The use of government resources for political purposes is expressly prohibited by Arizona law; that is unless you are Arizona’s top lawyer and the Speaker of the House provides you with a creative way to abuse your power and the law.
This week, Arizona Speaker of the House J.D. Mesnard called on Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich to help out their political ally, outgoing chair of the AZGOP, Robert Graham, by issuing an opinion on the meaning of the word mail. In record-breaking speed, newly installed Solicitor General Dominic Draye issued an opinion in favor of Graham in which he found that the word “mail” means snail mail. The opinion will likely be used to try and eliminate competition for Graham’s chosen replacement, Jonathan Lines in the upcoming AZGOP state statutory organizational meetings coming up later this month.
At issue is the question: “Under A.R.S. § 16-824, does ‘by mail’ allow for delivery by email?” Draye’s speedy “informal opinion” is that the meaning of the term “by mail” in this statute means snail mail. He relied on little to arrive at his conclusion:
While judicial authority interpreting the phrase “by mail” under Arizona law is limited, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona recently interpreted the word “mail” as used in Arizona Rule of Civil Procedure 4.2(c). Cachet Residential Builders, Inc. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 547 F. Supp. 2d 1028 (D. Ariz. 2007). The court, relying on an established dictionary definition, held that mail is “defined as ‘letters, packets, etc. that are sent or delivered by means of the post office.’” Id. at 1030 (citing Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language 864 (1989)).
This definition, which focuses on whether the item is “sent or delivered by means of the post office,” is consistent with how the term “mail” is used elsewhere under Arizona law. For purposes of the present question, our preliminary conclusion is that notice requirements elsewhere in Arizona law provide the best analogue to the requirement in A.R.S. § 16-824. Those provisions illustrate that, where email notice is permitted, it is listed separately from “mail.” This interpretation is also consistent with dictionary definitions and common usage as explained in Cachet Residential Builders. For these reasons, notice by email appears insufficient to satisfy A.R.S. § 16-824.
In the popular MCRCBriefs, read across Arizona by Republican Party operatives, attorney Ted Naeckel responded to the opinion. He wrote in part: “I saw the “opinion” from Bronovich. He clearly acknowledges that his “opinion” is hasty and not well researched. The only authority for USPS mail that he sites only is in the rules of court and rules of civil procedure for serving documents another party and is inapplicable in terms of a call letter to PC’s because court procedure is a specialized circumstance and the sole purview of the courts. It has no binding application to “normal” areas of the law. The definitions section of the Arizona Revised Statutes does not define “mail” as being only snail mail. Nor does Title 16, which deals expressly with the political structure set up by the state, define “mail.” Further, depending on the dictionary, I can find the term “mail” to include e-mail. Because the definition of “mail” is not established anywhere other than the court rules of civil procedure, e-mail is not precluded under title 16. With the new “e-filing” system, everything but the initial service of a complaint is done by e-mail now. And, the initial service can also be done by the agreement of the parties.”
In the widely read conservative blog, Seeingredaz.com, the authors refer to an establishment blog, Sonoran Alliance, and the argument laid out there that the failure to send out notices by snail mail could result in disqualifying precinct committee persons, who are not supporters of Graham and Lines.
While statute does address the business of political parties, it recognizes that they are in fact, private organizations. As noted in Seeingredaz.com, “The precinct committeemen members of the political parties have no constitutional, civil, or statutory right to be a precinct committeeman – they can only become an elected precinct committeeman if enough of the registered voters of their political party in their precinct elect them (or, as in the overwhelming majority of cases, the number of candidates in their precinct is equal to or less than quota of slots for their precinct and they win by default). Likewise, elected precinct committeemen are not public officials – they have been elected by the voters in their respective precincts (or have won by default) to represent them in a purely private organization – a political party. No statute compels precinct committeemen to do anything; they cannot be compelled to participate at all in the meetings of their legislative district committee or their county committee unless they volunteer to do so. For example, the chairman of the state committee cannot order any other elected member of the party to do anything, as all members are volunteers.”
While Mesnard, Graham, and Brnovich found a way to stay within the letter of the law that prohibits use of public resources for political purposes, they certainly violated the spirit of the law in their transparently political move.
Given that the race for AZGOP chair is ugly and much power is at stake, not only are government officials playing fast and loose with laws, operatives are playing fast and loose with facts. Wes Harris, MCRC Member at Large challenged claims made by Line. He wrote:
Jonathan,
First of all, I received your rebuttal to my assertions regarding the Yuma County Republican Committee and your involvement in it as it pertains to the McCain/Kyle connection in the election years 2010 & 2012. I believe I am accurate in my claim that this was a “Shadow State GOP” office to the exclusion of the official GOP office located in Phoenix and chaired by the then duly elected State GOP chairs, Randy Pullen and Tom Morrissey. Your claim to have raised substantial funds for the Yuma County Republican Committee included the funds misdirected to the Yuma office noted above and since the election of Robert Graham (whom I have supported) the fund raising track record in Yuma dropped precipitously now that these funds were correctly flowing into the Phoenix office. Therefor my claim as to your involvement could be a case of “guilt by association” and if you in fact were not involved directly I withdraw that charge. If you do the math, however, you were County Chair in 2010, the year Yuma ‘raised’ $192,000, that from a county that I believe had at that time only 150 P.C.s which has shrunk under your tenure to around 50 today. I rest my case!
That being said, you have stated that since you reside in Yuma and would not be on hand every day in the Phoenix State GOP Headquarters you would be represented by what I deem to be a ‘hired gun’ Matthew Kenny who happens to be (on paper) in my own L.D. 20, who hails from Senator John McCain’s office and who headed the PAC that targeted conservative P.C.s throughout the state (myself being one of them) and replacing them with Proxy P.C.s. So, again, we have a case of “guilt by association”. Your claim to not be aligned with our two Federal Senators falls on deaf ears given your choice of a highly paid Executive Director from John McCain’s sphere of influence. I will never understand why our State Party acquiesces to paying up to six figures for someone to serve the otherwise totally volunteer organization of Precinct Committeeman. If you are not willing to devote 100% of your time to the office you are running for and be available at it’s headquarters, then I suggest you get out of the race. That is just one P.C.s opinion!
The Republican bickering has raised the hackles of independents and democrats, who have paid little attention to the Republican Party’s petty politics until Mesnard, Brnovich, and Graham decided to abuse public resources. One Democratic Party operative that they are considering filing a complaint, but have little hope for an investigation considering it involves the Attorney General’s Office. “Where do you go,” asked the democrat,” when the people in charge of enforcing the laws are the ones who are skirting them?”