||Brief Proposition Statement
||This proposal targets illegal immigrants with a blanket
denial of bail. Certainly a violation of the spirit of the
||Eliminates bail for certain classes of criminals
||Removes control from local governments.
||Ad valorem tax rate may not change more than 2% per year.
||This proposal is in direct violation of the spirit of
the U.S. Declaration of Independence where "All men are
created equal." Targets illegal immigrants
||Illegal immigrants may not be awarded punitive damages
by a state court.
||In practical terms, this proposal does almost nothing.
It is another mean-spirited attack on Spanish speaking
||English will be the official language of Arizona
||Removes financial control from local governments
||Places limits on debt incurred by municipalities.
||Extremely complicated, very pro-development,
||Change the rules for the use and disposal of Arizona
||The proposal seems to be pro-conservation. It also
empowers the local communities to control development.
Supported by the mayors of Arizona's largest cities.
||Permanently sets aside some Arizona Trust Land for
conservation. Involves local communities in planning use of
Trust land and enables local communities to regulate
||Deceptively called the "Protect Marriage
Amendment". Written by Fundamentalist Christian Center for
Arizona Policy (CAP). For unmarried couples it can eliminate
insurance benefits and domestic violence protections. It
limits hospital visitation and medical decision
making. Elderly couples, parents and children seriously
affected. CAP attorneys have confessed the target of this
proposition is unmarried heterosexuals even though it is
widely believed to be anti-gay only. There are lots of bad
propositions this year but this one is vile.
||Eliminates legal protections, rights and privileges for
unmarried domestic partners.
||Gives $1,000,000 to a randomly chosen Arizona voter.
||An obvious improvement. Supported by the American Cancer
Society, American Lung Association and American Heart
||Increases restrictions on smoking in public places.
||A wimpy effort but better than nothing.
||Raises Arizona minimum wage to $6.75
||Enhanced funding for early education.
||Humane treatment for farm animals.
||This initiative is intended to increase voter
participation but introduces a strong and unacceptable bias
into the voting process. It strongly favors voters with a
long term stable residence and makes voting very difficult
for those who do not have a stable residence. Most
adversely affected are the poor and voters who have recently
changed residence and have not updated their voter ID. It
severely reduces the number of normal polling places. If
traditional polling places were kept and mail-in ballots
were also sent this would be a good proposition. As
written, it is highly discriminatory.
||Automatic mail ballots sent to everybody.
||Another deceptively named proposition. Sponsored R. J
Reynolds Tobacco Company, who does not have the safety and
welfare of Arizona citizens in mind. Does not allow
communities to create stricter smoking prohibitions. Would
repeal some stricter Flagstaff laws.
||Allows smoking in some places where currently prohibited.
||Deceptivly named "Private Property Protection Act".
Although governments have not always exercised good judgment
in property acquisition and disposition, this proposal is
excessive in attempting to correct the problem. Most
importantly, it requires government to reimburse property
owners for potential loss of income when enacting
laws. Hence, the proposal can limit zoning, and prevent
necessary regulation of property ownership and usage. In
worst case, imagine your house surrounded by a shooting
range, a strip club, and an oil refinery. Extremely
||Limits the ability of government to acquire and regulate
||Another discriminatory law that specifically excludes
||Establishes a family literacy program to educate parents
and preschool children
||And yet another discriminatory law designed to harass
||A measure relating to probation for methamphetamine
||If the preceding proposals created by Arizona
legislature are an indication, legislators should have a
salary decrease rather than an increase. However, we live in
hope. By providing a minimal wage, possibly we can entice
a wider group of citizens to run for office.
||Raise salary of Arizona legislators.