GOP Taliban again rejects the will of the voters

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Constitution and the rule of law are under assault from the GOP Taliban legislature. They view themselves as the law, rules are for others to follow.

For the same reason, the GOP Taliban rejects the will of the voters. Authoritarians reject democracy. They decide what is best for us. We must obey.

The GOP Taliban is again rejecting the will of the voters, this time with respect to AHCCCS health care. GOP 'reinterpretation' would sharply cut free care in AHCCCS:

Republican legislative leaders are planning what could be an end run around voters to scale back the state's program of free health care.

A budget plan now in the works would deny free care to nearly a quarter of all those enrolled in the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, about 310,000 people. What they're looking at is reinterpreting a 2000 voter initiative expanding AHCCCS eligibility to anyone who meets federal poverty guidelines.

[Prop. 204 in 2000 passed 903,134 to 532,317. A competing measure, Prop. 200 also passed 837,557 to 605,094, but was superseded by Prop. 204 which received more votes.]

Rep. John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he doesn't believe voter approval is necessary, given his interpretation of the 2000 initiative.

Rep. Kavanagh is of course full of crap, per usual. The Legislature can amend citizen initiatives only if the amendment furthers the purpose and intent of the initiative — in this case, expanding AHCCCS coverage to the poor. Denying AHCCCS care to 310,000 Arizona citizens is directly contrary to the purpose and intent of Prop. 204. It is unconstitutional and violates the law.

Rep. Kavanagh said that as he reads the initiative, it says the expansion will be funded by tobacco money "and shall be supplemented, as necessary, by any other available sources, including legislative appropriations and federal monies."

"As of now, there are no other available sources," Kavanagh said. "We're broke. We're $3 billion in the hole."

This is the Grover Norquist "drown the baby in the bathtub" theory. Twenty years of GOP tax cuts have reduced the state tax base to the point that it no longer can sustain essential government services. So the Grover Norquist Republicans' only answer is to reduce or to eliminate the government service. They are of course wrong.

The Grover Norquist Republicans reject their constitutional duty under the Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 4, which provides in pertinent part "Whenever the expenses of any fiscal year shall exceed the income, the legislature may provide for levying a tax for the ensuing fiscal year sufficient, with other sources of income, to pay the deficiency, as well as the estimated expenses of the ensuing fiscal year." The Grover Norquist Republicans have rendered inoperative the general authorization for taxation under the Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 12, by engaging in a tyranny of the minority, i.e., the two-thirds super-majority vote required for tax matters under Prop. 108 (1992) now the Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 22.

Senate Minority Leader Jorge Garcia, D-Tucson, said that as he reads the initiative, it requires lawmakers to come up with whatever funding is available to provide free care to all those below the federal poverty level.

Voter permission is required to do otherwise, Garcia said. Otherwise, the state is going to end up in court.

* * *

Garcia said, "The attorneys are going to have a heyday with this." He predicted that if lawmakers approve the change, a judge will block it from taking effect.

Sen. Garcia is absolutely correct in his analysis.

Rep. Kavanagh said the measure was sold to voters on the basis that the tobacco tax would cover the entire extra amount, and the wording was "very deceptive."

[But] the record is … clear, because there were two similar measures on the 2000 ballot.

One would have limited expansion of AHCCCS to only the tobacco funds available. [Prop. 200]

The second, which is the one that became law because it got more votes, referred to the tobacco money but provided for additional funds to cover everyone below the poverty level. [Prop. 204]

"I don't think the voters intended to give this program priority over every other program, including having police on the streets and keeping prisoners in prison," Kavanagh said.

In other words, this GOP Taliban leader knows what is best for you, the will of the voters be damned. Voters understood what they voted for in 2000. The GOP Taliban does not care what you want.

In other measures rejecting the will of the voters, State senators voted Monday to ask voters to dump the Clean Elections system they approved 12 years ago, but without actually killing the program. Ballot may include election funding:

SCR 1009, which now goes to the House, makes no mention of the "Citizens Clean Elections Act." And Jonathan Paton, who resigned from the Senate a week ago to run for Congress, said he deliberately wrote it that way to encourage voters to go along.

That approach drew criticism from Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D-Phoenix.

"I'm not a big fan of Clean Elections," he said. "But let's honestly put it up for a vote by the people of Arizona whether they want to continue this program or not."

Thanks for making my argument Senator Cheuvront. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission was approved by citizen initiative in 1998, Prop. 200, by a vote of 481,963 to 459, 373.

The Senate also voted Monday to ask voters to repeal the limits on the terms of lawmakers. SCR 1007 seeks to overturn a 1992 constitutional change approved by voters which says no person can serve more than eight years in the same legislative post. Senate to ask voters to repeal lawmakers' term limits While I have always been opposed to term limits, Prop. 107 (1992), a citizens initiative, was approved by voters by a vote of 1,026,830 to 356,799. Given the current political climate, I would anticipate a similar overwhelming result to retain term limits. The voters want to throw the bums out!

The Senate also voted Monday to rename the post of "secretary of state" to "lieutenant governor." SCR 1013 leaves untouched the duties of the office which vary from being the state's chief election officer to registering notaries and publishing the administrative register of changes in rules. The measure requires House approval before going to the voters in November.

The Legislature last submitted this proposal to the voters in 1994 as Prop. 100, which was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters 705,766 to 375,336 (because the measure would have allowed the lieutenant governor to serve as "acting governor" during a temporary absence from the state by the governor – a really bad idea – and would have required the governor and lieutenant governor to be from the same political party and run together as a ticket). Hence, just a change of title this time. There is almost a 50-50 chance that the lieutenant governor will succeed to the governorship in recent Arizona history.