the Joe Arpaio reign of terror may be nearing its end

[© tweed]

Arpaio's legal issues really began in 2013,  when a federal court ruled "that he and his deputies racially profiled Latino drivers during traffic stops and unreasonably detained them, violating their constitutional rights."

Apraio admits racial profiling, contempt of court

the federal court then appointed a monitor to oversee the workings of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office.  perhaps predictably, Arpaio was undeterred.  he continued along with the samemodus operandi and even bragged about the fact that he was ignoring the federal monitor.

--

so then came this civil suit, filed by the ACLU and people who have been legally injured by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's continued illegal use of racial profiling.  Arpaio, who is dead to rights in the case and knows it.  his lawyers have all but conceded that he is guilty of both racial profiling and civil contempt of court, and are willing to throw money around (a $350k fund here, $100k there) to make the victims of his racial profiling 'whole'.

however, the plaintiffs in the civil suit have expressly rejected the deal and asked the judge to categorically reject Arpaio's proposed settlement.

Sheriff Arpaio admits to crimes in order to avoid trial. Victims: 'This won't fly'


the chickens are coming home to roost.  the federal judge, (Judge Snow is the name) no doubt has no sympathy for Arpaio at this point.  Judge Snow has indicated that he "would cite the agency for civil contempt, or if he deemed the measure insufficient, refer the agency to the U.S. Attorney's Office for criminal-contempt prosecution unless Arpaio's attorneys could convince him otherwise."  (emphasis added)



ie, Arpaio could soon be looking at a federal criminal investigation.  it still might be an uphill fight, as Obama has but 22 months left in office (and a GOP president would likely drop the charges).  Arpaio is 82 years old and could use a deliberately slow defense strategy to his advantage.  the Judge may just be looking for leverage to get Arpaio to dig more and more into his own pockets to "make his victims whole".  (the last there probably is the most likely)


I try not to celebrate the prospect of anyone's incarceration -- incarceration is a horrific experience that I've taken a nearly religious vow to never wish it on anyone.. but the idea of Joe Arpaio getting a taste of what he's dished out for decades is as tantalizing as any piece of retributive justice ever could be.

[© tweed]

Joe Arpaio really makes me wonder if the principle of checks and balances can't be more strongly applied to the position of the county sheriff.  It's awful what he's gotten away with doing.

he's been in trouble in the courts plenty of times.  in addition to what I wrote above, Arpaio's jail conditionss were found in violation of the cruel & unusual punishment clause both in 2008 and 2010.  

...yet, little changes.  why?  it may be instructive to recall President Jackson's famous words: "the Court has made their decision, now they can enforce it".  Arpaio's attitude is much the same; he has no "respect for the rule of law", as we say in polite liberal discourse.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012.  the last two times the main Dem opponent got 42.5% and 44%.  I have not seen any exit polls, but we can imagine that race is as strong a variable in these elections as it is in the Deep South.  

the 2010 Census has Maricopa County holding strong at 58%+ white non-Hispanic.  that's plenty of racial wiggle-room for Arpaio.  he could lose a good quarter or third of the white non-Hispanic vote, lose the Hispanic + nonwhite vote by a 9:1 ratio, and still come out on top.

[© tweed]

that's part of my point.  58% white non-Hispanic in the Census could well mean 65% or 70% of likely voters.

[© tweed]

that's part of my point.  58% white non-Hispanic in the Census could well mean 65% or 70% of likely voters.

okay, but I don't see the comparison with the Deep South in that case.

that Arpaio may get 75-80% of the white vote and 5-10% of the primarily Hispanic non-white group.

[© tweed]

both he (and Tucson's sheriff for that matter) are nearing there end as sheriffs anyways. Aren't they 160 years old between the two of them

Arpaio will be 88 in 2020.  that'd be an appropriate age for him to retire.

[© tweed]

that's part of my point.  58% white non-Hispanic in the Census could well mean 65% or 70% of likely voters.

okay, but I don't see the comparison with the Deep South in that case.

As states are allocated representation based on census estimates rather than voter registration rolls, the Deep South, which was oppressing the voting rights of the most people, would then have communities voting for racist Democrats when they were majority black.  Arizona is a less extreme example of a similar, but obviously not identical, situation.  And it's entirely possible that 50.1%+ of the Maricopa county adult population approves of Arpaio's tactics, after all.  Or did at some point in the recent past.

this is a good point, one I hadn't thought of before.  at least three states bar over 20% of blacks from voting (VA, KY, FL), and many are in the mid-to-high teens.  yet they get 'full credit' for those people when the EVs and House seats are allocated -- as we all know, even under slavery, they only got 3/5 credit.