Legislative District 21
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)
Â· In favor of photo radar for traffic enforcement but not as revenue generator
Joe Brown (IND)
Newman, George, Kennedy (DEM)
Wong, McClure, Stump (REP)
County Board of Supervisors, District 2:
Joel Sinclair (DEM)
Don Stapley (REP)
Keith Russell (REP)
Rachel Kielsky (LBT)
Tim Nelson (DEM)
Andrew P. Thomas (REP)
Michael Kielsky (LBT)
Helen Purcell (REP)
Ernest Hancock (LBT)
County School Superintendent:
Don Covey (REP)
David Hodges (LBT)
Dan Saban (DEM)
Joe Arpaio (REP)
Chris Will (LBT)
Charles “Hos” Hoskins (REP)
Maricopa County Special Health Care, District 2 (no more than 1):
Harlan T. Stratton
Mesa Unif No. 4, School Governing Board Member (no more than 3):
Steven J. Peterson
Kate J. Ali’Varius
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?
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?
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
JosÃ© 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
* * *
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.
* * *
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 â€œnoâ€ 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.
* * *
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.
* * *
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