« Race to be the most annoying? | Main | TIME on Your Side? »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Greg, you wrote, " The minimum wage bill would clearly fall in this category but how does "ending state benefits for illegal immigrants" meet the definition? I've talked to the author of Prop. 105 and he certainly doesn't think that "tribal gaming" or "ending state benefits for illegal immigrants" would have been blocked if Prop. 105 were already in effect."

Can we find an impartial reviewer of Prop. 105 to respond to your question?


I'm sure he could ask the Governor or the unions for their opinion. Or he could ask the editorial board at the tribune. However, since the editorial mimicks the Governor's and the union's arguements, it may be a waste of time to call both sources. You should understand that if a law is challenged a judge will ask the author's intent of the legislation. Therefore, it makes sense that you go straight to the horse's mouth.

Greg: you misspelled "exaggerated." Far be it from me to play the English professor, but that seems sloppy.

I certainly don't know what the Tribune's rationale was in regards to past initiatives but I can certainly imagine some possible answers. Its actually quite surprising the author of the initiative doesn't as they seem rather obvious.

In terms of tribal gaming, Prop 202, the expansion of gaming meant the Department of Gaming had a large increase in administrative and regulatory costs.

For the illegal immigration initiative mentioned, it made it a crime for public employees to provide services to undocumented workers. Making something a crime obligates the state to enforce it. Prosecuting a crime costs money.

Now the first example may have not caused a *net* spending increase because some percentage of the gaming revenue went to the state. However, I see nothing in the initiative that mentions net increases, just taxes and "spending obligations."

In the second example, again, making things crimes costs money. One could claim that in the long-run this saves money, but I see no provision in the initiative that would allow one to make that claim.

Now to your first claim, this is what you quote from the editorial
"The organizers behind this year's Proposition 105 have a easy message - they want to stop special interest groups from using the ballot box to take more of your money unless a true majority of Arizonans agree it's a good idea."

You will notice that they claim this is message, which I would agree with since the initiative is called "Majority Rule", not "Majority of Qualified Electors Rule." The initiative is playing on the ambiguity of the word majority and using it in a way that is not typical when one talks about voting.

As I have pointed out before, this initiative is un-democratic and I believe will actually "mandate a spending obligation" since to have absolutely accurate numbers for registered votes it will require additional tracking and bureaucracy.

"Making something a crime obligates the state to enforce it."

This is not correct. Enforcing the law is considered discretionary. Ask Mr. Sensing (the owner of Pruitt's) or read CV07-0282, which is available at the Az Supreme Court website, if you disagree.

mahtso, that was interesting and you are correct. i would add when the initiative was passed part of it was that any citizen could bring suit and seek mandamus and that courts would need to give actions brought under this preference over any of civil actions or proceedings. the initiative authors thought the initiative would force the state to enforce this law in the way the wanted but they were later ruled against.

It takes two to tango. When Napolitano signed the human smuggling law, I think she intended it only to crack down on those smuggling slaves and prostitutes into the country. Andrew Thomas, and Arpaio, clearly took the law to mean more than that. Those two guys have gone to town on smugglers, smugglees, and hundreds have been convicted.

My first point is that she did nothing to refine her view and instead let the whole thing slide. She must have done some polling. Or I'm just wrong.

My second point is that "legislative intent" should include "executive intent" because, barring a veto override, nothing the legislature does becomes law without that signature.

Judges have a hard enough time interpreting what the law says, let alone interpreting what lawmakers said.

Name, even the legislators who wrote the law claim they did not intend for it to be used for that. Actually, all Arpaio and Thomas have done is arrested some illegal immigrants and a few low-level people. Pretty much zero but good PR. Well, until people realize all the things they aren't doing while they are busy with the show.

So not only did the gov, but the legislators as well, let Thomas slide and incarcerate hundreds of people. A simple lawsuit, on the public dime even, would have stopped that law in its tracks. But they did exactly nothing. What does that tell us about the "legislators who wrote the law?"

I'm saying they need to take their "oops" public policy agenda to the court and make their argument. Not to the media, not to the ballot box. To the court. So some reasonable people can toss back and forth about who meant what.

They fear the outcome, and would prefer to instead beat up on Arpaio and Thomas without suffering permanent consequences.

Greg - Beware the word "clearly". When you feel compelled to use it, make sure you are not doing so in order to be persuasive in the absence of real information that is, in fact, clear. My point is that the gaming initiative "clearly" could be construed as obligating a private entity to make a spending obligation, since it requires both a revenue sharing device as well as a community contribution device. But then, are tribes a private entity? Or a sovereign government? Hmmmm. Not that clear. That's why I object to this kind of policy setting at the ballot box where there is no ability to divine the sponsor's intent other than by reading their press releases or their (gasp) blogs.

Maybe the discussion is 'sloppy' because the proposition is 'sloppily' written...

Greg wrote: "Rather than go through my massive archive of media mistakes, I just pointed him to this editorial in today's Tribune. It's a great example of how media coverage is sloppy and wrong."

You don't, by chance, keep an archive of your mistakes on this site, do you? Nope -- you actually remove posts wholesale when told they are inaccurate. Comments, too, when they point those "sloppy and wrong" posts out.

Ahh, accountability is lovely, isn't it? One of my favorite things to do each week is read the "corrections" section of the NYT. Not only are many of them (unintentionally) hilarious, but it shows that the journalists there do care about the quality of their work and that the paper (and all others that publish corrections) is willing to stand up and make a mea culpa when necessary.

Sure, they could just remove the article from their Web site entirely, or correct it surreptitiously, but they have more class than that. More conscience, too, I would imagine.

There are certainly many things about this initiative that cause concerns for Arizona’s community, civic, and business interests. The first and most obvious problem is that among Arizona's "Qualified Electors" exist hundreds of thousands of deceased voters that have not been cleared from the voter roles. This means that Minority Rules (Prop 105) will give a voice, not only to apathy, but to deceased voters.

What, 2.7 million voters statewide and 10% are actually dead?

And the papers issue corrections probably less from goodness-of-heart than from legal liability. Class? Bwaaahhhaaaa!

The comments to this entry are closed.