In an effort to become more informed on this year’s election, I decided to actually read though all of the propositions that are up for vote in the November election. I encourage you to read the text yourself, but if you don’t want to wade through it all you can just read my short version. Or my really short version:
Brian Samson’s Voting Recomendations:
Prop 100 - Yes
Prop 101 - Yes
Prop 102 - No
Prop 103 - No
Prop 104 - Yes
Prop 105 - No
Prop 106 - No
Prop 107 - No
Prop 100 - Illegals and Bail
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to bailable offenses
Summary: This amendment takes away bail rights on felony charges to illegal immigrants.
My Stance: Vote Yes. Illegal immigrants who commit felonies should not be allowed bail. I’m all for human rights, and odds are that most illegals wouldn’t be able to come up with bail if they commited a serious felony, but this just makes sure.
Prop 101 - Property Tax
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to property tax levies
My Summary: Every year since 1980 various governing bodies (city, county, etc) have had a 2% increase in the amout they are allowed to tax. Not everyone has been raising taxes that high, but they could raise taxes to that limit without voter approval. This act would reset their limits as of 2005 and start rising it at 2% again starting in 2007.
My Stance: Vote Yes. The local legislatures could choose to dramatically raise taxes, especially considering the crazy property value increases in AZ over the last few years. This act makes sure they don’t raise taxes all at once without voter approval, and there’s really no reason not to vote for this.
Prop 102 - Illegals and Punitive Damages
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to standing in civil actions
My Summary: This very simply explicity prohibits Illegal Immigrants from receiving punitive damages in any civil case.
My Stance: Vote No. This is just strippipng the rights of illegals further, and this one is embarrasing. If an illegal is hurt on the job because the company who hired them provided shoddy or dangerous equipment and the illegal sued, they wouldn’t be able to get punitive damanges, only compensory. This bill protects the businesses that hire illegal aliens, and in fact I think it makes the immigration problem worse. The answer to the problem doesn’t lie on hurting the illegals anymore, it should lie on punishing the businesses that give them jobs.
Prop 103 - Officially English
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to English as the official language
My Summary: This amendment would make the official language of Arizona English, and mandate that all official proceedings be done in English.
My Stance: Vote No. A similar amendment was ruled unconstitutional in 1998, and this is just rehashing that. There are a lot of people legally in arizona who speak spanish. This amendment is a total waste of time (since English is already the national language) and it blows my mind that this is what the state legislators argue about all day.
Prop 104 - Low Debt AZ
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to municipal debt
My Summary: Limit the amount of debt a city, county, school district, etc. can go into to 6% of the total value of the property in their jurisdiction.
My Stance: Vote Yes. I wish I was only in debt 6% of the property I own. And this even makes a provision that says a city can go up to 20% in debt in order to supply water. Sounds good to me.
Prop 105 - Land trust confusion
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the legislature relating to state trust land
My Summary: This allows the state to sell off lots of state trust land, shortens the period they need to advertise it, and puts a limit on the amount that can be set aside by legislature for conservation.
My Stance: Vote No. I like my state land, and this seems like a shady proposition that makes it easy to unload it without approval to the highest (private) bidder. It also lacks in conserving our great Arizona land.
Prop 106 - More Land Trust Law
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the initiative relating to state trust land
My Summary: This sets aside almost 700,000 acres of land for conservation and education, while simultaneously making it easier to develop other land quickly.
My Stance: Vote No. This is a tough one. On one hand, I like to see land set aside for conservation, but on the other hand, this State Trust land was given to the state when we were founded in order to provide a long-lasting income that goes straight to schools. This act allows for the land to be sold off very quickly rather than leased for long periods of time to raise money for schools. This land trust reform is complicated and needs to be rethought by the legislators, so until they can come up with a good plan, I vote for the status quo.
Prop 107 - Marriage
Proposed amendment to the Arizona Constitution by the initiative relating to marriage
My Summary: This defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman and precludes any two people that aren’t married from having the benefits of marriage, even under another name like civil union.
My Stance: Vote No. This is a hate-law that would ban gay marriage (which is already banned) but also civil unions and any other name that anyone decided to use. It is a terrible idea that would cause over 600 unmarried heterosexual couples working for the government to lose health insurance. There is a big fight over this one (obviously), and it is based soley in hate and fear. I don’t see how a law as blatantly discriminatory as this could hold up to federal constitutionality requirement, and if Arizona passes this it’s going to waste millions of dollars in court hours for the opposition to fight it, and I’m sure it will eventually be ruled unconsitutional. Feel free to vote no on any future gay-marriage laws that may come to the ballot, but this one that discriminates against any non-married couple - hetero or homo - is a terrible law that will only breed bitterness and contempt.
Ok that does it for this round. Next post will deal with the voter-iniated 200-series propositions, which are usually more fun 
Brian, can you explain what you understand about Prop 106 making land sales quicker? The way I understand it, the changes 106 would make would require more thought being put to land development. The board of trustees and the fact that land planning would have to be undertaken makes me believe more forethought would go into our land management. Maybe Prop 106 would help us avoid “Athem style” planning.
I am not aware of any conservation group opposing 106. Only homebuilders and cattlemen (overgrazing, I mean, over grazing rights) oppose 106.
Comment by JoeThomas — September 30, 2006 @ 3:17 pm
Joe-
Prop 106 isn’t all bad. My problems with it stem from the fact that it only protects 700,000 acres and doesn’t specify how the other 8 million should be handled. Also remember that this land is not public land and was set aside as trust land to generate revenue for schools. It has a provision that allows the board to determine the price for sale instead that doesn’t maximize profit for the schools. (Section 5A). I’m all for conservation, but I think the school system should be compensated for the conservation land.
The definition of conservation land also isn’t clear: it allows roads, power lines, communication infrastructure, and other development on the conservation land.
As far as other opposition, the Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife posted an interesting argument against the act that says it trys on “preserve” instead of “conserve.” The Sierra Club also took a neutral stance on this issue (how strange!) because it sounds a little dubious.
Like I said before, this is a very complicated issue, and I am interested in everyones opinions so that we can get the state land trust issue settled correctly.
Comment by Samson — October 2, 2006 @ 11:24 am
Proposition 107
First of all, the good news is that no one, not even partners of government employees, is going to lose health insurance or employment benefits once this thing passes. Texas passed an amendment that was almost identical, and despite claims from the opposition, not a single soul lost any health or insurance benefits. There is nothing in Proposition 107 that would prohibit a local government from granting benefits to unmarried partners of employees.
Oh, and with regards to marriage, Arizona treats all people equally, regardless of sexual orientation.
Comment by AZMarriageAmendment — October 21, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
You posted a lot of links that sound reassuring, but the fact of the matter is that this amendment is prejudicial against anyone who does not enter a tradition marriage, which if I recall correctly is a religious institution in the first place.
This amendment, like most, boil down the actual text. In the case of 107, the text is remarkable short:
(emphasis added)
The problem with the amendment is where I bolded. Who is to say what is “similar” to marriage. If the supporters of 107 have their way, any legal benefit to two people who shared a household will certainly be deemed “similar” to marriage, and thus illegal.
You mention that private businesses are free to provide benefits to anyone they wish, and you are correct. But this amendment will affect the thousands of people who receive Government benefits if their relationship is deemed “similar” to that of marriage.
In short, this is a proposition rooted in fear and bigotry, and the actual language is so vague as to grant powerful tools of oppression to people who we know will not hesitate to excerise them.
Comment by Brian Samson — October 23, 2006 @ 10:43 am