My opinion of the Ballot Proposition back home in Arizona...
I'm looking over the ballot propositions submitted by the Legislature, by citizen referendum and by citizen initiative to see which ones are worth supporting and which ones are worth opposing and their reasons why.
You can read the Ballot Propositions here: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/ballotmeasures.htm
Proposition 106 is on amending the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the state or federal government in interfering with health care choices. This amendment is a direct counter to the Health care bill passed by Congress last year. While I support it, the amendment is over drawn in its language and could have been better stated. And the amendment should have reinforced the 10th Amendment which has considerable application on this issue. I'm on the fence for what vote it would go to as my only hang up is on how long its written.
Proposition 107 is on prohibiting affirmative action in the state. I support this idea but not as a constitutional amendment as its just the wrong forum. The constitution already implies equal protection of the laws and it would be much more beneficial to stress that in all cases where needed. Also this drawn out like 106 before it but its written in such a way to allow flexibility when it comes to receiving federal money. What was the point then?! I'd vote No.
Proposition 108 see below at Proposition 113.
Proposition 109 is an amendment to protect hunting and fishing of wildlife. Its not to long but there's a grievous error in it. The amendment states that the lawmaking powers on the issue belong to the Legislature but MAY delegate them to the Game and Fish Commission. This just further entrenches the inappropriate sub-delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch, while its not "unconstitutional", it does go against the purpose having separation between the branches. I'd vote No solely on that issue.
Proposition 110 is an amendment regarding the use of State Lands and purchasing or transferring lands between the State and private parties. It appears the amendment is entirely to keep Luke Air Force base in operation which is being encroached upon by development. I feel like this is totally unnecessary as an amendment and would vote No on it.
Proposition 111 is an amendment to create the office of Lieutenant Governor while abolishing the office of Secretary of State. Its essentially the same method Utah used to create their Lieutenant Governor position. I'm not particularly keen on this amendment, its not really necessary as the current line of succession has worked without fault. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to merely create the office of Lieutenant Governor by adding along side that of Governor and give responsibilities that are less likely to be politically charged. The new LG position would be in control of the all the same powers as the Secretary of State and the position would still be elected separately from the Governor's position which will lead to political confusion. I'd vote No on that problem created right there and its not necessary if its just a change in title.
Proposition 112 is an amendment to move the submission date for initiative petition ahead by 2 months, currently all initiative petitions are due 4 months before the election. The Secretary of State's office has often complained about not having enough time to verify signatures. However previous attempts at changing this have been defeated before. I'd vote no because verifying signatures is very easy when voter registration forms are held in a database and can be looked up instantaneously.
Proposition 113 is an amendment on the issue of secret ballots for establishing a labor union. Proposition 113 is what Proposition 108 should have been. Proposition 108 was ruled to have been crafted illegally by the legislature, the United Food and Commercial Workers union successfully sued the State for violating the "Single Subject rule". The court ruled that the amendment was crafted to cover two subjects (secret ballot elections for government and secret ballot elections for unionizing) and that the crafting was intentional. However I do not buy that argument. So the legislature tried again and this time wrote the amendment to only focus on elections for employee representation votes. I'd vote Yes because there is no need to change the rules for labor representation that already exist and this is intended to counter the threat by the Obama administration to make it easier for unions to form. I should also point out that this is another 10th amendment issue and the Legislature in its belief says that repealing the provision establishing unions via secret ballot would cause serious economic problems.
Its kinda amazing that there are no constitutional amendments via initiative this election. All of those above were submitted by the Legislature as either they were ahead of the electorate on getting the issues on the ballot first or the initiative amendments by citizens haven't faired well in collecting their signatures.
Proposition 203 is a citizens statutory initiative on the issue of legalizing medical marijuana. This is the third or fourth attempt to pass this type of law in Arizona. The previous attempts had at least one pass but was never implemented because of interference by the Federal government. Supposedly in that instance the Federal government "had" jurisdiction over the issue. I should point out that the delegated powers of the Federal government are very limited and are easily spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (as discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm) I'd vote Yes on this but would prefer for it legalize the possession of Marijuana. However there is a culture in the Federal government that they can make us good people by making marijuana and other drugs illegal. The drug war along the border is entirely a revisit of alcohol prohibition during World War I, especially since the money involved is worth all the risks to those operating their smuggling operations.
Proposition 301 is a statutory referendum by the Legislature (its required under the Constitution as the law was originally passed as a referendum/initiative in a previous election) on the topic of the state's Land Conservation Fund. The sort text merely allows the money held in that account to be moved to the General Fund. I think this should be allowed and would vote Yes on the fact that hamstringing where money goes is what created the problems in California that has made it a nightmare for those elected to run the Government effectively and have to create new taxes somewhere else to cover shortfalls in the general fund. I also do not believe any government funds should ever run perpetual surpluses and if the money isn't being spent on its purpose, it should either be refunded to the people or transfered to the general fund.
Proposition 302 is a statutory referendum to repeal First Things First program. I posted about this two weeks ago (http://keoniphoenix.livejournal.com/143039.html) on the issue in more detail. The program was created in the 2006 election created a special fund that collected a sin tax on tobacco products. The problem is that the fund went to a specific account controlled by a group of appointees who were charged to spend the money on various children's educational and medical purposes. The problem became clear right after Arizona began having serious budget problems that the money being collected wasn't being used. In fact less than 10% of the money was collected was spent in the first year. Also the people in charge of spending the money were spending on their political friends at the detriment of many other groups that sought it. This is not a very appropriate situation as it fosters corruption and wasteful spending. I would vote YES on repealing First Things First for its serious problems with the law and the program behind it.
These are my brief opinions on what's up for vote in Arizona. My standards have become rather strict since I base most of what I think is appropriate with law and government on these principles posted on Constitution.org:
Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties (http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm),
Declaration of Constitutional Principles (http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm), and
Principles of Constitutional Construction (http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm)
To those who are in Arizona, I hope that you might understand my reasonings behind my approval or disapproval for these ballot propositions and possibly vote along the same lines. It might be hard to understand all the issues when they're painted differently in the media and on campaign ads but I have made an attempt to look at them differently.
-- John O.
You can read the Ballot Propositions here: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/ballotmeasures.htm
Proposition 106 is on amending the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the state or federal government in interfering with health care choices. This amendment is a direct counter to the Health care bill passed by Congress last year. While I support it, the amendment is over drawn in its language and could have been better stated. And the amendment should have reinforced the 10th Amendment which has considerable application on this issue. I'm on the fence for what vote it would go to as my only hang up is on how long its written.
Proposition 107 is on prohibiting affirmative action in the state. I support this idea but not as a constitutional amendment as its just the wrong forum. The constitution already implies equal protection of the laws and it would be much more beneficial to stress that in all cases where needed. Also this drawn out like 106 before it but its written in such a way to allow flexibility when it comes to receiving federal money. What was the point then?! I'd vote No.
Proposition 108 see below at Proposition 113.
Proposition 109 is an amendment to protect hunting and fishing of wildlife. Its not to long but there's a grievous error in it. The amendment states that the lawmaking powers on the issue belong to the Legislature but MAY delegate them to the Game and Fish Commission. This just further entrenches the inappropriate sub-delegation of legislative powers to the executive branch, while its not "unconstitutional", it does go against the purpose having separation between the branches. I'd vote No solely on that issue.
Proposition 110 is an amendment regarding the use of State Lands and purchasing or transferring lands between the State and private parties. It appears the amendment is entirely to keep Luke Air Force base in operation which is being encroached upon by development. I feel like this is totally unnecessary as an amendment and would vote No on it.
Proposition 111 is an amendment to create the office of Lieutenant Governor while abolishing the office of Secretary of State. Its essentially the same method Utah used to create their Lieutenant Governor position. I'm not particularly keen on this amendment, its not really necessary as the current line of succession has worked without fault. It would be more appropriate in my opinion to merely create the office of Lieutenant Governor by adding along side that of Governor and give responsibilities that are less likely to be politically charged. The new LG position would be in control of the all the same powers as the Secretary of State and the position would still be elected separately from the Governor's position which will lead to political confusion. I'd vote No on that problem created right there and its not necessary if its just a change in title.
Proposition 112 is an amendment to move the submission date for initiative petition ahead by 2 months, currently all initiative petitions are due 4 months before the election. The Secretary of State's office has often complained about not having enough time to verify signatures. However previous attempts at changing this have been defeated before. I'd vote no because verifying signatures is very easy when voter registration forms are held in a database and can be looked up instantaneously.
Proposition 113 is an amendment on the issue of secret ballots for establishing a labor union. Proposition 113 is what Proposition 108 should have been. Proposition 108 was ruled to have been crafted illegally by the legislature, the United Food and Commercial Workers union successfully sued the State for violating the "Single Subject rule". The court ruled that the amendment was crafted to cover two subjects (secret ballot elections for government and secret ballot elections for unionizing) and that the crafting was intentional. However I do not buy that argument. So the legislature tried again and this time wrote the amendment to only focus on elections for employee representation votes. I'd vote Yes because there is no need to change the rules for labor representation that already exist and this is intended to counter the threat by the Obama administration to make it easier for unions to form. I should also point out that this is another 10th amendment issue and the Legislature in its belief says that repealing the provision establishing unions via secret ballot would cause serious economic problems.
Its kinda amazing that there are no constitutional amendments via initiative this election. All of those above were submitted by the Legislature as either they were ahead of the electorate on getting the issues on the ballot first or the initiative amendments by citizens haven't faired well in collecting their signatures.
Proposition 203 is a citizens statutory initiative on the issue of legalizing medical marijuana. This is the third or fourth attempt to pass this type of law in Arizona. The previous attempts had at least one pass but was never implemented because of interference by the Federal government. Supposedly in that instance the Federal government "had" jurisdiction over the issue. I should point out that the delegated powers of the Federal government are very limited and are easily spelled out in Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution (as discussed here: http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm) I'd vote Yes on this but would prefer for it legalize the possession of Marijuana. However there is a culture in the Federal government that they can make us good people by making marijuana and other drugs illegal. The drug war along the border is entirely a revisit of alcohol prohibition during World War I, especially since the money involved is worth all the risks to those operating their smuggling operations.
Proposition 301 is a statutory referendum by the Legislature (its required under the Constitution as the law was originally passed as a referendum/initiative in a previous election) on the topic of the state's Land Conservation Fund. The sort text merely allows the money held in that account to be moved to the General Fund. I think this should be allowed and would vote Yes on the fact that hamstringing where money goes is what created the problems in California that has made it a nightmare for those elected to run the Government effectively and have to create new taxes somewhere else to cover shortfalls in the general fund. I also do not believe any government funds should ever run perpetual surpluses and if the money isn't being spent on its purpose, it should either be refunded to the people or transfered to the general fund.
Proposition 302 is a statutory referendum to repeal First Things First program. I posted about this two weeks ago (http://keoniphoenix.livejournal.com/143039.html) on the issue in more detail. The program was created in the 2006 election created a special fund that collected a sin tax on tobacco products. The problem is that the fund went to a specific account controlled by a group of appointees who were charged to spend the money on various children's educational and medical purposes. The problem became clear right after Arizona began having serious budget problems that the money being collected wasn't being used. In fact less than 10% of the money was collected was spent in the first year. Also the people in charge of spending the money were spending on their political friends at the detriment of many other groups that sought it. This is not a very appropriate situation as it fosters corruption and wasteful spending. I would vote YES on repealing First Things First for its serious problems with the law and the program behind it.
These are my brief opinions on what's up for vote in Arizona. My standards have become rather strict since I base most of what I think is appropriate with law and government on these principles posted on Constitution.org:
Constitutional Rights, Powers and Duties (http://www.constitution.org/powright.htm),
Declaration of Constitutional Principles (http://www.constitution.org/consprin.htm), and
Principles of Constitutional Construction (http://www.constitution.org/cons/prin_cons.htm)
To those who are in Arizona, I hope that you might understand my reasonings behind my approval or disapproval for these ballot propositions and possibly vote along the same lines. It might be hard to understand all the issues when they're painted differently in the media and on campaign ads but I have made an attempt to look at them differently.
-- John O.