Despite protestations to the contrary from the law’s sponsor and others, this law turns the Arizona drivers license  (actually any state license) into a national id.

It’s a common misconception to believe that the national id must be a card or a chip.

National ID not a card or a chip, but is the data that the federal government has on you.  What the federal government has been attempting to do for many years, most notably under the Clinton administration, was to find a way to integrate all of the various data they have on American citizens into an easily searchable, easily sharable database and data exchange format.

SB1070 states

F. Except as provided in federal law, officials or agencies of this state and counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions of this state may not be prohibited or in any way be restricted from sending, receiving or maintaining information relating to the immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual or exchanging that information with any other federal, state or local governmental entity for the purposes of determining eligibiltiy for any … license and for the purposes of verifying any claim of residence or domicile.

This section removes ALL restrictions from the exchange of license data between any state agency and any federal agency.  This section applies to ANY PERSON.  This section includes ANY LICENSE.  Under this section ANY state agency may exchange ANY person’s license data with ANY federal agency without any restriction whatsoever.

This problem has nothing to do with what occurs at a police stop. It removes ALL restrictions from data exchange, including a full data dump, or including full back and forth real-time queryability, between any state license database and any or ALL federal agencies, beginning July 1, including the IRS or Homeland Security.

Protestations from the bill’s sponsor have included:  “That’s not what it says.”  “That’s not what it means.”  “It’s not in there.”

Yes, Mr. Pearce, but that’s what the law SAYS word for word, in black and white, in 8th grade level English, no lawyers required.

Other  protestations such as in this post include playing word games….

The fact that A.R.S. section 11-1051 allows for the sending, receiving, maintaining or exchanging of immigration status information with any federal, state or local agency does not in any way invoke the application of RIDA (REAL ID Act) in Arizona.

First, what does the REAL ID act have to do with it?   Nothing.  The REAL ID Act was a single federal program which attempted to force the state to turn over certain data to the feds.  This bill turns over the same data that the REAL ID Act mandated, but does so voluntarily by the state, having nothing to do with REAL ID, but having everything to do with national id once the federal government gets their hands on the data.  REAL ID here is completely irrelevant.

Second, what is “immigration status” relative to a citizens’ domicile?  Or how would you verify a citizen’s eligibility for a drivers license (or any license) via exchange of that citizen’s data with the federal government?  Why would you need to?  Where is the limitation to the term “immigration status” in the data exchange with the federal government in checking a citizen’s domicile information with the feds or a citizen’s eligibility for a driver’s license (or a business license, or a hunting license - ANY license, remember). Nowhere.  Why would the state need to do so relative to its citizens?  But that’s precisely what the law enables.

The county attorney’s office goes onto state:

Subsection F states four limiting “official purposes.” If a public agent or bureaucrat cannot demonstrate that he accessed a person’s information pursuant to subsections F’s official purposes

A bureaucrat accessing the person’ s information is not at question here.  Removal of all restrictions in sending law abiding citizen’s data to the federal government relevant to check the citizen’s domicile and/or eligibility for a license is.

Arizona law cannot dictate what the federal government does with law abiding citizen’s data once it is handed over to the feds.  The feds, of course, will promptly put the data into whatever database they want which accomplishes their longstanding goal to implement a national id system.

Again, national id is NOT a card. It is the unique identifiers such as your name, SSN, domicile and biometric data such as your digitial photo on file with the MVD, once turned over to the feds and put into their national id database.  Once the data is placed into the national id database, then your DL can be run against that national id database and is, VOILA, a national id.

Russell Pearce continues to protest stating that he’s against national ids and that this bill does not contain national id.

And, yet, he fails to address the matter of the data exchange of law abiding citizens’ license data with “any agency” of the federal government, including Janet Napolitano’s agency, who is dying to get her hands on this information, especially gun owners’ information.

The only time the exchange of citizens’ data has ever been addressed was in the opinion that Andrew Thomas’ office wrote, linked to above, which stated it’s not REAL ID.   So what?  REAL ID is not the only national id program.  PASS ID, BELIEVE ID, or just drivers’ license database dumps into the Homeland Security database all turn state drivers licenses into national ids…..

….but only if the state hands over the data.  Which SB1070 does, willingly, of all citizens.

Russell Pearce is quoted as saying, “If we don’t turn over all of our data to the federal government, then how will be know who is SUPPOSED to be here.”

Wait a second, Senator Pearce, I thought this bill was supposed to be about who is NOT supposed to be here.

Senator Pearce, if you’re telling the truth and are against national id, THEN FIX THE LAW and prohibit the exchange of law abiding citizens’ data with the federal government.

No patriot hands over the private data of law abiding citizens to the feds, such as you have done in SB1070.

Anyone who does betrays the hard work of conservative patriots who have been fighting national ids since before the Clinton administration and since.

Fix the law before July 1. Otherwise, welcome to the leftist globalist Clintonista agenda as implemented by the right.

Lastly, Ronald Reagan opposed national ids http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa237.html

Gun Owners of America oppose national ids because they state that once the federal government has your drivers license data, they have enough information to track gun purchases…

“Since I need a driver’s license to purchase a gun from a dealer, BATFE would finally have its long-coveted tool to impose gun control on targeted groups — particularly under a liberal anti-gun administration. If you believe in the Second Amendment, please vote against this anti-gun monstrosity.” http://seclists.org/politech/2005/Feb/0016.html

Not to mention the fact that from the federal side of the fence, they plan on using the SAME SYSTEM to enable AMNESTY.   We can’t have it both ways – to use secure ids to keep illegal aliens out and at the same time use secure ids to let them in.

Fix the law, Senator Pearce.

Goldwater Institute News Release

PHOENIX – After a three-year legal battle, Tom and Elizabeth Preston soon will be able to open Body Accents Tattoo and Piercing Studio in Tempe.

The Prestons have settled their lawsuit against Tempe which challenged the City’s refusal to allow the couple to open a tattoo studio near Scottsdale and Curry Roads. Both sides have agreed to dismiss their appeals of a 2009 trial court ruling. Maricopa County Judge Robert H. Oberbillig ruled the City’s revocation of the Prestons’ operating permit was arbitrary and capricious, and ordered Tempe to restore the permit. But Judge Oberbillig determined the Prestons shouldn’t receive monetary damages for more than $20,000 that they had invested in the business before Tempe revoked their permit.

“This lifts such a weight off of our shoulders,” Elizabeth Preston said. “Clearly, we lost money because we couldn’t open the studio three years ago. Now, we can do something that we are passionate about and will allow us to recover our losses in a business that continues to grow.”

“This little studio will be a monument to the triumph of economic freedom,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, which represented the Prestons. “No business owner should have to endure what the Prestons went through. After the trial court precedent, we hope no one will have to do so again.”

This case protects the fundamental right of anyone to pursue a livelihood and operate a legal business without a local government shutting it down because of personal, negative feelings not based in fact or the law, Mr. Bolick said.
 
The Prestons have owned Virtual Reality, a tattoo studio in Mesa, for 20 years with no complaints filed against them. In 2007, the City of Tempe issued a permit for their new studio, Body Accents. But the City Council rescinded that permit after substantial investment by the Prestons based on the “perception” that the studio would harm the neighborhood.

The Prestons received their Tempe operating permit today and hope to open the Body Accents studio in early August. Mr. Bolick plans to fulfill a vow to get “inked” with his first tattoo when the studio opens.

Read more about this and other Goldwater lawsuits to protect individual rights and keep government within its constitutional limits at www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is a research and litigation organization whose work is made possible by the generosity of its supporters.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute
 
As our nation’s capital continues to expand its power at an alarming rate, many conservatives (including me) are seeking shelter in the power of the states to protect the liberty of their citizens, on issues ranging from health insurance to the right of a secret ballot in deciding whether to form unions.

The nationwide call for state autonomy has grown so passionate that some are attempting to hijack it for wicked purposes.

H.R. 5034, sponsored by Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, invokes the language of states’ rights to advance one of the few powers clearly denied the states in the original Constitution: economic protectionism. This bill would give states the power to regulate interstate alcohol shipments, even in a discriminatory manner if there is a “justification” for doing so.

The law essentially would overturn Grandholm v. Heald, a 2005 U.S. Supreme Court case that I argued, in which the Court struck down discriminatory barriers that blocked wine shipments to consumers across state lines. The regulations benefited liquor wholesalers, who want to control every drop of alcohol and charge hefty middleman fees, while hurting wine consumers who want to buy directly from a vineyard in another state. With the advent of the Internet, this battle plays out every day over products ranging from cars to contact lenses, as middlemen seek to protect their delivery monopolies.

The Commerce Clause was intended to end protectionist trade barriers by the states. Over time, Congress has abused its power under the Commerce Clause to regulate activities that have little or nothing to do with interstate commerce. We must curb the abuses without destroying the critical purpose of the Commerce Clause: to ensure an open national market.

True federalism gives states the power to expand liberty, not to diminish it. Regulation of interstate commerce is a power our Constitution’s framers thought the states could not be trusted to exercise fairly – and they were right.

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

Goldwater Institute study recommends court or legislative intervention to restrain ACC’s appetite

PHOENIX – The Arizona Corporation Commission has over-stepped its constitutional boundaries by making rules and regulations in areas our state founders never intended it to control, according to a new report from the Goldwater Institute.

The study, “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission,” shows Arizona’s founders deliberately created the Corporation Commission as an agency with limited and defined powers. The Commission was created to protect residents from fraudulent investments and price-gouging by electric and water companies. But instead of keeping utility rates low, the ACC now is forcing utilities to create electricity from certain types of sources which are more expensive, says study author Benjamin Barr, a senior fellow with the Goldwater Institute and CEO of Government Watch.

“The ACC has usurped the Legislature’s role to set energy policy and it will cost consumers $2.4 billion over the next 15 years,” said Nick Dranias, director of constitutional policy at the Goldwater Institute.

The report reviews records from the 1910 Constitutional Convention and finds that delegates specifically rejected attempts to create an agency with sweeping authority over all incorporated businesses. Instead, the constitution was written to limit the power of Corporation Commission so that it only regulated in-state railroads, financial businesses and certain utilities. That power over utilities was further limited to establishing reasonable payment rates for customers.

Mr. Barr recommends that Arizona courts recognize the intended purpose of the Corporation Commission and require the agency to operate within the limits in the state constitution. The Goldwater Institute is challenging in court the Commission’s legal authority to require the use of renewable energy, saying the mandate violates the separation of powers and other constitutional provisions.

The Arizona Legislature doesn’t have to wait for the courts, however. The report recommends that the Legislature reassert its authority by conducting an audit of the Corporation Commission. The audit would review the Commission’s various divisions and actions to determine if they are within the ACC’s constitutional boundaries. Depending on the audit’s findings, the Legislature could reshape the Corporation Commission or ask voters to assign its duties to other state agencies and shut it down entirely. Arizona is one of only six states that still has a utility regulator that operates outside of the traditional branches of government.

Click here to read “Rediscovering the ACC’s Roots: Returning to the Original Purpose of the Arizona Corporation Commission.”

The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty. 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.

The left has wanted Americans to register with the federal government and obtain a national id card ever since Franklin Roosevelt tried (and failed initially, until he stacked the court in 1937) to get the Supreme Court to rule that the Social Security system was constitutional.

Ever since then the left has been pushing the idea of registering Americans particularly in order that the federal government can dictate who can work.

In the 1990s it was the Clinton Goals 2000 program that resurrected the concept which conservatives vehemently opposed and prevailed, building upon Reagan’s vehement opposition to national ids in the 1980s.

However, today, national id has been resurrected both on the left and on the right.  On the right, it is being touted as the only way to tell who is here legally and who is not.  However, the actual animus behind the proposals being put forward by the right as the “solution” to the illegal immigrant problem comes directly from the left.

According to beatthechip.org

Legislators talked into surrendering privacy for security in the past by signing onto the Patriot Act and the Real ID Act (2005) seem content to move another form of national identity forward. The mandate would require all citizens to provide their biometrics [fingerprints, iris scans, DNA] on an ID card to work in America. This national ID initiative is the latest on the stack of many attempts to legislate the market for identity in America.

Interestingly in the 2000s, it was the “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (read: amnesty) supporters such as John McCain, Jon Kyl and Senator Bennett (now defeated), who first put forward the concept of law-abiding Americans needing to get prior permission and prior clearance from the federal government before getting a job via Homeland Security’s e-Verify system.

Why would the left be touting something the right believes in so strongly as a solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

That’s the wrong question.  The right question is:  Why would the RIGHT be touting something the left believes in so strongly as being the solution to the illegal immigrant problem?

First of all e-Verify is the implementation of Hillary Clinton’s proposal from the early nineties: school-to-work, Goals 2000, federal government tracking of students through school and federal government targetting of who should be able to work and where they should work.

Secondly, e-Verify was first touted by the Council on Foreign Relations (the very same people who brought you the North American Union) as the system to use for amnesty, i.e. for employers to use to see who is employment eligible and who is not.  I.e. once amnesty passes, all of those who registered for amnesty would – POOF – overnight gain employment eligibility as verified via the e-Verify system.

At some point along the line since the early 2000s, either the right has been duped into adopting this federal top-down driven verification system as a solution, or they knowingly did so because, despite protestations to the contrary, they actually support the concept of a national id.

Further, beatthechip.org reports:

Over 2 years ago, the release of national ID card regulations in drivers licenses challenged advocates in new and unusual ways. Regulations had a tangible reach into State’s coffers as an unfunded mandate due to national law, the Real ID Act. The law became controversial through its association with the border fence, immigration, surveillance and tracking technologies, and its ability to deny citizens the ability to bank, to travel or enter federal buildings based on identity prerequisites….all 50 states are still being held to benchmark compliance deadlines. Many of these States will receive grant monies towards standardizing drivers licenses after appropriations were passed for Homeland Security operations.

So, I think as conservatives we really need to ask ourselves, why were our predecessors in our movement so vehemently opposed to national ids or Hillary Clinton’s school-to-work employment eligibility idea?

Do you know?  If you don’t, find out, or else you’ll find yourself in a position where you are betraying the hard work and dilligence of the hard-core conservative, limited government patriots who came before you.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Last week, Governor Jan Brewer signed into law Senate Bill 1398, which mandates that local governments enforce their “coordination rights” against federal agencies. This new law enlists Arizona cities, counties and special districts in the fight against an overreaching federal government.

SB1398 leverages the fact that federal agencies are required by many federal laws to “coordinate” with local governments to ensure that new federal regulations will be enforced consistently with existing local laws. In other states, local governments have successfully used their coordination rights to block the introduction of wild horses into public and private lands, as well as to prevent new listings of endangered species. Despite these successes, most local governments simply do not exercise their coordination rights, perhaps for fear of upsetting federal agencies.

Now, whenever a new federal regulation clashes with a less restrictive local law, plan or policy, SB1398 requires Arizona cities, counties and special districts to demand that the responsible federal agency sit down at a bargaining table and make every reasonable effort to modify the federal regulation to become consistent with local priorities. If local governments ignore this obligation, ordinary citizens will have the power to compel their local elected officials to justify their inaction at a public hearing, guaranteeing local accountability.

But the effort to restore federalism does not end with the passage of SB1398. To stake out an initial bargaining position that will blunt one-size-fits-all federal regulations, local governments in Arizona need to start developing freedom-friendly land use policies before the need for coordination arises.  Fortunately, the Goldwater Institute policy report “A New Charter for American Cities” shows how that can be done.

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.

Finally Arizona is drawing the line against more federal incursions into Arizona’s sovereignty.  Cap-n-Trade is a disaster to any developed society and to think that Senator McCain remains staunch in his belief that its the right thing to do is completely beyond belief.

The McCain/Palin position from 08

Cap and Trade Nullification

“Arizona State Senator Sylvia Allen (R) of District 5 needs your help! She and Senators Gould and Grey are the primary sponsors for Senate Concurrent Resolution (SCR) 1050. Together, they have made Arizona the fourth state to introduce Cap and Trade nullification legislation, and this bill has “teeth”!

Known as the “Freedom to Breathe Act”, the legislation, if passed, would make it illegal for “..any governmental official to enforce within the borders of the state of Arizona federal laws or federal regulations purporting to restrict intrastate emissions of anthropogenic carbon dioxide or other greenhouse substances is herewith declared a violation of civil rights and unlawful under Arizona state law.””

Senator Allen addresses the AzFRW on Cap-n-Trade

At last an idea who’s time has come … sure beats missing committee hearings like her left-of-center opponent seems to.  Here is the full story:

http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/cap-and-trade-nullification-arizonas-freedom-to-breathe-act/

by Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
Governor Jan Brewer recently sent a letter to U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood and Arizona’s congressional delegation asking for a change in federal law to allow private companies to operate rest stops on interstate highways. Federal law prevents “automotive service stations or other commercial establishments for serving motor vehicle users to be constructed or located on the rights-of-way of the Interstate System.” Right now, 13 of the state’s 18 roadside rest stops are closed as part of the state’s efforts to save money. They could be re-opened sooner if Governor Brewer’s recommendation were adopted.

In exchange for maintaining clean public restrooms, parking areas, and places for drivers to leave their refuse, companies could operate drink and snack concessions at roadside rest stops. This would be a source of revenue because private companies would have to bid for the privilege of operating within the confines of the rest stops. While federal law should be written to give states maximum flexibility, a state could restrict vendors to selling only food and beverages to minimize taxpayer-subsidized competition with other established businesses.

The federal government already allows for states to contract with private companies to provide vending machines and “motorist call boxes” at interstate rest stops. A change in federal law to allow private food-and-drink concessions would be a win for everybody. Well-written contracts would mean better-maintained facilities and more services for weary travelers.

One thing is for certain. Open roadside rest stops are better than closed roadside rest stops. If letting the private sector operate rest stops means they will stay open, then let the private sector prevail.

Dr. Byron Schlomach is an economist and the director of the Center for Economic Prosperity at the Goldwater Institute.

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute
 
I recently attended a meeting with Maurice McTigue, director of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a former member of the New Zealand Parliament, and a man with wide experience in government reform. Attendance at the meeting, arranged by State Senator Sylvia Allen, should have been required for everyone in our state government.

Prior to comprehensive reforms 20 years ago, New Zealand was an economic mess, suffering from debt, continual deficits, and a stagnating economy. Out of desperation, New Zealand’s political leaders reduced government spending and enacted fundamental, wide-ranging reform. Since then, New Zealand’s national government has seen a single deficit; it was this year and due to the worldwide recession.

One instructive example given by Mr. McTigue concerned agriculture subsidies, which, among other things, were artificially inflating land prices. Everybody knew land prices would collapse when those subsidies ended. Some estimated 31 percent of farmers and at least seven major banks would go bankrupt. Yet, with no bailout or any other government involvement, only one-half of 1 percent of farmers went bankrupt. And not a single bank went under.

An outbreak of “spontaneous economic order,” as Mr. McTigue described it, resulted. Banks re-valued loans to avoid defaults. Farmers renegotiated payment schedules. People figured out how to navigate the changing economy without government intervention.

This example may seem most applicable to federal financial policies in response to the U.S. real estate meltdown; but, the lesson is broader. We commonly hear stories that if Arizona cuts spending on parks or education or health care, our economy will collapse. Yet New Zealand’s experience illustrates that fundamental reform, rethinking, and shrinking of government should be welcomed, not feared.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

By Byron Schlomach, Ph.D.
Goldwater Institute 
 
On January 11, Chile was officially invited to join the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Chile will be the OECD’s 31st member and its first from South America. The OECD is largely made up of the world’s richest and most stable economies and Chile’s invitation to join the club wasn’t always a given.

In the early 1970s, Chile’s economy was a basket case not unlike Haiti’s before last week’s earthquake. Abject poverty, rampant inflation, and high unemployment were the norm. There is no denying that Augusto Pinochet was a detestable tyrant, but he did one thing right after he took control of the country: he turned economic policy over to 10 Chilean economists who had been trained at the University of Chicago in the theories of John Locke and Nobel Prize winning economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman.

The government began selling government-owned businesses, deregulating enterprises, and removing wage and price controls. In 1981, Chile’s social security system was privatized under the direction of Jose Pinera, who was given the Goldwater Award for Liberty in 2003 and is the brother of Chile’s just-elected President Sebastian Pinera. These economic policies set the stage for Chile to become South America’s most vibrant and successful economy.

Chile’s economic experience could be instructive to Arizona policymakers. Government-owned enterprises like stadiums and Phoenix’s Sheraton Hotel have become too common. The state still owns huge swaths of land that ought to be sold and put to use creating jobs. The state should also loosen regulations on wages. Arizona has the potential to create the most vibrant economy of any state in the union. We just need to be freed to exercise it.

Byron Schlomach, Ph.D., is the director of the Goldwater Institute’s Center for Economic Prosperity.

by Clint Bolick
Goldwater Institute

Stroll into a car lot these days and you’re sure to get a warm reception, maybe free popcorn and soft drinks, and definitely plenty of attention. Car dealers are among the businesses hardest-hit by the recession.

So Chandler used-car dealer Tracy Tingue decided he needed to spice things up to attract attention and business. He bought and displayed eye-catching, but clothed, mannequins outside his lot holding “BIG SALE” signs. And it worked–customer visits and sales increased. 

But in the nanny-state that America has become, no clever idea goes unpunished and soon Tingue was cited by Chandler sign enforcers because they decided the mannequins were illegal temporary signs. The Arizona Republic reports Tingue could face criminal misdemeanor charges, a $2,500 fine, and six months in jail.

While the mannequins were rather scantily clad, apparently human sign-walkers wearing the same outfits would be permissible. Tingue previously hired real people, but it cost him $2,800 for a couple of weeks while their plastic counterparts cost only $700.

The upshot is that the same industry upon which millions of dollars in stimulus funding and “cash for clunkers” has been showered still can be laid low by overzealous local bureaucrats. If this is what constitutes criminal economic behavior in Chandler, parents should be forewarned about letting their children operate lemonade stands.

Many Arizona municipalities are reducing budgets and laying off workers, claiming they’re cutting government to its bare essentials. But it seems that Chandler may still have one bureaucrat too many.

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

Phoenix–Like countless enterprising American immigrants before her, Cindy Vong came up with an inspired business idea.

Ms. Vong, a licensed nail technician who owns LaVie Nail Salon in Gilbert, last year opened a second business called Spa Fish Therapy. The therapy, which is popular in many Asian countries and in other states, uses small Garra Rufa fish imported from China. The fish nibble on the customers’ feet, removing dead skin and providing a relaxing experience in a safe, sanitary environment. Clients paid $30 to plunge their feet into a clean tank filled with fish.

Everything was going swimmingly until an inspection by the Arizona Board of Cosmetology. The Board, which is comprised primarily of members of the profession, decided that the fish were performing pedicures and thus subject to the Board’s regulatory control. Because fish cannot be sterilized, the Board ordered Spa Fish to close, which cost Ms. Vong a substantial financial investment and lost business, leading her to lay off three employees.

The Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional litigation today filed a lawsuit against the cosmetology board, charging that the order exceeds the Board’s jurisdiction and violates Ms. Vong’s freedom of enterprise under the state and federal constitutions.

“The Board knows nothing about spa fish therapy, so its reaction is to shut it down,” declared lead attorney Clint Bolick. “The Board’s action is more about protecting cosmetologists from competition than it is about protecting consumers against anything except wet feet and smooth skin.”

“For the couple of months I was allowed to perform the treatment it was very popular” Cindy Vong recounts. “People came from all over, other states, Scottsdale, Tucson. All small businesses should have the freedom to step outside the box and be creative.”

“Some people will view this as a fishy lawsuit,” Mr. Bolick added. “But it affects the economic liberty of every American. Too many small businesses have been destroyed by overzealous regulation. If we have anything to do with it, Cindy Vong’s Spa Fish will not be one of them.”

For more information on Vong v. Sansom and other Goldwater Institute lawsuits visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Nick Dranias
Goldwater Institute
 
Arizona’s consumption of electrical power has been growing at about three times the rate of the United States’ as a whole. Unless we open the market to let more suppliers in, Arizonans will be at risk of electricity shortages, spiraling prices and miss out on the benefits of innovation in renewable energy spurred by competition for their business. That’s why the Goldwater Institute recommends restructuring Arizona’s electricity markets for competition.

Restructuring would rewrite the regulations governing Arizona’s electricity market and allow for competition among generators, distributors and retailers of electricity. It would allow entrepreneurs to open new businesses to produce, distribute, and sell electricity. The competitive electricity market in Texas increased generation capacity by 35 percent from 1998 to 2006. In Britain, a similar expansion in capacity ultimately lowered rates 30 percent in 10 years.

Restructuring will also give customers who want to buy and use green energy the freedom to do so. Right now in Arizona, there are homebuilders who want to create green subdivisions which generate and supply their own renewable electricity. Restructuring would make this possible.

Today three experts on electricity restructuring will be at the state Capital to talk about how Arizona could begin a restructuring process and how restructuring could encourage the use of more renewable energy. The discussion is open to the public and we encourage you to join us:
 
Date:   Thursday, November 12, 2009
Time:   10:00 a.m.-11:30 a.m.
Location:   Arizona State House of Representatives, Hearing Room 3, 1700 W. Washington, Phoenix

A successful restructuring effort will unleash entrepreneurs to freely generate more electricity to meet demand and to innovate in developing energy sources of all types, especially green, while maintaining stable prices. Restructuring, when done right, has never failed, indeed it has been successful in Texas, Pennsylvania and Britain. It will succeed here too.

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.

Phoenix–Late yesterday the Goldwater Institute continued its legal challenge of the Arizona Corporation Commission’s authority to impose renewable energy mandates on utility companies and surcharges on consumers to pay for those mandates.

In 2006, the Arizona Corporation Commission passed a rule requiring electricity companies to produce an increasing amount of the power they supply to consumers from renewable energy sources, like solar and wind power. As part of the mandate, the ACC required electricity companies to impose a surcharge on each of their customers. This tax is expected to cost Arizona families and businesses $2.4 billion over the next 15 years.

“These regulations may be the largest intrusion into private business in Arizona’s history, and consumers are picking up the tab,” said Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute.

The Goldwater Institute filed suit against the ACC because under the Arizona Constitution the Commission’s authority is limited to protecting consumers from excessive energy prices. It does not have the authority to set energy policy, which is the legislature’s role, and it doesn’t have the authority to require utilities to charge more.

The Institute also has weighed in on a related issue involving the Commission. Solar panel manufacturing companies like Tempe-based Solar City are working with school districts to finance solar panels that will provide power to the schools. But the ACC is considering regulating solar panel manufacturers as utility companies, which would increase their costs and add mountains of compliance red tape.

But solar firms do not meet any of the normal conditions that would allow the ACC to regulate them as utilities: solar firms do not produce energy–they are simply facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy; the firms are not a “natural monopoly”; and they are not required to provide service–customers choose whether or not they want to buy their service, unlike a traditional electricity company.

“The ACC is trying to impose a 20th Century regulatory structure on 21st Century technology,” continued Bolick. “Instead of command-and-control regulation, government needs to let technology flourish in a free economy. There are plenty of entrepreneurs who would relish the chance to supply green energy to customers who want to buy it.”

This appeal of a September 2009 Maricopa County Superior Court decision to the Arizona Court of Appeals is the latest round in Miller v. Arizona Corporation Commission, initially filed by the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation in June 2008.

For more information on this and other Goldwater Institute litigation, visit www.goldwaterinstitute.org/litigation. The Goldwater Institute is an independent government watchdog supported by people who are committed to expanding free enterprise and liberty.

by Clint Bolick and Sandy Bahr
 
Many aspects of environmental and energy policy divide the authors of this column. But we join together to urge the Arizona Corporation Commission not to squelch an innovative approach to solar energy that benefits private and public entities alike.

At issue are solar-service agreements, in which solar companies install and maintain solar panels on schools and other tax-exempt organizations for free. The schools receive power for a low monthly fee over an extended period of time. The solar companies collect renewable-energy tax credits for which tax-exempt entities are not eligible.

Such solar-service agreements are a reality with unlimited potential in Arizona–but only if the commission decides in the coming days not to treat the solar companies as public utilities and subject them to costly and burdensome regulation. The likely effect would be to send the firms packing to other states that do not regulate them like utilities.

Solar companies are not utilities. They are not producing energy; rather, they are facilitators that enable private entities to generate their own energy. They assist entities that could not afford to construct solar facilities and that are unable to access the tax credits that otherwise could make such facilities economically feasible.

Schools across the state, which are copious consumers of energy, are anxious to reap the benefits of solar service agreements. The escalating and constantly gyrating costs of energy can play havoc with a school district’s budget.

The commission’s decision comes down to either expanding its power or accomplishing its renewable energy mission. In this instance, it can best achieve its mission by recognizing that these solar firms should not be treated as utilities.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation. Sandy Bahr is chapter director for the Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter. A longer version of this email ran in the Arizona Republic.