Some Consequences of the Misuse of Power Involved in Elected Officials Squabbling

In a recent blog post, I listed the suits filed by Maricopa County's sheriff Joe Arpaio and county attorney Andrew Thomas against other county officials during the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws conference right in the heart of Maricopa County.

Well, it got worse. On the last day of the conference, according to an article in the Arizona Republic, the county attorney filed criminal charges against a district court judge, accusing him of hindering prosecution, obstructing a criminal investigation, and bribery.

The judge didn't take the charges lying down. According to an article in the East Valley Tribune, he filed motions with the Arizona Supreme Court the day before Christmas "to put the case on hold while the high court considers whether to disqualify Thomas and his office from the case and any future actions involving the judge." The reason for disqualification is conflict of interest, since the judge was presiding over cases involving the dispute between the county attorney and the county board of supervisors, and had made decisions against Thomas and Arpaio.

Thomas alleged that the judge was victimizing him. A public official who feels another public official is victimizing him is not one to decide whether to prosecute the supposed victimizer.

When squabbling among local government officials becomes this personal, the public interest is harmed. Besides the growing view that their elected officials don't act old enough to vote, there are actual repercussions. For example, defense attorneys are arguing that Thomas, in the words of one lawyer, "has created an atmosphere that makes the Maricopa County Attorney's Office's presence in this case ethically intolerable." In other words, when a prosecutor acts out of control, why should a court respect charges he brings against non-officials, either?

A county attorney spokesperson is quoted as saying, "I would be really shocked if the Maricopa County Attorney's Office would be disqualified from prosecuting 48,000 cases because we charged one judge." But it wasn't one judge, it has been multiple judges and many other public officials.

But it hasn't stopped at clever motions by defense attorneys who will try anything. This week, about 200 Maricopa County attorneys actually took to the streets to demonstrate against the county attorney, according to a blog on the Phoenix New Times site and a Republic article this week.

And another county's attorney, who has handled some cases for Maricopa County, wrote a letter to the editor this week, referring to "the tremendous damage being done to the entire justice system by the manner in which these investigations and prosecutions are being handled." According to a Republic editorial the next day, the other county attorney "broke the silence among Arizona officials about the oppressive, raw exercise of power under way."

How has this all been allowed to get so out of hand? In one word, fear. Fear of prosecution by officials who think it's okay to arrest newspaper editors they don't like, as well as public officials. According to the editorial, the sheriff's chief deputy said "that once he learned of [the other county attorney's letter to the editor] over the weekend, he notified the FBI that they should investigate [her] for hindering the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's corruption investigations."

The other county attorney put her finger on the essential conflict here:  "Our power, granted to us by the people, is not a personal tool to target political enemies or avenge perceived wrongs." In fact, a public official's power should not be employed as a personal tool, period. The effects are worse when the misuse of power gets out of control, as in Maricopa County, but there are conflict issues, even if not actionable, whenever politics becomes personal at the public's expense.

Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics

---