According to new rules passed by the Arizona State Legislature, the emails in the inbox of a House or Senate member’s legislative email account, the one that ends with “@azleg.gov,” will now be destroyed 90 days after they are sent or received.

Even scarier for the members of the general public who value transparency and accountability, calendar meetings, text messages and “communications on online platforms” can now be destroyed by lawmakers or their staffers after the “reference value has been served,” meaning any time that the lawmaker decides the message or data is no longer necessary.

So, in essence, a lobbyist can text, “Hey, Senator, I have a big ol’ bag of bribe cash from my constituents for you here in my Suburban, parked next to your Cadillac in the parking lot. When do you want to meet?”

“Thanx! I’ll be down in 5.”

Delete. Delete.

While most political corruption isn’t so naked — though sometimes it hilariously is — the ability to obtain text messages and emails is vital to both law enforcement investigations and public accountability.

Through a subpoena, law enforcement can still obtain these records from a phone company or internet service provider in the course of a criminal investigation, but police do not make a habit of perusing lawmakers’ phone records looking for criminal activity. Instead, they get tipped off by eagle-eyed constituents and watchdog organizations searching through public records.

Spotting a series of exchanges with a lobbyist, constituent or political ally, then seeing a lawmaker suddenly make a suspicious stock trade, land purchase or investment, can tip off a voter to notify the police. Such activity has trapped lawmakers from both major parties, from as far down the political totem pole as city council members to as high up as members of Congress.

It’s not like digital records are filling up warehouses with boxes of email printouts or phone call transcripts. Every phone call recording, email, attachment and digital PDF file made, sent or received by lawmakers from the beginning of Arizona state history until now could be stored on computer servers that would occupy a space the size of a bathroom.

“Transparent government is good government, and Arizonans have a right to access public documents, including our elected leaders’ communications. Without access to such public records, including conversations with special interests, there’s no way to know if our leaders are acting in our interest,” stated Jenny Guzman, program director for Common Cause Arizona, a left-leaning watchdog group.

“Those records have important information about the legislative business that’s conducted. The public has a right to know what is there,” Gregg Leslie, executive director of the First Amendment Clinic at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law told the Arizona Republic.

The new rules also contradict Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich’s July 7, 2017 legal opinion I17-004 (R15- 026), in which he determined, “Electronic messages sent or received by a government-issued electronic device or through a social media account provided by a government agency for conducting government business are public records. With respect to communications conducted on private devices or accounts, although private devices or accounts do not themselves harbor public records, public officials have an affirmative duty to reasonably account for official activity. This duty encompasses official activity engaged in through private devices or accounts. In other words, public officials cannot use private devices and accounts for the purpose of concealing official conduct.”

It’s hard to imagine that new Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat, would have an opinion any different on this issue than Brnovich, her Republican predecessor.

Arizona has a relatively robust public records retention policy, meaning lawmakers who decide to follow their own legislative rules rather than state law might wind up getting sued by private citizens for destroying records and breaking the law. Legislators could try to change that law, but that’s too hard.

It’s doubtful that Gov. Katie Hobbs, a Democrat, would sign such a bill into law when passed solely by the Republican majority in the legislature, and lawmakers don’t have the votes to override a veto.

We have obtained records from legislators for previous news stories to present you with facts about legislative decisions that affect Verde Valley communities, so this new rule directly affects us all. It will take regular Arizona residents, maybe one of you, to keep an eye on lawmakers, challenge their records destruction, sue when they break the law and force them to put this nefarious rule before Arizona’s courts.

Christopher Fox Graham

Managing Editor

I17-004

Email from Common Cause

I’m writing in regard to the op-ed, “Arizona State Legislators are inviting public records lawsuit over new rule.” Thanks so much for including Common Cause Arizona’s statement in this great piece, though, I noticed that you referred to Common Cause as “left-leaning.”

Despite the fact that GOP Senators in Washington now vote in lock-step against voting rights, we take exception to being referred to as “liberal” or “left-leaning.” We don’t feel they are accurate, and they make it harder for us to work on both sides of the political aisle when we get pigeonholed that way. Most outlets generally refer to us using more neutral descriptions like “nonpartisan watchdog group.”

Additionally, the Common Cause Arizona office just started operations a few weeks ago, so there is little for us to be partisan on.

Usually, it is conservative outlets that describe us as “left-leaning” or “liberal” when we file complaints against conservative politicians or groups, but as a “watchdog” group when we file against a democratic or left-leaning one, like Our Revolution. “Watchdog group,” “voting rights organization,” and “nonpartisan” are actually more accurate, as we do not hesitate to go after Democrats and liberal groups as well as Republicans and conservative groups.

We make a point of coming at reform in a nonpartisan manner and, outside of Washington, we regularly pass reforms at the state and local level by working with both sides of the political aisle. Generally, “liberal” or “left-leaning” groups aren’t involved in lawsuits challenging Maryland’s Democratic gerrymander, nor passing a ballot measure with Governor Schwarzenegger to end California’s Democratic gerrymandering, filing an FEC complaint against Bernie Sanders’ Our Revolution, filing DOJ and SEC insider trading complaints against Sen. Dianne Feinstein, nor are they such harsh critics of Andrew Cuomo, Clinton Foundation conflicts, and the conduct of Bob Menendez, Bill de Blasio, and many other prominent Democrats ….

… I would appreciate it if you would consider keeping descriptions of us more neutral in the future. Thanks again for including us in this piece, I appreciate your coverage of the topic.

Thanks & regards,

Ariana Marmolejo

West Regional Communications Strategist

Common Cause