Indecent Propositions 2010

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

The Arizona Legislature has referred a number of propositions to the November Ballot. There are also a number of initiatives still circulating petitions which have a July 1 filing deadline.

The measures referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature are indecent propositions. Each of these propositions should be defeated by voters in November. For a good quick summary, see Arizona 2010 ballot measures – Ballotpedia

Three of the propositions are designed to permit the legislature to raid special funds from popular voter-approved programs for use in the general fund ostensibly for the purpose of reducing the state deficit (Warning: should Republicans control the Legislature next January, they will reintroduce corporate welfare tax cuts, reduction of the tax assessment ratio for industrial and commercial property taxes, and repeal of the school equalization property tax. Raiding these funds simply permits shifting funds around within the general fund to pay for these tax cuts which will only exacerbate Arizona's structural tax deficit indefinitely into the future).

The first of these propositions is Arizona First Things First Program Repeal (2010). First Things First is an early childhood development program funded by increased state tobacco taxes, which was approved by voters as Prop. 203 in 2006. The measure would repeal the First Things First program and transfer it's $324 million into the general fund.

The second of these propositions is Arizona Growing Smarter Repeal (2010). The Growing Smarter Act was approved by voters in 1998 to set aside $20 million annually to establish a grant program for the purchase or lease of state trust lands for the purpose of preservation of land from development. The measure proposes to divert $40 million from the Public Conservation Account in the Land Conservation Fund into the general fund.

The third of these propositions is Arizona Land Conservation Fund Transfer (2010). The Arizona Preserve Initiative was enacted into law in 1996. It is designed to encourage the preservation of select parcels of state Trust land in and around urban areas for open space to benefit future generations. The measure proposes to transfer $123.5 million from the land-conservation fund into the general fund.

The 2011 state budget is based upon assumptions that voters will approve the temporary one-cent sales tax increase, Prop. 100, this Tuesday, and that voters will also repeal these popular programs, previously approved by voters, come November. In other words, the 2011 state budget is illusory, it is a sham, and fails to comply with the balanced budget requirement of the Arizona Constitution.

The present Republican-dominated legislature is the first in Arizona history to fail to produce a balanced state budget by the start of the fiscal year on July 1 in both years of this Legislature. Republicans now want the voters to reward their gross incompetence and reckless fiscal mismanagement with a bailout, i.e., authorizing the legislature to raid these voter-protected special funds to produce a balanced budget after Election Day in November (when, God willing, many of them will have been held accountable by the electorate and voted out of office). "No bailouts for Republican fiscal incompetence!"

The next four propositions referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature are purely wingnut conservative hot-button issues. The purpose of referring these propositions to the ballot is to turn out the wingnut base of the Republican Party.

The first of these proposition was an initiative rejected by Arizona voters in 2008, the so-called "freedom of choice" of health care providers. This initiative was the brain-child of Dr. Eric Novak of Glendale. The Arizona Legislature fast-tracked this proposition to the ballot so that Dr. Novak did not have to spend any of his time or money on another costly initiative.

This measure is back again as the Arizona Health Insurance Reform Amendment (2010). It is a constitutional amendment which purports to exclude Arizona from any national health-care system, i.e., "socialized" government run health-care. The good doctor apparently is unfamiliar with the constitutional doctrine of federal preemption which would invalidate this provision. Perhaps supporters of this wingnut proposal would like to demonstrate their commitment by rejecting their Medicare, Medicaid and CHAMP/VA health-care benefits, all "socialized" government run health-care. Any takers? Anyone?

The amendment also provides that individuals have the right to pay for private health insurance policies, a solution in search of a non-existent problem. The state of Arizona has joined other Republican-dominated states to sue the federal government over the Health Care Reform Act of 2010 because it will eventually require healthy young people who do not want to purchase health insurance to participate in the program. This proposition does nothing to address this issue.

The next wingnut measure is the purposefully misleadingly-named Arizona Civil Rights Amendment (2010). This proposition is the brain-child of Ward Connerly, the leading spokesperson for the well-financed, corporate-backed, far-right-wing national campaign to end affirmative action. Who is Ward Connerly? Ward Connerly tried to put this initiative on the ballot in 2008, but his initiative failed to attract enough signatures to qualify for the ballot. The Arizona Legislature fast-tracked this proposition to the ballot so that Ward Connerly did not have to spend any of his time or money on another costly initiative.

After the anti-immigrant legislation and anti-ethnic studies legislation enacted by the legislature this year, the Ward Connerly anti-affirmative action proposition would complete the trifecta of "white privilege" laws favored by wingnut Republicans in the Arizona Legislature.

For the record, Arizona has never had much of an affirmative action policy for University admissions or public contract minority-owned business set-asides. The few affirmative action policies that do exist are mostly federal law, for which this proposition will have no effect. This is yet another solution in search of a non-existent problem. But it riles up the "white privilege" wingnut base of the Republican Party, so what the hey?

The next proposition is the "I hate unions" Arizona Save Our Secret Ballot Amendment (2010). This is more of the wingnut opposition to the Employee Free Choice Act currently sidetracked in Congress, which would permit "card check" certification of a union. Other than the Health Care Reform Act, no other legislative proposal has had so much misinformation and disinformation spread about it. This measure comes courtesy of Sen. Jonathan Paton, currently running for Congress. Leave it to a former lobbyist for the predatory payday loan industry to come up with such a misleadingly-named proposition.

Union organizing generally involves a two-step process. First, enough employees have to sign a card saying that they want union representation to hold an NLRB sanctioned election. Then there is a statutory election period, followed by a "secret ballot" vote either for or against union representation. The "card check" proposal simply would dispense with the need for an NLRB sanctioned election if a majority of employees sign the card saying they want union representation. There would still be an NLRB sanctioned election with a "secret ballot" vote if 60% of employees want it. The "card check" proposal is already dead for this legislative session in Congress so, once again, this is yet another solution in search of a non-existent problem.

The "rationale" behind this proposition is that unions intimidate workers into signing the cards for union representation. This proposition will prevent "union intimidation" by requiring a "secret ballot" in all union elections. "Payday" Paton would have you believe that employers never engage in threats, intimidation and retaliatory employment actions to dissuade employees from voting for a union. Ha! that never happens. This is why these actions are illegal under the National Labor Relations Act. Unfortunately, Republican administrations have rarely enforced the law or fined employers for unlawful intimidation and retaliation.

The next proposition is a sop to the National Rifle Association. Hasn't this Republican-dominated legislature already given the NRA everything on its wish list? The proposition is the Arizona Hunting Amendment (2010), a constitutional amendment to protect the right of citizens to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. "Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife."

Think about this for a moment, folks. The very same people who vehemently deny that there should be a constitutional right to access to health care want to enshrine in the Arizona Constitution the right to hunt and fish. Those are some seriously misguided priorities. And who exactly is proposing to end hunting and fishing? This is yet another solution in search of a non-existent problem. It certainly is not a "fundamental right" that deserves constitutional protection. Get a grip.

Have you noticed the pattern here? The Republicans in the Arizona Legislature fiddled with these unnecessary propositions while the state of Arizona burned as a result of their gross incompetence and reckless fiscal mismanagement.

The final two propositions referred to the ballot are administrative in nature. The first is a proposition previously referred to voters as Prop. 100 in 1994 which was overwhelmingly rejected by voters 705,766 to 375,336. The legislature is again proposing to rename the office of Secretary of State the Lieutenant Governor and to require each political party's nominee for lieutenant governor run as a ticket with the nominee for governor. (What about independents?) During the primary, candidates for governor and lieutenant governor would run individually. The primary winners then would run as a ticket in the general election. Voters would cast a single vote for governor to elect that party's ticket. The effective date of this constitutional change would begin with the term of office beginning in January 2015.

Those of you who have lived in states that use this model know the inherent electoral politics pitfalls. Just look to Illinois this year. It is true that Arizona has experienced a regular succession of Secretaries of State to the governorship in recent decades, but in each case they came from the same political party as the governor they succeeded, with the exceptions of Rose Mofford (D) succeeding the impeached Evan Mecham (R) in 1988 and Jan Brewer (R) succeeding Janet Napolitano (D) in 2009. Arizona's bad experience with the Accidental Governor could cause voters to reconsider their rejection of this proposal back in 1994, but I doubt it.

The final proposition seeks to curtail citizen initiatives by moving up the filing deadline by two months (It is currently July 1). Arizona Signature Filing Amendment (2010). The rationale behind this proposition is that the Secretary of State does not have enough time to verify petition signatures. In 2008, then-Secretary of State Jan Brewer approved two measures to the ballot without having satisfied the two qualified signature formulas under Arizona statutory law. This speaks more to Brewer's mismanagement of the office than a problem with current law. Like any business, you hire temporary staff and extend working hours to get the job done during crunch time. Shortening the time to collect signatures for initiatives will have the intended effect of curtailing citizen initiatives to qualify for the ballot.

If only we could find a way to limit the referral of measures to the ballot by the Legislature. None of these indecent propositions referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature should be approved by voters. This is one case in which "just say no" should apply.