Here is a video clip from this morning featuring former Congressman, JD Hayworth advocating for the TEA Party position. The clip was called “Viewer Outrage: Can the TEA Party Fix the Economy?” Watch as JD runs circles around his leftist opponent, David Callahan.
JD Hayworth on CNBC’s “Viewer Outrage”
September 21, 2010 By 10 Comments
Cities can boost business with more freedom
September 21, 2010 By 3 Comments
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
Despite the struggling economy, many local governments continue to make it harder for businesses to survive. Just as Maricopa County’s “pool police” have decided to kick the distressed hotel industry while it’s down, the City of Phoenix has lowered the boom on real estate development businesses by raising fees for building permits, plan review, and other development services by 27 percent. These counterproductive practices underscore that reforming how government regulates business is crucial to any revival of Arizona communities.
Instead of hitting real estate development with higher permitting fees, Arizona cities should waive such fees for a while. Another positive step would be to adopt new zoning rules that allow a larger variety of uses in empty industrial and commercial districts without special approval from city hall. Mayor Curt Pringle adopted these policies in Anaheim, Calif., after he was elected in 2002, and hundreds of millions of dollars of new development followed.
Likewise, former Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith ended needless regulation and generated tens of millions of dollars in new economic activity by applying four basic principles: (1) the cost of a regulation should be no greater than the value of the benefit created for the community; (2) regulations must be written to ensure the imposition of the minimum possible constraints upon the community; (3) regulations must be simple, fair and enforceable; and (4) local regulations should not exceed federal and state standards unless there is a compelling and uniquely local reason.
If Arizona local governments are serious about pulling communities out of the Great Recession, they need to reassess policies and do away with those that impede business, job creation and freedom.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Prop 203 is NOT what the Marijuana Policy Project wants you to think it is!
September 20, 2010 By 52 Comments
Prop 203 is NOT what the Marijuana Policy Project wants you to think it is!
The Marijuana Policy Project, a national pro-drug lobby, spends millions of dollars to persuade voters to falsely believe that “medical” marijuana initiatives like Prop 203 allow only those with life-threatening medical conditions to use marijuana. Don’t be fooled! The Marijuana Policy Project’s advertising campaign is completely dishonest.
Marijuana is NOT good medicine!
The American Medical Association, American Cancer Society, American Glaucoma
Society, and National Multiple Sclerosis Society all have rejected marijuana as medicine. Based on scientific research, these top medical societies concluded that marijuana’s many health risks preclude its use, especially when there are safer medications that work as well or better. An FDA-approved marijuana extract, Marinol, is one of those medications. The Marijuana Policy Project wants marijuana, not medicine.
Up to 98% of the people getting “medical” marijuana will have
NO SERIOUS ILLNESS!
In “medical” marijuana states, a few unscrupulous doctors (there is no requirement that a “doctor” be an M.D.) recommend almost all the marijuana, handing out cards to anyone with $150. In San Diego, three-fourths of all “medical” marijuana patients are under age 40 and 12 percent are teenagers. Only 2% have HIV, cancer or glaucoma — the illnesses Prop 203 is supposedly for. The Marijuana Policy Project is just using people with cancer to play on our sympathies.
The very large amounts of marijuana that will be available suggest
DRUG TRAFFICKING, not medicine!
Marijuana cardholders can purchase 2.5 ounces (approximately 200 joints) from a dispensary every two weeks or grow 12 plants (yielding approximately 36 pounds per year) if they don’t live near a dispensary. Caregivers can have five times those amounts! One person can’t consume the amounts allowed, so what can be expected to happen to the excess? And, nothing in Prop 203 prevents a cardholder from buying marijuana from sources other than dispensaries.
Marijuana users will make life MORE DANGEROUS and MORE COSTLY
for the rest of Arizonans!
One study found regular marijuana-smokers 9.5 times more likely to be in serious or fatal car accidents. In Montana, deadly car crashes went up 25% after “medical” marijuana became law. Since passing “medical” marijuana laws, marijuana-related fatal car accidents in California have doubled!
States with “medical” marijuana laws have the highest rates of teen drug use in the nation. Research shows that teens who smoke marijuana regularly have trouble learning, get worse grades, are less likely to finish school, and as adults, earn less money. Increased availability and false claims by pro-drug advocates that marijuana is harmless (and even good medicine) can be blamed for increased teen use. Prop 203 even specifically allows children (with parental permission) to get marijuana cards. No age limit! In Montana, the youngest marijuana cardholder is two years old!
Dispensaries and “indoor grows” are CRIME MAGNETS
and will NOT be subject to meaningful regulation!
Prop 203 gives the Department of Health Services responsibility for issuing marijuana cards to “patients” and “caregivers” and licenses to “dispensaries,” to anyone who meets basic requirements. So if someone has a marijuana recommendation for a hangnail, DHS must give him a card. And Prop 203 allows criminals, including felons, to be caregivers and dispensary owners.
State officials can’t inspect dispensaries unless prior warning is given, and they can’t inspect the marijuana itself. In contrast, State officials can inspect a restaurant and the food itself without warning of any kind! Although patients can grow their own marijuana if they live more than 25 miles from a dispensary, there are no provisions for inspection of these “indoor grows.”
In other “medical” marijuana states, dispensaries and “indoor grows” have brought gang-related activities, drug trafficking, assaults, burglaries, murders, and other crimes to neighborhoods. The Drug Enforcement Agency warns that large-scale drug trafficking “hides behind” laws like Prop 203 in other states. Sheriff Baca of Los Angeles recently said that as few as 3% of dispensaries are legitimate. The rest are criminal enterprises.
Oh, and don’t get comfortable that a dispensary won’t be in your neighborhood. The Marijuana Policy Project included a specific provision in Prop 203 to allow delivery to your neighbor’s door!
Marijuana users will be EXEMPT FROM EXISTING LAWS
that protect Arizonans!
Under Prop 203, a marijuana cardholder can’t be charged with DUI just because he has marijuana components in his system. The State must prove that the components appear in “sufficient concentration to cause impairment.” The problem is that, unlike blood/alcohol ratios, there is no test to prove impairment of a marijuana user!
Employers will not be allowed to fire or discipline marijuana cardholders for drug use. Imagine a workplace where employees show up for work after smoking marijuana, putting other employees and the public at risk and there is nothing an employer can do about it! Insurance rates will increase, productivity will decline and workplace safety will suffer.
Under Prop 203, landlords can’t refuse to rent to a marijuana cardholder.
So tenants can smoke on leased property and grow marijuana in the house, and landlords can’t object, even though “indoor grows” blight neighborhoods, cripple property values and create hazardous waste dumps.
Prop 203 is a prescription for disaster! Vote NO on Prop 203!
Why would Arizona legalize a substance that does vastly more harm than good? Taxpayers will be footing the bill for the increased costs of healthcare, insurance, and substance abuse treatment facilities. Society itself will foot the inestimable bill for the damage to our youth. Prop 203 will bring more drug abuse, more deadly car crashes, higher insurance rates, and lower workplace productivity. It will strain law enforcement and cost the state millions.
Prop 203 was written by the Marijuana Policy Project, which makes no secret (on its website, anyway) of its goal to legalize marijuana across the country. Arizona is #14 in MPP’s legalization puzzle. Let’s show the Marijuana Policy Project they picked the wrong state!
Keep AZ Drug Free, a ballot opposition committee
By Carolyn Short, Chairman
Ed Gogek, M.D., Steering Committee member
Doug Hebert, Steering Committee member
New Lawsuit Aims to Protect Right to Wear “Tea Party” T-shirt While Voting
September 20, 2010 By 4 Comments
PHOENIX – Today, the Goldwater Institute filed a constitutional rights lawsuit against Coconino County to defend a Flagstaff woman’s freedom to wear her T-shirt for a local tea party group when she votes.
When Diane Wickberg went to vote in the special statewide election on May 18, 2010, she was wearing the same T-shirt she wears every Tuesday. The white shirt includes the logos “We the People” and “Flagstaff Tea Party – Reclaiming our Constitution Now.”
The Flagstaff Tea Party meets on Tuesday each week, and Mrs. Wickberg wears this T-shirt as an active member. She was shocked when a poll worker told her to remove the shirt or turn it inside out before voting. The election worker claimed the T-shirt might influence or threaten other voters. Under state law, electioneering inside a polling place is a misdemeanor crime.
But Mrs. Wickberg didn’t understand. The T-shirt didn’t suggest voting for or against anything, and the Flagstaff Tea Party hadn’t taken a stand on the single issue on the May 18 ballot.
In the end, Mrs. Wickberg was allowed to vote. But then she was stopped again when she went to vote in the Aug. 24 state primary. This time, Mrs. Wickberg had to cover her T-shirt with a sweater and hide her association with the Flagstaff Tea Party, even though it hadn’t endorsed any candidates.
Mrs. Wickberg intends to vote once more in the Nov. 2 general election. The Goldwater Institute filed a federal civil rights lawsuit today against Coconino County and County Recorder Candace D. Owens to protect Mrs. Wickberg constitutional right to wear her tea party T-shirt when she goes to her polling place.
“The day has arrived when someone might be arrested for supporting the U.S. Constitution with a T-shirt,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. “Fortunately, Congress decided long ago that every American should be able to ask a federal judge to intervene when local government officials trample on civil rights.”
The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Phoenix and assigned to the Hon. James A. Teilborg. Under federal law, any individual can sue local government officials who use the power of their office to wrongly interfere with that person’s constitutional liberties. Mr. Bolick said this case is an example of a government official acting on her personal opinion instead of objective standards to enforce the law and interfere with someone’s freedom of speech.
“There are labor unions, such as those for firefighters and public-school teachers, that aggressively campaign for or against candidates and issues during some elections,” said Diane Cohen, the lead attorney in this lawsuit for the Goldwater Institute. “But Coconino County doesn’t automatically ban clothing with logos for every labor union at every election. Members of the Flagstaff Tea Party have a constitutional right to the same treatment.”
Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.
Ruth McClung to upset Raul Grijalva in AZ CD-7?
September 19, 2010 By 13 Comments
For months, I’ve been saying that the race in Arizona’s CD-7 could be won by a brilliant young lady by the name of Ruth McClung.
Now several polls have just been released showing that McClung is in a dead tie and even ahead of Raul Grijalva in that race.
Watch as 12 News political insider, Chris Herstam, reveals that the race for Arizona’s Seventh Congressional District is up for grabs! (His comments confirm the poll at about 3 minutes into the segment).
For those of you finally waking up to this race, it’s time to get involved!
Please make a political contribution to Ruth’s campaign at www.Ruth4AZz.com today. She also needs volunteers across the district which includes La Paz, Yuma, Maricopa, Pinal, Pima and Santa Cruz Counties.
It’s also time for the National Republican Congressional Committee and Arizona Victory Committee to pay attention to this race and make sure Ruth has the resources she needs!
JD Hayworth to be named as a national TEA Party advocate
September 19, 2010 By 23 Comments
Jay Heflin with The Hill is reporting that Congressman and former US Senate candidate, J.D. Hayworth, has been chosen to be a national advocate for the TEA Party. For those who have followed Congressman Hayworth’s career, this is an excellent choice by leadership of the TEA Party movement
In 2009, prior to Rick Santelli’s famous words on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile, Hayworth was instrumental in giving rise to the Arizona TEA Party by lending his voice and by giving voice to leaders here in Arizona. As a broadcaster at KFYI, Hayworth promoted grassroots and TEA Party gatherings across Arizona including the famous 6,000 person march on the Sate Capitol on April 15, 2009.
Now as the TEA Party continues to make progress in States like Alaska, Delaware, Kentucky and Nevada, Hayworth’s understanding of the issues and his political redemption from a Congress that once lost its way will give further credence to this important American political movement.
A Violation of Due Process?
September 17, 2010 By 5 Comments
The Pinal County Board of Supervisors appears to be facing significant resentment from the men and women of the Pinal County Sheriff’s Department. About two years ago, in an effort to control cost, the County arbitrarily limited overtime on a quarterly basis. When that limit is met, the County forces deputies to work overtime for unpaid compensation, which is essentially time off. However, the County appears to be illegally making money in the process.
The legal perspective is quite interesting. Once a Deputy has worked overtime, the County incurs an accounting liability for the value of the overtime worked. The Deputy has an inherent interest in this value as a property value. It is the Deputy’s property.
When the County placed an arbitrary limit on the overtime the Sheriff’s Office could work, it replaced overtime payment with unpaid “comp time.” However, the County also stated that the Deputy had to take “comp” time off first before vacation time. As a result of the accumulated “comp” time, the Deputy was unable to access his vacation time.
So we have a case of the County Government arbitrarily restricting overtime payment for work received from the Deputy. In addition, the County forces the Deputy to accept unpaid “comp” time in return for overtime worked.
Unfortunately, the PCSO is understaffed due to hiring restrictions placed on it by the County. The understaffing creates a situation where the PCSO is forced to work overtime to meet minimum staffing levels that prevent the deputy from using up previously earned “comp” time. Some beats go unmanned due to understaffing. Because the Deputy cannot use up his earned “comp” time, the County prohibits him/her from using earned vacation time. At the end of the County’s Fiscal Year, any unused vacation is erased off the books.
The Deputy has a property interest in his/her earned vacation time. The County recognizes this property interest as a liability to the County: they owe the Deputy the value of the vacation earned. When the County unilaterally took the earned vacation away from the Deputy, the County deprived the Deputy of his property interest without due process of law (5th and 14th Amendments) at a minimum.
On what authority can the County deprive a Deputy of property rights obtained through honest labor? On what authority can the County manipulate internal policy to force its Deputies to not only work for “free” (unpaid “comp” time) but also sacrifice their earned vacation time (vested property right) due to the County’s own manipulation of policy?
This issue has been referred by the Board of Supervisors to a work group to meet in October. This will be an interesting meeting as the two Democrat Supervisors do not like the Republican Sheriff. This issue is not only a morale and safety issue for the deputies but a potential legal issue for the County Supervisors.
Ruth McClung: Congressmen in Glass Houses Shouldn’t Throw Stones
September 17, 2010 By 7 Comments
Rep. Raul Grijalva, responding to census bureau statistics that show Arizona has the second highest poverty rate in the nation, blamed Governor Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature for our state’s problems. Perhaps Mr. Grijalva should take a closer look in the mirror before he starts casting aspersions elsewhere. After all, Raul Grijalva’s the one who called for a boycott of Arizona-at the height of the worst recession since the 1930s.
Grijalva says we need more “infrastructure investment, retirement protections, and more green energy jobs”. Let’s break that down.
Arizona is broke. Gov. Brewer and the State Legislature have had to make the largest budget cuts in Arizona history. Infrastructure investment right now means more debt we can’t afford.
Retirement protections? The State of Arizona is not responsible for retirement planning–Social Security is not a function of the state. So who’s retirement is he referring to? Not private citizens. No, he’s referring to his government union friends–who already make between 30% and 50% more than their counterparts in private industry.
More green energy jobs? Mr. Grijalva is apparently unaware that green energy is still not competitive in the marketplace. Until the technology develops enough to compete on it’s own, the only way to create “green energy” jobs is through massive government subsidies–more debt.
“Raul Grijalva has said this is a race about philosophies, and once again we see that’s absolutely true, ” said Ruth McClung. “I believe that the only way to solve our problems, get people back to work, and better their lives is to create economic growth by supporting small businesses and embracing the free market. Raul Grijalva believes in more government, more debt, and more irresponsible spending. Enough is enough, Congressman.”
McCain isn’t free of a loss yet in Arizona – Meet Ian Gilyeat
September 16, 2010 By 29 Comments
REMEMBER THIS?
Well, there IS an alternative to sending the King of RINOs back to the U.S. Senate … imagine the history books when they record that Arizona voters were so angry with Johnny that they replaced him with a WRITE-IN Candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2010!!!
This would go viral like 1070 and the whole country would know Arizona is independent and party insiders are an extinct species.
Can this work? Yes. Is it likely to work? That depends on you and how much you really really don’t want more of McSame.
This is Ian Gilyeat and here is his website:
http://www.electiangilyeat.com/
Here’s what you do: 1) set your printer to print 10 business cards per page (use regular paper and cut them, its easier and cheaper) and print on each in large letters “Write in exactly as spelled – Ian Gilyeat” for the U.S. Senate seat under “write-in” on the ballot. 2) Print as many of these slips as you can and hand them out to all your voting friends.
Arizona really can elect a write-in for the U.S. Senate. If we don’t like him, in six years we can replace him … unlike McCain who we’ve grown to know and dislike for over two decades.
Now you know. Its up to you to share this with everyone you know. Post it in Facebook and hand out fliers on street corners … say no to Rodney and Johnny.
Trent Franks: Planned Parenthood More Corrupt Than ACORN
September 16, 2010 By 5 Comments
In Case You Missed It: Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) appeared on Fox Business’ “Money Rocks” with Eric Bolling to comment on a lawsuit alleging that Planned Parenthood has overbilled the government by hundreds of millions of dollars.
According to Victor Gonzalez, the former CFO of the California branch of Planned Parenthood, just one San Diego-area clinic overcharged the government by $5.2 million. Statewide, Gonzalez said he had witnessed more than $180 million in overcharges. Similar allegations have surfaced in numerous other states, including New Jersey and Washington.
Franks said, given that the corruption took place on such a broad level, one “would expect that the Justice Department would take a look at this,” however so far no action has taken place under the Democrat-controlled Congress.
On Defunding Planned Parenthood
0:34 – “…Absolutely they should be unfunded. I mean, I know it’s no secret — in the interest of full disclosure here — that I find Planned Parenthood, an organization that supports abortion on demand and even on birth control purposes, a detestable organization. I have to be honest with you about that. But this is really an issue of corruption. This organization is really — it looks like in terms of financial corruption — far beyond what even ACORN did. The 5.2 million that they found in overbilling in the one clinic, if you…consider that there are 860 clinics that Planned Parenthood runs across this nation, you have a level of corruption that is staggering. I really think that there is a good possibility that this kind of corruption is taking place nationwide. I don’t expect Kathleen Sibelius, the department of Health services, to look at it; I mean she is an abortion apologist. But I would expect that the Justice Department would take a look at this because this is…a level of corruption that is just absolutely staggering.”
On Corrupt Organizations’ Campaign Contributions
2:02 – “Well, I believe you are absolutely right. Like ACORN, the organizations that do some of these things that a lot of Americans are concerned about are also strong supporters of the left. Barack Obama has supported Planned Parenthood to an incredible degree. And I don’t think it’s only because he is so pro-abortion; I think that is a big part of it, but he knows that Planned Parenthood is going to pour millions of dollars into the campaigns and that they are going to support, ten-to-one, Democrats and the left over Republicans. So, yes, it is a political organization; look at the origins of the organization.”
On Lack of Congressional Action
3:39 – “Remember that this happened under Nancy Pelosi, so of course Congressional hearings weren’t held. They should have been held”
5:25 – “Why don’t we agree that we will look into this and see what Planned Parenthood is doing with the money that is coming from taxpayer pockets — most of the time against their will — and let’s see what is really happening with the money, and let’s see if we should continue to fund an organization that is overbilling and involved in a corruption level that should stagger all of us.”
States can seek constitutional amendment to end federal debt binge
September 16, 2010 By 16 Comments
by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
As our national debt rockets past $13 trillion, just imagine if a constitutional amendment to balance the federal budget had been ratified 25 years ago. That almost happened. During the 1980s, 33 state legislatures invoked their power to apply for a convention to draft a balanced budget amendment. The effort fell short by just one state of the two-thirds majority needed to force Congress’ hand to call the convention under Article V of the U.S. Constitution.
Why did the effort fail? Fears about a “runaway” convention won the debate. Some legislators worried that a convention would not be limited to a specific subject and it would spin out of control to rewrite the entire Constitution. Sadly, this fear was baseless.
A new Goldwater Institute report, written by Senior Fellow Robert Natelson, shows the country’s Founders rejected drafts of Article V that contemplated a wide-open convention that could “run away.” Instead, the authors of the Constitution intentionally picked language that calls for conventions of limited scope so state legislatures could target specific topics, such as a restriction on the federal government’s ability to borrow money. There’s also no reason to fear a “runaway” convention because three-fourths of the states – at least 38 of them – still would have to ratify whatever proposed amendment was drafted by the convention.
State Senator Chuck Gray of Arizona and U.S. Senator John Cornyn of Texas are right to urge state legislatures to reconsider invoking Article V to limit the federal government’s ability to take on more debt. No matter who controls Congress, the federal government has been incapable of putting its fiscal house in order. Article V gives the states the power to end the federal debt binge.
Nick Dranias holds the Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan Chair for Constitutional Government and is director of the Joseph and Dorothy Donnelly Moller Center for Constitutional Government at the Goldwater Institute.
Roundtable Politics on the Arizona Ballot Propositions
September 15, 2010 By 15 Comments
Link to 9/13/10 Roundtable Politics on the ballot propositions
As we promised last week, Monday night on RoundTable Politics, hosts Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I discuss the ballot propositions that we’ll be seeing on the ballot in the general election on November 2. PLEASE, do your homework. Be prepared when you go to the polls to vote on these propositions intelligently.
AFP has written a very short crib sheet on the ballot propositions.
Also, you can find more information on the ballot propositions at the Secretary of State’s website.
The website ballotpedia.com actually has some pretty balanced information about the propositions as well.
It’s important to note that the ultra-liberal Rep. Kyrsten Sinema has recently made some erroneous or stupid statements about the propositions. In reference to Prop. 106, the anti-Obamacare proposition, Sinema said the proposition’s, “value is in attempting to shape the debate. Its value is not in making substantive changes at the state level, because federal law supersedes the state constitution.” She makes a Supremacy Clause argument without doing any analysis on whether Obamacare falls under any of the federal government’s delegated powers in article 1, section 8. She just ASSUMES that anything that the feds do is OK. Hello? Kyrsten, we live under a FEDERAL government of limited powers, not a national one of general powers. That Synema, an ASU law grad, makes such a freshman mistake goes to show the depth of of her ignorance and her inability to do legal analysis. Even a 1L in his first semester of Con Law shouldn’t make this mistake…unless you’re willing to say anything to foist socialized medicine off on the masses even though they’ve said no. Remember, this bimbo carried Obama’s water on Obamacare, so, of course she’s gonna oppose Prop. 106.
Sinema also made an erroneous comment on Prop. 107, the proposition that will end race-based preferences in public employment, public education and public contracting. She claimed we don’t have affirmative action in Arizona. Ward Connerly said she was lying. She was. She wants to re-label affirmative action “equal opportunity programs.” Just like a Leftist to try to re-label something to make it have a more palatable name. Sorry, Ms. Sinema, I don’t care if you call it a Flying Spaghetti Monster, it’s still giving someone a preference based on the color of their skin. That’s racism plain and simple, Ms. Sinema. Let’s not lie about it.
Sinema has also opposed Prop. 302. Sinema loves spending your money AND telling you how to live your life. First Things First (FTF) taxes tobacco users who apparently have no right to the money they earn and fritters it away, GIVING AWAY your money in the form of grants, on unnecessary government make-work programs. Uh, we’re in the middle of a budget crisis, people, and Kyrsten, like all Keynesian Democrats, believes in spending more. How is that even defensible?! Its projected that if Props. 301 & 302 do not pass, the budget shortfall will be almost $550 million. How will Sinema make up the difference? EASY! Confiscate more of your money! She knows how to spend your money better than you do! She’s been to law school!
As an aside, the House Whip, Andy Tobin, has suggested voting, “yes” on all the propositions except the marijuana proposition. Below you will find Russel Pearce’s take on the propositions and some additional research resources collected by Rachel Alexander.
Proposition 106 (YES)
This proposition would amend the Constitution to prohibit any law from compelling participation in any particular health care system. It would provide for purchase and sale of insurance in private health care systems. The proposition allows individuals to pay health care providers directly without penalty or fine. It is written to give Arizona patients the ability to opt out of federal mandates. The proposition protects individual freedoms in choosing health care.
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out:-is-proposition-106-good-or-bad-for-arizona
Kyrsten Sinema wrote opposition argument
Proposition 107 (YES)
This proposition would amend the Constitution to ban programs that give preferential treatment to or discriminate against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. The ban would apply to the state, counties, cities and towns. It would also affect universities and school districts. This repeal of affirmative action policies allows for fair opportunities for all job candidates.
arizonacri.org
protectarizonafreedom.com
Proposition 109 (YES)
This proposition asks voters to establish hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife as constitutional rights for Arizona citizens. It prevents any law or rule that would restrict these rights. Arizona’s citizens greatly benefit from the outdoor activities offered by our bountiful natural resources. Proposition 109 is an important step toward protecting our ability to practice those sports and activities.
Jerry Weiers behind it, NRA supports. Protects right to hunt.
Opposition – Humane Society, http://www.noon109.com/
http://www.ballotpedia.com/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Hunting_Amendment,_Proposition_109_(2010)
Proposition 110 (YES)
This proposition is a major step toward solving an ongoing challenge to military operations in Arizona. It asks voters to amend state land laws to allow for the exchange of public land. This proposition is vital to Arizona’s military bases that have been threatened by encroaching development. Approval will enable the military to work with the State Land Department to protect both state land and the military operations that bring billions of dollars in economic benefit to the state each year.
Chamber of Commerce & Sierra Club endorsed, sponsored by John Nelson
Protects military bases
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_State_Trust_Lands_Question,_Proposition_110_(2010)
http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/publications-reports/2010-proposition-110-2013-state-trust-lands – arguments against include that land swaps often favor a private developer over the public
Proposition 111 (YES, I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED THEM NOT BEING LINKED TOGETHER)
As this State has experienced a change in executive leadership mid-term throughout the last two decades, it has become more apparent that an office of succession is a consideration that Arizona voters should decide. If approved, this proposition would change the title of Secretary of State to that of Lieutenant Governor in 2015. The transition of leadership would be more transparent to the public, and voters would be certain that the candidates they are electing are indeed assuming the possibility of holding a higher office should extraordinary, albeit more frequent, circumstances occur.
Deb Gullett is behind this, Bill Montgomery thinks it’s a bad idea because it creates more bureaucracy
Chamber of Commerce endorsed
After the primary, the governor would run as one slate ticket with the Lt. Governor
http://ballotpedia.us/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Lieutenant_Governor_Amendment,_Proposition_111_(2010)
Proposition 112 (YES)
Over the past several election cycles, a number of citizen initiatives have been disqualified from the ballot after checks of petition signatures uncovered fraudulent signatures and highlighted the difficulty that strict time constraints placed on the verification process. This proposition increases the time for filing an initiative petition to no less than six months preceding the date of the election for the proposed measures.
Chamber of Commerce endorsed
http://www.ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Signature_Filing_Amendment,_Proposition_112_(2010)
Proposition 113 (YES)
This proposition would amend the constitution to include a right to vote by secret ballot for employee representation. The right to vote by secret ballot is a fundamental right. If unions attempted to institute a “card check” instead of the secret ballot, workers would face intimidation to support union organization.
Clint Bolick, Chamber of Commerce support
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Save_Our_Secret_Ballot_Amendment,_Proposition_108_(2010)
http://www.sosballot.org/state.php?state=Arizona
Proposition 203 (NO!!!!! THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN IT REALLY LEGALIZES MARIJUANA USE FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO USE IT)
This proposition would allow patients with specific medical conditions to obtain marijuana with a physician’s certification. The patients would be allowed to use marijuana to treat the identified medical condition or related symptoms. The proposition would require the Department of Health Services to regulate the process. Medical marijuana is not part of any plan to manage pain, and the FDA doesn’t recognize smoking marijuana as a treatment for any medical condition. The proposition also includes severe or chronic pain as a reason to prescribe, which invites the potential to abuse.
http://www.keepazdrugfree.com
http://stop203.com/
Proposition 301 (YES, VERY IMPORTANT ABILITY FOR THE LEGISLATURE TO HELP BALANCE A CRITICAL BUDGET GAP)
The Legislature recognized the need for ballot referral reform in light of the budget crisis. Simply put, the state can no longer spend the money for all the programs it has funded in the past. Proposition 301 would move money from the outstanding balance in the Land Conservation Fund to help balance the state budget for FY 2011. The balance is estimated at $123 million, and if the proposition does not pass, it would open up a hole that size in the current budget.
Goldwater Institute supports – http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/09/07/two-ballot-propositions-needed-to-keep-state-budget-balanced/
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Land_Conservation_Fund_Transfer,_Proposition_301_(2010)
Proposition 302 (YES, THIS IS A CRITICAL PROPOSITION, IN THIS CRITICAL TIME OF BUDGET DEFICITS.)
Voters also have an opportunity to repeal the Early Childhood Development and Health Board (First Things First) and redirect the funding to health and human services to children. Since approved by the voters, the tobacco revenues accrued for First Things First have amassed (over $300 million unexpended) and a bureaucracy has been created. The mission of the program is to refer citizens to other state funded programs that are imperiled by the lack of funding (such as child care wait lists and subsidies, Kids Care, early childhood education programs within the existing school systems, immunization and other programs). Whether one is in agreement with the programs that may benefit from First Things First dollars, the state is obligated to fund them without revenues. The enacted FY 11 budget assumes the passage of Proposition 302 to close the budget gap by $345,000,000 in revenues. Should this measure fail at the ballot, deeper children’s program cuts are inevitable.
Chamber of Commerce and Goldwater Institute supports – http://sonoranalliance.com/2010/09/07/two-ballot-propositions-needed-to-keep-state-budget-balanced/
AZ Tax Research Association
http://www.abc15.com/dpp/news/local_news/hear_me_out/hear-me-out:-is-proposition-302-good-or-bad-for-arizona
Opponents include Kyrsten Sinema
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_First_Things_First_Program_Repeal,_Proposition_302_(2010)
Voter Guides from Western Free Press
September 15, 2010 By Leave a Comment
Western Free Press is a news site dedicated to conservatives winning in CD 1, CD 5, and CD 8.
After reading the site for a couple of months, I came across this voter guide today and wanted to share it with the Sonoran Alliance community. Please consider signing up for their newsletter packed with great information and visit the site to show your support.
We need to take back Congress and Arizona can help in this process and CD 1, CD 5, and CD 8 are crucial districts.
You can find the voter guides on the homepage of Western Free Press at http://westernfreepress.com or here.
Also, The World’s Most Dangerous Gang . . . is here in Arizona is a must read.
Hugh Hewitt in Arizona for Paul Gosar, David Schweikert, Jesse Kelly
September 15, 2010 By 1 Comment
Please join conservative radio talk show host, Hugh Hewitt on Monday, September 20th for a special fundraising event for Republican candidates, Paul Gosar (CD-1), David Schweikert (CD-5) and Jesse Kelly (CD-8).
The event will be held at Arizona Republican headquarters from 5:30 – 8:30 PM. GOP headquarters is located at 3501 N. 24th Street in Phoenix (map).
A website has been set up at www.ArizonaAgainstPelosi.com to RSVP to the event.
Please join Hugh Hewitt in supporting these fine conservative Republicans in the pursuit to fire Pelosi and restore our Republic.
Community colleges have administrative bloat and low graduation rates
September 15, 2010 By 2 Comments
by Matthew Ladner, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
When the Arizona Capitol Times hosted a public discussion on Sept. 9 about higher education, the first question from the audience was about the recent Goldwater Institute study on administrative bloat at Arizona universities. An interesting objection was raised by Dr. Bernie Ronan, an associate vice chancellor of the Maricopa County Community College District.
He argued, in essence, that if the Goldwater Institute had looked at staffing trends over time for community colleges, it would have likely found large increases in administration and other professionals not directly involved with classroom instruction. Dr. Ronan said that community colleges are taking in so many students poorly prepared for college-level work that it takes more administrators, counselors and other workers to get them to graduate. The Goldwater Institute, he charged, would label such employees as “administrative bloat” and that would be unfair.
Dr. Ronan makes a good point, but his justification ultimately falls short.
A consulting firm did a report for the Maricopa County Community College District board in 2009 about its $634 million operating budget. Of this, $275 million went to “Instruction,” and $67 million went to “Academic Support.” Instruction and academic support combined, i.e. teaching students, represents a little more than half of the operating budget.
Despite the spending on “Academic Support” and another $56 million on “Student Services,” only 16.9 percent of the community college district’s full-time students graduated after three years. If all the extra administrators are needed to help students graduate, why aren’t they graduating more of them?
Dr. Ronan does have a valid point that the community college district is taking in a huge number of students who are catastrophically ill prepared. Considering that taxpayers pick up the bulk of the tab when a student enrolls in community college, Arizona’s community colleges should have some admission standards to avoid wasting other people’s money on someone simply not ready for or serious about higher education.
Dr. Matthew Ladner is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.
TeaParty Republican Takes on Nancy Pelosi for House Seat in SF
September 15, 2010 By 5 Comments
I know this campaign is occurring outside of Arizona, but it was too good to pass up.
See John Dennis’ TV campaign ad portraying Nancy Pelosi as the wicked witch. I also like the little dig at McCain/Feingold at the end. 
Here’s John Dennis on Fox News
If you want to keep the teaparty momentum going and poke Nancy Pelosi in the eye, send a few bucks John Dennis’ way. (Even more so since San Francisco democrats donated to Arizona Grassroots, McCain’s PAC to defeat conservative Arizona republicans for offices like PC and county chair positions.) http://www.johndennis2010.com/
HORNE: Liberal Democrat Rotellini misleads public on trial experience: “HAS NEVER TRIED A CASE IN HER LIFE”
September 14, 2010 By 4 Comments
Republican nominee for Arizona Attorney General Tom Horne today made public a press release citing evidence that Ms. Rotellini has never tried a case; making her a
“PINO…Prosecutor in Name Only“.
How Ms. Rotellini feels eight (8) cases is sufficient to be considered the state’s top attorney is in itself a mystery. But that she thought the electorate so simple as to not question her skills in the area that is the very basic purpose of the AG’s office is staggering. On second thought, considering that Tery Goddard has refused to defend Arizona and she is a Goddard/Napolitano clone, it really isn’t so surprising.
PRESS RELEASE
September 14, 2010
For immediate release
HORNE: ROTELLINI HAS NEVER TRIED A CASE IN HER ENTIRE LIFE
PHOENIX— Republican Attorney General nominee Tom Horne today released a study demonstrating that Democrat
Felecia Rotellini, who touts herself as a “veteran prosecutor,” has in fact never tried a case in her entire life.
In January 1991 Horne was admitted to the American Board of Trial Advocates, which included the following requirement: that he has tried at least 25 cases as the lead lawyer to a jury to conclusion.
During the KAET Channel 8 debate last Wednesday, Horne suggested that Rotellini, by contrast, had few, if any, jury trials. Rotellini did not respond. The Arizona Republic did a Fact Check, and obtained information from Rotellini about her legal experience, which the Republic posted on its website. Rotellini cited eight cases. Volunteers for Horne then researched each of those eight cases, and it turned out that Rotellini did not proceed to trial on any one of the eight cases, and turned five of the six criminal cases over to another lawyer before they even went to a guilty plea.
Attached is the documentation as to each of the eight cases cited by Rotellini.
###
Supplemental Information
No trial, to a Jury or to a Judge, occurred in any of the eight cases which the Rotellini campaign provided to the Arizona Republic in a failed attempt to demonstrate her legal experience.
In five of the six criminal cases Rotellini’s campaign listed which resulted in guilty pleas, none went to trial and she was not the attorney of record for the State at the time the case was pled out by a guilty plea. In five of those cases, another Assistant Attorney General had become the prosecutor before the defendant pled guilty. No trial occurred in the two civil cases she lists on her website and she was not the principal attorney for any party. She was merely the junior of the two attorneys who represented her client.
Rotellini’s eight cases posted on the Arizona Republic’s website are quoted below. Following each case listed by the Rotellini campaign is the actual summarized history of each case in brackets.
List of cases from Rotellini campaign spokesman Dave Cieslak:
In the following six cases, Felecia appeared before the Arizona State Grand Jury to obtain the indictments, then spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court:
- State v. William Crotts, Thomas Grabinski, Harold Friend, Lawrence Hoover, Richard Rolfus CR2001-006183 (Baptist Foundation criminal case and securities fraud). Referral from the Arizona Corporation Commission.”
[Felecia admits by the foregoing description that her role in the so-called Baptist Foundation case was limited to the grand jury indictment and "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court.” She played no role in the trial at all. Another Assistant Attorney General was the prosecutor in the criminal trial which resulted in the convictions of two Baptist Foundation officers in August 2006. Ms. Rotellini withdrew from the case eight months earlier when she was appointed the Superintendent of the Department of Financial Institutions in January 2006. Ms. Rotellini’s role in the so-called Baptist Foundation case was in an administrative action role in which the Arthur Anderson CPA firm consented to pay restitution for its negligent accounting work performed for the Baptist Foundation, after it was clear that the Arthur Anderson CPA firm could not survive its negligent accounting for ENRON.]
“- State v. David Paul French and James Anthony Cicerella, CR2003-013117 (ponzi scheme; securities fraud). Referral from Arizona Corporation Commission.”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to the grand jury indictment, "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court.” She was replaced as the prosecutor by Assistant Attorneys General Jeff Rueter and later Ed Noyes, who obtained the guilty plea resolving the case.]
“- State v. Manual A Perez, CR2003-013118 (fraud and theft, real-estate sales related). Referral from the Arizona Department of Real Estate.”
[No conviction; no trial; defendant fled. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in
this case was limited to the grand jury indictment, "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court.” The major activity in the case was performed by a Deputy Maricopa County Attorney, Peter Spaw, who obtained forfeiture of the defendant’s bail bond after he fled.]
“-State v. Hal Fields, CR2003-024924 and CR2004-007688 (fraud and theft, real-estate related) Rreferral [sic] from the Arizona Department of Real Estate and HUD. ”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to the grand jury indictment, "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court.” She was replaced as the prosecutor by Assistant Attorney General Ed Noyes, who obtained the guilty plea resolving the case.]
“-State v. Nora Elana Escobar, CR2004-012957 (identity theft). Referral from U.S. Postal Inspector.”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to the grand jury indictment, "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court.” She was replaced as the prosecutor by Assistant Attorneys General Jacqueline Schesnol and later Ed Noyes, who obtained the guilty plea resolving the case.]
“-State v. Heidi Jo Jauger [sic], Richard E. Valentin, Julie Davis, CR2004-007689 (theft, embezzlement). Investigated by Attorney General’s Office.”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to the grand jury indictment, "then [she] spent time in Maricopa County Superior Court,” and she obtained the guilty plea resolving the case. The defendant’s name is Jaeger, not Jauger]
“The next two are civil cases in which Felecia argued in court: – Morton Roberts v. State, 179 Ariz. 613, 880 P.2d 1159 (App. 1994).”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to "Felecia argued in court." This was an administrative agency action, appealed to the County Superior Court then to the Court of Appeals, in which Ms. Rotellini was joined by another Assistant Attorney General, Leslie Hall.]
“- Milliken & Michaels of Arizona v. Houseworth, 942 F. Supp 454 (1996). – 28-day civil hearing before a judge, then Milliken and Michaels sued the state in federal court. In front of Judge Carroll for six months.”
[No trial. Felecia admits above by the foregoing description that her role in this case was limited to "Felecia argued in court." She was not the lead attorney for the State in the reported federal case; that was former Solicitor General for the Attorney General’s Office Anthony Ching.]
The law firm, Zwillinger & Greek, where Felecia practices law, lists on its website three reported cases evidencing her legal expertise, but her list sent to the Arizona Republic omits one of them, 1145 (Wyo. 1986). In that case, which was also not a trial, she was a legal intern, not admitted to practice yet. Neither she nor the attorney supervising her represented a party, but rather submitted an amicus (friend of the Court) brief in favor of the State.
Although the Western Union case was not listed on the list with the eight cases, her campaign website touts that successful case in support of her candidacy. However, in that case she was not the prosecutor or a litigator, but rather she was the client (as Superintendent of Department of Financial Institutions) in an administrative consent order obtained by Assistant Attorney General Craig Raby, and also assisted by at least six additional Assistant Attorneys General who actually litigated civil cases in state and federal court and investigated a criminal case against Western Union. Ms. Rotellini resigned her position as head of Department of Financial Institutions in August 2009 and in September 2009 announced her run for Attorney General, several months before the settlement was achieved.
O’Brien v. State of Wyoming, 711 P.2d
