The ICBINBS Guide to the Arizona State Ballot, Part I

Today is Primary Day in Arizona, the state in which most of my readers (and I) live. Some readers may be shocked to know I will not be participating in voting today, primarily because I am an independent voter and thus I do not care for the internal squabbles of the party candidates. However, seeing as we're only a short few months from actual state election day, I felt it was timely to provide a short synopsis of what is happening this November's election. Seeing as I can't weigh in on the general election until final primary results are in, I am covering the state legislative elections and the ballot measures (bills) on this section. Hopefully you find this useful, otherwise I fail at my job :). Seek enlightenment below.

STATE LEGISLATIVE ELECTIONS
A guide to finding what AZ legislative district you live in (and therefore should vote for) can be found here. Scroll down to the bottom left and input your address to find out your legislative district.

At that point you'll be able to read this candidate statements guide and find the candidates for your district and read what they have to say about what they'll do for your district. By having their names, you could also Google their candidate websites to find out more specifics.

With your voting research done, you can go here to find your voting locations based on two different options of input. You'd be surprised how much is decided at the state level, so vote, for your own sake.

BALLOT MEASURES
Ballot measures are bills put on the ballot for approval or disapproval directly by the voters. The following ballot measures are slated for placement on the November 2010 ballot(links and information thanks to the good people at Ballotpedia), as well as my opinion for each one (clearly marked in capitals in case you don't want to be influenced) and my prediction for the electoral result. Enjoy!

Proposition 106: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to protect Arizona citizens from being forced to purchase health insurance by government action, while simultaneously guaranteeing the right of citizens to purchase private health insurance.
MY OPINION: The supremacy (or lack thereof) of the Obama health care mandate will be decided in court either way, so amending the state constitution is fairly useless gesture for Arizona to pretend it doesn't have to participate. I will vote for, however, because a state defending it's citizen's freedoms from federal dominance is not distasteful to me.
PREDICTION: The measure will pass by overwhelming majority due to Arizona's strong conservative opposition to "Obamacare".


Proposition 107: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution by adding the following to Article 2:

This state shall not discriminate against or grant preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.

In essence, the state constitution would be banning affirmative action programs by banning "discrimination" and "preferential treatment" in employment by the state (teachers, police, construction, etc).
MY OPINION: I am an opponent of most affirmative action programs, I believe 21st-century America is sufficiently prepared to punish continuing discrimination without having to favor any one group. I consider affirmative action today essentially reverse discrimination, so I will vote in favor of the measure.
PREDICTION: Arizona has never voted on affirmative action before. However, given the heavy white majority, I expect this measure to succeed, though probably by a close margin.

Proposition 108: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make voting by secret ballot in elections, ballot measures, and other voting procedures a "fundamental right" in the state. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:

To preserve and protect the fundamental right of individuals to vote by secret ballot, where local, state or federal law requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires elections for public offices or for ballot measures, or requires designations or authorizations for employee representation, the right of individuals to vote by secret ballot shall be guaranteed.

MY OPINION: I agree that voting by secret ballot, including for unionization, is a fundamental right of citizens of any democracy. As such, I support the measure.
PREDICTION: Passage.

Proposition 109: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution to make hunting in the state (regulated by the legislature and the Game and Fish Commission) a constitutionally-protected right. The amendment to the constitution would read as follows:

A. The citizens of this State have a right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife lawfully. Wildlife belongs to this State and is held in trust for the benefit of the citizens of this state.
B. Exclusive authority to enact laws to regulate the manner, methods or seasons for hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife is vested in the Legislature, which may delegate rule making authority to a game and fish commission. No law shall be enacted and no rule shall be adopted that unreasonably restricts hunting, fishing and harvesting wildlife or the use of traditional means and methods. Laws and rules authorized under this section shall have the purpose of wildlife conservation and management and preserving the future of hunting and fishing.
C. Lawful public hunting and fishing shall be a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.
D. this section shall not be CONSTRUED to modify any provision of common law or statutes relating to trespass or property rights.

MY OPINION: I don't even know why this was added to the ballot. I thought hunting was already pretty well-protected in Arizona, but I suppose this goes with the trend: recently states have been passing a multitude of pro-Second Amendment and gun/hunting related bills to show solidarity against any Democratic attempt at stricter gun control. But this measure doesn't even do anything; it prettymuch says "hey everyone? You know how you could hunt before? You still can." Since this does not really offend me in any way, I will vote in its favor.
PREDICTION: Hunting. In Arizona. What do you think? Passage.

Proposition 110: The measure, as I understand it, would essentially make it illegal to sell state trust lands for purposes that would harm or impede military bases, and permit sales that aid the bases' protection and other purposes.
MY OPINION: Seems fine and straightforward, I'll vote in favor.
PREDICTION: Passage, though an apathetic electorate could leave enough ballots blank to make the margin closer.

Proposition 111: The current position of "Secretary of State" would be renamed "Lieutenant Governor" (Arizona currently has no Lieutenant Governor). Furthermore, like a President/Vice President ballot, any candidate for Lieutenant Governor would have to run on a ticket with the same party
MY OPINION: Requiring the two highest offices of the state to come from the same party circumvents public elections, if you ask me. Yes, the disagreements between the Governor and Secretary of State of different parties can be cumbersome, but that's a function of government. I'm a bit torn on this one, but I'm leaning against.
PREDICTION: Passage. I don't think people will get that it's more than a title change.

Proposition 112: The measure would amend the Arizona State Constitution's petition processes. Currently, a certain number of signatures on a ballot petition (a petition to put a bill on the ballot to be voted on) need to be submitted by July 1 in order to be put on the ballot. Proposition 112 would move the deadline up to May 1, two months sooner.
MY OPINION: I tend to believe shorter petition deadlines favor the weak at the expense of those with more resources. A petition supported by businesses and lobbyists already has the resources to get signatures quickly; a petition created by students and spread by word of mouth deserves time to pick up speed. I am against shortening the time---I vote no.
PREDICTION: I'm pretty sure this will be passed because it SEEMS ok on the surface.

Proposition 203:The measure would legalize the use of medical marijuana in the borders of the state of Arizona.
MY OPINION: Generally a legalization of medical use is seen as a first step toward full legalization. I support legalization on libertarian principles, and reject the idea of marijuana as a "gateway drug" in itself. I will vote in favor of the measure.
PREDICTION: Tossup. There is vehement support for both sides of this argument.

Proposition 301: The measure would permit the transfer of $123 million in funds from a land conservation account into the general fund. In layman's terms, the government would be able to use that large amount of money for what it wanted and not keep it locked up in a different account.

The measure is intended to help counter the state's budget deficit and maintain government services elsewhere. Combined with Proposition 100 (1 cent sales tax increase) and Proposition 302 (see below), the Arizona deficit is expected to close.
MY OPINION: I wish there were another way, but this state's budget emergency calls for this measure. I happen to be pro-environment, but not at the cost of the rest of government, and these funds are needed. Thus, we detract from some of our conservation, but keep our state solvent. Because this measure is what I view as a necessity, I support its passage.
PREDICTION: Passage, the environment lobby won't defeat the deficit-tackling electorate.

Proposition 302: This measure would eliminate the "First Things First" program, a young children's and impoverished young children's education program, and use the funds for the rest of state government.
MY OPINION: Where the hell is this money going? I have a younger brother who never received program benefits, and I don't know anyone who did. It's difficult for me to justify $300+million in funds to a program I don't see any impact from...I mean, $300 million is a third of our deficit. Just as 301 is a necessity in my view, I support this measure as well.
PREDICTION: Tossup. The "children's education" aspect could become a heated issue, provided many people pay attention.

SUMMARY
The state has several measures that are clear responses to federal controversies. Most of the measures on here will, in my opinion, probably pass, but obviously every vote counts. The budget-balancing measures are some of the most controversial and important on the ballot, so make your decisions and vote. I hope this guide has given some insight, and I leave the rest to you.

PS: Part II, on the General Election candidates for Congress and State Executive positions, is coming soon! Thanks to all my readers.

Building Envy?

With all the debate over the so-called Ground Zero Mosque (which is neither wholly a mosque nor located at Ground Zero, but that's media coverage for you), it is easy to summarize the opposition as being Islamophobes or overly sensitive, or some other tactic that generally claims they are discriminating against Muslims.

For New Yorkers however, I have a feeling this is not simply about a Mosque too close to the WTC. I can't help but believe that the Cordoba project would be much less of a problem if it was being built in the shadow of a proudly rebuilt World Trade Center, instead of going up ahead of it.

The national media only updates the rest of us Americans on the Ground Zero project's stumbles every so often, but for New Yorkers the continued presence of an empty hole in the ground is a constant reminder that the powers of their city have, after a long 9 years, failed to fulfill their promise immediately following the attacks: we will rebuild. New York knows that this project, suffering everything from design arguments and contractor crises, is an abject embarrassment to the city at large. The lack of a monument and a standing,functional replacement for the original WTC must, understandably, make it that much harder for a city so badly harmed to heal.

As such, it comes as no surprise that a majority of New Yorkers, when asked if they oppose a Ground Zero Mosque, respond negatively. Why should a religious building that reminds them of the attacks be built before their great icon? I believe that for these people, subconsciously this is not about sensitivity or a paranoid fear of Muslims: it is about the failure to truly rebuild after the attacks, and the hurt that lingers because of it.

So for the New Yorkers asking these questions, I understand. At the same time, however, I still come out on the side of the Cordoba House because I believe in defending the free, legal exercise of religion as people see fit. However, I also come out on the side of New Yorkers, who deserve better treatment for their wounds after 9 years of waiting.

"If I'm not winning, I won't play"

The Tea Party is a frustrating bunch in many respects, but perhaps one of the worst is their foreign policy. Tea Party hero and one of the movement's de facto spokesmen, Rand Paul, stated that "I believe that the United States should withdraw from and stop funding altogether those U.N. programs that undermine legitimate American interests and harm the cause of freedom around the world."

There's a small problem, Mr. Paul: the "great game" of diplomacy continues whether you choose to participate or not. The U.N. is by no means perfect and to suggest that the U.S. should not push for improvements is to be a bit too idealistic for my taste, but to also simply refuse to participate is to give up a massive, monolithic forum of interaction and discussion for diplomatic matters. I consider bilateral or limited multilateral discussion more effective in most cases, but denial of the U.N. in general can only hurt a country's foreign policy. The Tea Party is the equivalent of a kid on the playground unhappy with a game's progress who stalks off yelling "I don't want to play anymore!" if he's not winning.

The problem with that strategy is you ALWAYS lose, regardless of your original reasoning. You will NOT gain anything but isolation from running away from something like the UN, as well as ire from everyone who continues playing. Good luck managing to fight for your interests globally (which is vital to America's future), if you're going to infuriate the globe by ditching commitments to the UN. Improving the organization is a necessary goal, but simply abandoning the organization altogether is a sure way to become the playground loser.