Prop 136 Would Protect Our Ballot From Unconstitutional Measures

Prop 136 Would Protect Our Ballot From Unconstitutional Measures

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Every election cycle, out-of-state special interests spend millions trying to put their bad ideas onto our ballot. Because these groups do not understand our laws or our constitution, the measures they peddle are poorly drafted and are often unworkable or illegal. In some instances, they do know better but don’t seem to care that their proposed measure is unconstitutional.

For example, in 2020, two out-of-state groups collected signatures to put the largest tax hike in state history on the ballot. Nonpartisan attorneys at legislative council told them prior to gathering any signatures that their measure was unconstitutional. They didn’t care. After a multi-million-dollar campaign that resulted in the measure passing by a slim margin, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled the initiative unconstitutional a year later.

Why was it on the ballot in the first place, if it was so clearly unconstitutional? The courts have long held that they currently do not have the power to consider any challenges to the constitutionality of a measure before it is passed on the ballot. The only challenge that can be brought is against the signatures filed with the Secretary of State, or for a violation of the single subject or separate amendment requirements.

But if an out-of-state group is trying to put a measure on the ballot that is clearly unconstitutional, like statutorily exempting a tax hike from a constitutional spending limit, as Prop 208 tried to do, a challenge is not considered “ripe.” Instead, costly campaigns are run on both sides, and only after voters have been presented with a broken measure can a challenge be brought.

Prop 136 changes that…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Arizona Is In Danger Of Turning Into California

Arizona Is In Danger Of Turning Into California

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Every year, thousands of people flock to Arizona to enjoy the safe, affordable, and free way of life. Most of these transplants are escaping blue states such as Illinois and Washington, but most of all from California. In 2023 alone, 73,000 Californians moved to the Grand Canyon State as their own home state has become unbearably dangerous, costly, and oppressive.

But Arizona is now at a tipping point. Along with that influx of newcomers has come a morphing of political governance. In 2016, Republicans in the state legislature held majorities in the House with 36-24 members and 18-12 in the Senate. Those majorities have dwindled to a bare single seat majority of 31-29 and 16-14. With the Governor’s office changing hands in 2022 to Democratic control, the threat of a Democratic trifecta looms large, and is something Arizona hasn’t grappled with for over 60 years, a long-gone era when Democratic statesmen were rural blue dogs.

Today’s Arizona progressives are definitely not that. Cut from the same cloth as Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris, given all the levers of state government, Arizonans can expect the state to do a complete U-turn. Governor Katie Hobbs has publicly taken up the mantle, pledging millions of dollars (even from her dubious inauguration funds) and her out-of-state billionaire friends to flip Arizona blue and enjoy frictionless implementation of her most radical agenda.

That agenda has been hiding in plain sight for years, and it looks a lot like California…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Both Washington And The States Should Act To Stop Non-U.S. Citizens From Registering To Vote

Both Washington And The States Should Act To Stop Non-U.S. Citizens From Registering To Vote

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Only United States citizens should be voting in our elections. That shouldn’t be a controversial statement. But of course, it’s 2024, and the Left hasn’t instituted its open border policies under the Biden-Harris administration for nothing.

The fact is that U.S. citizens can’t go into France, Australia, or any other country throughout the world and vote in their elections. Why should citizens from other countries be allowed to vote in our elections?

While it’s certainly illegal for non-citizens to vote here, the law is only as good as the mechanism in place to make sure it’s followed. That’s why it is critical for the integrity of our nation’s elections that voters prove their citizenship prior to voting. And the SAVE Act is a much-needed remedy that would address this issue head on.

Sponsored by Rep. Chip Roy from Texas, who has certainly experienced firsthand the issues that arise from the current surge at the border, the SAVE Act would require individuals to provide documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) in order to vote in federal elections. It’s a constitutional solution to keep non-citizens from voting.

But given Congress’s propensity for inaction, states should not wait around to see if our federal lawmakers will pass the SAVE Act or another reasonable solution. Arizona has been a leader on this issue for years and has already enacted a comprehensive solution that every state should follow.

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Adrian Fontes’ Illegal Use Of Taxpayer Funds To Support Rank Choice Voting Initiative Must Be Investigated

Adrian Fontes’ Illegal Use Of Taxpayer Funds To Support Rank Choice Voting Initiative Must Be Investigated

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Arizona voters should be able to have complete trust in their elected officials to conduct themselves honorably, ethically, and lawfully in every matter concerning our sacred elections.

Too bad Secretary of State Adrian Fontes never got the memo.

In the midst of firing off baseless attacks against our organization after a court ruled in our favor against his radical Elections Procedures Manual, Fontes found a new way to violate the ethics of his office…and maybe the law.

Last week, in an unexpected, politically motivated, and potentially unlawful use of taxpayer dollars, Fontes filed a brief at the Arizona Supreme Court in an effort to ensure that votes for Prop 140 are counted in the November General Election—regardless of its eventual legality.

Think about that for a moment. By filing this brief, Adrian Fontes—the top election official in our state—unequivocally signaled his position that 40,000 duplicate signatures should be ignored and counted in favor of passing Prop 140. In short, this means that for Fontes, the ends justify the means to ensure that Arizona adopts a California-style election scheme that includes ranked-choice voting and jungle primaries. But that shouldn’t come as much of surprise…because it’s exactly what he’s been working for…

>>> CONTINUE READING >>> 

Proponents Of Prop 140 Want To “Make Elections Fair” By Counting Duplicate Signatures

Proponents Of Prop 140 Want To “Make Elections Fair” By Counting Duplicate Signatures

By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |

Arizona, we have a problem. Apparently, the group behind Proposition 140—a ballot initiative aimed to bring California-style elections to our state—got very creative in their signature gathering efforts. In fact, you could say that in many ways, they excelled in duplicating their work. And that’s exactly why Prop 140 should be invalidated.

Back in July, the special interests behind the idea to bring jungle primaries and ranked choice voting to Arizona submitted signatures with the Arizona Secretary of State to qualify the so-called “Make Elections Fair Act” for the November General Election. Just a couple weeks later, a lawsuit was filed after it was determined that a large portion of their signatures were collected in violation of state law. And late last week, we received some good news. The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the signature challenge lawsuit against Prop 140—which was facing a potential deadline due to the printing of ballots—may continue to ensure that the 40,000 duplicate signatures submitted by the Prop 140 committee are examined and removed from the final tally.

Yes, you read that right. The group that supposedly wants to “make elections fair” is content to do so by counting duplicate signatures (i.e. voters that signed more than once). What does that say about the true nature of this initiative?

>>> CONTINUE READING >>>