Last week, I mentioned in a post that I was going to do a "loon report" post for the current legislature. My plan was to analyze bill sponsorships and co-sponsorships and determine who is the "looniest legislator" in this, the 48th session of the Arizona Legislature.
Turns out it was pretty easy - one name kept popping up on the worst of the worst bills.
It wasn't Sen. Ron Gould (R-Lake Havasu City, LD3); he has co-sponsored just a few bills, and the only bill he is a primary sponsor of is SB1347, the Teenage Driver Safety Act, an act that looks like it is sensible. Not something we're used to from an elected official who flies the Confederate flag at home in Lake Havasu City while objecting to people of Mexican descent waving the Mexican flag.
It wasn't even the always reliably nutty Rep. Russell Pearce (R-Mesa, LD18), though he made a good run at the title. His brand of lunacy seems to be singularly focused.
He REALLY hates immigrants. He's introduced at least a dozen bills targeted at undocumented immigrants and their children (HB2471).
He can claim his email to his supporters with a link to the National Alliance website was a mistake at the time, but my guess is that he's a whole-hearted fan of the group, even if he isn't openly a member.
While Rep. Pearce made it a race, the winner for his well-rounded brand of lunacy is, unsurprisingly, Sen. Jack Harper (R-Surprise, LD4).
I'd love to say that he's a typical reactionary Republican, but looking at some of his bills, that statement might be an insult to Republicans.
Try this comparison, call it a "tale of two bills" or something else equally laden with literary pretentions: :)
On one hand, we have HCR2016: a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would limit the number of initiatives questions submitted to the ballot by the state legislature to three per election.
On the other hand, we have SCR1001, a proposed amendment to the state constitution that would require that any measures submitted to the ballot must have been first considered by the state legislature within three years prior to the submittal.
HCR2016 restricts the legislature; SCR1001 restricts the citizenry.
The surprising-in-a-partisan-stereotype-way part?
HCR2016 is sponsored by Representatives Ableser, Kirkpatrick, Saradnik and Schapira, Democrats one and all.
SCR1001? Sponsored by Senators Harper and Huppenthal.
As in "staunchly conservative" Republicans Harper and Huppenthal.
Other bills from Harper that are surprisingly un-Republican and un-Democratic (both capital 'D' and small 'd' democratic):
SCR1009, a bill to give members of the lege a raise, and to make raises automatic on an annual basis, totally removing the voters from the approval mix.
SCR1015, a bill that would allow [edited and corrected thanks to a comment from grannuaile] legislative tinkering with an enacted initiative after a five year period. The bill also eliminates the current requirements of a 3/4 vote in the lege to change the act in question *and* the requirement that any legislature-originated change "furthers the purposes of the initiative or referendum."
Add in Sen. Harper's sponsorships of bills creating a vigilante force (SB1132 and SCR1006), limiting criminal appeal rights (SB1236), and the same anti-immigrant bills that Pearce supports, and we have the complete resume of the winner of this session's Legislative Loon Award.
Heartfelt congratulations go out to Senator Harper.
:))
2 comments:
SCR1015 actually gets rid of the limitiation on tinkering once you pass the 5 year mark. So, if the legislature didn't like, say, the minimum wage, they would actually be able to repeal or change it after 5 years. Whereas right now they aren't allowed to do anything that wouldn't further the purpose of it, and even then they'd have to have the 3/4 vote.
Oh yeah, and it's retroactive. So theoretically, if this passed, they'd be able to mess with any initiative enacted 5 years before November 2008.
Oops. That's what I get for trying to read legalese late at night. I'll correct my post.
Thanks for the catch!
Post a Comment