Committees update

Note: when I write "nothing significant" (or a reasonable facsimile thereof), it's not an insult to the candidate committees that have formed at a particular level.  For the purposes of this post, "significant" mostly means "a candidate that we've heard of before"

Committees of note formed recently...

Federal level -

Martha McSally (R) declared her candidacy for the CD2 seat currently held by Ron Barber.

State level -

No significant new candidate committees that I could find, but the end of the legislative session was marked by a flurry of activity on the referendum front -

- Label GMOs Arizona, 201400138, supporting a initiative petition drive regarding the labeling of genetically modified foods.

- Representative Initiatives, 201400149, supporting an as-yet unidentified initiative or referendum petition drive.

- United Republican Alliance of Principled Conservatives, 201400140, seeking to overturn the lege's recent restoration of Medicaid eligibility levels via a referral to the ballot.

- Arizonans for Sensible Health Care, 201400167, opposing the proposed ballot measure above.  Fronted by the CEO of the Arizona Hospital and Healthcare Association.

- We The People AZ Against Common Core, 201400168, seeking to refer to the ballot a part of the state's budget that increased the bonding limit for school districts.  Fronted by Wes Harris, one of the state's more infamous tea party types.

- Equal Marriage Arizona, 201400163, supporting an initiative petition drive for a measure that would recognize same sex marriages.  Fronted by LGBT Republicans.

- Arizona Taxpayers Protection Committee, 201400171, supporting an as-yet unidentified ballot measure.  At least, that's how the AZSOS has them categorized on the SOS' website.  However, a perusal of the group's website shows that their goal is to support primary challengers to Republicans who supported Medicaid restoration.  Fronted by Tom Husband, former chair of the MCGOP and Shane Wikfors, a long-time GOP operative and blogger.

- Protect Your Right To Vote Committee, 201400177, seeking to refer to the ballot and overturn HB2305, the anti-voter measure passed by the Republicans in the waning moments of this year's session of the legislature.  Fronted by Julie Erfle.

- Safer Arizona, 201400153, supporting an initiative petition drive for a potential measure legalizing marijuana.  Fronted by Dennis Bohlke, a computer programmer who has run afoul of narcotics-related laws in the past.

Steve at Arizona Eagletarian has coverage of the ballot questions committees here.


Maricopa County level -

Nothing significant yet.


Municipal level (Scottsdale, Tempe, Mesa) -

Nothing in Tempe or Mesa as yet.  There are a couple of filings of interest in Scottsdale, however.

- Michael Auerbach, operator of a personal chef for hire business, member of Scottsdale's Neighborhood Advisory Commission, and a Republican PC in LD23 (north Scottsdale), filed for a run for City Council.

- John Little, a former Scottsdale City Manager, has filed for a run for City Council.

Little was city manager of Scottsdale until he was fired, allegedly because of "conflicts" with the Council.  The interesting part of that firing was the fact that, seemingly, the only people who had a conflict with Little were the four members of the City Council who voted to fire him.  I haven't followed Little's career since the firing, but if he still has the same sort of community support, the race will be tough.

For the other candidates.

John Washington of Scottsdale Trails offers his take on Little's candidacy here.

Republicans attacking a Republican judge because he isn't partisan enough to suit them

This story is exhibit 1 in the case against Proposition 115, the measure to impose more partisanship on the state's judiciary, the only branch of the state's government that garners any serious respect.

From Howie Fischer of Capitol Media Services, via the East Valley Tribune (emphasis mine) -

A loosely organized effort to oust a state Supreme Court justice is forcing him to consider an unprecedented campaign to keep his post.

 

Justice John Pelander said he is upset by "hit pieces'' being put out by groups urging that he not be retained on the bench this year. He said the information being circulated about a September ruling is "misleading'' at best.

 

{snip}

 

Campaign materials being put out by groups as diverse as the Williams Tea Part [sic] and Legislative District 18 Republican Committee are urging a "no'' on the ballot question about retaining Pelander.

 

The anger is focused on Pelander because the Supreme Court earlier this year ruled that Proposition 121 can be on the ballot. That measure, if approved, would amend the state Constitution to create an open primary system where all candidates run against each other regardless of party affiliation, with the top two advancing to the general election.

The Arizona Republican Party, like the other organized parties in the state, has come out in opposition to Prop 121.  However, simply voting "no" on the measure, and urging others to do the same, isn't enough for them.

Nope, they are trying to retaliate against a judge, who was just one of a majority on the state supreme court that ruled against their gambit to keep the measure away from the voters (actually, the justices ruled against an appeal of a lower court ruling that allowed the measure to remain on the ballot, but a top-of-the-(back of)-ballot Supreme Court justice is a riper target than a Maricopa County Superior Court judge).

I expect the effort to remove Pelander from the Arizona Supreme Court will fail (previous efforts to remove judges who weren't, but this effort serves as a perfect example of what will happen if Proposition 115 passes - whenever a case with partisan implications comes along, judges will feel undue pressure to rule on the basis of partisan interests, not the law.

To do otherwise will endanger their jobs.


For the record, I have already voted against Props 115 and 121; I may not agree with 121 (hence my "no" vote), but the backers jumped through all the hoops necessary to put the measure on the ballot, and it deserves consideration by the voters.  I think that they should defeat the measure, but it is up to the voters, not special interests.

For the record2, I do believe that there are legitimate reasons to remove a judge from the bench.  Corruption, misuse of office, and rendering rulings based on factors other than the law are at the top of the list.

None of that describes Justice Pelander.  Vote to retain him.

Prop 121, the "jungle primary" initiative: not really designed to improve things

Among the ballot questions on this year's ballot is Proposition 121, a measure that would amend Arizona's Constitution to do away with partisan primaries in favor of a "top two" or "jungle" primary.  Instead of candidates running in a primary election to determine their party's nominee (s) for a particular office or independent candidates gathering enough signatures to directly gain a place on the general election ballot, all candidates for an office will run in a single primary with the top two vote-getters, regardless of partisan affiliation (or non-affiliation) moving on to the general election ballot (or two for each opening where multiple openings exist for the same office, such as state representative).

The measure is actively (and vociferously) opposed by the political parties (small to large) and certain civic groups (like the League of Women Voters) and wholeheartedly supported by a coalition of pro-business groups and their advocates.

Last week, there were two pro-Prop 121 events here in the Valley.

On Wednesday, ASU's Morrison Institute held a discussion on ASU's Downtown Campus with Jackie Salit, president of IndependentVoting.org and author of Independents Rising: Outsider Movements, Third Parties, and the Struggle for a Post-Partisan America, and Mickey Edwards, a former Congressman and author of the book The Parties Versus the People.

Friday, Zocalo Public Square held an event at the Scottsdale Museum of Contemporary Art with Edwards (sans Salit) titled "Are Political Parties Hurting Our Democracy?"

(L-R) Edwards, Salit, and Don Budinger of the Morrison Institute Wednesday evening

Both events, though not SRO, were well-attended.  However, not all attendees were supportive -

A rather agitated State Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), at the Morrison Institute event

Kavanagh wasn't the only local politico who made an appearance Wednesday (though he was the only one who directly participated in the discussion) - current candidate for Congress Kyrsten Sinema, former Attorney General Terry Goddard, and former mayor of Phoenix Paul Johnson (a supporter of the measure) all were there at one point or another.


Salit and Edwards basically took the position that political parties have controlled the levers of government, and to the point of this initiative (and their respective books  :) ), access to ballots for the benefit of themselves and not for the people of the country.

And to be fair, there is some truth to that.  For example in Arizona, while there is a path to the ballot for Independent candidates, the signature requirements are much higher for them (3% of voters registered as "other") than for partisan candidates (1/2 of 1% of voters registered in a party).

The supporters of the measure argue that passing the measure will result in candidates that are more responsive to voters and even more "centrist".

However, there is no evidence to that effect in the states that already have a "jungle primary" system in place.

It has created situations such as those in California where in one district two very liberal Democrats are facing off in the general election (30th Congressional District) - a Democratic-leaning district, to be sure, but not an exclusively Democratic one - and another, the 31st Congressional District, where the general election ballot has two Anglo Republicans are running to represent a Latino and Democratic leaning district.

What a jungle primary *doesn't* do is address what I consider to be the main malady that ails modern American politics -

Apathy.

Too many people, non-voters and low-information voters alike, just don't care about politics, being "too busy" or "too good" or "too something" to be bothered.  Even many of the people who vote believe that their civic duty is done once the election is over, acting as if our society and our government is a "fire it up and forget it" sort of operation.

This measure is being marketed as a "magic pill" that *may* cure all that ails AZ politics (to be fair, while many of the local supporters of Prop 121 have taken this tack, Salit and Edwards did not; they think that the jungle primary system is "better", but not perfect).

Based on what I heard and witnessed last week, Salit and Edwards are honest in their intent and honorable in their character, but on this matter, they are simply wrong.

Much like term limits before it, the jungle primary represents, at best, change for the sake of change.  Not change that will actually improve anything.

The "top two" or "jungle" scheme seems to be much like "supply side" economics - where supply-siders posit that if a product or service is cheap enough, people will buy it (yes I know that is *very* simplified, but this post is about practical politics, not economic theory), Salit, Edwards, Johnson, and the rest of the jungle primary supporters believe, and want others to believe, that if we just get "better" candidates, more people will be happy with the available choices on Election Day.

However, the problem with supply side economics is that its proponents ignore the fact that the US has a demand-driven economy.  Price may affect existing demand for a product, but it won't *create* demand. 

By the same token, "better" candidates may impact the thinking of already-engaged voters, but voters who aren't engaged still won't care.

And I freely admit that I have no idea how to address that particular problem. 

Feel free to leave suggestions in a comment; outlandish is OK, just keep it within the realm of possibility.  And civility. :)

While my vote wasn't changed, I do thank the Morrison Institute, Zocalo, and especially Edwards and Salit.  I may disagree with this measure, but any civil discussion on how to improve our political system should always be welcomed.

A second "thank you" goes out to Jackie Salit, who generously took time for a phone interview with me on Monday.  We may disagree on this, but she was intelligent, gracious, and eloquent.


Steve at the Arizona Eagletarian offers his take Friday's Zocalo event here.

Arizona Ballot Propositions 2012

At last count (and subject to change, depending on court rulings), Arizona voters will be considering nine ballot questions in November.  While I've pretty much decided how I'm going to vote ("no" on all questions except for Proposition 204), a look at each question is merited.  I'll be taking a position on each measure and stating why I hold that position.  However, I urge all readers to read and study the propositions for themselves and cast their votes based on what they think is best for the state.

First, some resources -

The League of Women Voters of Arizona ballot proposition guide is here - English/Spanish.
The Arizona Secretary of State's webpage for its proposition publicity pamphlet is here.
Michael Bryan of Blog for Arizona offers a thorough and well-written guide here. 

The first two are neutral (though cynic that I am, if I was only discussing the AZSOS' guide, the word "ostensibly" would be used to modify "neutral"); Mike Bryan openly takes positions on the measures.  I disagree with a couple of those positions, but on those questions, there isn't a "good" position, just a "less bad" one.

On to the questions -

Proposition 114 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (one D in the House voted for it).  Ostensibly about "protecting" the victims of crimes from being sued by criminals, but this is an all but nonexistent problem.  Really about undermining the protections in the AZ Constitution that bar the lege from doing anything to reduce the right of Arizonans to recover damages for death or injury.  Undermining those protections is something that big business and other wealthy interests have been working on for years.  They want the state's court system to be more like the state's political system - mostly available to the highest bidder.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 115 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature on a mostly party-line vote (eight Ds in the House voted for it).  Makes changes to the selection process for judges.  The process is currently one with safeguards that work to protect the independence of the judiciary.  This measure seeks to whittle away at that independence.  It also seeks to indirectly undermine the independence of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission by turning the Commission on Appellate Court Appointment, which screens candidates for the AIRC, into a partisan star chamber.  Like Mike Bryan, I am voting "No".

Proposition 116 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  While the Rs in the lege marketed this as a tax cut for small businesses (effectively marketed, I should say, since every D who voted on this in the lege supported this one.  They should have read the fine print before casting their votes), it's actually a huge gift to big business that will serve to undermine the fiscal stability of the state and every county in the state.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 117 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  For purposes of property tax valuations, would cap increases in valuations of property to 5% over the previous year's valuation.  Sounds OK, even pretty good, to anyone who lived through the massive real estate bubble of the last decade where house prices, and values, rose dramatically, often resulting in seriously higher property taxes for homeowners who didn't even participate in the 'flipping for fun and (paper) profit" scams.  Well, sounds OK until you realize that this is a sop to the anti-government and anti-society whackjobs who want to impose a harsh property tax cap on Arizona.  The bursting of the real estate bubble has solved this "problem" already.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 118 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This measure seeks to change the way that distributions of revenue from the Permanent State Land Endowment Fund are handled.  When AZ became a state, a large portion of the state's land area was placed in trust and revenues from sales of that land go into the Fund and are dedicated to certain beneficiaries (like schools, hospitals, and prisons).  This measure is intended to provide short term increases in revenue for those beneficiaries so that the lege can justify providing long-term tax cuts to their wealthy friends.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 119 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This is another attempt to modify the state constitution to facilitate the exchange of state trust lands with other parcels in order to protect military facilities from encroaching development.  This one has been around before and has been defeated each time because most people (including me) don't trust the legislature.  Past efforts were vague and rife with opportunity for mischief.  Supposedly this has been improved and is supported by a number of environmental and business groups, as well as many Democrats.  I still don't trust the lege and am going to vote "No".

Proposition 120 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature.  This one is a sop to the batshit crazy crowd.  It declares that Arizona has absolute sovereignty over all land, water, and air in AZ, except under certain specific and limited circumstances.  It's a way of saying that Arizona doesn't have to follow federal laws and regulations.  This has been tried before.  It resulted in the Civil War.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 121 - An amendment to the AZ Constitution that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  Would change the state's elections to a "top two" primary system where all candidates for an office would face off in the primary, and the top two vote-getters in the primary would advance to the general election, regardless of their party affiliation.  This one is opposed by the major political parties, the minor political parties, and many advocacy groups.  It is supported by a number of big business lobbying groups, as well as "moderate" (read: "pro big business") Republicans.  The supporters claim that this will result in more moderate candidates running for, and winning, office, even though there is no evidence to that effect from the states that have already tried this (LA, WA, and now CA).  The opponents are worried that this could lead to situations where in a district that leans heavily partisan in one direction or another that there could be a number of candidates of that party who split the vote in the primary, leading to a district being represented by someone who isn't supported by a majority, or even true plurality, of the voters in that district.  I'm not sure that this one will past muster with the US Department of Justice, which under the Voting Rights Act, must "pre-clear" all changes to laws regarding AZ's elections.

If adopted, this measure would effectively disenfranchise all minor party and independent candidates and voters, because none of them have the resources necessary to compete in this sort of "jungle primary."

The Republicans tried hard to keep this one away from the voters and off of the ballot, ultimately to no avail.  I think that it should be on the ballot for the voters to consider.  And to defeat.  I'm voting "No".

Proposition 204 - A proposed statute that was placed on the ballot by initiative petition.  It would permanently extend the 1% increase in the state sales tax that the voters passed in 2010, intended to buttress funding for education.  I despise sales taxes as they are truly the most regressive of all taxes, and Arizona already relies too heavily on sales taxes for revenue.  However, I view voting for this as the "less bad" of the available options.

One of the reasons cited by AZ Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal (R) in opposition to the measure is that it includes a large chunk of education-related statutes in the measure, meaning that said sections of law become covered under the Voter Protection Act, which in turn means that the lege is all but completely barred from changing said statutes.

He, other Republicans, and to be fair, some Democrats, think that it is unwise to handcuff the legislature like that; personally, I think that it is high time that we begin micromanaging the lege.

As regular readers know, voter apathy is one of my pet peeves.

Until more people actually pay attention to the conduct of their elected officials, we will continue to have a legislature with a majority of members who feel nothing but contempt for the majority of Arizonans.

Right now, I don't know a way to reduce the kind of pervasive apathy that is contributing to Arizona's decline into "national punchline" status.

I do know that we can, however, do things to minimize the damage that the legislature can wreak upon the state.

Voting for Proposition 204 is one step toward doing that.

Project Civil Discourse: A Statewide Conversation on

Project Civil Discourse is an initiative of the Arizona Humanities Council, dedicated to fostering an environment that facilitates, rather than impedes, constructive discussion of political issues in Arizona.

Next week, they'll be conducting a statewide forum on some of the questions that will be on the ballot in November.  The announcement -

Mapping Arizona's Future

Click Here to Register

Thursday, September 27, 2012
6:00 to 9:00pm

Free & Open to the Public

A Statewide Conversation on
Arizona's Key Ballot Propositions

Michael Grant, former host of KAET-TV's Horizon and prominent valley attorney, will moderate a panel of experts (Justice Ruth McGregor, former Chief Justice for the Arizona Supreme Court, Ken Strobeck, Executive Director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, and Howie Fischer, Chief Correspondent at Capitol Media Services) and participant roundtable discussions on three key ballot propositions.

• Prop 115: Judicial Selection
• Prop 204: Quality Education and Jobs
• Prop 121: Open Government

A Simulcast Discussion Around Arizona

Forum Locations:
Apache Junction - Central Arizona College - Superstition Mountain Campus

Winkelman/SE Pinal County - Central Arizona College - Aravaipa Campus

Coolidge - Central Arizona College - Signal Peak Campus

Flagstaff - Coconino Community College - Lone Tree Campus

Scottsdale - Scottsdale Community College

Sedona - Yavapai College - Sedona Center for Arts & Technology

Tucson - Pima County Community College - West Campus

Yuma - Arizona Western College

Space is Limited, Pre-registration is Required

Click Here to Register

For more information, please contact Jamie Martin at 602-257-0335 x26 or jmartin@azhumanities.org

I'll be attending the forum at the Scottsdale Community College location, the location nearest to me; if one of the locations is close to you, sign up and reserve your spot.

Prop 204: Damn, what Tedski said

In November, Arizona's voters will vote on extending a 1% increase in the state's sales tax that the voters passed a couple of years ago to provide additional revenue for Arizona's education system.

I'm a little torn on this - I despise sales and other regressive taxes, but I totally understand why we need to support and improve schools in Arizona.

I've decided to vote for it, and I could go on about the various reasons for that decision, but Tedski, Ted Prezelski, at Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion has summed up the best reasons to vote for Prop 204, and done so far more succinctly than I ever could (emphasis mine) -

 

Earlier this week, the report that no state cut more money for schools than Arizona did got a lot of play. I guess I should have written about it, but, unfortunately, the news that the folks that run our state don’t give a rat’s ass about our state’s future doesn’t shock me enough to make me angry anymore.

 

Phil Hubbard, who served in the legislature in the eighties and nineties, used tell a story about a Republican from Sun City who had a seat near him on the floor. Another legislator was giving a speech about preparing for the future. The legislator from Sun City leaned over to Hubbard and said, “The future? In Sun City we don’t even buy green bananas.”

 

These days, we’ve got a veto-proof majority and a governor serving on behalf of people who don’t buy green bananas.

 

Vote yes on 204…sales taxes suck and are regressive, but hoping our legislators will give a darn is a fool’s errand.

Other than using more words (that's just how I roll :) ), I would change only one thing in Ted's post -

I'd have used the word "damn" instead of "darn".

Early ballot time - Scottsdale

Lost in the hubbub over Super Tuesday in many states on Tuesday  and the jurisdictional elections in March in many of the state's municipalities is the fact that Scottsdale is holding a special election in March also.

"Special" meaning no candidates, just ballot questions.

There are nine questions, all placed on the ballot by the Scottsdale City Council.

Not having had time to follow local politics closely for the last few months, I didn't have a specific opinion on any of the measures, and was inclined to vote against them on general principle -

I don't trust that the mayor and city council of Scottsdale are working for the best interests of the people of Scottsdale.  They spend wayyyyyyy too much time finding reasons to give deep-pocketed developers exactly what they want, even if that negatively impacts neighborhoods and the families that live in them.

But that's not the right way to approach voting, because...

1.  While the Scottsdale Mayor and City Council is bad, they are nowhere near as bad as the Arizona Legislature (with the lege, vote against anything they send to the ballot.  The next time the majority in the lege votes to put a measure on the ballot that actually benefits all Arizonans will be the very first time for most of them.)

2.  It's the lazy way to do things.

The city-published election information booklet is here.

So, here is my take on the ballot questions.

Question 1 - relating to awarding a franchise to Southwest Gas "to maintain and operate a natural and artificial gas distribution system in the City of Scottsdale".  Not sure yet.  This may be a default "no".


Proposition 430, approving an update to the city's General Plan.  This is the only question where people submitted "for" and "against" arguments.  The supporters of the change could be best described as the people who see Scottsdale as only a profit center and not a home.  The opponents could be best described as the "Change?  I don't know what it is, but I know I don't like it" crowd. 

One side wants the future of Scottsdale surrendered to the short-term interests of developers, which I believe is the reason that they support the new General Plan.

The other side wants Scottsdale to be the Scottsdale of the "good ol' days" when it was a small town swarming with tourists and the hitching rails outnumbered the permanent residents, not a growing mid-sized metropolis/suburb with growing families and the few remaining hitching rails are museum pieces.

Still, while I believe that the time has come for the people of Scottsdale to look at the calendar as it is, not as it was, this proposal isn't the way to move Scottsdale into the 21st century.  I'm voting against it because it will be difficult to repair the damage it will cause, once the new GP is implemented.

No.

The remaining propositions are ostensibly "housekeeping" measures, polishing up outdated language and synching the city's charter to state law.

Proposition 431 - among its provisions, it would allow the city to cease publication of legal notices in newspapers or in fact, anywhere.  This clause is written so broadly that the mayor and city council could order that legal notices be posted on the inside of the door on the outhouse in Jim Lane's back yard (in case you can't tell, that's a metaphor.  I'm pretty sure Lane doesn't have an outhouse on his property.  :) ).  Another clause would take away the city's authority to *bar* development in a flood plain (yes, we have them in AZ), allowing it to only "limit" it.

No.


Proposition 432 - has some decent things in it, purely housekeeping bits, but it includes a clause matching the city charter's open meeting requirements to state law, whatever that may be.  Given that the lege is trying to make government less open and accountable, that's a bad thing.  In addition, there is nothing wrong with the city government being more open than state law requires.  However, this one is mostly harmless, so I'm voting -

Yes.


Proposition 433 - seems to be purely housekeeping, moving language regarding one city commission into the section of the charter that relates to the rest of the city's boards and commissions.

Yes.


Proposition 434 - relating to the city's budget process.  Again, the legal notice requirement will be only that which is required by state law and no more.  And the other relevant budget process provisions will be synched up with state law.  I've already stated what I think of what the lege is doing to government openness requirements and that the city should use state law only as a baseline for openness, not a target.

No.


Proposition 435 - allowing the city council and mayor to create an exception to the way the city executes contracts by simply passing an ordinance or resolution.  Currently, that can only be done according to a charter provision or state law.  Since it expands the power of the mayor and council,

No.


Proposition 436 - relating to utility franchise agreements.  Again, changing notification requirements to match state law.  Again,

No.


Proposition 437 - relating to city records.  Again, changing openness requirements to match state law.  Again,

No.


The next example of this type of post should be for the primary election in August...

Update: 2012 Campaign Committees+

Not just campaign committees this time around, possible ballot questions too!

...Ginger Rough of the Arizona Republic has coverage of the filing of paperwork for eight possible initiative questions by a heretofore undheard-of organization called Fox Petitions.

The initiative proposals include -

I-05-2012, Smart Prison Population Act, mandating the expansion of the practice of home detention for non-violent prisoners

I-06-2012, Supporting Adoptable Cats and Dogs Act, prohibiting the euthanization of healthy and adoptable cats and dogs in Arizona

I-07-2012, Workers' Rights Act, barring employers from firing employees for behavior outside of the employment relationship, except under specific conditions

I-08-2012, Honest Officials Act, it's too difficult to sum up in one sentence, but I call it the "public officials can't lie to the public" act

I-09-2012, No Criminal Exemptions Act, barring the enforcement of a criminal law against any person if that law exempts a person or class of persons.  The explanation says it specifically targets laws that exempt elected officials and government employees, but it is crafted very broadly

I-10-2012, Victimless Crime Act, barring the prosecution or incarceration of a person for behavior that doesn't harm another person, another person's property, or an animal

I-11-2012, Fair Crime Act, mandating that in the event that one criminal act that may violate multiple sections of law can only be prosecuted under one of those sections, the one with the least severe punishment

I-12-2012. Wrongful Conviction Compensation Act, compensating the victims of wrongful convictions and incarceration at $1000 per day of wrongful incarceration

Some of the proposals are intriguing, and I may sign one or more of the petitions if the opportunity presents itself (I especially like the one that would force public officials to stop lying to the public).

One other initiative was recently submitted.

I-04-2012, Go Solar In Arizona Economic Development Act, creating a $2.25 per watt personal solar tax credit.  I support the sentiment, but this proposal is problematical.  I don't like tax credits in general, and I don't like the idea of a specific number being protected by the Voter Protection Act (if this makes it to the ballot and actually passes, we're stuck with it, even if it turns out to bust the state's budget).  This one reeks of an attempt to create by ballot initiative another Alt-Fuels scam.

In Maricopa County news, restaurant industry lobbyist Steve Chucri has opened a candidate committee for a run at Don Stapley's seat on the county board of supervisors.  Chucri is challenging Stapley in the R primary in Stapley's heavily Republican district.  Congressman David Schweikert, whose district overlaps Stapley's in Scottsdale, is honorary chair of Chucri's campaign.

In Scottsdale news, Guy Phillips, a 2010 candidate for City Council, is now listed as a 2012 candidate.  However, the link for his 2012 committee statement of organization opens up a copy of the same form for his 2010 campaign.  Scottsdale's election information page is here.  In 2010, he ran as a tea party type with no answers for Scottsdale's problems other than stock tea party dogma.  He lost.  If he actually is running, it will be interesting to see if learned anything from the experience.

In Tempe news, Linda Spears has announced that she is running for mayor, though no campaign paperwork is yet posted on the City of Tempe's website (when I wrote the last one of these posts, she had taken out a candidate packet, but hadn't yet announced what office she had her sights on)

Governor gambles on cuts to AHCCCS, and is told by the feds that she won the bet...

...but the voters are standing in the way of her collecting on the bet...

On Tuesday, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius sent a response to Governor Jan Brewer's request for a waiver of federal "maintenance of effort" (MOE) standards for Arizona's Medicaid program, called AHCCCS.

From the Arizona Republic, written by Mary K. Reinhart -

Arizona doesn't need federal approval to eliminate 250,000 people from its Medicaid rolls in order to continue to receive federal matching dollars, health officials said Tuesday.

Lawmakers had sought to eliminate coverage for low-income Arizonans to help close a huge budget shortfall, but recently passed federal health reform mandates that states maintain their level of coverage.

In a letter to Brewer today, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said the state's entire program comes up for federal reauthorization Sept. 30, and Arizona could simply choose to stop covering the childless adults who Gov. Jan Brewer and legislative Republicans are seeking to drop from the rolls.

In other words, the feds didn't grant a waiver so much as tell Brewer if she waited until the end of the federal fiscal year, she could just make changes without the need for federal action.  Brewer's almost-gleeful press release on the announcement is here.

Now Brewer faces two related problems with her effort to kick poor people off of AHCCCS -

1.  The affected population (people with an income of up to 100% of the federal poverty level (FPL) isn't covered by a federal dictate or because of a decision by Arizona politicians, but because the voters *overwhelmingly* approved Proposition 204 in November 2000.  The income eligibility standard is voter-protected and cannot be overridden by Brewer or the legislature.  Historically, voters in Arizona have been loathe to overturn measures that were previously approved by the voters themselves, especially when a proposal to do so is pushed by the legislature.

2. If she convinces the legislature to refer this to the ballot, she (and they) will have to deal with the PR nightmare of explaining how the state cannot afford to help Arizona's poorest residents at the same time they're railroading through a bill to give tax gifts to corporations and the wealthy that will eventually cost Arizona taxpayers more than $500 million per year. 

Jan and her clan are going to have to some serious tapdancing on this one if they hope to cash in on the bet that they've made against the lives of Arizona's most vulnerable.

Final election result: Proposition 112 defeated

From the website of the Arizona Secretary of State -

The statewide recount of Proposition 112 has been successfully completed, with the results certified today by Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Robert Oberbillig.


Those results confirm the defeat of Prop 112, which would have moved up by 60 days the deadline for citizens’ initiative campaigns to submit signature petitions to qualify for the ballot.

The official court filing is here.

The final margin was 194 votes out of 1,585,522 votes cast in the race, or slightly more than 1/100th of 1 percent of the total (0.0122%). 

That's the definition of close.

Later...

Results update: Medical Marijuana now ahead!

The latest numbers are up, and while no changes in any of the races look likely, the numbers for Prop 203, the medical marijuana question, have flipped and it is now passing by over 4400 votes.

Others of note:

Prop 112, the measure sent to the ballot by the legislature that would make it more difficult for citizen-initiated to qualify for the ballot by moving back the deadline for submitting petitions by two months is passing by all of 43 votes statewide.

In the race for LD26 State Representative, Democratic incumbent Nancy Young-Wright is within 745 votes of Republican Vic Williams.

In the LD20 State Rep. race, incumbent D Rae Waters is within 1039 votes of R Bob Robson.

All unofficial results for state elections can be found here.


In Maricopa County races, while the margins have changed, there don't look to be any changes in the outcomes -

The two closest significant county-level races, the Justice of the Peace contests in the University Lakes and Kyrene Justice Precincts, ended Election Day with the Democratic candidates (Meg Burton-Cahill and Elizabeth Rogers, respectively) ahead of their Republican opponents.  Their margins have grown to 1460 and 1405, respectively.  If the leads hold up, Rogers will hold the distinction of being the only Democrat to win a race in the R-leaning Ahwatukee area this cycle.

While some of the ballot questions downballot are closer in terms of the raw number of votes, those mostly cover school district questions.  Some of those questions had fewer votes cast in their entire districts than were cast in my home precinct.

However, even some of those are still interesting -

Tolleson ESD budget question - failing, but only by 16 votes (972 - 990)

Kyrene ESD budget question - failing by 70 votes (23812 - 23882)

Laveen ESD budget question - failing by 26 votes (3213 - 3239)

Other races of note -

In the race for the District 2 seat on the Governing Board of the Maricopa County Community College District, Dana Saar of Fountain Hills has opened up a lead of almost 14K votes over incumbent (and district-wide embarrassment) Jerry Walker of Mesa.

Finally, in the race for the Peoria Unified school governing board, Jane Schutte is comfortably ensconced in 2nd place (in a "vote for two" race) by nearly 3200 votes.  This wouldn't actually be significant, but Schutte withdrew from the race in early October, meaning the board will have a vacancy on it as of the first of the year.

Not saying there is a cause and effect relationship here, but according to this Arizona Republic story on the matter, Schutte is Secretary of the LD4 Republicans, and never participated in campaign events before she withdrew (like a candidate forum in September), nor has she issued any statements since the withdrawal or the "election."

While I couldn't find direct evidence that she is an officer of the LD4 Republicans (they don't have their officers listed on their website), according the AZ SOS' website, she is a regular contributor to the LD4 Rs, as well as candidates like Ron Gould (LD3), Jack Harper (LD4) and Brenda Burns (Corporation Commission).  In addition, according to this Peoria Times piece, she was running as part of a team with John Rosado, who was also running for the Central Arizona Project board of directors as a tea party/anti-government candidate. 

Between the lack of a real campaign, those contributions and her tea party connections, Schutte seems to have run solely to wreak havoc with the school board.

Given that whoever will be appointed to fill the seat is going to miss school board training sessions and will be behind the other members in gaining effectiveness in doing the job, she has succeeded.

Psst! I gots a proposition for you...

Everybody knows about the Republican gains in Tuesday's elections, but there hasn't been significant coverage of the ballots propositions.  There's been a little, but...

Anyway, on to the results.

Note: all numbers have been rounded, and the final margins could change due to early and provisional ballots.

Proposition 106, the anti-health care reform amendment to the AZ Constitution:  Approved by the voters 705,000 to 569,000.  Benefitted from more than $2 million in funding, mostly from the health insurance industry.

Proposition 107, the anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution:  Approved by the voters 752.000 to 511,000.

Proposition 109, the amendment to the AZ Constitution to create a right to hunt and fish equal to other constitutionally-protected civil rights like free speech and freedom of religion.  Also would have prevented voters from passing any ballot questions that would have effected wildlife management.  Failed 569,000 - 724,000.

Proposition 110, an amendment to the AZ Constitution that would allow the exchange of state trust lands near military bases for other lands.  Failing right now, but at 625,000 - 631,000, it's still close enough to flip once all ballots are counted.

Proposition 111 - an amendment to the AZ Constitution that would have changed the job title of the Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor" and compelled the primary winners from each party for Governor and Lt. Governor to run as a ticket.  Sloppily written - also would have disenfranchised independent candidates and voters.  Failed 522,000 to 745,000.

Proposition 112 - an amendment to the AZ Constitution that would have reduced the amount of time available to collect signatures to put a question on the ballot.  Failing by approximately 1600 votes as of this writing.

Proposition 113 - an anti-union amendment to the AZ Constitution.  Heavily funded by secretive industry groups.  Passed 775,000 - 502,000.

Proposition 203 - legalizing Medical Marijuana.  Still close, but leading at this point by approximately 7000 votes.

Proposition 301 - ending the voter-mandated and -protected Land Conservation Fund and sweeping the monies into the state's general fund so the lege can give them to corporations in the form of tax breaks.  Failed 329,000 - 934,000.

Proposition 302 - ending the voter-mandated and -protected First Things First, an early childhood education and health program.  Failed 393,000 - 895,000.

Summary:  the demonization measures (anti - healthcare, affirmative action, and unions) passed easily, while the ones that reduce the influence of the voters (Lt. Gov. signature deadlines, overriding previously approved voter initiatives) have failed or are failing.  Medical Marijuana is passing, as it has passed many times before, but by the closest margin in its history.  It may still flip as provisional ballots and late arriving early ballots are counted.

Bottom line:  while demagoguery worked for the Rs in terms of the candidate races and the three demonization amendments, when it came to practical issues of governance, the voters haven't toed the R party line.  There's a lesson there.



Some local ballot questions (mostly Scottsdale, with a few others thrown in for fun):

Scottsdale bond question #1 (transportation infrastructure) - Failed 25,000 - 33,000

Scottsdale bond question #2 (public safety infrastructure) - Failed 24,000 - 34,000.

Scottsdale question 411 (restricting the City's use of eminent domain, pushed by American Water to prevent any possible takeover of its operations in Scottsdale, no matter how much contaminated water it pumps to its customers here) - Passed 26,000 - 23,000.

Scottsdale question 412 (keeping the City from expending money on an organization like the Scottsdale Area Chamber of Congress) - Passed 26,000 - 24,000.

Scottsdale 413 (removing the Charter requirement that the City Council address citizen petitions in a timely manner) - Failed 23,000 - 26,000.

Scottsdale 414 (clarifying the status of the City's charter officers, including requiring that the City Treasurer's position be filled independently and not by another Officer, such as the City Manager) - Passed 24,000 - 23,000.

Scottsdale 415 (relating to clarifying which City employees are subject to direct Council control) - Passed 25,000 - 23,000.

Scottsdale 416 and 417 (housekeeping measures mostly, that clarified unclear language in the charter) - Passed comfortably.

Mesa 420 (a new spring training facility for the Chicago Cubs) - Passed 51,000 - 30,000.

As for school-related questions, generally speaking, budget overrides (even those that were just continuations of long-standing overrides) failed while bond questions for infrastructure improvements passed.  In other words, the voters in those areas voted to have schools with pretty exteriors and little substance inside of them.

Later...

Early Ballot Time - 2010 General Election

All over Arizona, early ballots are reaching mail boxes (the ballot for my area is here).  Here are my picks (and there isn't anything here that will surprise any regular readers :) ):

U.S. Senate - Rodney Glassman.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of Arizonans (and Arizona) that John McCain hasn't had for decades (if ever).

U.S. Representative in Congress (District 5) - Harry Mitchell.  He's got the energy and focus on the needs of his constituents, and has had it for nearly 40 years.  If the Rs in CD5 had any appreciation for public service and public servants, they'd have nominated him, too.  (Not an unheard-of happenstance.  In Massachusetts in 1982, Republican Silvio Conte won both the Democratic and Republican nominations for Congress in MA-CD1.  He went on to win the general. Back in a time when public service was valued instead of vilified. [page 18 of the linked .pdf] :) )

Governor - Terry Goddard.  He's got the intelligence, experience, and wisdom to move Arizona out of the economic abyss that it's in.  And he's got the quiet fire necessary for dealing with the R extremists in the legislature who are less interested in serving Arizona than in adhering to a nihilist ideology.

State Senator (District 17) - David Schapira.  Focused on Tempe and Arizona's education system.  He has an established track record.  Will work "across the aisle" when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.  Will fight like hell when doing so will help the district or Arizona's students.

State Representative (District 17) - Ed Ableser and P. Ben Arredondo.  Both have been teachers and community activists in Tempe/South Scottsdale, Ed for most of a decade and Ben for *many* decades.  Ed is the more liberal of the two (Ben being a reformed former Republican), but both are totally focused on their constituents (Yes, there is definitely a pattern in my picks, and it isn't just the partisan affiliation.)

Secretary of State - Chris Deschene.  Will fight for the rights of all voters, not just his party's.  That fact alone puts him head and shoulders above his opponent, but he also brings an educational background that includes mechanical engineering and a law degree. 

Attorney General - Felecia Rotellini.  She's got the smarts, the integrity, and the tenacity to protect Arizonans from predators of all stripes, whether they are smuggling cartels or Wall Street fraudsters.

State Treasurer - Andrei Cherny.  A former assistant AG and an economics policy wonk extraordinaire, he is eminently qualified for the job of safeguarding Arizona's public monies.  The fact that, unlike his opponent, he isn't an indictment for financial fraud waiting to happen is just gravy.

Superintendent of Public Instruction - Penny Kotterman.  Career teacher, teacher trainer, school administrator, education policy advocate, for over 30 years.  Her opponent has spent most of the last two decades trying to destroy public education in Arizona.  'Nuff said.

Mine Inspector - Manuel Cruz.  He has the educational and professional background in mine safety that a job that is supposed to ensure the safety of miners *should* have.  Not in the pocket of industry lobbyists, unlike his opponent.

Corporation Commissioner - David Bradley and Jorge Luis Garcia.  Two former legislators with long and distinguished track records of fighting for their constituents.  Their opponents have long and not-so-distinguished track records of fighting for Big Business, no matter what state it is based in.  The Arizona Corporation Commission is meant to protect the interests of Arizonans by regulating and overseeing utilities, railroads, and securities in the state.  Bradley and Garcia are easy choices here.

Maricopa County Attorney - Michael Kielsky. He's a Libertarian, someone I would normally never vote for, but I always vote for the better candidate.  There's no Democrat on the ballot for this brief term (2 years instead of the normal 4) and the Republican on the ballot is openly allied with Joe Arpaio.  I've been told by some people who are more familiar than I am with Bill Montgomery (the Republican in question) that they think he will probably at least try to appear as neutral, but Arpaio spent hundreds of thousands on ads in the primary race, and incurred thousands more in fines for violating campaign finance laws for doing so.  Can you say "quid pro quo"?

I don't think Kielsky will win, but a strong showing could send a message to the Democrats who have all but given Montgomery a free pass.

Maricopa County Clerk of Courts - Sherry Williams.  Smart and energetic, with a BA in Political Science and a Masters in Information Systems.  She will bring the background and integrity that the clerk of *any* court should have, and that Maricopa County so desperately needs (a Maricopa County official elected countywide with some integrity?  Be still my beating heart...)

University Lakes Justice of the Peace - Meg Burton Cahill (no website available).  The retiring state senator has a master's degree in Public Administration and a strong background in the law from her time on the Senate's Judiciary Committee.  She will make a fine addition to the Maricopa County bench, where her wisdom and experience will stand her in good stead against the pressures that can/will be brought to bear on folks in that position.  Ask the current holder of the office - he was Joe Arpaio's "go-to guy" when he needed some sketchy warrants signed for his jihad against the county supes.

University Lakes Constable - No race, so no vote.  Joe Arredondo (R) will win.

Central Arizona Water Conservation District (aka - the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Project) - Arif Kazmi and Jim Holway.  Both have strong academic, professional and personal backgrounds in water resources management.  Both were among the five candidates endorsed by the Arizona Republic, and while the other endorsees of the AZRep are strong, these two are stronger and should be "double-shotted" in order to maximize their chances of election.  There is a slate of "Tea Party" candidates running to try to put the management of a major part of Arizona's water delivery system on an ideological basis, not a professional basis.  They should be completely shunned.  In a desert like central Arizona, water literally is life.

School Governing Board member, Scottsdale Unified #48 - I have absolutely no clue.  Decision by elimination time (and I may be doing the eliminated candidate a disservice, but this is the best I've got in this race):  Denny Brown (newby) and Dieter Schaefer (incumbent).  There is limited info available on the candidates that I could find in a quick search, but while I have some reservations (i.e. - Schaefer was the only candidate who responded to a questionnaire from the extreme RW organization The Center for Arizona Policy), but the third candidate, Pam Kirby. touts a resume that looks good (lots of PTO involvement) but seems to be more purely ideological than the others.  Plus the endorsement of Scottsdale City Council member Bob Littlefield didn't help.

Bond question, Scottsdale Unified #48 - Yes.  Over the short-term, the legislature cannot be counted on the fund the state's education system, whether for classroom needs or infrastructure needs.  Long-term, there could be legal ramifications because while relatively affluent districts like SUSD can use bonding to fund an adequate education system for their students, many poorer districts cannot.

City of Scottsdale Council Member - Ned O'Hearn, Linda Milhaven, and Wayne Ecton.  All three care deeply about Scottsdale and its future, and aren't tied to any particular ideology beyond that.  Dennis Robbins would have received my fourth vote if a fourth seat was up for election this time around, but he wasn't quite strong enough a candidate to make it into the top three.  Bob Littlefield...I like Bob personally, but I'd never vote for him.  He definitely is tied to that certain nihilist ideology that permeates the AZGOP, he just covers it with a "good ol' boy" facade.  Guy Philips is definitely not ready for prime time.  He doesn't hide his obeisance to ideological orthodoxy, but he doesn't even have the redeeming value of knowing that ideology well.  If he were elected to the Council, he'd need a staffer with cue cards set up in the back of the City Hall Kiva to tell him how to vote on issues.

The next set of issues concern City of Scottsdale ballot questions, info here.

City of Scottsdale Bond Questions 1 and 2 - Yes.  They're for infrastructure, and I'm a big fan of infrastructure.

Proposition 411 - NO.  A charter amendment further restricting the City's ability to use condemnation to acquire property.  Looks harmless on the surface (must adhere to state law, which is already required), but includes vague language like "all reasonable options have been exhausted."  A recipe for frivolous lawsuits.

Proposition 412 - NO.  A charter amendment intended to prevent the City from ever paying to participate in organizations like the Scottsdale Chamber of Commerce.  Part of Mayor Jim Lane's ongoing tiff with the CofC, possibly related to the fact that they didn't endorse him in 2008.  The charter is a document to define the structure of the City's government, not a tool for petty political retribution.

Proposition 413 - Close, but NO.  Currently, the City's charter allows citizens to petition the Council and requires the Council to consider any matters brought to its attention within 30 days, which can be difficult considering the timing (right before summer break) or complexity of some of the issues.  This charter amendment would remove the thirty day limit entirely.  My problem is with that.  Make it 45 or 60 days, but don't remove the obligation to hear matters in a timely manner.

Proposition 414 - Probable YES.  This charter amendment would clarify the duties of and separate the offices of the various City Charter Officers.  This one stems from the tendency in recent years to combine the offices of the City Manager and City Treasurer.  God help me for agreeing with the Lane/Littlefield clique on *anything*, but they're right on this one - the treasurer of any organization should be an independent officer, one whose oversight is as far up the org chart as is practicable.

It's not perfect, and it's a powerplay by the Lane/Littlefield clique, but when Lane installs a campaign contributor into the office of treasurer (and he will!), there will be a movement to put specific experience requirements into the charter for that particular job.

Proposition 415 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment to clarify that the Mayor and Council shall not have direct control of a City employee's hiring/firing, except for those who work directly for the Mayor and Council.

Proposition 416 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks like a "housekeeping" measure clarifying how the Council may act/enact under specific circumstances.

Proposition 417 - Probable YES.  A charter amendment that looks to be a "housekeeping" measure related to the appointment and terms of judges on the City Court.

Judges for the Arizona Supreme Court, Court of Appeals - Division One, and Maricopa County Superior Court - I haven't heard of any of them, which is a characteristic that I want in judges.  Court judges are like baseball umpires - if you've heard of them, then they probably messed up big-time.  I won't be voting to retain/not retain any of them.

Statewide ballot propositions - Previously covered here.  Summary: NO on all measures proposed by the legislature, and YES on the one (Prop. 203, Medical Marijuana) sent to the ballot by the citizens.

Whew!

Later...

Judge rules; anti-union question off of November's ballot

From a Howie Fischer story in the East Valley Tribune:

Arizonans won't be able to vote in November to make it harder for unions to organize, at least not unless legislators fix it -- and quickly.

Without comment, the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld a lower court ruling that Proposition 108 is illegally crafted. That order signed by Chief Justice Rebecca White Berch, which is not appealable, bars the Secretary of State's Office from putting it on the ballot.

The measure, which would have been Proposition 108 on the ballot, began its existence as SCR1026 during the 2009 session of the legislature.  Jonathan "Payday Loan" Paton was the originating sponsor of the measure while 37 of the remaining 52 members of the R caucus signed on as sponsors or cosponsors of it.

It was referred to the ballot on party-line votes (Senate here; House here)

A lower court ruled that the measure violated the "only one subject" rule concerning amendments to the state constitution.  As this fact sheet prepared by the lege itself clearly shows, this measure violated that rule.

A summary of the AZ Supreme Court record related to the case can be found here.

The court decision is probably a huge disappointment to its industry and legislative supporters - they've dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the campaign to pass the measure, including $135K just last week (7/26).

As discussed in Fischer's article, there is still a chance for the lege to fix their union-busting measure so that it is properly crafted for the ballot, but that would take a special session of the legislature, and it would have to be completed by Tuesday, the "drop-dead" date for ballot language to be submitted to the Secretary of State's office.

I contacted a state rep about the possibility of that happening and was informed that they (the Democrats) hadn't heard anything about a special session this week.  A call to the Governor's elicited little info and a referral to Paul Senseman, the Governor's spokesman.  An email has been sent to him (he is out of the office) and I'll update if any new info becomes available.

Edit to include Senseman's response:

From his reply to my email inquiry about whether or not there is a plan to call a special session -

"Governor Brewer is very interested in allowing the voters of Arizona the opportunity to protect the sanctity of the secret ballot. She will be anxious to hear from the House Speaker and the Senate President regarding their Member’s [sic] availability and interest to act."

End edit...
However, as of this writing, a special session on this issue seems unlikely.
Later...

It's time to start talking about ballot questions

Lost in the excitement over the races for various offices on this fall's ballot have been the large number of important questions being placed before the voters in November.

The Arizona Legislature's Legislative Council (basically a group of lawyers who take legislative bill proposals and write them into "legalese) will be holding a public meeting on Wednesday at 10 a.m. in House Hearing Room 4 (HHR4) to consider, possibly amend, and adopt some draft analyses of the various questions scheduled to go before the voters, including two active initiatives that haven't turned in their petitions yet.

The short version of my take on the questions:

Other than the Medical Marijuana question, they're all crap. Pretty much everything proposed by the legislature is aimed at destroying any parts of Arizona's social safety net that have previously been approved by the voters. The other two, which may not make it on the ballot, are part of the same extremist, anti-government/anti-society, ideology.

However, this post isn't about my visceral reaction, it's about the Lege Council's analyses of the questions. Analyses that appear to be, and are supposed to be, impartial.

The Secretary of State's list of current ballot questions is here.

Note: all analyses linked to are drafts and are subject to change.

In the order of the SOS' list, not the Lege Council's list of analyses, because that is the order that the questions will appear on the ballot -

Question 106 (full text here) - an anti-health care reform amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Proposed in 2009, even before HCR passed. Referred to the ballot by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 107 (full text here) - an anti-affirmative action amendment to the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 108 (full text here) - an anti-"card check"/anti-labor amendment to the Arizona Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Referred by the Senate and House on party-line votes.

These three questions are more about the Republican legislative majority's staunch pro-business/anti-minority and working class ideology than about good government.

Question 109 (full text here) - the first "pro" question of this year's ballot, this one would make the "right" to hunt, fish, or otherwise "harvest wildlife" a right protected under the AZ Constitution. Lege Council analysis here. Ensuring that Arizona continues as the punchline to political jokes nationwide. Referred by the House and Senate with all Rs and a few rural Ds supporting.

Question 110 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution relating to the sale of state trust lands. Lege Council analysis here. This measure includes a provision allowing for the sale or lease of state trust lands without "advertising or auction." In a ballot chock full o' stinkiness, this one may quietly be the most rancid proposal of all. It will be worthy of a full post of its own as the summer drags on and the November election looms ever closer. Referred by the House and Senate unanimously. Something tells me that a lot of the D members of the lege were snookered by the "protect military installations from development" language in the measure.

Question 111 (full text here) - an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would change the job title of the Arizona Secretary of State to "Lieutenant Governor." Lege Council analysis here. Nothing about the measure changes the functions of the job, so the current job title is more descriptive of the job function than the proposed title. Referred by the Senate unanimously and by the House with a few Rs opposing.

Question 112 (full text here) - an amendment to the AZ Constitution to change the deadline for submitting initiative petitions to allow more time to verify the petitions. Lege Council analysis here. Possibly the least bad measure up for consideration, but since the source is the legislature... Referred by the House and Senate with a few Rs (and one D) opposing.

Question 203 (full text here) - the Arizona Medical Marijuana Act. Lege Council analysis here. This is a good measure, so not surprisingly, this one is a citizen-based initiative, not a legislative-based one.

Question 301 (full text here) - zeroing out the Land Conservation Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why conserve land when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate on party-line votes.

Question 302 (full text here) - repealing the Early Childhood Development and Health Fund and sweeping the money in the Fund. Lege Council analysis here. Why work to ensure that Arizona's child get a healthy start to life when there are corporate tax cuts to pay for? Referred by the House and Senate with all Ds and a couple of Rs opposing.

Not on the ballot as yet, and may not qualify for the ballot, but ones that the Lege Council has draft analyses for are -

- the End Photo Radar Initiative, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. What it sounds like.

- Prop 13 Arizona, full text here, Lege Council analysis here. Would institute strict limits on property taxes, hikes to property taxes, and increases to valuations of property.

Later...