by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Oct 9, 2024 | Opinion
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 >>>
by Staff Reporter | Sep 10, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
The Tucson City Council is looking to implement a new transaction privilege tax to pay for a number of social projects.
The transaction privilege tax would be temporary (10 years) and amount to one-half cent (.5 percent). The city projected the tax would generate $80 million annually, or $800 million total.
With the council’s approval during their upcoming regular meeting on Wednesday, the transaction privilege tax under the “Safe and Vibrant Tucson” ballot measure would come before voters in a special election next March. The election wouldn’t be in person, but rather a vote-by-mail election.
The city projected the cost of conducting this special, mail-only election wouldn’t exceed $1.1 million.
The ballot measure was intended to take place last month; however, the city’s intent had the potential of breaking state law requiring local sales tax proposal elections to appear only on November ballots in even-numbered years. Following a request to review the issue by Democratic Senator Rosanna Gabaldon, Attorney General Kris Mayes issued a legal opinion in March defending the city’s desire to hold a tax-related ballot measure on their own terms rather than those permitted by law.
Even with Mayes’ blessing, city leadership opted to forfeit the July date for their special election, instead pushing it back to March of 2025.
Disbursements of the tax revenue would first prioritize capital investment for first responders (30 percent), enhanced emergency response (22 percent), affordable housing and shelter (17 percent), neighborhood and community resilience (16 percent), and then technology investments (12 percent).
Capital investments for first responders (30 percent) would include funding for: more police and fire personal protective equipment; specialized fire apparatus such as fire trucks, fire engines, fire pumpers, ambulances, and support trucks; unmarked police vehicles and speciality units used by SWAT teams; and upgrades and modernization for fire stations, police substations, and major equipment.
Enhanced emergency response (22 percent) would include funding for increased staffing for police, fire departments, 911, and 311. Police staffing funds would specifically include employment of more commissioned officers, community service officers (CSOs), and professional staff investigators (PSIs).
Affordable housing and shelter (17 percent) would include funding for: Tucson’s Housing First program; increased access to emergency shelters and transitional housing; down payment assistance to qualifying residents; a new Mobile Court function and investments in other specialty courts; progressive addiction treatments like harm reduction; physical investments in public, rental, and private houses such as long-term maintenance, weatherization, and climate resilience; large-scale housing projects; development impact fees for qualifying affordable housing projects; and moving current rental properties into the market for local home ownership.
Neighborhood and community resilience (16 percent) would include funding for: Pima Early Education Program Scholarships; youth workforce development programs; expanding the Community Safety, Health, and Wellness programs to teens; opening up VIVA locations; deploying Community Service Officer resources; beautification programs such as Team Up to Clean Up and Somos Uno Master Plan; cleaning up public transit; and expanding workforce training programs.
Technology investments (12 percent) would include funding for: improving 911 and 311 call systems; modernizing air support functions within Community Safety Awareness and Response Center by adding a fixed-wing aircraft, replacing the aging helicopter fleet, and advancing the use of unmanned aircraft; and accessing and managing all video and data collected by police body-worn cameras.
The proposed ballot measure’s primary focus on funding police and public safety was a reflection of results from over 800 respondents to a community budget survey the city issued earlier this year.
In its agenda materials, the city did note that the ballot measure excluded funding for road infrastructure.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Daniel Stefanski | Aug 25, 2024 | News
By Daniel Stefanski |
The Arizona Supreme Court may have rendered a significant blow to the future of a key ballot measure for the upcoming General Election.
On Friday, the Arizona Supreme Court issued an order in Smith v. Fontes, which was a challenge over the Make Elections Fair Arizona Act (Proposition 140). The court ruled that Prop 140 “will appear on the ballot, assuming ballots are indeed printed in the early morning hours of August 23.” However, the state’s high court projected that if a majority of its justices were to later “disqualif[y] the Initiative, the court should issue an injunction precluding any votes for the measure from being counted.”
The issue at hand involves a challenge to the signatures submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State by the committee supportive of the ballot measure. The parties contesting the submission have argued that there are 40,000 duplicative signatures in the batch, which, if discarded, would bring the initiative under the minimum number required for placement on the ballot.
Proposition 140 is an attempt from the Make Elections Fair PAC to remake the Arizona elections systems through this constitutional amendment on the ballot.
“I am grateful for this thoughtful decision from the Arizona Supreme Court,” said Scot Mussi, President of the Arizona Free Enterprise Club. “At no time did the trial court judge or the committee in favor of the initiative provide evidence as to why these signatures were not duplicates, but instead relied on a strategy of obstruction to run out the clock. The lateness of this challenge did not have to be the case if the lower court had only adhered to the Supreme Court’s earlier directive for all duplicates to be removed from the qualifying count. For any ballot measure – but especially one that would fundamentally transform our elections systems – Arizonans deserve complete confidence that our courts are applying all laws fairly and justly.”
Mussi added, “This isn’t a debate about dubious matches or concerns of same family members with the same name being confused as a duplicate. All the duplicates submitted to be removed were exact name and address matches that aligned with what was on the voter file. Under state law, you are only allowed to sign a petition once, so they should have been removed. Instead, thousands of people were allowed to sign the initiative petition sheets multiple times, and those signatures were counted.”
In its order, the Court wrote, “There is no statutory directive that a court resolve an election challenge like this one before the ballot printing deadline. Regardless, this Court, and indeed the trial court, has consistently endeavored to resolve initiative challenges before the ballot printing deadline… But the courts’ role is to dispense justice. Courts cannot be forced to rule rashly to meet a ballot printing deadline or provide the parties with certainty.”
According to the Arizona Free Enterprise Club, this measure “is seeking to enact a California-style election scheme built around ranked choice voting and jungle primaries.” On the other hand, an advocate for the Make Elections Fair Act recently maintained that Prop 140 “represents an opportunity to improve both our elections and our state government.”
Daniel Stefanski is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Aug 16, 2024 | News
By Staff Reporter |
On Wednesday the Arizona Supreme Court reversed a lower court ruling, validating the use of the phrase “unborn human being” as an impartial descriptor for Proposition 139, the ballot measure to legalize abortion totally.
The court’s 5-2 decision was a mere three pages long. In it, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that the Arizona legislature’s choice to use the phrase “unborn human being” rather than “fetus” meets the standard of substantial compliance required by law for drafting an impartial analysis of ballot measures.
That phrase, “unborn human being,” resides in existing state law as well, something the Arizona Supreme Court did note in its order.
Vice Chief Justice John Lopez didn’t elaborate on his analysis in this ruling, just that the phrase complied with the standards of the law. Lopez promised that the court would issue an opinion in the future to more fully explain the decision.
The Maricopa County Superior Court’s slightly longer ruling had determined that “unborn human being” couldn’t qualify as an impartial analysis of the ballot proposal making abortion a constitutional right because the phrase carried an “emotional and partisan meaning” for both supporters and opponents of abortion.
Contrary to the Arizona Supreme Court’s view, the superior court had determined that the existence of the phrase “unborn human being” in state law was irrelevant to the question of neutrality.
The offending phrase at the heart of this legal battle was part of the Arizona Legislative Council’s nonpartisan descriptor intended for the informational pamphlets given to voters about the Arizona Abortion Access Act and other ballot measures:
“Current state law prohibits a physician from performing an abortion if the probable gestational age of the unborn human being is more than 15 weeks, except when a pregnant woman’s medical condition necessitates an immediate abortion to avert the pregnant woman’s death or for which a delay creates a serious risk of substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”
An abortion does occur through the intentional killing and removal of an unborn human being from the womb of his or her mother.
The Arizona Abortion Access Act would create a fundamental, constitutional right to abortion up until birth, should a health care professional deem the abortion to be necessary to protect the mother’s life or health. The act would also impose a preemptive ban on any legislation seeking to punish those who assist mothers in obtaining abortions.
The group behind the proposal, Arizona for Abortion Access, said in a statement that describing an unborn child as an “unborn human being” was a manipulative ploy by anti-abortion advocates lacking “basis in medicine or science” or expert approval.
“This means that Arizona voters won’t get to learn about the questions on their ballot in a fair, neutral, and accurate way but will instead be subjected to biased, politically-charged words developed not by experts but by anti-abortion special interests to manipulate voters and spread misinformation,” said the group.
The group went on to urge voter support for the proposal; they didn’t indicate whether they planned on challenging the ruling.
Justice Clint Bolick recused himself from the case due to his wife, State Senator Shawnna Bolick, serving on the legislative council and crafting the contested language. Retired Justice John Pelander was selected by Chief Justice Ann Timmer to assume Bolick’s place; Pelander sided with the majority.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Aug 26, 2022 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Among the potential eleven ballot measures voters will see on their ballot this November, two make critically important reforms to the ballot measure process itself: Proposition 128 and Proposition 129.
Proposition 128: Fixing Unconstitutional Initiatives
Arizona is a target for out-of-state special interest groups that spend millions of dollars to put their radical ideas on the ballot. They take an issue that is unpopular with the electorate, like tax hikes, spend a few million dollars to park circulators in Phoenix and Tucson for a couple months, and throw bad policy on our ballots.
Take, for example, Prop 208, which narrowly passed in 2020…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
