addressed the coal-fired Navajo Generating Station, for which the EPA has advised requires huge and expensive changes. Assuming improvements cost $1 billion (with a b) or more, we may have to reassess water pricing.

Historian Paul Hirt relayed a humorous story demonstrating that water in Arizona is even cheaper than dirt. He got estimates on having a ton of clean topsoil delivered to his house. A ton of clean water (according to WikiAnswers, about 240 gallons) delivered from SRP would cost about 20 times that.

“20 times cheaper,” Hirt marveled, “to get this precious, life-giving resource.”

Heather Macre, a lawyer and Central Arizona Conservation Water Board member, reexamined relations we thought we understood. For instance, she says, “When you turn on a lightbulb, you’re using water. When you turn on your faucet, you’re using electricity.”

Are we trapped in a “relentless cycle of overuse,” as Glennon says? What next steps make sustainable sense, legally or otherwise?

This year, we’d like to cover more energy topics in the magazine. To do that, we need your help.

What issues related to water or other resource should be our focus? What are the legal developments we should follow? And who are the lawyers who should be on our list of sources and authors? Write to us at arizona.attorney@azbar.org.

“Do we have enough water?” panelists were asked? One responded, “Yes, but ….”

What’s your answer?

A plastic bag ban has been proposed in Califormia. How would the idea float in Arizona?

A plastic bag ban has been proposed in California. How would the idea float in Arizona?

The other day, I dropped into Safeway for four items, none of them all that heavy. And when I looked up from my transaction with the cashier, my four items were in four separate plastic bags.

Really? I mean, really?

I was able to rectify that, first by handing over my reusable shopping bag to be filled. Better late than never, I guess. And second, I gently suggested to the bagger that all of it could have fit in one bag.

I’d like to say that it is solely my heightened environmental awareness that led me to my plastic bag shock. It was, but only a little. The bigger impetus was having worked for years at a grocery store, much of it bagging groceries. Decades ago, the job required skill and a certain spatial adeptness, to know how much to fit (well) in a bag.

With a downswing in paper-bag use and an upswing in plastic petroleum-based bags, those skills have disappeared. (Do I sound curmudgeonly yet?)

But today’s post is not about the altered training regimen in the service industry—it’s about those plastic bags.

I was thinking of all that as I read an L.A. Times story yesterday about the movement in California to create a full-on plastic-bag ban. It opens:

“A drive to ban most stores from handing out single-use plastic bags got an important boost Monday when the California Grocers Assn. announced its support for a bill. The measure by state Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Pacoima) would prohibit the bags in grocery stores and pharmacies beginning on Jan. 1, 2015. Shoppers would be urged to bring their own reusable cloth or plastic bags or would have the option of paying the actual cost of a paper bag, estimated at 10 cents or less.”

One item per petroleum-based bag = a lot of plastic bags

One item per petroleum-based bag = a lot of plastic bags

Read the whole story here.

What do you think? Would you prefer to carry a reusable bag? Do you already?

And what are the prospects of similar legislation in Arizona? On the off-day that you forget your own carryall, would you be pleased, or bugged, to pay for a plastic bag?

Today is more Change of Venue than ever before. On this casual Friday, I am pleased to share a guest post from someone who knows what it means to get off the beaten path.

Kate Mackay, today’s author, is the deputy director of the Arizona Wilderness Coalition. Below, she explains how everyone—even lawyers—can get involved in the great Arizona outdoors. She even tells us about the experiences of one attorney from Phoenix. Here’s Kate (all photos courtesy of the AWC):

AZ Wilderness Coalition logo.jpgThe Arizona Wilderness Coalition’s volunteer Wilderness Stewardship ProgramWild Stew, as they like to call it—offers a customized volunteer experience that allows individuals to make a positive impact in managing our wilderness areas simply by doing what many people already enjoy—being outdoors. With more than 4.5 million acres of designated wilderness in Arizona and diminishing federal budgets, our land management agencies need help. This unique service-oriented program leads individuals out into wilderness areas, often for a weekend overnight trip, and engages volunteers in tasks that help AWC collect critical data on the vegetation, wildlife, visitation impacts and condition of the wilderness areas, which is then reported the U.S. Forest Service to improve how they manage the lands. Past trips have monitored for non-native plant species, cleaned up backcountry trails, removed fencing to assist wildlife in reaching water sources, and collected trash from fragile riparian areas. Since its inception, AWC’s Wild Stew program has logged nearly 1,000 volunteer hours on trips to 25 different wilderness areas on the Prescott, Coconino, Tonto and Coronado national forests.

AZ Wilderness Coalition Wild Stew logo

AZ Wilderness Coalition Scott Hulbert Engelman Berger

Scott Hulbert of Engelman Berger

No experience is necessary. Volunteers can either join AWC for a guided volunteer event, or become a trained, individual steward who monitors a wilderness area on their own time. Individual Stewards receive a one-day training on wilderness history, federal wilderness management policy, field protocols and techniques, first aid, backcountry travel preparedness, and more. AWC simply requests your commitment to monitor wilderness conditions twice per year, either in different locations or at an adopted area.

Phoenix-based Engelman Berger litigator Scott Hulbert joins Wild Stew trips about four times a year. In 2009, Scott helped AWC haul more than 100 pounds of trash out of Fossil Springs Wilderness. “AWC does a great job of making the trips fun and worthwhile,” says Hulbert. “Sunday rolls around and you feel like you’ve escaped civilization for awhile, but you’ve also given back to these amazing wild places that make Arizona so unique.”

Read more about why Scott helps out in the Wilderness Stewardship program here.

Cutting in a trail in Arizona's Sycamore Canyon.

Cutting in a trail in Arizona’s Sycamore Canyon.

AWC is leading another trip to Fossil Springs in honor of Earth Day this year, April 20-21. Visit the awzwild website for trip details and a complete list of adventures through December 2013 (listed below too). Find them on Facebook and Twitter.

Hardworking volunteers with the Arizona Wilderness Coalition

Hardworking volunteers with the Arizona Wilderness Coalition

April 20–21

  • Earth Day
  • Fossil Springs Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Payson
  • Two-day, Backpacking

May 4–5

  • Wet Beaver Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Camp Verde
  • Two-day, Backpacking

May 18

  • Munds Mountain Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Sedona
  • Single-day, Hiking

June 22–23

  • National Trails Day
  • West Clear Creek Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Camp Verde
  • Two-day, Backpacking

September 14–15

  • Kachina Peaks Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Flagstaff
  • Two-day, Backpacking

September 28–29

  • National Public Lands Day
  • Apache Creek Wilderness
  • Prescott National Forest, near Prescott/Paulden
  • Two-day, Backpacking

October 12–13           

  • Castle Creek Wilderness
  • Prescott National Forest, near Crown King
  • Two-day, Backpacking

October 26 – 27

  • Mazatzal Wilderness
  • Tonto National Forest, near Payson
  • Two-day, Backpacking

November 9–10

  • Mount Wrightson Wilderness
  • Coronado National Forest, near Tucson/Patagonia
  • Two-day, Backpacking

November 23–24

  • Sycamore Canyon Wilderness
  • Coconino National Forest, near Flagstaff/Williams
  • Two-day, Backpacking

December 7–8

  • Superstition Wilderness                     
  • Tonto National Forest, near Phoenix/Superior
  • Two-day, Backpacking
Arizona Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch uspeaks to the need for more special advocates for children, April 3, 2013. (Mary K. Reinhart/Arizona Republic)

Arizona Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch speaks to the need for more special advocates for children, April 3, 2013. (Mary K. Reinhart/Arizona Republic)

Just a short note this Monday morning to remind all that April is Child Abuse Prevention Month. To honor the justice system’s commitment to some of our most vulnerable, Chief Justice Berch held a press conference on the steps of the Arizona Supreme Court.

The April 3 event shone a spotlight on the state’s CASA program: Court Appointed Special Advocates. As the organization describes itself:

“CASA stands for Court Appointed Special Advocates. CASA volunteers are everyday people appointed by a judge to speak up for abused and neglected children in court. In Arizona, there are 15 county CASA programs administered by the CASA of Arizona office which is a program of the Dependent Children’s Services Division of the Arizona Supreme Court Administrative Office of the Courts. CASA of Arizona and its volunteers have been advocating for abused and neglected children in Arizona for over 25 years.”

As the Chief Justice reiterated CASA’s call for help: “Don’t wait. Advocate.”

You should more about the organization—and sign up to help—at their website.

Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Maurice Portley speaks at press conference, Phoenix, Ariz., April 3, 2013 (Mary K. Reinhart/Arizona Republic)

Arizona Court of Appeals Judge Maurice Portley speaks at press conference, Phoenix, Ariz., April 3, 2013 (Mary K. Reinhart/Arizona Republic)

You also should read the Arizona Republic article by Mary K. Reinhart on the presser and the need for more advocates.

Here is the opening of Mary’s article:

“Arizona has never had enough volunteers to work with children in foster care, and judges this week made an appeal for more court-appointed special advocates.”

“The volunteers, or CASAs, act as advisers to juvenile-court judges who oversee the cases of children removed from their homes because of suspected abuse or neglect. Each volunteer is paired with a foster child, and often becomes the one, consistent adult during a child’s time in care. They represent the child in court and make recommendations to judges about their best interests.”

“There are about 850 CASAs for more than 14,300 foster children.”

Recall has been a part of Arizona since it attained statehood, and the past few years have seen some remarkable instances of its use. This very week, organizers launched a recall effort against a legislator.

In that context, I’m pleased to provide space for an insightful guest post today, by attorney Joshua Spivak. Among other accomplishments, he wrote his master’s thesis on the subject of the history of the recall (“back in 1998 when no one was paying attention to the subject”). He has authored one of the very few peer-reviewed academic articles on the subject for California History, and he has begun work on a book on the subject. I welcome Joshua, and invite your own thoughts and comments. More of his bio, and link to his own blog, are below the post.

Here’s Joshua:

Following on the success of the 2011 ouster of State Senate President Russell Pearce, immigrants’ rights groups and others are now aiming at a more prominent official—Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The recall attempt has already seen some bizarre theater, but a look at the use of the recall around the country will show that the anti-Arpaio forces have a massive hill to climb in order to get anywhere near the ballot.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (photo by Gage Skidmore)

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio (photo by Gage Skidmore)

The recall fight itself has already been the scene of some absurd behavior, with some pro-Arpaio groups looking to the courts to stop the recall. A pro-Arpaio group called the “Citizens To Protect Fair Election Results” sent a cease and desist letter to recall petitioners, claiming that the recall attempt “rises even to the level of criminal conspiracy and enterprise” and that it “violated the free speech, equal protection and due process rights of the majority of county voters who re-elected the sheriff.” While this type of argument is frequently made against recalls as a political statement, it is rare to see it used to threaten legal action. Most likely any such claim would eventually be laughed out of court.

There is also a more legitimate question of whether Arpaio can be recalled so soon after being reelected. Arizona has provision, which mimics that of many other states, stating that recalls cannot be launched until six months after an official is elected. However, unlike in most states, Arizona law appears to say that does not hold true for a reelection. Under this reading, there shouldn’t be any concern for the petitioners to start gathering signatures. In fact, they claim to already have 150,000.

These legal issues may not stop the recall—though they are likely to cost the recall proponents some money in battling them—it is actually practical considerations that are the bigger concern. The sheer number of signatures needed to get on the ballot—335,000 valid signatures from registered voters—is incredibly daunting. To put that in context, only three recalls in U.S. history have gotten on the ballot needing more signatures—California Governor Gray Davis in 2003 and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and Lieutenant Governor Rebecca Kleefisch in 2012. This would be by far the largest numbers of signatures ever needed to recall a local official.

There have been plenty of recalls attempted—47 of California Governors alone—but they rarely get on the ballot. Even those that do make usually need fewer signers. The recall attempt against Arizona Governor Evan Meacham in 1988 (which was short-circuited by his impeachment and conviction) needed only 216,746. There have been plenty of attempts to get massive amounts of signatures for other officials, but they invariably fail. In Michigan, petitioners reportedly got 500,000 signatures to recall the Governor. But that was nowhere near enough to get on the ballot.

But it is not just the sheer number of signatures that will cause a problem. Ancillary evidence suggests Arizona’s election commissions may take a stricter approach to signatures than in other states. In some recent recall attempts, Arizona seems to have tossed out signatures more frequently than other states. This would mean that the signature gatherers would need significantly more than 335,000 signatures to get on the ballot.

There is no clear answer on how many signatures are likely to fail. One Michigan observer claims that a 15 percent failure rate is a good rule of thumb. In California in 2003, the signature failure rate for the Gray Davis recall was 18 percent. Due to a quirk in Wisconsin’s law—the state allows all eligible voters to sign, as opposed to Arizona and other states that require the signers to be registered—the Scott Walker recall is not a good comparison.

In the Russell Pearce recall, where petitioners submitted more than 18,000 signatures, they eventually ruled that 10,365 were valid, a more than 40 percent failure rate. The attempted recall of Phoenix City Councilman Michael Nowakowski is an even stronger example. The petitioners needed 2,329 signatures. They originally handed in more than 5,000, and they missed by 24 signatures. If these two notable rejection rates are a guide, the anti-Arpaio forces may need more than 500,000 to get to Election Day.

Another potential hurdle is that sheriffs are rarely the subject of recall vote. Since 2011, there have been well over 325 recalls that have taken place in the United States. Research suggests that only two have been against sheriffs, one in Colorado and the other in North Dakota (and both sheriffs survived the vote). There have been a number of attempts against sheriffs or other police chiefs, including one prominent attempt against the San Francisco Sheriff after he was nearly kicked out of office, but they have not gotten the signatures to get on the ballot. It could be Arpaio, who is likely the most well-known local law enforcement officer in the country, is different. The Arpaio recall would not be based on malfeasances but on more straightforward political or policy reasons. There are not too many voters who don’t have an opinion on Sheriff Arpaio, and, as he may be seen as more of a political figure than many of the other sheriffs, he is not likely to gain the deference from possible signers.

We are already seeing the problems with the Sheriff Arpaio recall play out. The recall group has already said that it cannot afford any more paid signature gatherers, and will rely on volunteers. Not having enough cash is always the big sign of a sputtering recall effort, so the recall may already be succumbing to the difficulties of gathering so many signatures.

The potential recall of Sheriff Arpaio is a sure-fire political maelstrom for the state. However, the basic hurdles endemic to the recall mean that the anti-Arpaio forces have their work cut out for them.

This guest post was written by Joshua Spivak, a Senior Fellow at the Hugh L. Carey Institute for Government Reform at Wagner College. He blogs at http://recallelections.blogspot.com/

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,157 other followers