Tea-Publican Tyranny in Arizona: Usurping the Constitutional Power Of ‘We The People’

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

When Arizona became a state in 1912 it was at the height of the Progressive Era. Arizona enacted a model "progressive" state constitution, which included the progressive reforms of citizen's initiative, referendum and recall. "We The People" are a super legislature superior to our elected legislature.

The Arizona Constitution also includes a Declaration of Rights at Article 2. Of particular interest, Article 2, Section 2. Political power; purpose of government:

All political power is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.

The progressive provisions in the Arizona Constitution remain today, and some have been expanded, i.e., Proposition 105 (the Voter Protection Act) amending Article 4, Part 1 of the Arizona Constitution in 1988. The Voter Protection Act prevents the Governor from vetoing any approved measure, and prevents the Legislature from repealing any measure indefinitely. The amendment also requires a 3/4 vote by the Legislature to amend any approved ballot measure which  must further the purpose of such measure. The Legislature also cannot divert any funds allocated for a specific purpose.

Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1, as amended, provides in pertinent part:

1. Legislative authority; initiative and referendum

Section 1. (1) Senate; house of representatives; reservation of power to people. The legislative authority of the state shall be vested in the legislature, consisting of a senate and a house of representatives, but the people reserve the power to propose laws and amendments to the constitution and to enact or reject such laws and amendments at the polls, independently of the legislature; and they also reserve, for use at their own option, the power to approve or reject at the polls any act, or item, section, or part of any act, of the legislature.

* * *

(6) (A) Veto of initiative or referendum. The veto power of the governor shall not extend to an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or to a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

(6) (B) Legislature's power to repeal initiative or referendum. The legislature shall not have the power to repeal an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or to repeal a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon.

(6) (C) Legislature's power to amend initiative or referendum. The legislature shall not have the power to amend an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or to amend a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the amending legislation furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to amend such measure.

(6) (D) Legislature's power to appropriate or divert funds created by initiative or referendum. The legislature shall not have the power to appropriate or divert funds created or allocated to a specific purpose by an initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon, or by a referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon, unless the appropriation or diversion of funds furthers the purposes of such measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to appropriate or divert such funds.

* * *

(14) Reservation of legislative power. This section shall not be construed to deprive the legislature of the right to enact any measure except that the legislature shall not have the power to adopt any measure that supersedes, in whole or in part, any initiative measure approved by a majority of the votes cast thereon or any referendum measure decided by a majority of the votes cast thereon unless the superseding measure furthers the purposes of the initiative or referendum measure and at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the legislature, by a roll call of ayes and nays, vote to supersede such initiative or referendum measure.

So when I read a headline like this today, State downplays voter authority in dispute over Medicaid cutbacks, it grabs my attention:

Attorneys for the state told the Arizona Supreme Court that voters cannot tell the Legislature what to do, at least when it comes to money.

In a somewhat unusual argument, Assistant Attorney General Kevin Ray filed legal papers Tuesday saying it is long settled law that members of one state legislature cannot tell members of future legislatures they have to spend money on certain priorities. And Ray said the 2000 voter initiative [Proposition 204] requiring the state to provide free care for everyone below the federal poverty level — currently about $18,500 a year for a family of three — is just another form of legislation, albeit by voters.

That ballot measure said the expanded program was to be paid for from tobacco tax revenues and Arizona’s share of a nationwide settlement with tobacco companies. But it also said that when those funds run short, the legislature is supposed to supplement it with other available sources.

But Ray said the people, acting as legislators through the initiative, have no more right to mandate that current lawmakers make those dollars available than would legislators who were in office in 2000.

Really?I would refer you back to Article 2, Section 2 above, and Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1 above. In order to make this assault upon Proposition 204 of 2000, the state of Arizona by necessity must also assault the "political power inherent in the people" to legislate by initiative and referendum under Article 4, Part 1 of the Arizona Constitution, as amended by Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1998.

Lawmakers, seeking to save money for the new fiscal year that begins July 1, directed Brewer to find more than $500 million in savings.

She responded by telling AHCCCS, the state’s Medicaid program, to stop enrolling childless adults beginning July 1. Medicaid does not require these individuals be covered.

Parents with incomes above 75 percent of the federal poverty level also would be denied coverage, though their children would not.

Anyone already on AHCCCS would not be affected. But about 150,000 people who are currently eligible will be turned away by the end of June 2012.

Attorneys for public interest law firms filed suit, contending lawmakers cannot ignore the mandates in the 2000 initiative.

The state is not fighting the requirement to use tobacco proceeds to fund AHCCCS. But Ray said voters, even acting as legislators in approving a law at the ballot, cannot force lawmakers in subsequent years to provide cash beyond that.

"We The People" most assuredly can. Again, I would refer you back to Article 2, Section 2 above, and Article 4, Legislative Department, Part 1 above. This is a specious argument to vitiate the "political power inherent in the people" to preserve the policy decisions of "We The People" under Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1988. The state's specious legal argument is precisely why the voters of this state approved Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act, back in 1988.

Should the state succeed in its specious argument, no citizen's initiative or referendum will have any lasting force or effect. It can simply be overruled by legislative or executive fiat, effectively vitiating the constitutional rights of "We The People" to legislate by citizen's initiative and referendum, and rendering "We The People" subservient to our elected representatives, who are supposed to be subservient to us.

The state's position is based upon the unwillingness of our Tea-Publican legislature to raise taxes to produce enough public revenues to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state for each fiscal year, as required by the Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 3. Annual tax; purposes; amount; tax laws; payment of taxes into state treasury:

Section 3. The legislature shall provide by law for an annual tax sufficient, with other sources of revenue, to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state for each fiscal year. And for the purpose of paying the state debt, if there be any, the legislature shall provide for levying an annual tax sufficient to pay the annual interest and the principal of such debt within twenty-five years from the final passage of the law creating the debt.

The Arizona Tea-Publican legislature is violating this provision of the Arizona Constitution and now seeks to vitiate our constitutional rights to legislate by citizens' initiative and referendum so that "We The People" cannot tell them what to do. That's known as tyranny, people.

The crux of the state's fiscal argument is this:

“If the court grants the injunction, the legislature and the governor will need to assume that the anticipated $282,408,600 that would have been saved from the 2011-2012 budget was not saved and will have to find a way to address that additional shortfall in the budget,” Ray said. “The deficit will require balancing, which will undoubtedly require the reduction of agency operating budgets and potential cuts to vital state services, impacting an untold number of citizens.”

Budget cuts are not the only remedy. The Arizona Constitution, Article 9, Section 3 requires that the legislature "shall provide by law for an annual tax sufficient, with other sources of revenue, to defray the necessary ordinary expenses of the state." This the Tea-Publican legislature steadfastly refuses to do, in violation of the Arizona Constitution. Rather than fulfill its constitutional duty, the Tea-Publican legislature now seeks to negate Proposition 204 of 2000, and by necessity, Proposition 105, the Voter Protection Act of 1998, both citizen's initiatives. They are trying to deprive us of our constitutional rights as citizens of Arizona.

Gov. Brewer, in a prepared statement, said current lawmakers should not be constrained.

“At its heart, this legal battle is about fundamental constitutional principles and ensuring that elected officials maintain their authority to make difficult financial decisions for the state of Arizona,” the governor said.

Wrong! "Political power is inherent in the people" and the people possess the constitutional authority to legislate by citizen's initiative and referendum if we so choose, to determine policy choices and financial decisions for ourselves and our posterity. And neither the Governor nor the Legislature possess any constitutional power to supersede our authority or to negate citizen's initiatives or referendums.

Proposition 204 should be enforced by the Court with a directive to the Legislature, pursuant to Article 9, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution, to raise taxes sufficient to defray the expense of this AHCCCS program.