U.S. President

Other than the usual differences - Al Gore is pro-choice, George W. Bush is pro-life, Gore wants more gun regulation, Bush wants less - between Republicans and Democrats, we found that these two men were actually running on somewhat similar platforms. Both sprinted toward the middle to sway undecided voters, both had fathers once at the forefront of the political arena, and both are have character flaws that, ideally, we would not want our president to have.

Our endorsement goes to Gore because of a few key issues. Unlike Bush, he supports keeping environmental control on the national level, which is where it has to be if regulation is to remain consistent and productive. Gore also favors keeping U.S. troops overseas in the interest of U.S. economic development and global stability, while Bush opposes this. Although the USS Cole bombing seems to provide Bush with evidence that perhaps Americans don't belong in foreign waters, we still believe that as a world leader, it is our country's duty to wear the badge of the world's peacekeeper.

Another reason we support Gore over Dubya is the much talked about missile defense system. Both candidates support one, but Gore's is smaller and less expensive than his opponent's. Last we checked, the Cold War ended about a decade ago.

Lastly, the next president could be responsible for making as many as three appointments to the Supreme Court. We feel strongly that any new appointees should uphold Roe v. Wade, and Gore has clearly indicated he supports the 1973 decision.

U.S. Senate

Vance Hansen is progressive, environmentally-conscious and free from the clutches of corporate America. In a perfect world, this Green party candidate and former English teacher will be elected to United States Senate tomorrow.

Hansen stands most firmly for campaign finance reform. He funded his campaign with his own pocketbook. He has also received small contributions from people like UA chemistry professor Henry K. Hall, Jr. Unlike many candidates for public office who merely pay lip service to campaign finance reform, Hansen walks the walk. Running a campaign without corporate money is the first step toward helping change the status quo. Hansen has already met this challenge.

Furthermore, Hansen wants to stop "borrowing" from the Social Security Trust Fund and reform the regressive FICA tax. He also supports public education and opposes programs that would weaken the funding they receive, such as vouchers.

Hansen ought to be elected to U.S. Senate on tomorrow.

U.S. House Dist. 2

Democrat Ed Pastor has served as the representative of Arizona's second congressional district since it was created after the 1990 census. His district is heavily Hispanic, and he has done a commendable job of working for his constituents on border issues and increasing the voice of the American Hispanic community in America. In the house, he has served as a deputy whip and was on the education committee.

More important than his work in Washington, though, has been his work in the community. He has spearheaded volunteer efforts throughout his district, to the point where he has had an elementary school named after him. His main opponent, Republican Bill Barenholtz, has ties to the community, but his disposition and lack of experience ensure that he will be dwarfed by Pastor.

U.S. House Dist. 5

Both Republican Jim Kolbe and his opponent Democrat George Cunningham are qualified to hold a seat in the U.S. House. Both of them support more federal funding for education. Both of them support a federal prescription drug benefit for seniors. Truth be told, they're both running so close to the middle that Ralph Nader's claim of no difference between the candidates actually makes some sense.

However, Kolbe does have a leg or two up on his opponent. He supports the right of patients to sue their HMOs. He's been more active in Arizona conservation than we have had any right to expect. Moreover, even if he and Cunningham have similar platforms, an experienced congressman like Kolbe with seats on influential committees stands a much better chance of getting something done than a newbie in a minority party.

State Senate Dist. 10

Because of his strong ties to the community and political experience and productivity, we support Ramon Valadez for this seat. Valadez, a former ASUA senator, helped bring Proposition 301 to the voters, and has also been active in Tucson's Hispanic community since graduating from the UA in 1989. Both Valadez, a Democrat, and his only opponent, Libertarian Dale Gorney, said they would fight for issues affecting the UA. However, Valadez seems to have the necessary experience to get things gone at the state level.

State Senate Dist. 13

If there was one district that we couldn't screw up, it's District 13. Each of the three candidates made Arizona's universities a top priority, but we support Democrat Andy Nichols in the election. Nichols will fight to keep in-state tuition as low as possible, and just as importantly, he has the experience - four terms in the Arizona House of Representatives - to follow through on this. Both Republican Kathleen Dunbar and Libertarian Wayne Sunne have respectable platforms and the intelligence to be effective senators, but Nichols is already one of the most respected members of the Legislature.

State Senate Dist. 14

Ruth Solomon is the best choice for State Senate District 14. Solomon, a Democrat, is an experienced legislator. She has served two terms in the State House of Representatives and one in the State Senate. Unlike her opponent, Libertarian Ed Kahn, Solomon has extensive policy-making experience. Furthermore, she taught in the Tucson Unified School District for nearly thirty years. The University of Arizona can clearly benefit from having an advocate for education within the state legislation. District 14 as a whole can benefit from having an experienced representative who knows the ropes of state policy.

Ruth Solomon is clearly the better State Senate candidate for District 14. She ought to be elected tomorrow.

State House Dist. 10

Linda Lopez, Victor Soltero, both Democrats, and some other guy are running for House seats in District 10, and the double Dem ticket is the choice for us. Not that we're especially partial to Democrats, but the combination of Soltero's experience - he's already a state senator - and Lopez's strong higher-education platform made this dynamic duo an easy option.

State House Dist. 13

For a reason wholly unknown to us, the current crop of state legislators is rather hostile to higher education. They tried to eliminate funding for our law school and cut funding for the women's studies department; worse than that, they wanted to keep us from sex on the Internet and in the dorms - after midnight, anyway. Two guys running for House seats in District 13 know higher education, and even, gasp, like it. Ted Downing, a research professor here at the UA, and Jonathon Paton, a teacher in the Tucson Unified School District, are all about education. We, as college students, are also all about education. Sound like a match made in heaven? We think so, vote Downing and Paton for District 13 House of Representatives.

State House Dist. 14

In the state House of Representative elections, Democrat Marion Pickens and Republican Edward Poelstra make the strongest impressions for District 14.

An elementary school teacher for more than 20 years before her political career and a current member of the House Education Committee, Pickens would place a high value on education, especially funding for post-high school institutions. Pickens has also been a state legislator for eight years, establishing herself as a senior member of the legislature.

At 30, Poelstra would bring youth and vigor to the state House. Poelstra also supports educational funding - to include vocational and technological programs for non-university-bound youth.

Poelstra and Pickens especially promise to brighten the outlook for Arizona education. Tomorrow, vote Pickens and Poelstra.

Board of Supervisors

If elected, Ann Day and Raul Grijalva would bring a combined 34 years of solid, public governmental experience to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.

Day, a Republican, is the current majority whip in the state senate with 10 years of state legislative experience. As a supervisor for District 1, Day would bring citizens into their government by allowing for more neighborhood involvement in land-use planning and by creating more access to government information online.

Grijalva, a Democrat from District 5, would direct attention to the local environment, neighborhoods and education. Grijalva's 12 years as a supervisor and additional 12 years on the TUSD board prove that he is more than qualified to work for these issues.

We support Day and Grijalva.

Propositions

Proposition 104 is intended to save senior citizens money by freezing their property values so they do not have to pay higher taxes.

The money they pay in property taxes helps fund Arizona public schools.

Proposition 104 should not pass for two reasons. First, senior citizens are responsible for helping fund public education, just like every other adult Arizonan. True, many seniors face financial difficulties. But this should be remedied through better social security programs. It is unfortunate that Prop. 104 would take money that could potentially fund public schools and give it to seniors, as if sacrificing one is the only way to help the other.

Also, Arizona funds public education very poorly in general. It is currently ranked forty-ninth in the nation in terms of funding. Even if Proposition 301 passes (the proposition that would increase sales tax to help fund public schools), Arizona's rank will only jump to the high-to-mid forties.

Arizona schools need their property tax funding, and Arizona's seniors have a responsibility to pitch in.

Gerrymandering is a much-aligned practice, and there are many arguments against it. Incumbents use their power of re-districting to ensure that they remain in power and that the opposition is marginalized. However, it also has its benefits: were it not for gerrymandering, there would be no dominantly Hispanic district in southern Arizona, and many of our citizens would be disenfranchised.

The proposition is well-intended, but the results would almost certainly work to the detriment of Southern Arizona voters. Square districts are rarely the most fair districts, and attempts to make them so are doomed to failure. Moreover, if the results don't work out well, the people making the decisions under this system cannot be held accountable. Like the best elements of American democracy, the current system is based on the avarice of the elected but uses it to make things work out for the best.

State and Federal agencies band together to extort a whole bunch of money from tobacco companies. Big tobacco backs down and opens up the check book. Joe Camel comes down, and money starts rolling in. Then comes the fun part, as local governments start fighting over what to do with all of this free money. Everyone seems to think it should go towards healthcare of some sort, but the split is between those who want it to go towards funding existing programs and those who want to make new agencies to administer the funds. No one can decide, so they take it to the voters in the form of two ballot propositions. Neither is perfect, but 204 delivers the money to Arizonans more evenly. Sure, old people and little kids will get the benefits, and none of us will see any, but we're all going to have to go to the hospital eventually. It'd be nice if there was a little help once we got there.

While we agree with the fundamental principle of this measure - putting the clamps on urban sprawl - Proposition 202 would ultimately do more harm than good for Arizona communities. Setting up boundaries around cities that projected the 10-year growth would effectively stop developers from building outside of the boundary, because they would have to pay for a host of services. However, doing such would cause the price of land located within that boundary to skyrocket, as developers would want to build in area where taxes are used to pay for new utilities. Additionally, this proposition would force land owners to get voter approval before rezoning their land. Proposition 202 is a well-intentioned, but badly flawed plan, deserving of a no vote.

Certainly, we support any program that helps public school children and their pursuit of an education. Bilingual programs do that in the short term, but they eventually hold them back, because children often rely on these programs for too long. We find it inarguable that citizens who speak fluent English have a better chance of finding quality jobs than their counterparts who still rely on their native language. We support Proposition 203 because it will help children in the future, plus it includes a one-year crash course in English for students 10 years and younger. Additionally, children with special needs will still qualify for bilingual programs.

Proposition 300 calls for a raise for state legislators - bumping up their salaries from $24,000 to $30,000. This proposal comes only two years after another pay raise, when voters approved an increase of legislators' stipends from $15,000 to $24,000.

However, that raise was granted with the provision that legislators be required to submit receipts and be reimbursed only for actual expenses - just like other state employees - and that key measure was eventually overturned.

Like a child asking for a bigger allowance, the legislators first need to show themselves to be more responsible with the money they are currently earning before being allowed more.

Vote "no" on Proposition 300.