Goo-Goos Gone Bad

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

No, not the Goo-Goo Dolls. "Goo-Goos" is a shorthand acronym for "good government" activists. These single-minded good government crusaders exist on both sides of the political spectrum.

On the left they tend to be utopian idealists: "can't we all just get along and live together in peace and harmony?" They play on the sunny side of the street.

On the right they invariably tend to be one of the "Three R's": regressive, repressive or retaliatory. It is all about maintaining their perceived economic or political advantage. They play on the dark side of the street.

Goo-Goos have been particularly active in Arizona because our Constitution provides for citizen initiatives. Of course, most initiatives are not the result of citizen initiative but are sponsored by special interest groups backed by think tanks and financed either by a wealthy individual or a political action committee. Probably not what Arizona's progressive Founding Fathers intended.

Goo-Goos have successfully enacted several measures over the years that on their face probably sounded like a good idea to most voters at the time, but in practice have proven to have had seriously negative consequences for this state over time. Single-minded crusaders never consider the law of unintended consequences. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions" so they say.

There are several Goo-Goo measures that I take special exception to and would like to see repealed. If any of you have the time and lots of money burning a hole in your pocket, you can file your paperwork with the Secretary of State for an initiative (the only way to repeal a previous initiative) and begin collecting signatures.

My list of Goo-Goos Gone Bad

1. Prop. 108 (1992). This measure amended the Constitution to require a two-thirds super majority vote of the legislature to pass any increase in taxation levels or a reduction in credits and exemptions. This measure is kryptonite to any Goo-Goos who believe in fiscal responsibility and sane government. This measure permits a small number of anti-tax zealots – 21 members of the House and only 11 members of the Senate – to engage in a "tyranny of the minority" by obstructing any adjustments to tax rates, tax exemptions and tax credits by a simple majority vote of each chamber. Once the legislature has approved a tax cut, for example, the 10% reduction in income taxes over two years approved by the legislature in 2006 and signed by Governor Napolitano, it is virtually impossible to raise tax rates later when economic conditions warrant and it is the fiscally prudent and responsible thing to do. The anti-tax zealots have tied one hand of the legislature behind its back. The legislature cannot increase tax revenues to meet the state's expenditures even when a majority of both chambers agree that it is the fiscally prudent and responsible thing to do because they can be held hostage by a tyranny of the minority. This is a highly undemocratic provision and should be repealed.

2. Prop. 107 (1992). This measure amended the Constitution to enact term limits on various offices. The federal courts struck down the limitations on federal offices as unconstitutional (too bad, John McCain would have been history a long time ago). Term limits only apply to statewide offices and legislative offices. A handful of legislators have been creative in getting around term limits by spending eight years in the house, then eight years in the senate, and then back to the house again. You know who you are. Hey, their constituents keep electing them, which makes my point that term limits was a really dumb idea. The unintended consequences of this measure has been a loss of institutional knowledge and memory among legislators, i.e., knowing how to get things done, and a concentration of political power in the hands of legislative staff and lobbyists. I believe this was why Sen. Tim Bee fired long-term senate staff when he became Senate president. Unelected and unaccountable staff wielded far too much power. And lobbyists are in control of your Arizona legislature, don't let anyone tell you differently. This is a failed experiment in good government that should be repealed.

3. Prop. 200 (1998). This measure established the Citizens Clean Elections Commission and provided for public financing to candidates in statewide or legislative elections. Public financing of campaigns was intended to reduce the influence of special interest money in elections. The unintended consequences of this measure was to empower fringe candidates on the extremes of their parties, which has led to a polarization of politics. I agree with Jim Nintzel from the Tucson Weekly who has long argued that Clean Elections only served to empower far-right candidates from the Christian Right who now had access to public money to challenge more moderate business oriented Republicans in GOP primaries in heavily GOP voter registration districts. The winner of the primary is the general election winner. These fringe candidates could never have mounted a credible primary campaign if they had to run a traditional campaign raising funds from GOP businessmen. The result has been a polarization of politics within the GOP, with the party moving to the far right. There are also exceptions in the law permitting "independent expenditures," which in recent years have been committees financed directly by the political parties. The exceptions have swallowed the rule and rendered the law useless. Moreover, Judge Roslyn Silver recently struck down the matching funds provision in litigation before her court, which puts any Clean Elections candidate at the mercy of the independent expenditure committees who have no spending limitations. This is a failed experiment in good government that should be repealed.

4. Prop. 106 (2000). This measure amended the Constitution to establish the Citizen's Independent Redistricting Commission to draw legislative and congressional district boundaries. Goo-Goos argued that taking redistrciting away from the legislature would lead to fairer and more competitive districts. The problem with their theory is that the commission members are not accountable to the public for their decisions as are legislators who must stand for election. The legislature's actions can always be reversed by legislation. But the Redistricting Commission must be sued in court. The Redistricting Commission produced a district map that has been the subject of litigation in court for over seven years now. This measure turned out to be nothing more than a full employment bill for the law firms representing the parties to this litigation. And the court decisions interpreting this provision have put the interest of more competitive districts at the end of the list of factors to be considered by the the Redistricting Commission. That worked out well. This is another failed experiment in good government that should be repealed.

In conclusion, voters should be much more wary and judicious about amending the Arizona Constitution. If it can't be done through legislation, then don't do it. The Constitution was intended to be an outline not a novel.