Jack Harper, Renaissance Jerk...errr...Senator?

Sen. Jack "Culture of Corruption" Harper is busy in a wide variety of areas these days, annoying wide and varied swaths of the electorate. With the new session of the lege starting, he has his normal slate of proposed laws and a number of amendments to the state constitution.

First, in a swipe at all of us, (as noted by Tedski at R-Cubed last week) he wants to take the power of initiative petition and binding referendum away from the people of Arizona, or at least to place complete control of it in the hands of the legislature.

His SCR1001 (cosponsor Huppenthal) would still allow citizens to propose laws and amendments to the state constitution via the petition/referendum process, but would require that any such proposed measures "must first be introduced in the legislature and is subject to legislative consideration and enactment."

In addition, the text of the proposals in question must "consist only of the full text of the proposition as introduced in, or as amended by, the legislature pursuant to subsection (2). " Note: subsection (2) is the section that requires that proposals must have been considered by the lege first.

This one is an abominable attempt to take away the most effective way the citizens of this state have to rein in the legislature.

We need to build a woodshed on the grounds of the State Capitol.

Any Democrats who vote for this bit of lunacy get taken out behind it.

"Nuff said on that.

His SCR1005 (cosponsors Pearce, Johnson, L. Gray, Waring, Barnes, Gould, Johnson and Miranda) would would require that all candidates for the legislature would have to submit to a "drug screening test that measures the presence of unlawful or controlled substances."

The results of the drug test would not disqualify someone for office, but the results would be public knowledge.

Not sure who this is a swipe at, but I can't see the likes of Gould or Pearce peeing in a cup, nor Johnson either. Of course, there wouldn't be any testing for alcohol (it's a legal substance), so they probably wouldn't be worried about failing the test.

This one's not that far off-base. It may not have much of a chance of passing (though I firmly believe that the Governor would sign the bill if the lege passes it - if only for the comic material it would provide :) ), but it's worthy of serious consideration.

Bottom line: if it is ok for private employers and government agencies to require drug tests of their employees and prospective employees (the public), it's ok to require drug tests of the public's employees and prospective employees.

I could actually support this proposed amendment, if three other provisions were added:

1. It was tied to the legality of employer drug tests; no more employer drug tests would mean no more tests for candidates.

2. No test results, whether for legislators or for the public, could ever be obtained or used by the government without the express permission of the person taking the test.

3. The tests include screening for alcohol; consumption may be legal, but if private employers can screen for it, we can.

I'm enough of a realist to understand that SCR1001 is far more likely to pass than SCR1005 - the lege is more willing to take power away from us (SCR1001) than to require themselves to meet the same standards of behavior that the rest of us have to meet, and to require themselves to prove it the same way (SCR1005).

I should note here that while I could support such an idea under certain circumstances, the fact that the list of cosponsors includes Russell "National Alliance" Pearce, Karen "UFOs and Black Helicopters" Johnson, and Ron "Confederate Flag: Good; Mexican Flag: Bad" Gould makes me question my own beliefs.

I fully expect that at tomorrow night's LD17 meeting, somebody is going to tell me that I'm "freakin' nuts!"

:))

An EV Trib article on SCR1005 here.

Among other things, highlights of Sen. Harper's other proposals include:

Immunizing public employees and public entities from liability for the injuries to the driver of a motor vehicle if "if the driver is found to have any degree of fault"; [a swipe at anyone injured in a car accident with a government employee] (SB1022)

Repealing the state equalization property tax, and with its removal from the books, take away a source of dedicated funding for public education; [a swipe at public school students and their parents] (SB1027)

Discouraging the state's community colleges from holding courses that provide both high-school and college-level credit in high schools physically - the proposal cuts state aid for such courses by 50%; [a swipe at community colleges and HS students taking college-level courses in high school] (SB1068)

By contrast, LD17 state reps David Schapira and Ed Ableser have submitted two proposals so far:

HB2086, which would require that health insurance issued in AZ cover cancer screenings, and

HB2087, which would require school boards to set some standards for the employment of noncertificated employees, including specific probationary periods and other employment policies. Right now, there is no such requirement for school boards. They can specify employment policies for their non-certificated employees or not, as they so choose.

This just requires school boards to put their employment policies in writing; it doesn't infringe on the turf of school boards by setting specific standards that they have to meet.

No 'swipes' at anyone, unless you think that requiring school boards to put their policies in writing is a 'swipe.' Or that cancer screenings aren't a necessary part of a patient's health care regimen, and are ultimately a good investment for insurance companies - early detection and treatment are less expensive than late detection and radical, desperate treatment.

Nope, their proposals just help people and improve their lives.

Which, ideally, is what our legislators should focus on.

Some other stuff, tealeaf-reading/utterly wild speculation style:

Does anybody know if money raised for a state legislative campaign can be transferred to a federal campaign?

Rep. Michele Reagan has already formed "Reagan2008" for her LD8 State Rep seat (filer ID 200893551 ) and filed the paperwork with the AZ Secretary of State (search page here), and, according to the AZ Rep, is already holding fundraisers for the next cycle.

As noted in a previous post, former Scottsdale City Councilwoman Susan Bitter Smith is involved with a newly-active business and community group in south Scottsdale. Given that she ran for the Republican nomination for Congress in the old CD1 in 2000, it's not unreasonable to think that in addition to advocating for businesses (and residents) in south Scottsdale, she is using the group CASS to raise her profile in the district in preparation for a CD5 run in 2008.

Good night!