36 replies to this topic

[Jacki O.]

lame balls

ugh totally lame

sounds like they are trying to cover their asses and be "tough on crime"

[The Real Jeffrey Lebowski]

I wasn't that aware of the details of Prop 203. Yeah, I knew it was the pot one, but I was pretty sure that I had previously read it was going to be much more hard assed than the California and Colorado equivalents - that I wouldn't just be able to claim I had "chronic pain"

This Phoenix New Times article seems to indicate the opposite.

It almost seems too good to be true.

[sonofpatter]

I was trying to find Jacki O's post about the judges but can't find it. anyone know where it is?

[thebiggameover]

106- no

107- yes

109- yes

110- fucking idk. just gonna vote no unless i can find out wtf this even is

111- no

112- no

113- yes

203- YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

301- no. i think

302- no. i think

wtb a link to that horizon thingy so i can find out wtf 110 301 and 302 even do...

[The Real Jeffrey Lebowski]

I was trying to find Jacki O's post about the judges but can't find it. anyone know where it is?

As for voting for AZ judges:

here's a conservative site that shows you which judges they like (douches) and which judges they don't (dirty liberals)
good info so you know which judges to vote for!

Vic's Picks from 2008 - still might be some judges running.
i can't find an updated guide for 2010


AZNETROOTS.com is awesome
Their motto? "Turn AZ Blue"

I didn't try the bottom two, but I did like using the one in bold.

P.S. Link to the rest of that election themed thread

[jeremx]

a comment i was reading about prop 112:

This Prop. 112 is a worthless rubber stamp that does NOTHING to help the common man that the legislature can point to and say, "See - we tried to reform the system. We're doing our job.." All the while, the common man loses more power - which is exactly what the state legislature wants. They don't want the populace passing laws without their permission, and they don't want to have to deal with the consequences of passed propositions (like the fiscal problems of the passed Voter Protection Act).

The irony of this is that the only way to actually change the number of signatures needed for a ballot would be to... collect enough signatures to get it on the ballot, which is practically impossible unless there's a millionaire out there that believes in changing the system (which currently benefits the millionaires anyways because they can just put a lobbyist down at the state capital).

Read more: http://www.azcentral...l#ixzz145wydBEj

yes, it's azcentral but this commenter had a point. (doing my last minute prop research)

[danielle]

Some info on the Water Dudes from an email I got:

As most of you know, for 12 years I served on the Board of Directors of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District. This obscure office is the three county elected board that runs the CAP Canal. There are 15 board members, and this year 5 seats from Maricopa County are open. The election is non partisan, and you “vote for 5” from among a slate this year of 15 candidates.



One of Arizona’s most important, and longest standing, traditions, is that water transcends partisan politics. Our extraordinary record of quality water management is the result of more than 100 years of bi-partisan and non-partisan cooperation. Carl Hayden, John Rhodes, Barry Goldwater, Morris Udall, Bruce Babbitt, John McCain and Jon Kyl are all examples of this outstanding tradition.



But this year, the tradition is at risk. A group of extreme, partisan, and stunningly unknowledgeable people are trying to take over the CAP Board. Why? Because it’s easy, and because they believe that all government is bad and should be cut, cut, cut. Their only stated platform is to end the CAP’s employee retirement system and to reduce the staff. The CAP has fewer than 500 employees, and it’s budget and operations are mainly paid for from water and power sales. There is a very minor property tax, which is used to stabilize the operations and protect our water supplies. No matter how much you feel that government has gotten too big or intrusive, that shouldn’t have anything to do with this race.



DON’T LET THE EXTREMISTS TAKE OVER THE CAP!!! This is a very big deal, but is easily lost in all the noise. Here are the candidates, grouped by recommendation:



HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:



Frank Fairbanks. Retired Phoenix City Manager. As solid, steady, smart, decent and capable a person as you could possible ask for. Registered Independent. Lots of past experience on water issues. Endorsed by Arizona Republic after they interviewed the candidates.



David S. “Sid” Wilson. Retired General Manager of the CAWCD. 40+ years of water management experience. One of the most expert people in the field in the U.S. Republican. Also endorsed by Az. Republic.



Tim Bray. Currently incumbent board member. Water consultant, primarily to major developers and cities. Creative, extremely knowledgeable on water markets and pricing, which are becoming more and more important. I’m pretty sure he’s a Republican. Endorsed by Az. Republic.



Jim Holway. Formerly Assistant Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. After leaving ADWR, worked at ASU in the Global Institute of Sustainability. Now at the Sonoran Institute, which is a moderate environmental organization. Has a balanced, environmental perspective. Democrat. Endorsed by Az Republic.



Ray Jones. Water Consultant, primarily to private water companies. Formerly President of Arizona American Water. Very knowledgeable on utility operations, water pricing, and water conservation issues. I’d guess he’s a Republican, but I don’t actually know.



;

RECOMMENDED: These are also totally solid candidates and would be fine board members.



Karl Kohloff. Retired water management professional. Used to run Mesa’s water system. One of the truly “grand old water buffaloes” of Arizona. Probably a Republican, but again I really don’t know or care.



Arif Kazmi. Civil Engineer who works for ADOT. Registered Professional Engineer. Not a water guy, but really interested and has huge experience with big infrastructure issues. I’ve been told he’s a Democrat. Endorsed by Arizona Republic.



Andy Yates. Young guy who worked at the Arizona Capitol Museum. Now has his own PR/Consulting business. Really eager and interested in water. Young Republican looking to break into public policy issues.



Brian Munson. Works for mining company ASARCO. Formerly Director of Water Quality at the Arizona Department of Water Resources. Registered independent.





STRONGLY NOT RECOMMENDED:



Mark Lewis. (Not the newscaster). Incumbent Board Member. I served with Mark on the Board and have known him a long time. He’s often a decent board member, though he sees everything in terms of political advantage. He has organized the “insurgent” group to take over the board and “shrink government”. I think it’s mostly about getting himself elected President of the Board. Republican, as are all the following.



TC Bundy. One of the hard core slate who knows nothing about water issues.



Raymond Johnson. Ditto.



Cynthia Moulton. Ditto.



John Rosado. Ditto.



PLEASE, PLEASE, TAKE THIS VOTE SERIOUSLY!!! The CAWCD is local, efficient, non partisan government at its best, and it’s really at risk this year. Feel free to forward this on to anyone.

[jeremx]

Some info on the Water Dudes from an email I got:

HIGHLY RECOMMENDED:

Frank Fairbanks. Retired Phoenix City Manager. As solid, steady, smart, decent and capable a person as you could possible ask for. Registered Independent. Lots of past experience on water issues. Endorsed by Arizona Republic after they interviewed the candidates.

David S. “Sid” Wilson. Retired General Manager of the CAWCD. 40+ years of water management experience. One of the most expert people in the field in the U.S. Republican. Also endorsed by Az. Republic.

Tim Bray. Currently incumbent board member. Water consultant, primarily to major developers and cities. Creative, extremely knowledgeable on water markets and pricing, which are becoming more and more important. I’m pretty sure he’s a Republican. Endorsed by Az. Republic.

Jim Holway. Formerly Assistant Director of the Arizona Department of Water Resources. After leaving ADWR, worked at ASU in the Global Institute of Sustainability. Now at the Sonoran Institute, which is a moderate environmental organization. Has a balanced, environmental perspective. Democrat. Endorsed by Az Republic.

RECOMMENDED: These are also totally solid candidates and would be fine board members.

Arif Kazmi. Civil Engineer who works for ADOT. Registered Professional Engineer. Not a water guy, but really interested and has huge experience with big infrastructure issues. I’ve been told he’s a Democrat. Endorsed by Arizona Republic.

that's who my girl are going with.

[jeremx]

http://elections.foursquare.com/

[donald]

http://elections.foursquare.com/

Dammit, I voted and forgot to checkin to foursquare

[jeremx]

Dammit, I voted and forgot to checkin to foursquare

do it through your phone or on their mobile site. you can still get the badge if you want it. i forgot while i was there and did it from my phone here at work. i'm a dork and like those little badges so i made sure i did the check-in. plus you can see the info on that election tracker. my gf was supposed to have dropped hers off there on her way to work and i can see that she forgot to check in as well since i'm the only one showing up as having voted there (and checked in).

they had two districts represented at the same place. after realizing i was at the wrong one, i went to the other only to find that they didn't have me on the list so i had to do the provisional ballot. took them forever to figure out how to do it. i was their first voter and it happened to be provisional. dude was like a dear in headlights. ha ha.. but they got it all squared away and i'm sure they've gotten better as the day has progressed. i wonder if they get so many people that volunteer that they can afford to turn people away. cuz i'd maybe like to do it sometime but i wonder if they'd just turn me away and go with someone who's 87 years old as most of them tend to be.

[JRC]

Andy Yates. Young guy who worked at the Arizona Capitol Museum. Now has his own PR/Consulting business. Really eager and interested in water. Young Republican looking to break into public policy issues.

Spoiler

This guy is actually one of my Volunteers here at the Museum.

All in all he seems like a pretty much straight forward dude.

Additionally, he is now in the middle east (Afganistan I think) teaching about Democracy. The thing is, he'll be there for over a year by all accounts, which means if he gets elected, he'll be attending meetings via teleconfrence and video phone. He can do this, but at the same time, he will not be "on the ground" here in AZ, so if that is a concern of yours keep it in mind.

I wouldn't say I'm flat out endorsing him, but in all my dealings he's been upfront and cool.

[JRC]

Here's something I found via ASU on prop 110.
Which, is what I thought I'd find:


Yes on Proposition 110?
Supporters of Proposition 110 – a varied group including the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, the State Land Commissioner, the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy – note that Prop
110 serves two critical purposes.
First, the proposition would protect possible future encroachment on all military bases in Arizona,
viewed as an essential part of the state economy. Specifically, Luke Air Force Base, opened in 1941
to train Army Air Corps fighter pilots, would be protected. In recent years, increasing residential
development of cities such as Surprise and El Mirage near the base has threatened to curtail the
base’s ability to train pilots and thus jeopardize its annual multi-billion-dollar contribution to the
economy.v
While state law already regulates development around Luke, some landowners have expressed
concern that they cannot continue to develop their land. The issue has grown in importance as Luke
competes with other bases to land the assignment to train pilots for the Air Force’s next generation
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.vi According to supporters, Proposition 110 would provide constitutional
protections, stronger than what currently exists in statute, to ensure controlled land use and
development around the base.
Second, Proposition 110 also would remedy the prohibition on land exchanges that exists currently.
Proponents believe Arizona has used this process efficiently and effectively in the past, and if the
proposition were successful, the state would have access to a tool that has been unavailable since
1990.
Finally, supporters stress what they view as transparency and voter engagement as put forth in
Proposition 110. If passed, any proposed land exchange must include two independent analyses
that include a number of factors, including fiscal impact; public hearings; and approval by voters
every time through a ballot measure during the November election.

No on Proposition 110?
In the past, opponents to land exchanges have argued that public lands have frequently been
exchanged in less-than-equitable deals that have benefited developers but short-changed the public.
vii Ultimately, the land exchange leads to ownership by a private entity for development. Most point to
the current constitutional language that only requires state trust land to be sold to the “highest and
best bidder.”
While Prop 110 would address general protection for military bases, protections for open space and
land conservation are not a part of Prop 110. In The Arizona We Want, a recent Gallup survey of
Arizonans asking residents to identify what they value about the state, “the state’s natural beauty
and open spaces are seen by citizens as our greatest asset.”
Prop 110 coupled with Prop 301 – a proposed sweep of the Land Conservation Fund, the sole state
funding source dedicated to preserving open space near urban areas – leave opponents concerned
about land exchanges impacting open space preservation.
Another issue raised is what actual impact Prop 110 would have. There is not much state land near
Luke – only some south of Indian School Road – so exactly how exchanges could be used as a tool
to manage and protect the military base is unclear. Opponents question whether Prop 110 would
bring any real value or change to the process.
Some proponents of broader-based state trust land reform have expressed concern that this
measure does not accomplish much, and setting up an exchange process that requires public votes
will actually hurt the cause of long- term reform efforts.
Finally, there are those who point to the benefit of simply governing the process through sale to the
highest and best bidder, pointing to a basic free market philosophy to both guide the process and
increase fiscal reserves in the state land trust for the benefit of public education.

The Bottom Line
A “yes” vote would allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public land and permit the
state to sell, lease or otherwise manage state trust land without auction or advertisement to avoid
uses that would interfere with military installations, airspace or operations.

Basically, it makes it easier to take land and trade or sell it for commercial use . . .

[JRC]

Also, prop 113.
I am kinfa confused by this one.
One the surface, it seems like, ya, Secret ballot, of course.
But all the Union side of this stuff I hear makes me think otherwise


Yes on Proposition 113?
Proponents of Proposition 113, including 17 Arizona chambers of commerce, cite what they believe
is the fundamental right to a secret ballot. In issuing the call for a special session to refer Proposition
113 for the November General Election, Governor Brewer stated: “The right to cast your vote without
fear or intimidation is a fundamental tenant of our democracy. I believe that Arizona voters should be
provided the opportunity to support and protect the constitutional right to a secret ballot for Arizona
employees.”vii
They also believe Prop 113 does not really make the process more difficult than it is today; it just
guarantees the provision of a secret ballot.
Supporters say that allowing unionization with only a card check would open the process to possible
intimidation – including “threats, assault”viii against those who don’t support a union, which could
unfairly result in a successful union election. As Bolick states: “With card check, it allows coercion by
union organizers and therefore increases the odds that a union would be formed where it would not
be formed if it were put to a secret ballot.”ix
Supporters also point to the removal of a secret ballot as not only an infringement on the rights of
employees, but also of employers to respond to a request for employee representation in a fair and
balanced manner. They also note Arizona’s strong history as a right-to-work state, and believe that
the protections of Prop 113 fit this model.
Some even cite the possibility that such a measure could force some businesses, especially small
businesses, to close their doors. “Countless struggling businesses simply will not stay in business if
the unions have greater power of intimidation in their shops, restaurants and manufacturing
facilities,” said Save Our Secret Ballot Arizona chairman Roy Miller.x

No on Proposition 113?
Opponents point out that this is in direct response to a proposed, but not established, federal law.
Much like Proposition 106, which seeks in part to pre-empt the future possibility of a public option
for health care, and Proposition 109, which seeks to protect hunting and fishing from a possible
future threat to ban both practices, Proposition 113 is a solution looking for a problem, opponents
argue.
Additionally, charges of intimidation are a concern of Prop 113 opponents. However, their concern is
that the current system, which starts with a card check and then progresses to a secret ballot, allows
employers time to coerce and intimidate employees into resisting a union. According to Rebecca
Friend of the AFL-CIO: “What card check would do is eliminate the employer harassment of workers
who want to form unions.” xi
Finally, those calling for votes against Prop 113 note that even if this measure were successful, and
the federal government did pass legislation that provided for a public process, federal law would
supersede any state law. According to Senate Assistant Minority Leader Rebecca Rios, D-Apache
Junction, “My colleagues [at the Legislature] keep thinking that Arizona is our own little country, that
we can pass laws that don’t take into account what federal law says.”xii
Ultimately, the measure would be ruled unconstitutional, but only after lengthy and costly litigation,
Prop 113 opponents say. “Doesn’t federal law preempt anything we do? I feel like this is just a set-up
for litigation,” said Rep. Chad Campbell of Phoenix, who is the House Democratic Whip.xiii

The Bottom Line
A “yes” vote would amend the Arizona Constitution to include a “right to vote by secret ballot for
employee representation,” specifically addressing union elections in Arizona.

I think I'm voting no on this one.

[jeremx]

http://www.reddit.co...ona_ballot_are/ info below:

There is a disturbing trend among these propositions:

1) They are written on the ballot in a style that hides their real effects.

2) Some will permanently take away powers from the voters.

3) The sponsors reference false threats and fears that do not really exist.

4) They attack vulnerable groups.

5) They are sponsored by outside groups who want to gain a foothold for a cause, not improve AZ.

Prop 107: Ending 'discrimination' by banning efforts to close racial education gaps

What the ballot says: This will make racial discrimination a state crime.

Real effect: Will end scholarship and early-start programs designed to help hispanics/natives.

Baseless fear mongering: AZ doesn't have affirmative action! Just specialized education programs.

Outside sponsorship: Sponsored almost entirely by Colorado group that attacks affirmative action all around the country.

Prop 109: Tweek the AZ Constitution to take away voter control over wildlife issues

What the ballot says: Make hunting a protected constitutional right regulated by the legislature.

Real effect: The voters will be barred from passing popular wildlife initiatives.

Baseless fear mongering: There is no threat to hunting rights, and they are already protected.

Outside sponsorship: The NRA was the original and by far the largest sponsor.

Prop 112: Make it even more impossible for citizens to get initiatives on the ballot

What the ballot says: "A Yes vote will change the initiative filing deadline from 4 months to 6 months prior to election"

Real effect: The wording is almost impossible to understand in this proposition. It would shorten the time available to citizens to collect signatures for popular initiatives. There is so little time already that citizens can almost never gather the required amount. This year, the only popular initiative that was able to make it to the AZ ballot is the medical marijuana proposition. This would end choice in establishment favorites such as photo radar.

Prop 113: Make it prohibitively complicated for groups of workers to unionize

What the ballot says: Protect the workers' right to a secret ballot.

Real effect: Forces unions to have the most complicated form of initiation even though less complicated forms are generally considered adequate and fair.

Baseless fear mongering: The worker's right to privacy is not threatened currently, and unions are vehemently against this possible new, expensive requirement.

Outside sponsorship: Anti-union front groups. http://www.progressi....org/node/22564

Prop 301: Take all the money from the Land Conservation Fund with no future repayment

Prop 302: Take all the money from the Early Childhood Development Fund with no future repayment

What the ballot says: Please help move the balance of these funds into the general fund.

Real effects and motivation: Jan Brewer always says that she has balanced the budget. In reality, she meant that the budget is balanced if voters approve her two propositions, 301 & 302. Otherwise an 800 million dollar shortfall/deficit remains. These two propositions will take money out of funds to help children. These funds were created by voters and thus need voter approval to be raided. Brewer doesn't want new taxes, except this hidden tax on POOR CHILDREN.

Edit: Thank you for your comments. I want to point out that there are other propositions that I do not like. These are clearly worded, however, and therefore I avoided posting them in this submission.

I elaborate elsewhere in the comments, but here is a good alternative source provided by SporkofThor: http://race.change.o...s_with_prop_107

Whether you agree with affirmative action or not, the writers of Prop. 107 should be more honest and portray their intent truly on the ballot.