Election night 2023: The vast majority of ballot questions in Maricopa County pass

The full list of County results is here, courtesy Maricopa County Elections.

By my count, 11 questions out of 50 here failed.*

* = All results are unofficial and some may change when the final totals are tallied.

Overall, it was a good night for proponents of good government...and a bad night for certain anti-society ideologues (we'll can call them "Republicans")

Battling ballot measures...in CA

I realize that AZ Rs like to deride CA, but sometimes CA is ahead of us...which may be one of the reasons AZ Rs get their hate on for CA.

Much has been made about rift between Big Business and Republicans in the age of Cheeto, but they still share two things in common -

They both love money, and both hate democracy.

From Politico -

Businesses want to make it harder to raise California taxes. Democrats are pushing back

A tussle over tax hikes in California is intensifying. California Democrats have answered a tax-reform push by business groups with their own proposal to undercut it.

The escalating dispute over voters’ roles in approving or rejecting tax increases is a reflection of ballot initiatives’ outsize role in Sacramento and the game of cat and mouse that often plays out between opposing interests.

First, a business coalition qualified a measure for the 2024 ballot that would significantly raise the threshold for passing new state and local taxes by requiring voters to approve any increase passed by the Legislature. It would also impose a two-thirds vote requirement on local taxes — a change local governments and organized labor have condemned, warning it would starve cities and counties of vital revenue.

Now, a newly rewritten constitutional amendment backed by Democratic leaders would give the business coalition a taste of its own medicine. Under CA ACA13, any ballot measure that changes voter thresholds — such as the business group’s initiative — would need to pass by that same margin, which in this case would be a two-thirds vote.

CA's ACA13 is here.  "ACA" stands for "Assembly Constitutional Amendment".

The pro-business profits scheme isn't new to AZ - in 2022, voters barely approved Proposition 132, a measure sent to the ballot by the Rs in the legislature here that imposes a 60% approval requirement for ballot measures that create a tax.

The hypocritical measure wouldn't have passed under CA's proposed standard, and shouldn't have.

I believe that the proposed amendment to CA's constitution has to come to AZ.

Only it will be necessary for such a measure to be from a citizen's initiative or to turn the Republican majority in the lege into a Democratic one.

Bad headline: voters will have a say on abortion wherever an anti-choice Republican is on the ballot

...And/or, as here in AZ, where there are one or more anti-voting measures on the ballot. 

From NBC -

Voters will have a say on abortion in 5 states with high-stakes ballot measures

Millions of voters will soon determine the fate of abortion access in a handful of states, including Michigan, which could become the first to make an abortion ban permanently unenforceable since the fall of Roe v. Wade.

At the polls Tuesday, voters in California, Michigan and Vermont will decide whether to enshrine reproductive freedom rights in their state constitutions, while voters in Kentucky could do the opposite and explicitly conclude there should be no such protections. 

In Montana, if a ballot initiative passes, health care providers in the state could face criminal charges if they do not take “reasonable actions” to save an infant who is born alive, including after an attempted abortion.

"Millions" of voters in 5 states?

More like *every* voter in *every* state

Serious question time: Does misspelling something invalidate a ballot question?

Proposition 131 language from the AZ Secretary of State -

I seriously don't know the answer to this one.  I wouldn't think so, but I'm not one of the AZ Supes.

It's not just in Arizona; the GQP hates voters *everywhere*

From AP -

GOP escalates fight against citizen-led ballot initiatives

Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions this year backing 

proposed ballot initiatives to expand voting access, ensure abortion 

rights and legalize recreational marijuana in Arizona, Arkansas 

and Michigan.

Yet voters might not get a say because Republican officials or judges 

have blocked the proposals from the November elections, citing 

flawed wording, procedural shortcomings or insufficient petition 

signatures.

At the same time, Republican lawmakers in Arkansas and 

Arizona have placed constitutional amendments on the ballot 

proposing to make it harder to approve citizen initiatives in the future.

Some of the AZ details:

From KJZZ, written by Ben Giles and Mark Brodie, dated August 26, 2022 -

Arizona Supreme Court upholds ruling disqualifying voting initiative from the ballot

A voter initiative rolling back Republican-backed election law changes and expanding voting access will not appear on the November ballot, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Friday, issuing a final death knell after an on-again off-again series of court rulings.

The high court decision upholds a lower court ruling issued hours earlier, in which Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Joseph Mikitish rejected thousands of signatures and said the initiative fell 1,458 signatures short of the 238,000 required to qualify for the ballot. The judge's Friday ruling reversed his own decision from a day earlier after the Supreme Court asked him to explain how he concluded on Thursday that initiative had enough valid signatures to qualify.

The official/ballot language for legislatively proposed Proposition 128 is here.

The official/ballot language for legislatively proposed Proposition 129 is here.

The official/ballot language for legislatively proposed Proposition 132 is here.

There aren't just candidates for voters to consider in November; there are ballot questions too

There are 11 questions on the ballot (pending lawsuits, of course); eight were put their by the state legislature and three are there as a result of citizen initiatives.

Generally, I tell folks to vote "no" on any measure proposed by the legislature (usually, anything they propose is as extreme and anti-Arizona as the Rs in the legislature), but there's a couple of exceptions to that this time.  More on that later.

While I'm not a fan of endorsement politics, sometimes one can tell things about a question (or candidate) from who supports or opposes that question (or candidate).

The Arizona Secretary of State's web page of the arguments submitted for and against particular questions is here.

While I have an opinion of every measure (Me?  Have an opinion?  Shocking, I know. :) ), the AZSOS will be holding town halls on the measures, and the linked website will have the schedule when it's available.  Having said that, I urge all readers to form their own opinion before casting their vote on each measure.

On to each measure...

Proposition 128, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would allow the lege to "correct" the language in voter-proposed ballot initiatives.

Supported by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Cathi Herrod, and other industry lobbyists.

Opposed by the League of Women Voters and community activists from all over the state.

Let the lege breach the Voter Protection Act? Easy "NO" vote.

Proposition 129, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would impose a "single subject" restriction on voter-proposed initiatives.

Supported by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Cathi Herrod, and other industry lobbyists.

Opposed by the League of Women Voters and community activists from all over the state.

Another easy "NO".  This would corporate interests another way to override the will, and interests, of the voters of Arizona.

Proposition 130, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would re-establish and expand an exemption from property taxes for disabled veterans.

Supported by various county assessors and veterans' groups.

Opposed by: no opposing arguments submitted.

I'm going to vote "NO" on this one, not out of disregard for veterans but out of disregard for the legislature.  If they think that reducing the tax base for school districts, counties, municipalities, and whoever else uses property taxes, it's probably bad for Arizona.

Proposition 131, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would create a lieutenant governor's position chosen by a party's gubernatorial nominee.

Supported by a legislator, the League of Women Voters, and Kelli Ward, chair of the Arizona Republican Party.

Opposed by: no opposing arguments submitted.

Voting "NO"; it's a bad idea.  We already have enough elected officials.

Proposition 132, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would impose a requirement on citizen initiatives that raise taxes gain a 60% approval from voters to pass.

Supported by a legislator, Doug Ducey, the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Cathi Herrod, The Goldwater Institute, and other corporate lobbyists.

Opposed by by teachers, teachers' organizations, the League of Women Voters, and community activists from all over the state. 

Let the legislature and corporate interests undermine the will of people?  "NO."

Proposition 308, proposed by the legislature.  If passed by the voters, it would grant in state tuition to DREAMers.

Supported by students, community activists, people of faith, and others.

Opposed by Russell Pearce, Kelli Ward, and other bigots.

Easy "YES".  It's the right thing to do.  My first exception to my "vote no on anything proposed by the legislature" policy.

Proposition 309, proposed by the legislature. If passed by the voters, it would require early voters to provide ID when casting a ballot.

Supported by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, the Goldwater Institute, and other individual and group proponents of the "Big Lie".

Opposed by community activists all over the state.

Easy "NO".

Proposition 310, proposed by the legislature. If passed by the voters, it would add 1/10 of 1 percent (.1%) to the state's sales tax with the revenue raised going to the state's many fire districts.

Supported by fire fighters everywhere.

Opposed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, Kelli Ward, a former legislator, and Andy Biggs' wife, Cindy,

The other exception to my "vote no on anything proposed by the legislature" policy.  I'm not a fan of the sales tax (I believe that it's a regressive tax that unfairly impacts those who can least afford it.)  So does having your house burn down.

"YES".

Public initiatives don't yet have proposition numbers assigned to them, but those that have submitted enough signatures to be on the ballot have already pro and con arguments submitted for them.

I-04-2022, the Voters' Right to Know Act.  If passed by the voters, the measure would require disclosure of original funding sources for campaign media efforts.

Supported by Terry Goddard, the League of Women Voters, and community activists from all over the state.

Opposed by the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Cathi Herrod (and, presumably, anyone who benefits from "Dark Money".)

"YES".  This measure does NOTHING to prevent anyone from contributing to their political cause of their preference.

I-05-2022, Predatory Debt Collection Protection Act.  If passed by the voters, the measure would add protections related to medical debt, including a cap on interest rates. 

Supported by health care providers, community activists, and people affected by medical debt.

Opposed by the Goldwater Institute and other corporate lobbyists/apologists.

"YES".  Getting sick or injured should lead to a visit to a hospital, not bankruptcy court.

I-16-2022, Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections.  If passed by the voters, the measure would add a slew of election reforms to Arizona law.

Supported by the League of Women Voters, community activists all over the state, and Native American leaders.

Opposed by Kelli Ward, many Rs in the legislature, Cathi Herrod, business interests, and other adherents of the "Big Lie".

"YES".

When in doubt, vote against most ballot questions proposed by the legislature

The Arizona Secretary of State has a list of ballot questions up that will be considered by voters this fall.  It's still early, so voter-proposed questions will still be added to the list.

However, the four measures approved by the legislature in 2021 are on the list, and voters should vote against 3 of the of them as diminishing the power of the voters.

Vote against Propositions 128, 129, and 309.  Proposition 308 seems decent.

Proposition 128 is 2021's SCR 1034.  Legislative analysis here.  If passed, it would allow the legislature to override voter-approved measure if they are found by a Supreme Court (AZ or US) to contain "illegal or unconstitutional language".

Given the propensity of Rs to railroad supreme court picks through (see: Montgomery, Bill or Kavanaugh, Brett, among others) in order to gain a partisan majority of court membership, if this is approved, say goodbye to things voters want, like recreational and medical marijuana.

Proposition 129 is 2021's HCR 2001.  Legislative analysis here.  If passed, this would require that all citizen initiatives  pertain to only one topic and if any topic isn't covered in the title, any initiative language on that topic is void.

Proposition 308 is 2021's SCR 1044.  Legislative analysis here.  If passed,  it would make undocumented immigrants who meet specific criteria eligible for in-state tuition.  This one may be worth voting for.

Proposition 309 is 2022's SCR 1012.  Legislative analysis here.  This is a Big Lie measure, that, if passed, would impose a large number of ID requirements on voters.

Ballot time in Arizona

...and elsewhere, as well, but since I live in AZ and my ballot covers AZ, that means this post will focus on AZ (or at least my little part of it).

There are races here in Maricopa County and elsewhere in the state that are important and interesting, but this post only covers those that are on my ballot.


President -

This one is easy -

Hillary Clinton is easily one of the two or three most qualified people to ever run for president.

Donald Trump is a buffoon (which is a word I use to describe someone when I don't want to use the more colorful part of my vocabulary).

And I thought this even before Trump's recently unearthed admission of a seduction technique that can best be described as "rape".



US Senate seat representing AZ -

Ann Kirkpatrick is nowhere near liberal enough to suit me, but she genuinely works to represent her constituents.

In addition to supporting Donald Trump until it was no longer "cool" to do so, John McCain has never met a war he didn't monger.

Another easy choice.


US Congressional seat, representing CD9 -

Skipping this race.

There are two Republicans in this race.  Be it in this race or ones where an R is running and is uncontested, I will be skipping the race.  Even in Arizona there are Republicans who are decent human beings and are (or were) honorable public servants.

They can no longer get through primaries here.


LD24 seats in the Arizona Legislature -

They face no challengers, but Sen. Katie Hobbs, Rep. Lela Alston, and Rep. Ken Clark do a great job representing the people of LD24 and merit an expression of our support and thanks.


Arizona Corporation Commission -

This is Arizona's utility regulator, and when the CEO of the largest regulated utility endorses three of the candidates, vote for the other two, and only the other two.

Those are Bill Mundell and Tom Chabin.



Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, District 1 -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Assessor -

Skipping this race.


Maricopa County Attorney -

Diego Rodriguez.

County Attorney isn't just a "staff" job, where the person holding the position must have a particular skill set (the lawyer stuff), but must have integrity,

Bill Montgomery is the incumbent.  Ask him on which side of the bars we can find Sean Pearce.


Maricopa County Recorder -

Adrian Fontes.

A county recorder doesn't do much that directly impacts voters, except for RUN ELECTIONS.

The current recorder, Helen Purcell, has held the post for decades (literally!).

It has been decades since an election here went of without a hitch.

It seems that in every cycle, something new goes wrong, but there is one constant - she always blames someone else for the problems.

The height of her chutzpah in this regard may have been when she blamed incredibly long voting lines during the presidential primary on voters actually, you know, "voting".


Maricopa County School Superintendent -

Michelle Robertson.

There are two candidates on the ballot.

Both are teachers.

One hates public education and Common Core (in short, he's Diane Douglas with a Y chromosome...and she is unfit to be state superintendent of public instruction).

The other one is Michelle Robertson.

She's highly intelligent, highly educated, and student-focused, and will make a great leader and advocate for Maricopa County schools.


Maricopa County Sheriff -

Paul Penzone, in another easy choice.

The incumbent, Joe Arpaio, a nationally-renowned nativist and publicity junkie, is facing criminal charges over the way he operates the agency.

Penzone is a decorated career public servant.  Arpaio has been reduced to bald-faced lies.

It should be a walkover for Penzone, but it won't be - too many of Arpaio's supporters know he is a hater, but he hates the same way that they do.


Maricopa County Treasurer -

Joe Downs.

Like Robertson above, he's smart and knows his stuff.

Unlike his opponent, he doesn't believe in using public resources to campaign for public office.



Justice of the Peace, Arcadia Biltmore -

Skipping this race.


Constable, Arcadia Biltmore -

Carolyn Lane.  She's unopposed, but she works her a** off and deserves an expression of thanks and support.


CAWCD (Central Arizona Water Conservation District, aka the governing board of the Central Arizona Project) -

For this race, voters can select five candidates.  However, there are three outstanding ones - Alexandra Arboleda, Ben Graff, and Jim Holway.  Voting for only those three will increase the likelihood of them winning seats.


Maricopa County Community College District governing board, At-Large seat -

Linda Thor.



Scottsdale Unified School District ballot questions -

"Yes" on both.

Just because the legislature hates public education and refuses to adequately fund it, doesn't mean we have go along with them.


Mayor of Scottsdale -

Bob Littlefield.

Bob is a die-hard Republican, and when he's mayor, we will disagree on pretty much everything that Democrats and Republicans disagree on.

But he genuinely cares about the city.

On the other hand, Jim Lane (the incumbent) and his accomplices on the City Council seem to mostly care about money from developers, holders of liquor licenses, and others that come before the council.

I may not agree with Littlefield on much, and reserve the right to not vote for him in a future election, but for this one, he meets the basic criteria necessary for all elected officials should meet (but most in AZ fail to meet) -

He gives a damn about the district/city that he is running to represent.


Scottsdale City Council -

Guy Phillips.

He's a tea party type, and one I wouldn't vote for under most circumstances.

However, Lane and his handlers keep running negative campaigns against him, so he gets my vote - much as I don't like his ideology, anybody that Jim Lane dislikes can't be all bad.



Proposition 490 (Scottsdale-specific ballot question) -

It appears to be a harmless cleanup of language in the city charter, but, while I am not familiar with all of the people who submitted an argument, the ones that I am familiar with have never supported a "good government" measure that doesn't directly benefit them.

Oh, and Jim Lane also endorsed this one.

No.


Back of the ballot:

Judges - AZ Supreme Court, AZ Court of Appeals and Maricopa County Superior Court -

Voting to retain all listed, except for Jo Lynn Gentry.

The Arizona Commission on Judicial Performance Review does a good job of examining their own, and I am going with that.

Next cycle, I may not - Governor Doug Ducey and the majority in the Arizona Legislature are doing their level best to co-opt/corrupt the judicial branch, and they may make enough inroads toward that goal that next time, the Commission may not merit trust.

For now, however, they do.


Arizona ballot questions -

Proposition 205

Passage of this one would legalize the possession of marijuana for recreational use.

This one is controversial, in that many of the people and corporations that profit from the status quo oppose it.  And have expended thousands (OK, millions) of dollars to defeat it.

Given that the vast majority of Arizonans understand that marijuana is not the "great evil" and opponents that profit from pharmaceuticals that are less effective than marijuana or the police state apparatus that has been constructed to wage the "War on Drugs", well, they've had to resort to misleading and false signs, TV spots, and more.

I am voting Yes.


Proposition 206 -

Passing this one would raise the state's minimum wage, in increments, to $12/hour by 2020.  It would also result in employees being able to accrue paid sick leave.

Yes.

Duh.

The Maricopa County Recorder's Office isn't telling the truth to Spanish-speaking voters? It must be a day ending in "y",,,

Arizona has a "special" election coming up for the voters to consider two ballot propositions placed before them by the legislature (which, for most observers, should be definitive evidence that both are bad for Arizonans - this *is* the Arizona legislature that we are talking about here).

Proposition 123 would allow the legislature to continue to shirk its duty to properly fund education in Arizona by letting it tap into the state's land trust at a faster pace than is currently allowed.

Proposition 124 would reward the legislature for it habitual underfunding of the pension system for public safety employees by placing more of the financial burden of the system on those public employees.


Early ballots have started reaching mail boxes this week, and there are already problems.

And to the surprise of almost no one, the problems are in Maricopa County.

Of course.

From KNXV-TV, written by Melissa Blasius -

ABC15 has learned thousands of early ballots mailed in Maricopa County this week have a major mistake in the Spanish translation of Proposition 124.

Proposition 124 is a proposal to make changes to police and firefighter pensions.  However, the boldface short title of the proposition in Spanish indicates it’s about education funding.  The wording in the title for Proposition 124 appears identical to Proposition 123, which is also on the ballot.

Beneath the incorrect title for Proposition 124, there is a more lengthy explanation that appears to appropriately describe the pension reform ballot measure.

Spokespeople for both the Arizona Secretary of State and the Maricopa County Recorder say they were unaware of the problem until ABC15 brought it to their attention Friday morning.

They, meaning Michelle Reagan (Arizona Secretary of State) and Helen Purcell (Maricopa County Recorder), respectively, the overseer of elections in the entire state and the overseer of elections in the state's most populous county, want people to believe that this is a minor mistake that can be corrected by reprinting the ballots to be used for in-person voting and sending post cards to the recipients of early ballots.

Which might be an adequate response...if there weren't problems with all elections in Maricopa County.

Most of the time, Purcell, Reagan, et al. place the blame for problems with elections square on the shoulders of the people they seem to despise most - the voters.

Apparently, certain elected officials are surprised when voters actually vote in elections that don't have those specific elected officials on the ballot.

Of course, there are a few examples of official malfeasance/sustained incompetence that even they can't blame on the voters; when caught, they just "pooh-pooh" (minimize) the impact of their bad acts on the voters.

Like they have in this situation.


Full disclosure time: I have already voted "No" on both propositions and returned my ballot.  My reasons for voting against Prop 123 have been stated before this.  As for Prop 124, while a number of people that I wholeheartedly respect actually support the measure, I cannot bring myself to support of anything that the legislature puts on a ballot.

Somewhere...someday...the modern Arizona legislature may spawn an idea that actually benefits all Arizonans, and not just their deep-pocketed masters.

When (if!) that comes to pass, the related post will have a title that starts with "Well, there's a first time for everything".


Anyway, a few pictures of my ballot, to illustrate the problem -

Prop 123; please note the Spanish language short title.

Prop 124; please note the Spanish language short title.

Prop 124's Spanish language short title, magnified:

A translation, courtesy Google Translate (probably not necessary in Arizona, but it makes a great visual :) ):

Arizona Election 2014: Time to vote...

Well, early ballots started hitting mailboxes in Maricopa County last weekend (mine is already filled out and returned) signaling that the election cycle is almost over.

While some people are "issues" folks (choice, women's issues, LGBT, etc.), I am a "candidate" guy - I can disagree with someone on a particular issue, but so long as I think that someone is working for the best interests of his/her constituents, I can respect and support that someone.

Which means that for me anyway, in most years it is easy to be a Democrat in Arizona.

While I can't and won't claim that every or even any Democratic candidate is a perfect human being, I can say that as a group, they're decent human beings and try to be honorable public servants.

In contrast, it's been close to a decade since Republican primary voters supported any candidate who is either decent or honorable.  For example, the Republican caucus in the state legislature is now divided into two groups - the "bay at the moon" caucus and the "go along to get along" caucus.

To be sure, a few have slipped through unchallenged...one time...but once they exhibit any of the traits of public servants, they face a primary challenge from the right.

With that as a preface, here are my votes for the 2014 general election in Arizona, in the order the offices appear on my ballot (foreshadowing: this is one of the years where I'm proud to be a Democrat) -

- Congress (CD9) - Democratic incumbent Kyrsten Sinema v. Republican perennial candidate Wendy Rogers

I've made it clear before that Sinema is not exactly my favorite Democrat.  I supported another candidate in the 2012 primary (David Schapira, now a member-elect of the Tempe City Council) and may support another candidate in a possible 2016 primary. However, she has done some exemplary work on behalf of her district and Arizona's veterans.

In contrast, her opponent Wendy Rogers (who *is* a veteran, as she will be sure to tell you if you ever are within earshot of her) has wholeheartedly embraced that standard GOP platform of fear and demonization.  She shows absolutely no sign of being concerned with the welfare of the people of CD9 or Arizona.

In short, Sinema may not be perfect, but she is head and shoulders above her opponent.

Vote goes to: Sinema


- Arizona Governor - Open seat.  Democrat Fred Duval v. Republican Doug Ducey.

Because this is a race for an open seat, the campaign has been all about what the candidates *will do* in the office, not what they *have done*.

Duval has pledged to protect the state's education system from further cuts by the legislature and to see that the state pays the court-ordered funds that were improperly cut by the lege in past years.

Ducey, on the other hand, wants to increase the amount of public money funneled to private and charter schools, and has pledged to fight the court-ordered funding repayment.

Summary:  Duval is someone who brings a "us" perspective to the table, Ducey brings a "what's in it for me" attitude.

Vote goes to: Duval.


- State Senate (LD24) - Incumbent Democrat Katie Hobbs v. Republican Bill Follette

This one may be the easiest race on the ballot - Hobbs is smart and has worked her tail off for the district; Follette is running as "The Democrats' Republican".  Really.  Check out his signs.  That's all he's got.

Vote goes to: Hobbs


- State Representative (LD24) - Democrat Lela Alston (incumbent), Democrat Ken Clark, and Republican Lei Lani Cortez (vote for 2)

Another easy one.

Alston and Clark are longtime public servants who have performed admirably in every position that they've held; Cortez is running as a Republican who has checked off every box on the GOP's "groupthink" checklist.

Vote(s) goes to: Alston and Clark


- Arizona Secretary of State - Open seat.  Democrat Terry Goddard v. Republican Michele Reagan

Goddard is a former mayor of Phoenix, former Arizon Attorney General and arguably, the most qualified candidate for any office this year.  His concern for Arizonans is endless, his work ethic is boundless, and his integrity is unassailable (didn't even need a thesaurus for that sentence :) )

Reagan is a state legislator who has crafted, sponsored, and/or voted for the most oppressive legislation to come out of the Capitol in recent years - SB1070 (anti-immigrant), SB1062 (anti-LGBT), and HB2305 (anti-voter) - and also lies about the political process in Arizona.

Vote goes to: Goddard


- Arizona Attorney General - Semi-open seat (meaning that the incumbent lost in the primary).  Democrat Felecia Rotellini v. Republican Mark Brnovich.

Rotellini is an experienced prosecutor and former head of the Arizona Department of Financial Institutions.  She has spent much of her career in consumer protection roles.

She has pledged to work to fight things like domestic violence, human trafficking, and fraud (and other crimes) directed toward Arizona's senior citizen and veterans.

Brnovich has worked for the Arizona Attorney General's Office and the corporate lobbying group "free market think tank" Goldwater Institute.

Brnovich has pledged to fight things like...federal law.


Summary: Rotellini was impressive in 2010 when she was the Democratic nominee, and after four years of the incumbent's sleaze and arrogance, she's even more impressive.  Plus, she takes the job of AZAG seriously, looking to protect Arizonans.  Brnovich apparently sees the job as being more about enabling the neo-secessionists in the legislature and less about serving the people of Arizona.

Vote goes to: Rotellini


- State Treasurer - Open seat.  Only one candidate, so I skipped this race.


- Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction -Semi-open seat.  Democrat David Garcia v. Republican Diane Douglas

Garcia is an associate professor at ASU, a veteran, and a nationally renowned education researcher.

Douglas is a former school board member in Peoria.

Garcia supports a well-rounded program to help improve Arizona's K-12 system.

Douglas is a single-issue candidate - she vehemently opposes the set of education standards known as "Common Core".

Summary: Not that the other races were difficult to decide, but this was the easiest choice among the statewide races.  Some offices have to go beyond partisanship, and even some Republicans consider Garcia to be the most qualified person to ever run for this office.

Vote goes to: Garcia


- State Mine Inspector -  Only the incumbent, Republican Joe Hart, is on the ballot.

Vote goes to:  Manny Cruz (write in).  Cruz was the 2010 Democratic nominee, and was gearing up for a 2014 run until he was diagnosed with cancer.  He passed away in May of this year and is still missed by the many people whose lives that he touched.  I know the vote won't count, but it is the right thing here.


Arizona Corporation Commission - Open seats.  Democrats Sandra Kennedy and Jim Holway v. Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little (vote for 2)

Kennedy is a former member of the ACC and the state legislature.

Holway has had a long career in education and government service, focused on the environment.

Forese is a state legislator.

Little is a career corporate cog.

Summary:  Kennedy and Holway have years of experience in public service.  Forese and Little have a campaign that is being funded by APS, one of the corporations that is regulated by the ACC.

Vote(s) go to: Holway and Kennedy


- Maricopa County Assessor and Clerk of the Superior Court - the Democrats skipped these races, so my votes went to the two Libertarian candidates.  Maybe if the Libertarians get enough votes, the Ds will stop skipping low-profile races like these.

- Maricopa County Community College District Governing Board - "At Large" seats - Eddie Tiggs, Mario Diaz, John Heep, and Tracy Livingston (vote for 2).

Not a strong vote "for" here, but while Mario Diaz has issues (like his ties to "Republican is everything but name" state legislator Catherine Miranda) and I couldn't find out much about Tiggs, Heep and Livingston are tea party types who will work to undermine public higher education in Maricopa County.

Votes go to: Tiggs and Diaz.


- Scottsdale Unified School District Governing Board - Laddie Shane, Francesca Thomas, Kim Hartmann, and Pam Kirby (vote for 2)

This is one race that I know almost nothing about, so I went with the recommendation of a friend who teaches for SUSD and voted for Hartmann and Thomas.


- Local school district ballot questions -

1.  Continuation of a "maintenance and operations" budget override for SUSD.  Considering what the legislature and Doug Ducey (if he wins his race) have in mind for Arizona's K-12 system in the new year, this one was an easy "Yes".

2.  Authorizing SUSD to dispose of some real property on 44th Street in Phoenix.  No.


- Scottsdale City Council - Dennis Robbins, Linda Milhaven, Jennifer Petersen, David Smith, Cindy Hill, and Kathy Littlefield (vote for 3)

In August, I completely skipped this race as none of the candidates are outstanding, but the August election eliminated the two candidates that I considered to be the weakest.  Looking at the race again, I still am not particularly enamored with any of the candidates, much less three of them.

Then I received a mailer where Scottsdale mayor Jim Lane announced his endorsement of three of the candidates (Robbins, Milhaven, and Petersen).

I ended up voting for two of the others.

I'm not exactly a fan of Jim Lane.  In case you couldn't figure that out for yourself. :)


- Maricopa County judge retention ballot - too numerous to list individually, but there is one of special note: Michael Herrod, husband of Cathi Herrod, head of the Center for Arizona Theocracy Policy.


- Statewide ballot questions - previously covered here.

To recap briefly:

Proposition 122 - "No" - it's an effort to mobilize the neo-secessionist vote; if passed, it will serve only to keep us as a national punchline.

Proposition 303 - "No" - it's an effort to use the "awwwwwww" effect to get people to change AZ law to allow drug companies to bypass the FDA and sell untested drugs and medical treatments to desperate patients.

Proposition 304 - "Yes" - it would raise legislative salaries from $24K per year to $35K.  Bottom line: you get what you pay for, and we pay our legislators crap.


- Maricopa County ballot questiion - Proposition 480

Would authorize the county health care district to issue $935 million in bonds to rebuild and expand the county's nationally-recognized hospital and health care system.

Vote: Yes.

Fun with campaign signs: Reinforcing choices

A little while back, I posted my choices/recommendations on the three statewide ballot questions going before Arizona voters this year (No on 122 and 303, the questions sent to the ballot by the legislature, and Yes on 304, the legislative pay raise).

At the time, I didn't have anything specific to point at to support my opposition to 303, just a general feeling of distrust of the people behind the measure, the Goldwater Institute.

Now I have some more specifics.

And am even more firmly opposed to it.

First up:  Another committee has been formed to support the measure.



If the name "Laura Knaperek" rings a bell, it should - she's a former legislator who became an industry lobbyist after her time in the lege.  Which industry?  Whichever one is paying her today.

Second up: Signs that show that the neo-secessionists that support Prop 122 are supporting Prop 303 -

On the west side of Pima Road in Scottsdale, between Via de Ventura and Indian Bend Road

Closer -

And the "Paid for by" -

Any other questions?

Arizona Election 2014: Ballot questions

This year, this is going to be a simple post - there are only three state-level ballot questions*, and none were proposed through the petition process,  In contrast, in 2006, there were 18, with only six of the questions referred to the ballot by the legislature.  

* = In many jurisdictions, there will be local-level questions (school district overrides, city charter updates, etc.).  However, there are only three questions that will be every ballot in the state.


Voting decisions on two of the questions will be very easy:

- Proposition 122, referred by the lege in 2013 as SCR1016.  If passed, it would allow the AZ legislature to ignore any federal law, regulation, or rule that it doesn't like, and to bar any official in the state from supporting/enforcing said law, regulation, or rule.

This probably isn't legal anyway, but passing it would send a message to late-night comedians everywhere that they can continue to count on Arizona for a steady stream of punchline material.

In other words, HELL NO.


- Proposition 304, a proposal from the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers to raise the annual legislative salary from $24K to $35K.

As with most things in life, you get what you pay for.  And we pay our legislators crap.

$35K isn't great, but it's better than $24K, and it might attract a better quality of candidates for the lege.  Which is something that Arizona needs.

This one is a Yes. 


- The tough one is Proposition 303, referred by the lege in 2014 as HCR2005.  If passed, it would create a section in AZ law called "The Patients' Right To Try Act".  It *sounds* "warm and fuzzy" good - it would allow eligible patients to make use of "investigational" drugs and medical therapies if such is made available by a manufacturer of such.  Basically, desperate patients could take a chance on unproven treatments, if they so desire and a possible treatment is made available.

Sounds good, until you realize that the measure is being proposed by the Arizona legislature in a way that cannot be corrected or repealed by a future legislature (because of the Voter Protection Act)...and the next time that the members of the Arizona legislature support an idea that is beneficial for the average Arizonan will be the very first time for the majority of them.

Cynicism now thoroughly piqued, further examination of the measure is warranted. 

Upon which one finds a few interesting facts about the proposal - 

1.  In this context, "investigational" means "not approved by the FDA".  In essence, this would allow Big Pharma (and its relations) to use desperate patients as guinea pigs for untested medical therapies.

2.  The proposal does NOT require a manufacturer to make available untested medical therapies, only provides them legal cover if they do so.

3.  It would bar state regulators from penalizing physicians or health care facilities that administer those therapies.

4.  The legislative intent section clearly states that the act applies to all patients, not just those with terminal illnesses (the language of the act states that eligible patients must have a terminal illness).

5.  The proposal would allow a manufacturer to pass on to the patient the cost of manufacturing an untested medical therapy.  If a specific therapy hasn't reach the "economies of scale" part of its existence, that number is going to be huge.

6.  This proposal (or something similar) is popping up in legislatures all over the country -  Michigan, New Jersey,and Colorado, among others.  That kind of coordination indicates that this idea has some deep-pocketed supporters.

7.  The political committee formed to support the measure reeks of "dark money" - the largest single contributor is the corporate lobbying firm "free market think tank", the Goldwater Institute (providing $35K out of $35,504.30 in contributions reported in its most recent campaign finance report) and the largest single expenditure reported in the most recent campaign finance report is to Sherpa Public Affairs of Phoenix ($14.5K out of nearly $28K)...under the heading "Reimbursements".

Since GI's sources of money are secret and the word "reimbursements" is so all-encompassing yet vague, this committee has effectively anonymized both its contributions and expenditures.  They've made sure that no one can follow the money trail here. 


To sum up: this proposal was shepherded to the ballot in a way that circumvents the already minimal oversight provided by the normal legislative process, looks to be designed more to enhance industry profits than to enhance patient outcomes, and has deep-pocketed supporters who wish to remain in the shadows.

In the final analysis: this is a No vote.


As seems to be normal for AZ elections, the questions referred by the legislature merit a no vote, while the question referred to the ballot by something other than the lege merits a yes vote. 


Note: more on a similar drug proposal that was implemented in Colorado from a contributor to Forbes.com here. 

Fight HB2305 and voter suppression

This is the last full week for collecting signatures to refer to the ballot the infamous HB2305, with its spate of provisions aimed at suppressing the vote of anyone who dares to support or vote for candidates who aren't Republicans.

Democrats in Maricopa County will have petitions ready to be signed at a number of locations this week -

Note: While these particular events involve Democrats, any registered voter in Maricopa County can sign the petitions at these events.

Voters in other counties who wish to stand up to those elected officials who wish to betray the public trust should contact -

Arizona Democratic Party
Pima County Democratic Party
Pinal County Democratic Party
Yavapai County Democratic Party
Coconino County Democratic Party
Yuma County Democratic Party
Mohave County Democratic Party
Navajo County Democratic Party
Santa Cruz County Democratic Party
Greenlee County Democratic Party
Cochise County Democratic Party
Gila County Democratic Party
Graham County Democratic Party

Again, while these are Democratic Party organizations, all registered voters in Arizona can (and should) sign the petitions.