12 October 2006

Arizona Ballot Propositions

This is a long posting, of no use to anyone who doesn't live in Arizona. Well, I guess one could use it to determine my politics (as if those weren't clear enough) should anyone care to do so. If I could get split postings to work in the beta, I'd break this off and save the space. Since I can't, just skip if it's of no interest to you.

Proposition 100: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 22, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO BAILABLE OFFENSES.
No. Call me silly, but I still believe one is innocent until proven guilty, has the right to confront one's accusers, and unless W declares you an enemy combatant, habaeus corpus still applies. If the crime's severe, remand without bail. If it's petty, let's not eat up space and taxpayers' money when bail is a reasonable option.

Proposition 101: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IX, SECTION 19, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO LOCAL PROPERTY TAX LEVIES.
Yes. Unlike California's catastrophic Prop 13, this doesn't make revenue enhancement impossible to achieve. I think the 2% maximum annual increase is reasonable.

Propostion 102: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 35; RELATING TO STANDING IN CIVIL ACTIONS.
No. Should they want to change the constitution, with a modification to the proposed section 35 as in italics below, I'd be in favor of it:
A PERSON WHO IS PRESENT IN THIS STATE IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL IMMIGRATION LAW RELATED TO IMPROPER ENTRY BY AN ALIEN SHALL NOT BE AWARDED PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN ANY ACTION IN ANY COURT IN THIS STATE. INSTEAD, ANY ASSESSED PUNITIVE DAMAGES SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE ARIZONA GENERAL FUND.

The point of punitive damages is to punish the grossly negligent in order to set an example and teach a lesson. I can understand the desire to prevent "illegals" from cashing in; however, this is just a back-door maneuver toward so-called tort reform.

Propostion 103: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; REPEALING ARTICLE XXVIII, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA BY ADDING A NEW ARTICLE XXVIII; RELATING TO ENGLISH AS THE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE.
No. Jaysus. If Shakespeare's language can't survive on its own, we might as well give up the ghost. Or worse, become like the French and outlaw the adoption of foreign phrases. If you can't speak English, your economic opportunities are limited. If that's not incentive enough to learn, a constitutional amendment isn't going to do it.

Proposition 104: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IX, SECTION 8, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO MUNICIPAL DEBT.
No. This one's really popular, apparently. The SoS doesn't have any arguments against this prop. And yet...I grew up back east and I remember what happened to New York. You don't want to bond yourself into municipal bankruptcy.

Proposition 105: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 3 AND 4, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE X, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTIONS 4.1, 4.2 AND 4.3; RELATING TO STATE TRUST LANDS; PROVIDING FOR CONDITIONAL REPEAL AND CONDITIONAL ENACTMENT.
No. I'm not sure that grazing interests are our best interests. Maybe if this were New Zealand...

Proposition 106: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE X, SECTIONS 1, 3, AND 4, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE X, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTIONS 1.1, 1.2, 7.1 AND 12; RELATING TO STATE LANDS.
No. This is the conservationist version of the the landtrust amendments and still I'll vote no. I have a real problem with any Constitution having such specificity. This one includes maps.

Proposition 107: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO THE PROTECTION OF MARRIAGE.
FUCK NO!!! If they want to protect us, they should outlaw marriage entirely! If I have to suffer, my gay brothers and sisters should have to suffer as well.

Proposition 200: Arizona Voter Reward Act
Fuck No! The last thing I want to see is even more ill-informed people going to the polls, just hoping they is a-gonna win some moolah.

Proposition 201: Smoke-Free Arizona Act
YES!!! This is the big one for me. Ban smoking in bars and restaurants. It's good for the patrons, it's good for business, and it's especially good for the employees.

Proposition 202: Raise the Minimum Wage for Working Arizonans Act
Yes. Well, duh. You'll still be below the poverty line, but at least you'll have a fighting chance.

Proposition 203: Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Initiative
Yes. A state-wide "Head Start"-like program, funded by increased tobacco taxes. I'm a lefty. Of course I like this one.

Proposition 204: Humane Treatment of Farm Animals Act
Yes. If for no other reason than to stick it to Alfred Levinson of Tucson, who manages to invoke Godwin's Law in his argument against:
They are trying to have the Kosher slaughter of cows banned in the United States. It is banned in Germany, Norway, Switzerland, and New Zealand. One of the first actions Nazi Germany took against the Jews was to ban the Kosher slaughter of animals.

Yes Alfred. This law, dictating that pigs and calves should have room to move, is the first step down the road to Krystalnacht. Personally, I like my animals to be free-range and not factory farmed at all, but I'm not a big fan of Spam. Hormel, our only big factory farmer here in AZ, makes that nasty-ass crap. They also really don't like this prop.

Proposition 205: Your Right to Vote by Mail Act
No. I'm pretty old-fashioned, and vote by mail infrequently. I like to show up first thing in the morning at my local polling station. I like to greet the befuddled retirees who man the polls. I like to wear the stupid "I Voted Today" sticker all day. And damn it...it should take some time, thought, and effort. For those who want to vote by mail, the option still remains; this is an idiotic measure.

Proposition 206: Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act
NO!!! NO FUCKING WAY!!! This deceptively named piece of shit neither protects non-smokers, nor protects voters. It overturns local laws enacted to protect citizens by enforcing a state-wide smoke-em-if-ya-got-em law. Not only should this be voted down, but the fuckers should be sued for false advertising claims.

Proposition 207: Private Property Rights Protection Act
No. Ugh. I'm seriously torn on this one. Had our (corporate)-friendly morons on the Supreme Court not fucked up eminent domain in Kelo v. City of New London, this wouldn't even be an issue. I'm a bit concerned that there's a little too much special-interest language in the changes, though.

Propostion 300: ENACTING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF A MEASURE RELATING TO PUBLIC PROGRAM ELIGIBILITY.
No. I never, never, never oppose education for anyone. I don't care if they are "illegals".

Proposition 301: ENACTING AND ORDERING THE SUBMISSION TO THE PEOPLE OF A MEASURE RELATING TO PROBATION FOR METHAMPHETAMINE OFFENSES.
No. Treatment is far more effective in the longrun than punitive jailtime.

Proposition 302: Pay raises for State Legislators
Yes. While it's a large percentage raise, it's still a crappy salary.

7 comments:

Angela said...

Wow, you are really against marriage, eh?

So I guess that means that you and I will just have to live in blogger sin.

Glad you don't smoke, it's unhealthy. I'm into eating junkfood instead. Work for you?

R.A. Porter said...

Sure. You and my wife can eat junk food and I'll eat everything else. :)

Sophie Zankman said...

Is it me or does the Kelo decision sound a lot like that of the oppressive government we liberated ourselves from 230 years ago? Take back control & vote yes on Proposition 207. Check this out:HopeForArizona.com

R.A. Porter said...

Actually, Kelo doesn't sound much at all like that "oppressive government we liberated ourselves from 230 years ago". Eminent domain, while long established in English common law, and of course adopted in the States, was applied (and should be applied) to government takings. Things like roads and dams and canals and levees sometimes require individuals to be inconvenienced for the good of society. Kelo changes the dynamic to allow government to take for corporations. The Supremes tried to argue that in New London it still served the public interest, but that's a slippery slope argument.

While it's nice that 207 seeks to prevent goverment takings for corporate gain, it goes too far. It would make fairly basic zoning changes a risky proposition, requiring tax dollars to be spent either paying landowners for "diminution in value" or paying lawyers to determine there was none. Strip 12-1134 from the proposition, and this would become a much more attractive ballot measure.

R.A. Porter said...

I should clarify that jolly old England didn't so much have compulsory purchase as "the divine right of the king" until the 19th century, but the legal evolution in the UK followed a similar, parallel path to ours. In our case, the states hold the sovereign rights to the land.

Anonymous said...

Take back your control and Vote yes on Proposition 207! This is a matter of protecting the rights of property & homeowners!! Check this out: HopeForArizona.com

R.A. Porter said...

Just like "Sophie", anonymous is coming to us LIVE from Milford, CT. Now, I love my fellow Nutmeggers, since I grew up in the beautiful Constitution State...but I wonder why they insist on pimping for prop 207 here in AZ? Actually, I don't wonder why, I just wonder who's paying the bills.

Why exactly is it so important to someone in CT how I vote on this prop?