Props (and pot)

Although measures surrounding partially legalized drugs make up perhaps the most contested issue this year, voters today also will decide about a pay raise for legislators, giving $220 million to buy land for preservation, and preserving the state lottery beyond July 1999. Other issues on the ballot include public funding of campaigns and giving future candidates the option to declare, on the ballot, their desire to abolish the federal income tax and Internal Revenue Service.

The Wildcat Opinions Board wants you to know our perspective and encourages everyone to exercise their vote.

The Marijuana Mambo

Propositions 104, 105, 300 and 301 all have something to do, be it directly or indirectly, with the proposed legalization of marijuana and other drugs for medical uses.

Sixty-five percent of voters approved a 1996 measure to do just that. State lawmakers, however, overturned or delayed facets of that proposal because they believed the voting population had been duped into a more widespread drug legalization program than they realized. Thus arrive the current slew of ballot proposals.

Proposition 300 and 301 both reaffirm the Legislature's repeal of 1996's Proposition 200. The opinions board disagrees wholeheartedly with these two measures, not because we advocate legalized pot, but because any lawmaking body should be beholden to their constituencies - in this case, the citizens of the state of Arizona. Lawmakers should not have the right, nay the audacity, to overturn a proposal approved by the voters - be it controversial or not. Vote NO on Props. 300 and 301.

Propositions 104 and 105 represent the flipside as they limit, in a broader sense, legislative power over voter-approved initiatives. Proposition 105 would prevent lawmakers from overturning initiatives along with banning gubernatorial vetoes. Lawmakers could make changes in the same spirit of the initial proposal, but only with a three-fourths vote of the Legislature. Proposition 104 is the legislature's response to 105 and essentially tones the language down. Under 104, lawmakers could not repeal a voter-approved initiative for five years and could make changes with a two-thirds legislative vote. It also is retroactive, unlike Proposition 105. We believe either of these proposals would be fine. Vote YES on Props. 104 and 105.

Quarreling cocks

Yes, Arizonans actually will vote about roosters today - and in fact will decide whether cockfighting, or watching a cockfight, should be made a felony, which calls for the requisite jail time and thousands of dollars in fines. Proposition 201 seeks to ban cockfighting, a long-standing tradition in the state.

So should it be outlawed? No. Although the opinions board split over the issue, we stand on the side of civil liberties and tradition. Dissenters called the sport "disgusting and foul" (no pun intended), but proponents concurred that there are a lot better things to worry about than two roosters going at it in a ring - let alone making the act a felony. Moreover, don't local law enforcement agencies have better things to worry about... like sexual assaults, robberies and violent crimes... against humans? Vote NO on Proposition 201.

Jack up their pay

Arizona state lawmakers haven't gotten a pay raise since 1980, and although voters have consistently voted down various proposals, this is the year to buck that trend, but not on legislators' own terms

Thus we unanimously disagree with Proposition 101, which would call for a separate referendum to change the mechanism by which salaries of state officials are set. By amending the state constitution, the measure would expand the current 5-member salaries board to 11 members. Why is this needed? Vote NO on Prop. 101.

Proposition 302, however, has been a long time in coming. It calls for a annual salary increase from $15,000 to $24,000 for state lawmakers. Face it, $15,000 just isn't enough for many to commit 100-plus days out of their year for public service - and may actually prevent some potential candidates from running, who perhaps have a family to support or other abnormal expenses. Arizonans have been stuck with the lowest common denominator in terms of lawmakers for far too long. One opinions board member dissented on both measures, calling any legislator salary increase a waste of money. Vote YES on Prop. 302.

Open Primaries

Wouldn't it be nice for declared independents to be able to vote in primary elections, where many races are decided? We think so. Proposition 103 would open primary elections to all those not registered with an established political party. Vote YES on Prop. 103.

Pay the candidates?

Proposition 200 would do just that in making public funds available for candidates to use so long as they stay within prescribed fundraising limits. However, this proposal doesn't have a matching component like the public financing system in Tucson, where candidates can voluntarily raise up to a certain dollar amount - an amount that then will be matched by the city. We don't want our tax dollars going to candidates with minimal fundraising efforts on their part. Vote NO on Prop. 200.

State Investments

Proposition 102 would expand investment options available to state trust funds by allowing investments in stocks, as opposed to just bonds, which traditionally have lower returns. Split 3-2, the opinions board opposes this proposition primarily because of the proven stock market volatility. Because the state trusts in question fund public education, we feel conservative investments, like the current bonds, are the better call. Dissenters, however, pointed out that the more money available for public education the better. Vote NO on Prop. 102.

Campaigning crap

Whether or not you enjoy paying taxes, Proposition 202 smacks of political campaign bullshit. Plain and simple. The ballot measure would allow candidates for Congress or the presidency to declare, on the ballot, whether they support abolishing the IRS or eliminating the federal income tax. One must ask, "What's the point?"

To boot, if passed, Proposition 202 could open the door for similar measures dealing with other issues in years to come. Do you really want to know, on the ballot mind you, whether candidates support baby seals (or the clubbing thereof), cockfighting (or the abolishment thereof), or any other issue that happens to hold public attention in any given election cycle? We didn't think so. Ballots should not become the realm of campaign advertising. Vote NO on Prop. 202.

'Growing Smarter' is dumber

Controlling urban growth and maintaining open space will perhaps be the Arizona issue of the millennium, but Proposition 303, dubbed "Growing Smarter," is a bad way to kick off the process. Backed primarily by developers and mainstream environmental organizations, the measure would appropriate $10 million a year for 11 years to buy up state trust land for preservation purposes.

This sounds good at first, but the $220 million is really only a drop in the bucket and the measure contains other less attractive aspects. Proposition 303 was originally intended as the foil for a competing measure that didn't make the ballot. The other proposal would have require municipalities to adopt growth plans to truly force cities and towns to forecast growth and attempt to deal with it in a mature manner.

Vote No on Prop. 303 and wait another election cycle for a better proposal to come forward.

Save lotto

Need we say more. Voting no on Proposition 304 would abolish this "voluntary tax" that pays for lots of good stuff around Arizona that wouldn't get funded otherwise. Because of a Legislature screwup last spring, the lottery charter was only extended to July 1, 1999. This measure would bump that sunset date to 2003. Vote YES on Prop. 304.