So much for those pesky voters

The title of this post was already used today at Seeing Red AZ in this post. My post is closely related in subject matter, but criticizes a politician who's a *lot* closer to Seeing's heart than California AG Jerry Brown.

On to the post...

From AZCentral.com -

Even though voters overwhelmingly said no to payday-loan stores in the November election, an influential lawmaker said the industry likely isn't going away.

Sen.-elect Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said he believes the Legislature will give the industry an extension to stay in business.

"I believe in the free market," said Pearce, who is well-known for writing the state's employer-sanctions law as a state representative. "It's not our business to run a business out of business. . . . These are high-risk loans, and it's pretty unfair for us to tell you that you can't take out a high-risk loan."

So let me understand the reasoning on this, and readers are invited to help clarify this for me with a comment or two -

When the electorate votes in a way that Republicans support, that's OK, but when they vote in a way that the Reps don't like, the issue does "not belong on the ballot but before the Legislature..."??? (Russell Pearce, from the article linked above)

This isn't Pearce's first foray into craven hypocrisy. During the last session of the lege, he sponsored HCR2044, which would have granted to the lege the authority to override voter-mandated expenditures when the lege decided that there was a fiscal reason to do so.

Apparently, he (and many others!) think that the will of the voters is great, when that will agrees with their own.

And anyone who disagrees with the outcome of that vote is being "undemocratic" or something similar.

However, when the will of the voters disagrees with their own, then the voters are wrong and must be ignored by the lege.

Folks, we've got two more years of this crap before we get the chance to fix things.

{sigh}

Later...