Category Archives: Ballot Propositions
Republicans will maintain control of the Arizona Legislature. Republicans are on their way to victory in 16 state Senate races, the party of CONTROL* has won 13 seats. The only issue in doubt is in District 6.
Former lawmakers Sylvia Allen (Republican) and Thomas O’Halleran (Independent) are locked in a very close race. With just over half the precincts reporting, O’Halleran leads by about 600 votes. Allen got into the race very late when the conservative incumbent, Chester Crandall, died in a horseback riding accident near Heber just days before the August primary. The late Crandall won unopposed, but Allen was able to replace him on the GOP ticket.
If Allen wins the seat, the GOP will have a 17-13 Senate majority. If O’Halleran wins the seat, the GOP will hold 16 seats, the party of CONTROL 13 and there would be one Independent seat.
Republicans are claiming 37 Arizona House of Representative seats, CONTROL 23 seats.
So Governor-elect Ducey will have a Republican majority to work with for the first two years of his first term.
Doug Ducey appears on his way to becoming Arizona’s next governor. Fellow Republicans are leading Democrats in all of the other statewide office elections with 1,103 of 1,566 precincts reporting in these state office contests.
Ducey, former state treasurer, leads Comrade Fred DuVal of the party of CONTROL 53-41 percent. The good news is that Arizona will avoid the record spending binges and budget deficits that DuVal would have accrued had he been elected. It would have been a repeat of the Napolitano years when the former governor spent money far faster that the state could generate revenues. But under Governor Ducey, fiscal sanity is a certainty.
We also believe — and certainly hope — Ducey’s administration will be friendly to life, liberty and family. He gave every intention to the Center for Arizona Policy that this would be the case, and we urge him to hold true.
In the race for attorney general, GOP Mark Brnovich has a lead of 66,000 votes over CONTROL candidate Felicia Rotellini, 53.4 percent to 46.6 percent.
Secretary of state race is a little closer. Liberal Republican Michele Reagan has 52 percent of the vote, surprising frequent CONTROL candidate and former attorney general, Terry Goddard, 48 percent.
Closer still is the race between Republican Diane Douglas and CONTROL’s David Garcia. Douglas leads by about 1,500 votes, with 50.87 percent of the vote to Garcia’s 49.08. Douglas wants to get rid of the Big Socialism education curriculum, Common Core. Garcia would be a disaster for Arizona’s children.
Jeff DeWit, another Republican, is running unopposed for state treasurer.
The party of CONTROL refused to allow its members to select candidates for governor or attorney general. No one other than Comrade DuVal, who wants to move Arizona forward communist style, or Rottelini, were allowed to compete for those nominations in the August primary election.
Conservative Congressmen Matt Salmon, Trent Franks, Paul Gosar and David Schweikert are all sailing to victory.
Salmon said: “Tonight’s election results make one thing exceedingly clear: Arizonans want their elected officials to get government out of the way and support policies that will let the private sector thrive and create jobs.”
CONTROL incumbents Kyrsten Sinema, Ron Barber, and Raul Grijalva are all on their way to re-election as well.
Ann Kirkpatrick, another CONTROL incumbent, is pulling away from Andy Tobin in a congressional race, and now leads by 5 percentage points with 177 of 327 precincts in.
Ruben Gallego (CONTROL) has sewn up election in the congressional seat held for many years by the retired Ed Pastor.
The top vote-getters, in order, for Arizona Corporation Commission are Republicans Doug Little and Tom Forese and then CONTROL’s Sandra Kennedy a distant third.
Among judges up for retention, Scott Bales is winning handily. He was appointed by former Gov. Janet Napolitano (CONTROL).
Prop 122, which will stem out of control federal government interference with Arizona, is barely ahead, by just one percent.
The Right to Try prop, 303, is winning big.
And as it has done numerous times, the attempt to raise state legislator pay (Prop 304) is losing bigtime.
In Phoenix, the unfunded/pension spiking madness is likely to continue. Prop 487 is up 55 to 45 percent.
All in all, it’s a good night for America and Arizona (on the 11th anniversary of The Arizona Conservative, No. 1 cultural commentator in the state). Though politics is downstream from culture, tonight’s results are a good sign that people have had enough of Big Government Socialism, the Obama Administration, and the do-nothing U.S. Senate under Harry Reid’s abdication of responsibility and leadership. This is also a great day for the sanctity of life, for families, and especially for free speech and religious liberty.
We remember the wisdom of President Reagan, one of the five truly great presidents in this nation, who said during his first inaugural address:
“We are a nation that has a government—not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our government has no power except that granted it by the people. It is time to check and reverse the growth of government, which shows signs of having grown beyond the consent of the governed.”
Thank you for coming here to consult our election recommendations and coverage.
May God bless America.
* The reason we refer to Democrats as the party of CONTROL is because their radical philosophy is to try to control every aspect of your lives — to your detriment.
The out of control, tyrannical, activist courts are … out of control, tyrannical and activist again!
Voters, you’ve been had!
U.S. District Court Judge John Sedwick has thrown out all the 2008 votes that enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment recognizing marriage as the union of one man and one woman. He ruled that a recent decision by the Ninth Circus appeals court to redefine marriage applies to Arizona.
This is un-American. Arizonans should be outraged!
There is no place in a court of law for activists like Judge Sedwick or any of the other judicial activists who have been destroying marriage in recent months by overturning the will of millions of Americans who defined marriage in fair and honest elections. These judges need to be impeached or voted out.
What will follow is blatant fascism by homosexual activists and their friends in the political party they’ve captured – the Democratic Party. Christians and non-Christians alike who define marriage as one man and one woman will be punished merely for disagreeing with same-sex “marriage” and special rights for people struggling with same-sex attraction and gender confusion.
We are already seeing this all across the country. And this is why the Arizona Legislature passed 1062 earlier this year to strengthen protections for Arizonans who don’t want to be forced to endorse behavior they disapprove of. Of course, we remember that homosexual pressure groups, along with their cowardly media friends running cover for them, intimidated the bejabbers out of Governor Jan Brewer and stampeded her into vetoing the bill.
With the latest activist antics in Judge Sedwick’s court, we can now expect people to lose their jobs over refusal to perform same-sex weddings. Photographers, florists, bakers, and others involved in wedding venues can now be severely punished and harassed by left-wing local and state office holders for not agreeing to endorse the message of same-sex marriage. It’s happened from the Atlantic coast to Hawaii. Why wouldn’t it happen here?
A run-away, out of control government will come down with all of its weight and fury on honest people following their consciences. Some will be fined and burdened by unconstitutional demands. Others will be forced out of business. They will receive hate mail, hateful phone calls, and threats. It will be a feeding frenzy for those on the radical Left.
You see, same-sex “marriage” and religious freedom cannot co-exist. Non-discrimination laws and radical left-wing dogma will over-rule the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Founding Fathers who wrote the First Amendment. The Bill of Rights means absolutely nothing to the Left.
This is a sad day in Arizona. A black day.
In November of 2008, a total of 1,258,355 Arizonans voted to enact marriage as one man and one woman in the state Constitution. A single man, a man with incredible hubris, threw that out. This is the America we live in today. It is not the America of James Madison and the Founders who penned the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Not by a long shot.
We are not alone. This is happening all over America. Tens of millions of voters have been disenfranchised.
And this is the cost of allowing the party of CONTROL, the Democrats, to pack the courts with Constitution-challenged activist judges.
All that’s left is for radical scavengers to clean up the scraps – demonizing anyone who disagrees. Take our word: persecution is coming, fascism will warp into high gear among Arizona’s hardcore leftists. You disagree with the homosexual agenda? Okay, consider yourself a target for the fascists.
A final word to Judge Sedwick and the other activists who have co-opted the courts and disenfranchised the people: when you come to a gate in the road, before removing it take time to consider why it was put there in the first place.
* * *
VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR CHURCHES AND PASTORS
It is crucial you update church policy on rental of church facilities to protect yourselves from litigation when someone asks you to officiate over a same-sex “wedding” or to rent church property for a same-sex “marriage.” Consult an attorney with expertise in religious freedom law. Don’t wait. Do it now!
VITALLY IMPORTANT INFORMATION FOR BUSINESSES
If you are asked to provide a service or a product for a same-sex “wedding,” and you are opposed to doing so on religious grounds, do not respond to the homosexuals’ request until first consulting an attorney. This will help you avoid a legal entanglement that could land you in hot water or potentially force you to go out of business. Don’t wait. Do it now!
Among the most important purposes of civil government are to restrain evil, bring good to society, and bring order to society. On all three grounds, it is right to conclude that government should define and regulate marriage.
Marriage restrains evil by promoting sexual faithfulness between a man and a woman, by establishing a legally binding commitment for parents to care for their children, by establishing a legally binding commitment for spouses to be financially responsible for and to care for one another, and by providing a legal protection to keep women from being exploited by men who might otherwise enjoy a sexual relationship for a time and then abandon a woman and any children she may have borne.
Second, marriage brings good to society in multiple ways. It promotes social stability, economic well-being, educational, and economic benefits for children, the transmission of moral and cultural values to the next generation, and a stable social unit for interactions within society.
Third, the establishment of marriage brings order to society to the general public will know who is married and who is not. Marital status can be established as a matter of public record so that in various ways the society as a whole can honor and protect individual marriages and can know who is responsible for the care and protection and training of children, and for the care of spouses who have medical, financial or other needs. In this way, defining and regulating marriage gives stability and order to a society. It is an extremely important social good that government should encourage and protect.
Only civil government can define a standard of what constitutes a marriage for the state, nation, or whole society.
If no definition of marriage is given to an entire society, then chaos and much oppression of women and children will ensue. Without government establishment of what constitutes marriage, the result is a proliferation of children born in temporary relationships without commitment, and more children born with no one taking responsibility for their general well-being and welfare.
The worldwide consensus throughout history is that society as a whole, through its governing authorities, needs to define and regulate marriage for its citizens. The greatest cost benefit to government and society is when children are protected by a permanent, faithful, co-residential, sexual coupling of a committed, married man and woman.
Since marriage provides great benefits to society with immense value, society has an interest in protecting and encouraging marriage. The Supreme Court has frequently confirmed this, declaring in 1885 “the idea of the family, as consisting in and springing from the union for life of one man and one woman” is “the sure foundation of all that is stable and noble in our civilization.”
The history of marriage law in the U.S. shows that society has a strong interest in protecting and encouraging marriage between one man and one woman because of the great benefits that accrue from this institution – in multiple ways, benefits that no other relationship or institution can give.
Comparing the environment marriage provides during the pregnancy and birth of a baby with the environment of a cohabiting couple with no legal commitment attached, or to the environment provided by a temporary sexual liaison with no ongoing relationship, or to the environment provided by a homosexual couple that lacks either a mother or a father, or to the environment provided by a single mother who bears a child through in vitro fertilization or surrogate motherhood, it is evident the environment provided by the married heterosexual couple provides far more security for the child.
The environment is also better for the mother because marriage provides a better guarantee that the father will not abandon her to care for the child alone – including at cost to the taxpayers through government welfare programs. The environment of marriage is also better for the father because it provides strong legal and societal expectation that he will stay around and act responsibly with regard to the responsibilities formally associated with fatherhood.
All societies need babies to survive and thrive, and marriage between one man and one woman is the best environment for the birth, care, and raising of children. Children living with their own married parents attain significantly higher educational achievement. They are much more likely to enjoy a better economic standard in their adult lives and are much less likely to end up in poverty. Their physical and emotional health is better. They commit fewer crimes and experience less drug and alcohol abuse. They’ve demonstrated higher standards of integrity and moral principles.
Furthermore, children living with their own parents are less likely to experience physical abuse and are more likely to live in homes providing support, protection, and stability for them. They, in turn, are more likely to establish stable families in the next generation – requiring fewer government resources. Marital fidelity is highest among a married man and woman, resulting in the fewest STDs of any types of relational coupling. In addition, the highest rates of domestic abuse in society are among homosexuals – particularly females.
All of these factors are demonstrable through scholarly, peer-reviewed data – much of it provided by university researchers who describe their political leanings as Left.
And for all the reasons outlined above, marriage between one man and one woman is the basic building block of a stable society. It’s essential to the continuation of a healthy, stable society. It is highly beneficial for government to encourage and reward marriage between one man and one woman – through laws and policies. Policies and laws to the contrary do harm to the nation.
Homosexuals, as a whole, cannot provide the same benefits to children or society. Male homosexuals can expect a life expectancy shorted by 25-30 years. They are at a heightened risk of chronic, potentially fatal, liver disease (infectious hepatitis), fatal immune diseases including cancer, fatal rectal cancer, multiple bowel and other infectious diseases, higher rates of suicide, more drug and alcohol abuse, and adverse consequences due to risky behavior – most notably, frequent sex with hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners.
Media in America typically represent homosexual couples as “normal” parents. But that is not an accurate portrayal of social realities. Nor is it an honest attempt at journalism, for the result is to delude society with false information. Media refuse to acknowledge that science has proved indisputably that homosexuality is not genetic, and fail to recognize the many social problems associated with homosexual relationships. The main reasons for dishonest, skewed, and false reporting by media is its collective liberal worldview, and its fear of protest by homosexual advocacy groups.
Furthermore, heterosexual marriage lasts many times longer than homosexual relationships (about 18 months. And when hetero marriages pass the 10-year mark, the divorce rate drops precipitously.
Postscript: Homosexual activists are attempting to place an initiative on the general election ballot in November of 2014 to overturn Arizona’s constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman. If they succeed in changing the law, everyone in Arizona loses. Additionally, the result of same-sex “marriage” means a loss constitutional freedom for Americans; same-sex “marriage” will over-rule the First Amendment’s recognition of free speech and religious freedom because to oppose same-sex “marriage” will result in punishment, job loss and marginalization for those opposed. For so many reasons, the best outcome for Arizona society is to defeat this effort.
Information cited from:
Wayne Grudem, Politics and the Bible.
Marcia Barlow, The Marriage Advantage, United Families International
Sexual Orientation, United Families International
Arizonans believe in a strong marriage culture. That’s why we protect it in our law and our state Constitution.
But now radical leftists want to destroy the institutions of marriage and family. They want to redefine it so it means essentially nothing. The people have already spoken on this issue. In 2008 we enacted a state constitutional marriage amendment to protect our state from activist judges beholden to radical special interest groups.
Don’t be fooled by a new effort to harm our marriage culture. Typical of the Left and its Democrat partisans, a group is using a seemingly harmless name in an effort to legalize marriage for Arizona homosexuals – who make up one percent of the state’s population. They’re calling themselves “Why Marriage Matters.” Their phrase is correct, but their intentions will have disastrous unintended consequences.
There is no groundswell for the change they are demanding. The children of Arizona are not crying out to be fatherless or motherless. Every boy and girl deserves both, and needs both, a father and a mother. But Why Marriage Matters would deny children of one of their biological parents.
In states with same-sex “marriage,” religious freedom is disappearing. It’s actually disappearing in states like New Mexico, where same-sex “marriage” is not legal, as well.
Furthermore, redefining marriage is not the end game for homosexual activists. Their real goal is to overthrow the concepts of marriage and family entirely. This would have dire ramifications for America … for Arizona. It will also lead to polygamy; in fact a Utah judge just struck down a state law banning polygamy.
Sadly, those who think they will benefit from same-sex “marriage” will not realize that vision. People in same-sex relationships suffer from much higher rates of domestic abuse than married heterosexual relationships. Rates of domestic abuse among female homosexuals are even higher than among male homosexuals. Their life spans are shorter, they are more likely to engage in drug and alcohol abuse. And the lack of infidelity among homosexuals leads to rampant anonymous sex and the accompanying health-threatening diseases.
The children of same-sex parents do more poorly in school, suffer more emotional problems, are at a greater risk of sexual abuse, and are less likely to marry someone of the opposite gender. As two of the leading homosexual activists in America confessed, homosexuality is a dismal existence:
Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen Ph.D., authors of “After the Ball: How America will Conquer its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the 90’s”(1989), conclude the male homosexual lifestyle “is the pits.”
Furthermore, it is important to recognize the common spin lines used by homosexual activists:
“I was born this way.”
Truth: Biomolecular scientists concluded 20 years ago that homosexuality is not genetic. No one is born that way.
Jesus never said anything about homosexuality.
Truth: Jesus and God are one and the same, the Bible is the inspired Word of the Triune God. Jesus says homosexuality is a sin.*
“How does my same-sex relationship affect your marriage?”
Truth: I did not consent to sign my marriage license as Party A. My wife did not consent to sign our marriage license as Party B. I do not want my children and grandchildren to grow up believing their gender is meaningless. Homosexuality has a detrimental impact on communities, the work place (more absenteeism due to health problems and drug and alcohol abuse), and the people jumping in and out of same-sex relationships. Already people have lost their jobs simply for supporting marriage as a one-man/one-woman marriage. People have lost the right to live by their own religious beliefs – without being punished, fined, or fired from their jobs. The First Amendment to the Constitution is being supplanted by homosexual activists and activist judges. Marriage supporters have received death threats and had their homes, belongings, and churches vandalized.
Left-wingers such as Grant Woods are backing this group. So is a Lutheran pastor, who mistakenly claims that scripture supports same-sex “marriage.” He could not be more wrong.
This is your wake-up call, Arizona. If these leftists succeed in qualifying their proposition for the November 2014 ballot, you will have to go to your polling place and vote it down. Let’s not allow our state to become another Massachusetts or Iowa, where radical special interests pressured for and got same-sex “marriage.”
Protect our marriage culture now. Tell your family and friends about this threat. Gain their assurance of protecting marriage – the union of one man and one woman – in Arizona.
The best thing for homosexuals, many of whom have undergone conversion therapy, is to not allow homosexual pressure groups to deceive them into following the false narrative that they were “born that way,” if lawmakers and judges fabricate special rights for them, and if they donate lots of money to them, they will be happy.
*We have all fallen short of the glory of God. We are all sinners, though the left-stream media is glorifying homosexuals as a “special class.”
As we celebrate 10 years of The Arizona Conservative, here’s one of the more memorable reports on appalling and outrageous behavior by the left-stream media:
I Have No Dog in the Fight’ and other Arizona Media Myths
July 6, 2006
No one in the Arizona media better epitomizes liberal bias than Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services. It is unclear whether Fischer obtained his journalism degree from a box of Crackerjax or from the “Acme School of Pseudo-Journalism.”
What was apparent once again today were his bias and unquestioned disdain for all things conservative relating to respect for life/marriage/family. The boorish Fischer behaved atrociously, not to mention unprofessionally, in the events surrounding Protect Marriage Arizona’s submission of ballot initiative signatures at the Secretary of State’s Office in Phoenix.
Fischer is an agenda-driven “journalist” who has made a disreputable career of starting off his so-called “straight news stories” by ripping conservative ideas and legislative bills. Today, he teed off on an initiative designed to prevent judicial activists from circumventing the democratic process and changing the definition of marriage to include homosexual and polygamous “marriages.”
As members of the Protect Marriage Arizona coalition waited for colleagues to arrive at the state capital with the signatures of 307,576 eligible voters who want to protect current marriage laws with an amendment to the state constitution, Fischer could barely contain himself. He asked gleefully if the petitions had been lost or possibly delivered to the wrong location.
A person knowing of Fischer’s biases responded, “You wish …” To which, Fischer said, “I have no dog in the fight,” and then he walked away.
Minutes later, the coalition forces had transported several boxes of petitions up seven floors to Secretary of State Jan Brewer’s office, as a large media entourage watched. The boxes had barely been placed on the office floor when Fischer, salivating for the taste of conservative flesh, led the charge. Leo Gozdich, president of The National Association of Marriage Enhancement, answered a media question, and then Fischer and the media “pack dogs” surrounded him and verbally tore into him. Gozdich explained the benefits and value of marriage to society, all of which was lost on the intellectually challenged, emotionally-driven media.
Fischer was front and center harassing Gozdich. “Why do you not want civil unions,” Fischer angrily asked Gozdich.
Gozdich said, “We are protecting traditional marriage.”
“Who’s tradition!” shouted an alleged “reporter,” obviously emboldened by the alpha “reporter’s” aggression.
As the rancor grew between the attack dogs and Gozdich, Nathan Sproul cut in. “The story today,” said the campaign consultant for PMA, “is that we have submitted over 300,000 signatures. This speaks to the grassroots movement to protect marriage in Arizona.”
When Bob McClay, reporter for KTAR Radio (Phoenix) asked Sproul his name, Fischer bared his “fangs” and shot in, “He’s paid.” As if Sproul would not want to protect marriage if not paid for his services.
“Our singular intent is to preserve marriage,” Sproul said, unfazed. Sproul said the idea behind Protect Marriage Arizona is to put the issue of heterosexual marriage on the election ballot and let the people decide.
“Isn’t that pretty elitist?” Fischer asked snottily.
“It used to be that blacks and whites couldn’t marry either.”
Gozdich, himself a former Columbia University journalism student, had seen enough. “We live in a democracy … you’re engaging in debate, not in journalism,” he told an over-the-edge Fischer.
Another alleged “reporter” – not wearing any badge and who could have been a homosexual activist posing as a reporter – wedged his way to the front and fired another hard-edged and loaded question across the bow of the PMA leaders. Sproul calmly said, “We are 100 percent confident we will be able to defend the legal challenge in Superior Court and in the Arizona Supreme Court.” Sproul, too, had had enough by now and he declared the press conference over.
He and the coalition members then departed via the elevator.
“Why are you cutting off the press conference?” shouted Fischer, anxious for more verbal sparring.
On his way to the elevator, Gozdich said that the New York Supreme Court had just yesterday delivered a ruling in defense of traditional marriage. Not that any of this would matter to intellectually starved media reps in attendance plying leftist theology.
Fischer continued ranting and raving as the ravenous pack waited for its own elevator. “They should answer our questions! They cut off the press conference!” The media “groupthink swarm” then moved as one unit into the elevator and headed down to the first floor. Fischer, spoiling for a fight, rambled on barely coherent: “Sproul’s been investigated before. In Nevada, he was destroying Democrat registrations … they cut off the press conference … I love Nathan saying ‘we’re off the record here’ …. And Nathan saying ‘we weren’t prepared for a press conference.’”
Another “reporter” in the elevator — Dennis Welch of the East Valley Tribune, said, “we’re the media scum.” The temptation is strong to make a statement about truth in advertising, but no additional comment will be added here.
At last, the elevator reaches the ground floor, the door opens and “alpha dog” Fischer lunges out looking for and finding a likely victim — Secretary of State Jan Brewer, waiting for an upward bound elevator. “Have you ever had a relationship with a homosexual,” Fischer asked. Brewer laughed him off and walked on. I
t was obvious that the homosexual activists who oppose PMA did not need to be there today. The media did their dirty work for them.
The one bright spot of the morning came minutes later in the Wesley Bolin Plaza parking lot, where McClay conducted a fair, civil, and unbiased one-on-one interview with Gozdich.
Imagine that, a real interview conducted with professional deportment, rather than a debate from a reporter. There is hope for the Arizona media after all.
Only one short week after Scottsdale Mayor W.J. “Jim” Lane announced that he would be forming a statewide coalition of mayors and councilmembers in opposition to Proposition 204, 34 leaders from across Arizona have already signed on to support the “No on New Taxes, No on 204″ effort. Coalition Members as of 10/18/2012 include:
Mayors & Vice Mayors
Mayor W.J. “Jim” Lane – Scottsdale
Mayor Jay Tibshraeny – Chandler
Mayor Linda Kavanagh – Fountain Hills
Mayor Scott Lamar – Paradise Valley
Mayor Kenny Evans – Payson
Marlin Kuykendall – Prescott
Mayor David Schwan – Carefree
Mayor John Salem – Kingman
Mayor Lana Mook – El Mirage
Mayor Thomas Schoaf – Litchfield Park
Mayor Mark Nexsen – Lake Havasu City
Mayor Mike LeVault – Youngtown
Mayor Gail Barney – Queen Creek
Vice Mayor Ernie Bunch – Queen Creek
Vice Mayor Michael Hughes – Payson
Former Mayor Hugh Hallman – Tempe
Councilman Ron McCullagh – Scottsdale
Councilman Jim Waring – Phoenix
Councilman Bill Gates – Phoenix
Councilman Cody Beeson – Yuma
Councilman Don Callahan – Lake Havasu City
Councilman Jim Buster – Avondale
Councilman Sam Medrano – Bullhead City
Councilwoman Vallarie Woolridge – Florence
Councilman Victor Peterson – Gilbert
Councilman Eddie Cook – Gilbert
Councilman Jordan Ray – Gilbert
Councilman Bridger Kimball – Maricopa
Councilman Joe Hornat – Oro Valley
Councilman Scott Stewart – Wickenburg
Councilman Sam Crissman – Wickenburg
Councilwoman Cassie Hansen – Fountain Hills
Councilman Jim Brown – Queen Creek
Councilman Dean Barlow – Lake Havasu City
Councilman Bill Bracco – Sahuarita
“Municipal leaders from all across Arizona, from all backgrounds, are joining together to declare in one voice that Proposition 204 is bad for Arizona,” said Mayor Lane. “This overwhelming opposition from our elected leaders is a testament to just how poorly thought-out Prop. 204 really is. Not only could Prop. 204 destroy job growth by causing Arizona to have the second highest sales tax in the nation, it would also rob our cities and towns of state shared revenues which could force them to either raise taxes, or cut services. And when it is all said and done, there is still no guarantee that any of the dollars from this $1 billion permanent tax increase will ever reach the classroom.”
Few leaders have a more enduring track record of supporting education than Mayor Kenny Evans of Payson. “As a former High School teacher, Community College Instructor, School Board President, and education advocate and supporter of education and technology, I am saddened by this poorly drafted ballot proposition,” said Mayor Evans. “I cannot support this ill-conceived and poorly worded permanent tax grab.”
These 34 mayors and councilmembers add to a growing list of elected officials including Gov. Jan Brewer, U.S. Congressman David Schweikert, Senate President Steve Pierce, Speaker of the House Andy Tobin and many others who have already joined State Treasurer Doug Ducey in his effort to defeat this permanent tax increase.
“In only one week, Mayor Lane’s coalition has garnered a powerful and influential list of civic leaders in opposition to Prop 204 ,” said Doug Ducey, State Treasurer and Chairman of the No New Taxes, No on 204committee. “This coalition reinforces our concerns that Prop 204 is bad for local municipalities, and is especially bad for Arizona taxpayers. Passing a $1 billion blank check for special interest giveaways with almost no accountability standards and no real education reform does nothing to help Arizona’s teachers or its students.”
If passed, Prop 204 will result in Arizona having the 2nd highest sales tax in America, only behind Tennessee, a state with no income tax. This is only one of the many reasons why the State League of Arizona Cities and Towns opposes Prop. 204. The lack of accountability and the heavy input from special interest groups make Prop 204 wildly unpredictable. Prop 204 also earmarks hundreds of millions of tax payer dollars for programs and special interest groups that have nothing to do with public education.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
In 1910, the United States Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, allowing Arizona to become a state. The Enabling Act also granted Arizona approximately 10.9 million acres of state trust land, subject to certain terms for the management, operation, use and disposition of those trust lands. Proposition 120 would amend the Arizona Constitution to declare Arizona’s sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state’s boundaries. Specifically excluded from this declaration are Indian reservations, lands of the United States and federal “forts, magazines, arsenals, dock-yards, and other needful buildings” obtained for federal government purposes, as required by Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the United States Constitution. Proposition 120 also would amend the Arizona Constitution to repeal Arizona’s disclaimer of all right and title to public lands within the state (except Indian reservations) and to repeal Arizona’s consent to provisions of the Enabling Act. Proposition 120 would declare that each state possesses full attributes of sovereignty on an equal footing with all other states, as provided by the United States Constitution, and that state sovereignty is fundamental to the security of individual rights, free government and the inherent political power of the people.
ARGUMENTS “FOR” PROPOSITION 120
(I support Proposition 120. When the western territories became states, the federal government violated the enabling acts that incorporated them and retained land within each of the western states in violation of federal law. Federal retention of that land hurts the economy of the western states and leaves them struggling to adequately fund public education, nurture their economies, and manage their forests and natural resources. Simply put, federal control and interference in state affairs inhibits Arizona’s ability to provide for the welfare, health and safety of our people. The EPA threatens to close coal-generating power plants with excessive regulations. Closing these plants will result in higher utility costs for everyone. We can’t build a bridge or perform needed flood control activities because of interference from numerous federal agencies. We experience catastrophic forest fires, loss of wildlife habitat, threats to community watersheds, and loss of jobs, all of which affect the economy everywhere in the state. When the federal government mismanages our forestlands, the state cannot intervene. Roads are being closed and citizens denied access across federal lands. It takes years to obtain mining permits from the federal government, and some areas are closed to mining all together. As a result, Arizona loses billions of dollars that could be used to fund education and address other budget concerns. Meanwhile, our abundant natural resources remain under the control of unelected federal bureaucrats. Arizona is a sovereign state, and we have a right to control the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife, and other natural resources within our boundaries. Passing Prop 120 would be a small but important step in asserting our state rights and a rejection of the archaic colonial control by the federal government. I SUPPORT PROP 120 .)
Sylvia Allen, State Senator, Arizona State Senate, Candidate for Navajo County Board of Supervisors, District 3, Snowflake
Proposition 120/ HCR 2004 “…and they [Congress] may so exercise this power as entirely to annihilate all the state governments, and reduce this country to one single government. And if they may do it, it is pretty certain they will; for it will be found that the power retained by individual states, small as it is, will be a clog upon the wheels of the government of the United States; the latter therefore will be naturally inclined to remove it out of the way.” This “conspiracy theory” is not from talk radio. It was written, presumably by Robert Yates in October of 1787 as part of an effort to convince Americans that this newly written document could be abused. The Constitution of the United States allows for certain properties for the federal government. (1) To establish Post Offices and post roads (I, §8, Clause 7), (2) the Seat of Government (3) and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature (4) for the Erection of Forts, (5) Magazines, (6) Arsenals, (7) dock-Yards, and (8) other needful Buildings (i.e. Court buildings). Article IV, § 3, Clause 2 and the Fifth Amendment referring to “public purposes” apply ONLY to those ends. The Fifth Amendment was never meant for States, counties or cities to steal private land from one for the private benefit of another. Congress has NO authority to establish a National Forest Service or National Park Service and all land inside Arizona belongs to the citizens of Arizona. While I urge people to take back our land and vote YES on this proposition, I also urge that citizens recoil from the selling of the forests and lands around our Grand Canyon State Park and other parks to private interest.
Glen C. Davis, Williams
Farm Bureau Supports a “Yes” Vote on Proposition 120 Arizona Farm Bureau supports Proposition 120. Farmers and ranchers understand both stewardship and productivity of the land and our natural resources. In the last ten years, we have had devastating forest fires, followed by damaging floods. The machinery of federal bureaucracy slows and in some cases stops recovery and re-use. Our members, along with many others have become frustrated and inflamed over the federal mis-management of our public lands. Proposition 120 draws a line and throws an anchor out to exhibit we are at wits end. It begins with our forests and federal stewardship and runs to how the government functions as a landlord. Certainly, Proposition 120 requires further action by Congress, but so does any other measure necessary for course correction. We hope this message ignites and sustains a dialogue to lead to meaningful reform in federal policies and programs.
Kevin G. Rogers, President, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Gilbert
James W. Klinker, Chief Administrative Officer, Arizona Farm Bureau Federation, Gilbert
Freedom requires being sovereign. Our federal Constitution established two systems for separation of powers to preserve our liberty. Unfortunately only the separation of the three branches of government is reported. Equally important is the separation of powers between federal government and sovereign states. States gave limited authority for the federal government under our Constitution. All powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved for the states and the people . Prop 120 is an Arizona constitutional amendment to re-establish this necessary constitutional separation/balance of power to protect our liberty and civil rights. It declares our public lands and natural resources, are under our sovereign control, as provided in the NW Ordinance of 1787 and SW Ordinance of 1790 for the admission of states, excluding Indian lands and lands under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Over the last century, the separation between federal and state powers has been eviscerated. Without Senate accountability to our legislatures we are the recipients of unfunded federal mandates and restrictions which take our civil constitutionally guaranteed rights under the guise of giving us a faux benefit we can’t pay for. This abuse is demonstrated by; the denial of century old water rights for Tombstone; denial for Arizona to manage Arizona forest lands resulting in devastating fires; denial of Arizonans to commercially and environmentally regulate our own natural resources; and denial to protect our citizens at the border . In 2009 we caught 29,000 illegals from terrorist designated countries ! What better stewards are there of our land and safety, than the citizens that live with their decisions? When the Feds screw up – they have no consequences – but we do! The feds propose “anti-bully” rules for our schools but what we need is an anti-federal bully rule. We the people Vote for Prop 120!
Proposition 120: A measure to establish Arizona’s Sovereignty over its natural resources If passed, this proposition will provide Arizona with the same authority over its own natural resources enjoyed by other states. It will grant the state the ability to more effectively protect and harness the economic potential stored in the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state. Proposition 120 will increase Arizona’s ability to use federally held land: Currently, Arizona exercises control of only 29% of the land held in our state. This puts the state at a disadvantage compared to other states as we seek to fund public services that are essential to ensuring our economic solvency and infrastructure needs. The proposition contains a declaration of full sovereignty over lands and resources within Arizona as a new section to the Arizona Constitution, on the basis of maintaining “Equal Footing” with other states. Proposition 120 will allow the state to improve the management of Arizona’s natural resources: Since 2001, over two million acres of Arizona’s forests have burned due to irresponsible federal management. (Recently, federal land management has threatened the future water supply and very existence of the historic town of Tombstone.) The proposition gives Arizona exclusive sovereignty over all state territories and resources, except for Indian reservations and lands ceded to the United States, such as military forts and installations. As Arizona’s population continues to grow, it is imperative that the state be allowed to manage its own land and benefit from the wealth of its resources. The continued vitality of our state will depend heavily on our ability to exercise our authority over the natural wealth currently being denied us.
Chester Crandell, State Representative, Arizona House of Representatives, Heber
Ranching Families Support Prop 120
The federal government has already failed Arizona…if the catastrophic forest fires have not been enough….Just watch what they have planned for the water in Arizona. The federal government claims jurisdiction over everything it desires in Arizona – the animals, the water, and the lands. Proposition 120 provides all of Arizona’s citizens the opportunity to assert their opinion of whether or not we in Arizona or the federal government bureaucrats in Washington care more about our animals, water and lands. The fact is – we in Arizona care more. Please vote YES on Proposition 120!
Norman J. Hinz, President, Arizona Cattle Feeders’ Association, Phoenix
Patrick Bray, Executive Vice President, Arizona Cattlemen’s Association, Phoenix