Oh, wait - it *is*. :)
I don't know who is responsible for a bill proposal reference title - the sponsoring legislator, someone at the Legislative Council, or even someone else who pulls a paycheck from the legislature.
Whoever named HB2304 lied though. (The sponsor is Cory McGarr and the list of cosponsors is a rogue's gallery of election deniers.)
Its reference title is "voting locations; precinct-based".
Its first line?
"NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW, IN ALL ELECTIONS ADMINISTERED BY A COUNTY, ALL VOTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED AT PRECINCT-BASED POLLING PLACES"
The reference title *really* should mention that the bill proposes to ban all forms of voting other than votes cast in person at precinct-located places.
Vote by mail, military overseas voting, any form of absentee voting, for that matter, vote centers, early voting, and more - all gone if this proposal becomes law
As bad as this one is (and it's putrid), it may be the epitome of sweetness when compared to HB2212.(scheduled for a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday). Introduced by Gail Griffin, on its face it appears to be a response to the damaging of power substations in North Carolina by gunfire.
Yet, it is so broadly written it seems to criminalize criticism of utility companies and infringes on the authority of the Arizona Corporation Commission.
It actually read like it was written by an industry lobbyist asking for the world but hoping their greed would be masked by real world events.
Which begs one question - did Rep. Griffin use her position to act as an industry lobbyist or did one write this and hand it to her?
One section of the proposal:
(The beginning is not a change)
A. A person commits aggravated criminal damage by intentionally or 33 recklessly without the express permission of the owner: ..."INTERFERING WITH OR OTHERWISE PREVENTING THE PERFORMANCE OF A NORMAL FUNCTION OF ANY UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE OR PROPERTY OR THE INTENDED COURSE OR PATH OF ANY UTILITY SERVICE."(The proposed change is in quotes)
As bad as this one is (and it's rancid), it seems like a "good government" measure when compared to HB2319 (scheduled for a committee hearing before House Municipal Oversight and Elections on Wednesday).
Sponsored by freshman rep. (and attorney) Alexander Kolodin, it has the chutzpah to propose that the legislature can thumb its nose at the judiciary. From the measure -
2. THE LEGISLATURE DECLARES THAT EXISTING COURT OPINIONS RELATING TO THIS CHAPTER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL FORCE OR EFFECT IF THE OPINIONS CONFLICT WITH THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTION PRESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH 1 OF THIS SECTION.
Of course, it may be fair, because while the legislature in thumbing its nose, most of the people of Arizona are doing something else while the lege is in session -
Holding our noses.
No comments:
Post a Comment