Arizona Initiative and referendums 2012

Opinion by Glen Davis
UPDATE: October 16, 2012

Initiatives and referendums

Constitutional Analysis:
Initiatives and referendums are unconstitutional. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States states, “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government,…” Every law ever created in Arizona under this system is actually unconstitutional.

The duty of the citizen in the area of legislation is on the twelve man jury. At that point citizens may say guilty or not guilty based on if they agree with the law, not based on whether or not the person broke the law. And by the way you are supposed to have a jury of twelve of your peers in every court trial and civil suit totaling more than $20. You may also sue to get a law ruled unconstitutional.

Initiatives and referendums are part of a democracy which was specifically excluded by the Constitution guaranteeing a Republic. They are an important part of the Manifesto of the Communist Party installed during the Woodrow Wilson administration. That should give you some warning.

As Elihu Root noted in 1913, “The affairs with which statutes have to deal as a rule involve the working of a great number and variety of motives incident to human nature, and the working of those motives depends upon complicated and often obscure facts of production, trade, social life, with which men generally are not familiar and which require study and investigation to understand. Thrusting a rigid prohibition or command into the operation of these forces is apt to produce quite unexpected and unintended results.”

In his Experiments in Government, he also wrote, “The Initiative and Compulsory Referendum are attempts to cure the evils which have developed in our practice of representative government by means of a return to the old, unsuccessful, and discarded method of direct legislation and by rehabilitating one of the most impracticable of Rousseau’s theories.” He added in error, “…but it is not necessary to assume that their trial will be destructive of our system of government.”

The damage caused by the use of these devices is that it ties the hands of the legislature to reduce debt, drives taxes up and keeps the poor poor. Since they are not likely to go away anytime soon, however, we recommend that you consider these carefully. Most notably, are they going to raise your taxes.

Proposition 114
Amends Article II, Section 2.1 of the Arizona Constitution concerning Crime victim protection from liability for damages.
Legislative Analysis (PDF)

This is really a stupid measure to even have to consider. A crime victim or a person stopping a criminal in action should not be subject to law suits anyway. Chapter 4 of Title 13 of the Arizona Revised Statute lists justifications of use of force in Arizona. Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the dyin’.

CAUTION: You are STILL liable if you injure or kill an innocent party even if you act under justification (A.R.S. 13-401).

Constitutional Analysis:
In the Supreme Court case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, it was decided that citizens do not have a constitutional right to police protection. In Washington D.C. v. Heller, the Supreme Court acknowledged the fact that people have a right to protection in the home based on their understanding of the Second Amendment. A theft of your property is a violation of your rights and you have the absolute right to protect your natural rights. In Arizona you have the authority to act to protect a third party, as well.

Recommended vote YES

Proposition 115
Legislative Analysis (PDF)

Would amend the Arizona Constitution to extend the terms of judges and change the way they are nominated.

In the ballot pamphlet there are more against than for. I do not know how the nomination practice would change, but increasing terms for judges is not a good idea.

Recommended vote NO

Proposition 116
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
I am not sure I understand the full implication of this measure. It exempts certain industrial and agricultural equipment and property up to a certain amount. There are no arguments against and a bunch of arguments for.
Recommended vote YES

Proposition 117
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
Analysis by others smarter than me show that this does nothing to improve your property tax situation. Anything that does not lower your taxes should be voted down.
Recommended vote NO

Proposition 118
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
permanent state land fund; distribution
This Proposition is a math quiz and those give me a headache. Basically it changes the formula which Arizona uses to figure out the annual distribution for “trust lands” set up by the Enabling act of 1910 for schools, prisons, etc. After fiscal year 2020-2021, the formula will return to the one used now.
Recommended vote YES

Proposition 119
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
military preservation; land exchanges
Makes it easier for the State to exchange certain trust lands for national lands to prevent encroachment around military bases. The military can already assume a “reasonable” boundary around their bases through eminent domain. But it seems to me that this will keep the State Trust lands to their current levels, if I read this proposal correctly. This seems reasonable, and I was for it until I noticed a lot of “Green” organizations were for it. I just hate to agree with them.
Recommended vote YES

Proposition 120
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
Click here for analysis
state sovereignty
Recommended vote YES

C-03-2012 Prop 121
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
open elections/open government act
“Top-two” proposal may favor centrist candidates, but critics fear unintended consequences.
This is one scary measure. It was sold as giving more choice. How that exactly occurs when you have a choice between the top two candidates is beyond me. That means that you will only have a choice between a Democrat or Republican, two Democrats or two Republicans. There is no way that a Libertarian or any other candidate will get enough primary votes to get on the ballot. While limited choice may satisfy the Republicans of Coconino County, it should scare the rest of the State. Even Democrats should see through this one. It should be noted that Arizona law already allows Independents to vote in the primaries. You have been allowed to since a former governor was in office. All you have to do is go to the polls and ask for a ballot for one of the major parties. The only primary you cannot vote in is the Libertarian primary because it is closed.

There is something else that you should consider. The whole purpose of primaries is to select one candidate from each party to represent them on the ballot. It is a strictly partisan process. There are NO ills from the process now used particularly since Independent voters can now vote in the primaries. This proposition would cure no ills, but create many.

UPDATE: The Arizona Democratic Party is even against this one.

Recommended vote NO

Proposition 204
Legislative Analysis (PDF)
The Tax is Back
Quality education and jobs act
This is a scam by unions. You might recall that this was Proposition 100 three-years ago. If you recall, you could not be bothered to go to the polls and vote against it so about 24% (estimates vary, but it is about that) of Arizonans voted to raise YOUR tax. You should be going to the polls in this very important election, so please take the time to vote this down. PBS said that this did not hurt anyone so its really, really good. They did not ask the poor who are not living on welfare and food stamps (which is not taxed). The worst part of this proposal is the fact that the Legislature will have no say about the money. This is unconstitutional as well as stupid.

As I said earlier, anything that does not lower taxes should be voted against. Especially candidates.

Recommended vote NO

SEE ALSO: Understanding the Legislation