Arizona LD20 Debate: Gratehouse - Huppenthal

I just got back from the Clean Elections Debate between incumbent John Huppenthal (R) and Democratic challenger Donna Gratehouse, running for State Senate in LD 20.

The debate lasted just over an hour and was well coordinated. I took copious notes (though not verbatim), and I'd like to share a bit of my impressions. At the end, I have some overall notes, including some interesting attendees and a couple of very concerning things I overheard said in interviews after the debates.

The result is a rather lengthy write-up (about 4700 words!), so enjoy!

(Update: Two developments since I wrote this post. 1) Both Sen. Huppenthal and Candidate Gratehouse have contributed comments on this post. 2) In an article on the debates, the AZ Republic quoted me in a brief snippet from an interview I gave at the event.)

The debates:

A. Style and appearance. First of all, both candidates were very polished. They are both obviously sharp and knowledgeable on the issues. I'd call it a draw on stylistics. In fact, a draw is probably overall a strong plus for Gratehouse, given that she's not a career politician like Huppenthal. You could easily see her serving in the Legislature.


B. Candidate introductions. After the emcee introduced them, each candidate had the opportunity to introduce themselves and give a little bit of their background. Obviously, Huppenthal has the advantage here when it comes to specific experience in the Legislature, and he touted how many bills he has supported and passed during his time in office. Gratehouse reflected on her business and military experience and drew the distinction between her desire to serve, as opposed to seeing public office as a springboard to career advancement as a politician. Both spoke of their respective endorsements.


C. Critical issues. Following the introductions, both candidates were allowed 3 minutes to share what they felt to be the top three critical issues for the State requiring legislative attention. Huppenthal noted transportation, water and education. He was light on specifics, and spoke more in generalities, including "cultural change" in the way we use our water. He offered bills he had voted on in the past related to these issues.

Gratehouse listed her three priorities as education, issues resulting from our growth and immigration. She noted that AZ is near the bottom of the list of states in per-pupil spending, behind the national average in teacher salaries, 40th in the nation in 4th-grade reading skills, below the national average in math and 1st or 2nd highest in the nation (depending on the metric) in high-school dropout rates. She thereby made a very good case for why education is not receiving the help and attention it needs in Arizona.

Gratehouse also spoke of immigration, which is a particularly important issue. She noted that it is foremost a federal responsibility, but also advocated state remedies, as well, such as crafting legislation to crack down on "coyotes" (human smugglers) and using local technology to help secure the border.

On this score, they both mentioned critical issues, but Huppenthal's focus was backward-looking at bills he had voted on, whereas Gratehouse seemed to have more specifics of what she would actually do if elected. This pattern repeated itself a number of times in the debate, where Huppenthal wouldn't address future steps in much detail, but instead repeated how much legislation he has passed (a strange thing for a supposedly small-government candidate to focus on, I thought). It also made it difficult to fact-check him and compare apples-to-apples with what Gratehouse was offering as a plan for the future.

Gratehouse seemed to more directly address her proposal and plans for the future, which seemed to be in the mainstream of what District 20 voters would resonate with. Because of this, I'd say Gratehouse edged out Huppenthal in actually addressing the "critical issues" question satisfactorily.

D. Questions to candidates. Questions were then taken by the emcee from notecards handed out to attendees. I submitted one, and it was asked (#12, below). Each candidate had two minutes to respond to the question and there were no follow-ups, a real shame.

Question 1. Would you vote to repeal the "Right to Work" laws?

Gratehouse: Yes. She viewed these laws as undermining the unions' abilities to serve employees.

Huppenthal: No, keep them. He viewed these laws as contributing to our economic prosperity. He then mischaracterized Gratehouse's position as "mandatory union membership", which isn't what I heard her say, at all.

My analysis: This is an area in which I confess to needing to do more research. I tend to support the principle of "Right to Work". But Huppenthal's facile mischaracterization of what Donna said was a cheap shot. So, on their policy position on this point, I tend to agree with John. But on his manner of discussing it, I am disappointed that he would twist Donna's words to make her position seem extreme.

In the end, the policy position is almost moot, since I doubt that we will see the Right to Work laws repealed regardless of which of them is elected. So I'm really left with the bad taste in my mouth at John's trying to smear Donna on this one.

Question 2. What is your position on All-Day-Kindergarten?

Huppenthal: He simply said that it's voted for, it's in the budget he was proud to vote for and therefore, the issue is settled. A closer read of his response indicates he never actually answered the question, however.

Gratehouse: For it, emphatically. She supported her position well with strong statistical studies.

My view: I'm in favor of All-Day-K, as are about 70% of Arizonans, at last count. But Huppenthal has argued vociferously against it in the past. Indeed, he's flip-flopped on this issue at least once, when threatened with a Recall for what was considered to be his adversarial attitude toward education. So I can well understand why he'd like to consider the issue settled.

But the reality is, Huppenthal strongly opposes All-Day-K and only voted for it because it was in a budget that wouldn't have passed otherwise. He is on the record calling it harmful for children and has done his best to campaign against All-Day-K. He also dismissed his constituency that favored the program "brainwashed", which seems pretty derisive, to me. So this is an area where Huppenthal is squarely on the wrong side of the majority of voters and his evasive response is a slick way to try to avoid talking about his record on the issue. That really irks me when a politician pulls that.

Question 3. If elected, what would you do to help with health care for your constituents?

Gratehouse: She mentioned two specifics that I caught, one was to help create incentives for small business to enable them to provide health care coverage for their employees. The second was to enact legislation to facilitate negotiation to help reduce health care costs.

Huppenthal: Provide more assistance to small business through tax credits (on health care).

My view: I think they are both on track with this. As a former small businessman in the East Valley, I know what it's like to try to manage health care insurance benefits and provide a competitive, quality benefit to employees. Small business would be greatly assisted with such incentives, and individuals would benefit as more people are brought into at least a minimum "safety net" coverage for health care.

Question 4. Do you believe that taxes should be increased, yes or no?

Huppenthal: No new taxes. Described how he had voted on tax reduction legislation.

Gratehouse: No new taxes. But cautioned about deep cuts that do little to help families, yet seriously undermine critical services, infrastructure, education. Urged that, instead of giving a small tax cut to individuals, to use it on building up those things, especially education. Noted that CEOs rate "AZ's poor schools" as the number 1 reason that they avoid locating in AZ.

My view: No one likes new taxes, everyone likes tax cuts. But I find some folks' manic insistence on cutting into the bone of critical services and infrastructure to be extremely irresponsible. Neither of these candidates is arguing for a tax increase and that's good. But only Gratehouse expressed what sounds like wisdom on this one: a measured approach that invests in our infrastructure, rather than slavishly following some simplistic tax cutting ideology that would just shift the tax-collection needs from state to local governments.

Question 5. Do you support new gun control laws?

Gratehouse: No, but we need to enforce the ones we have. She is a strong proponent of the 2nd Amendment and Concealed Carry. She noted that one area in which she differs with her opponent is that she does not believe guns should be allowed in places that also sell alcohol as a public safety issue.

Huppenthal: He responded with his involvement in the Concealed Carry legislation and noted that states that have Concealed Carry have 5-8% less murder and rape. He argued that there should be a new law that allows guns to be carried into restaurants and bars that sell alcoholic beverages so that people can defend themselves there. He said it was necessitated by byzantine liquor license laws in the state. He then took the opportunity to go back to the All-Day-K question, and stated explicitly that he thought it was bad for children.

My view: I believe strongly in all of the Constitution - including the 2nd Amendment. My family has been gun owning and hunting and it's part of our culture. I own firearms. I also agree with the Concealed Carry permit law, though I don't have one. But I would say that it is an unsafe, unwise and thoroughly irresponsible position to take to have people toting their guns into bars. Guns and alcohol don't mix!

Two other observations: first, Huppenthal is reputed to be a lover of statistics, so it is incredible that he holds a 5-8% statistical difference as significant, particularly when applied to drawing causation in tenuous sociolegal relationships as this. Second, if the liquor laws are so byzantine and unworkable, then fix them! That's supposed to be your job, John! Don't excuse away bad judgment by blaming it on some other issue over which you also had control.

Huppenthal's support for "guns in bars" is an example of someone taking a simplistic ideological view of the world and following it to a reductio ad absurdum conclusion. His position on this seriously impeaches his judgment, in my view.

Question 6. Do you think the sales factor reform legislation was a good idea?

Huppenthal: He favored and worked for it. He argued that it was good because it helped entice Intel to locate a factory here.

Gratehouse: Noted that, as an employee of Intel, she would do the ethical thing and recuse herself from voting on this as a legislator. But in general, she noted that negotiating for tax breaks is a common ploy to pressure locales to offer the companies sweeter deals, but that it has little impact on their ultimate decision on choice of locale. She backed this up with an example of Samsung.

My view: I'm frankly not very informed on this legislation, so I can't speak to the positions. I'll need to do more research here. However, I was very pleased with Gratehouse for noting the ethical issue and her commitment to ethical behavior. And I was impressed by her economic and political savvy when she spoke about how companies use pressure ploys to get concessions out of governments even when their location decisions aren't significantly based on them. She is obviously well informed and insightful on the issues.

Question 7. Name three specific ways you would open dialogues to obtain long-term water resources.

Gratehouse: negotiate legislation to secure more water quality/protection funds, need an updated study on where we stand now, work to develop a statewide plan for water conservation and enforce a 100-year reserve, work on incentivizing and exploring new technologies such as desalination.

Huppenthal: named three communities that would need to be involved (farming, business and residents), said it would take a "sort of a cultural transformation", need to stretch our resources, would result in a confrontation with agriculture and business.

My view: Water issues are absolutely key for our state. And a State Senator who isn't prepared to champion specific outcomes is just not doing his homework or just has no ideas. Sadly, Huppenthal didn't seem to actually have any specifics on this one, which was very disappointing. He identified communities with a stake and spoke in vague terms about a cultural transformation, but mentioned no specifics. Gratehouse, on the other hand, noted four or five specifics here that would be excellent for our state to implement. On this question, Gratehouse was clearly much better prepared with constructive and specific ideas to improve Arizona.

Question 8. We have a fast-growing budget on prisons - how would you deal with that?

Huppenthal: Discussed doing a study of "high criminal" zones to determine where they are coming from, and thus how to address the root cause. Implied that this would reduce the number of prisoners, thus reducing prison budget.

Gratehouse: Noted her endorsement by AZCOPS. Said we need to reform our drug policy - we should not be incarcerating, as a rule, non-violent drug users and warehousing them. They should receive rehabilitation. Also, should re-examine our use of privatized prisons. Felt that for some purposes, privatizing isn't the best way.

My view: Okay, they both have good points here. I think sociological studies should be done to determine the reasons behind high criminal-producing areas, so they can be identified and addressed. And I believe that "warehousing" first-time, non-violent drug users in prisons is a grossly incompetent use of public funds. It seems to me, though, that while Huppenthal is poring over his statistical printouts to see what kind of social engineering he can achieve to shave a few percent off of criminal behavior, Gratehouse's proposal is far more likely to result in a vast reduction (and an appropriate one) in prison costs.

Question 9. Given the recent school shootings in the US, would you support concealed carry permits for teachers to defend themselves in schools?

Gratehouse: No.

Huppenthal: No.

My view: They're right, of course. But so much for Huppenthal's principled stand on 2nd Amendment rights to defend yourself in dangerous places with a concealed carry firearm.

Question 10. How do you respond to Russell Pearce's recent statement calling for a new Eisenhower "Operation Wetback" to deal with immigrants?

Huppenthal: Talked about his record on immigration legislation. Argued for making it a state crime as well as a federal one. Upset that Governor Napolitano vetoed it.

Gratehouse: said that real amendments offering constructive solutions were offered to the legislature to address this, but they were voted own by the Republican leadership, legislative majority refused to fund "anti-coyote" efforts. Reiterated that "nothing will change until we change our legislature".

My view: I didn't catch either of them actually responding to the specific question about Pearce's comments. Perhaps they did and I missed it, though. I will say that I'm squarely in Donna's camp on this one. Immigration enforcement is first and foremost a federal responsibility. We need federal representatives - Senators and House Reps - to hold the national government accountable for adequately funding our border protection. If the state takes on the primary role, it will drain our coffers and stretch our law enforcement beyond breaking as we attempt to perform a job more properly shouldered by the Feds.

Furthermore, when Napolitano vetoed the Legislature's bill to create a state crime, she did so with the endorsement of just about every law enforcement official and consultant in the state. The reason is that enforcement would have been completely impractical and extremely costly to departments that are already understaffed and underfunded. I'm afraid the legislature is playing politics with a hot-button issue for a lot of voters, trying to stir up support by taking a hard line on this. Unfortunately, they're not being mindful of their responsibility to enact practicable legislation on our behalf.

Oh, and as for Russell Pearce? The right answer is to condemn his verbiage outright.

Question 11. Are our drug laws too harsh?

Gratehouse: Would support medical use of marijuana. Would consider studying legalizing marijuana as a recreational drug. Oppose mandatory minimums because judges need the discretion to consider the facts of each case.

Huppenthal: Oppose any effort to legalize any drugs. Went back to make another comment on the immigration issue about maximizing what the state could do. Slammed another legislator for some amendments proposed.

My view: I support Gratehouse's view here on medical marijuana. It seems logically inconsistent to allow doctors to prescribe morphine or oxycontin for pain, but to prevent them from prescribing marijuana - a far less addictive and dangerous drug - for pain. Huppenthal's position only makes sense from two perspectives: as a way to preserve pharmaceutical hegemony over painkillers and as a simplistic, knee-jerk response to anything called "drug".

Regarding recreational marijuana, I note that Gratehouse did not say she would legalize it. She did note that she would consider studying doing so. I make this distinction for reasons that will become evident later in this write-up, based on something I overheard misrepresented in post-debate interviews. My personal view is that marijuana is a drug that is far less damaging to individuals and society than alcohol, yet I see no great effort being championed by Huppenthal and others to re-enact Prohibition to get alcohol off of the streets.

I agree with reducing or eliminating mandatory minimum sentencing. There are some inconsistencies in the way judges sentence, but the "tough on crime" legislators that like to posture by creating harsh minimum sentences can strip the jurisprudence out of sentencing and put it in the hands of legislators who are far removed from a given case and do not know what extenuating circumstances may be involved. If some folks are upset with judges "legislating form the bench", then let's also keep legislators from "adjudicating from the assembly."

Question 12. How do you view the record of Janet Napolitano and how would that affect your interaction with her if she gets re-elected?

Huppenthal:Spoke about how Reagan worked with his legislature. Expressed in various ways how Huppenthal values bipartisanship, values consensus. Repeated that he has worked on over 200 pieces of legislation.

Gratehouse: Noted that the Legislature has made no secret of their effort to use legislation to attack the Governor. They have sent bills to her that were impractical or that she had already vetoed before, just to undermine her when she vetoed them again. She noted that Democrats are often completely shut out of the legislative process.

My view: Huppenthal has a lot of experience writing legislation, but quantity and quality are two separate things. And it's easy to be bipartisan on relatively painless bills - the real test is how bipartisan you are when there are significant differences in position. In these kinds of situations, the Republicans in our legislature have a rather checkered record.

Indeed, even some Republicans in the legislature have complained at the way the Republican majority has been gaming the bills to attack the Governor. So I'm afraid that, Huppenthal's claims notwithstanding, there is a seriously dysfunctional leadership in the legislature that has stymied real progress on some key bills. I have to side with Gratehouse on this.

Question 13. Is the 9/11 memorial downtown a fitting tribute?

Gratehouse: Would not presume to tell people what they should view as a fitting tribute. But after seeing it, she believes that the controversy is "much ado about nothing". The statements that have drawn fire (a few out of fifty or so) have been taken out of context. People should go see it themselves, in context, and make up their own minds. Noted that if the Legislature is going to have a "special session" to address a patriotic cause, let them have one to do something far more important and constructive and patriotic, like approving more veteran counselors to help support our returning vets that need it.

Huppenthal: It's completely inappropriate. Memorials should bring people together and this created a furor. Including those statements shows a "weakness of thought". We "cannot flinch" in fighting radical Muslims who hate us.

My view: I haven't seen the memorial, so I will reserve judgment. I did find it laughable that John thinks memorials should somehow be free of controversy. I know the Viet Nam Memorial on the Washington Mall received huge criticism and controversy when it was first unveiled. Now it's considered a poignantly fitting tribute to those who gave all in the service of our country.

I am also reminded that the committee to design the memorial was bipartisan. Half was appointed by Governor Hull, the other half by Napolitano. And a 9/11 widow was on the committee, and found the wording appropriate to the context. So, on first impression, the current furor appears to be yet another case of some politicians using 9/11 as a political issue to stir up support.

I guess I'll have to go take a look in the coming weeks, to make up my own mind.

Question 14. What would you do to advance the Kyrene School District in the future?

Huppenthal: Talked about past votes (voted against capital appreciation bonds, voted to let them keep end of FY funds, voted for career ladder programs). In future, said he would work to make sure that future health and retirement were adequately funded.

Gratehouse: Expressed importance of free and excellent education. Said she would not divert funds from public schools to private schools. Would replace hi-stake AIMS test with a more reasonable and practical model. Hold charter schools to similar standards (as much as possible), with review every 5 years, not every 15. Charter school teachers should be required to get teaching certification.

My view: Huppenthal again spent most of his time on past legislation that he voted on. I appreciate how many votes he's cast in his political career, but I'm more interested in what he's going to do in the future. Hearing him say for the fifth time that he voted on over 200 pieces of legislation is downright irritating. I do commend him on making sure health and retirement funds are adequately funded. But with his goal of shifting funds out of public schools to support private institutions and vouchers, and his penchant for cutting into the bone on revenues, one wonders how he proposes to safeguard such adequate funding.

Gratehouse's points seemed reasonable and right in line with where I stand. I would also note that State Rep. McComish (R-LD20) also agrees with Gratehouse on the vouchers issue.


Question 15. What is your position on Clean Elections?

Gratehouse: Absolutely support Clean Elections. They allow average people access to the political process instead of keeping it enthralled to corporate interests and the wealthy. Notes that there are some compliance difficulties, but that these are readily overcome.

Huppenthal: Says it's a violation of 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Said he acted generally as a clean elections candidate in his career.

My view: I'm not a Constitutional Scholar, but I generally reject the argument that is made that Clean Elections is unconstitutional because it violates the 1st Amendment. First of all, it's voluntary. Candidates can opt out of it if they wish, and raise money and so forth without Clean Elections restrictions.

Secondly, the public has a compelling interest in making the political process accessible and fair. Hence, I believe it has the latitude to set up a voluntary system which would have certain restrictions placed on it that encourages fairness and participatory democracy. I've recently read Justice Stephen Breyer's Active Liberty and was taken with how he reconciles the 1st Amendment with campaign finance reform restrictions. Justice Breyer's ideas seem relevant here.

I should say, though, that I find it most puzzling that Huppenthal would voluntarily choose to embrace Clean Elections and run as a Clean Elections candidate (which he is doing) when he views the program as unconstitutional. If I personally felt the program were unconstitutional, I believe I would make it a point to reject campaigning under the program. One could be forgiven for wondering why Huppenthal is prepared to abandon his constitutional principles in at least this circumstance.

E. Closing comments Each candidate was given three minutes to make closing comments.

Huppenthal: Repeated his 200+ pieces of legislation, 50 in the past year. Said he delivers for constituents, has worked with organizations and has helped bring the state and district up in economic growth.

Gratehouse: Urged attendees to beware of the words "effective" and "influential" and instead to ask "effective at what and for whom" and "influential over whom and to what end." Said the measure of a political record is not the number of bills someone has co-sponsored, but the effect of their legislation. Noted that "we're still at the bottom in education, near the bottom (worst) in crime and running out of water." Said that nothing will change until we change the legislature.

My view: By the end of the debate, I was sick of hearing how many pieces of legislation Huppenthal had worked on. So when he said it again here, my eyes kind of glazed over. And when Gratehouse specifically challenged the implication that lots of legislation translated to solving problems, I was thankful someone had stated it for the record.

I find "constituency service" to be one of those kinds of slippery things, too. It sounds good, but to what end did you serve your constituents? And how do you measure it? The stats Gratehouse noted in her closing comments are a damaging impeachment of Huppenthal and others' true effectiveness as legislators, when it comes to some crucial issues in our state.

One other thing. I'm not sure when it happened in the debate because I didn't write it down. But at one point, Huppenthal actually tried to take credit for the increase in home values ("they're over the national average"). If there was one point during the debate that I was actually tempted to say something in response, myself, that was it.

I mean, as a home-owner in Chandler, the idea that a state senator would try to take credit for a housing boom driven by speculators is just bizarre. And the idea that he would actually consider the resulting increase in housing costs by 60% in the past year to be a solid positive for our community is just detached from reality. Maybe he's so rich that property tax increases don't bother him, or maybe he had a few other houses he could sell and cash in on the skyrocketing prices - I don't know. But it just seemed like a very weird thing to try to take credit for, in my opinion.

F. After debate schmoozing and interviews.

A number of community leaders were present, including State Reps McComish and Robson and City Councilman Jeff Weninger. I had a good chat with Jeff
and we were able to catch up a bit on how things are going personally and with some issues before the Council. I was mildly surprised (and a little flattered) when Jeff suggested he read my blog regularly. Hi Jeff!

I gave two interviews, one to a reporter from Ahwatukee News and one to a freelance reporter writing for AZ Republic and other papers. Others were being interviewed as well.

It was during these interviews that I listened to Sen. Huppenthal speaking to one reporter, and he made a couple of statements to her that I simply have to mention. In his statements, he misrepresented two comments that Gratehouse made - one on union membership and one on drug laws - and said that he couldn't see how the voters of D20 would vote for someone that stood for the positions he'd just mischaracterized.

In fact, it struck me as a rather ugly attempt at a straw-man argument and smear. Huppenthal seemingly effortlessly twisted Gratehouse's words and then attacked his made-up opponent. I find that kind of behavior quite aggravating and it made me seriously question whether I could trust his other assertions of the evening. I got the sense that I would need to fact-check every statement he made in the debate. Honestly, I'm not up to that - and I wish it weren't necessary.

I don't know if Huppenthal's misleading comments will see print elsewhere, but suffice it to say, they left me thinking somewhat less of him.

I thought the debate was well coordinated. I was grateful to be able to get involved and even propose a question to the candidates. Afterward, I went to express my personal gratitude to the a-v technician and the organizers/staffers for their service in hosting the event. ASU's Institute of Public Policy hosted and KAET taped the debate. Clean Elections will have it online tomorrow, I believe. One staffer from ASU asked me to fill out a survey on the debate, which I gladly did.

A reporter and I were the last ones to leave the room, except for the folks cleaning up.