Category Archives: Voting

Democrats, Politics, Voting

Real Constitutionalists and Grumpy Spouses

Leave a comment

Another fine day of canvassing for my local candidates.

One conversation:

“Hi, I’m Clif. I’m with the Democrats.” (That’s me speaking.)

“Democrats? Oh, no. I’m a constitutionalist. I believe in the Constitution.”

“Oh, great! Same here!”

“No, I’m a real constitutionalist.”

“Yeah? Me too.”

And we go back and forth like that for about 45 minutes.

Kidding! She just said, “Uh huh. Right. Bye.” and closed the door.


Legislative District 17

Another convo:

“Hi, I’m Clif. I’m with the Democrats.”

Roughly 50-year-old male answers the door:
“The Democrats?”

He literally thumbs his nose at me. Which I thought was pretty funny.

Thing is, I was looking for a female voter at that house. I can’t tell you how many times I get a grumpy spouse who doesn’t like Democrats or doesn’t like being bothered, but then I ask for their spouse and find their spouse extremely receptive.

I remember one of my first times canvassing this happened. The spouse answered and was like, “We don’t want any.”

His partner overhears and says, “Who is it?”

“The Democrats.”

“Get out of here!” she tells the spouse, literally pushing him out of the doorway. Then she signed whatever petitions I had and complained about ol’ President Pussygrab.

Another convo:

“Hi, I’m Clif. I’m with the Democrats. I’m out collecting signatures for two candidates who are running for the state Senate and House in our district.”

“The Democrats? Oh my god. Where do I sign?”

“Haha! Yeah, I talk to people all the time who are so happy to find that there are others of us out there.”

“Yeah, my friend said to me the other day, ‘You ever feel like the white speck in the potting soil?’ I was like, ‘Yeah!'”

I tell her that there are more white specks than she probably realizes. (Not my analogy, folks!) Actually, most people I speak to don’t realize that the state is almost equally split between people who lean Republican and people who lean Democratic.

Of course, that varies from district to district. I’m kinda lucky in that I’m in a purple district with great candidates who have a real shot at winning.

Democrats, Green, Libertarians, Republicans, Statistics, Voting

Arizona Voter Registration 1924-2016

Leave a comment

Updated February 20th, 2017

Overview:

  • Democratic registration has fallen from 40% in 1998 to 30% in 2016
  • Republican registration has fallen from 45% in 1998 to 35% in 2016
  • Independent registration has risen from 14% in 1998 to 34% in 2016
  • Greens have ranged between .13% and .20%
  • Libertarians have ranged between .58% and .87%

     

    View in Google Docs.

    From AZCentral.com:

    Independents: Cans and can’ts

    • Can vote in partisan primaries but must select either a Democratic or Republican ballot and stick with it.
    • Can’t jump between parties. Even if on the permanent early-voting list, must let elections officials know each election cycle which ballot they want.
    • Can’t vote in the Presidential Preference Election.
Arizona, Government, Politics, Reference, Voting

Voting

Leave a comment

Legislative District 21

PARTISAN BALLOT

US Rep in Congress, District 6:
Rebecca Schneider (DEM)
Jeff Flake (REP)
Rick Biondi (LBT)

* * *

State Senator, District 18:

Judah Nativio (DEM)

* * *

State Rep, District 18:
Tammie Pursley (DEM)
Steve Court (REP)
Cecil Ash (REP)
· In favor of photo radar for traffic enforcement but not as revenue generator

Joe Brown (IND)

Corporation Commissioner:
Newman, George, Kennedy (DEM)
Wong, McClure, Stump (REP)

County Board of Supervisors, District 2:
Joel Sinclair (DEM)
Don Stapley (REP)

County Assessor:
Keith Russell (REP)
Rachel Kielsky (LBT)

County Attorney:
Tim Nelson (DEM)
Andrew P. Thomas (REP)
Michael Kielsky (LBT)

Country Recorder:
Helen Purcell (REP)
Ernest Hancock (LBT)

County School Superintendent:
Don Covey (REP)
David Hodges (LBT)

Sheriff:
Dan Saban (DEM)
Joe Arpaio (REP)
Chris Will (LBT)

County Treasurer:
Charles “Hos” Hoskins (REP)

NONPARTISAN BALLOT
Maricopa County Special Health Care, District 2 (no more than 1):
Harlan T. Stratton
Rob Carey
Greg Patterson

Mesa Unif No. 4, School Governing Board Member (no more than 3):
Steven J. Peterson
Ben Whiting
Kate J. Ali’Varius
Lance Entrekin
Michael S. Nichols

Prop 400: Proposed amendment to the Mesa city charter by the city council relation to the implementation of an individual residential rental inspection (“Slum Landlord”) program as authorized by state law, upon consent of the owner, tenant, or court.

Question 1, Public Safety Bonds
A vote “For the Bonds” shall authorize the City of Mesa to issue and sell $58,300,000 of general obligation bonds for Public Safety purposes.

Question 2, Street Bonds
A vote “For the Bonds” shall authorize the City of Mesa to issue and sell $110,900,000 of general obligation bonds for Street, Highway and Traffic Control improvement purposes.

Justice of the Supreme Court
Shall the following Justices of the Supreme Court of Arizona be retained in office?
Scott Bales

Judges of the Court of Appeals, Division 1
Shall the following Judges of the Court of Appeals, Division 1, of Arizona be retained in office?
Diane Johnsen
Patricia Orozco
Ann Scott Timmer

Judges of the Superior Court
Shall the following Judges of the Superior Court be reainted in office?
Name and Division
Helene F. Abrams, 67
Linda A. Akers, 17
Louis A. Araneta, 9
Silvia R. Arellano, 4
Anna Maria Baca, 10
Eddward P. Ballinger, Jr., 19
Craig A. Blakey, 53
John A. Buttrick, 45
Bruce R. Cohen, 68
Connie C. Contes, 52
Glenn M. Davis, 76
John Richard Ditsworth, 44
Thomas Dunevant III, 2
Lisa Daniel Flores, 77
Jeanne Marie Garcia, 65
Jo Lynn Gentry-Lewis, 69
Michael D. Gordon, 72
John R. Hannah, Jr., 74
Carie A. Harrison, 46
Ruth H. Hilliard, 1
Kristin C. Hoffman, 70
Paul A. Katz, 3
Michael William Kemp, 66
Andrew G. Klein, 48
Margaret R. Mahoney, 55
Crane McClennen, 18
Paul J. McMurdie, 73
Colleen McNally, 42
Michael R. McVey, 8
Linda H. Miles, 54
Robert E. Miles, 75
Robert H. Oberbillig, 20
José S. Padilla, 78
Karen A. Potts, 79
Timothy J. Ryan, 71
Teresa A. Sanders, 49
Roland J. Steinle, III, 43
Sherry K. Stephens, 47
Richard J. Trujillo, 50
David K. Udall, 51
Christopher T. Whitten, 80

PROPOSITION 100
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE INITIATIVE RELATING TO REAL PROPERTY
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase or other conveyance of real estate after Dec. 31 2007.

Voted “No.” I find it extreme to amend the constitution for this purpose. I also find it suspicious that so many of the opinions in favor of the amendment were paid for apparently by those responsible for getting the proposed amendment added to the ballot. (Though, I really don’t know for sure how this proposed amendment was added to the ballot.) I find the argument against the ballot, that a potential source of revenue for the state would be lost, to be convincing.

Further, there is no indication that anyone has any intention of imposing this tax, in the near or distant future.

PROPOSITION 101
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE INITIATIVE RELATING TO HEALTH CARE
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of prohibiting laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity’s right to pay for lawful medical services, and impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

Voted “no.” As with 100, I can find no information on who has worked to get this proposed amendment on the ballot. The arguments for and against seem equally convincing to me, though.
As I see it now, though, there is no indication that anyone is trying to take away my right to seek medical coverage however I see fit. Therefore, an amendment is unnecessary.

PROPOSITION 102
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE LEGISLATURE RELATING TO MARRIAGE
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of amending the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman, while maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of maintaining the current statutory law of the State of Arizona, which prohibits marriage between persons of the same sex, but would not amend the Arizona Constitution to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.

Voted, “no.” This proposal is exclusionary and the existing law is exclusionary. Anyone unreasonable enough to get married should be able to have that marriage legally recognized as valid.

PROPOSITION 105
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION BY THE INITIATIVE RELATING TO THE INITIATIVE
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law under which an initiative measure is enacted upon approval of a majority of registered voters that vote on the measure.

Voted “no.” This seems to be the most extreme anti-tax proposal. I would prefer to maintain the right to not vote on certain proposals in the future.

* * *

PROPOSITION 200
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION RELATING TO PAYDAY LOANS
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of repealing the July 1, 2010 termination date for the existing “payday loan” licensing program thus allowing it to continue indefinitely, allowing payday loan licensees to provide electronic debit agreement services, prohibiting services over 35 days, requiring payday loan agreements be in English or Spanish, prohibiting certain fees, permitting only one payday loan transaction with a customer each business day, requiring a payment plan if requested by the customer, prohibiting arrangements with customers having outstanding repayment plans, allowing licensees to make other loans and requiring licensee applicants to maintain a minimum net worth of at least $50.000 per location up to a maximum of $1,000,000.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding payday loans, which are to terminate on July 1, 2010.

Voted “no.” I was convinced by the opposition arguments that this proposal would only lower ceiling interest rates from %400 to %391. I am not in favor of any aspect of the payday loan industry anyway. If a measure were attached that made it mandatory for those trying to acquire a payday loan to pass some basic math problems, I might be more in favor of otherwise letting the free market rule over payday loans.

* * *

PROPOSITION 201
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION RELATING TO HOMEOWNERS
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of granting “prospective buyers” a right to sue over a dwelling action, permitting lawsuits despite alternative dispute resolution provisions in sales contracts, shortening buyer purchaser notice and seller response period before and after filing defects lawsuit, requiring seller to inspect dwelling after receiving notice, requiring any seller offer to include repair or replace option that must be performed by a licensed contractor, eliminating seller right to receive attorney fees and costs if the seller prevails, mandating seller to provide ten year warranty of materials and workmanship, requiring newly constructed dwelling contract to include disclosure of sellers financial relationship with a financial institution, disallowing seller from requiring a buyer deposit unless contract allows 100 day cancellation period, extending from eight to ten years the time to file suit against any person making improvements to real property, and expanding remedies available to an owner who is successful in a dwelling action against the seller.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining the current law regarding purchaser dwelling actions.

Voted “yes.” I was swayed by Terry Landa’s story of wrongs she suffered at the hands of Engle Homes.

* * *

PROPOSITION 202
PROPOSED BY INITIATIVE PETITION RELATING TO EMPLOYMENT
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of modifying the laws covering employers who knowingly or intentionally employ “unauthorized aliens,” suspending or revoking licenses of businesses that employ unauthorized aliens, adding penalties on employers who fail to properly report cash wages, increasing penalties for identity theft related to employment, and establishing a presumption favoring an employer that verifies employee eligibility under federal law.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of retaining Arizona’s current employment laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien.

Voted “no.” I don’t like the arguments for or against this proposition. I don’t like the organizations (Wake Up Arizona fast food franchise owners) that are apparently behind the proposition. I think I am voting with the Republicans and bigots by voting “no,” and that is somewhat troubling to me.

* * *

PROPOSITION 300
RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION ON SALARIES FOR ELECTIVE STATE OFFICERS AS TO LEGISLATIVE SALARIES HAS BEEN CERTIFIED TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND IS HEREBY SUBMITTED TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION.
A “yes” vote shall have the effect of raising State Legislators’ salaries to $30,000 per year.

A “no” vote shall have the effect of keeping State Legislators’ salaries at $24,000 per year.

Voted “yes” and hoped that my vote is justified. I read opposition where people say that the position is part-time and requires only 100 days/year of work. I read support that says that the amendment could mean more jobs.

Arizona Congressional Districts PDF Map