Thursday, September 11th, 2008...6:41 am
Stupid Ideas and the Money Behind Them
I’m sure many of you know about the so-called “Majority Rules” initiative (Proposition 105). For those that don’t, the idea is to make it near impossible to pass an initiative by requiring that they pass by a majority of registered voters, rather than a majority of the people that vote, in essence, giving a veto to the people that don’t care enough to show up at the polls.
So, who is backing this initiative? Well, folks from the Goldwater Institute and the usual suspects on the right. For example, $25,000 came from Randy Kendrick, board member of the Goldwater Institute. Also, another $25,000 came from JW Teets Enterprises and $50,000 came from a company controlled by Jim Click. These are some of the same folks who backed the failed drive to eliminate Clean Elections four years ago.
Another $50,000 came from Thomas Stewart, a former resident of the State of Washington who paid a $4.2 million dollar fine for violating campaign finance laws, one of the largest penalties ever for such a thing. (I have also written about the other run-ins he had with officials in Washington)
$55,000 have come from various alcohol distributors. The talk is that these folks are backing this because they are hoping to block future efforts to tax alcohol. So, instead of fighting the initiatives when they come, they’d rather cripple the initiative process and further make it difficult for citizens to run the government as they choose. Thanks fellas, I’ll have to buy you a beer next time I see you.
By the way, one of the distributors that is shovelling money toward this anti-democratic effort? Hensley & Co, chaired by Cindy McCain.
15 Comments
September 11th, 2008 at 8:18 am
This won’t make it “near impossible” to pass a voter initiative.
It will be impossible. Period. The End.
Any time turnout is below 50 percent – which is just about always – any initiative would automatically fail, since all the “I don’t care” voters who didn’t turn out would be counted as a “no.” You win 50 percent of the vot if only 45 percent of voters turn out.
In 2006, when turnout actually exceeded 50 percent, more than 80 percent of the voters would have needed to support an initiative. Otherwise it would have failed. When was the last time ANYTHING passed with an 80 percent margin?
I can only hope that, in an election where down is up, vice presidential “reform” candidates take home more pork per capita than anyone else, get away with lying every time they make a speech, and people lecture us about sexism when they make jokes about Janet Reno being Chelsea’s father, offer knee-slappers about women being raped by a gorilla – and enjoying it – and repeatedly use the “lipstick on a pig” cliche…
Well, I can only pray that voters wake up and smell the fertilizer they’re being fed every day.
September 11th, 2008 at 8:54 am
Oh yeah! Let’s do all we can to influence voters to think their vote doesn’t matter. Then the pesky citizens will quit bothering the Legislature with new ideas and leave the real governing to those who know best! Dear God! This is one of the most anti-democracy ideas we have ever heard! Go figure Cindy McCain is backing it.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:58 am
This is a great initiative. We already put a 2/3 requirement on the Legislature to raise taxes so this makes a lot of sense to me. Furthermore, my understanding when reading this initiative is that citizens initiatives are all that would be affected and referendums from the legislature wouldn’t be affected by this. Also, this initiative wouldn’t affect municipalities and counties who want to raise taxes.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:59 am
Prop 105 does not belong in our constitution, which was designed to protect our rights. Arizona’s founders held initiative rights as one of the most sacred. In fact, when they received pressure from the federal government to forego initiative rights as a condition of statehood, they said no.
The misleading “Majority Rules” constitutional amendment would destroy the very purpose of citizens’ initiatives which is to protect our voting rights. It’s unconscionable – and it’s wrong.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Great, TJ!
I’m so glad the legislature will be able to refer its historically great ideas and not have to worry about convincing dead people to vote yes to pass something, but regular citizens won’t.
The claim that this won’t apply to local initiatives is also dubious. I’ve actually taken the time to read the thing and its clear to me that it would.
This is why some of us are leaving Arizona, because big money special interests have so much control over the politics there. And now they want more! When will they stop?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:38 am
“Furthermore, my understanding when reading this initiative is that citizens initiatives are all that would be affected and referendums from the legislature wouldn’t be affected by this. ”
TJ, you think this is a good thing, why, exactly?
September 11th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Sam Coppersmith did a funny column on this for the Tribune where he suggested that those alcohol distributors should have to get a majority of qualified electors to approve their liquor licenses, not just City Councils or County Boards of Supervisors.
September 11th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
This initiative is all wrong for Arizona’s voters. It is unfair to allow non-voters a voice in the process by automatically giving them a NO vote on every initiative they skip by not voting.
ON the issue of fairness. Last election cycle there was an initiative that I didn’t vote on because I was truly undecided. If Prop 105 passes my indecision would lead to an automatic NO vote. Prop 105 is just wrong for Arizona!
September 11th, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Local and county initiatives are not affected as per analysis by leg. counsel.
Also, 105 only affects those initiatives that seek to hike taxes or spending.
Referenda are not affected.
A 2/3 majority is needed to raise taxes at the Legislature. The bar should be higher than it is currently to raise taxes at the ballot box.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
On September 2nd only 19% of the registered voters in the state showed up to pick primary winners. Perhaps we should not allow that to count since the majority of voters stayed home. That would mean Jim Weirers would not have won his primary and I bet after all his belly aching he would be pissed as hell to have to go through that again.
Nope, we only count the majority of those who bother to show up and perform their civic duty to elect legislators so unless they are willing to change how they get elected no way should this bill be supported. What I don’t understand is why shouldn’t the people who participate in the process of voting be the beneficiaries of the outcomes? They are after all taking the time to participate.
The legislators have produced so many laws that keep people enrolled as current voters instead of just removing them from the list. This appears to be the next chapter in Republican voter fraud.
September 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Actually, Bridget, here’s the NEXT chapter in Republican voter fraud, via the “Michigan Messenger (>
>The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key
>swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of
>foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election
>as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.
>
>”We will have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people
>aren’t voting from those addresses,” party chairman James Carabelli
>told Michigan Messenger in a telephone interview earlier this week. He
>said the local party wanted to make sure that proper electoral
>procedures were followed.
>
September 11th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Then the bar should be higher than it currently is to cut them, Frank. It takes a simple majority in the Lege to take revenue away from the state and a 2/3 majority to put it back. That’s pretty lopsided as it is and now we’re going to have a situation where the citizens will be effectively enjoined from using the initiative process to get things we badly need in the state. Do conservatives ever think these things through, or is having Arizona hurtling to 3rd world status at an even more accelerated speed what they want?
September 11th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Frank,
Again, having read the text of the initiative, it would apply to initiatives that obligate spending for a “PRIVATE PERSON, LABOR ORGANIZATION, OTHER PRIVATE LEGAL ENTITY OR THIS STATE.” That means it would apply, essentially, to every possible initiative, including raising the minimum wage, requiring employer sanctions for immigration violations, requiring insurance companies to cover birth control if they also cover viagra. However one feels about these things, it is simply UNFAIR to allow dead voters who are still on the voter roles or people too lazy to go to the polls to have as much say on these issues as someone who does their research and takes the time to go vote.
And you cite “Leg Council”? Really? Do you know who hires the people that work at Leg Council? The majority of the legislature, that’s who. Yes, the majority, which hates the initiative process. You might want to find a different source to cite.
The initiative does not say “a statewide initiative measure,” it says “an initiative measure.” Period.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
The legislators in this fine state have made it difficult to remove the voters–even dead ones–from the voter lists, most likely with this latest proposal in mind. In the past few years legislation has passed that requires all sorts of hoops to be jumped through now. Ask any county recorder and they will tell you what used to be an easy task of keeping voter rolls up-to-date is now an administrative nightmare that costs the state lots of money.
My number one reason for disliking Republicans is that they never fight fair.
September 12th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Donna,
This is an obvious point, I know, but you and I just approach political issues differently.
You contend that the state’s failure to collect more revenue has us on the road to third world status.
I would contend that our state’s inability to restrict spending to a reasonable level has us on the road to ruin. The Legislature’s inability to cut voter-approved spending even in the case of emergency makes our budget woes even worse.
However, if the state needs and wants more tax revenue, they can refer a tax measure to the ballot.
Ex-AZ,
Leg. council provides the analyses for measures appearing on the ballot; I’m not sure what else I could give you. If the courts want to interpret the act once passed, they could look at legislative intent, in which case, again, it would only apply to statewide initiatives.