Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
We can't help but wonder why Graham is going after LD23 so hard. After all, we know that he interfered in one way or another in at least seven other LD elections. Perhaps it's because he got what he wanted in those LDs but he didn't get what he wanted in LD23. For sure it's because Jim O'Connor is running for AZGOP Chairman and was elected as a state committeeman from LD23. If Graham can invalidate that election, he can keep O'Connor from being eligible to run because he wouldn't be an elected state committeeman.
Graham knows he has no leg to stand on. He's tried to intimidate both the current and former chairmen - Nancy Ordowski and O'Connor, respectively - but without any success. They have the law on their side AND they have the AZGOP bylaws on their side.
Intimidation is current AZGOP Chairman Graham's stock-in-trade and usually, he prevails because conservatives are polite. But he tangled with the wrong people this time. Tim Sifert, paid staffer at AZGOP and LD23 PC who was not elected a state committeeman, deliberately tried to get the district to break the rules for him. If they did break the rules, they were being set up to be invalidated. But they didn't break the rules so Graham/Sifert had to take a more vicious tack, which they did. You can see by the latest letter below that now, Graham is actually calling for the PCs to revolt! He's calling on them to insist on an illegal new election! This the the irrational person state committeemen elected twice. That won't work, either! Then, the question is... will he refuse to seat these elected state committeemen at the State Statutory meeting on January 28th?
Why is Graham so determined to keep O'Connor off the ballot?
What does he want O'Connor not to see or find out?
Does this call to mind what we are facing on the national stage today? The failure of the loser to accept the outcome of the election? Every illegal effort made to overturn the election? Like the whining democrats today, Graham has picked a fight he has lost in the court of public opinion and would lose in actual court if it gets to that.
Take note of the most interesting sentence on page 2.
"The only remedy is for you to act." Here, Graham tacitly admits he has no authority, so he is dumping an illegal act into the laps of PCs.
[Sorry about the tilt of page 2. Graham seems unable to get that copied straight. Like he can't get the law straight!]
This is actually a good sign as they must already be worried about Jim winning or they wouldn't be trying to stop him.
God Bless You All; Van
@Clair - agreed
This would be damn silly if it weren't so pathetically transparent. I was in the district when it was LD8 and am now in LD15 but no longer able to be a PC. But I have friends in both. Wow, the shenanigans. Why aren't we talking about real unethical behavior? Graham worked with Rep Heather Carter, a lady (using the word loosely) in LD28 named Kathy Petsas (may be spelled wrong) to recruit paper PCs by the scores, got them and their proxies to the LD15 meeting and got them elected to all the board seats. Pushed the actual PCs who show up for everything right out. May be legal but sure underhanded and unethical. Astonishingly hypocritical and of low moral standard. Anyone who voted for that creep should look ashamed.
Once again Never have and Never will, just like McCain or Flake. There does need to be something done to update the by laws to keep this from happening and believe it will take both Leadership and the Courage to stop it, as one way would be to no longer allow Proxy Votes and this would stop it in its' tracks but not sure the County or State GOP can do that without the Local LDs joining in but needs to be done and also might get real PCs instead of all the paper tigers that come out when it comes to compromising our Freedoms.
God Bless You; Van
Proxies are in statute. Amend statute to limit to 1 or 2 pp. I'd rather see none but there are circumstances where they are legit. But so few, it probably doesn't matter.
Agree, like say illness or out of town for real reasons, like to do the same with Early Voting go back to just Absentee Voting so no more Ballot Harvesting Parties etc., as doesn't help any but Incumbents and Parties keep control of outcome.
Of course Graham has an ulterior motive and it's never a good one. Of course he is hiding something. Of course it has to do with money in or out or both. It's always about the money. We've read that he is fudging his fundraising numbers to make himself look good. It might take a forensic audit that I hope a new chairman would do. Of course, only O'Connor would think about doing that. Certainly not the other two. I have not donated a cent since he's been chair nor have I donated a cent to RNC or any of those establishment groups. To candidates only.
Graham doesn't seem to be making a good name for himself, the more of this that goes on, it will turn off many good people in AZ who would have volunteered to be involved in being a PC in AZ. I am all for Jim O'Connor. I feel from all that I have read, he would be the best person for the AZ Republican Precinct Committeman. Just what is Graham trying to accomplish? We have a good person for this position & I simply cannot understand why Graham would have said what he did. Maybe I did not understand him? I'm fairly new to all of this & it doesn't help when I am so far from what is going on down in the Valley (I'm up in Payson & have a hard time traveling back & forth).
Jennifer, since O'Connor is in the district that Graham is challenging, the obvious answer to your confusion as to the WHY of Graham's actions is that he doesn't want O'Connor to be elected a state committeeman. That way, he can't be a candidate and one of Graham's hand picked candidates can sail right in. He wants Lines but will settle for Thorwald both of whom are establishment pcs.
You're Right and don't believe he'll be able to accomplish this.
The reading of the AZGOP Bylaws in full and carefully, I determine that they give the state no authority over district meetings or elections. In fact, there is nothing in the bylaws that even refers to district business. In reading statute, ARS 16-821-828, it is clear to me that any authority to influence district elections or PC appointments goes to the county chairman and/or district chairman in the case of appointments. No where does anything give Graham any authority to meddle in districts nor does it give him any authority to eliminate duly elected state committeemen and replace them with those he wants. This is just as stated above: a chairman who whines about the outcome of an election because he doesn't like the result = they elected too many conservatives (in this case)
I'm going to weigh in on this topic, mainly because of the statement that graham says in this letter which I know to be a lie. "Many of the elected committeemen were left unaware of the deadline for being nominated to serve as state committeemen." Well, the whining babies continue. If I'm not mistaken, there are meetings for people to go to if they want to know what is going on. Does graham suggest that there were no announcements at these meetings? I've been to an ld23 meeting from time to time over the years and they have been very thorough in making announcements. Do these people have any responsibility to know what is going on? Do they get the minutes and if so, do they read them? It's all laid out in the minutes and I see they are posted on their website. This strikes me as an action motivated by a hidden agenda. Knowing graham, I'd put a lot of money on that theory and expect to be the winner.