The Arizona Secretary of State’s office posts that three citizens initiative campaigns filed their petitions before the deadline yesterday.
Howard Fischer reports, Arizona ballot likely to include measures on elections, medical debt:
Arizona voters are likely to get a chance to vote in November to bring an end to political commercials by anonymous special interest groups, reverse changes in election laws approved by Republican legislators, and provide new protections for themselves against medical and other debt.
Backers of three separate measures each turned in more than the minimum 237,645 valid signatures needed to put the issues to voters.
State officials now have 20 days, exclusive of weekends and holidays, to do their initial processing of petition sheets, with counties then having another 15 business days to review a random sample of signatures to determine what percentage are qualified.
Each measure is likely to face legal challenges from foes. But each, if approved, would make immediate and visible changes in Arizona.
Election laws
The proposal by Arizonans for Free and Fair Elections contains a laundry list of [progressive] changes in state election laws. [We could finally be like many other states with 21st Century election laws.]
Some are new ideas for Arizona, such as allowing people to register and vote at the same time, including on Election Day. [Same day voter registration.] Also, people would be registered to vote automatically when they get an Arizona driver’s license unless they opted out.[Universal voter registration.]
It would ensure that votes are counted no matter what precinct they are cast in, as long as it is within the same county. [Ending what’s colloquially known as “right church, wrong pew” voter suppression.]
The proposal also would reinstate the state’s permanent early voting list, which automatically provides mail-in ballots for anyone who opts in. [PEVL.]
Lawmakers voted to repeal that last year, replacing it with a system that stops the early ballots from coming for those who do not use them for at least two election cycles, though they still would be able to vote in person. Backers of the initiative said that is not fair for those who may not be regular voters, turning out only when there are issues or candidates on the ballot of interest.
Also gone would be a 2021 law that makes it a crime to take someone else’s voted early ballot to a polling place unless that person is a relative, member of the same household or a caretaker. [The term “ballot harvesting” is typically used by those critical of ballot collection, especially by conservatives and MAGA/QAnon groups opposed to mail-in voting.]
And the initiative would roll back decisions by lawmakers to increase the amount of money that individuals and political action committees can give to candidates, a figure currently set at $6,250. It would be capped at $1,000 for local and legislative candidates and $2,500 for statewide races.
For those who do like to vote in person, the initiative demands that election officials do what they can to keep waiting times in lines at polling places to no more than 30 minutes, with permission for those who are not election officials to provide food, nonalcoholic beverages, and the use of umbrellas and chairs to make people comfortable as long as those offers are not tied to how someone votes. [Prohibiting against Georgia’s Jim Crow 2.0 GQP voter suppression law from coming to Arizona. It’s now illegal in Georgia to give food and water to voters in line.]
There’s also a provision designed to keep lawmakers from tinkering with presidential electors. It says any changes in selection of electors has to be made by Jan. 1 of the election year, precluding last-minute changes pushed through in November or December by legislators unhappy with the popular vote.
NOT strong enough. It should guarantee that present state law which provides that the will of he voters determines the slate of presidential electors by a popular vote of the citizens shall remain sacrosanct. This potentially allows for the “Independent State Legislature” doctrine that Coup Plotter lawyer John Eastman tried in 2020, and which the radical Republican U.S. Supreme Court is taking up this fall to reverse the popular will of the voters and for partisan legislators to select a slate of presidential electors for the losing candidate, i.e., to steal an election.
Organizers said they turned in petitions with 475,290 signatures.
Potentially the most controversial (sic) provision is the same-day voter registration.
Controversial? “As of 2022, 21 states and Washington, D.C., have implemented same-day registration (SDR), which allows any qualified resident of the state to register to vote and cast a ballot at the same time. Of those states, 19 and Washington, D.C., offer Election Day registration, which means voters can both register and vote on Election Day. Montana and North Carolina are the two states that make same-day registration possible for a portion of the early voting period, but not on Election Day.” See, Same Day Voter Registration.
But Maria Teresa Mabry, a co-executive director of the Arizona Democracy Resource Center, said it’s highly doubtful that someone from another state would take the time to come to Arizona, spend the money to rent an apartment to get an address, register, cast a ballot and then leave.
If anyone is that determined to influence the outcome of an Arizona election, they could do that now, said Jim Barton, who is working with the organization. The only difference is that person would have to move here 29 days ahead of the election.
Roy Tatum, political director of Our Voice, Our Vote, one of the groups involved in the petition drive, said approval would go a long way toward empowering individuals.
“We know what the abuse of power looks like,’’ he said.
Much of the funding behind the measure comes from Living United for Change in Arizona, a local group that has been responsible for other changes in state law, like a minimum wage higher than the $7.25 federal figure.
‘Dark money’
Also up for voter approval is a measure designed to put an end to “dark money’’ in political races.
Campaign finance laws require public disclosure of who is spending money to influence candidate elections and ballot measures. But state lawmakers crafted an exception for “social welfare’’ organizations, which are free to hide the names of their donors.
“I believe that Arizonans should have the right to know who’s paying for the advertisements that they get bombarded with in every election,’’ said former Attorney General Terry Goddard, who has spearheaded the campaign.
He said the proof is as plain as what people are seeing in the 2022 election in TV ads for candidates, many of them listed solely as being paid for by organizations with names that provide no clue as to who actually is providing the financing.
“Right now in Arizona there are more ‘dark money’ ads, more anonymous ads being run than in any other state on a percentage of our total advertising,’’ Goddard said. “And that’s just wrong.’’
The initiative would “shine a very bright light on who it is that’s trying to persuade us, one way or the other, to vote,” he said.
Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson, who also has been involved in the effort, said he has no problem with people being able to donate as much as they want to campaigns. The key, he said, is doing that in a way so people know who they are.
“If you’re not willing to be known, there are one of two problems,’’ Johnson said. “Either the cause that you’re advocating is immoral or you are a coward — or both.’’
The initiative seeks to require the disclosure of true sources of donations of more than $5,000 on political campaigns. Goddard said the money would have to be traced back to the original source and could not be “laundered’’ through a series of groups.
Retired business owner Bob Betrand, co-chairman of the campaign, said Arizonans got a close look at how the process works in 2014 when several groups, including the Arizona Free Enterprise Club and Save Our Future Now, spent millions to secure the election of Republicans Tom Forese and Doug Little to the Arizona Corporation Commission. The groups refused to disclose the source of those dollars, citing their status as “social welfare’’ organizations.
It took until 2019 for Arizona Public Service, the state’s largest electric utility, to divulge it was the source of $10.7 million to elect the two regulators.
“They had a real conflict of interest, and a real indebtedness to APS, but nobody knew that,’’ Bertrand said. “Had they known that, it’s distinctly possible the outcome (of the 2014 election) would have been very different.’’
This is actually the third try. [So “third time is the charm,” depending on the court challenge from “dark money” groups and their lickspittle lackeys in the Arizona GQP.]
A similar 2018 initiative effort failed after foes mounted a court challenge to some of the 285,000 signatures collected, many by paid circulators. Then, a 2020 measure using only volunteers faltered during the COVID-19 pandemic which included, for a period of time, a stay-at-home order.
Goddard said the more than 393,000 signatures submitted Thursday should provide a sufficient margin to withstand challenges.
Bankruptcy, medical debt
Backers of an initiative to make changes in bankruptcy and other laws turned in about 472,000 signatures Thursday to put a series of changes in state law on the November ballot.
The measure, if approved, would increase the amount of equity someone could have in a home to keep it from being seized in bankruptcy to $400,000, up from $250,000. It also would mandate annual cost-of-living increases in that figure.
Current law also allows individuals to keep up to $6,000 in household furniture, appliances and consumer electronics. That would increase to $15,000, also with inflation adjustments.
The protected equity in a motor vehicle would go from $6,000 to $15,000 for most individuals, with the figure going from $12,000 to $25,000 for any debtor or family member with a physical disability.
Separately, the measure would cap the amount of someone’s wages that could be attached.
Another provision would specifically limit the amount of annual interest that could be charged on medical debt to no more than 3%.
“Each one of us is only one major illness away from medical debt,’’ said the Rev. Dr. Bill Lyons, of the Southwest Conference of the United Church of Christ.
“More than two thirds of all bankruptcies are tied to medical debt from health-care costs, ‘’ he said at a press conference Thursday when the petitions were submitted to the Secretary of State’s Office. “And 18% of Arizonans have medical bills that are past due.’’ [In paticular, after more than two years of the Coronavirus pandemic.]
Campaign spokesman Rodd McLeod brushed aside questions about the fact that the sponsoring organization, Healthcare Rising Arizona, is financed largely by a California branch of the Service Employees International Union.
He said there are 1,309 “contributing members’’ in Arizona who, along with volunteers, gathered about 36,000 signatures. But most of the signatures submitted came from paid circulators.
So? Not everyone can get the Arizona legislature to refer their ballot measure to the ballot without incurring the time and expense of having to gather petition signatures.
Our MAGA/QAnon Arizona GQP legislature referred eight ballot measures to the ballot in November.
From Ballotpedia:
The Arizona In-State Tuition for Non-Citizen Residents Measure (2022) is from State Sen. Paul Boyer (R-20), who introduced the ballot measure into the Arizona State Legislature in 2021. On March 4, 2021, the Arizona State Senate voted 17-13 to pass the proposal. Senate Democrats and three Republicans supported putting the measure on the ballot. The remaining 13 Republicans opposed the measure. The Arizona House of Representatives voted 33-27 to approve the measure for the ballot on May 10, 2021. House Democrats, along with four Republicans, supported putting the measure on the ballot. The remaining 27 Republicans opposed the measure.
The ballot measure would repeal provisions of Proposition 300, which voters approved in 2006. Proposition 300 provided that non-citizens could not receive certain state-subsidized services, benefits, or financial aid or in-state tuition rates.
The Arizona Sales Tax for Fire District Funding Measure (2022) would enact a 0.1% sales tax for 20 years — January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2042 — and deposit revenue from the tax into a Fire District Safety Fund. The Arizona State Treasurer would be required to distribute revenue from the Fire District Safety Fund to individual fire districts at the end of each month.
These are the only legislatively referred ballot measures you should support. Everything else referred by the MAGA/QAnon Arizona GQP legislature to the ballot is a hard NO. (That damn Lieutenant Governor proposal has already been soundly rejected by voters twice before.)
You should also support all three of the citizens initiatives (above), if they make it to the ballot.
Discover more from Blog for Arizona
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Laurie Roberts writes, “Want to know why the Arizona Legislature is so afraid of Arizona voters? This is why”, https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/laurieroberts/2022/07/08/arizona-legislature-afraid-voters-ballot-measures-dark-money-elections/10015773002/
Want to know why Arizona’s political leaders are so afraid of Arizona’s voters?
Look no further than the initiatives that appear headed to the Nov. 8 ballot. (I say “appear” because the powers-that-be will spend the next month or two trying to knock them off.)
Look specifically at the proposals to undo some of the Legislature’s election “reforms” – the ones aimed at making it tougher for certain people to vote – and to shine a light on sources of campaign funding that the power set would just as soon leave in the dark.
Hundreds of thousands of people signed petitions, exercising their constitutional right to go around the Legislature and make laws – or overturn them – at the ballot box.
This is Arizona, fighting back, and the Republicans who control this state don’t much like it. (I’ll tell you what they plan to do about it in a minute.)
Consider the Voters’ Right to Know Act
Every election year, millions upon millions of dollars come flooding into the state to promote or attack various candidates and causes.
These groups have illuminating names like People for a Better Arizona or Citizens for Good Government. Names that tell you absolutely nothing about who they really are or why they really want you to vote a certain way.
For a decade, state leaders have stood by and allowed “dark money” to run like a river, proclaiming that fat-cats have a First Amendment right to secretly fund political campaigns. In fact, Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature passed laws to allow even more anonymous money to flow forth in an effort to persuade us to vote a certain way.
Ever wonder how Arizona Public Service got a $95 million rate hike rubber stamped by a friendly Corporation Commission? Or why Gov. Doug Ducey and the Legislature are so anxious to fund private prisons while state prison beds go unoccupied?
Ever wonder why certain people were given exclusive rights to run the sports book operations that are now depositing hundreds of millions of dollars into their pockets?
Nearly 400,000 voters signed petitions to put the Voters’ Right to Know Act on the November ballot.
Assuming the dark money crowd can’t find a court to toss it off the ballot (again), voters this fall will decide whether people and corporations who spend big money to try to buy this state ought to have to tell us who they are.
Consider the Arizona Fair Elections Act
This one proposes more than four dozen changes to election law – some of them aimed at broadening voter access and others to overturn recently enacted laws designed to make it more difficult to vote. Or to block future efforts to undermine our vote.
Among other things, this proposal would mandate automatic voter registration for adults who get a driver’s license and allow for same-day voter registration at the polls.
It would expand public funding of candidates and slash private contributions.
It would undo legislative “reforms” designed to make it harder for citizen initiatives to qualify for the ballot and easier for courts to knock them off.
No longer would occasional voters have to jump through added hoops to get early ballots, as the Legislature required when they eliminated the Permanent Early Voting List.
No longer could legislators plot to overthrow the results of presidential elections they don’t like or order election audits beyond those already required by law.
Or create new voter ID requirements for early ballots.
I don’t know if it’ll pass, given that it’s an all-or-nothing proposition. But it’s worth noting that a whopping 475,290 voters signed a petition to put it on the ballot.
That’s twice what is needed to put this to a public vote.
Would you really vote to limit your own power?
That’s something for the Republicans who run this state to think about as they go about representing only a third of the state’s voters and to heck with everybody else.
Or they can just do what they usually do and work on a plan to make it more difficult for voters to go around them. Again, that is.
Every year, the Legislature devises new and improved ways to weaken our constitutional right to make laws at the ballot box. This year, they wanted to require a 60% supermajority to pass citizen-initiated laws rather than the simple majority that’s been required for the last 110 years.
Only there’s a problem. They couldn’t do it on their own because our power to initiate laws is derived from the state constitution and only voters can change that. So they passed a bill – with a bare majority of the Legislature – and put it on the ballot.
Put another way: They’re now asking us to vote to limit our own power – a power given us by the founding fathers of this state.
Republican legislators say the 60% threshold is needed because initiatives, once passed, are now voter protected and thus difficult to change if there’s a problem. They’ve got a point, one that should perhaps prompt them to begin acting in the best interests of the entire state, thus eliminating the need for frustrated voters to resort to such initiatives.
Still, it’s an idea worthy of consideration – right after our leaders apply the same 60% requirement to themselves.
Until then, who do they think they’re kidding?