At the January, 2009 Arizona Republican Party state convention, the party expressed its will and resolved to oppose photo radar.  This is the body that sets policy for the state Republican party.  State Committeemen from all over the state convened to conduct its business.  Among other things, it unanimously passed the resolution you see at the bottom of this post.

In defiance of the will of the body of Republican State Committeemen comes Republican Senator Linda Gray from legislative district 10.  Linda Gray is the sponsor of SB1443 and SCR1059.  These two bills are the same bills.  They ostensibly are being run to “correct” technical problems and “improve” the state’s photo radar program. 

SCR1059 is a referendum version to put on the ballot to confuse voters, presumably if Camerafraud.com’s efforts are successful and they get their citizens’ initiative on the ballot to end photo radar.  SB1443 is merely the floor version of the bill.  Catcalls also go out to self-proclaimed pro-liberty Republican Frank Antenori from LD-30 for sponsoring these bills in the house.

In fact, these bills are being run at the behest of Redflex’s lobbyists. 

If you don’t already know (thanks to Camerafraud.com for the info!), the “cameras” are not photo cameras, but they stream surveillance video 24×7x365 to computer servers belonging to a foreign corporation.  Redflex has the ability to identify the license plate that passes each camera (anywhere in the world they operate!)  The “corrections” these bills will implement are:

• automatically ticket you for failing to register your vehicle
• automatically ticket you for failing to renew your insurance on time
• automatically ticket you for texting on your cell or talking on the phone (like California, that ban is in the works already)
• automatically ticket you for failing to buckle your seatbelt

The bottom line is that a foreign corporation is spying on Arizonans’ movements 24×7x365.  Not even 20 years ago, any elected official even suggesting such a thing would have been labelled a communist and driven out of office.

Today, disgracefully, Republicans (or those who like to call themselves that) kowtow to lobbyists of foreign corporations to help them pass laws to spy on Americans, in this case Arizonans.

On February 10th, Linda Gray along with recently appointed (and self-proclaimed) “conservative”  Republican David Braswell from LD-6 voted with Democrats to pass SB1443 and SCR1059 out of committee. 

Please do not hesitate to contact your state legislators in the House and in the Senate to voice your strong opposition to these bills SB1443 and SCR1059.

As far as Republicans Linda Gray, David Braswell and Frank Antenori go, why do we even have a Republican party, if these Republican state senators and representatives push their own personal agendas and those of the lobbyists of foreign corporations against the will of the Arizona Republican Party and against the interests of Arizonans?

It’s time to hold our elected Republicans accountable.  Just calling yourself “conservative” or “pro-liberty” doesn’t cut it anymore.  We want to see CONSISTENT ACTION, no more chin music.  

Teaparty, anyone?

(Ironically, David Braswell was the state GOP Resolutions Committee chairman at the time this resolution passed out of the party committee before it went to the whole of the state committee.)

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Proposition 200 is marketed as an effort to focus Tucson on giving priority funding to core local government services–law enforcement, emergency medical services and fire protection–in order to generate better response times. But the truth is it would just mandate more government spending with no strings attached.

The hiring mandates tied to the city charter amendment would be imposed on city taxpayers regardless of economic circumstances, and they won’t be cheap. Independent audits estimate Prop. 200 would cost $150 million over the next five years.

Perhaps this major new expense could be justified if Prop. 200 included a strong mechanism for ensuring it would actually result in improved public safety. But there is no consequence if the funding does not, in fact, result in better service.

There is a better way.

The recent Goldwater Institute report, “A New Charter for American Cities,” recommends that funding for public-safety services be tied to performance goals. Police and fire departments that fail to meet their goals should see their operations competitively outsourced to the county, nearby municipalities or even the private sector.

If all else fails, residents and businesses should be given property tax credits for hiring private security or fire-protection firms to furnish public safety services.

By contrast, Proposition 200 would mandate hiring scores of new government employees without requiring spending be reduced elsewhere or imposing any incentive for good performance or consequence for bad performance.

This won’t put public safety first; it will just bloat city government.
 
Nick Dranias holds the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government.

By Tom Patterson
Goldwater Institute
 
Remember the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act that was on the ballot last year and barely failed with 49.8 percent of the vote? The Legislature has already ensured it will be back on the ballot next year, where it’s likely to pass. If it does, it could be joined by other states around the country to trigger a much-needed reset of the relationship between the states and federal government.

The 2008 ballot proposition was plain vanilla. It would simply have prohibited laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health providers or the right to pay for medical services. The opposition, well-funded by insurance plans and business groups, argued simultaneously that it would do nothing and that it would limit future legislative options. Whipping out the fear-of-the-unknown card, they claimed, falsely, that Medicare and Medicaid patients could lose coverage. It was all typical technique for a “no” campaign, but in the end they confused enough voters to eke out the victory.

Today, Americans are much more focused on health care policy and they have more reason than ever to build firewalls for themselves against an over-reaching federal government. The powers in Washington keep marching forward, determined to eventually bring our health care options under their control.

The history of past federal programs also suggests a strong need for caution. Courts and bureaucrats have a habit of morphing federal programs into forms vastly more comprehensive than originally intended. Social Security was created as a modest supplement for poverty-ridden seniors. Today’s retirees receive a fraction of the income they could have received if they could have saved and invested their own payroll contribution dollars. Yet Social Security owes to future beneficiaries trillions of dollars that we don’t have, casting a pall over the economic future of the country.

So Arizonans are only being practical to seek protection at the state level from relentless federal intrusions. Yet, even if the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act passes on the state level, it will be challenged on the grounds that federal legislation pre-empts state law.

The complicated legal arguments about pre-emption will have to be duked out in court. But the threat to freedom-loving people today is the centralization of power in a federal government that ceaselessly expands and intrudes. Surely, our system of federalism doesn’t permit the feds to extend more control over the decisions of our daily lives while the states helplessly look on. Let’s hope the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act will be the driver for fundamental change.
 
Tom Patterson is chairman of the Goldwater Institute and a former state senator. A longer version of this article first appeared in the East Valley Tribune.

I respectfully disagree with AZ Insider’s post below. While anti-tax organizations like Americans for Tax Reform and Americans for Prosperity have backed off on their criticism of the tax increase referral, because of all the tax cuts, tax credits, etc. that have been added to it lessening the blow, it is still the most principled position to oppose ANY tax increase referral. Years down the road, when people have forgotten this budget bill, all that most of them will hear about is whether a particular representative voted for or against Brewer’s tax increase referral. Legislators like Gould and Gorman represent the conservative, principled base of the party, and perhaps they would like a future in politics. They can run on a record of consistently opposing taxes WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

So while it is understandable why other conservative legislators have finally caved, it is still much more impressive as a principled conservative legislator to hold out against the tax referral. The Goldwater Institute still has not come out and said it’s ok to vote for the tax increase referral. Their last article on the proposed budget deal and tax referral was highly critical of the referral. I doubt legislators who vote for the tax increase referral will be getting as high of scores in the Goldwater Institute’s next legislative rankings compared to the legislators who held out against voting for it.  Americans for Prosperity and Americans for Tax Reform finally agreed that the tax increase referral could be neutral, ONLY if every tax cut that has been added to sweeten the deal actually gets added. (see article here and AFP chart here)

Although conservatives are optimistic that a tax referral will be voted down at the ballot, they underestimate the power of special interests. Prop. 400, the Phoenix blight rail initiative, passed easily at the ballot in 2004 because it was masqueraded as a transportation initiative that would improve our roads. Chuck Coughlin’s High Ground is the primary entity pushing Brewer’s tax increase referral, hoping to benefit his construction and infrastructure clients like the Associated General Contractors. The tax referral will be masked as “Vote Yes to Improve Arizona’s Roads” or something similar.  Proponents will probably even find some crazy way to claim it won’t actually raise taxes, by claiming whatever infrastructure projects they fund will generate their own revenues or some other hare-brained scheme.  With the millions Coughlin’s wealthy clients can throw in to fund glossy flyers touting the initiative, it won’t be too hard to fool the voters. Furthermore, if the tax increase is bundled in an initiative with the tax cuts, there is no way to enact the tax cuts without voting for the tax increase!

While it is understandable why some conservative legislators have caved in on the tax increase referral in hopes that the tax reduction package will be included and the voters will vote against the tax increase (and no doubt due to tremendous pressure by leadership, Brewer, and Coughlin who is reportedly at the Capitol constantly harassing them) ultimately the most principled stance would be to hold out against the tax increase referral.

The Arizona Civil Rights Initiative (SCR 1031) will be heard in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Tuesday June 16 at 2:00pm.

SCR 1031 will amend the state constitution to prohibit affirmative action programs that grant preference based on race or gender in public contracting, public employment or public education.

In Arizona, if the House and Senate vote in favor of such a concurrent resolution, they can refer the Civil Rights Initiative to the general election ballot for November 2010.

The House Government Committee passed the House version of the bill last Wednesday 6 to 3. The Republicans on the committee voted unanimously to pass the bill. Republican members, Antenori, Crump, Driggs, Gowan, Montenegro and Nichols deserve praise for their support to end race preferences in public contracting, public employment and public education.

We need to show the legislature that there is strong support for ending affirmative action programs that grant preferential treatment in our state. If you or friends and family can attend all you have to do is sign in and specify “in favor of,” you will not need to prepare any comments or speak on behalf of the bill.

The ACLU, NAACP and other members of the left will stop and nothing to preserve their radical agenda. They will be at the committee hearing in full force misrepresenting the initiative. Now is the chance to fight back.

Contact your state Senator and tell them to support SCR 1031, click on this link for a member roster.

When: Tuesday, June 16th at 2:00pm
Where: Senate Building (next to the capitol)
1700 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85007

For additional information email info@arizonacri.org

Come and show your support – Together we can end affirmative action programs that grant preferential treatment based on race or sex in Arizona.

Transportation & Infrastructure Moving

David Martin, was co-chairman of the TIME Initiative Campaign (Prop 203).   Then Gov. Janet Napolitano supported the tax increase, while then Secretary of State Jan Brewer said Proposition 203

failed to gather the required number of petition signatures to qualify for the ballot.   There was even a statewide poll among small business owners showing a mixed reaction to the new tax.

Now I recall, someone defending the current *temporary* tax increase suggested it was to be used for education.   Oddly enough, it also seems that there will be over $800,000,000.00 of federal stimulus monies coming into Arizona to address education issues.

Now, David Martin is President of the AZ Associated General Contractors, and according to the Clients page of Chuck Coughlin’s HighGround (http://www.azhighground.com/clients/index.php), Mr. Martin’s trade group is a client.

Maybe its just me, or could this *temporary* tax increase be simply a trip down memory lane for Jan, Chuck and Dave?

Here’s some links to the past.  Consider who the Governor’s chief adviser is.  Consider someone is pushing pretty hard for a $500,000,000.00 tax increase that they promise is *temporary*.  Psst… look for the crossed fingers.

http://triangle.bizjournals.com/triangle/othercities/phoenix/stories/2008/07/21/daily5.html

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_203_(2008)

http://phoenix.bizjournals.com/phoenix/stories/2008/08/11/daily32.html?surround=lfn

btw… nothing here is personal, just very curious.

Election Day was over 24 days ago. Proposition 102 won 56.2% to 43.8%. The election is over. The voters decided. It’s time to move on.

I am astonished by the reaction by homosexual activists across the country toward the passage of all state ballot measures upholding the definition of traditional marriage.

Here in Arizona, letters have continued to run in local papers labeling those who supported Proposition 102 as “bigots” “haters” even “Nazi’s!”

Proposition 102 simply codifies into the Arizona Constitution what was already state law under Arizona Revised Statutes.

Where were those critical of Proposition 102 before it even became a ballot measure? Why were they not protesting in the streets since it became Arizona law?

In other states where voters approved traditional marriage, homosexual activists are now engaging in illegal activities and the very hate they accuse supporters of traditional marriage of falsely engaging in.

Here are a few examples from the headlines:

Washington Post – “Protesters Target Supporters of Gay Marriage Ban”:

In Sacramento, a high-profile theater director resigned from his job of 25 years after a boycott threat over his $1,000 donation in support of the measure. In Los Angeles, a Mexican restaurant owner, a Mormon who donated $100, was reduced to tears and left town after hundreds of protesters confronted her at work, by phone and on the Internet.

“You express your beliefs and you have to be punished for it?” said Arnoldo Archila, an employee at the El Coyote restaurant. “This is not right, not in this country. This is not Iraq.”

The FBI reported Friday that white powder found in envelopes that had been sent to the Salt Lake City headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, as the Mormon Church is officially known, and to a Mormon temple in Los Angeles turned out to be nontoxic. It has not been determined whether the substance, which forced church officials to close the facilities, was related to Proposition 8, but church leaders said they would not be surprised.

“It’s very clear that we’ve been singled out,” said Michael Otterson, a church spokesman.

Time – “What Happens If You’re on the Gay ‘Enemies List?’”:

The Mormon Church is not the only group being singled out for criticism. African-Americans, 70% of whom voted yes on Proposition 8, according to a CNN exit poll, have become a target. According to eyewitness reports published on the Internet, racial epithets have been used against African-Americans at protests in California, directed even at blacks who are fighting to repeal Proposition 8.

In addition to protests, gay activists have begun publishing lists online exposing individuals and organizations who have donated money in support of Proposition 8. On AntiGayBlacklist.com, individuals who gave money toward Proposition 8 are publicized, with readers urged not to patronize their businesses or services.

KTVU – “Anger Over Prop 8 Erupts in San Francisco”:

Members of the gay community said that almost every Friday night, a Christian group meets at the corner of Castro and 18th Streets. They try to convert gays and lesbians into a straight lifestyle.

This Friday night, the message didn’t go over well. Some gays and lesbians reacted by trying to chase the group out of the Castro.

“Their rights were respected,” said Joe Schmitz, an opponent of Prop 8. “They got a chance to go ahead and pray on the sidewalk and I had the opportunity to express my freedom of speech which is telling them to get out of my neighborhood.”

San Francisco Police officers in riot gear formed a line and escorted the religious group into a van to safely get them out of the area.

FoxNews.com – “New Yorkers Protest Gay Marriage Ban Outside of Mormon Church”:

“I’m fed up and disgusted with religious institutions taking political stances and calling them moral when it’s nothing but politics,” the 36-year-old Manhattan resident said. “It’s hypocrisy. Meanwhile, they enjoy tax-free status while trying to deny me rights.”

“I was particularly disturbed to see the number of African-Americans who supported Proposition 8 given our people’s historic struggle for equal rights,” said Williams, who is black. “I want all my rights as a full American citizen, not just as an African-American.”

KFSN - “Mysterious Powder Sent to Mormon Church“:

And Pastor Jim Franklin who was named along with Autry in that e-mail threat believes supporters of same sex marriage are going too far. “What this is, is religious bigotry that now religions are being targeted. It really shows what this was all about it really was about freedom of religion and freedom of speech.” Franklin said.

Tucson Citizen – “Gay Marriage: Arizona loses more than money” (Guest Opinion by Senator Paula Aboud, LD-28):

Proposition 102 will also drive a wedge between families, forcing couples to leave their home state or forgo the essential protections and equal social status afforded by civil marriage.

Proposition 102 will also have a harmful economic impact on Arizona and trigger cultural strife at a time when we desperately need to come together to battle the bigger social and economic ills facing the state and the country.

In these hard economic times, for a state that is $1.2 billion in debt, every dollar counts.

But what Arizona has lost is far greater than the mere dollar. It has tarnished its reputation and doomed itself to another national spotlight of negative proportions. And that harms all of us for a long time to come.

Conservative Republican and Senator Chuck Gray of District 19 usually puts out a fairly good conservative overview on the ballot measures. Here are his recommendations:

Many have requested my opinion on the ballot initiatives. That’s all this is – my opinion. Hope it helps.

Chuck Gray

===============

Senator Chuck Gray’s 2008 AZ Ballot Proposition Recommendations

Summary:
Vote “YES” on all 100 series
Vote “NO” on all 200 series
Vote your conscience on Prop 300

===============

Details of Propositions and My Recommendations:

Proposition 100 – YES
Protect Our Homes Initiative
(Stops future taxes on real property sales)
Explanation: Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the state or any county, city, town or other political subdivision of the state from directly or indirectly imposing any new tax, fee or other assessment on the sale, purchase, transfer or other conveyance of any interest in real property (such as homes and other real estate). This proposed measure would not affect any tax, fee or other assessment in existence prior to this year.
Recommendation = YES

===============

Proposition 101 – YES
Health Care Freedom of Choice
(Ensures that Arizona citizens will continue to have the right to choose their own health care plans and services. In other words Government can’t tell you where to go for health care.)
Explanation: Proposition 101 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that:
1. No law shall restrict your freedom to choose a private health care plan or system of their choice.
2. No law shall interfere with your right to pay directly for lawful medical services.
3. No law shall impose a penalty or fine, of any type, for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage.
4. No law shall impose a penalty or fine, of any type, on your participation in any particular health care system or plan.
Recommendation = YES

===============

Proposition 102 – YES
Marriage Amendment
(Provides that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid as a marriage in this state)
Proposition 102 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.
Recommendation = YES

===============

Proposition 105 – YES
Majority Rules Initiative
(Prop 105 would require that any ballot initiative that increases taxes, or requires a spending obligation, be approved by a majority of the registered voters in the state. This makes it tougher to pass taxes and other fee increases at the ballot.)
Explanation: Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that an initiative measure that establishes, imposes or raises a tax, a fee or other revenue or mandates a spending obligation on a private person, a labor organization, other private legal entity or this state shall not become law unless the initiative measure is approved at the election by a majority of registered voters in the state.
Recommendation = YES

===============

Proposition 200 – NO
Payday Loan Reform Act
(A “NO” vote will have the effect of capping interest on payday loans at 36% starting in 2010. The 36% cap will become law automatically in 2010 UNLESS Prop 200 passes. Prop 200 will stop those caps from becoming law.)
Explanation: Proposition 200 was written and put on the ballot by the Payday loan industry. The legislature refused to allow the industry to continue charging interest rates as high as 400% and in some case higher on loans after 2010. Prop 200 is the industry?s attempt to write their own law and to override the current AZ Consumer Loan Act cap of 36% APR which will begin to apply to payday loans in 2010. If passed, Prop 200 would stop future caps on payday loan interest rates.
Recommendation = NO

===============

Proposition 201 – NO
Home Owners Bill of Rights
(Construction is one of Arizona’s largest industries and out of state lawyers know it. They have been trying for years to more easily sue homebuilders. This makes construction in Arizona a goldmine for attorneys.)
Explanation: Prop 201 does the following:
1. Mandates a ten-year transferable warranty on all new homes.
2. Any “prospective” buyer can sue- (you don’t even need to buy a home to sue under this Act.)
3. Forbids mediation, homeowners must hire an attorney and go to court.
4. Builders will not be able to make immediate repairs, forcing buyers to court and wait years for court decisions before repairs can be made.
5. Eliminates the current “loser pays court fees” statutes, encouraging lawyers to go to court and making them the only winners in the process.
6. Too many other negatives to list.
Recommendation = NO

===============

Proposition 202 – NO
The “Stop Illegal Hiring Act”
(It’s deceptively named – It would gut the current Arizona Employer Sanctions Law and make it almost impossible to stop illegal hiring through prosecution by state officials.)
Explanation: Prop 202 does the following:
1. Prop 202 requires Arizona to wait until the Federal Government has taken action against an employer before the state takes action.
2. Exempts thousands of Arizona employers by requiring Arizona officials to use of the same Federal standards of proof that have not worked in the past.
3. It eliminates the “Silent Witness” portion of the current law. All complaints regarding employer illegal hiring must be written and signed. This stops employees from reporting violations anonymously.
4. It imposes an impossible standard of proof. High-level managers who are not officers or owners could hire illegal aliens with impunity, and would not face any enforcement.
Recommendation = NO

===============

Proposition 300
Legislative Salary Recommendation to increase Legislator salaries from $24,000 to $30,000
(Putbon the ballot by a commission NOT by the legislature.)
Recommendation = N/A

Clint Bolick from the Goldwater Institute, an attorney who helped draft Prop. 101, has written a piece explaining to prolifers that it would not affect abortion – affect the ability to get an abortion, pass legislation restricting abortion, etc. Even the opponents of Prop. 101 acknowledge the initiative would not affect abortion positively or negatively in any way. It was written carefully to avoid addressing abortion.

PROP. 101 WOULD PREVENT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE IN ARIZONA

by Clint Bolick

Arizonans have a chance to take a giant step to protect their freedom. Proposition 101—the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act—would prohibit schemes that would give government greater control over our health care decisions.

Some pro-life activists have expressed concerns about the initiative, but a careful reading makes clear the concerns are unfounded. I provided legal advice to the initiative’s drafters, and such concerns were foremost in my mind every step of the way. Moreover, the sponsors, whose intent is central to judicial interpretation, have made clear that the measure affects the life issue not at all.

Prop. 101 would amend the Constitution to prohibit schemes, which have been swirling around the state, that would restrict individuals’ “freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type,” the “right to pay directly for lawful medical services,” or the freedom to participate or not in health insurance programs.

The initiative would not force the government to pay for anything. It would not restrict or expand the medical procedures that health insurance companies may choose to cover. Because it preserves the right of individuals to pay directly for “lawful” medical services, it does not limit in any way the right of the people or our representatives to define what services are or are not lawful.

The measure simply prohibits the government from compelling people to join a health insurance system or plan—which is the central element in all socialized medicine schemes.

Indeed, although the initiative is neutral on the issue of abortion, if it passes it will create a firewall against a government-mandated one-size-fits-all health insurance system, which will limit the power of government to dictate what medical services—like abortion—must be paid for by taxpayer funds. Perhaps that is why the Arizona chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) officially opposes Prop. 101 and submitted a ballot pamphlet argument against it.

Arizonans have a long tradition of protecting their freedom. Politicians at the national and state levels want to dictate our health insurance choices. Prop. 101 would take the matter out of their hands and keep it in ours.
__________
Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.