Please visit YESforMarriage.com!
From the website:
"This website is a temporary home on the Internet while we put the finishing touches on our permanent website. Please sign up for our free email alerts so you can get breaking news on the marriage campaign and also get notification when our official, permanent site comes online (note: we respect your privacy and won’t share your email address with anyone for any reason).
So, what’s this all about?
Arizonans will vote on November 4, 2008 on Ballot Proposition 102 which reads:
“Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
We urge you to vote “YES” which will place this statement into the Arizona Constitution and secure this principle for our state law."
Showing posts with label ballot initiatives. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ballot initiatives. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
A List of Arizona Ballot Measures
Check out this list from the Secretary of State's office that provides information regarding what measures may be on the ballot this November. BTW, you will note the fine print on the web page reminds us that July 11, 2008 is the last day to submit an argument for or against a proposal.
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
BAMN - Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration & Immigrant Rights, and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary
Take a look at the website of this organization BAMN (By Any Means Necessary) that has come to Arizona to fight for financial aid for illegals, affirmative action, and other dubious measures. Their website states they are trying to make California a Sanctuary State. Is Arizona next on their list? Let this be a wake-up call to motivate you into action to register and recruit Republican voters and Precinct Committeemen and women who will fight against these type shenanigans!
Saturday, May 31, 2008
A Woman's Right to Light
I found this petition online when surfing the Internet, attempting to stay abreast of all things Arizona. The proposal is called "A Woman's Right to Light" and no, it has nothing to do with smoking. The verbiage of the measure is as follows:
"We, the undersigned, call on the Arizona Legislature to pass a law that states that a woman has the right to drive to a lighted, populated area when being stopped by law enforcement at night, for her safety and that of the officer."
The woman would be required to signal the officer by turning on her hazard lights and reducing her speed to a specified limit to communicate her intention to stop in a lighted area.
QUESTION: Is this necessary?
"We, the undersigned, call on the Arizona Legislature to pass a law that states that a woman has the right to drive to a lighted, populated area when being stopped by law enforcement at night, for her safety and that of the officer."
The woman would be required to signal the officer by turning on her hazard lights and reducing her speed to a specified limit to communicate her intention to stop in a lighted area.
QUESTION: Is this necessary?
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Coyote Blog: Taking A Peak Inside the Sausage Factory
~another blogger's take on the Governor's suggested sales tax increase for Transportation and the deal she struck with the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona
AZ Left: New initiative from Rep. Kyrsten Sinema would protect sexual orientation and gender identity in employment
Rep. Kyrsten Sinema is sponsoring a ballot initiative, Free to Work Arizona, that not only protects race and gender from discrimination by employers, but also sexual orientation and gender identity.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Voters Can Trump Spending
By Tom Jenney
You play the hand you’ve been dealt, and in this year’s fiscal-policy poker game, fiscal conservatives in Arizona have a lot of bad cards.
Instead of an ace in the executive branch of state government, fiscal conservatives have a two.
Back in the fall, when Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 revenues began falling below the revenues for FY 2007, a fiscally conservative Governor would have made modest reductions in agency spending to bring expenditures in line with revenue. Instead, Gov. Janet Napolitano continued to spend FY 2008 money as if there were no shortage of revenue. She also failed to call the Legislature into a mid-year special session to correct the over-optimistic FY 2008 budget passed in June.
For the FY 2009 budget, Napolitano will likely continue doing what she has done for the last five years, which is to bargain shrewdly so as to maximize government spending. According to her budget office, state government spending now takes up 7.01 percent of the state’s economy—the biggest slice for government since 1980.
Napolitano’s deficit plan involves financing current spending levels with huge amounts of (unconstitutional) debt. And with her recent veto of House Bill 2220, she has promoted the fiction that a property tax increase is necessary to close the budget deficit.
Instead of an ace in the judicial branch, fiscal conservatives have a three. The Arizona Supreme Court in past years has refused to enforce the constitutional prohibition on state debt, and it is unlikely to start doing so now.
A third ace would be a solid majority of fiscal conservatives in the Legislature, but instead, fiscal conservatives have a seven (in other words, less than half). Most of the time, they do not have the votes to get fiscally conservative bills onto the Governor’s desk, or to send those bills to the ballot via referenda (a move that bypasses the Governor’s veto pen). (GROE NOTE: Remember this when election time comes around in the fall!)
With a solid majority of fiscal conservatives in the Legislature, Arizona would not have overspent during the last five years, and we would not have the largest budget deficit in the nation. In any case, a fiscally conservative majority (with some cooperation from the Governor) would make short work of current deficits, holding FY 2008 and FY 2009 spending constant at FY 2007 levels ($9.8 billion). Modest transfers of cash from the Rainy Day Fund could easily balance those budgets—without accounting gimmicks, and without taking on debt.
Although most of Arizona’s fiscally profligate legislators are Democrats, this is not a strictly partisan problem. In the recent Senate battle over HB 2220, Republicans Carolyn Allen of Scottsdale and Tom O’Halleran of Prescott voted to increase property taxes, while Democrat Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix provided the 16th vote to get tax relief out of the Senate. In the House, Democrat Mark DeSimone crossed party lines to vote for property tax relief, while Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns chose to snub homeowners and businesses.
A fourth ace would be legislative leadership strong enough to bargain hard with the Governor and put petty bills on hold until the budget crisis is resolved. Individually, some of our legislative leaders are face cards, but collectively, they’re more like a six—easily beaten by the Queen of Spending.
The only good card fiscal conservatives hold this year is the wild card of grassroots taxpayer activism. Taxpayer activists must work hard to push to balance the FY 2009 budget without tax increases, accounting gimmicks or debt, put strong property tax and budget reforms on the November ballot, and support fiscally conservative candidates in September and November. If they do those things, the grassroots wild card could turn out to be the missing ace fiscal conservatives need to play a winning hand this year.
The stakes of the fiscal-policy poker match are high. Arizona can choose the path of strong economic growth and prosperity, or it can slide into high-tax, high-spending sluggishness. Grassroots taxpayer activists will decide.
--Tom Jenney is the Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity (https://owa.azleg.state.az.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.aztaxpayers.org)
You play the hand you’ve been dealt, and in this year’s fiscal-policy poker game, fiscal conservatives in Arizona have a lot of bad cards.
Instead of an ace in the executive branch of state government, fiscal conservatives have a two.
Back in the fall, when Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 revenues began falling below the revenues for FY 2007, a fiscally conservative Governor would have made modest reductions in agency spending to bring expenditures in line with revenue. Instead, Gov. Janet Napolitano continued to spend FY 2008 money as if there were no shortage of revenue. She also failed to call the Legislature into a mid-year special session to correct the over-optimistic FY 2008 budget passed in June.
For the FY 2009 budget, Napolitano will likely continue doing what she has done for the last five years, which is to bargain shrewdly so as to maximize government spending. According to her budget office, state government spending now takes up 7.01 percent of the state’s economy—the biggest slice for government since 1980.
Napolitano’s deficit plan involves financing current spending levels with huge amounts of (unconstitutional) debt. And with her recent veto of House Bill 2220, she has promoted the fiction that a property tax increase is necessary to close the budget deficit.
Instead of an ace in the judicial branch, fiscal conservatives have a three. The Arizona Supreme Court in past years has refused to enforce the constitutional prohibition on state debt, and it is unlikely to start doing so now.
A third ace would be a solid majority of fiscal conservatives in the Legislature, but instead, fiscal conservatives have a seven (in other words, less than half). Most of the time, they do not have the votes to get fiscally conservative bills onto the Governor’s desk, or to send those bills to the ballot via referenda (a move that bypasses the Governor’s veto pen). (GROE NOTE: Remember this when election time comes around in the fall!)
With a solid majority of fiscal conservatives in the Legislature, Arizona would not have overspent during the last five years, and we would not have the largest budget deficit in the nation. In any case, a fiscally conservative majority (with some cooperation from the Governor) would make short work of current deficits, holding FY 2008 and FY 2009 spending constant at FY 2007 levels ($9.8 billion). Modest transfers of cash from the Rainy Day Fund could easily balance those budgets—without accounting gimmicks, and without taking on debt.
Although most of Arizona’s fiscally profligate legislators are Democrats, this is not a strictly partisan problem. In the recent Senate battle over HB 2220, Republicans Carolyn Allen of Scottsdale and Tom O’Halleran of Prescott voted to increase property taxes, while Democrat Ken Cheuvront of Phoenix provided the 16th vote to get tax relief out of the Senate. In the House, Democrat Mark DeSimone crossed party lines to vote for property tax relief, while Republicans Pete Hershberger and Jennifer Burns chose to snub homeowners and businesses.
A fourth ace would be legislative leadership strong enough to bargain hard with the Governor and put petty bills on hold until the budget crisis is resolved. Individually, some of our legislative leaders are face cards, but collectively, they’re more like a six—easily beaten by the Queen of Spending.
The only good card fiscal conservatives hold this year is the wild card of grassroots taxpayer activism. Taxpayer activists must work hard to push to balance the FY 2009 budget without tax increases, accounting gimmicks or debt, put strong property tax and budget reforms on the November ballot, and support fiscally conservative candidates in September and November. If they do those things, the grassroots wild card could turn out to be the missing ace fiscal conservatives need to play a winning hand this year.
The stakes of the fiscal-policy poker match are high. Arizona can choose the path of strong economic growth and prosperity, or it can slide into high-tax, high-spending sluggishness. Grassroots taxpayer activists will decide.
--Tom Jenney is the Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity (https://owa.azleg.state.az.us/exchweb/bin/redir.asp?URL=http://www.aztaxpayers.org)
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Defining Marriage
Let the people of Arizona define marriage
Cathi Herrod
Arizona Daily Star
February 21, 2008
Arizonans could have an opportunity to decide the future of marriage in our state in November. Resolutions introduced in the Senate and House would refer to the voters a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
The amendment simply states, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."
The majority of Arizonans agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Gov. Napolitano has stated on multiple occasions that she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
This amendment allows voters to decide if the Arizona Constitution should reflect and protect that belief.
Marriage is a unifying issue — for Arizonans and for all Americans. A November 2007 poll found that 65 percent of Arizonans support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Nationwide, an average of 70 percent of people agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This belief cuts across religions, cultural backgrounds and political associations.
Arizonans previously have not been given an opportunity to voice their opinion on a definition of marriage that does not involve debate over domestic-partnership benefits.
This amendment is not about disagreements about benefits or domestic partnerships. This amendment is about what the majority of Arizonans agree on — defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A constitutional amendment is necessary to protect the rights of the people of Arizona to decide on marriage. The future of marriage in Arizona should not be a judge's decision, and it should not be a politician's decision. The people should decide.
We have seen what happened in Massachusetts in 2003, when the state Supreme Court imposed a redefinition of marriage that the people of the commonwealth never agreed to. We also see active legal challenges in California, Connecticut and Iowa, where courts are being asked to overrule state statutes that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The bottom line is that a state statute cannot control what a future court or legislature might do with marriage. Approving a constitutional amendment defining marriage eliminates that uncertainty. The people of Arizona have the right to decide the future of marriage in Arizona.
So let the people decide.
Cathi Herrod
Arizona Daily Star
February 21, 2008
Arizonans could have an opportunity to decide the future of marriage in our state in November. Resolutions introduced in the Senate and House would refer to the voters a constitutional amendment defining marriage.
The amendment simply states, "Only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."
The majority of Arizonans agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Gov. Napolitano has stated on multiple occasions that she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.
This amendment allows voters to decide if the Arizona Constitution should reflect and protect that belief.
Marriage is a unifying issue — for Arizonans and for all Americans. A November 2007 poll found that 65 percent of Arizonans support a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union between one man and one woman. Nationwide, an average of 70 percent of people agree that marriage should be between one man and one woman. This belief cuts across religions, cultural backgrounds and political associations.
Arizonans previously have not been given an opportunity to voice their opinion on a definition of marriage that does not involve debate over domestic-partnership benefits.
This amendment is not about disagreements about benefits or domestic partnerships. This amendment is about what the majority of Arizonans agree on — defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman. A constitutional amendment is necessary to protect the rights of the people of Arizona to decide on marriage. The future of marriage in Arizona should not be a judge's decision, and it should not be a politician's decision. The people should decide.
We have seen what happened in Massachusetts in 2003, when the state Supreme Court imposed a redefinition of marriage that the people of the commonwealth never agreed to. We also see active legal challenges in California, Connecticut and Iowa, where courts are being asked to overrule state statutes that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
The bottom line is that a state statute cannot control what a future court or legislature might do with marriage. Approving a constitutional amendment defining marriage eliminates that uncertainty. The people of Arizona have the right to decide the future of marriage in Arizona.
So let the people decide.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
HCR 2038~Spending Limit for Arizona Government
A Proposed Floor Resolution to be made at the January 26, 2008 Republican State Committee:
Whereas, the Governor and her legislative allies have spent the state government into a billion-dollar budget deficit;
Whereas, some legislators are using the deficit to justify bringing back the state equalization property tax;
Whereas, in 2006 and 2007, state government spending as a portion of the state economy, as measured by personal income, exceeded 6.4 percent;
Whereas, fiscal moderation and fiscal conservatism both demand that government not be allowed to grow faster than the private economy;
Whereas, the existing Constitutional spending limit of 7.41 percent of state personal income was far too high to restrain recent spending binges;
Resolved, the Arizona Republican Party in Convention assembled on this 26th day of January 2008 does hereby declare that:
The Arizona Republican Party supports HCR 2038, a referendum bill introduced in the Second Session of the 48th Arizona Legislature, which would allow voters in November 2008 to amend Arizona’s Constitutional spending limit to cap spending by the state government at no more than 6.4 percent of state personal income;
Further, the following legislators are to be commended for sponsoring HCR 2038: from the Arizona House of Representatives, Russell Pearce, Mark Anderson, Ray Barnes, Andy Biggs, Judy Burges, Sam Crump, Eddie Farnsworth, Trish Groe, John Kavanagh, Rick Murphy, Bob Stump, House Speaker Jim Weiers, and Steven Yarbrough, and from the Arizona Senate, Robert “Bob” Burns, Ron Gould, Jack Harper, Sen. Karen Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor.
Whereas, the Governor and her legislative allies have spent the state government into a billion-dollar budget deficit;
Whereas, some legislators are using the deficit to justify bringing back the state equalization property tax;
Whereas, in 2006 and 2007, state government spending as a portion of the state economy, as measured by personal income, exceeded 6.4 percent;
Whereas, fiscal moderation and fiscal conservatism both demand that government not be allowed to grow faster than the private economy;
Whereas, the existing Constitutional spending limit of 7.41 percent of state personal income was far too high to restrain recent spending binges;
Resolved, the Arizona Republican Party in Convention assembled on this 26th day of January 2008 does hereby declare that:
The Arizona Republican Party supports HCR 2038, a referendum bill introduced in the Second Session of the 48th Arizona Legislature, which would allow voters in November 2008 to amend Arizona’s Constitutional spending limit to cap spending by the state government at no more than 6.4 percent of state personal income;
Further, the following legislators are to be commended for sponsoring HCR 2038: from the Arizona House of Representatives, Russell Pearce, Mark Anderson, Ray Barnes, Andy Biggs, Judy Burges, Sam Crump, Eddie Farnsworth, Trish Groe, John Kavanagh, Rick Murphy, Bob Stump, House Speaker Jim Weiers, and Steven Yarbrough, and from the Arizona Senate, Robert “Bob” Burns, Ron Gould, Jack Harper, Sen. Karen Johnson, and Senate Majority Leader Thayer Verschoor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
