Its surprising how much you can accomplish if you don't care who gets the credit
With the arrival of early ballots, it's time to get serious about how to vote. After seeing another demonstration of how rabid the left has become and how in-our-face they are about taking America to the socialist woodhouse, Republicans should find it very easy to just pull the lever for all Republicans.
OK, we know there will be a lot of nose-holding going on with that Vote for ALL Republicans method. The past few weeks surrounding the Kavanaugh hearings should make it much easier. Can anyone think of a single reason to vote for a democrat, even at the local level? It's a sad fact that there are instances where only democrats are on the ballot. True especially in school board and city council elects where the office is non-partisan. Today, virtually every informed person is partisan so the idea of a non-partisan race is just a pipe dream.
We don't have the greatest candidates on the Republican side in some races. The time to address that is in the primary. There, we have multiple choices most of the time and many times, it comes down to who is a conservative and who is a liberal Republican. Sometimes, it comes down to whether the conservative can defeat the democrat opponent in the General. That should be a decision maker for any race that is lopsidedly on the side of the liberal in the general election.
What good is it to have nominated a conservative Republican in the primary that doesn't have the resources, both human and financial, to take the seat in the general? If you don't know the answer to that question, just check out the winners of Maricopa County Sheriff and Maricopa County Recorder's elections from 2016! Could it be more disastrous than to have these two very important seats to have gone to the democrats due to having the wrong candidates on Republican side as their opponents? If you find an argument with that logic, just check out who won those seats.
Let's take a stroll through that ballot:
Straight ticket through the entire top of the ballot: Governor Ducey, Secretary of State Gaynor, Attorney General Brnovich, Treasurer Yee and Superintendent Riggs. Mine Inspector Hart, Corporation Commission Olson and Glassman. Every single democrat challenger in these races are not just democrats, they are rabid in their thinking, not unlike what we have seen during the Kavanaugh hearings, both in the chambers and outside!
For down ballot races, be sure you know who the Republicans are in those more local races: legislature, Clerk of the Court, Maricopa County College Board, Arizona Supreme Court. Don't worry if you know nothing about these candidates. All you need to know is that they are NOT democrats. The worst Republican is still better than the best democrat. For Maricopa County Community College at-Large Kathleen Winn. If you don't know who is running in the legislature, go to azsos.gov, click Elections then 2018 General Candidates to get a list of those running.
For federal races, Senator McSally, CD1 Rogers, CD2 Peterson, CD3 Pierson, CD4 Gosar, CD5 Biggs, CD6 Schweikert, CD8 Lesko, CD9 Ferrara. Would it not be a good thing to send all of these candidates to Washington if only to help hold the House and Senate for the Rs and President Trump?
Now to those pesky ballot questions. First, know what each ballot can do.
Propositions are numbered specially, like this:
Starting with a one (1) means it changes, adds to or otherwise modifies the Arizona Constitution. They are nearly impossible to ever get rid of. Citizen's initiatives that pass can only be repealed or modified by another citizen's initiative. They can also be repealed by 3/4 vote of the legislature. Imagine any circumstance where 3/4 agreeable votes can happen. The Republicans and the democrats can't even agree that fire is hot, or at least, warm. The Republicans and republicans can't either.
Starting with a two (2) is a legislative resolution or amends state statute or creates a new statute (law). Can be amended by the legislature.
Starting with a three (3) is referred to the ballot by a vote of the legislature and can be amended at any time by the legislature. Can be amended by the legislature.
Starting with a four (4) is a local proposition.
Keep this information in mind when you decide how to vote on propositions. We recommend the following:
Prop 125: Changes pensions for new hires of corrections officer and elected officer retirees to Cost Of Living Adjustment & to defined contribution plans – worker contributes to their own plan. There is already a constitutional measure instituting pensions for these government employees that is more expensive now. YES
Prop 126: Stops imposition of sales taxes on services. If this doesn't pass, a sales tax can be imposed by state and local governments on all services such as hair cuts, facials, manicures, tax preparation, attorney services, consulting services, architectural and design services, etc. Do we need more taxes? We recommend YES but some believe the same government taxing authorities should make these decisions. Of course, those who give can take away! You can read the full language on azsos.gov click Elections tab and click Ballot Measures,
Prop 127: YIKES! This should not even need discussion. This is a NO or else, this will mandate that renewable energy sources like wind and sun must make up 50% of all energy by 2030, causing rates to skyrocket. Remember when Obama said this type energy that he wanted would "necessarily make energy rates skyrocket?" NO NO NO
Prop 305: A “YES” vote would allow Senate Bill 1431 (2017) to go into effect, which would gradually increase for four years the percentage of students in kindergarten through twelfth grade eligible to receive an empowerment scholarship account to spend on tuition, textbooks, educational therapies, tutoring, or other qualified forms of instructional assistance at a private or home-based school in an amount equal to 90% of the allotted funding. Some say this is unconstitutional under the equal protection clause because it limits the number of students who can participate. That question is countered by some who say that can be easily fixed in the legislature. After careful thought, we recommend a YES.
Prop 306: This proposition corrects-a major flaw in the Clean Elections Act. Candidates who qualify to use clean elections funding must refund back to Clean Elections any unused money after all expenses have been paid. This is not, by the way, taxpayer money but the funding comes from other sources such as fines, etc. We recommend a YES.
Ahhh, no one really has a clue about these judges. Unless you consistently thoughout every year follow every judge and see how they rule on every case, it's nearly impossible to find valid information on these judges. Said one judge to us, "Don't rely on the Judicial Review to give adequate information. It is put together by the judges themselves." Unless a judge has committed some egregious offense, they all get a good review. Here, you pays your money and takes your chances. Some of us just vote NO on all of them. That might be extreme, but maybe not.
Thank you for this. I have friends who have asked me about the propositions. I will print this out and hand them a copy. As always, your guidance is appreciated.
Oh, yes, AFA, thank you for this important information. Propositions are so confusing but thankfully, those who run them now have to be more clear about what they do. I do so appreciate the help. I do not have my early ballot yet but this is very timely information. On #126, I do not think low income people can afford more taxes and also, on #127, oh, my. What a dreadful idea. Yes, thank you again.
DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW ON TWO ITEMS:
1. JUDGES: Vote YES (keep) Bolick and Pelander.
These two supreme court judges are being singled out for defeat by the cabal of the red for ed, the save our schools, and others of the same ilk. Bolick's and Pelander's sin? They had the audacity to vote to remove Prop 207 (the #redfored tax increase) from the ballot because the signatures were obtained via outright lies as to what the proposition would do.
2. PROP 126: Vote NO.
All taxes are regressive. What we have here is a sales tax but providing a service is not a sale. A sale is considered in our society as a good, a tangible item exchanged for money. even if you figure getting paid for performing a service like cleaning a house is really a sale because money changes hands, I'm against adding tax to that. Then that tax can be continuously increased too. Another tax will adversely impact low income people and seniors. This is like arguing over a sales tax on food from a grocery store that you take home and cook. It impacts quality of life more than going out to eat or buying that car. I'm unconvinced that NO is the right vote.
As to the supreme court judges, they are the only ones shown as candidates on the AZSOS site. So wouldn't bot get elected?
We've listed as a group of over 2 Doz. what we think compared to GOP Leadership along with the Lobbyist, so here it is. PROP 125 NO, 126 YES, 127 NO, 305 NO, and 306 YES.
AZ Legislators want to Retire on State Monies & Raise Our Taxes Again!
I attended a meeting on 10/02/18 at SC GOP Office to discuss the Propositions at length with John Heep LD 22 PC, Randy Miller LD 21 PC and about 2 dozen Republicans. We Discussed all 5 PROPS and found the Golden Slate being distributed by LDs 21 & 22 not in compliance with the AZ Constitution or in the Best Interests of Voters.
We’ve been told the GOP Executive Committee made these recommendations. Here’s the recommendations the majority of us agreed on with our, we don’t Benefit from our Positions, and expect office holders to disagree even though they’re Public Servants, but will Benefit by getting Voters to Believe and Pay the Price for doing so.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS VS. GOP’S 4 PROPS ON 2018 NOV. BALLOT!
PROP 125 is a NO, most once retired don’t get raises from their former employers, why would those who work for us? A Yes Vote could cost Future Generations Hundreds of Millions more, and AZ’s already 40 Billion+ in Debt, with No End in Sight.
PROP 126 is a YES, this will prevent State & Local Governments from adding New Taxes on US. The GOP supposedly for Smaller Government and Less Taxation, a NO on PROP 126 will allow More Government & Higher Taxes.
We Agree Only on PROP 127 as a NO, we don’t Need Higher Utility Bills like Ca. and know the government can’t have that Power Over US.
PROP 305 is a NO, This Prop Violates the AZ Constitution by funding Private Schools, and if passed turns them into Public Schools by receiving Federal Funding,would Force them to comply with Federal Regulations like Common Core.
PROP 306 is a YES, IF Passed will Prevent Clean Elections Monies to be mixed with Private Monies, including PACS, Lobbyists, Other Campaigns Etc., and we believe a No Vote would Violate the intent of Clean Elections misleading the Voters.
Your Votes are Yours and this is a means to inform you, hoping to keep the Process Honest and Voters Informed, and Not 4 Gain.
Proverbs 4: 26-27
God Bless You All; Clair Van Steenwyk
"PROP 305 is a NO, This Prop Violates the AZ Constitution by funding Private Schools, and if passed turns them into Public Schools by receiving Federal Funding,would Force them to comply with Federal Regulations like Common Core"
This statement is totally false. Folks should read the propositions before they make false comments about them. Prop 305 simply deals with whether SB1431 should be vetoed or not. SB1431 has nothing to do with federal funding or any other funding except state funding. It is not a voucher for funding private schools, but a scholarship to be used for a variety of education choices, which may or may not include assistance with private school tuition. We already do all this for students in some categories and it is perfectly legal. The only difference is that SB1431 expands eligibility to the population in general, not just special needs students.
MORE ON PROP 305:
The vote should be YES, in agreement with the main body of this post. But this is a very confusing proposition and there are many questions that people have. In fact we have the curious incident of a rabid anti school choice, the Save Our Schools group, AND some pro school choice folks both pushing for a NO vote on Prop 305. The following material is an attempt at shedding some light on the subject.
First off, the bill, SB1431, is awful. It was introduced in good faith in 2017 by then AZ senator Debby Lesko, but then it was highly gutted in an effort to gain the support of 3 Republican senators who routinely oppose school choice. The evisceration of SB1431 succeeded in allowing it to pass the senate with a YES vote from Worsley (LD25) and Pratt (LD8). The other anti school choice senator, Brophy-McGee (LD28) still voted NO.
Because of the aforementioned limitations, SB1431 is not even a drop in a bucket when it comes to enhancing school choice. It is more like a drop in an Olympic size pool. For example, it limits the number of eligible students to one half of one percent per year, which amounts to only about 5,000 students. The program caps the total number at 30,000. The program ends further enrollment in 2022 regardless of whether or not the 30,000 cap has been reached.
Very important. The amount of the scholarship is NOT 90% of the per student funding. It is only 90% of the STATE per student funding. When students leave the district school in pursuit of the scholarship, only 90% of the state funding goes with them. The school district retains 5% of the state funding. The remaining 5% goes to the ADE for administering the program. The school district also retains 100% of the county funding, the federal funding, and any other funding.
Because of the strict limitations, the district school will not even notice an effect. In the unlikely event that a school district experiences a mass exodus, it could be argued that it could be beneficial because such an exodus will increase per student funding and decrease class size.
Will a YES vote create a voter protected status for SB1431? No one knows. Prop 305 does not create a constitutional amendment or a state statute. It is veto resolution, which merely asks the question of whether SB1431 is vetoed or allowed to stand. Because of this, lawyers are divided in their opinions, until the matter is adjudicated in a court of law. Careful here. A YES vote means keep the statute, a NO vote means veto the statute.
In order to err on the side of caution, let's assume that a YES vote will in fact voter protect SB1431, which will etch in stone the limitations and caps contained therein. This is the fear that some pro school choice folks have and as a result, are encouraging a NO vote so that we can start fresh in the future. But this will not work given the current composition of our AZ senate. In fact, 2019 will be even worse because of the addition of a fourth anti school choice to the senate, Heather Carter of LD15. As a representative, she actually voted against SB1431 in 2017. The bottom line is that there will not be any progress in school choice regardless of the fate of SB1432. If and when we get a more friendly legislature, we can then propose and enact more effective school choice legislation, outside of the empowerment scholarship account vehicle.
The political question may be the most important of all. Since SB1431 is so limited in scope that school districts will not feel any negative effect, and may actually experience some positive effects, why is the Save Our Schools cabal spending $307,000 to secure a NO on 305 vote? The answer is long term politics. A NO on Prop 305 will allow the anti school choice people to claim victory and state that "The people of AZ have spoken. They are against school choice". Conversely, a victory for the YES side will enable our side to claim citizen support for school choice. This will be very helpful in the future, when and if we can elect a more school choice friendly legislature.
The last point alone is a good reason for voting YES on Prop 305.
A yes Violates AZ Constitution on Funding of Private Schools.
As was astutely pointed out in the article is that Republicans and republicans can't even agree on whether fire is hot. Props always generate a lot of disagreement and sometimes outright food fights. Read the language, see who is running it, decide what it really means and vote accordingly. We vote because it's the only way to resolve the issue. I agree with the AFA plan but might reconsider on 126 but overall, I am against opening the door to more taxes. Or in this case, leaving the door open.
One of our shy members sent this list compiled by a group of conservative Republicans. Their litmus test was to retain only those appointed by Republican Governors, proving the only real way to know is to follow their every move. We can say that is not the greatest of litmus test because Brewer appointed some pretty bad judges. Remember, too, we have had few democrat governors lately but there are some really bad judges. Herein is the list attached. You decide what you think. If you know next to nothing about these judges, consider this as good a list as you will probably get. The only ones we know for sure we support are Supreme Court judges Prelander and Bolick. So far, they seem to be pretty good. We suggest NO on all other Supreme Court judges.
126 has a couple views, IMHO. There was some talk about removing income tax in the state and going totally to sales tax. This of course would kill that option.
When I go to McDonald's and they make me a burger I pay tax. I go to an attorney and they make me a contract I do not pay a tax. Doesn't sound like equal taxation. Both are performing a service yet only half are taxed.
How many business are a cash only paycheck to their workers? No tax for the state via income tax. Contraband sales cannot be taxed, obviously, but sales purchased with those funds would be taxed. I believe the sponsors of this are real estate groups. This would probably increase costs in the home market.
127, technology will bypass the law before it's time. My main problem with this is that they are putting an amendment to our constitution (which is for people) and using it for business control. Personally, keep stuff unrelated to people off our constitution. It's best left alone. APS will make a bunch more money off on this deal, I wonder whey they are not supporting it? Additionally the nuke plant is not a renewable source and this does not affect SRP.