Here we find ourself a week before an election, one of the more interesting ones in my life. It's not "the most important election of my lifetime" as many people keep breathlessly intoning. That would have been 1980 (or, stretching the meaning, since I was only 8 months old at the time, 1968.) In case you're wondering, neither of those went my way. I'm used to losing the ones that matter.
But it's not just the big tickets and small that are on the line this go 'round. As usual, my insane neighbors have plenty of their idiotic "citizen initiatives" on the ballot here in AZ. So, as I did back in 2006, I provide here my voting guide for the Arizona Ballot Propositions. If you live in AZ, you'll probably disagree with me on most of these: you do, after all, live in AZ. If you don't live in AZ, you'll probably not care one whit what I've got to say about things about which you have no vote. Oh, and since I generally don't believe citizen initiatives are generally good, expect to see me say 'no' a lot. Still...here we go.
Proposition 100: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO ARTICLE IX OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION BY ADDING A NEW SECTION 24 RELATING TO A PROHIBITION OF ANY NEW REAL PROPERTY SALE OR TRANSFER TAX IN ARIZONA.No. "Taxation without representation" was one of causes of the American revolution; we have representation. If you don't want a new tax (that no one has proposed,) vote for candidates who will vote against it. I'm not a big fan of direct democracy. It's undeliberative, reactionary, and not at all cost effective.
Propostion 101: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II OF THE ARIZONA CONSTITUTION BY ADDING SECTION 36 OF ARTICLE II; RELATING TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE IN HEALTH CARE.No. Again, if you don't want a law to be enacted, vote for representatives who think the way you do. And please don't go whining about "socialized medicine." I could only hope the Arizona legislature would vote for state-wide single payer.
Proposition 102: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA BY ADDING ARTICLE XXX; RELATING TO MARRIAGE.NO! I could not be more emphatic about this. Why the fuck do you care who fucks whom? Why the fuck do you care who marries whom? I don't think ugly people should kiss in public. Can we have a goddamn constitutional amendment for that, too?
Proposition 105: PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA: AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 1.1 RELATING TO INITIATIVE MEASURES AND REQUIRING THAT ANY MANDATORY TAX OR SPENDING INCREASE BE ENACTED BY A MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS.No. Jesus Christ. First these douchebags want to tie the hands of the state to collect taxes. Then, with this piece of shit, they want to change the meaning of "majority". They'd like it so that a majority of *qualified electors* need to approve new taxes or fees. Not voters, mind you. 80% of qualified electors don't show up to vote, it doesn't matter if 100% of the *voters* vote to pass a future initiative, it won't pass. Brilliant. Horribly anti-democratic, and coming from me that should say something.
Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform ActNo. This one's tougher. I support the existence of loan options; oppose usury. I would like to see real reform; this proposition doesn't do nearly enough. So, going with my general I-oppose-citizen-initiatives philosophy, I'll stick with a no vote.
Proposition 201: Homeowners' Bill of RightsNo. This sounds all rainbows and unicorns, right? Then you read this little change to 12-1364 paragraph (e):
NO CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF A DWELLING MAY REQUIRE THE PURCHASER TO PAY THE ATTORNEY OR EXPERT FEES OF THE SELLER UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.Cute. So, let's say I've got $20M to burn and I don't like a homebuilder. Tell ya what I'd do: buy a bunch of houses (with the intent to resell and recoup,) file a whole crapload of bullshit dwelling actions with complex and esoteric problems in them. Lose in court on each and every one, but have cost the homebuilder a lot of money to defend. Lather, rinse, repeat. Never before had I seen a law written for the sole purpose of *encouraging* sport litigation. Maybe those laws are out there, I don't know. But this one? Absolutely encourages it. Must have been written by those "trial lawyers" people are always going on about.