133: Stop Rank Choice Voting Before it Starts

The State Constitution would be amended to require that all local candidates be elected by party primaries. The MAGAmites at the Legislature want to stop local governments from experimenting with other forms of local elections such as caucuses, New England style town meetings, or rank choice voting and would like to prevent Tucson from continuing its two tier city council election system.

134: End initiative and Referendum

The Republican Legislature wants to effectively repeal the constitutional right of citizens to put referenda and initiatives on the ballot by amending the state Constitution to require that every single one of the 30 legislative districts meet a signature threshold. This would allow a single legislative district dominated by MAGAmites to block any referendum or initiative petition signed by hundreds of thousands of Arizona voters.

135: Limit Governor's Emergency Powers

The governor has broad constitutional and statutory authority to declare emergencies. The law now requires that two-thirds of both houses must ask for a special session to end an emergency. This constitutional amendment would automatically terminate any emergency declaration after thirty days and would enable the legislature, by a one-third vote, to convene a special session to terminate any emergency declaration before the thirty days has expired. This amendment would enable a Republican legislature to end emergency relief programs instituted by a Democratic governor and turn them into campaign issues. Remember what happened when Congress tried to pass an immigration reform bill a few months ago? “Now you see it, now you don’t.”

136: Another Amendment to end voter initiatives

Right now, voter initiatives can be challenged before getting on the ballot but only on limited grounds such as not having enough valid signatures, including more than one subject, or having inaccurate wording in the description. This MAGAmite measure would allow just one person anywhere in the state to challenge an initiative based on alleged constitutional violations, even before any of the procedural issues are resolved. If that one person can get a judge to agree with them (and there are plenty of judges who would do it, just take a look at the recommendations on judges), the initiative would be thrown off the ballot, even if enough voters signed to qualify it. For example, one person could challenge the constitutionality of the Abortion Access Act petition on constitutional grounds, and then take appeals through the state and federal court systems up to the US Supreme Court, until the time to put it on the ballot was long past, effectively invalidating every signature of the 823,685 voters who signed it. The Vic notes that this proposition allows challenges only to initiatives proposed by citizens, not propositions by the legislature.

137: The Bolick-King Full Employment and Judicial Inquisition Constitutional Amendment

Bolick-King Full Employment Many voters in Arizona are upset, if not outraged, by the decision of the State Supreme Court to uphold a ban on abortion which had been on the books since 1846, before the end of slavery, before the Civil War, before women had the right to vote and long before Arizona became a state. Two of the authors of that opinion, Justices Clint Bolick and Kathryn King, are now up for re-election.

How is the Republican Legislature going to keep these two stalwart Republican judges on the Supreme Court? By putting this two step proposition before the voters.

Step 1: amend the State Constitution to get rid of judicial elections and make all judicial appointments for life.

Step 2: make the whole package retroactive, so that neither Bolick nor King can be removed from the bench no matter how many voters reject them this November. Making the amendment retroactive is simply a Legislative determination that a “NO” vote means nothing.

Judicial Inquisition. And for a little extra insurance that judges stay in line, there is Step 3 Upon the written request of one single legislator, the judicial review commission would have to investigate a judge. While the Legislature does not want citizens to have a voice in judicial selection, this would give legislators the ability to attack a judge for their decisions and instigate proceedings to remove them from the bench. So much for the separation of the branches of government and an independent judiciary. This is nothing more or less than a judicial inquisition at the request of a legislator. This could mean good-bye to all the judges who have stood up to the MAGA election deniers, falsifiers, and long-tongued liars who are trying to destroy America’s great experiment in self-government and replace it with the dismal and dark future promoted by Project 2025. This proposal deserves to be thrown in the trash heap of history. VOTE”NO” on this bottle of snake oil.

138: Service Worker Minimum Wage Reduction Amendment

Here's another gem from the Republican Legislature --a constitutional amendment specifically aimed at service and tipped workers such as restaurant servers. Essentially, this constitutional amendment would allow owners of businesses whose workers are tipped to take a set-off of tips against the minimum wage. Current state law allows restaurants to pay tipped workers $3/hr. less than minimum wage, assuming that workers will get up to minimum wage with workers' tips, but this amendment allows owners to dig even deeper. With current minimum wage set at $14.35, this amendment would bring hourly wages down to $10.76 for tipped employees, less than the $11.35 per hour they currently receive. There is no question but that the proposition would financially benefit the restaurant industry. But why make this a constitutional amendment? Because once it is part of the state constitution, it becomes very difficult to remove or amend, so a constitutional amendment guarantees a lower cost line for the "tipped industries" for years to come if it passes.

139: Abortion Access

Not much needs to be said about this constitutional amendment to make abortion safe and legal in Arizona. Just get out and vote ”YES” and bring your friends and neighbors along with you. We need to get abortion out of the hands of the Legislature and judges and into the state Constitution as a fundamental right. The current line from the GOP is that abortion is now legal in AZ up to 15 weeks so a constitutional amendment is no longer needed. How long do you think that current law will stand if this amendment doesn’t pass?

140: Open Primaries

One of two competing propositions to change the way elections are conducted in Arizona. The line-up of supporters and opponents shows some interesting differences of opinion. Supporters include: Rusty Bowers, Terry Goddard, AZ Firefighters Union, Grand Canyon Institute, the Greater Phoenix Urban League. Opponents include the Green Party of AZ, the Republican Party of AZ, AZ Free Enterprise Club, and the AZ League of Women Voters. Basically, this constitutional amendment would: (1) Allow any qualified voter to participate in any Congressional, state or county-wide election regardless of party affiliation or non-affiliation (abolish the current closed primary system). Political parties could still support or endorse candidates; (2) All candidates would have the same signature requirement to get on the primary ballot, abolishing the current requirement that non-affiliated or minor party candidates obtain about five times as many signatures as partisan candidates; (3) Allow the legislature or the Secretary of State to determine how many candidates would advance to the general election; and (4) Prohibit the use of public funds for partisan elections except for presidential preference elections. The Vic has mixed feelings about this one, especially entrusting the Legislature to do anything rational or sensible to enlarge the power of voters, but who knows, perhaps a significant number of seats will have new occupants after November 5.

311: More Penalties for Indigent Defendants

This proposition would add a $20 surcharge for all criminal convictions in Arizona, ostensibly for the purpose of supporting families of first responders who died in the line of duty. This new tax would give those families $250,000. While the death of any first responder who dies in the line of duty is a tragedy, families of officers who die in the line of duty already receive $422,035 from the Federal Public Safety Officers' Benefits Program as well as 100% of the person’s pension if there is a child and 80% if there are no minor children, as well as educational and other benefits. In Arizona, the average number of convictions statewide about 96,000. At $20 a conviction that would bring in about $1.9M a year. Under this Proposition, as soon as the fund reaches $2 million, anything over goes into law enforcement.

The time to help officers is while they are alive by providing fair wages and robust benefits like child care assistance, parental and family leave, tuition reimbursement, and mental health support. This proposition throws a disproportionate tax burden on low level offenders and low income families. The Vic says “NO” to Prop. 311.

312: Property owner’s Pot O’ Gold(water)

This proposition, sponsored by the Goldwater Institute, creates a system for property owners to reap pots of gold from the presence of homeless people who are just trying to get by. The Vic recognizes that clean and well-maintained property is an asset in any neighborhood and that property owners have a right to protect their investment, but this proposition is a pot of Goldwater for people who want to profit off the misfortunes of others at public expense.

Any property owner who is offended by homeless people creating a “public nuisance,” can submit a “documented” claim to the city for the loss of value of their property or expenses to maintain their property. Claims are to be paid out of real estate taxes. If a claim is paid, then the city budget takes a hit; funds will have to be taken from other sources, such a public safety, roads, and so forth.

If the city rejects the claim due to inadequate documentation or an unreasonable claim, the property owner can sue the city. If the city wins, the city gets nothing. If the property owner wins, they get costs and attorney’s fees as well as the amount of their claim.

Because the refund comes out of general revenues, it is even less likely that the city will have funds for starting projects for safe and sanitary low-income housing, or clean and efficient public toilets, or assistance and training for employment. It is easy to see how this proposition, if passed, could wreck a city budget, stop municipal movement toward alleviating local homeless issues, and in the end, reap a pot of gold for Goldwater lawyers and their clients. The Vic recommends a “NO” vote on this one.

313: Life Sentences for Sex Traffickers

Most people, rightly so, are appalled by child sex trafficking. The Vic is no exception. This proposed statute mandates life in prison without parole for anyone who engages in child sex trafficking. Currently they can receive up to 24 years in prison however it makes no exception for children who solicit others while they themselves are victims of solicitation.

Federal sex trafficking law says that victims should never be prosecuted for crimes they commit while trafficked. Legislators in both the House and Senate warned lawmakers that victims would be harmed by this proposition and asked them to put in exemptions. They refused. The Vic urges a “NO” vote on Proposition 313.

314: Joe Arpaio and His Posse Come Back — racial profiling and arrest without cause.

Well, folks, here we go again. The MAGAmites have breathed new life into Joe Arpiao, his vigilante posse, old Proposition 1070 (which has cost taxpayers tens of millions of dollars) and the enshrinement of racial profiling as the official policy of our state. If you feel that you have been on this merry-ground of racial profiling before, you are right, so let’s take a look at Proposition 314.

This Proposition allows local “law enforcement officers” to arrest a person suspected of being in the United States without having gone through a port of entry if the officer has “probable cause” to suspect that the person has entered the United States unlawfully and if the officer (1) saw it happen; (2) has a recording of it happening; or (3) there is “any other constitutionally sufficient indicia of probable cause.” Well, right away we have a problem. Does “constitutionally sufficient indicia” still mean, as it did in Arpiao’s day, having a dangly thing hanging from your front mirror, or having three dark skinned short guys speaking Spanish in the back of your pick-up truck, or having a cut open tennis ball on your trailer hitch? Situations such as these were adequate grounds for investigatory stops, racial profiling, and harassment in Arpiao’s day and they will be again if this proposition passes.

But there’s an even more serious problem in this proposition. Part of this proposition grants absolute immunity for any state or local official for any injury when the official is enforcing the provisions of the new law. This means that a deputy sheriff, member of a volunteer sheriff’s posse, local police officer, or even a private security guard at some government office, can with impunity seriously injure or even fatally harm someone suspected of having failed to enter Arizona without passing through a port of entry. There is no requirement that the official have acted in “good faith” to raise the defense. It is a “get out of jail” card to anyone who has some degree of official duty and who just wants to intimidate and injure people.

Finally, leave it to the Republican Legislature to introduce a proposition that is unconstitutional on its face. The last time the Vic checked, which was this morning, exclusive control over immigration was still granted to Congress by the Constitution. For the MAGAmites who carry the Constitution around with them but never read it, check out sections 8 and 9 of Article 1. Of course, with the US Supreme Court what it is these days, perhaps the MAGAmites want an opportunity to let the Supreme Court diminish the powers of Congress even further.

This insidious proposition, disguised as a device to control fentanyl smuggling, should also be consigned to the trash bin of history with a solid “NO” vote. But of course, the Vic is holding back here, so don’t get him started.

315: Make Arizona Unsafe for Everyone Except Profiteers

Here’s a proposition that is in everyone’s interest to defeat.

This proposition essentially wants to go back to the pre-Teddy Roosevelt (another Republican) era by making new administrative regulations subject to review by the Legislature. The proposition would allow any person who might be affected by a proposed rule or any legislator to refer the proposed rule to the Office of Economic Opportunity for review. If the OEO finds that the cost of the proposed rule was over $500,000 within five years of enactment, the proposed regulation could not be approved by the regulatory agency until approved by the Legislature. If the Legislature fails to approve the regulation within its regular session, the proposed regulation is dead.

This proposition is a gift for developers who want to evade new water use regulations, mining companies who want to evade possible regulation of land use and destruction of Indigenous religious sites, and crypto currency “miners” who want to use enormous amounts of electricity and water for pure profit. The ability of a single person to stop regulatory development is a threat to the safety and well-being of every one of us and can have repercussions for years to come. Not surprisingly, this proposition is opposed by the Arizona AFL-CIO, the Arizona Public Health Association, and the Arizona Coalition for Working Families. The Vic recommends a “NO” vote on this piece of legislative overreaching.