Joe Arpaio Flunky John Kavanagh Defends Retroactive, Unconstitutional Recall Bill

Republican state Representative John Kavanagh and a pig's intestine share one significant characteristic, and, no, it's not elasticity.

Rather, they're both full of it.

See also:
-Joe Arpaio Recall Scores 120K Valid Signatures: 85 Days Left, a Little Over 215K More to Go
-Joe Arpaio's Chad Willems Talks to the Shadow Army about the "Blocking Campaign" and the End of GOP Rule in Maricopa County
-Steve Smith's "Save Joe Arpaio's Ass Bill" Passes State House, and, Oh, It's Unconstitutional

Kavanagh knows he's full of it and doesn't care. Take, for instance, his lame, dissembling rationale for adding an amendment making retroactive to the beginning of this year, an already-unconstitutional bill run by his pal, Representative Steve Smith.

Smith's House Bill 2282, one the Pinal County GOPer pimped unsuccessfully in the last session, would create a "recall primary," for any pending recall election.

Thing is, the recall is part of the Arizona Constitution, so any such change would have to be referred to the ballot as a proposed constitutional amendment, on which we the people could vote up or down.

But neither Smith nor Kavanagh give a fat tick about the rights of the people in this state.

Cake? Mud pie's more Kavanagh's speed...

Their intent is to save Sheriff Joe Arpaio's fanny, and Kavanagh made this more obvious with the retroactivity amendment, signalling that, if this bill becomes law, it will apply to the current recall effort underway against Arpaio.

The bill has passed the state House, and has yet to be heard in committee in the state Senate.

Recently, members of the Arpaio-recall committee Respect Arizona met up with Kavanagh in the House lobby, in order to present him with their "Let Them Eat Cake Award," which they say is for Kavanagh's "willingness to undermine and obstruct the right of citizens to recall their elected officials."

As you can see in the video from Respect Arizona above, Kavanagh patiently listens to what they have to say. Then he offers in response, this steaming pile of ordure:

"The Arizona Constitution calls for a recall, but the voters of Arizona by a 2-to-1 margin last November said that they reject the idea that partisan elections should be nonpartisan. They want a partisan election to be partisan.

"And this bill says that if the person being recalled was elected by a partisan election, then the recall must be partisan also. This is respecting the will of the voters...And with respect to the retroactivity, as far as I'm concerned as of November, on election day, the message was loud and clear. A partisan election should be a partisan recall. I'm just trying to respond to the will of the voters."

What a massive pant-load. Prop 121, the so-called Open Elections/Open Government Act, said nothing about the recall process, which is covered in Article 8 of the Arizona Constitution, dealing with "removal from office.".

Instead, Prop 121, which made it to the ballot via petition, sought to amend part of Article 7 of the constitution, which covers "suffrage and elections." The measure would have done away with partisan primaries altogether and instead would have established an open primary, with the top two vote-getters going on to a general election.

Sponsor Content

My Voice Nation Help
ExpertShot topcommenter

Check out "HUBRIS" from MSNBC - don't let the war criminals (Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rice, et al.) get away with it.  They need to feel the wrath of the families of our dead and wounded soldiers!  They're trying to steer the public into thinking that Iraq was a war of liberation.  We need to make sure the people remember that it was Weapons of Mass Destruction that we were after.  They knew there were no WMDS and yet they lied to us and our congress in order to benefit their oil and military industial corporate masters. 

March 22nd they will be airing the show again - GOT TO WATCH IT PEOPLE!


Even if it's found unconstitutional, it'll take long enough to wind its way through the courts and have it repealed, that it will have served its purpose by being the "law" during the recall.  Unless, of course someone can convince a judge to issue an injunction in whole.

Flyer9753 topcommenter

Just saw this:

MCSO arrests 11 employees of America's Taco Shop- at two separate America's Taco shops, a total of 11 employees were arrested on suspicion of being in the country illegally and of identify fraud


However of course the employer was not arrested... nor will face any charges I am sure, even though it was at two of their locations. 

Even though I am sure that 11 employees between 2 locations is probably close to or over 50% of the workforce at those locations, the employer I am sure knew nothing about it.... 

Besides, why arrest the employer under that Employer Sanctions law, MCSO, Joe and all the other blowhards want the illegals to come back time after time, again and again, so they can do it all over again next month, gotta keep those headlines and funds coming.... gotta have the job security for yourself...

"“Maybe our nation’s leaders will iron out a comprehensive immigration reform deal that will help alleviate the problem of non-citizens working with false documents in our neighborhood worksites.” Said Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Gee, maybe you, Mr. Sheriff, could actually charge some employers like the VOTERS said they wanted you too do so that they stop hiring those illegals and hire US Citizens instead! But I guess you would rather complain about someone else, like usual, rather than do all of your job.

BTW - the 'investigation' into Americas's Taco Shop went on for more than a year and in all that time they found nothing on the employer?? Yeah right, and the moon is made of cheese too..

Flyer9753 topcommenter

Hey everyone, let's play a little game:

Player 1: Let's play a series of dart games, best two out of three wins

Player 2: Great!

Play starts, player 1 wins 2 out of 3

Player 2: Wait! That was not fair! I demand we change the rules now, and play 3 out of 5.

Player 1: Well we had an agreement on how we were going to play and score and if you wanted something different you should have said so before we started playing

Player 2: So what! It means nothing, you have to do a 3 out of 5 now and you have to throw while standing on 1 leg!

Player 1: But that's not what we agreed when we started, I won fair and square.

Player 2: But... but.. no you can't, I say you have to now win 5 out of 7, do it while standing on one foot AND HOPPING! AND YOU HAVE TO HIT A BULLSEYE but I don't.

and it goes on and on like this....

Player 1 = Citizens of the United States and the State of Arizona

Player 2 = the GOP/Teabaggers - aka the SORE FUCKING LOSERS!


Excellent expose and informative article about what is going on down in the extremist Arizona Republican legislature ! Thank you Mr. Lemons but be careful...there are so many scandals there that it will be hard to figure out where to start !

Leonard Clark


Kavanagh warns of the danger in "ascribing motives." Right after he falsely ascribes the motives of voters in rejecting Prop 121 last November.

WhoKnows topcommenter

It scary that Kavanagh is so dang clueless, but it's even scarier that the people that vote for him are complete idiots!


Once again the local GOP prove that they love helping lawyers eat up the tax payers dime.

where's the outrage from all the "fiscal conservatives"?


lol he thinks they are passing judgement on him? HA what they should have had is a list of the laws he has proposed or sponsored in the last few years...that in itself proves his bias 


should have let me go talk to him...not that they didnt do a good job, ive just got some more to add 


@Flyer9753 Hey, are you working at a taco shop?

Do you want to work at a taco shop?

Without immigrants to work those jobs, your economy collapses under the weight of Social Security.

Plus, according to the IRS reports, illegal immigrants on average pay more tax than you and more tax than they should; worker amnesty programs will actually have a large hidden cost as the people who are currently paying too much become entitled to rebates like other citizens.

But no I'm sure they are totally harming you.

danzigsdaddy topcommenter

@Flyer9753   11 employees out of probably 30-40. on JAF's site he says that 1 out of every 6 is an illegal, that means these people doubled that in their shop and had no clue any of them were illegal? an anonymous tipster noticed they were illegal and \yet the people who worked with them EVERY DAY had no clue?  Montgomery said Joe hasnt handed him a single case to try to get prosecution on out of over 70 some raids with over 700 arrests. whats going to stop those people from hiring more after the raid?  we know Joe wont. if  1/3 of your work force is illegals, you had to know. if 1/3 of your shop gets you an employer sanction raid, why are you the only one not in cuffs?  Joe is not doing his job. Joe's job is to make the arrests and present them to Montgomery (who's job it is to make the case) .  


@Flyer9753 Great analogy. Unfortunately it will have to be explained to those who support Player 2.

Flyer9753 topcommenter

@southernpansy @Flyer9753 

1. I have worked in a taco shop and almost every other aspect of food service.

2. I am now a business owner in the food service industry.

3. I am the son of a Hungarian IMMIGRANT who came here LEGALLY

I provide jobs to the community and have since 1992.

You are correct immigrants are needed to work those jobs, immigrant, not ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, there is a distinct difference.

Don't even think you can lecture me on immigration, legal or not, nor on EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY which is what I was commenting on in the first place. 

I am all for LEGAL IMMIGRATION, but the illegals need to GTFO and come in the front door rather than trying to sneak in the back and showing right off the bat that although you want to live in this society, you don't believe in the basic tenants of this society, the primary one being RULE OF LAW!

Flyer9753 topcommenter


"So your argument is "even if they're good for me i am bitter"?"

I never said that. That's the problem with trolls like you, you can't make an actual argument so you attempt to put words in others mouths. Pretty lame.

So because they follow part of the law, paying taxes, that makes it ok for them to break other laws? That's not how it works child.

Just because you think a system is broken, which I actually agree with, does not give you the right or excuse to violate those laws. You sound like they have a RIGHT to come here, no matter how bad the system is that allows them to come here in the first place. 

Again that is not how it works. You as non-citizens don't get to demand anything, you have no choice but to be happy with what you are GIVEN as ways to get in legally.

Illegal Immigrants have NO RIGHT to expect jack shit be made available or easy for them.

Oh and your jaywalkers analogy - extremely lame - a citizen jaywalking is subject to the law as any other citizen is and as a CITIZEN one of the advantages of CITIZENSHIP is that instead of being kicked out you are able to pay a fine and be done with it.

Your 2nd grade arguments are amusing, but that is all they are, amusing


@Flyer9753 So your argument is "even if they're good for me i am bitter"?

Okay. But once again; if they leave, the country is poorer and jobs go unfilled (unless you think people are hiring illegal immigrants over legal ones, in which case, what you have a problem with is corporate employment policies, not illegal immigrants).

The immigration system is heavily politicised, because politicians respond to views like yours more swiftly than evidence-based policy recommendations. The legal route is therefore not a viable alternative; quotas, particularly quotas by route or country of origin, plus the expense and difficulty of the process are far bigger obstacles than wanting to follow the rule of law. And that's even assuming that you're right about not following the rule of law, which only makes any sense if you think jaywalkers should also leave the country.

Also, they clearly do follow the rule of law; they pay more tax than they should and way more than they have to, just out of a desire to do so.

I'd talk about things like refugee status and the reasons people come from other countries to the US (which often involves economic pressure, which along with the hoops of immigration mean that immigrants who aren't rich are discriminated against implicitly), but I don't see that you have much of an argument.

Now Trending

From the Vault