You are here: Home / Archives for Ballot Measures

Job Creators Cheer Referral of Proposition 116

April 25, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Small Business Job Creation Act rolls back job-killing equipment and machinery tax

PHOENIX, Ariz., April 25, 2012 — The Arizona Secretary of State today received transmission from the Arizona Legislature of a crucial ballot referendum designed to spur new job creation and economic development. The state constitutional amendment, called the Small Business Job Creation Act, is positioned to be on Arizona’s November 6, 2012 General Election ballot as Proposition 116.

“Arizona’s small business job creators have heard loud and clear from their state legislators that help is on the way to rollback the job-killing equipment and machinery tax,” said Farrell Quinlan, state director for the National Federation of Independent Business who drafted the referendum with Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs and other lawmakers.

“The heavy tax burden we place on small business’ equipment and machinery is self-defeating and anti-growth because it punishes the very investment in job creation that Arizona needs to fuel our economic recovery,” Quinlan said.

The Proposition 116 referendum, enumerated Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012 in its legislative form, seeks to amend the Arizona Constitution to reset the personal property tax exemption for new equipment and machinery purchases to an amount equal to the earnings of 50 Arizona workers, approximately $2.4 million. The current constitutional exemption is $50,000 indexed to inflation since 1996 or $68,079 in Tax Year 2012.

“We are very encouraged about Proposition 116’s ultimate success at the ballot box due to the unanimous bipartisan support it received from legislators. It’s a real testament to the soundness of this public policy proposal that every Republican and Democrat lawmaker voted for it. Proposition 116 proves the adage that good policy makes for good politics,” Quinlan concluded.

The unanimous legislative support for SCR 1012 is a rare example of bipartisan consensus from the contentious and often bitterly partisan 50th Arizona Legislature. The Arizona Senate passed the legislation 30-0 on February 16, 2012 and the Arizona House of Representatives passed it 51-0 with eight absent and one vacancy on April 23, 2012.

Proposition 116 must garner 50 percent plus one vote of those voting on the measure this November to amend the state constitution. If passed, the new provisions will affect personal property purchased in 2013 and thereafter while personal property already on the tax rolls will remain unaffected.

According to state law, the Secretary of State will make official the designation of the Small Business Job Creation Act referendum as Proposition 116 after the petition filing deadline passes for citizen initiatives on July 5, 2012. The Secretary of State is required to assign numbers to propositions in the order the measures are filed with their office. SCR 1012 was the third referendum filed for the 2012 ballot following the two measures sent by the Legislature in 2011 that will be designated Proposition 114 and Proposition 115 respectively in accordance with statute.

NFIB has already begun organizing a campaign committee to support the passage of Proposition 116. Those interested in joining that effort should contact NFIB’s Arizona office at (602) 263-7690 or send an email to farrell.quinlan@nfib.org.

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association with 350,000 members nationwide and 7,500 in Arizona and has offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals.  Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Economic Development, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, Small Business, State Economy, Taxation Tagged With: , , , , ,

House Vote Comes Just in the Nick of Time

April 10, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Prescient lawmakers act before key economic indicator reports dangerous drop

PHOENIX, Ariz., April 10, 2012 — They had no way of knowing yesterday that today’s release of one of America’s most important economic indicators would show a possible stall in the nation’s recovery, but Rules Committee members of the Arizona House of Representatives proved very prescient in passing Senate Concurrent Resolution 1012.

“Today’s release of NFIB’s Small-Business Economics Trends report should remove any lingering doubt that the full House should pass SCR 1012 and get it on the November ballot for voters to have their say,” said Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB), America’s largest small-business association. “Combine today’s report with next week’s tax filing deadline and it’s beyond debate that the House needs to act now to send the strongest possible message to Arizona’s job creators that help is on the way.”

For almost 40 years, NFIB’s SBET has been one of the nation’s bellwether economic barometers, used by Federal Reserve chairmen, Congress, and presidential administrations. Release of today’s report shows its Optimism Index falling two points overall in March after six months of gains. Small business in no small matter, because Main Street enterprises employ the majority of working Americans and generate most new jobs—not big businesses, and certainly not big governments or labor unions.

“The mood of owners is subdued—they just can’t seem to shake off the uncertainties out there,” wrote NFIB’s chief economist, William Dunkelberg, in today’s report. “What we saw in March is painfully familiar – this was the same pattern of growth followed by months of decline from 2011. History appears to be repeating itself—and not in a good way.”

A capital expenditures category is one of 10 measurements the SBET takes each month, and March showed a sharp drop in new equipment and vehicle purchases. This, according to Quinlan, is where Arizona can step in to help. SCR 1012, also called the Small Business Jobs Creation Act, would unleash small business expansion by resetting the personal property tax exemption for new machinery and equipment purchases to an amount equal to the earnings of fifty Arizona workers (almost $2.4 million). Last month the referendum unanimously passed the Senate 30-0 while an identical bill (HCR 2009) passed the House 47-10 with an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

“You can say you intend to hire more workers, and all you’re doing is expressing a wish or a sentiment,” said Quinlan. “But when we see you adding more machinery, other equipment, and vehicles, the new jobs are sure to follow. That’s why NFIB is amplifying our call for the Arizona House to schedule a vote on SCR 1012 sooner rather than later—before Tax Day and the 100th day of the legislative session, both of which fall on April 17 this year. We need to send a message now that Arizona is open for business.”

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association, with offices in Washington, D.C. and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Economics, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, Small Business, State Economy, Taxation Tagged With: ,

Governor Jeb Bush to Keynote Save Our Secret Ballot Event in Scottsdale

February 7, 2012 By 1 Comment

For Immediate Release: February 7, 2012
Contact: Joshua W. Jones

PHOENIX – Today, Save Our Secret Ballot (SOS Ballot) announced that Gov. Jeb Bush will keynote an event in Scottsdale, Az., on Monday, Feb. 13, 2012, to highlight the continued need for a secret ballot wherever state or federal law requires an election.

Chaired by the Hon. Ken Blackwell, SOS Ballot appeared on the 2010 ballot in four states, including Arizona, where it passed with 60 percent of the vote—sending a firm statement that the majority of Arizonans want to protect workers’ rights to a secret ballot.

“Big Labor is demanding to change the way unions are organized: namely, to end an employee’s right to a secret-ballot when deciding whether or not to join a union,” said Blackwell. “Eliminating the secret-ballot requirement opens the process up to widespread intimidation,” he continued.

“If unions get their way, a business could be unionized virtually overnight—no campaign, no election and certainly no secret ballot,” said Blackwell.

Shortly after passing SOS Ballot, the union-controlled National Labor Relations Board threatened to file legal suit against each of the four states SOS Ballot passed if the states recognized the provisions approved by voters.

In April, the NLRB initiated suits against Arizona and South Carolina, reserving the right to initiate a suit against the other two states.

To the NLRB lawsuit, Joshua W. Jones, a spokesman for SOS Ballot says, “Bring it on.”

“The radical progressives in the Obama Administration have made it clear that they do not want to respect workers’ rights,” said Jones.

“Unions spent $171 million during the 2010 congressional elections and more than $400 million to elect Obama,” said Jones. “While Obama continues to represent well-funded-union-interests, SOS Ballot will continue fighting to represent the average American worker,” he continued.

The event on Feb. 13 has already drawn the support of dozens of Arizona legislators and all four attorney generals where SOS Ballot was passed in 2010.

“We are enthusiastic to have Gov. Bush joining us at our event on Monday,” said Blackwell. “At SOS Ballot, we are gearing up for an aggressive fight in front of the United States Supreme Court, the venue where this issue will ultimately be decided,” he continued.

###

Chaired by the Hon. Ken Blackwell, SOS Ballot, Inc. (Save Our Secret Ballot) is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to educating the American public on the continued need for a secret ballot wherever state or federal law requires elections. To continue to protect this inalienable right, SOS Ballot will file and place on the ballot in various states a Constitutional Amendment to protect this right. SOS Ballot and our supporters believe that a voter’s right to a secret ballot is an essential and fundamental principle in our society and offers opportunities for broader voter participation. Without the ability to vote secretly, individual political freedom will decline and be subject to threats and intimidation by those who want voters to pursue a specific course of action or ideology.

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: ,

Alcohol and Substance Abuse Prevention and Early Intervention Health Initiative files for 2012 Ballot

January 17, 2012 By 7 Comments

This was just filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office. Supporters of this ballot initiative would like to see it appear on the 2012 November ballot:

ALCOHOL AND SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION AND EARLY INTERVENTION HEALTH INITIATIVE, proposes an alcohol tax of 25 cents on a gallon of spirituous liquor, and one dollar each on a gallon of beer and wine, the equivalent of less than ten cents per drink. Proceeds will fund prevention and early intervention services for any entity that affiliates with a community based prevention coalition. The initiative establishes an eighteen member commission which sets policy. Only the thirteen members, including three tribal representatives are voting members. The non voting members are directors or deputy directors of the Arizona’s governmental departments.

Should this pass it would require the taxpayers of Arizona to create another new tax on a “sin” and get the State of Arizona involved and investing in keeping yet another source of revenue.

One would think that the solution to alcohol and substance abuse prevention would be parents, family, friends, neighbors and the faith-based community and perhaps an ounce of discipline.

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Culture, Drugs, Family, Legislation, Taxation, Youth

Recall: Une Nouvelle Forme de COUP D’ETAT ou Bien un GOLPE de ESTADO?

December 18, 2011 By

From the French, coup, meaning a quick strike and état meaning state, and playing  on the similarity of  état and the word for head,  tête,  the concept describes a decapitating strike aimed at the top office-holders and leadership of a sitting government in order to quickly insert a rival power structure, a targeted blow at the head of state to enable a minority to upset the status quo maintained by the majority.

With the United States being a unity of fifty states, which under our Constitution function more like independent countries, with their own locally elected governments, a politically partisan recall orchestrated against the duly-elected governor, actively being organized in Arizona and Wisconsin, seems uncomfortably close to fulfilling every criteria of a coup d’état or as it is known in  Central America,  a golpe de estado.

No guns are required; this would be how lawyers and political organizers wage battle, bloodless and cold, not the heat of hand to hand combat on the front steps of the presidency and in the hallways of parliament, in these cases, in the lobbies of the Governor’s Offices and the State Legislatures. The weapon used would be a cynical application of legal processes meant to provide relief in a tyrannical or criminally abusive situation, but in 2011 seized by a disgruntled losing party of 2010 to effectively throw out the results of general elections, and by that, the votes of the majority of the people.

The open bragging during the press conference the day after the recall of Senator Pearce displayed what appeared to be grander objectives than previously argued by the recallers. The organizers and supporters had for months insisted it was a simple issue of Russell Pearce’s character alone, but literally within hours of his defeat, it was exposed that the recall vision went far beyond Russell. As articulated by the organizers of the recall, in their own words as public record, upon contemplation seems uncomfortably like a rather focused strike at the top office holders of the State of Arizona … or in international diplomatic parlance, something like a golpe de estado, to destroy the results of the November 2010 elections. The Recallers named names:

Senator Russell Pearce: President of the AZ Senate
Governor Jan Brewer
Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio

Hmm. The laundry list appearance of it brings to mind dynamics which are common elsewhere in power struggles. The first two represent the highest levels of Arizona government, the governor’s office and the top of the legislative branch. Though not a state-wide office holder, Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s closest parallel in an actual independent nation would be a somewhat impartial chief of police or perhaps gendarmerie, not open to being swayed and with some wider popular public support, so in a classic coup d’état someone like him in that sort of position would have been pre-judged by coup plotters as an impediment to making such a strike to stick, and thus marked for removal.

The parallels are disconcerting or should be, but how many Americans have ever seen such political dynamics and would think of them?  What would make any Third World citizen sit up with alarm, goes unnoticed in First World … but many of what are called “Third World” used to be well on their way to “First World” until that first coup d’état smashed the electoral process by which the shared consensus of the people is normally established as to who has lawful authority to govern. Politics no longer was about the will of the People, but about whoever had the brute force to grab and keep the top offices, throwing political calculations into chaos.

Who can make alliances, coalitions, and consensus if the officer holders can be here today, gone tomorrow, with no warning? Shocked political office-holders at all levels react to this arbitrary uncertainty with a siege mentality of self-preservation, not by representing the People, so the entire system is degraded and damaged, top to bottom.

A recall denies an elected official their majority, voter-bestowed, lawful mandate to govern. A politically-motivated recall is never satisfied, because more than one office-holder has to go, demanding voters return again and again to defend their choices, exhausting voters, a cynical abuse of voters’ rights, budgets and energy.

In Wisconsin, the majority of the voters acting on their desire for change from decades of Democrat Party-controlled stagnation decisively put Scott Walker into the governor’s office. Yet, not even twelve months into his term, infuriated Democrats have dumped a massive stack of signatures of petitioners for a recall of him, and are feverishly working on a system-clogging million signatures from people who seemingly absolutely positively cannot live another minute with Walker as governor, an expected over twice the number required for the recall trigger, an astounding figure give the population of the state, and completely counter-intuitive to the plain will of the majority only twelve months ago.

Arizonans, who pooh-pooh any real threat to popular Governor Jan Brewer, should take what’s happening right now in Wisconsin to heart, as an open call to begin collecting signatures against her was made by Recall organizers in their press conference after Pearce’s defeat. The Democrat Party recallers in Wisconsin seem to be using the same script as the recallers here used against Pearce in Arizona; that they do not have any challenger as yet to Scott Walker, but they expect someone will step forward … what, a million signatures and not a thought of who would be governor if the governor is ripped out?

Walker had to campaign to all the people of the state of Wisconsin, he had to convince them he would carry their will through the governor’s office and the majority liked what they heard from him and voted him in. The Democrats want to put in a nobody? Someone the voters don’t know, haven’t had a chance to vet, and who necessarily would be voted in by fewer than the majority which Scott Walker required to win in the general election? How about a political neophyte with no experience, no record to examine, perhaps? Someone who the voters would have no idea what he or she would do once in office? What nonsense! Who would go for that? Russell Pearce banked on that common sense and he’s abruptly out of a job.

One wonders where those million were just last November. The sheer magnitude and practical feasibility of collecting a million signatures in such little time alone should provoke questions. If there were truly that many motivated, disgruntled opposing voters, then Walker wouldn’t have been elected in the first place, but there they are … upstanding Wisconsin residents including Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler could be the means by which a duly elected governor of an American state be ripped from office.

The GAB Petition Review board in Wisconsin overseeing this have publically shrugged; they stated that Mickey Mouse and Adolph Hitler if signed on the petition will stay on the petition so long as they have a valid Wisconsin zip code, unless Governor Walker challenges them, one by one. With a projected over a million signatures and only so many days, the Democrats seem to be supremely confident it isn’t physically possible for Walker to verify the validity of the signatures to lodge a protest, and the checks and balances of a supposedly impartial petition review board are not in evidence, to the detriment of Governor Walker.

Governor Scott Walker should feel vindicated that his rabid political opponents include the likes of Adolph Hitler, proving once and for all that the socialist Hitler is not and has never been politically or ideologically affiliated with Republicans in any measure, but there is no time to laugh out loud and the threat to our Constitutionally-established system of elections is too grave.

If the Democrats succeed in their recall strike at Walker, to haul him out of office long before his mandated term ends, then the socialist Hitler will have done what no one else has achieved, overthrown the existing political system, risen to power TWICE by raw manipulation of the lawful systems, and from the dead, no less. In Wisconsin, Democrats have actually physically inserted Mickey Mouse into the metaphor for a complete, bad electoral joke.

Ominously for 2012, instead of focusing on the presidential election, every local state and national popularly-elected Republican official is at risk of being embroiled in a two-front political war, harassed from the rear and the front by the Democrats who are increasingly remote from and hostile to the will and spirit of the majority, and cannot provide a political vision and governing competency which attracts voters in normal elections.

Instead of taking a hard look at the validity of their premises and philosophies, Democrats seemed to have cast their lot to invest in recalls, a decidedly undemocratic and tyrannical solution to ballot-box failure, via an increasingly well-oiled and organized blitzkrieg designed to overwhelming and stripping out Republicans in state after state sitting governments, as easily as Hitler’s tanks once overran the horse soldiers of unprepared Poland, a nation whose main fault was that it was prepared for the previous, non-mechanized war, not the one that ground them under the tank treads.   Immigrants, legal and illegal have long viewed America as a haven from this sort of political disaster, how tragic that they are being asked to facilitate the introduction of the chaotic conditions they fled.

Mickey Mouse and Hitler in Wisconsin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tELtKMPKAq4

 

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Elected Officials, Government, Guest Opinion, Petitions

Special Poll: Stop Punishing Investment to Spur Job Growth

December 14, 2011 By Leave a Comment


Small-business owners point to a way out of Arizona’s recession

PHOENIX, Ariz., Dec. 14, 2011 – Small-business owners believe Arizona needs further legislative action to spur job creation and overwhelmingly favor lowering the property tax burden on new equipment and machinery to do so, according to a special poll released today by their leading representative association.

“Small business wants job creation to continue to be the highest priority for Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature next session,” said Farrell Quinlan, Arizona state director for the National Federation of Independent Business, America’s largest small-business association. “Lowering the cost for small businesses to create jobs through meaningful property-tax relief and the further lifting of the regulatory burden will help restore Arizona’s economy and put our citizens back to work.”

The NFIB survey found near unanimous support among small business owners with 93 percent agreeing our leaders should keep job creation a high priority. It also found 77 percent of small business owners favor significantly increasing the amount of a business’ equipment and machinery that is exempt from personal property taxation.

The survey based its personal property tax questions on a legislative referral being developed by Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs (Gilbert) and other lawmakers, including House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jack Harper (Surprise). The legislation, called the Small Business Job Creation Act, asks voters to increase the Arizona Constitution’s exemption for new equipment and machinery to an amount equal to the annual wages of 50 Arizona workers or approximately $2.3 million from the current $67,000.

The NFIB survey dramatically reveals that lowering the tax burden on a business’ equipment and machinery would lead to a burst of job creation from small businesses. When asked if Sen. Biggs’ proposal becomes law, 46 percent of small business owners said raising the personal property tax exemption would likely lead their businesses to hire new workers while 56 percent said such a move would likely result in more equipment and machinery purchases.

“Clearly Arizona’s economy has yet to recover and that’s born out in continued weak job creation numbers and Arizona’s unemployment rate remaining stuck at 9 percent,” said Quinlan. “Small businesses have historically led our state and nation out of recessions through creating new jobs and investing in the future. Small business’ message to our political leaders is unmistakable, job creation is the top issue and lowering small business’ cost of creating those jobs is a great place to start.”

The poll was conducted September 6 to October 21, 2011 with 496 respondents who are Arizona small business owners. The entire poll can be read by clicking here. Results from NFIB’s fuller, annual survey on other issues will be released in the coming weeks.

# # #

NFIB is the nation’s leading small business association with offices in Washington, D.C., and all 50 state capitals. Founded in 1943 as a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization, NFIB gives small and independent business owners a voice in shaping the public policy issues that affect their business. NFIB’s powerful network of grassroots activists send their views directly to state and federal lawmakers through our unique member-only ballot, thus playing a critical role in supporting America’s free enterprise system. NFIB’s mission is to promote and protect the right of our members to own, operate and grow their businesses. More information is available online at www.NFIB.com/newsroom.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Economic Development, Economics, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, Polls, Press Release, Small Business, State Economy, Taxation Tagged With: , , , ,

Arizona Supreme Court Reinstates Colleen Mathis as Chairman of Redistricting Commission

November 17, 2011 By 73 Comments

Early this evening, the Arizona Supreme Court issued a ruling reinstating the so-called ‘Independent’ Colleen Mathis to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

This is a victory for leftists and Strategic Telemetry who were attempting to manipulate the Arizona Constitution to gain political power by leveraging data to the left’s advantage.

Three members of the commission decided to disregard the mandates outlined in the Arizona Constitution and solely utilize the element of competitiveness to draft Arizona electoral boundaries.

The law states the following under Article 4, Part 2, Section 1:

(14) The independent redistricting commission shall establish congressional and legislative districts. The commencement of the mapping process for both the congressional and legislative districts shall be the creation of districts of equal population in a grid-like pattern across the state. Adjustments to the grid shall then be made as necessary to accommodate the goals as set forth below: 

A. Districts shall comply with the United States Constitution and the United States voting rights act; 

B. Congressional districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable, and state legislative districts shall have equal population to the extent practicable; 

C. Districts shall be geographically compact and contiguous to the extent practicable; 

D. District boundaries shall respect communities of interest to the extent practicable; 

E. To the extent practicable, district lines shall use visible geographic features, city, town and county boundaries, and undivided census tracts; 

F. To the extent practicable, competitive districts should be favored where to do so would create no significant detriment to the other goals.

The two Democrats and Independent member, Colleen Mathis, established “F” – the competitive provision – as the main criteria in drafting the maps.

This was a blatant redistribution of votes.

With Mathis now reinstated, the commission can move forward working to further divide and leverage minority power against the rest of the State of Arizona.

We would assume that Governor Brewer is furious over the court’s action (A statement was just released.)

This may also set the stage for a constitutional crisis.

This also should give the legislature further motive to move quickly to enter a special session with the exclusive objective of referring a repeal of the law that gave us the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

The Legislature has until November 30th to pass a referendum in order to place it on the ballot on the same day of the Presidential Preference Election on February 28th.

If you support repealing the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and restoring this authority to 90 elected accountable people instead of 5 un-elected un-accountable people, contact the Arizona Legislature and let them know.

Time is running out for the legislature to act.

Lets restore this important authority to those who will not manipulate the law using slick Democrat consulting firms.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Conservatives, Conspiracy Theories, Constitutional Law, Elected Officials, Government Reform, Judicial, Legislation, Liberals, Political Parties, Political Science, State Government Tagged With: , , , , , ,

The real lesson to learn from Ohio

November 15, 2011 By 10 Comments

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute

Although labor unions have been trumpeting their success in overturning Ohio’s ban on public sector collective bargaining after it was referred to the ballot in last week’s election, their victory was more about voter confusion than political strength. They successfully obscured the critical distinction between private sector and public sector unions. That distinction makes all the difference because it is precisely what justifies a ban on collective bargaining in the public sector that could never be justified in the private sector.

Unlike most private sector unions, public sector unions help elect their employers. Public employers thus have an interest in satisfying the demands of union members that private sector employers typically do not have. Not only that, public employers also have an inherently greater ability to pass the cost of any labor deal onto the taxpayer. Unlike a private sector business, government can forcefully seize money to pay labor costs through taxation. Although overtaxed residents can move away, a government’s tax base is far more captive than the shareholders or customer base of any private sector business.

These differences naturally cause public sector unions and employers to collude against the taxpayer far more often than private sector unions and employers collude against shareholders or customers. Taxpayers are uniquely vulnerable to fiscally extravagant and unsustainable compensation agreements being reached through collective bargaining between public sector unions and the governments that employ their members. Even worse, these fiscal abuses are imposed by government officials who are supposed to be public servants dedicated to protecting the taxpayers. A ban on public sector collective bargaining corrects that imbalance.

Governor Kasich and elected officials nationwide must not read more into this first defeat than they should. For now, it’s time to focus on better informing taxpayers about the critical differences between public and private sector unions. Once the seeds of information have been sown, genuine public servants and citizens at large will support banning public sector collective bargaining.

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.

Learn More:

Huffington Post: Ohio Issue 2: Controversial Anti-Union Law Defeated By Voters

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Jobs/Labor

Andy Biggs and Ben Quayle Provide Updates on State and Federal Govt Issues

November 10, 2011 By 4 Comments

 

The NE Valley Pachyderm Coalition meeting on Wednesday evening, November 9 was addressed by Senate Majority Leader Andy Biggs and US Representative Ben Quayle.

Senator Biggs talked about a range of topics.

  • Pearce recall election – The only reason there was a recall election is that Jerry Lewis collected signatures and submitted them to get on the ballot. If nobody had done that, there would have been no recall election even though the recall signatures had been submitted. Lewis said that if he didn’t do it, then someone else would since an election was inevitable; that is simply not true. Democrats elected Lewis. The legislature will review laws related to recalls to force elections to follow the normal election procedure (a primary and then a general election for partisan offices) in order to prevent people from disrupting the political process by bypassing party primaries by abusing the recall process.
  • Health Exchanges – These implement Obamacare. These should not be created while the constitutionality of Obamacare is still being challenged in the courts. Arizona is a party to a suit, so it would be contradicting its own legal position by creating the Health Exchanges. In addition, once these exchanges are created, they will be difficult to dismantle even if Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional. Governor Brewer is creating Health Care Exchanges over objections of key legislators in order to get Federal grants; these grants could be obtained later if Obamacare is ruled constitutional and the exchanges could be implemented at that point if necessary. Some of Brewer’s staff apparently think that having Health Care Exchanges would be a great thing at the state level even if Obamacare is eliminated.
  • State Budget – The state finally has a structurally balanced budget again. In fact, there may be a $350 Million surplus this year. Already, state government officials are trying to get higher appropriations. However, it is essential to build up a reserve because, if Obamacare remains in force, then the state will have an increase of $1 billion in medicaid costs and will need accumulated surpluses to avoid drastic tax increases or huge spending reductions in other parts of a budget of about $7 billion.
  • Independent Redistricting Commission (IRC) – Governor Brewer sent a letter to all five members of the commission telling them that they appeared to be acting improperly in fulfilling their responsibilities. The two Republican members responded and explained why they felt they were doing what they were supposed to. The Democrats and Independent did not respond. Brewer made a determination that Mathis should be removed from the commission and asked the Senate to concur by two thirds vote. They did, and that removed Mathis from the commission. So far, this has been supported in court. Brewer was originally planning on asking for the Democrats to be removed as well, but about half the Republican senators refused to go along with that. In response to a question about who those senators are, Biggs said he could not comment because the information was based on confidential conversations with other senators. The legislature will almost certainly pass a proposed constitutional amendment to send to voters to repeal Prop 106 which created the IRC. It is better to have legislators redistrict since they are accountable to the people, and the IRC obviously does not take politics out of the process.
  • Senate President election – The Republican senate caucus will meet at 10 am tomorrow to select a new Senate President. Senators who have put their names forward are Senators Biggs, Yarbrough, (Steve) Pierce, and Melvin. [Biggs has the best Reagan Republican record according to Pachyderm Coalition Legislative Ratings over the past three years.]

 

Representative Quayle started off by thanking Senator Biggs, the rest of the Republican senators, and Governor Brewer for removing Mathis from the IRC. Quayle said that the lines drawn for Congressional Districts were almost identical to the worst possible districts that Republicans could imagine the IRC could design. They were gerrymandered so egregiously, that no fair person could consider them acceptable. Although the legislative districts were not so bad, Quayle said that was done to forestall Senate action to remove IRC members. Quayle said that legislative districts would probably have been redrawn really badly after the public comment period was over anyway. Quayle agrees that it would best to amend the state constitution to let the legislature handle redistricting.

 

Representative Quayle discussed these topics also:

  • Obama’s Jobs Package – It was designed to fail so Obama could blame Congress for not doing anything about jobs. However, it even failed in the Democrat controlled Senate.
  • Regulation – The Obama Administration has added regulations in the past year requiring an additional $75 billion in annual compliance costs. There are so many regulations being added that, in three days, the stack of new regulations is about one foot high.
  • Republican Job Creation Proposals – The House has passed numerous bills, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is holding those bills. Because there are 23 Democrat senators up for election next year, many of them would probably vote for those Republican bills to help themselves get reelected. Reid fears that the bills would pass the Senate with Democrat votes which would force Obama to veto them to prevent them from passing.
  • Energy – House Republicans are trying to open up US gas and oil fields for drilling. They also want the pipeline from Canadian shale oil mines to Texas refineries to be built in order to create jobs in America and provide more refined oil products for America. There is enough oil, gas, and coal for North America to be energy independent.
  • Obama Voter “bribes” – Student loan programs are an attempt to buy support from students.. He is trying to do the same for home owners with upside down mortgages, but that will actually benefit very few home owners. Obama is fostering class warfare, and many people, including many in Quayle’s district, claim they are part of the “99%” and want the “1%” to pay for things they feel entitled to. It is an ugly approach not following the traditional American approach of being fair and respectful to everyone.
  • Super Committee – Democrats want this to fail. They want the deep cuts in Defense that a lack of agreement will bring. Cuts in Medicare will mostly be borne by health care providers being paid less rather than cuts in government.
  • Foreign Trade Agreements – These are good for the US and will create about 250,000 net jobs for Americans.
  • Federal Law to allow out of state retailers to be forced to pay state sales taxes on sales to people in states where the retailer has no physical presence – Needs to check proposed law, but thinks he is against it because it will raise taxes paid by consumers and, even more importantly, will subject retailers to state laws based on where an order comes from instead of based on their location. This will open the door to allowing states to regulate businesses in other states which will be an intolerable regulatory burden on business.

 

The next meeting will be on Wednesday, December 14. The speaker is Superintendent of Public Instruction John Huppenthal.

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Federal Government, Political Parties, State Government

Imagine a world without secret voting

October 25, 2011 By 16 Comments

by Taylor Earl
Goldwater Institute

Imagine you live in a world where all your votes are public knowledge – no voter privacy, no voting booths, and no mail-in ballots. What if you could be approached in public and asked to cast your vote on the spot?

As an illustration, imagine visiting a hospital to check on a friend. Outside, you see two large groups protesting – pro life and pro choice. With no other way in, you put your head down, and walk discreetly toward the main entrance.

You let out a sigh as two shoes start moving your way. A booming voice rings out, “Do you know how you’re going to vote on ballot initiative 99?” You look up and see an intense face, a pin advocating the position you disagree with, and reinforcements closing in: “This initiative will have huge impacts on abortion rights, you know.”

You shift uncomfortably but try to stand up straight and respond. “Yes, I do know how I will vote.” Another volunteer hands you a card. “No time like the present. Go ahead, vote right now. We’ll watch.” Your gulp is audible.

Clearly this is uncomfortable and not what many of us would want – the potential for intimidation is obvious. But if the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under President Obama gets its way, this is exactly what the workplace could look like for millions of workers.

Last year, Arizonans overwhelmingly passed a constitutional amendment that told workers “if your company is deciding whether or not to unionize, you have a constitutional right to cast your vote in secret.” But now, the NLRB is trying to strike down the amendment through a federal lawsuit. If they succeed, a union sympathizer would be permitted to accost a fellow employee and watch as the employee votes on whether or not to unionize.

But the Goldwater Institute is fighting back, defending the amendment in court. We’re hopeful that this effort to protect workers’ right to a secret ballot – already duplicated in five states, with more to follow this year – will prevail.

Taylor Earl is an attorney for the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: National Labor Relations Board v. State of Arizona (Save Our Secret Ballot case)

Goldwater Institute: Defending the right to a secret ballot and Arizona’s constitution

Huffington Post: Obama’s War on the Secret Ballot (co-authored by the Goldwater Institute’s Clint Bolick)

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Constitutional Law, Judicial

Clean Elections Commission taps taxpayer dollars to save itself

September 8, 2011 By 3 Comments

by Carrie Ann Sitren
Goldwater Institute

Arizona’s Citizens Clean Elections Commission is dirtying up politics. Afraid of a proposal on next year’s ballot that would end the commission’s funding, the commission is using taxpayer money to run ads against the ballot measure.

This ad campaign means that taxpayers who actually support ending funding for the commission could end up paying for the “no” ads – not exactly clean or fair politics.

But there’s more. The commission’s ads mislead by claiming the program uses no taxpayer money. Clean Elections receives revenue from a $5 voluntary check-off box on Arizona tax returns. But the check-off is not a typical tax credit that designates a portion of your taxes for the fund. Neither is it a donation. Instead, checking the box just reduces state revenues by increasing your refund or decreasing your tax liability by $5. It also triggers a $5 appropriation from the state’s general fund to the commission. The total cost to the state is $10 for every taxpayer who checks the box, and last year, the commission reaped $8 million in funding from check-offs.

Talk about muddying the waters. The Citizens Clean Elections Commission should live up to its name and stop using public money to sway elections.

Carrie Ann Sitren is an attorney with the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Supreme Court Declares Arizona’s Matching Funds System Unconstitutional

Arizona Legislature: S.C.R. 1025 (No Taxpayer Subsidies for Political Campaigns Act)

Arizona Legislature: Fact Sheet for S.C.R. 1025

Filed Under: Advertising, Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures, Campaign Finance, Campaigns & Elections, Initiative(s), Spending, State Government, Taxation

Gas Wars: Citizens Against Neighborhood Encroachment or Citizens Against American Business Competition

August 24, 2011 By 12 Comments

“QuikTrip officials have said they are not experienced campaigners because they have never had a gas-station issue end up on a ballot.”Arizona Republic

Who doesn’t like QuikTrip?  Cheap gas.  Tasty drinks.  Well, apparently a local Chevron franchise owner working with local political consultant Jason Rose feels otherwise.

 

 

Citizens Against Neighborhood Encroachment is a political action committee financed by Takhar Associates Investment Group. The Takhar family owns the investment group and conveniently owns a trailer park and Chevron gas station at McDowell Road and 44th Street, just a .5 mile jaunt south of the QuikTrip proposed for the northwest corner of 44th Street and Palm Lane.

 

Political action committee names are always very humorous, often concealing their true motivations behind puff language and creative acronyms. Citizens Against Neighborhood Encroachment sounds like it would comprise of concerned Phoenix citizens opposed to some sinister land plot. One would have to look behind the name to see that this group’s true motivations boil down to passing a ballot proposition that would eliminate the threat of a business competitor.

“The Takhars have said they aren’t afraid of competition. They are focused on the cost of land. They said they paid more than $3.5 million for the trailer-park and gas-station properties in the east Phoenix neighborhood, but that QuikTrip is buying property for much less because the land on Palm Lane is zoned for homes, not businesses.”

In a statement to CBS 5 News, owner Rajinder K. Takhar said: “It (Prop 2) changes the rules for a massive corporation to hurt our small businesses and those of the single family neighborhoods in the area. Liquor, gas and convenience stores should go on commercially planned land not in the middle of single family neighborhoods, especially in a part of Phoenix that has 10 gas stations within a mile.”

The Takhars claim it is not about competition at all but an unfair price advantage in land. How is that any better? If land were truly a viable residential option, why has it remained vacant for over 20 years?  It is not about a “concern” for the “neighborhood” but instead about eliminating American business competition, the single force that allows the free market to operate properly. I thought the rule was the best product wins? According to Takhar family, that’s balderdash.

 

 

A ‘Yes’ vote on Proposition 2 would approve the rezoning of property located at the southwest corner of 44th Street and Palm Lane, currently zoned as residential, to permit a gas station and convenience store. A ‘No’ vote would leave that parcel as residential only.  A copy of Proposition 2 can be viewed here.

According to Mike Thornbrugh, a spokesman for QuikTrip:

“In 50 years of doing business we have never seen this before where you do all your due diligence, we made 13, 14, 15 changes to accommodate some of the concerns out there, and we have never had a competitor come in and spend this kind of money.”

Opponents of Proposition 2 would like to present this struggle as a “David vs. Goliath” type effort.  Fighting a multi-billion dollar corporation looking to locate a business in their quaint neighborhood.  According to Citizens Against Neighborhood Encroachment:

“An out-of-state corporation, out-of-state property owner and influential lobbyist convinced the Phoenix City Council to change the rules and allow a liquor, gas and convenience store, operating 24hours per day, 7 days a week, to go into the middle of an East Phoenix neighborhood, on land that was long-planned for residential.”

But who are the REAL opponents?

According to the Arizona Republic:

In its statement of organization, the PAC said it got a $51,500 loan from Enterprise Bank and Trust late last year.

About $50,000 of the loan covered the residents’ fees for Summit Consulting Group, which gathered more than the 9,798 signatures the residents needed for a voter referendum to fight the QuikTrip.

Summit Consulting is a professional consulting firm that manages campaigns and political candidates including running the YES on Proposition 1 (Home Rule) campaign, to contracts with candidates such as Claude Mattox and Matt Salmon.  Jason Rose is arguably the biggest PR name in the Valley, and his services come with a hefty price tag.  Further, the $50,000 loan comes from the Takhar Associates Investment Group, an LLC owned by Rajinder Takhar.  Rajinder is the wife of Gurvinder Takhar, who illegally sold the Chevron station to his wife when he was convicted of tax evasion in 2002.

Apparently, the gas business has been very, very good to the Takhar’s, who own a $1.5 million dollar home in Moon Valley.  There is no doubt that they are aware of the fact that a new QT will affect their business and hurt their current profit margins as the closest gas station near the 202 freeway.

The most recent campaign filings for NO on Prop 2 at the Phoenix City Clerk Department show the loan came from Takhar Associates Investment Group, a Glendale limited-liability company whose owner, Rajinder Takhar, lives in Paradise Valley.  Again, these are the same Takhars who own and operate the Chevron at 44th Street and McDowell.

The Takhars also suggest their opposition to Prop 2 is a matter of concerns over congestion and public safety, trying to rally the neighborhood around the cause. As anyone who lives in the area or routinely drives by the proposed location knows, the area is already congested and the site has been nothing more than a vacant dirt lot for over 20 years.  The home directly across from the proposed QT site routinely has six plus cars parked in the driveway and the street including numerous cabs.  If there were ever a case to be made for an HOA, this is it.  Further, the Chevron located at 44th Street and McDowell trying to force QuikTrip out of the neighborhood is sadly a magnet for transients, taggers, meth addicts and bus stop hooligans.

A Clean Freak car wash already exists 100 yards to the south of the proposed site and a Costco exists another 100 yards to the north.  The idea that this area is exclusively residential is a stretch.  The addition of a new QuikTrip, which will provide a well-lit 24-hour business with new jobs and improve an already blighted property, should be considered a welcome addition to the area. The Phoenix City Council, along with the Planning Village and Planning and Zoning Committees, already approved the development of this property by QuikTrip.

 

Opponents of Proposition 2 recently claimed in a mailer that “a recent Arizona State University study found convenience stores such as Circle K and QuikTrips generate large numbers of calls about crime.”  Wouldn’t the same logic apply to the Takhars Chevron station?  However, in all fairness, the inclusion of QuikTrip in the mailer is not accurate.  The ASU study actually concluded that Circle K’s “comprised more than half of all police calls to convenience stores in Mesa, Glendale and Tempe in 2010, although the chain makes up no more than a third of convenience stores in each of the cities.”

Further, let’s look at the QuikTrip business model.  QuikTrip operates the “Safe Place” program, which is a national nonprofit organization that provides safety for troubled or threatened youth.

According to QT’s website:

Since 1991, QuikTrip has been a designated SafePlace, where runaways and at-risk youth can come in off the street, receive food and drink, and wait for a volunteer from a SafePlace agency partner to connect them with professional help or a place to stay until their situation is resolved.

More on the Safe Place program can be found here.  More on QT’s community involvement can be viewed here.

Need more proof? In February, QuikTrip was named one of the 100 Best Places to Work by Fortune magazine. It was QuikTrip’s fifth consecutive year on the list.

According to CSDecisions.com:

What’s even more impressive is that the honor comes at a time when gas prices are among the highest they have ever been, and competition from supermarkets and hypermarts is as fierce as ever.

Finally, as anyone who frequents QTs can easily recognize, the convenience stores are frequented by law enforcement.  It is my understanding that many QTs provide free coffee and even free food for police officers.  The Phoenix Police Department utilizes the QT station located at 16th Street and Highland as a police substation, routinely using the back parking lot as a mobile DUI-testing and booking station.  In Edwardsville, Illinois and St. Louis, Missouri, I am personally aware of two QuikTrips that provide space in the back of their properties for police substations because the main police department station is located on the other side of town.

Does this sound like a bad addition to a neighborhood that struggles with crime?

Gurvinder Singh Takhar, the original owner of the Chevron station, apparently is no saint either, having been involved in a nasty family altercation that resulted in domestic violence charges and costly litigation.  Takhar also spent time in jail for tax evasion. Court records show he served five months in prison in 2002 and paid $40,000 in fines after he was convicted of felony attempted tax evasion. Phoenix police records show Gurvinder later was denied a liquor license for the AM/PM gas station in Phoenix that is now the Chevron operating under his wife’s name.

Takhar is also politically connected.  Takhar hosted a fundraiser for Peggy Neely at his lavish home back in 2010.  Neely opposes Proposition 2, along with the other candidates for Mayor.

The opposition to Proposition 2 from the mayoral candidates is likely due to the fact that NAILEM, the largest neighborhood group in the City of Phoenix, opposes the proposition.  A sure fire way to lose a large chunk of votes in a low turnout election in the City of Phoenix is to offend neighborhood groups.

There is nothing wrong with a community rallying together and putting forth a referendum to oppose zoning changes made at City Hall.  It is the purest form of democracy and the right of the community at the heart of this struggle.  In fact, it is believed that this is the first time a referendum will ever appear on a Phoenix City ballot.

However, in the same breath, this effort must also be viewed for what it truly is: one well-financed business owner using the political process and high priced consultants to put another private company out of business.

For more information, visit:

http://yesonquiktrip.com/

http://prop2stinks.com/

This piece  can be seen at Western Free Press with original comments here.

Western Free Press is dedicated to generating public dialogue on Arizona’s most important issues and figures.

Filed Under: Arizona Politics, Ballot Measures Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,

Positive Step for Secretary Bennett’s Planned Defense of Citizenship

April 27, 2011 By Leave a Comment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 27, 2011
CONTACT: Matthew Roberts

Rehearing Granted in Voter Registration Case

Today’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant a rehearing on Gonzalez v. Arizona before the entire membership of the court, (en banc) comes as great news to many, including Secretary of State Ken Bennett who promised to defend Arizona’s Proposition 200 all the way to the Supreme Court.

Proposition 200, when passed by Arizona voters in 2004, required that voter registration applicants provide documentary proof of citizenship. In addition it required that voters provide proof of identity at the polls on Election Day.

“Today’s decision to grant the petition for a rehearing en banc by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is encouraging,” said Secretary Bennett” “Arizonans obviously believe that people should provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote and we are pleased that the court may reconsider its decision.”

Last October, the 9th Circuit in San Francisco struck down Arizona’s requirement that residents provide proof of citizenship when they register to vote. Proposition 200 was passed by Arizona voters in 2004 and helps make sure that only eligible people vote in elections. The Court ruled that a federal voter-registration law supersedes Arizona’s requirement.

“What seems like common sense to most of us, others feel is a burdensome requirement,” the Secretary continued. “The previous decision by the 9th Circuit was an outrage, and I thought was a slap in the face to Arizonans who are concerned about the integrity of our elections. There isn’t a corner of this state where people are not concerned with voter fraud and opposition to the simple act of providing proof that you are legally eligible to participate in our elections is incomprehensible.”

Those registering to vote in Arizona are required to provide one of the following documents: a driver’s license, passport, birth certificate, tribal identification or naturalization certification number. Voters seeking to register online must provide a driver’s license number, which is verified through Arizona’s motor vehicle system.

“Not expecting either side to fight this all the way to the Supreme Court is like not expecting hot summer days in Phoenix,” said Bennett. “Today’s decision is just another step along that path and we’re prepared to fight for Arizona’s right to fair and fraud free elections.”

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Judicial, Press Release, State Government Tagged With: , ,

Paycheck Protection continues toward 2012 Ballot despite Arizona Chamber’s destructive meddling

March 23, 2011 By 3 Comments

 

The Arizona House Government Committee on Tuesday passed Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028 which, if passed, would ask Arizona voters to amend the Arizona Constitution to recognize employees’ fundamental right to protect their paychecks from political machinations.

SCR 1028, introduced by Senator Frank Antenori and 43 co-sponsors, states:

“An employee in this state shall be free from any employer deducting or facilitating the deduction of a payment from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes, unless the employee annually provides express written permission to make the deduction.”

The language is fair, reasonable and straight-forward—precisely the qualities of a constitutional amendment that the Arizona electorate rewards with their votes. SCR 1028 places its focus where it belongs, on the right of Arizona workers to decide whether they wish to participate in political activities.

As a ballot referendum, the grassroots conservative proponents of this fundamental employee right embrace the clarity required in a single-subject constitutional proposition. SCR 1028 does not discriminate between management and labor by treating the political fundraising of each differently. Moreover, SCR 1028 does not invite the legitimate charge of political favoritism by denying this amendment’s constitutional protections to one or more groups of employees. SCR 1028 is so evenhanded and nondiscriminatory; it passed the Senate with bipartisan support.

However, special interests are trying to hijack the legislation and risk its chances of victory on the November 2012 ballot. Worse, if their actions are successful would likely invalidate the proposition and void its fitness to appear on the ballot.

The assault on SCR 1028 took the form a failed amendment crafted by the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry that would make an exception for “payments to a separate segregated fund maintained by an employer.”

The Arizona Chamber’s destructive and shortsighted amendment is designed to deny corporate political action committee contributors the same rights every other employee enjoys under SCR 1028. However, in addition to carving out Big Business PACs, such “separate segregated funds” present an enormous loophole that union bosses will use to continue to spend their members’ pay for political causes the employees do not support.

On policy grounds alone, it is a bad amendment and must not be allowed to be made to SCR 1028. But the amendment’s destructiveness goes deeper.

According to constitutional law expert Clint Bolick of the Goldwater Institute, “That exception would destroy the universality of the principle at issue. It also could expose the measure to an equal protection challenge under the United States Constitution.”

Also, by accommodating this one special interest’s shortsightedness, the entire paycheck protection effort will likely founder on the rocks of a single subject challenge in the courts. Such a single subject challenge should be fresh in our minds because it derailed what would have been Prop. 108 in 2010. That troubled effort required a desperately assembled Special Session at the last possible moment in August 2010 to re-refer a valid version of the Save Our Secret Ballot Anti-Card Check Referendum (Prop. 113).

Why would legislative leadership ever entertain risking the validity of another referral on the flimsy and self-serving meddling of a special interest? If a special interest like the Arizona Chamber cannot abide SCR 1028 without their carve-out then they should oppose the measure in the light of day and allow lawmakers to discern the value of the unaltered legislation.

Grassroots conservative supporters of a viable paycheck protection constitutional amendment should contact the bill’s sponsor Sen. Frank Antenori and all members of the Republican House Caucus and support the SCR 1028 WITHOUT AMENDMENT.

Please contact the following legislators and ask them to support SCR 1028 WITHOUT AMENDMENTS.

House GOP Caucus District Email Phone
Kirk Adams (Speaker of the House) 19 kadams@azleg.gov 602-926-5495
Cecil Ash 18 cash@azleg.gov 602-926-3160
Brenda Barton 5 bbarton@azleg.gov 602-926-4129
Kate Brophy McGee 11 kbrophymcgee@azleg.gov 602-926-4486
Judy Burges 4 jburges@azleg.gov 602-926-5861
Heather Carter 7 hcarter@azleg.gov 602-926-5503
Steve Court 18 scourt@azleg.gov 602-926-4467
Chester Crandell 5 ccrandell@azleg.gov 602-926-5409
Jeff Dial 20 jdial@azleg.gov 602-926-5550
Karen Fann 1 kfann@azleg.gov 602-926-5874
Eddie Farnsworth 22 efarnsworth@azleg.gov 602-926-5735
John Fillmore 23 jfillmore@azleg.gov 602-926-3012
Tom Forese 21 tforese@azleg.gov 602-926-5168
Doris Goodale 3 dgoodale@azleg.gov 602-926-5408
David Gowan 30 dgowan@azleg.gov 602-926-3312
Rick Gray 9 rgray@azleg.gov 602-926-5993
Jack Harper 4 jharper@azleg.gov 602-926-4178
Russ Jones 24 rjones@azleg.gov 602-926-3002
Peggy Judd 25 pjudd@azleg.gov 602-926-5836
John Kavanagh 8 jkavanagh@azleg.gov 602-926-5170
Debbie Lesko (Majority Whip) 9 dlesko@azleg.gov 602-926-5413
Nancy McLain 3 nmclain@azleg.gov 602-926-5051
J.D. Mesnard 21 jmesnard@azleg.gov 602-926-4481
Steve Montenegro (Speaker Pro Tempore) 12 smontenegro@azleg.gov 602-926-5955
Justin Olson 19 jolson@azleg.gov 602-926-5288
Frank Pratt 23 fpratt@azleg.gov 602-926-5761
Amanda Reeve 6 areeve@azleg.gov 602-926-3014
Bob Robson 20 brobson@azleg.gov 602-926-5549
Carl Seel 6 cseel@azleg.gov 602-926-3018
David Burnell Smith 7 dsmith@azleg.gov 602-926-4916
David W. Stevens 25 dstevens@azleg.gov 602-926-4321
Andy Tobin (Majority Leader) 1 atobin@azleg.gov 602-926-5172
Michelle Ugenti 8 mugenti@azleg.gov 602-926-4480
Steve Urie 22 surie@azleg.gov 602-926-4136
Ted Vogt 30 tvogt@azleg.gov 602-926-3235
Jim Weiers 10 jweiers@azleg.gov 602-926-4173
Jerry Weiers 12 jpweiers@azleg.gov 602-926-5894
Vic Williams 26 vwilliams@azleg.gov 602-926-5839
Kimberly Yee 10 kyee@azleg.gov 602-926-3024
SCR 1028′s Prime Sponsor
Frank Antenori 30 fantenori@azleg.gov 602-926-5683

See who else supports SCR 1028:

AMIGOS Supports SCR 1028
Alliance for Worker Freedom supports SCR 1028
National Taxpayers Union supports SCR 1028
NFIB supports SCR 1028

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaign Finance, Elected Officials, Freedom of Speech, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, PAC's Tagged With: , , ,

Arizona’s brewing union battle

March 3, 2011 By 1 Comment

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

2011 may very well mark the year that many policymakers and citizens nationwide take action to curb the corrosive influence of unions. In the public sector, they create costs and inefficiencies, from inflated pension and health care costs to cumbersome work rules. In the private sector, they make companies uncompetitive and promote unemployment due to artificially high wages and benefits.
 
While President Obama has made union-building a top priority, Arizona has quite a different approach.
 
Already we enjoy a competitive advantage as a right-to work state, so that compulsory membership in a union is illegal. Last year Arizonans overwhelmingly adopted Save Our Secret Ballot, which prohibits union formation without secret-ballot elections by the affected workers.
 
This year, the Legislature is considering H.B. 2644, sponsored by new lawmaker Rep. Michelle Ugenti, which would prohibit local governments and state agencies from accepting federal funds if doing so requires preferences for union contractors. If adopted, the bill will keep contract costs low, and increase job opportunities—and send a message to Washington, D.C. that in Arizona, unions must compete on a level playing field without the hand of the federal government tipping the scale in their favor.
  
Senator Frank Antenori and Representative Judy Burges have introduced an amendment to the state constitution (which the Goldwater Institute helped draft) that would be placed on the 2012 ballot that would establish the right of workers not to have union dues taken out of their paychecks for political purposes. Unions are a juggernaut in American politics not because their members willingly support them, but rather because in most instances they have no choice. If Arizonans pass this measure, workers who belong to a union will finally have a say about whether or not their dues can be used to play politics.

Eliminating the government-conferred advantages that unions enjoy—advantages that too often turn into a taxpayer-supported gravy train—will strengthen Arizona’s economy in the long run.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute’s Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Learn More:

Goldwater Institute: Undisciplined Bureaucracy: The Difficulty in Disciplining a Government Worker

Arizona Republic: Public Pensions: A Soaring Burden

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Jobs/Labor, Legislation, State Government

Arizona Legislature Must Act to Protect Employee Paychecks from Political Abuse

February 24, 2011 By Leave a Comment

The Arizona Senate is ready for floor debate on a ballot referral critically important to gaining lasting control over our state and local budgets — SCR 1028 on Paycheck Protection.  The below letter was delivered Wednesday to all Republican lawmakers.

 

Coalition to Protect
Employee Paychecks from Politics

February 23, 2011

The Honorable Russell Pearce
President of the Arizona Senate
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

The Honorable Kirk Adams
Speaker of the Arizona House of Representatives
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, Arizona 85007

RE: SCR 1028 & HCR 2032 on Paycheck Protection

Dear President Pearce and Speaker Adams:

The on-going protests in Madison, Wisconsin should sound the alarm here in Arizona regarding the danger of indulging special interests to the point where they threaten to close down state government and disrupt our political processes.  As representatives of conservative, grassroots and small business organizations, we urge you to take proactive steps to ensure that Arizona never becomes as beholden to these special interests as the Badger State has.

Therefore, we request that you use your considerable influence and institutional powers to give Arizonans the opportunity to vote to enshrine in the Arizona Constitution their fundamental right to protect employee paychecks from politics.

Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, introduced by Senator Frank Antenori and 43 co-sponsors, and House Concurrent Resolution 2032, introduced by Representative Judy Burges and 44 co-sponsors, state: 

An employee in this state shall be free from any employer deducting or facilitating the deduction of a payment from an employee’s paycheck for political purposes, unless the employee annually provides express written permission to make the deduction.

The language is fair, reasonable and straight-forward—precisely the qualities of a constitutional amendment that the Arizona electorate rewards with their votes.  This referral does not discriminate between political money deducted by labor unions or corporate political action committees.  Both are treated equally.  Moreover, this construction places the focus where it belongs, on the fundamental rights of all workers to control their paychecks.

A 2010 poll of 400 likely Arizona voters found 76 percent favor such an amendment and 20 percent oppose.  The poll also found that 64 percent were “definitely yes” while only 14 percent were “definitely no” voters.

The time is now to seize the initiative and provide voters this opportunity to affirm their rights through a constitutional amendment.  We urge you to schedule a floor vote on a paycheck protection ballot question during the 2011 Regular Session so the conservative, grassroots and small business supporters of paycheck protection can use the full year-and-a-half between now and Election Day 2012 to organize, educate and raise the funds necessary to secure victory.

It is imperative that you help the conservative, grassroots and small business base by giving us enough time to wage an aggressive and well-financed effort.  The 2010 election cycle is illustrative of why we feel passing a referral in 2011 is essential to our ultimate success.  Propositions 106 (Healthcare Freedom), 107 (Civil Rights) and 113 (Save Our Secret Ballot) were all launched by referrals in 2009 and all won by comfortable margins.  Conversely, every constitutional amendment referred in 2010 failed, some by very narrow margins.

Constitutional Amendment   Constitutional Amendment
Campaigns Begun in 2009   Campaigns Begun in 2010
       
Prop. 106: Healthcare Freedom Prop. 109: Hunting & Fishing
Yes 892,693 55.28%   Yes 714,144 43.52%
No 722,300 44.72%   No 926,991 56.48%
  1,614,993       1,641,135  
             
        Prop. 110: State Trust Lands
Prop. 107: Civil Rights   Yes 792,394 49.71%
Yes 952,086 59.51%   No 801,670 50.29%
No 647,713 40.49%     1,594,064  
  1,599,799          
        Prop. 111: Lt. Governor
        Yes 655,252 40.77%
Prop. 113: Save Our Secret Ballot No 951,820 59.23%
Yes 978,109 60.46%     1,607,072  
No 639,692 39.54%        
  1,617,801     Prop. 112: Initiative Timeline
        Yes 792,697 50.00%
        No 792,825 50.00%
          1,585,522  

 

We know legislative leadership has traditionally held that ballot propositions are best referred in the year of the election.  However, as the protests in Madison, Wisconsin illustrate, the likely forces opposed to paycheck protection can and will always bring maximum resources to fight for their big government agenda regardless of notice.  Regrettably, the forces supporting a smaller government and individual responsibility are the ones that need time to organize and mobilize. 

We cannot afford to wait until less than six months before the election to decide to rise to this challenge.  Please give us the best chance to support and pass this crucial constitutional amendment that will serve as a foundation to regaining and maintaining Arizona’s fiscal health.

Please schedule floor votes on SCR 1028 and/or HCR 2032 during this session of the Arizona Legislature.

Thank you for considering our views. We would welcome the opportunity at your earliest convenience to discuss the merits of referring this measure to the ballot this year.

Sincerely:

Farrell Quinlan
Arizona State Director
National Federation of Independent Business
3550 North Central Avenue, Suite 1806
Phoenix, Arizona  85012

Tom Jenney
Arizona Director
Americans for Prosperity
One East Camelback Road, Suite 550
Phoenix, Arizona  85012

Roy Miller
Chairman
Arizona Employee Protection Committee
8912 East Pinnacle Peak Road, Suite F9-235
Scottsdale, Arizona  85255

Sydney Hay
President of AMIGOS
Arizona Mining Industry Gets Our Support
Post Office Box 25187
Phoenix, Arizona  85002-5187

cc:  All Members of the Republican Majority in the Arizona House of Representatives
       All Members of the Republican Majority in the Arizona Senate

Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Campaigns & Elections, Government Reform, Jobs/Labor, Legislation Tagged With: , , , , , , , ,

Ward Connerly on where we go now that Prop. 107 has passed

November 28, 2010 By 2 Comments

A m e r i c a n  P o s t – G a z e t t e

Distributed by C O M M O N  S E N S E , in Arizona

Sunday, November 28, 2010

A majority of voters supported Prop. 107; it’s not racist
The City of Tucson’s blatant 7% bid preferences are now over

by Ward Connerly

The concept commonly known as “affirmative action” in America has a noble beginning. Originated during one of the most tumultuous periods in American history – the “civil rights” era – affirmative action was launched in 1961 to usher in a policy of nondiscrimination.

By the mid-1960′s, affirmative action had been transformed into a series of policies and programs whose purpose was to increase the number of “minorities” in the public workplace, in pubic contracting, and in public college enrollment.

Throughout its history, it has been widely acknowledged that affirmative action, as it was evolving, could not endure. In fact, at frequent times following its creation, even members of the United States Supreme Court, while affirming the continued use of race as a constitutional approach in certain areas of American life, strongly suggested that the day would come when affirmative action would have to yield to the fundamental principle of equal treatment for all Americans without regard to race or color.

A prominent Arizonan, former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, opined in 2003 that “a core purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to do away with all governmentally imposed discrimination based on race. Accordingly, race-conscious … policies must be limited in time. Enshrining a permanent justification for racial preferences would offend this fundamental equal protection principle.”

For the appropriate time to end race preferences in Arizona, “that time is now,” the Arizona Republic so eloquently put it in one of its editorials. By a 60-40 percent margin, the people of Arizona concurred on November 2, 2010.

Now, with the election behind us, the process of applying principles of true equality to the public sector of Arizona life must begin in earnest. As one who has been involved in all five of the statewide ballot initiatives in America that have ended race preferences. I believe it might be useful to address some of the criticisms and concerns expressed before and in the aftermath of the passage of Proposition 107.

First, there are those who suggest some sort of “right wing” effort underway to “turn back the clock” on equal opportunity in Arizona. Construing Proposition 107 as part of some “anti-ethnic” conspiracy is blatantly false, especially when one considers that an identical initiative passed in such blue states of California, Michigan and Washington by margins of 55-45, 58-42 an 59-41, respectively.

The fundamental pillars of American society are freedom and the principle of equal treatment for all without regard to the color of our skin, our gender or our ethnic background. People flock to our nation from all around the globe in pursuit of a better life for themselves and their families based on these principles. Implicit in these principles is the belief in the concept of individual merit.

Some fear that applying colorblind government will have the “unintended consequence” of erasing “diversity” at the university and in the workplace. That fear is misplaced, first because “diversity” involves more than skin color and ethnic background; and second, if we accept the premise that “civil rights” belong to all of us, regardless of skin color, then diversity must necessarily be secondary to equality.

This does not mean that the university and other institutions are forbidden from casting a wide net when they recruit. To the contrary, such strategies are encouraged by the spirit of 107 to ensure that nondiscrimination is occurring.

University of Arizona President Robert Shelton is correct when he states that there are race neutral methods of pursuing “diversity” within the legal framework of 107 and we offer our assistance to him in the pursuit of that objective. A simple solution to enable many so-called diversity programs and scholarships to continue is to expand their access to all, without regard to race or gender. As a matter of equity and fairness public funds should not be used to discriminate. This prohibition also applies to private funds routed through the University.

On the other hand, explicit preferences in contracting, such as one being implemented by a major Arizona municipality, cannot survive the demand of 107 for equal treatment. Such contracting bid preferences must be terminated. In their place, however, nothing forbids a municipality from “casting a wide net” among small businesses by assisting with the removal of procurement obstacles that confront small business owners of all ethnic and gender backgrounds.

As one who traveled from one end of Arizona to the other – and all parts in between – I can attest to the goodwill of those who voted in favor of 107. Their motives are pure and their faith in the principle that all of us are “created equal” is now a constitutional dictate of Arizona.

In 2011, we will observe the fiftieth anniversary of “affirmative action.” It has served a useful purpose during its existence. But, like many government creations, the dynamics of a vibrant and creative society such as America, have made government-sanctioned discrimination an unacceptable cure for the disease of racial discrimination. We must now live out the American creed of equal treatment from our government for all of our people.

Join Our Mailing List
Filed Under: Ballot Measures, Government, Race Relations
« Older Posts