The Arizona Legislature: Tackling the really important issues

Posted by AzBlueMeanie:

Every year our Arizona legislature wastes an ungodly amount of time on trivial bills that matter only to a lobbyist, or a small number of people, or an individual who has the ear of a legislator. Committee chairmen have the ability to make these bills disappear, but sometimes they are the sponsors, or they owe a legislator a favor, or they owe a lobbyist for those sweet campaign contributions.

Just this week the legislature has wasted time on this Arizona bill takes aim at airbrushed women in ads:

House Bill 2793, proposed by Rep. Katie Hobbs, D-Phoenix, would require advertisers who alter or enhance a photo to put a disclaimer on that ad alerting customers that "Postproduction techniques were made to alter the appearance in this advertisement. When using this product, similar results may not be achieved."

The bill has little to no chance of success. But Hobbs said that's OK.

"We just wanted to bring it to the table and start a discussion," she said. "We need to bring attention to these body-image issues, especially with young girls. Girls need to know that they don't have to look perfect."

Arizona appears to be the first state in the nation to consider such a bill.

I'll bet it is. I have just one question: Will this bill apply to the heavily retouched air-brushed photo that Jan Brewer has been using since 2010 to make her look 30 years younger? Because that photo is seriously misleading. Embrace your age, Jan.

And there is this bill sponsored by "Fast Eddy" Farnsworth on behalf of a teabagger whiner who wants to engage in electioneering inside her polling location. Arizona bill would allow political apparel at polls:

A state House committee has approved a bill overturning a ban on political apparel and other materials such as buttons and signs within 75 feet of polling places.

State law considers any display of support or opposition for a candidate, ballot proposal or political party to be electioneering, which is prohibited. Civil liberties organizations have complained it violates First Amendment Rights.

And they are what I like to call "wrong."

There are limitations on speech when it infringes upon other fundamental rights, such as voting. For example, you walk into your polling place and sitting there at the table are a half dozen elderly poll workers all decked out in their yellow Gadsden Flag T-shirts or their red Tea Party T-shirts festooned with campaign buttons for their favorite candidates, and you are a Democratic voter in a GOP-friendly district. (The same holds true for Republican voters in Democratic-friendly districts where poll workers are wearing their blue "Obama for America" T-shirts). If you don't see this as voter intimidation, you just don't get it.

This is why Arizona prohibits this kind of thing — it is a form of voter intimidation. Leave it outside! And would you feel confident that your ballot was actually counted under these circumstances? I doubt it.

[The bill] would allow political apparel and also limit the definition of electioneering to verbal speech by a person that aims to persuade someone to vote in a particular manner.

* * *

Karen Osborne, the Maricopa County Elections Director, spoke against the bill and expressed concern that there was nothing in the bill barring election workers from displaying their political views.

The bill advanced by a vote of 6-3, with Republicans in favor. The bill will go before the full House if it passes another committee.

Hmmm, if this bill is enacted as is the Department of Justice Voting Rights Section is going to weigh in on this. Our lawless Tea-Publican legislature just can't help themselves from inviting lawsuits.