I just wrote a letter to the AZ Secretary of State
From the Arizona Daily Star (http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/254179):Official sues: Don't tell voters about same-sex law
PHOENIX - Secretary of State Jan Brewer has gone to court to avoid having to tell Arizona voters that state law already bars same-sex marriage.
In a lawsuit filed Friday, Brewer said the only thing she needs to explain on the ballot is approval of Proposition 102 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
She wants to limit the legally required explanation of the effect of voting "no" on the measure would "have the effect of retaining the current laws regarding marriage."
And she wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Aceto to block efforts by Attorney General Terry Goddard to expand the explanation to say existing laws already include "a statutory ban on same-sex marriage."
Brewer said she believes the measure is clearer without the language Goddard wants. She also said one reason she wants the shorter version is she heard from the group pushing Proposition 102 that it believes mentioning the existing law would confuse voters and cause many to vote against the measure.
Goddard, however, said voters are entitled to know what laws already are on the books.
It's interesting to note that the wording Attorney General Goddard wants to use is exactly the same as the explanations provided in 2006, when Arizona voters defeated that year's Prop 107, and nobody complained about the wording then.
Arizona's election laws are clear on this matter. So I just sent this letter to Secretary of State Brewer.
Dear Ms. Brewer:
I just read in the Arizona Star that you have filed suit to prevent Attorney General Terry Goddard from including an explanation of the effects of a "Yes" or "No" vote on Prop 102.
Perhaps you need a refresher on the election laws of our state:
[begin]
Arizona Revised Statute, 19-125 (Form of ballot, Section D) reads:
"D. There shall be printed on the official ballot immediately below the number of the measure and the official title of each measure a descriptive title containing a summary of the principal provisions of the measure, not to exceed fifty words, which shall be prepared by the secretary of state and approved by the attorney general or the ballot shall comply with subsection E of this section:
"A 'yes' vote shall have the effect of ______________________.
A 'no' vote shall have the effect of _______________________.
"The blank spaces shall be filled with a brief phrase, approved by the attorney general, stating the essential change in the existing law should the measure receive a majority of votes cast in that particular manner. In the case of a referendum, a 'yes' vote shall have the effect of approving the legislative enactment that is being referred. Below the statement of effect of a 'yes' vote and effect of a 'no' vote there shall be printed the corresponding words 'yes' and 'no' and a place for the voter to put a mark as defined in section 16-400 indicating his preference."
[end]
So, in conclusion, (1) the "effects" explanations are required by law, and (2) the Attorney General approves them.
Your lawsuit has no legal merit, and it smacks of desperation. I urge you to withdraw it. The taxpayers don't need the unnecessary expense, it will probably result in additional publicity you don't want, and it really doesn't reflect well on your ability to do your job competently and impartially.
Sincerely,
Dave Hughes
It will be interesting to see what response I get, if any.
PHOENIX - Secretary of State Jan Brewer has gone to court to avoid having to tell Arizona voters that state law already bars same-sex marriage.
In a lawsuit filed Friday, Brewer said the only thing she needs to explain on the ballot is approval of Proposition 102 would amend the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.
She wants to limit the legally required explanation of the effect of voting "no" on the measure would "have the effect of retaining the current laws regarding marriage."
And she wants Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Mark Aceto to block efforts by Attorney General Terry Goddard to expand the explanation to say existing laws already include "a statutory ban on same-sex marriage."
Brewer said she believes the measure is clearer without the language Goddard wants. She also said one reason she wants the shorter version is she heard from the group pushing Proposition 102 that it believes mentioning the existing law would confuse voters and cause many to vote against the measure.
Goddard, however, said voters are entitled to know what laws already are on the books.
It's interesting to note that the wording Attorney General Goddard wants to use is exactly the same as the explanations provided in 2006, when Arizona voters defeated that year's Prop 107, and nobody complained about the wording then.
Arizona's election laws are clear on this matter. So I just sent this letter to Secretary of State Brewer.
Dear Ms. Brewer:
I just read in the Arizona Star that you have filed suit to prevent Attorney General Terry Goddard from including an explanation of the effects of a "Yes" or "No" vote on Prop 102.
Perhaps you need a refresher on the election laws of our state:
[begin]
Arizona Revised Statute, 19-125 (Form of ballot, Section D) reads:
"D. There shall be printed on the official ballot immediately below the number of the measure and the official title of each measure a descriptive title containing a summary of the principal provisions of the measure, not to exceed fifty words, which shall be prepared by the secretary of state and approved by the attorney general or the ballot shall comply with subsection E of this section:
"A 'yes' vote shall have the effect of ______________________.
A 'no' vote shall have the effect of _______________________.
"The blank spaces shall be filled with a brief phrase, approved by the attorney general, stating the essential change in the existing law should the measure receive a majority of votes cast in that particular manner. In the case of a referendum, a 'yes' vote shall have the effect of approving the legislative enactment that is being referred. Below the statement of effect of a 'yes' vote and effect of a 'no' vote there shall be printed the corresponding words 'yes' and 'no' and a place for the voter to put a mark as defined in section 16-400 indicating his preference."
[end]
So, in conclusion, (1) the "effects" explanations are required by law, and (2) the Attorney General approves them.
Your lawsuit has no legal merit, and it smacks of desperation. I urge you to withdraw it. The taxpayers don't need the unnecessary expense, it will probably result in additional publicity you don't want, and it really doesn't reflect well on your ability to do your job competently and impartially.
Sincerely,
Dave Hughes
It will be interesting to see what response I get, if any.