Horizon, Host: Ted Simons

October 12, 2006


Host: Michael Grant

Vote 2006: The Propositions


  • This special hour-long program looks at all 19 ballot propositions on the November ballot, including what each proposition does, and offers debate on many of the issues.
Guests:
  • -
Category: Elections

View Transcript
Michael Grant:
Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. Welcome to a special hour-long edition of Horizon. The ballot propositions 2006. Tonight we'll look at the 19 measures on the ballot for the General Election. The propositions range from issues related to marriage, immigration, farm animals and smoking. We hope by the end of the program you'll have a basic understanding of the issues that you're going to be facing in November. In the special we'll have taped pieces explaining the propositions and interviews done in our studio. Also a special website is devoted to the election. Please visit the home page at azpbs.org. Click on vote 2006. You'll find information on the candidates and propositions. The first propositions we're taking a look at, proposition 107, which would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex unions.

Michael Grant:
There was some confusion at the beginning as to what the intent was of proposition 107. And let me just make sure we're on the same page. We've talked obviously about marriage being only between a man and a woman. We've talked about briefly the impact on domestic partner benefits to heterosexual couples as well. And then also it would prohibit civil unions or let's say the legislature doing something which is the equivalent of marriage. Am I accurately summarizing the three pronged intent of proposition 107?

Cathi Herrod:
The intent of 107 is very simple, to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman and to maintain the definition in our state constitution because it needs a level of constitutional protection because a new court could overturn it. So that's the intent, to allow Arizonans to vote on the definition of marriage as being one man and one woman. The other part says that government can't grant a legal status similar to that of marriage, then that would prohibit civil unions or domestic partner arrangements from being designated legal status similar to marriage. Because here's what's happening in other states, you have Vermont and California have civil unions and domestic partnerships are everything but the name of marriage. They are counterfeit marriages. And Vermont or in California, if you're a domestic partner or civil union, you get all the benefits a married couple would get. So the debate really is about what's the status of marriage going to be in our state and in our country.

Michael Grant:
Regardless of how you feel about that issue, why shouldn't people be able to vote on whether or not they want to preserve a concept that has been with us for several hundred, well, probably several thousand years? What's inherently wrong?

Krysten Sinema:
People will be voting on that but they'll be forced to vote on something they have a different opinion on. The statistics are clear; Arizonans are uncomfortable with the idea of changing marriage to include anything other than the traditional definition of man and woman. No argument about that. But this initiative forces them to also vote on how they feel about two people living together in unmarried relationships. Arizona has a lot of unmarried relationships including seniors who cannot remarry because one person may lose the benefits they've gotten through their deceased spouse's benefits. And those individuals should be able to live together and Arizonans believe that.

Michael Grant:
Next, we take a look at four propositions that tackle what may be the most pressing issue this election year, immigration. Here's a look at promises 100, 102, 103 and 300.

Mike Sauceda:
Proposition 103 would change the Arizona constitution to make English the official language of the state. It would require that official actions of government in Arizona be conducted in English, official actions are those on behalf of the government appear to present the views of government or bind the government. There are several exceptions to 103. Languages other than English can be used when required by federal law, when needed to preserve the right to petition the government, when teaching foreign languages, when using Native American languages for public safety, law enforcement and emergency service needs, when providing assistance to illiterate or hearing impaired persons and informal nonbinding communications for tourism and international trade. 103 would prohibit discrimination against a person because that person used English. The measure allows a person who lives here or does business here to sue to enforce the new constitutional requirement. Arguments submitted to the voters guide include it will empower immigrants by giving them a greater incentive to learn English and that it promotes unity and eliminates the need tore government to provide services in different languages. Arguments against state no one is trying to change English as the language of the country but to make it the official language deprives some of services. That it would be divisive, steeped in hate and would end up in courts as the measure in 1988 that was thrown out by the courts.

Michael Grant:
Representative Russell Pearce is the force behind most of the measures on the ballot. To speak against the measures, Representative Steve Gallardo. Gentlemen, it's been years since we've been together. Representative Pearce, why should people vote for 103?

Russell Pearce:
Because it's common sense government, common sense. History's proven that. Every country that has become multicultural has been a destructive force within and like Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907, the crucible, the assimilation process must turn people into Americans. One of the things that bind us together is the official language of English. I doesn't prohibit from speaking in the home or hanging on to the culture but government must promote and enhance English wherever possible. It's common sense government, the right thing to do. There's 329 languages spoken in the United States. I mean where does it end? We decided that a long time ago. Our founding fathers by vote of one decided English would be the language versus German. That is our language, and to be productive in America, or Arizona, it benefits you. In fact, nine out of ten immigrants agree that English ought to be the official language.

Michael Grant:
Steve Gallardo, why do you disagree with proposition 103?

Steve Gallardo:
First of all, it's unneeded. Mr. Pearce will talk about the need for assimilation. However, on another proposition he is sponsoring it's a proposition that would prohibit folks from actually taking English classes. I think when you start talking about English as the official language, I think we should be working on how do we help folks learn English. I believe everyone will agree that learning English is a must. In order to be successful in this society, in this state, in this country, you have to master the English language in order to be successful. And for us to try and say that we should only make English the official language, I think it's something we'll all agree. I think we'll agree that it's needed. I think in order to be successful. No one's trying to change the English as the official language in the state of Arizona. Everyone understands you need to learn it in order to be successful. What this does is divides the state of Arizona, another divisive issue. No one's trying to change the language other than English.

Michael Grant:
Steve, if everybody can agree on that then what's the harm from a governmental standpoint saying English is the official language in which we will communicate? You don't have to use it, but when government speaks, it will speak in English.

Steve Gallardo:
First of all, this particular ballot language is unconstitutional. It's no different than the 1988 version. They have tweaked it and pushed it forward. The fact is that no one is trying to change it. Why are we putting another divisive measure on the ballot when we don't need to? The state is divided over immigration. And keep in mind this is not immigration. The folks affected by there are not the undocumented. They're U.S. citizens rushing to English classes to learn as fast as possible. It's not needed. We already recognize English as official language. No need to change it.

Michael Grant:
Will this one survive constitutional challenge, the one 18 years ago did not?

Russell Pearce:
Yeah, it absolutely will. In fact, we wrote it specifically with that in mind, and we responded to all of those concerns by the 9th circuit court. This is outrageous first of all. Some of the things Steve said in terms of fact this promotes -- this is government's responsibility. This is not English only. This is official English. And that is our language. And we should promote and enhance it and it serves everybody well. And to sit there and hide from reality, you know, and then he talked about what we talked about earlier, this does it all, people to attend English classes, illegal aliens in this country illegally shouldn't be subsidized by the taxpayer, that's true. This has nothing to do with that this. This is common sense government, simply the right thing to do? It just makes sense. Why anybody, even Governor Lamb, a liberal governor from Colorado called and said Russell, what can I do to help.

Michael Grant:
What problem are we trying to fix here?

Russell Pearce:
Well, because we have serious problems. We have folks who are denied jobs. We have ballots and other materials printed in multiple languages. And shame on congress for enacting that part in 2007. And it's not changed --

Steve Gallardo:
Civil rights --

Russell Pearce:
-- But other publications will, websites will. Government must produce official correspondence. It doesn't limit proper communication where you and I communicate.

Michael Grant:
Who is not though? I'm trying to figure out.

Russell Pearce:
Many, many folks. I just had a paper brought to my home from a school that was in Spanish only, and in an English class, prohibited by proposition 203, I mean the laws must be complied with. And all this does is say hey, guys, back up a little bit. We in government must recognize English as our language and we must perform in English. If you want an interpreter it's provided, in criminal justice it's provided, emergency services, you sought exceptions printed on your board. We made all the appropriate exceptions for people to function.

Steve Gallardo:
Proposition 103 would not prevent a lot of federal mandated warrants to be printed in English like ballots, which required by federal law. The fact is that you touched on it. There's no need for it. We're not changing anything here. People recognize English as the official language. We don't need it. The idea that a constituent in my district who is fluent in Spanish is not able to come to my office and seek assistance, a U.S. citizen who is fluent.

Russell Pearce:
Doesn't stop them.

Steve Gallardo:
Yes, it does. It keeps me from acting as an official act as a legislator, that's true.

Russell Pearce:
No, Steve, that's written in the position.

Steve Gallardo:
Read your own bill.

Russell Pearce:
It's not true.

Steve Gallardo:
Officially --

Russell Pearce:
It's not true.

Steve Gallardo:
An official act.

Russell Pearce:
Not true.

Mike Sauceda:
Proposition 300 expands proposition 200, passed two years ago to deny government services to illegal aliens. It would ban illegal immigrants from taking adult education classes offered by the Arizona Department of Education. It would not allow illegal immigrants to pay in state tuition at universities and colleges, would ban illegal immigrants from getting state financial aid, would prohibit illegal aliens from getting state childcare subsidies and requires it to be administered discrimination-free. Arguments for prop 300 state that prop 200 was forwarded in its implementation and that a yes vote will end taxpayer subsidies to illegal aliens. Arguments against the measure, include it would stymie efforts to include childcare for working families, would discourage college and make it harder to learn English, for those wanting to learn.

Mike Sauceda:
A yes vote on proposition 100 would change Arizona's constitution to deny bail to illegal aliens accused of committing a felony class one through four felony. The levels were set by the legislature. Currently it can be denied for several reasons, capital offenses, sexual molestation of a child under 15 years, a felony committed when the person is already out on bail for a felony and for felony offenses where the person presents a substantial danger. One argument for proposition 100 states that the measure would deny bail to illegal immigrants who if allowed to post bail might flee the country. Arguments submitted to the voters guide against prop 100 state that the measure's approval would result in added prison costs, add to prison overcrowding and that it would create a subclass of people who are denied bail because of race or national origin. The con argument states prop 100 would deny people bail based on inability to show proper documentation and not based on their danger to society.

Mike Sauceda:
A yes vote on proposition 102 would bar illegal immigrants from receiving punitive damages in any court in Arizona. Punitive damages are awarded in lawsuits to punish the person sued for a serious wrongdoing and to discourage others from similar wrongful behavior. A pro prop 102 argument submitted to the state's voter's guide says it makes no sense to reward law breakers with punitive damages and states prop 102 would discourage illegal immigrants from suing citizens. Another pro argument says 102 is the first step in tort reform. An argument against 102 says it would protect wrongdoers and would undermine the purpose of punitive damages by demonizing victims.

Michael Grant:
Two competing propositions demeanorring with smoking may confuse voters at the poll. We'll try to make propositions 201 and 206 more clear.

Merry Lucero:
Smoking is currently prohibited in Arizona in certain areas and most state buildings. Several cities and towns had their own restrictions on smoking in public places. Nearly a third of states nationally have statewide smoking bans, and Arizona could be the next. Prop 201, smoke-free Arizona, is backed by a coalition of health organizations including the American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association.

Michelle Pabis:
Smoke-free on proposition 201 prohibits smoking in all enclosed public places and work places, basically means your offices, healthcare facilities, your restaurants, bars, bowling alleys, places that are indoor workplaces that people come to.

Merry Lucero:
The Department of Health Services would enforce 201. Prop 206 from the Arizona Nonsmoker Protection Committee is backed by the Licensed Beverage Association, tobacco company R.J. Reynolds and bar owners. It is similar to 201, banning smoking in most enclosed public places and places of employment, with the exception of bars.

Mark Anthony Desimone:
If an establishment has a bar area and it's the primary purpose of which is for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages and they'd like to make that an area to allow smoking, what they need to do is they need to completely seal it off from floor to ceiling, separately ventilate it, preclude minors from entering, and then they could have smoking in that area.

Merry Lucero:
There is not a designated enforcement agency for prop 206. Camps for the competing propositions urge a yes vote on theirs and a no vote on the other.

Mark Anthony Desimone:
Prop 206 is reasonable and fair solution. It protects smokers, nonsmokers, minors, and small business like I said. Its 201 would be very, very detrimental to my industry. And to my business and which feeds my family.

Michelle Pabis:
And it's really an effort to have a loophole riddled proposition out there and what theirs would do is actually allow smoking in over 3,000 restaurant bars in Arizona, would continue to allow smoking in free standing bars.

Merry Lucero:
Neither proposition would prohibit smoking in retail tobacco shops, patio smoking areas, hotel rooms designated as smoking rooms and private clubs that are physically separated independently ventilated and not open to the public.

Michael Grant:
Minimum wage legislation has failed several times to make it out of the state's legislature. This time Arizona voters are going to be deciding if the state will raise its minimum wage from $5.15 an hour to $6.75. Here is a discussion about proposition 202.

Jose Cardenas:
Rebekah let's start with you, why the need in the view of the coalition for a minimum wage initiative?

Rebekah Friend:
We had been trying at the legislature for four years to even obtain hearings on a bill raising the minimum wage, and we were unsuccessful. And also as you've seen, congress has refused to do anything for ten years, so we decided to take the initiative to the voters and see what they thought about raising minimum wage.

Jose Cardenas:
Darcy, as I understand the institute doesn't take a position on the initiative as such, but there are concerns the institute has with the minimum wage increase or state version of that. Tell us what they are.

Darcy Olsen:
Right. I think where Rebekah and I agree, this is a moral issue, and no one likes the idea that you can work hard in America and still be poor. No one likes that. And the question on the table is, is a minimum wage increase the way to solve that problem? This is a 30\% increase in the minimum wage for the state of Arizona and I can tell you that if my payroll at the Goldwater Institute, we're a small business, and it went up 30\%, it would be great for the workers I could keep, and pay that extra 30\%, but I couldn't keep paying everybody, and some people I'd either have to cut benefits, reduce hours, or there would be jobs cut. And the best estimates in Arizona show that we could lose up to 9,000 jobs if this were implemented. So while the people who retain their jobs would be earning a higher wage, the tradeoff to that is the number of people who would no longer be employed or the jobs that would not be created. So that is a cause for concern.

Jose Cardenas:
So is the primary cause for concern that the size of the proposed increase as opposed to whether we have one or not a state version of the federal law?

Darcy Olsen:
The size is certainly a concern, and the larger it is the more you're going to have this offset in unemployment and job loss, I mean, if you didn't have that, then why stop at $6.75, why not make it $100 an hour. Obviously along that curve, employers can only afford to pay so much before they have to cut, you know, cut the benefits or hours or cut positions altogether. So but there is a principle at stake too, which is if I want to work for you for $5 an hour and I want to learn how to dot cameras in here, why should that be against the law? I mean, after all this is a free country. This isn't France. And so there should be that freedom of contract between an employer and a potential employee.

Jose Cardenas:
But isn't that a bridge we crossed a long time ago when we instituted the federal minimum wage law?

Darcy Olsen:
The federal minimum wage law in a lot of cases gets in the way of that. But this of course exacerbates that situation.

Jose Cardenas:
Rebekah, what Darcy was talking about is what you do her in opposition to minimum wage increases, whether at the federal or state level, and that is it impacts mostly small businesses and the very people it's intended to benefit sufferer because they won't be able to get jobs. What do you say to that?

Rebekah Friend: I think this is an issue, I agree with Darcy, that this is a moral issue. But I think how we view this moral issue is completely different This is an issue about hard working Arizonans. People who are working 40 hours a week and still not making enough to be above the poverty limit. This in the initiative, you will see an exemption for businesses, small businesses with over $500,000 a year. This will not impact them. There are no significant studies that show an impact or negative job loss. This will become a war of stats and studies, and what we're trying to keep focused on is those who will benefit.

Michael Grant:
Another instance of competing ballot measures involves state trust land. One was a citizen's initiative. Another is a referendum placed on the ballot by the legislature. Here's a closer look at 105 and 106.

Merry Lucero:
The value of preserving open space is intrinsic, with its beauty, wildlife habitat and natural resource protection, but the battle over preserving state trust land and how to manage, sell and develop it has a long history in Arizona. That clash comes to the fore in two competing ballot propositions. Prop 106 called Conserving Arizona's Future, and prop 105, supported by a group called Save Our Trust.

Kim Owens:
Save Our Trust has four areas we feel are critical to any discussion of state trust land reform. One is the increase of funding education. Two is protection of open space. Three is proper planning. And the fourth is accountability. And proposition 106 fails all these tests. And that's where I said it's the largest givaway of land in the history of Arizona, and it's at the cost of public education.

John Wright:
We have ways to carefully and responsibly develop land in 1906 through community input in the planning process, good land use management, through preserving some areas as open space in order to increase the value of land. We believe that that's going to help, we concede that's going to help education funding, conservation, it's going to make a big difference in the citizens and communities throughout Arizona.

Merry Lucero:
Prop 105 would preserve about 43,000 acres. It additionally calls for preserving up to 400,000 acres of state trust land, every acre or parcel would have to be approved by the state legislature. The measure was referred by the state legislature and limits how the land can be used. Proposition 106 would automatically preserve 259,000 acres and set aside an additional 358,000 acres. That land could be purchased by cities and towns and set aside for conservation. Prop 106 is a citizen's initiative and would revamp the state land department with the board of trustees. Revenue from state trust land goes towards education funding. There are educators on board both competing propositions.

Kim Owens:
Currently schools get $25 per student a year out of the state trust land sales. That could go away if those lands are no longer sold. But given away or traded or just put in preserve.

John Wright:
Good planning, good management increases the value. There's our asset growing and better funding for public schools. It's really about long-term planning. That's why those who are interested in the education value of this proposition understand this is not a windfall. It's not an instant increase of funding next year or the year after, but it says a long-term investment so we see the slope of our returns and the increased funding rise and rise as the value of the land rises and rises.

Michael Grant:
Why is 105 better than 106?

Spencer Kamps:
Because 105 achieves the goals that I think most of the voters care about, which is open space preservation and protecting the beneficiaries of the trust. The School of the Deaf and Blind, the education community, the Miner's Hospitals, make sure their value is retained but allow open space to take place. Prop 106 I'm sorry to say fails on those tests, allows conservation to happen anywhere on any state land, which does not allow a return to the trust. And if conservation is set on state land and if it's kept in the trust, it's frozen. It's frozen from ranchers doing any improvements like digging a well; it's frozen from infrastructure going across it. And there's no way the education community's going to receive their value if it's put in that status. And somebody's got to manage it. Somebody has to manage this land. The state land department is left with that bill. And that's wrong.

Michael Grant:
Patrick, why is proposition 106 superior to proposition 105?

Patrick Graham:
Proposition 106 presents a great opportunity for the people of Montana, when the state trust lands laws are put into place there were five cows to every person in the state of Arizona. That was appropriate at the time. But it's long since outmoded. We need to modernize these laws and bring some balance to this process. We have an opportunity through this I guess three points I would like to make, one, proposition 106 conserving Arizona's future, conserves nearly 700,000 acres of land but it also puts in place a planning process that allows for the wise development of the remaining acres of land in the state to balance growth and conservation. Second, we have a broad coalition of supporters from the governor, the mayors of Phoenix, Tucson, Flagstaff, a whole host of conservation and business groups are supporting this measure. And third, unlike with the opponent's claim, our measure does not only in fact protect and ensure dedicated funding for schools but it will enhance that through the planning process and creation of a citizen board that will ensure the purpose of the trust gets maintained into the future.

Michael Grant:
Proposition 204 mandates that certain farm animals be treated humanely before they are slaughtered. Currently only one large hog operation in the state would be affected. What follows is a debate on that issue.

Larry Lemmons:
Proposition 204 would currently affect only one farm in Arizona. The Snowflake Company Pigs for Farmer John or PFFJ. The company has provided this video to reporters and has refused requests from the media to see the facility in person citing safety concerns. The proposition would make it a class one misdemeanor to confine a pig during pregnancy or a calf raised for veal that prevents the animal from lying down, fully extending its limbs or turning around freely. Supporters of the proposition say pigs at PFFJ are being treated inhumanely and are confined to small spaces and they provided this video, claiming it was shot in secret.

Arizona Factory Farm Employee: There are so many and they're in such confinement that you can't believe how many are stacked in rows.

Larry Lemmons:
Supporters got a boost when Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio came out in favor of the proposition.

Joe Arpaio:
I may be called a tough guy, but I still have a heart for animals. We don't have to brutalize animals even though they're going to be slaughtered.

Larry Lemmons:
Opponents have been peppering the state with "prop 204 is hogwash" signs. There are currently no farms raising calves for veal in the state which is an argument opponents use. But supporters say passage of the proposition would serve as a deterrent for companies who might consider setting up such operations. Opponents say passage of the measure would result in higher costs for food and would encourage farm operations to leave the state. If passed, companies would have until 2013 to comply with the regulations.

Michael Grant:
Jay, why should people vote for proposition 204?

Jay Heiler:
Well, Michael, the premise behind the measure is that the current practices in factory farming operations of the sort we have up in Northern Arizona and elsewhere around the country do not comport with traditional standards of humane treatment for animals. So in an attempt to address that, the measure offers a very narrow prescription which says that in the case of veal calves and pregnant hogs who are confined in gestation crates as they're called, the animal must have at least enough room to extend its limbs and lie down and turn around in a circle. It does not create any generalized requirement of free range treatment or humane treatment. It's just very simply states that you cannot confine these animals for their entire lives so intensively that they have no freedom of movement whatsoever, because that doesn't comport with our values as a society about our responsibilities toward animals.

Michael Grant:
All right. Stan, why is this a bad idea?

Stan Barnes:
Well, in one sense I'm relieved because I understand the proponents of 204 when they first drafted this initiative wanted piped in music and daily massages for the animals too, just to make sure everything was good there. It's hogwash. That's why we call it hogwash. Because we boiled it down to one silly word because it's a silly initiative. It's brought to us by out-of-state animal rights activists and as jay referenced a national campaign, national political agenda that started in Florida four years ago and is now in Arizona. We don't even have a veal industry in Arizona, yet half of this proposition deals with veal or the proposition deals with an industry that isn't even here and the hog industry is not just about Snowflake but it's about 4H students all over Arizona and Tucson, one of the affiliate broadcast stations there, did a story about 4H kids worried about going to jail because there are now criminal penalties for raising animals in ways that have been done for years, that are veterinary approved. So its useless regulation that's likely to drive farmers out of business, put 4H kids out of that business, and doesn't do anything for the consumer or the animal.

Michael Grant:
Stan, as a former legislator, you will recall that there's a couple of things that you shouldn't watch being made and one is legislation and the other is sausage. Seriously though, if in fact inhumane things are being done on the way to the process, why shouldn't we intervene to address that?

Stan Barnes:
That's part of the problem with this proposition. It sets up a premise that there is inhumane treatment, where there is none. The American Veterinary Medical Association, the authority on what to do with animals, says it's humane. And that's the end of the story. If it were just about that, that would be a question worth debating, but the experts say it is humane. What's not humane is the way the humane society is spending over a million dollars to attack Arizona farmers and ranchers while 30,000 dogs and cats are put down for lack of funding in Maricopa County.

Jay Heiler:
And Stan's spending over a million dollars to divert the public's attention from what the issue is. It has nothing to do with 4H clubs, nothing to do with kids raising animals. And because their argument is so weak they keep trying to point to that and say that that's what this is about. This is very clearly about factory farming methods that have taken hold all over the United States, including now in Arizona and could continue to grow in Arizona and it's simply asking the public to examine whether or not these methods are humane. And they are not humane and there are many, many hundreds of veterinarians who will tell you that they're not humane, including from our own state. We have many of them enlisted in this effort to pass this measure. These animals are confined, Michael, for their entire lives in a space that's two feet wide, where they cannot have any freedom of movement at all. They rub against these crates until they have hideous sores on their body which then have to be treated and the animals have to be pumped with antibiotics to prevent the lesions from infecting the animal more broadly. These are not humane conditions. They won't let anybody in the facility to see it in Arizona, which is a big tip-off to everybody, so we've provided that footage that was in your leading so people can see what happens inside the facility.

Stan Barnes:
The footage he's talking about was done illegally in a trespassing manner. PETA, Farm Sanctuary, Animal Liberation Front. They all do things illegally to further their agenda. Jay's clients unfortunately are doing the same thing.

Jay Heiler:
There's nothing illegal about it. It was taken by someone on the premises legally.

Michael Grant:
This election voters will be able to decide if a random voter will receive a million dollars just for voting. Here's a look at proposition 200.

Mike Sauceda:
On the streets of Downtown Tempe, opinions mostly favored proposition 200, which would enter people who vote in the primary or general election every two years in a public drawing for $1 million. The money for the prize would come from unclaimed lottery money.

Tanya Chesney:
I think it's an awesome idea. I think it would get more people to vote.

Allen Poore:
I think it will get people to vote and might prompt people that maybe wouldn't vote to go ahead and start voting hopefully.

Russ Lathem:
I mean, I think that it would. I think there's a lot of people that would, you know, otherwise stay at home but for a chance at a million dollars they'd get up and go to Circle K and buy a ticket for the lottery, so chances are they'll probably get up, go to the polling place for a chance at the same.

Shena Gibson:
I think it's kind of a sorry way to get people out to vote for money. I think that money can be better distributed elsewhere. There's plenty of foundations out there who could definitely use a million dollars, as opposed to one person getting it. I mean, I think that people should have enough care to go out and vote themselves without having an incentive like a million dollars to maybe win.

Mike Sauceda:
Helen Purcell, Maricopa County Recorder, said the voter reward act will have no impact on processing.

Helen Purcell:
We don't know what impact it would have on our office. We're trying to figure that out. It has always been against the constitution, not only of Arizona but I believe of the United States, that you cannot have any kind of a payment for voting. And that seems to me that that's what we're doing here. Even though it might be only for one person, but there still is some type of a payment. Or everybody would anticipate that there would be. It's just something that I'm not really wild about.

Michael Grant:
Mark, tell me why this is a good idea.

Mark Osterloh:
Because we want to get everybody in Arizona voting. If you want truly representative and democratic government, everybody has to vote so their opinion is heard; they get people in the legislature to pass measures that are important to them. Right now maybe one out of four people is voting in elections. That's terrible. We should not have a government of the minority why I. We should have a government of the majority. This says a simple incentive, anybody who votes in the primary gets a chance to win. In the general, they get a second chance to win a million dollar prize, money from the unclaimed prize fund of the Arizona lottery, when people don't claim their prizes. So it's simple, effective. Will get everybody voting and we will have the highest voter turnout in America.

Michael Grant:
This around anyplace else?

Mark Osterloh:
Nobody else in the world has that as far as I know.

Michael Grant:
All right. Farrell, tell me why this is just a stinky idea.

Farrell Quinlan:
Well, you use the term stinky, but USA Today called it tawdry and other, you know, mainstream or even liberal public cakes have come out against it. The New York Times and others, and it just seems gimmicky and because it is, the idea that everyone needs to vote is something that should be challenged. There is a reason why some people don't vote. Either they don't feel that they know enough about either the candidates or the proposition question, I recently moved to Chandler and there was a citywide vote last March and I chose not to vote because I really didn't know what was going on in that race. And anyone knows Chandler politics, there's a lot to know. And so I chose not to put my uninformed ballot in the process because I felt it would have probably robbed somebody else's vote who actually did follow the issues. That's one thing we have a problem with is that you have a number of uninformed or just voters that just don't care.

Michael Grant:
Proposition 207 would set clear limits on a government's power to seize private property. Eminent domain issues of course being battled around the country following the landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision. Here is more on that issue.

Michael Grant:
Why is it a good idea to pass this proposition?

Chuck Gray:
Michael, it's a great idea because we have had historically in this country the right to own and control our property, and through time they have, the cities and counties and government entities, have taken it upon themselves to start to encroach upon our rights as property owners and so it's time that we take those rights back and we're going to try to do that through proposition 207. Which really has three main points. Number one, you can't take private property and give it to somebody else that's a private property owner, especially not for economic development. Number two, you can't have a blight overlay that blights the whole area as a designator, instead you have to show property by property, so that those who are good property owners aren't damaged. And thirdly, if the public regulates your land for a public purpose but they don't take title to it, and you lose value in your property, I don't think it's fair that one person have to pay the entire cost of a public benefit enjoyed at large.

Michael Grant:
All right. Ken, what do you see as problems with the proposition?

Ken Strobeck:
Michael, if this was just about eminent domain I wouldn't be here accident we wouldn't be objecting. The eminent domain provisions are benign and things we agreed to during the legislative session. The tip of the iceberg is eminent domain, the big part is the takings in the sense that it would freeze all zoning and land use regulations just the way they are today, because any change in zoning and mining regulations, farm and forestry, anything with the effect of limiting in any way the use of someone's land would trigger a potential for a claim and that money would come straight out of state, city and county budgets that are used for other purposes.

Michael Grant:
Ken, let me just clarify though, one of the main points of the proposition is to specifically define economic development as not being a public use, the sort of situation we saw in the Bailey's Brake Shop and some other cases.

Ken Strobeck:
Right.

Michael Grant:
No argument with that part of the proposition?

Ken Strobeck:
No quarrel with that. We understand that the public doesn't want to have economic development as a justification for using eminent domain and we've agreed to that during the course of the legislative session.

Michael Grant:
Okay. Chuck, what about this proposition that, well, you know, hold it. If this passes, you're sort of freezing in place all of the decisions, bad and good, that we've made about land use, planning generally, and any movement in the future is going to trigger a claim by someone. Taken a chunk of my property value.

Chuck Gray:
Well, the interesting thing about this is that it's prospective, so nothing that happened in the past is affected. But when we take a look at what's going to happen in the future and a property owner says to the city or to the county or to the government entity, I want to change, if he initiates that, then he has no claim for diminution in value. As a matter of fact his property value will probably go up and it won't be diminished. If we're talking about agricultural land, that's as low as it can get already, so they can't regulate further except to say you can't build anything on it. If they do that, then the public at large must have a benefit for doing that, but why should that property owner pay for the benefit that the entire public enjoys at large?

Michael Grant:
Ken, I think obviously one of the things that's been kicked around here for a long time and one of the concerns, let me give you not completely unreal hypothetical. I think building off what Senator Gray just said. Let's say a west valley community was to say if you have got vacant land around a military air base, you can't do any development on it whatsoever. Shouldn't the property owner have a right of action in that kind of case?

Ken Strobeck:
I think as the senator said, since this is a prospective measure, that if those -- if people bought the property with that knowledge in place, they would have that understanding. If this was an overlay that came on later, I would see where your point was. But let me give you an example that did happen. In Central Phoenix an area zoned C-4, which allowed four-story office buildings. There was an office building built, but in predominantly residential area, and the neighbors said look, the people in the offices are looking in my backyard, this is out of place with the character of the neighborhood. They went to the city and the city in a special session, city council, changed C-4 zoning this a large area to C-2 zoning to allow nothing over two stories instead of four stories. Had this law been in place, every single property owner affected whether they ever intended to build a four-story apartment or office building or not, would have a claim against the city for whatever the value could have been if they had built an office tower. So what we're doing is we're not saying this is a real legitimate purpose you're going to use, but any change would allow you to file this claim regardless of whether you actually intend to do it.

Michael Grant:
The First Things First Initiative became proposition 203. It would pay for early childhood development and health programs through a new increased tobacco tax.

Nadine Arroyo:
Proposition 203, a measure that would increase funding to finance programs for early childhood development. Prop 203 calls for the increase of state taxes on tobacco products, such as cigarettes, cigars and other tobacco items. Taxes would increase by 80 cents, raising the tax of a 20-cigarette box from $1.18 to $1.98.

Teacher:
Somebody had their hand up. Who cuts her hair?

Nadine Arroyo:
The measure was created by the group First Things First for Arizona's Children. The intent behind the measure is to establish an early childhood development and health fund. According to the group, the proposition allocates funds to programs and services provided for children prior to kindergarten and their families. These can be anything from family support, child care and preschool, to health screening and access to preventive health services. If the measure passes, experts say an estimated 100 to $188 million in new revenue will be generated to fund programs for the first year. Of that amount, $170 million, 80\%, would go toward program costs and about 10\%, or nearly $19 million, would pay for administrative costs. Currently there are three tobacco taxes on the books and the rates vary, in 2005, tobacco taxes generated nearly $300 million in revenue, of which went toward health programs, state prisons and the state general fund. With proposition 203, a new fund would be created to subsidize early childhood development.

Michael Grant:
And finally tonight, here's a brief look at the remaining propositions.

Mike Sauceda: This is the way many people vote now, by marking a ballot at a polling place but more and more choose to vote by mail at home, about ballots sorted at facilities like this Maricopa County one in Phoenix. Proposition 205 if approved by voters would change Arizona to a vote by mail state. Each registered voter would be sent a ballot not fewer than 15 days before the election along with a self-addressed stamped envelope and have until the close of Election Day to return the ballot. People on the street seemed to like the idea.

Tanya Chesney:
I think that's a great idea as well. I would vote that way. My problem is getting to the polls; I always forget what day the election is. If I got it in the mail, I'd be more likely to vote.

Allen Poore:
It's a convenience issue, and any way there again to get people to vote, it's a good thing. So I'm in favor of it also.

Russ Lathem:
Personally I think that for me it would be much -- I'm all for efficiency, it would be much better for my schedule. I'm usually pretty busy or at least I think I am. I like to make my own schedule, so for me I think it's good. Does it open the door for fraud? Quite possibly.

Shena Gibson:
I've actually done the mailing ballot myself and it wasn't too complicated, I mean, I didn't find it was rocket science. So I guess it just depends on how easy it is for people. I mean, if you live right by a poll and you can walk down and vote that's easy for you. Or if you don't have very much time to get to the poll, then the mail thing is good. But I think it's not so much black and white. It's pretty gray. I think it depends on people's perspective, where they are and things like that and why people aren't voting, that's another thing we need to really focus on, why aren't people going to the polls? Is it because it's a hassle for them to get there? Or is it because they don't care?

Mike Sauceda:
Prop 205 would also require just a minimum number of polling places to be open on Election Day. Helen Purcell is Maricopa County's Recorder.

Helen Purcell:
We would have the sites open for the period of time you had your ballot that we mailed out the ballot to you and that have you it in your hands. We would always have places open because people are going to need replacement ballots. People are going to make mistakes on ballots and want those replaced so we want to give them every opportunity. And for a county the size of Maricopa County with 1,500,000 registered voters we would have to have 50 to 100 places to go around the county to make it fairly convenient.


Mike Sauceda:
Purcell says the process of dealing with mail-in ballots is not new to the county and several Arizona cities already do all-mail elections.

Helen Purcell:
The process is similar to our early ballot process where we send at right now you have to request a ballot and we send you an early ballot and you vote that ballot and return it to us. In the case of all mail ballot, you don't have to request. Every registered voter would be sent a ballot and then they either choose to fill it out and return it or not. What we've discovered so far in both the cities and towns that use it currently is that it improves the voter turnout. We have more people, if they've just got the ballot right there in their hand, go ahead and vote. So we would have to adjust for that as far as adjusting for the amount of time that we would need to count the ballots. But there are a lot of other things that we are doing now that we wouldn't have to do. We wouldn't have to find 1,142 polling places. We wouldn't have to have the expense of having those polling places or the 7,000 vote workers that we have on Election Day. That would not be required. We would have let's say 50 to 100 places around the county where people could go and drop off ballots or get replacement ballots or whatever other assistance they needed so we would have that. But we would certainly not have the volume that we do now. And we estimate that it would probably save us an election cycle of a million dollars.

Mike Sauceda:
When you vote at the polls, recent changes to the law require you to show I.D.; however, you don't have to do that when you vote by mail.

Helen Purcell:
Every single one that comes in, we match that signature, and if there is the -- if any difference is discernible to us, we make every attempt to get a hold of the people to make sure it is in fact them. And in most cases we find that possibly somebody has broken an arm or they've had a stroke or something like that, to change their signature a little bit. But your basic signature stays the same.

Mike Sauceda:
Purcell says voters could still vote on Election Day in a polling place that would just be a lot fewer. She says the measure could increase voter turnout.

Helen Purcell:
We've looked at the state of Oregon that's had all mail ballot for some time, and they think that they can -- they have improved it by at least 20\%.

Merry Lucero:
Current law states that people convicted for the first or second time for drug possession or use, including methamphetamine, get probation rather than jail or prison time. Only when a person has been convicted three times of personal possession or use of drugs can that person be sentenced to jail or prison. Proposition 301 would amend the current law so that a person who is convicted for the first or second time of personal possession or use of methamphetamine can be sentenced to a term in jail or prison. The change in the law would allow judges to use a jail term as a condition of probation to force meth users to comply with court mandated drug rehab. A yes vote has the effect of making a person ineligible for mandatory probation, if the person is convicted of an offense involving the personal use or possession of methamphetamine. A no vote has the effect of retaining the current law, requiring mandatory probation for a person convicted for a first or second offense for the use or possession of methamphetamine unless the person has been convicted three or more times of personal possession or use of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia, refused drug treatment as a condition of probation, or rejected probation.

Nadine Arroyo:
Proposition 101 also known as the 2006 Taxpayer Protection Act, places a cap on property tax. Prop 101 ensures that voters have a say when tax increases are proposed and increased tax limits are placed on local governments.

Farrell Quinlan:
We feel that prop 101 is a welcome change to the system, an update, because it will lower the capacity of localities to raise taxes that would harm businesses and residents too.

Nadine Arroyo:
In 1980, limits were set on the amount government entities in Arizona could tax property. Those limits increased 2\% every year. Proposition 101 would reset those limits to actual property taxes levied in 2005 and would increase those limits by 2\% annually and would account for new construction. Also, the measure would eliminate taxing capacity currently not used by governments.

Farrell Quinlan:
Every year since 1980 there's been this ratcheting up of their ability, their capacity to raise taxes. All this would do was reset the clock so to speak to 19 -- I'm sorry, to 2005, and hopefully that will keep a lid on the ability of some locality to really increase taxes remarkably and do it without voter approval.

Nadine Arroyo:
The League of Arizona Cities and Towns say although it sees the prop as the least harmful option to the issue of reducing taxes, members are concerned about the message the proposed measure sends.

Ken Strobeck:
In the state we have only 47 of our 90 cities and towns have a primary property tax and of those, only 30 were at the maximum, and so by taking away this capacity, what you're really doing is saying those of you who had capacity but didn't tax clear up to the top of it, you're going to lose that. So you're sort of punishing the good players who have been responsible in not raising taxes.

Nadine Arroyo:
What cities or towns will be affected by a proposition like this?

Ken Strobeck:
In the valley I think Glendale is the city that stands to lose the most capacity. We've also heard from Flagstaff and Yuma, because they actually had planned and had budgeted to increase incrementally some local property taxes and because this measure went through the legislature and now on the ballot, they are not going to be able to collect that, even though they had budgeted for that. So they're going to be impacted actually being able to not collect what they had anticipated. Glendale on the other hand is going to be losing future capacity. It wasn't something that they'd actually built into their budget.

Mike Sauceda:
Proposition 104 was put on the ballot by the legislature. It would allow counties, cities, towns, school districts and other municipal corporations to put public safety and transportation projects into a higher debt limit. Currently local governments in Arizona can incur debt up to 6\% of the value of taxable property in the jurisdiction, that debt can be increased to 20\% if approved by voters. Proposition 104 would amend the state's constitution to allow incorporated cities and towns to include public safety, law enforcement, fire and emergency facilities and streets and transportation facilities in the 20\% debt limit. Arguments supporting the measure submitted to the voters guide in the propositions state that the measure will help cities keep up with growth without adding new taxes. There were no arguments submitted against the measure.

Merry Lucero:
|There are 30 senators in the Arizona State Senate and 60 representatives in the Arizona House of Representatives. Currently the annual salary for Arizona state lawmakers is $24,000 a year. Legislators already receive daily allowances for travel and other expenses. The legislature is in session for five to six months per year, but lawmakers serve their districts in the off session through constituent services and committee hearings. The commission on salaries for elective state officers recommends that legislative based salaries be raised to $36,000 per year. Proposition 302 would raise lawmaker salaries effective at the beginning of the next regular legislative session. Arguments supporting proposition 302 submitted to the Arizona Secretary of State's Voter Guide suggest that lawmakers deserve the raise because they carry a huge amount of responsibility, authority and time commitment and a higher salary would attract the best and brightest to legislative service. There were no arguments against prop 302. A yes vote would increase state lawmakers' annual salaries to $36,000. A no vote would retain state lawmakers salaries at $24,000 per year.

Michael Grant:
Again, if you'd like to know more about these issues, please visit www.azpbs.org, click on the vote 2006 icon. Thanks very much for joining us tonight on this special hour-long edition of Horizon. The ballot propositions. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one.

Content Partner: