Saturday, October 30, 2010

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....Prop. 107 and quotas

The opposition to Prop. 107 keeps saying that race and gender quotas don't exist at the University of Arizona. If these aren't quotas, then we don't know what is.

Goals by Job Group Report
Administrators-Director Level
Administrators-Assistant Director Level

Faculty-Agriculture-Tenure Track
Faculty-Education-Not on Track
Faculty-Fine Arts-Tenure Track
Faculty-Humanities-Tenure Track
Faculty-Science-Tenure Track
3240Research Support-Specialists-Appointed 24%
Research Scientists

Curators, Curatorial/Museum Specialists
3540Computing Managers 33%
Computer Specialists-Appointed
Computer Specialists-Staff, Senior/Principal
Computer Specialists-Staff, Other
TV, Radio Broadcast Occupations
Animal Technicians
Media Technicians
Staff Technicians

General Maintenance
Agricultural Related Occupations

Food Preparation Service Occupations
Materials Handlers, Controllers, Trades Helpers

This chart is prominently posted on the University of Arizona's website here.

New York Times gives David Schweikert 71% chance of beating Harry Mitchell

See the full analysis here

Friday, October 29, 2010

Fox News: Dems Stand to Lose Big in Arizona (it's over for Harry Mitchell)

Arizona's congressional seats are likely to swing heavily Republican this Tuesday, giving conservatives a possible seven-to-one edge over Democrats in the state if all four contested races there change parties.
At issue for Democrats is the controversial SB 1070, a law that allows the state to enforce federal illegal immigration statutes.
Poll numbers in the First and Fifth Congressional Districts show voters clearly leaning toward the Republican candidates. In AZ-1, incumbent Anne Kirkpatrick, a Nancy Pelosi loyalist, is down seven points to dentist and political newcomer Paul Gosar. In AZ-5, incumbent Harry Mitchell, Tempe's former mayor, is down four points to Republican David Schweikert. Mitchell defeated Schweikert two years ago.
Mitchell and Kirkpatrick have both been outspoken against SB 1070 and are now paying the price. Both also supported bills to legalize illegal immigrants in Arizona - in stark contrast to their opponents.
Arizona State University polling expert Bruce Merrill says the Republican 1070 stance is driving independent voters to their side. "The independents are breaking about 60-40 in terms of supporting a much tougher stand on illegal immigration," Merrill said.
Poll numbers show the other two districts are too close to predict, and could go either way. In the Seventh Congressional District, three-term incumbent Raul Grijalva could lose to a twenty-eight year old scientist with no political background. Ruth McClung, who's mother runs her campaign, could defeat Grijalva because he wanted businesses and tourists to boycott his own state.
The Eighth District has 114 miles of border with Mexico. Its incumbent Gabrielle Giffords also opposed SB1070 and favored legalization - the exact opposite of her opponent, former marine Jesse Kelly.
What will happen in Arizona may be a case of voters' revenge. While many Democrats, including President Barack Obama, criticized SB1070, a good number of Arizona voters appear to be for it - and many may be critical independents. "We have had a tremendous increase in independents [in the state]," Merrill said. "So they almost hold the balance of power in Arizona."

Read more:

Not true that Yes on 107 has gotten it wrong on higher education

Blog for Arizona has written a piece entitled, "How the Yes on Proposition 107 side gets it wrong on higher education." The article's premise is that gender preferences in universities aren't bad, because women do well anyways, and race preferences for minorities aren't bad, because they aren't doing as well. Note the contradictory arguments. 

The article selectively uses a few cherry-picked success rates for women in higher education, and says that is evidence there is nothing wrong with using affirmative action to put them in more academically competitive universities than they would have qualified for on their own merit. But that is ignoring the whole picture. Just because more women go to college now than men, and do fine at universities like Harvard, does not mean the vast numbers in the middle will do well at some of the middle-to-top-tier universities. Statistics show that the failure rates for women and minorities increase at those middle-to-top tier universities when they are artificially pushed ahead of their abilities. 

Even if women were doing wonderfully as a whole everywhere in higher education, isn't that an argument to get rid of preferences for them?

Regarding minority preferences in higher education, the article claims that because one school, George Washington University, claims to have high minority graduation rates due to its aggressive affirmative action policies, it must not be true that minorities suffer poor graduation rates when pushed into schools beyond their academic abilities. Well, that bold statement from a school which obviously has an agenda contradicts actual evidence from schools after the passage of California's Prop. 209, a similar initiative in California. The 4-year graduation rate for blacks and Latinos at UC-Davis prior to Prop. 209 was a mere 26%, whereas after it passed, it doubled to 52%. That is a huge difference. 

This doesn't mean that some women or minorities are dumber or less capable than others. It just means you can't paint everyone with the same broad brush. Individuals are unique. If there are some who don't perform as well academically, there will also be some white males who don't perform as well academically. Maybe much of it is due to a disadvantaged upbringing. But disadvantaged upbringings aren't a race or gender problem. Putting a band-aid on the problem isn't going to fix the problem. By the time a student makes it into college, it's usually too late to try and catch them up, teach them better study habits, etc. Efforts to help the disadvantaged need to be made earlier on in a child's life, and shouldn't be based on skin color or gender. A Harvard study of affirmative action found that 86% of the blacks at the 28 universities looked at were middle or upper class - affirmative action is primarily helping non-disadvantaged blacks. 

Prop. 107 won't eliminate minority and women recruitment and retention programs, as the article claims. Where similar initiatives have passed in other states, those programs have remained. Not a single one has been eliminated. They have simply made minor adjustments and opened up their membership to non-minorities and men. 

It is time to end the cherry-picked sob statistics and look at the the whole picture. Martin Luther King, Jr. once had a vision of a society where his children wouldn't be judged by the color of their skin. We're never going to get to that stage if we turn around and judge people by their skin right back. 

Refuting the "5 reasons to reject Prop. 107" article

The blog Three Sonorans has written a piece on why to vote against Prop. 107. All five of their arguments can be easily refuted.

1) The article claims that Prop. 107 does not come from Arizona. This isn't accurate. The Arizona State Legislature referred it to the ballot - every single Republican state legislator (except one who was absent) voted to refer it to the ballot. The article points out that funding for Prop. 107 - now that it is already on the ballot - comes from Ward Connerly's Civil Rights Institute, out of California. The article conveniently overlooks the fact however that virtually all of the funding for the opposition also comes from out of state - from unions, and one in-state union. Their biggest contributor to the opposition is the Service Employees International Union, based out of Washington, D.C. If they don't have a problem with their money coming from out of state and unions, why do they have a problem with the other side? At least Yes on Prop. 107 follows the law and puts "out of state funding" on their signs. The opposition committee doesn't bother to put that on their signs.  

2) The article claims that discrimination is already illegal, under state law and the Constitution. State law prohibits some kinds of discrimination, and the Constitution vaguely prohibits discrimination, but the truth is reverse discrimination is occurring in many places. Every time a woman or minority-owned business gets a 7% bid preference from the City of Tucson, reverse discrimination occurs against the equally qualified bidder who bid less but was denied the contract. Every time a woman or minority is admitted to our universities over someone else equally qualified due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. Every time a woman or minority receives a faculty position at the University of Arizona that is denied to someone else due to their race or gender, reverse discrimination occurs. And these are just a few of the many places this is occurring in Arizona. Why should my daughter receive a benefit but not my son? Why should my half-Hispanic child receive a preference but not my other child? 

3) The article claims that Prop. 107 is anti-Civil Rights and will roll back equal opportunity. Not sure what this vague statement means. If it means Prop. 107 will roll back race and gender preferences that cause reverse discrimination, well that's true. When affirmative action was implemented in the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it was only meant to stop discrimination against someone. Not push people ahead of others. Unfortunately extreme activists have turned the 1964 Civil Rights Act on its head, and gone way beyond the affirmative action it intended, morphing it into preferences which now reverse discriminate. Prop. 107 would eliminate that reverse discrimination and follow through with the true intent of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which was to treat people equally and not discriminate based on race or gender.

4) The article says that Prop. 107 claims to be about ending quotas, but quotas don't exist in Arizona. This isn't true. Quotas blatantly exist everywhere, although the wording is disguised to pretend they're not quotas. For example, look at the University of Arizona's blatant quotas for faculty hires. They refer to these quotas as "federally mandated placement goals" instead of "quotas." Clever. But they're not fooling anyone. If they're not quotas, then what are they? They list a distorted quota goal of 63% women for Administrators at the Assistant Director Level. Women barely make up more than half the population! They want 53% of General Maintenance positions to go to minorities. These  are outrageous and only some of many listed on that page. 

5) Finally, the article claims that Prop. 107 will cost Arizona jobs, saying where it has passed in California, minority and women owned businesses went out of business. But there is no evidence that those businesses went out of businesses due to the initiative there - they could have gone out of business for other reasons. 
If anything, Prop. 107 will create more jobs, because it will take away the expensive bid preferences given to minority and women owned businesses that are costing taxpayers more money. Instead, the most cost-effective businesses will win the bids, the ones that are the most prudent about cutting costs, therefore creating more employment. 

For other myths from the Prop. 107 opposition and the response refuting them, click here

Opponents of Prop 107 now believe that admitted colorblind policies promote institutional racism!!

Listen to this clip from a No on 107 spokesperson (recorded at a press conference that they held on 10/27/2010) who first says that Prop 107 will continue institutionalized racism and then admits that Prop 107 is a colorblind policy. Even George Orwell couldn’t do enough mental gymnastics to follow this logic.

Vote YES on 107 to end “affirmative action” policies that give preference based on race or sex in college admissions, public contracting, and public employment. A Yes vote on 107 will promote the original ideal of the 1964 Civil Rights Act: Colorblind government.

Click here to listen

Radio interview with Ward Connerly about Prop. 107

Click here to listen

Thursday, October 28, 2010

San Francisco Examiner: Schweikert & Gosar are in 44 seats GOP will retake; Kelly & McClung are in second 38 GOP may retake

Some predictions from the San Francisco Chronicle on the 82 House seats Dems are most likely to lose. The author has italicized the 44 seats he predicts the GOP will retake, which include AZ CD5 Schweikert beating Mitchell and AZ CD1 Gosar beating Kirkpatrick. He has bolded the 38 seats he thinks the GOP has slightly less chances at retaking, including AZ CD8 Kelly beating Giffords and AZ CD7 McClung beating Grijalva. 

Next to the candidate he's listed their latest polling. 

  • AZ-1: Ann Kirkpatrick, 39%

  • AZ-5 Harry Mitchell, 42%

  • AZ-7: Raul Grijalva, 37%

  • AZ-8: Gabbie Giffords

  • Wednesday, October 27, 2010

    Exit polls show David Schweikert ahead of Harry Mitchell 53% - 38%, McClung similarly ahead of Grijalva

    Exit polling of early ballot voters, considered the most trustworthy polls out there, show David Schweikert trouncing Harry Mitchell by a whopping 53% to 38%. He is leading among independents.

    The survey included more Republicans than their proportions in CD5, so the pollsters adjusted to account for that, showing Schweikert leading 49% to 41%, still an unsurmountable lead. 1,073 voters were surveyed by autodialer.

    However, considering Republicans are turning in early ballots at rates of 49% to Democrats' 29%, it looks like a lot more Republicans than Democrats may be voting this election, and so adjusting for voter registration is not really necessary.  The poll surveyed 51% Republicans, and Republicans account for less than 39% of voters in the district. But with Republicans trouncing Democrats in voting this year, Schweikert could end up trouncing Mitchell even more than 53% to 38%.

    Ruth McClung is polling 55% to 36% ahead of Raul Grijalva, which slips to 49% to 41% when adjusted for voter registration proportions in CD7.

    The polling was provided to the Yellow Sheet Report on condition of anonymity, but it is a reputable local pollster.

    Charity Casino Night for Cystic Fibrosis at Revolver Lounge this Thursday

    Politics on the Rocks

    Come to Casino Night
    at the Revolver Lounge
    You are invited to a James Bond themed Casino Night on Thursday, October 28th from 7:00 to 9:00 PM at Revolver lounge located at 7316 E. Scottsdale Rd. in Old Town Scottsdale with all proceeds benefiting the Arizona Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.
    This event is open to everyone and is hosted by Robert & Jacqeline Bonillas, Charles A. Jensen, and Amy Auerbach. Feel free to forward this invitation friends, family, and co-workers.
    The Dream Dealers are sponsoring the gaming tables and dealers for this casino event. Entrance fee is $25 per person or $20 per person for groups of 4 or more. Of course you can make larger donations to Cystic Fibrosis if you like. You can pay with cash at the door or check payable to Arizona Cystic Fibrosis Foundation. If you lose all of your chips you can make a donation for more chips. Entry fee includes 3 drinks, gaming chips, and entry for raffles prizes. Play blackjack, craps, and roulette. At the end of the gaming period, exchange your chips for raffle tickets.
    To make this event even more exciting we have a Sean Connery James Bond look alike that will be in attendance. Come play, drink, and mingle with others at this unique casino night charity event.
    Cystic fibrosis (CF) is a devastating genetic disease that affects the lungs and digestive system. More than ten million Americans are symptomless carriers of the defective CF gene. Advances continue to be made in finding a cure, but your help is needed now more than ever, to help keep up the momentum of this life-saving research. This disease affects children, adults, and families who are in a daily battle to discover a cure for CF, which can be greatly impacted positively by your valuable time and donations.
    2010 Arizona’s Finest Couples:
    Charles A. Jensen
    Amy Auerbach
    Robert Bonillas
    Jacqueline Bonillas

    Sponsors include:
    Politics on the Rocks
    Scottsdale Nights
    Revolver Lounge
    Dream Dealers
    Austin's Who's Who
    AdScope Media
    Arizona Cystic Fibrosis Foundation
    Joe Christ

    RSVP Today on Facebook!

    Date: Thursday, October 28th
    Time: 7:00pm - 9:00pm

    Revolver Lounge
    7316 East Scottsdale Road
    Scottsdale, Arizona [ map it! ]

    Entrance fee is $25 per person or $20 per person for groups of 4 or more.

    Tuesday, October 26, 2010

    10 Reasons Jon Hulburd is wrong for Arizona - Vote Ben Quayle instead

    10. Hulburd is out-of-touch. Hulburd supports Obamacare; Ben Quayle would fight to defund it. The Arizona Republic reported that, “Quayle is an unequivocal “no” to the Obama health-care plan, prepared to defund its key provisions. Hulburd won’t say how he would have voted on the bill had he been in Congress.” In an answer to the Republic’s candidate questionnaire, Hulburd admitted that he won’t work to repeal Obamacare: “I don’t want to waste another year and a half listening to partisan bickering over repeal.” Source:
    9. Hulburd is a fraud – literally. Hulburd was sued for both business fraud and defamation of character – charges he refuses to answer questions about.
    8. Hulburd is a hypocrite. He wants to increase taxes and regulations on Arizona families and businesses to encourage a “sustainable lifestyle.” But none of Hulburd’s three sprawling mansions have solar panels. In a recent article in the Yellow Sheets said a GOP source: “I’m all for people having big houses. But I don’t see any solar panels on the roof of either of these lavish homes. Could he reduce his carbon footprint by getting a smaller place?”
    7. Hulburd is dishonest and evasive. It’s no wonder the Arizona Republic found that “Jon Hulburd’s positions on key issues such as health care and immigration are a mystery. Republican Ben Quayle, speaking passionately and articulately on issues, leaves no question where he stands.”
    6. Hulburd is a big-spender and wants to continue bankrupting America. He’s said he’ll indulge in earmarks and play this game of legalized bribery and political corruption if elected. In an Arizona Republic questionnaire Hulburd stated, “my earmark requests will be transparent.” When our country is facing mounting deficits, voters don’t need another liberal lap dog pouring billions of dollars into pork barrel spending projects.
    5. Hulburd sides with union bosses in Washington over workers in Arizona. Hulburd wants to take away the fundamental right to a secret ballot in workplace organizing elections. Hulburd gladly accepted$5,000 from the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), which is boycotting Arizona over SB 1070. He is also endorsed by AFL-CIO, a group that opposes secret ballots. In an interview with Jay Lawrence, Hulburd stated, “I do support the Employee Free Choice Act (Card Check) and that is an example, where you’re absolutely correct, where a large group of Democrats support that for the most part and Republicans are all against it.”
    4. Hulburd doesn’t even know why we should vote for him. In a Freudian slip, he admitted during the KAET Channel 8 debate that he’s not sure if he’s qualified to be in Congress. “To be honest, I’m not sure I am,” he said when asked why he’s qualified. In another interview on KJZZ, Hulburd said, “yeah it’s tough enough running for this spot, then actually getting it would be in some ways even worse.”
    3. Hulburd has already put his loyalty to extremist groups before what’s right for Arizona. He’s funded and supported by the same groups that called for a national boycott of Arizona after we passed our new immigration law.
    2. Hulburd is a Pelosi puppet. He is endorsed and funded by Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi has personally donated to Hulburd’s campaign in an attempt to select Arizona’s next congressman. The Arizona Republic stated, “Hulburd, 50, even took $4,000 in campaign contributions from Pelosi which is curious when you consider that he’s loaded, thanks to marrying into the SC Johnson family.”
    1. Hulburd’s first vote will be to reelect Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. “I’ll support her if she shows her priorities are what I consider my district’s priorities, my priorities,” he told the Arizona Republic. Jon Hulburd received double max contributions from Nancy Pelosi and shares the same ideologue in liberal activism, even his campaign manager Ruben Alonzo stated that he is “A Loyal Democrat.” A vote for Jon Hulburd is a vote for Nancy Pelosi and the radical left.

    Tell Nancy Pelosi: “No thanks.”
    Vote Ben Quayle.
    David French
    Campaign Manager


    Help Janet Contreras and Ruth McClung for Congress!


    CLICK HERE TO DONATE!Paid for By Janet Contreras for Congress

    3 Strikes, Time to Throw the Garbage Out

    For Immediate Release
    Tuesday, October 26th, 2010. 

    Tucson, AZ -- Three times. Three times now the Arizona Daily Star has corrected Raul Grijalva and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee regarding their misrepresentation of Ruth McClung's positions. Yet, the lies continue ad nauseum on local television and litter mailboxes around the district.
    And it's not like the Arizona Daily Star is biased in Ms. McClung's favor. Still the advertising running against Ms. McClung is so egregiously false, that you can read the articles for yourself here. And here. And again here.

    Lacking any legitimate ground to attack Ms. McClung from, all the DCCC and Mr. Grijalva seem to have left are lies. What next? Was Ms. McClung responsible 9-11? No? Maybe she killed Kennedy.


    Sam Stone, Media Relations
    (520) 822-7162

    Paid for by Ruth McClung for Congress

    Arizona Republic editorializes in favor of Prop. 107 - AGAIN

    Affirmative action no longer needed

    Oct. 26, 2010
    The Arizona Republic

    Affirmative action wasn't meant to be a perpetual-motion machine. The policy served an important purpose, making up for missing opportunities in education and the workplace. But over time, the drawbacks have come to outweigh the advantages.

    Voters should pull the plug. They should approve Proposition 107, which would amend the Arizona Constitution to ban affirmative-action programs in public employment, public education or public contracting.

    Activist Ward Connerly, a former University of California regent and founder of the American Civil Rights Institute, argues persuasively against racial and gender preferences. Instead of creating a level playing field, they skew the game. Qualifications are subordinated to minority or gender status - certainly not the fair play that Americans value.

    Affirmative action can raise unjust doubts about genuine achievements. Connerly tells how the African-American pilot of a commercial airliner thought he saw fear in the eyes of passengers, who wondered if he was truly qualified for the job.

    Discrimination hasn't disappeared in America. But we have legal tools, including the authority of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, to deal with it directly.

    When former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor voted to support affirmative action in 2003, she voiced the expectation that racial preferences would no longer be needed some day. O'Connor thought it would take another 25 years.

    There's no reason to wait that long.

    The time has come to end affirmative action. Arizonans should vote "yes" on Prop. 107.

    Frightening 9th Circuit strikes down requiring ID to register to vote - will enable the left to steal elections

    This is a very disturbing decision. The left wing 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down the requirement in Arizona's Prop. 200 that voters present proof of citizenship in order to register to vote. This will have the effect of handing elections to the Democrats, who are notorious for rounding up non-citizens to vote. The decision, written by left wing activist judge Sandra Ikuta, is typical of the left's tactics: if they can't win elections fairly, they change the rules. Since they can't defeat the Tea Party movement, they are changing the rules to corrupt our democratic system. Prepare for utter chaos!

    Secretary of State Ken Bennett intends to appeal the ruling, and had this reaction: “I think it’s an outrage and a slap in the face of Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of elections."

    Hot Air lists odds of winning - Schweikert: 56% Gosar: 70% Kelly: 53%

    Hot Air is predicting the GOP will pick up 62-65 seats. Gosar's win in AZ CD1 is the 9th most likely seat we will pick up! Schweikert's win in AZ CD5 is the 34th most likely seat we will pick up. Kelly's win in AZ CD8 is the 43rd most likely seat we will pick up. Ruth McClung running against Raul Grijalva in AZ CD7 is given a 33% chance at winning. Check out the entire list here.

    Lame article by "Arizona University Watch" repeats same old myths about Prop. 107

    Where do we begin, this article was so full of hysteria and sky is falling rhetoric. First of all, the article attempts to compare Prop. 107 to SB1070 and a bill that banned Ethnic Studies. Whether you agreed with those bills or not, they were passed by our democratically elected state legislature, and have nothing to do with Prop. 107. Second, the article brings up the tired old argument that programs for the disadvantaged will be cut. As has been shown time and time again, where this initiative has been passed in other states, none of those programs have been cut. Either they've modified themselves slightly to admit men/non-whites, or they simply don't fall under Prop. 107's areas of government contracting, employment and higher education -- like domestic violence shelters. The author moans about where he or she would be without ASU's Summer Bridge program, a transitional program for "minorities and underprivileged college students." Bingo - did you see the language used? "and underprivileged college students." If this program admits non-minorities, it will not be eliminated. He or she is whining about nothing. Not surprisingly, the author doesn't disclose his or her full name, and the blog is anonymous.

    Apology given for Twitter threat against Ward Connerly

    The Arizona Republic is reporting that the Interim Executive Director for the Arizona Students' Association has apologized on behalf of a spokesman for the anti-Prop. 107 campaign, who is an intern there. Steve Russell had made a threat against Ward Connerly on Twitter, tweeting that he would punch him in the face if he was in the same room with him. Connerly obtained a restraining order against Russell immediately afterwards, due to that and other hostile behavior Russell has displayed towards Connerly. An apology from Russell himself would be appropriate, as well as a statement from Kyrsten Sinema denouncing the threat. Sinema is leading the opposition to Prop. 107, and has stated that there must be civility. We wonder why she has been conspicuously quiet.

    Monday, October 25, 2010

    New York Times: "House Democrats Fight Off Extinction in Arizona"

    Great article in the New York Times today on how Arizona's several Democrat members of Congress are probably going to lose. Some excerpts -

    When it comes to endangered species in Arizona, there are the bonytail chub, the Sonoran pronghorn and, perhaps soon, the Congressional Democrat.

    Of the state’s eight House members, five are Democrats. That may change on Nov. 2, with four of the five in varying degrees of trouble.

    “It’s high anxiety for Democrats everywhere, but it’s especially so in Arizona,” said Barry Dill, a Democratic strategist in Phoenix who is still hopeful that the party’s incumbents can rebound in the final days before Election Day.

    ...In the race for the open seat in the Third Congressional District, Jon Hulburd has been locked in a close contest against Ben Quayle, son of former Vice President Dan Quayle. But elsewhere in Arizona, Democrats are on the defensive, even incumbents who were thought to dominate their districts, like Representative Raul M. Grijalva in the Democratic-leaning Seventh District.

    Considered even more in danger than Mr. Grijalva are Representative Ann Kirkpatrick, who represents the sprawling First District in northern Arizona; Representative Harry E. Mitchell, a second-term congressman who represents parts of Phoenix and communities to the northeast; and Gabrielle Giffords, whose Republican-leaning Eighth Congressional District covers southeastern Arizona.

    Real Clear Politics portrays AZ CD5 race as looking very bad for Harry Mitchell up against David Schweikert

    Arizona 5th District - Schweikert vs. Mitchell


    David Schweikert
    David Schweikert (R)
    Harry Mitchell
    Harry Mitchell (D)*

    Arizona Snapshot

    RCP Ranking: Leans GOP 
    2010 Key Races: 
    Governor | Senate | AZ-1 | AZ-3 | AZ-7 | AZ-8
    ----------PAST KEY RACES----------

     President | AZ-1 | AZ-3 
    2006: Senate | AZ-1 | AZ-5 | AZ-8 
    2004: President | AZ-1

    Polling Data

    PollDateSampleSchweikert (R)Mitchell (D)Spread
    The Hill/Penn, Schoen & Berland (D)10/12 - 10/14408 LV4542Schweikert +3
    AAF/Ayers (R)8/25 - 8/29400 LV5044Schweikert +6

    Race Analysis

    10/24/10 --Even Mitchell's own polling shows him under 50 percent, and the public polling shows him trailing.  He's in deep trouble here.
    ----------Race Preview---------
    Arizona’s 5th Congressional District was created when the old 6th District was split roughly in two in 2002. It covers the northeastern portions of Maricopa County, including Tempe and Scottsdale. The 5th is Republican, but not overwhelmingly so; many of its wealthy inhabitants cast their ballot for Barack Obama, who nearly carried the district.
    Harry Mitchell represents the 5th. He defeated J.D. Hayworth in the Democratic landslide of 2006, and held on by nine points against former Maricopa County Treasurer David Schweikert in 2008. Mitchell’s voting record has generally been among the most conservative for Democrats.
    Still, Mitchell faces the same problem that many first- and second- term Democrats face: The wind is no longer at their backs and a Democratic administration has forced them to cast votes in favor of liberal policies that never would have come up under a Republican president. Mitchell will face off again his 2008 opponent, David Schweikert. Schweikert held Mitchell to 53 percent of the vote in 2008, and this is a very different year than 2008.

    UA law students' arguments against Prop. 107 are full of holes

    Very disappointing to see this kind of a misleading letter coming from law students at my own law school. A couple of University of Arizona law students, claiming to represent 98 other law students, have written a letter to the Yuma Sun complaining about Prop. 107. They gripe about the words the Prop. 107 campaign is using - but then play with words themselves. They claim that the Prop. 107 campaign is falsely asserting that "quotas" exist at UA law school, since the Supreme Court has ruled quotas are unconstitutional.  Well you decide. Look at these "placement goals" at the University of Arizona, which require distorted percentages of women and minorities in faculty and employment positions. Prop. 107 opponents are simply using semantics to pretend that quotas no longer exist. And here is evidence that race-based admissions are occurring at the law school itself. 
    CEO chairman Linda Chavez said: “Racial discrimination in university admissions is always appalling. But the degree of discrimination we have found here, at both schools but especially at Arizona State, is off the charts.” She noted that the odds ratio favoring African Americans over whites was 250 to 1 at the University of Arizona and 1115 to 1 at Arizona State. “As a result, nearly a thousand white students during the years we studied were denied admission even though they had higher undergraduate GPAs and LSATs than the average African American student who was admitted--and over a hundred Asian and Latino students were in the same boat with them.”
    The law students then contradict themselves. First they complain there are no quotas at UA Law School. Then they claim that if Prop. 107 passes, it will hurt the admissions process. Well you can't have it both ways - either race and gender preferences are or aren't occurring. In reality, if Prop. 107 passes, it will change the admissions process, but in a positive way. Minority and women students who are not academically qualified will attend less competitive schools instead, resulting in higher levels of academic success and graduation rates, as has occurred in other states where versions of Prop. 107 has passed. The sky will not fall, instead these students will have better chances of success, and will be spared the embarrassment of possibly failing. 

    Finally, the law students complain that Prop. 107 is funded by out of state Ward Connerly. They fail to tell you that the biggest contributor to thei anti-Prop. 107 campaign is funded by - that's right - an out of state union, SEIU. They also fail to tell you that Prop. 107 was referred to the ballot by our Arizona state legislature. Not Ward Connerly, not outside interests, but our very own legislature. To try and describe this as as pushed by "out out of state interest groups" is misleading and dishonest. 

    Very disappointing to see this kind of disinformation coming from two law students who should know better. 

    Prop. 107 opposition wrong to complain that less women/minorities will be admitted to higher ed

    One of the arguments opponents to Prop. 107 like to use is that less women and minorities will be admitted to higher education if it passes. They point to lower admissions at the top public universities in the states where similar initiatives have passed; California, Michigan, Washington and Colorado. But they're only telling you half the story. Instead of attending the top couple of public universities in those states, more women and minorities are attending less competitive colleges, where their chances of graduating are much better. Instead of shunting them into universities they are not academically prepared for, leading them to embarrassing failure, they are able to obtain a university education in a school where they have a realistic chance of graduating. 

    In fact, women are actually hurt in higher education by race preferences. Preferences favor minorities over women, and there have been several high-profile lawsuits by women alleging reverse discrimination, where women won. And due to the fact that more women than men attend college nowadays, MEN are most likely of all to benefit from preferences as colleges attempt to retain balance! 

    There may be a valid argument that we need more women and minorities in better schools. But trying to force them there after they complete high school, when they haven't been adequately academically prepared, isn't the right way to do it. It only serves to embarrass them and ensure they will fail. 

    FACT: “If you compare 1995-96 with 1999-01 — a clear before-and-after Prop 209 comparison,” says Sander, a longtime liberal civil rights activist, “you’ll see that, for African-Americans, the 1995 class had a four-year graduation rate of 26%, while the 2001 class had a 52% graduation rate [Hispanics numbers are comparable]. For whites and Asians, it barely changes. This is almost certainly due largely to the reduction of preferences. The five and six-year grad rates for minorities get pretty close to the white rates [within five points], which of course means that differences in academic performance have also narrowed a lot.”
    Prop 209 has largely worked as advertised, has not adversely affected women, and, most impressively, has benefited minorities by dramatically increasing graduation rates, thus boosting their chance for success in the job market.

    In 2005, Sander cited race preferences for blacks failing the bar exam at four times the rate of whites nationally: “Black students admitted through preferences generally have quite low grades — not because of any racial characteristic, but because the preferences themselves put them at an enormous academic disadvantage.” The perverse result is that “the benefits of attending an elite school have been substantially overrated...job market data suggests that most black lawyers entering the job market would have higher earnings in the absence of preferential admissions, because better grades trump the costs in prestige.”


    Cheryl Hopwood sued the University of Texas Law School. Cheryl worked part time while attending community colleges. She could not afford to go to Princeton (where she was accepted) for undergraduate school and therefore, when applying to law school her 3.8 GPA was discounted and ultimately she was rejected from the University of Texas’s Law School. She filed suit alleging racial discrimination.



    Jennifer Gratz, daughter of a police officer and a secretary, grew up in a blue collar suburb of Detroit. She would have been the first in her family to graduate from college and hoped to attend the University of Michigan. The University judged blacks, Hispanics and Native Americans by one admission standard, and everyone else by a separate, higher standard. Jennifer Gratz was rejected and filed suit in 1997.

    Barbara Grutter had 2 children and was in her mid-40s when she applied to the University of Michigan’s Law School. Prior to applying Barbara ran her own IT consulting business. Despite higher grades and test scores than some of those who were accepted, Barbara’s application was rejected. When she learned that had she, for example, been a “minority” her credentials would have been enough to be accepted, she filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination. 


    Katuria Smith was born when her mother was 17, was reared in poverty, and dropped out of high school. From the time her parents divorced when Smith was 11, she lived "hand to mouth" and moved between twelve jobs, detailing cars, cleaning floors, and doing anything else she could get. Click here to read a Seattle-Post Intelligencer story on Katuria's background.
    "I was desperate to get out of poverty," Smith told columnist Michelle Malkin. So when Smith was 21, she enrolled in night classes at a community college paralegal program. Holding down jobs during the day, she graduated and enrolled in the University of Washington, where she earned a business degree in 1994. With her 3.65 GPA and LSAT score of 165 (94th percentile), she fully expected to be admitted. Instead, she was rejected with no chance to appeal. Smith filed suit in 1997.

    “But a gender gap has reopened: if girls were once excluded because they somehow weren't good enough, they now are rejected because they're too good. Or at least they are so good, compared with boys, that admissions committees at some private colleges have problems managing a balanced freshman class. Roughly 58% of undergraduates nationally are female, and the girl-boy ratio will probably tip past 60-40 in a few years.”

    Source:,9171,1727693,00.html  And: Britz, Jennifer Delahunty (March 23, 2006) To All the Girls I Rejected, The New York Times. (Copy of article available)