For many people, the real reason to vote is to have a voice in the various propositions, questions, referendums, amendments and local issues that are put forth every election cycle.

Here in Maricopa County, Arizona, along with the various council and mayoral elections, we have two major propositions and the opportunity to throw some judges out.

 

First, let’s take a look at Proposition 207.

Prop 207 would legalize recreational marijuana. With a ton of restrictions, graft, regulations, and taxes, of course. And graft. Did I mention graft?

Findings and declaration of purpose
The People of the State of Arizona find and declare as follows:

1. In the interest of the efficient use of law enforcement resources, enhancing revenue for public purposes,
and individual freedom, the responsible adult use of marijuana should be legal for persons twenty-one years of age or older,
subject to state regulation, taxation, and local ordinance.

2. In the interest of the health and public safety of our citizenry, the legal adult use of marijuana should be
regulated so that:

(a) Legitimate, taxpaying business people, and not criminal actors, conduct sales of marijuana.
(b) Marijuana sold in this state is tested, labeled and subject to additional regulations to ensure that consumers
are informed and protected.
(c) Employers retain their rights to maintain drug-and-alcohol-free places of employment.
(d) The health and safety of employees in the marijuana industry are protected.
(e) Individuals must show proof of age before purchasing marijuana.
(f) Selling, transferring, or providing marijuana to minors and other individuals under the age of twenty-one
remains illegal.
(g) Driving, flying or boating while impaired to the slightest degree by marijuana remains illegal.

Of course, there are already tons of regulations applying to the medical marijuana industry here, which included the establishment of the medical marijuana fund, consisting of fees collected, civil penalties imposed and private donations. If Prop 207 passes:

D. ON THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS AMENDMENT TO THIS SECTION, THE DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT SHALL TRANSFER THE FOLLOWING SUMS FROM THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA FUND FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

1. $15,000,000 TO THE ARIZONA TEACHERS ACADEMY FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 15-1655. (SP’s note: Wait, what? Oh, right, graft.)

2. $10,000,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT TO FUND THE FORMATION AND OPERATION OF COUNCILS, COMMISSIONS AND PROGRAMS DEDICATED TO IMPROVING PUBLIC HEALTH, INCLUDING TEEN SUICIDE PREVENTION, THE MATERNAL MORTALITY REVIEW PROGRAM, IMPROVING YOUTH HEALTH, SUBSTANCE ABUSE PREVENTION, ADDRESSING ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES, THE ARIZONA POISON CONTROL SYSTEM ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36-1161, THE ARIZONA HEALTH IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THE CHILD FATALITY REVIEW TEAM ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO SECTION 36-3501 AND THE CHRONIC PAIN SELF MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.

3. $10,000,000 TO THE GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF HIGHWAY SAFETY TO DISTRIBUTE GRANTS FOR THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES:

(a) REDUCING IMPAIRED DRIVING, INCLUDING CONDUCTING TRAINING PROGRAMS AND PURCHASING EQUIPMENT FOR DETECTING, TESTING AND ENFORCING LAWS AGAINST DRIVING, FLYING OR BOATING WHILE IMPAIRED.
(b) EQUIPMENT, TRAINING AND PERSONNEL COSTS FOR DEDICATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT.

4. $2,000,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT TO IMPLEMENT, CARRY OUT AND ENFORCE CHAPTER 28.2 OF THIS TITLE.

5. $4,000,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT TO DISTRIBUTE GRANTS TO QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ENTITIES THAT WILL PROVIDE OUTREACH TO INDIVIDUALS WHO MAY BE ELIGIBLE TO FILE PETITIONS FOR EXPUNGEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 36-2862 AND WILL ASSIST WITH THE EXPUNGEMENT PETITION PROCESS. THE DEPARTMENT SHALL DISTRIBUTE GRANTS PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30, 2021.

6. $2,000,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY AND OTHER STATE AGENCIES, A SOCIAL EQUITY OWNERSHIP PROGRAM TO PROMOTE THE OWNERSHIP AND OPERATION OF MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS AND MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITIES BY INDIVIDUALS FROM COMMUNITIES DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY THE ENFORCEMENT OF PREVIOUS MARIJUANA LAWS. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PARAGRAPH, “MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENT” AND “MARIJUANA TESTING FACILITY” HAVE THE SAME MEANINGS PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 36-2850.

7. $1,000,000 TO THE DEPARTMENT TO FUND PROGRAMS AND GRANTS TO QUALIFIED NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS FOR EDUCATION AND COMMUNITY OUTREACH RELATED TO CHAPTER 28.2 OF THIS TITLE.

8. $1,000,000 TO THE SMART AND SAFE ARIZONA FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 36-2856.

The arguments for and against are pretty much what one would expect from having watched these initiatives play out in other states.

Cops, most politicians, suburban soccer moms, and Mormons & Catholics are against. “Vote No to save our children and our communities, and keep our roads safe.”

It was fairly amusing to me to receive the General Election Publicity Pamphlet from the Secretary of State’s Office. This includes 70 pages on the Proposition, with many, many letters against the measure (more than one from several of the same writers): horror stories of teenagers “going bad” after being exposed to pot at college; teenagers having mental breakdowns after trying a joint; teen suicides caused because pot is a “gateway drug.” Now, I am not saying that bad outcomes happening to kids or teenagers is not tragic. It surely is. I am unclear, however, how legalized recreational weed for adults over 21 is going to either help or hinder these horrible situations.

If you’re playing along at home, OF COURSE our current authoritarian governor is against.

In 2016, Arizona voters rejected legalizing recreational marijuana because it was a bad deal based on false promises. Today, the same is true with this new ballot measure. That’s why I’m asking you to vote “NO” again.

We know from states that have fully legalized marijuana that it has real consequences: more deaths on highways caused by high drivers, dramatic increases in teen drug use, and more newborns exposed to marijuana.

Fully legalized marijuana puts the future of Arizona’s drivers at risk. In Colorado, every 2½ days someone dies in a marijuana-related traffic death. That’s not what we want for Arizona. We want safe roads.

The next generation of Arizonans, our kids, also face a real risk from legalized marijuana. States that have legalized marijuana have significantly higher teen drug use than states that have not, and Colorado leads the nation in first-time teen marijuana use. That’s not what we want for our next generation.

It’s not just our teens at risk — it’s also babies. Large hospital organizations in Colorado are now trying to repeal legalized marijuana as they are finding more newborns exposed. Nearly 50% of newborns who were tested had marijuana in their systems in one major hospital.

The ballot measure promises new tax revenue for a variety of causes, but states like California and Massachusetts have only raised a fraction of what was promised. The promises are great, and yet the money never seems to materialize or do what’s been promised.

Arizona has a bright future, but fully legalized marijuana doesn’t need to be part of it. The current system with medical marijuana is serving the people who need it for health-related reasons. We don’t need the wholesale expansion that fullthrottle legalization will bring. Please vote “NO.”

Doug Ducey, Governor, State of Arizona, Phoenix
Sponsored by Arizonans for Strong Leadership

One of our former governors, the impressively named (and very colorful*) John Fife Symington III, is encouraging a Yes vote. Here’s his letter in support.

Smarter Government, Safer Arizona

As former Governor of our great state, I am keenly aware of how important it is to defend liberty and to conserve scarce government resources. I also know that to accomplish these goals we must constantly re-evaluate our policies in the face of new evidence. Today the evidence is overwhelmingly clear: criminalizing law-abiding citizens who choose to responsibly consume marijuana is an outdated policy that wastes precious government resources and unnecessarily restricts individual liberty. A far more logical approach would be to respect the right of adults to choose to consume marijuana while regulating and taxing its production and sale.

The Smart and Safe Arizona Initiative strikes this appropriate balance. It allows adults to legally possess and consume small amounts of marijuana in private, but it strictly regulates the production and sale of marijuana in order to protect our citizens. For example, this initiative bans marijuana “gummy bears” and marketing that would appeal to children, and it establishes significant penalties for selling to minors. It also strictly limits the number of dispensaries ensuring that our neighborhoods do not become oversaturated. Further, it protects employers who wish to maintain a drug-free workplace, and it provides tools to law enforcement to prevent impaired driving. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it frees up law enforcement to deal with more serious issues that actually jeopardize public safety.

Simply put, the Smart and Safe Arizona initiative allows us to expand individual liberty and to protect public safety all while generating hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue for the State without raising taxes. In government we call that a rare win-win-win. Please join me in voting Yes for Arizona.

The Honorable Fife Symington
19th Governor of Arizona

John Fife Symington III, Former Governor, Phoenix

 

For me, it’s simple. I ask two questions before voting on anything.

1. Is this initiative Constitutional?

2. Does this proposition generally result in people being more free than previously?

 

Proposition 208 This act may be cited as the “Invest in Education Act.” What it really contains is a tax on incomes exceeding $250,000 for “teacher salaries and schools.”

Findings and declaration of purpose
The People of the State of Arizona find and declare as follows:

1. All Arizona students deserve a certified, qualified teacher in their classrooms and to learn in the safest
possible environment.

2. Years of underfunding by the Arizona Legislature have led to crisis-level teacher shortages and woefully
inadequate support services.

3. Additional permanent funding is needed to develop, recruit and retain qualified teachers, hire counselors,
close the achievement gap, improve career and vocational education for Arizona students, prepare Arizona students for good
jobs and careers and meet Arizona employers’ need for a skilled workforce.

A. THE STUDENT SUPPORT AND SAFETY FUND IS ESTABLISHED

D. ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 AND DECEMBER 31 OF EACH YEAR, THE STATE TREASURER SHALL TRANSFER ALL MONIES IN THE STUDENT SUPPORT AND SAFETY FUND IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNTS PAID PURSUANT TO SUBSECTION B OF THIS SECTION AS FOLLOWS:

1. FIFTY PERCENT AS GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS, IN PROPORTION TO THE WEIGHTED STUDENT COUNT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-943, PARAGRAPH 2, FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIRING TEACHERS AND CLASSROOM SUPPORT PERSONNEL AND INCREASING BASE COMPENSATION FOR TEACHERS AND CLASSROOM SUPPORT PERSONNEL.

2. TWENTY-FIVE PERCENT AS GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS, IN PROPORTION TO THE WEIGHTED STUDENT COUNT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-943, PARAGRAPH 2, FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF
HIRING STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL AND INCREASING BASE COMPENSATION FOR STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL.

3. TEN PERCENT AS GRANTS TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS, IN PROPORTION TO THE WEIGHTED STUDENT COUNT PURSUANT TO SECTION 15-943, PARAGRAPH 2, FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING MENTORING AND RETENTION PROGRAMMING FOR NEW CLASSROOM TEACHERS TO INCREASE RETENTION. THE STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION SHALL PRESCRIBE THE FORM AND FORMAT OF MENTORING AND RETENTION PROGRAMMING SUPPORTED BY MONIES TRANSFERRED PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH, EXCEPT THAT THE EQUIVALENT OF ONE FULL-TIME MENTOR MAY BE ASSIGNED TO NOT MORE THAN FIFTEEN NEW CLASSROOM TEACHERS EMPLOYED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL. IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT OR CHARTER SCHOOL RECEIVES MONIES PURSUANT TO THIS PARAGRAPH IN EXCESS OF ITS NEEDS FOR MENTORING AND RETENTION PROGRAMMING, THOSE EXCESS MONIES MAY BE USED FOR TEACHER RETENTION.

4. TWELVE PERCENT TO THE CAREER TRAINING AND WORKFORCE FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 15-1282.

5. THREE PERCENT TO THE ARIZONA TEACHERS ACADEMY FUND ESTABLISHED BY SECTION 15-1655

F. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION:
1. “CLASSROOM SUPPORT PERSONNEL” MEANS ANY NONADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL PERSONNEL, INCLUDING CERTIFIED PERSONNEL, WHO PROVIDE CLASSROOM SUPPORT AND INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT SERVICES AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD OR CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, INCLUDING LIBRARIANS, NURSES, COUNSELORS, SOCIAL WORKERS, SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS, BEHAVIORAL COACHES AND PSYCHOLOGISTS.

2. “MENTORING AND RETENTION PROGRAMMING” MEANS REGULAR, JOB-EMBEDDED, IN-PERSON, ONE-ON-ONE FEEDBACK THAT IS FOCUSED ON INSTRUCTION AND ENSURING NEW CLASSROOM TEACHER QUALITY, SUCCESS AND RETENTION.

3. “NEW CLASSROOM TEACHER” MEANS A CLASSROOM TEACHER WHO IS IN THE TEACHER’S FIRST, SECOND OR THIRD YEAR OF TEACHING.

4. “STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES PERSONNEL” MEANS ANY CLASSIFIED, NONADMINISTRATIVE SCHOOL PERSONNEL WHO PROVIDE STUDENT SUPPORT SERVICES AS DEFINED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD OR CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, INCLUDING CLASSROOM AIDES, MEDIA SPECIALISTS, HEALTH ASSISTANTS, SECURITY PERSONNEL, STUDENT FOOD SERVICE PERSONNEL, CLERICAL STAFF, STUDENT TRANSPORTATION PERSONNEL AND SCHOOL SITE
PLANT OPERATORS.

5. “TEACHER” MEANS ANY NONADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL, INCLUDING CERTIFIED TEACHERS, WHO INSTRUCT STUDENTS OR SUPPORT STUDENT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT AS PRESCRIBED BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GOVERNING BOARD OR CHARTER SCHOOL GOVERNING BODY, INCLUDING CLASSROOM TEACHERS, EARLY CHILDHOOD TEACHERS, MENTOR TEACHERS, INSTRUCTIONAL COACHES AND ACADEMIC INTERVENTIONISTS

 

And on and on and on.

If you are really dying to read all the verbiage, you can begin on page 127 of the General Election Publicity Pamphlet.

 

For me, it’s simple. I ask two questions before voting on anything.

1. Is this initiative Constitutional?

2. Does this proposition generally result in people being more free than previously?

 

Then we have the retention of judges

Many places I’ve lived have not given the opportunity to get rid of Superior Court (and above) Judges, so I am intrigued and slightly encouraged by this. Of course, I am not familiar with most of them, so I am doing some research this week to see if there are any I feel should be retained, which is doubtful. For example, I already know I’m voting to get rid of Timothy Thomason, although he eventually “allowed” the gyms to reopen, but only because the State hadn’t come up with a reopening plan.

“The Court is very mindful of and deferential to the Governor’s efforts in keeping the citizens of this State safe. That is precisely why the Court upheld the Executive Orders and found only that post-deprivation procedural due process was not provided … Complying with this Court’s Order will cause no irreparable injury.

“The Governor claims only that ADHS will be inconvenienced by having to implement a process for applications to reopen … [T]he process to be designed by the Governor and ADHS could be as simple and straightforward as the Governor or ADHS want it to be … Inconvenience is no justification for depriving citizens of their Constitutional due process rights, even during a pandemic.”

The Executive Orders were and are flat-out unconstitutional. But, we should be “allowed” to have due process in fighting them, instead of the Courts just tossing them out. Fuck off, slaver!

Anyway. The above-linked Publicity Pamphlet has information and a handy rating system for judges.

Public Input Throughout the Process

This year, as every election year, the JPR Commission sought public input from citizens who have had direct experience with judges and made its decisions using that input. In 2019, approximately 52,000 surveys on judges were distributed to attorneys, jurors, litigants and witnesses. The JPR Commission held public hearings open to anyone wishing to speak about the judges up for retention this year. The JPR Commission accepts signed, written comments about merit-appointed judges at any time.

The Pamphlet has a chart like the following for each judge and justice.

Most are pretty much like this. So, when I come across an outlier, I am curious.

Six votes against meeting Judicial Standards? Judicial Temperament rated 64% by the responding attorneys? I suspect I will either loathe this woman or love her. Research ahead!

I’ll also be spending time this week looking into the Appeals Court judges and Supreme Court justices.

Oh, what does the chart look like for Thomason?

Thank goodness he has perfect Integrity, Judicial Temperament and Administrative Performance!

I’ll likely have a follow-up after I do the research on the judicial branch.

 

So, those are the major election issues here. What’s on YOUR ballot?

 

 

* Seriously YOU MUST go read his bio!