Thanks to Rachel Alexander, I was interviewed by KJZZ (aka NPR) as a conservative counterpoint to Victor Aranow’s picks (Vic’s Picks) on the ballot propositions. Sonoran Alliance gets a mention in the piece, so, I’m sharing it here.  I wish the piece had been longer, but take a listen!

Link to NPR interview on ballot propositions

Also, Shane appeared on KJZZ today giving his views on the best run campaign, the biggest possible shocker race in Arizona, etc.  Hopefully Shane will share that piece with us soon.

And here it is featuring political journalists, consultants and pundits from across the spectrum.

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)

The story may be considered already stale, and I believe Mike Broomhead covered most of what I’m about to say days ago, but the story remains in the news and I’m compelled to speak out. The Democrats have been crying like little girls for days now about Steve May recruiting Green candidates to siphon Democrat votes in the general. In fact, in their usual hyperbolic, forced parlance, they’re calling it fraud. My response: …so what, Democrats? You do it to Republicans all the time. This is a valid tactic and it’s been used for a very long time. Apparently, a judge just affirmed that there’s nothing illegal about their candidacies.

The Democrats are just crying because their tactics are being used against them. At least in terms of putting candidates on the ballot, we Republicans, should know their tactics well and we should use the same tactics against them mercilessly. While the Democrats are whining and crying to the courts, they use the same kind of tactics against Republicans all the time. The difference? We don’t engage in the beta male behavior of crying about it. We simply out the Republicans In Name Only (RINOs) and Democrats in Disguise (DIDs) and try to win elections. We don’t go running off crying to the courts, that’s for Democrats. We Republicans believe in achieving our goals through the legislative process.

Arizona has a set of laws that governs who can and can’t get on the ballot. I believe they’re all in Title 16. These Green candidates at issue here jumped through all the legal hoops to get on the ballot, but the Democrats don’t like the way the law worked, so they cry about it. They want an exception to the law to benefit them, and them alone. They believe they shouldn’t have to operate under the same laws as the rest of us, that they’re special and everything should be their way. They believe the rules they’re crying about should only work in their favor. Remember what Orwell wrote in Animal Farm, “some animals are more equal than others”?

Exactly how do the Democrats use the laws against the Republicans? Two ways. First, and this may not be a conscious, concerted effort, but Democrats that want to hold office realize that they live in a Republican district and then they change their voter registration and run as a Republican. If they’re smart, they’ll lie to the electorate about being a conservative just to get elected. There are plenty of examples in Arizona politics of this. Life-long Democrat Tom Horne changed his party registration before he ran for the state House years ago. Dean Martin flogged him for it. Horne, the stereotypical RINO, has since done everything in his power to SOUND like he’s a conservative since but his record shows otherwise. Unfortunately, if the old man can win the AG’s spot, he’ll be third in line to the Governor’s office. We’ve done it to ourselves to let such a moderate Republican get so high in the party, but it’s nothing new. Jane Hull was a moderate Governor too and Jan Brewer has less than a conservative record now after hiking your taxes and increasing spending with her line item vetoes. Most recently Democrat In Disguise Heather Carter won a Republican nomination to the House in LD 7.

It is possible to have a Republican register as a Democrat and run in a Democrat stronghold district, but few Republicans can stomach lying to the electorate like that whereas Democrats have no compunction about it. Also, Republicans tend to brand anyone registered as a Democrat as a liberal. It would take an immense amount of self-sacrifice to run as a Democrat, so, it’s not often done.

Second, in addition to the tactic of running a Democrat as a Republican, the Democrats often run one Democrat House candidate in a solidly Republican district. How does this work? Easy. The Democrats “one-shot” their candidate. For those who don’t understand, to one-shot, a Democrat walks into a voting booth, and, for example, once they get to the state House races, they intentionally undervote, casting only one vote for the Democrat candidate and they fail to cast their second vote in order to deny the Republicans additional votes. You see, if Democrats were to fully vote, then they would be padding the vote totals for the Republicans and ensuring their candidate would lose. The hope is that, by one-shotting, the Republican candidates will not get as many votes as the Democrat candidate and the Democrat wins a seat. Democrats can win when the voter registration is close or the Republicans put up a bad candidate or when voters also undervote because they don’t like a Republican candidate. It’s also possible for independents and PNDs to vote for the Democrat candidate to put them over the top as well. Also, if it’s a bad year for Republicans, because moderates have been in power betraying Republican principles and conservatives have determined to discipline the party, a Democrat also has a shot at winning. It’s one of the many reasons why I thrash the moderates on a daily basis, because I want Republicans to win elections and stay in the majority for the long term. There’s a couple of split districts like this: LD 5 (it has a very slim 2% Republican registration advantage), LD 11 (has a 12% Republican registration advantage, but it has a history of moderate leadership), LD 20 (has about a 10% registration advantage), and LD 26 (has about an 8% registration advantage).

Republicans actually do the exact same thing to the Democrats…and we should do it to them EVERY TIME, without fail. LD 23 would be a district with a Democrat registration advantage, but we have one Republican Representative in that District. We’re also sticking it to the Democrats in LD 16 with Mike Gular. Again, I’d like to remind all LD 16 voters to one-shot Mike. Please ONLY vote for Mike and NEVER vote for a Democrat in the House races. If Republicans cast ANY votes for a Democrat in the LD 16 House races, you’re assuring you have NO representation in the House for another 2 years. LDs 24 and 25 also have Democrat registration advantages and one Republican office-holder.

Also, while I’m no proponent of Clean Election, I want the system abolished, as long as the sham is in place, we Republicans should be running a full slate of candidates in all 30 districts, ESPECIALLY the Democrat strongholds. Why? To fritter away taxpayer money? No, to make the fat, lazy Democrats EARN their seats in the legislature and possibly take the seats away from them.

Another tactic that the Democrats love to use is non-partisan races. In Republican strongholds, we Republicans are dumb enough to agree to non-partisan contests so the Democrats can pull the wool over the electorate’s eyes and sneak Democrats into office. How else would we get horrid mayoral and city council office holders. Phil Gordon is a horrid mayor. Had we had partisan elections, Randy Pullen would have been our mayor. Randy did his best to make it clear that he was a Republican candidate. I voted for Pullen and despite my differences with him, I rue that he’s not mayor. In Democrat strongholds, like Tucson, the Dems want partisan elections so they can ensure that their majorities can control things. If I had my way, ALL elections would be partisan, even in the Democrat strongholds.

What’s also hypocritical about the Democrats’ tears, with all their high-minded talk about “democracy,” is that they have done their best to knock as many candidates off the ballot as they can this year. One would think that if they believed in democracy that they’d want as many candidates on the ballot as possible. Just remember, Democrats are hypocrites and liars. They’ll tell you one thing and do another. Same with moderate and liberal Republicans. You should also remember that we don’t live in a democracy. We live in a republic. Decisions aren’t made by the masses (except for ballot propositions and who our representatives are), they’re made by our chosen representatives. Our Founders hated and feared democracy as mob rule. Initially, we had a limited franchise because our Founders hated democracy. They also instituted a bi-cameral legislature to put further brakes on the passions of the mob. Same with state legislative election of U.S. Senators, six year terms for Senators and the Electoral College.

To sum up, the Democrats’ crying is hypocritical. They just want things their way and never you mind that they also employ deceptive practices during election cycles.

Last night on Roundtable Politics, hosts Rachel Alexander, James Allen and I discuss whether or not the Republican Party has EARNED party loyalty from conservatives in the General Election. We also touch on ballot Proposition 107 and Jan Brewer’s performance in the Clean Elections gubernatorial debate. Even Fox News is picking up on how atrocious her performance was. Fox is reporting that Coughlin and company now won’t let her debate because they’re afraid she’ll blow what should be an easy election.

Next Monday, we may well discuss the other ballot propositions on RTP.

link to last night’s Roundtable Politics