Prop 113 and 203

Prop 113 is the last of the amendments to the Arizona State Constitution. It would guarantee the right to a secret ballot when voting to create or join a union. It is an active measure against a move by large unions to re-establish their hold on American industry that, until the last election, has been waning.

Let me first say that I have a fundamental issue with unions today.

Granted they have accomplished some admirable things in the past. They are responsible for ending child labor in the US. They are also responsible for employers providing reasonably safe work conditions.

However, for the most part they have out lived their usefulness. The only thing that they do now is choke businesses, extort money from hard working individuals, raise prices on everything from groceries to automobiles, and push industry out of the country.

People should be compensated for their performance and their pay should be dependent on the supply and demand for that position. If someone is a good worker, they should get paid more. If someone is a bad worker they should get fired. If someone does a job that very few people have the talent, skill, or experience to do, they should get paid more. If someone does something that a student still in high school could do with fifteen minutes of training, they should be paid less.

But this measure isn’t about whether unions are good or bad, only about whether or not someone has the right to honestly vote on whether or not to join or create a union without being intimidated by union thugs or fellow employees.

The opponents to this measure favor a system a system called card check where your vote is much more public. It opens objecting employees to pressure and intimidation.

“What, don’t you want to look out for your fellow workers?”

“Don’t you care about how they are treating people here?”

“Don’t you know what they did to Tom? Don’t you think he deserves better than that?”

It’s wrong. If people are going to vote on something, whether that is a presidential election or to start a union, they should be able to make their decision privately without intimidation. Protect the secret ballot.

I’m voting an enthusiastic YES for Prop 113!

Prop 203 is a measure that is very long and very complicated, but this is the description at its simplest. Prop 203 would create a system for the medical use of marijuana in Arizona.

I really haven’t made up my mind on the whole issue of drug regulation and how that plays into individual freedoms, drug trafficking, and the future of our country.

Here are my objections to this particular bill.

If marijuana is going to be used as a medicine, it should manufactured and distributed like any other controlled substance. A licensed manufacturer should produce, qualify, package, and distribute it through licensed pharmacies. If you are really pushing for medical marijuana, that is exactly what you would do.

However, if you are really looking for marijuana, and the idea of marijuana, to become more socially acceptable so that eventually it could be legalized entirely, then you would produce a proposition like Prop 203, which sets up an entirely specialized system for marijuana production and distribution.

I’m not saying marijuana shouldn’t be used for medicinal purposes. I’m saying that that is not the goal of Prop 203.

I’m voting NO on Prop 203.

Props 111 and 112

Prop 111 and 112 are… you guessed it, amendments to the Arizona State Constitution! Shocking, yes, I know, but don’t worry there are some propositions this year that are NOT amendments, and I’ll get to those soon enough.

Prop 111 is an amendment which changes the name of the office of Secretary of State. Currently in our state constitution, if the governor cannot complete their full term, because they took a national position as Secretary of Homeland Security for instance, then the Secretary of State is the next person in line to succeed the governor. Governor Jan Brewer became the governor because she had been the Secretary of State under Janet Napolitano. This amendment would change the name of the position and how it is elected.

The Secretary of State would become the Lieutenant Governor and would be elected on a co-ticket with the Governor. The idea is that it more clearly defines the chain of command for the state and helps people to realize that the Secretary of State is actually the next person in line for the governorship. The argument seems to be that you can have a governor of one party and a SOS of another party and without an election the governorship can “change hands” so to speak.

Here is the problem with the amendment. The position of Secretary of State is an important position. If you’ve been on the website at all, which I hope you have because you’ve followed some of my links, you’ve discovered that the Secretary of State is actually in charge of a lot of things. Granted they aren’t glamorous things, but they are important things. Is a VP- type Lieutenant Governor going to do all of these things? Aren’t those things beneath a person who has the word “governor” in their title? I know I’m kind of being nitpicky here, but I think the net effect of this is going to be that the Secretary of State’s office is going to turn into an ADDITIONAL state office. We don’t need more offices and more staff members. We want smaller government on every level, not just the national level.

I’m also concerned about the entire premise of the measure. This all revolves around politicians not liking the fact that the people of the state can nominate a governor and a SOS from different parties. I’m sorry, I’m not really concerned as much about the parties as I am about whether or not someone is the best person for a certain position. Obviously I vote Republican almost exclusively, but that isn’t because I’m in love with the Republican Party, but rather because I haven’t been able to find any social, fiscal, and national security CONSERVATIVES in the Democrat Party. For that matter this bill would almost completely shut out a qualified candidate with a reasonable shot at an office like the Secretary of State, who may not be from either party.

I don’t see a significant net positive in this and I see some decent potential for negative consequences.

Prop 111 is a NO for me.

Prop 112 is an amendment to the Arizona State Constitution that brings in the deadline for ballot propositions from 4 months to 6 months before the election. The purpose is to give the government time to verify the validity of the signatures on any petitions.

Again, it’s a bipartisan measure that is supported across the board. So naturally I’m a little skeptical, but other than an urgent issue coming up that should be dealt with quickly (which the legislature could/should handle separately) it seems benign.

I hate to say this about anything, but on this one I’m almost completely indifferent. If it really does help them vet the signatures better then it is probably a good thing.

Prop 112 is a ho-hum Yes for me.

Summary:

Prop 106 – the Anti-Obamacare Prop – YES

Prop 107 – ending racial quotas in state hiring – YES

Prop 109 – protecting hunting and fishing in AZ - YES

Prop 110 – modifying the state’s ability on land trust deals – hesitant YES

Prop 111 – changing the Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor – NO

Prop 112 – shortening the deadline for ballot measures – hesitant YES

Props 109 and 110

Prop 109 and 110

We are just full of amendments to the Arizona State Constitution this election season. Prop 109 and 110 are two more.

Prop 109 is an amendment geared at protecting hunting and fishing in the state of Arizona. The premise of the bill is that wildlife will be managed in a way that protects hunting and fishing in the state for years to come.

I have a couple of opinions on this one.

I have come into more and more contact with the ‘hunting community’ recently and one thing that seems to be fairly universal among them is a deep respect for the animal populations and a desire to keep those populations plentiful and healthy. Certain hunting in the state is severely limited and for good reason, to protect the struggling species. From this perspective my respect and trust for the hunting community has increased.

My second opinion on this has to do with the animal rights community and their actions in the last couple of years in the western United States. California has had vast farmlands turned into an absolute dust bowl, killing what was one of the largest (if not the largest) agricultural area in the world. Destroying the businesses and investments of farmers in the region and pushing unemployment into unimagineable levels. All for the sake of the delta smelt, which is a tiny fish that MAY be in need of protection according to population levels, and MAY be getting killed off by pumps that push water down into the agricultural area. The whole thing is ridiculous and the more I look into this matter the more it bothers me. Oregon is in a similar boat when it comes to their fishing industry, which has been so hampered and hamstrung by fishing regulations that it is almost completely gone in many rivers. Even individual fishing has been so restricted in the state that it is shocking, especially in an area so rich in resources.

The “pro” argument is that environmentalists and animal rights activists are on a nationwide crusade to limit the rights of hunters and anglers, and from what I have read about, I have to agree.

I am voting YES on 109.

Prop 110 is a strange beast. First of all it is very difficult to discern all of the language in the amendment. That fact alone throws up some red flags. It also has to do with State Trust land which has been used for a variety of purposes over the years, some being less than above board, which also concerns me. Finally on the Secretary of State’s website there are literally NO arguments against the measure. Really? That’s even more surprising.

There are a couple of things that I am definitely in favor of. Primarily the preservation of land around our vital military bases in Arizona and the ability for the state to conduct land swaps with private parties in order to facilitate an adequate space around these facilities. That just makes sense to me.

There also appears to be several measures in the amendment to provide for disclosure to the public about the land deals that are going to happen with adequate time and information to make them fair and reasonable.

If anyone, with a history and experience with State Trust land deals would like to comment or send me a message that would be greatly appreciated. As it currently stands my position on this one is not quite clear. I am going to say a tentative Yes on 110, but would appreciate anyone with more information.

So far here is the score card:

A BIG YES on Prop 106, 107 and 109.

A tentative yes on Prop 110.

Prop 107

Prop 107 is another amendment to the Arizona State constitution. It is a measure which forbids the STATE from discriminating against or giving preferential treatment to anyone based on “race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.” In short this puts an end to any and all affirmative action measures currently in place in the state government and state agencies, including the three state run universities.

What an outrageous idea! The state of Arizona wants to put into law that for any contracts or positions of employment or education they will blindly look at candidates and pick the one who is the most qualified, talented, and hardest working. That’s just insanity!

Okay, obviously not. It makes total sense.

People don’t like to use the words “racial quotas”, because it doesn’t sound very good, but it is exactly what affirmative action and other “diversity” programs promote.

I’ve experienced this recently in one of my former employers. During a site-wide corporate meeting, one of the executives explained that they aren’t hiring enough women engineers, and that the ones they are hiring are leaving so they need to hire even more to account for the high attrition rate. He never mentioned hiring the most qualified engineers, or the most talented, or the ones with special training in specific areas, or the ones with the freshest and newest ideas. Just women. I have heard a general outrage from the company, mostly coming from… the women engineers that work there. They’ve been there for years and have worked hard to prove themselves (like any engineer has to). Now they think that any project they go on to they will be looked at as another “token female employee”. The company has backed up this policy by hiring two new female engineers. The first one was hired without interviewing ANY other candidates (in a job market with 10% unemployment) and the second one was hired WITHOUT an in person interview at all. Do you think those two will be respected by ANY of the other employees? Do you think they are going to be able to succeed on teams that know how and why they were hired? Have you suddenly CREATED a gender bias against female employees?

It’s nothing against the individuals. I hope they manage to succeed. Unfortunately management has not made it easy for them. In fact they have taken what would be a tough job (I know the company and the jobs) and have made it almost impossible. Is it a wonder why they have a high attrition rate?

Prop 107 eliminates this scenario in the state government. It will do nothing to fix the messed up situation in the company that I use to work for, but it will insure that the State of Arizona is hiring the best teachers, the best administrators, and awarding contracts to the best companies. It just makes sense.

Opponents are saying that this is a step backward for race relations and for “diversity” in the state. That somehow we are all latent racists who will automatically revert to our own biased nature and hire only the people that look like us.

I give people a lot more credit than that. I work with men and women from just about every country you can think of and out of the companies I’ve worked with I haven’t come across a single person that cares (outside of racial quota supporting management) what gender or ethnicity you are. I don’t care if you are from Sri Lanka or Indiana, as long as you know what you are doing and work hard at it. I don’t care if you are an Asian woman or an overweight white guy from New Jersey, if you don’t do your job; I’m going to have real problems with you.

If you support racial quotas to undo years of racial bigotry you have to ask yourself, how long is enough? How long do you support a group because they use to be discriminated against? How long do you give preferential treatment to a minority? Is there a limit? Is there an end?

Stop all racial preferences. Give true equality. If someone discriminates, then everyone has the same appropriate legal recourse. Let’s really be color blind. That’s how you win respect for everyone, that’s how you really make a better state moving forward.

A big YES vote on Prop 107.

Prop 106

It’s election time soon and so it behooves every American to actually educate themselves on what they will be voting on. While most of us are pretty informed about the candidates in the first tier positions (governor, senator, representative…), many of us fail to educate ourselves on all of the issues and options before we go to the polls.

The Secretary of State’s office sends out ample information which most people receive well before the election and promptly discard, rather than read. This is unfortunate, but I must admit, I have to throw myself into that category since I rarely read things in print these days. Fortunately the Secretary of State’s website lists all kinds of useful information including deadlines, campaign finance information, and ballot measure arguments, for and against, the propositions.

It’s a very useful tool and should be used to weed through all of the things being thrown out to the voters on election day. Here in Arizona we have 10 ballot propositions to consider ranging from land use issues to healthcare concerns. Unfortunately the advertising and even the wording of these propositions isn’t always clear and can intentionally cause confusion.

I’m taking the time to search through the ballot options here in Arizona and give my take on each of them by looking at both sides of the equation and making a decision based on the principles that I value.

The first one on the list is Prop 106, which is actually an amendment to the Arizona State Constitution.

Prop 106 is an effort to cut the legs off of Obamacare in Arizona. It states that no person or employer should be forced to provide or participate in any healthcare plan. It also says that people or employers should be able to purchase healthcare services directly. It denies the healthcare mandate put forward by the Obama Administration and stands on the 10th Amendment principle that any power not specifically ceded to the federal government falls within the domain of the state and local government. It is one of many laws or amendments being proposed in states all around the country this election season to try and rein in the ever expanding federal government.

The opposition to the law claims that the costs of healthcare will increase in Arizona if we do not buy into the federal mandates because those without insurance will continue to use emergency rooms like doctor’s offices. They also claim that without buying into the federal mandates we are leaving over a million of Arizona’s children without healthcare coverage.

There are several issues with this. Number one, Obamacare is already increasing insurance premiums across the country. This is inherent in the bill because of the minimum coverage conditions. Several companies have either dropped healthcare coverage or are requiring their employees to cough up a much larger portion of the premiums. Insurance companies are also dropping individual plans, which many people carried on their children. Fewer options, higher cost.

The new federal mandate will increase the cost of health insurance and decrease the number of people who are covered by an employer sponsored program. We are already seeing this move across the country.

The federal government already increased SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Plan) coverage drastically in the last few years, covering people who should no longer be considered children, who have income levels several times higher than the national poverty rate.

Opponents also argue that the only thing this amendment will do is guarantee a legal battle between Arizona and the federal government.

Absolutely, I couldn’t agree more. We will join with dozens of other states who already have or will pass similar measures to fight this encroachment on the rights of states and individuals. Just because something will cause a fight doesn’t mean that it should be avoided. In this case the whole purpose is to win the battle, not concede defeat. Fight and fight hard, fight loud, an overwhelming victory on Prop 106 would send a clear message to the new group of lawmakers in Congress and to the President that the people of Arizona don’t want Obamacare.

Prop 106 is like planting a flag in Arizona and saying, “no, we will not put up with a detached and corrupt federal government coming up with an indecipherable healthcare mandate that takes liberty and freedom away from the people and makes their healthcare decisions for them.”

Prop 106 is a big YES!