The 2010 ballot questions...

Early ballots drop next week, and the deadline for registering to vote in November's election is on Monday, so it is time to start discussing specific positions on the ballot questions (and the timing is also good because it ties in with yesterday's post)...

There are 10 statewide ballot questions this November. The legislature placed nine of them on the ballot, usually but not always on party-line votes.


While I have provided a very brief summary of the propositions (with my intended votes), with links to the actual text, other groups have put together far more comprehensive summaries -

The Arizona Secretary of State has released a Ballot Measures Publicity Pamphlet. It can be found at http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/Info/PubPamphlet/english/contents.htm.  It contains the language of the propositions, a summary of each proposition from the Legislative Council, and “for” and “against” arguments.

When they have completed it, the Arizona Advocacy Network will have its own summary of the ballot propositions at http://www.azadvocacy.org/resources/ballotguides.html.

The Arizona chapter of the League of Women Voters has a guide to the propositions out, too - http://www.lwvaz.org/azvoterservice/LWV%202010%20Voter%20Guide.pdf


The first seven questions are proposed amendments to Arizona’s constitution, and all were placed on the ballot by the legislature.

Note: where the name of a national organization is indicated as opposing or supporting a specific measure, unless otherwise noted, I'm referring to the Arizona chapter of that national organization.

Proposition 106 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202014.pdf

Prop. 106 is an anti-health care reform supported by the insurance industry. It would bar the creation of a single-payer health insurance system or a viable “public option.” Based on arguments submitted for the publicity pamphlet, the measure is supported by the insurance industry, Republican Party, and the tea party wing of the Republican Party. It is opposed by the Green Party, NOW, Arizona Association of Retired Persons, Arizona Education Association, and the League of Women Voters. The medical community seems split, but most of the MDs/RNs who submitted “for” arguments had them paid for by one or another insurance industry front group.

NO.


Proposition 107 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202019.pdf

Prop. 107 would bar affirmative action measures and rules. It is supported by Republicans like Russell Pearce, Tom Horne, and Rachel Alexander (a lawyer who worked for Andrew Thomas as a communications person). It is opposed by the Arizona Education Association, League of Women Voters, NOW, Greater Phoenix Urban League, and Ann Wallack, chair of the Maricopa County Democratic Party.

Hell NO.


Proposition 109 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202008.pdf

Prop. 109 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would give the right to hunt and fish in Arizona the same status as the rights of free speech and habeas corpus. It is supported by various Republicans, including Jan Brewer, and hunting and fishing advocacy groups. Opposed by the Humane Society and the Sierra Club.

NO.


Proposition 110 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201047.pdf

Prop. 110 would change the rules regarding state trust lands to allow the exchange of lands in order to protect Arizona’s military bases. Supported by a wide variety of groups; no “against” arguments were submitted for the publicity pamphlet.  While this measure has a lot of support, I’m hesitant about one clause.

Section D.4. (emphasis mine) -

D. Nothing herein IN THIS SECTION, or elsewhere in THIS article X contained, shall prevent:

4. THE DISPOSITION OF LANDS OR INTERESTS IN LANDS, OR THE RESTRICTION OF INTERESTS OR RIGHTS IN LANDS, HELD IN TRUST UNDER THIS ARTICLE, WITHOUT ADVERTISEMENT OR AUCTION...

Yeah...that language would allow the lege and a state government dominated by hacks to get rid lands meant to benefit Arizona and its education system and to do so without public notice.


There are specific conditions under which such transfers would be allowed, but without public oversight, who would know if those conditions were being met?

Pardon my cynicism, but NO.


Proposition 111 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201013.pdf

Prop. 111 is an amendment to Arizona’s constitution that would change the title of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor and require a party’s nominees for Governor and Lt. Governor to run as a single ticket in the general election. This one has a major problem that may not survive a legal challenge – the language of the proposition passed by the legislature effectively bars independent candidates from ever running for either position.

I understand and empathize the rationale behind the desire for creating a Lieutenant Governor in Arizona, but this isn't the way to accomplish that goal.

NO.


Proposition 112 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202018.pdf

Prop. 112 would change the deadline for submitting signatures for initiative petitions to six month before a general election. Current law requires petition signatures to be submitted four months before a general election. Many arguments in favor; none were submitted against the proposition.

There are 10 questions on the ballot.  The legislature has submitted nine of them, and the citizens of Arizona only one.  Yet the lege sees fit to make it more difficult for *citizens* to propose ballot questions?

NO.


Proposition 113 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/SCR%201001.pdf

Prop. 113 is an anti-“card check” measure that would require a secret ballot in any election, including union organizing efforts. Supported by various industry groups; opposed by unions and the Arizona Advocacy Network.

NO.



Proposition 203 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/I-04-2010.pdf

Prop. 203 would legalize the use of small amounts of marijuana for medically prescribed purposes. This is the only proposition placed on the ballot via the initiative petition process. Supported by patients; opposed by anti-drug use groups and law enforcement officials.

Probable YES.


Proposition 301 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202002.pdf

Prop. 301 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and sweep all funds from the Land Conservation Fund. Supported by the anti-tax group Arizona Tax Research Association; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Sierra Club, League of Women Voters, Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection, The Sonoran Institute, and the McDowell Sonoran Conservancy.

Proposition 302 - http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/general/ballotmeasuretext/HCR%202001.pdf

Prop. 302 would overturn a measure previously approved by the voters and terminate the First Things First early childhood education program and sweep all of its funds into the state’s General Fund. Supported by the Arizona Farm Bureau, Arizona Tax Research Association, and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; opposed by the Arizona Education Association, Valley of the Sun United Way, League of Women Voters, Pima County Pediatric Society, United Way of Yuma County, Arizona Public Health Association, Stand for Children Arizona, United Way of Northern Arizona, NOW, Arizona Dental Association, St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, Arizona Child Care Association, Protecting Arizona's Family Coalition (PAFCO), Arizona School Boards Association, First Things First, Children's Action Alliance, Eddie and Nadine Basha, ASU president Michael Crow, former governor Rose Mofford, and former governor Raul Castro.

Hell NO on both of these.  They're shortsighted and soulless attempts to use the state's structural deficit, something created by Republicans with their never-ending drive to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, as a wedge to attack programs mandated by the voters.

The Republicans in the legislature simply want to siphon money intended for purposes that provide a long-term to benefit society into corporate coffers to pump up short-term profit margins via even more directed tax cuts and credits.

Arizona has a strong tendency of voting against ballot measures that seem to be even the least bit hinky; this year, that would be a good attitude for all voters to take with them when they vote.  Most of the measures have serious issues in regard to who they really benefit (hint: not average Arizonans!) or in how poorly they were drafted.