How I am planning to vote and why:
My Values
On the economy she wants to invest in the everyday people which makes an economy really move
Strongly for Universal Healthcare which from a small business and public servant perspective people really underestimate what it could mean for all of us if we really didn’t need to pay for our healthcare and how much money can be saved with a focus on prevention as well as remove the profit motive
On money and outsider’s voices in elections: I hate it – though I am a radical I want to see rank order voting as soon as possible! Get financial interests out of politics and make government focus on what it should be focused on – improving the lives of their citizens
My focus on being a communalist we do what is best for us all – even if it hurts me a bit right now – if need that help later I know people will have my back!
Also I believe the economy does better when more everyday people have more, I think a rising tide lift all boats. While poor people don’t hire people their spending does create demand.
I am for equity – which is different from equality – there is a need to notice people in the most acute situations and do what is needed to help them the most – first.
- Freedom. In terms of our political foundations, the most basic progressive value is freedom. This also happens to be one of the most contested values in American life. Progressives have a two-part definition of freedom: “freedom from” and “freedom to”. First, we believe that all people should have freedom from undue interference by governments and others in carrying out their private affairs and personal beliefs. This includes our rights to freedom of speech, association, and religion as well as the freedom to control our own bodies and personal lives. Second, we believe that all people should have the freedom to lead a fulfilling and secure life supported by the basic foundations of economic security and opportunity. This includes physical protections against bodily harm as well as adequate income, economic protections, health care and education, and other social provisions…
- Opportunity. Complementing our commitment to human freedom is our belief in opportunity. Like freedom, the concept of opportunity has two components: one focuses on political equality and the other on economic and social arrangements that enhance our lives. The first component of opportunity prohibits discrimination against anyone based on race, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religious faith or non-faith, or disability. It also means embracing the diversity of American society by ensuring that all people have the chance to turn their talents and ambitions into a meaningful life, not just the rich and powerful or dominant racial and ethnic groups. The second component of opportunity involves the conditions necessary for people to be secure and to move up in life — health care, education, a decent job, labor rights, a secure retirement…
- Responsibility. Along with freedom and opportunity comes responsibility — personal responsibility and the responsibility we have to each other and to the common good. Personal responsibility requires each of us to do our part to improve our own lives through hard work, education, and by acting with honesty and integrity. Responsibility to others and to the common good requires a commitment to putting the public interest above the interests of a few and an understanding that strong families and communities are the foundation of a good society. It means working to achieve greater social justice and economic conditions that benefit civil society broadly. It demands an open and honest government and an engaged and participatory citizenry…
This requires pubic investments in things like transportation and trade, innovation, a skilled workforce, courts to protect patent rights and contract agreements, public safety and other measures that support the creation of wealth and help to make individual prosperity possible. It also requires progressive taxation, meaning those who have and earn more should pay more to help support the investments in things like schools, transportation, and economic competitiveness necessary to advance the interests of all.
A key component of responsibility involves ecological and social sustainability. This requires on-going stewardship of our land, water, air and natural resources, smart use of energy, and the responsible consumption of goods…
- Cooperation. Rounding out these political values which are primarily directed at the rights, opportunities, and duties of individuals is the basic progressive value of cooperation. Cooperation is the foundation of our most important social institutions including our families, our communities, and our civic and faith groups. Freedom without cooperation leads to a divided society that cannot work together to achieve common goals and improve the lives of all. Cooperation as a value requires that we try to be open-minded and empathetic toward others and that we are accountable for their well-being as they are accountable to us. Progressives believe that if we blindly pursue our own needs and ignore those of others, our society will degenerate.
Successful families and communities cannot exist without cooperation. We also value human interdependence on a larger scale and accept the importance of looking beyond our own needs to help others and find global solutions to global problems.
– “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we’re willing to fight for it.”
– “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”
– “We believe that the Internet shouldn’t be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”
– “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”
– “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”
– “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”
– “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”
– “We believe — I can’t believe I have to say this in 2014 — we believe in equal pay for equal work.”
– “We believe that equal means equal, and that’s true in marriage, it’s true in the workplace, it’s true in all of America.”
– “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”
– “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”
A note and a word about the Maricopa Community College Elections
Being that I work at and with the Maricopa Community College District – there appears to be pattern of people who are looking to make a name for themselves in promoting cutting benefits and opportunities for students at MCCCD. This is happening with State Superintendent of education with Tracy Livingston in her failed bid to be the republican candidate – and with John Heep and Lauren Hendrix. My concern is they want to defund and hinder the MCCCD colleges then attempt to sell them to a for profit institution or just make us so unable to provide for our student’s and community’s that everyone goes to a for profit higher education institution.
Maricopa Community College District
District 3 VOTE FOR Marie Sullivan
Three way race one fake moderate to split the vote Stan Arterberry who is from GCU who has a vested interest in seeing all Higher education privatized and for profit is running as the moderate but his real purpose is to divide the vote from Marie Sullivan so Debbie Vandenboom can win – she wants to be part of the district board because she believe colleges are inviting Planned Parenthood on campus to provide abortions???
Marie Sullivan has been involved in economic and workforce development, education, and women and family issues for over 40 years. She is the Principal and Owner of Marie Sullivan LLC, focused on Advancing Possibilities of businesses, nonprofits, and government entities to achieve their strategic, innovative and impactful goals. Previously Marie served for 20 years as the President and CEO of Arizona Women’s Education and Employment, Inc., (AWEE), a non-profit organization dedicated to changing people’s lives through the dignity of work. She has worked in public policy development and advocacy in the social service and faith-based sectors. Overtime she has served on over 25 education, social service and faith-based boards.
Marie currently serves as a member of the AZ Center for Economic Progress Board, the Phoenix Charter 100 Board, and Arizona Town Hall, Marie most recently served as a leader of the Maricopa County Workforce Development Board and Executive Committee, as a member of the Phoenix College President’s Advisory Council, the AZTechForce Foundation Task Force, and the West Valley Community Bank Advisory Board for Small Business Development. Marie has been named one of the 50 Most Influential Women in Business in Arizona and received the Jeanne Lind Herberger Award given to a woman committed to advancing the condition of women and girls through service and philanthropy. Marie has been awarded the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce’s prestigious ATHENA Award, given to a woman acknowledged for her excellence in business, her community service and involvement, and her professional mentorship of women. She was named Public Service Leader of the Year, Tribute to Women Award, by the YWCA, was named Goodman’s Good Guy Award winner as the outstanding nonprofit business leader in the Metropolitan Phoenix area, and is a Valley Leadership alumna.
For eight years Marie served as a publicly elected member of the Madison Elementary School District Governing Board, where she served both as President and Clerk of the Board and represented her congressional district to the National School Board Association’s Federal Relations Network. She is an alumna of Leadership America where she participated with a select group of women from throughout the United States to discuss and provide leadership on issues affecting the American landscape. Marie is married and the mother of two young adults.
District 4 VOTE FOR Stan Arterberry vs Jean McGrath
Explain area
Jean McGrath no more money for MCCCD – its community members or its student’s please wow!
The complaint states that student learning must be a primary focus and educational institutions must avoid “undue influence” that is personal, financial or political.
The faculty association alleges that “certain members of the college’s current governing board appear to be substantially motivated by ideological or political interests.” The complaint says some board members act on those interests “even when doing so does not benefit students or support the educational mission of the colleges.”
As an example, the complaint says Governing Board member McGrath emailed state legislators in spring 2017 to oppose state funding for the colleges while district officials were requesting that state funding to the colleges be restored. The Arizona Legislature began cutting state funding to the Maricopa Community Colleges during the recession and eliminated funding the colleges from the state general fund in 2016.
McGrath wrote an email to legislators on March 27, 2017, stating the reason the district is asking for money is that “they are miffed at being left out of the budget.” The email details the millions of dollars the college district receives from tuition, property taxes and other sources.
“Please spend the state’s money where it is needed, not at the community college district in Maricopa County,” the email says.
McGrath is running for re-election on a platform of reducing tuition and lowering taxes. She states on her campaign website that foregoing state funding for the community colleges “allows the state to increase support for K-12 education.”
District 4 Vote for Stan!
Stan Arterberry worked 35 years in higher education and 34 years in the California Community College system. He served as a Community College CEO for 20 years and reported to a Community College Governing Board for 19 years. He fully understands the responsibility of Board members and will hold College staff accountable to achieve student success. He is committed to affordable, accessible educational/workforce training programs, quality student support services, and equitable state fiscal support for Maricopa Colleges. Before taking action on any recommendations from staff, he will ask “How does this recommendation promote/contribute to Student Success?”
District 5 Tom Nerini Running unopposed
My entire career has been dedicated to helping students access and succeed in education. For more than 20 years I have worked and attended some of the best colleges in North America. I’ve designed, implemented and coordinated highly successful programs which ensured student access and success in college. I know what it takes for students to be successful in college.
For the past 8 years I have worked as a school counselor in Phoenix Union High School District. Each day I am fortunate to work with students; to get to know their dreams, their abilities and the obstacles they face . I know what they are capable of and what an asset they are to our community. I know that the Community College is the best and, for many students, the only hope to access higher education.
As a graduate of the Phoenix Union High School district and an alumnus of MCCCD, I am these students, and I am running for the Governing Board to ensure that MCCCD remains a strong and vital gateway to economic security for the individual and the source of a well-educated work force necessary for our community to compete in the 21st century.
At Large Roc Arnette
About John Heep – no information except he is a republican on web
John Heep is the incumbent. He’s served on the board for two years and acknowledges declining enrollment is an issue.
“School population is down across the country as much as 10 to 15 percent, even higher than that in a lot of places,” Heep said. “So everyone is reacting to this phenomenon and trying to find new sources of students.”
Heep said during his tenure the governing board has boosted its marketing to increase enrollment. But there have been additional challenges with funding. “We’re also adjusting to not having the monies coming in from the state,” Heep said.
This year, the legislature completely cut state funding to the Maricopa Community College District. Heep’s at large challenger Linda Thor said while those cuts are unfortunate, they can be made up with property taxes. Even though taxes are not a popular topic among voters, Thor said “this one we can we directly tie back to benefits to the individual and to the community as a whole.”
Thor has worked in community colleges for 40 years and served as president of the Rio Salado Community College for 20 years. She thinks the community colleges could do a better job of targeting returning students.
“There are a lot of individuals out there who have some college credits but don’t have a certificate or a degree,” Thor said. “We need to encourage those individuals to come back and complete those degrees.” She said community colleges could start offering boot camp style programs that would provide a shorter term pathway to jobs.
VS Roc Arnett
Roc Arnett is an Arizona native, and Mesa Community College Alumni. He lives in Northeast Mesa with his wife Sydney and has five grown children and twenty grandchildren.
Roc has thirty eight years experience brokering risk and insurance services to clients of a range of complexity including self-insured programs as well more traditional fully insured programs. In addition to insurance industry work, Roc has been active in the community, particularly in transportation and construction related areas of risk.
In 2003, Roc became President of the East Valley Partnership and directed a regional non-profit business coalition advocating for PHX East Valley primarily focused on Economic Development, Education, Transportation, Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Area, and Arts issues.
In addition, the Partnership is also engaged in enhancing East Valley’s tourism, regional healthcare and behavioral health programs, tribal relations, and sponsoring a variety of important informational forums and activities. Roc reported to a Board of Directors comprised of the more than 50 key civic, government, business and educational leaders in the PHX East Valley.
For the past two years, Roc has consulted on transportation, education and economic development projects principally in the PHX East Valley.
· Providing quality education at an affordable price.
· Creating jobs and careers that are in demand now and into the future through traditional education and a broadened focus on apprenticeship and certificate programs.
· Improving Maricopa Community Colleges’ student success and career preparation by ensuring state-of-the-art technology is accessible to remain a vital part of the county’s economy.
· Managing Maricopa Community Colleges’ finances conservatively while ensuring the system has its needed resources.
Vote Roc
Candidates for US Senate
Kyrsten Sinema
Martha McSally
Angela Green
Really holding my Nose and Voting for Kyrsten Sinema – she is like the worst of the Bernie Bros
Kyrsten Sinema is a Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate from Arizona. Sinema is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.
Sinema began her political career in the Arizona House of Representatives. She represented district 15 from 2005 until her election to the Arizona State Senate in 2010. She resigned from the senate on January 3, 2012, in order to run for Congress.[1][2]
Based on analysis of multiple outside rankings, Sinema is a more moderate left of center Democratic Party vote. As a result, she may break with the Democratic Party line more than her fellow members.
Biography
After receiving her master of social work and J.D. from Arizona State University, Sinema worked as an adjunct professor and faculty member for the Center for Progressive Leadership.[3] Her career in public service began in the Arizona State Legislature in 2005, where her advocacy included getting in-state tuition for veterans at all Arizona public universities, combating sex trafficking, and calling for improvements to children’s healthcare.[4]
She is the embodiment of everything problematic with looking at the Democratic Party and how it operates under whiteness – she is a moderate republican in democratic clothing. She will do the least damage
House District 6
Voting for Anita Malik – and love putting this vote in
David Schweikert has had a chokehold on this district forever – and he still may but Malik is awesome
In May 2017, Anita Malik made a bold choice. She stepped down from her role as Chief Operating Officer of a content technology company to run for the U.S. House of Representatives for Arizona’s 6th district. Having been at the forefront of advances in digital marketing and technology, Anita recognized the urgent need for real tech leadership in D.C.
The daughter of immigrants from India, Anita was born in Kansas City, Missouri. When she was 7, her family moved to Arizona. Her father, a mechanical and computer engineer, instilled in her the importance of leading with empathy and listening; her mother, a stay-at-home mom with a passion for the arts, taught her to appreciate the journey. She attended Scottsdale schools, graduating from Chaparral High School in 1994.
Anita went on to graduate summa cum laude with degrees in both computer information systems and finance from Arizona State University. She later earned her master’s in journalism from the University of Southern California in 2002.
“Anita Malik gives me hope. She is a smart, tough, energetic leader who will govern with heart. She believes having less money should not mean you have less of a voice in your government.” – Lisa Hamilton, voter.
Governor
Voting for David Garcia – big time happy about this vote former veteran former teacher – strong pick I think he can beat the ice cream man.
Biography
Email editor@ballotpedia.org to notify us of updates to this biography.
Dr. Garcia was born and raised in Mesa, Arizona. After completing his bachelor’s degree at Arizona State University, he earned a master’s and a doctorate degree in education policy from the University of Chicago. His dissertation examined segregation in Arizona’s charter schools.[1] Before running for Arizona superintendent of public instruction, Garcia worked at Arizona State University Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College as an associate professor.[2]
In addition to his teaching duties, Dr. Garcia served as the Associate Superintendent of Public Instruction for Standards and Accountability in Arizona. He also worked as a research analyst for the Arizona State Senate’s Education Committee and as a consultant for the U.S. Department of Education. In addition to his role as associate superintendent, Garcia’s leadership experience also includes service as the director of Research and Policy for the Arizona Department of Education and the director of the Arizona Education Policy Initiative.[2]. Over the years, Dr. Garcia has also published dozens of peer-reviewed articles and book chapters on education policy.[1]
Secretary of State
Voting for Katie Hobbs
Hobbs earned her B.A. in social work from Northern Arizona University in 1992 and her M.A. in social work from Arizona State University in 1995. Her professional experience includes working as director of government relations for the Sojourner Center, a member of the adjunct faculty of Paradise Valley Community College’s social and behavioral sciences, and a social worker. She is a former volunteer for the Arizona Democratic Party and Chair of District 15 Democrats.
Attorney General
Voting For January Contreras
January Contreras has a long history of fighting for Arizonans
January was a county and state prosecutor before founding a legal aid organization to protect Arizona’s women, children, and families. She envisions an Arizona where every one of us feels safe, where our constitutional and civil rights are protected without fail, and where the powerful no longer get away with playing by their own set of rules.
January fought against special interests to fend off cuts to health care insurance when she worked as a policy advisor to Governor Napolitano, and an Assistant Director at the Arizona Health Care Cost Cont January has taken on human traffickers
At ALWAYS, January has served Arizonans, including survivors of human trafficking. She has a passion for fighting for trafficking victims, and she will work to put a stop to these horrible crimes of greed and abuse from ever happening in Arizona again.
January combatted violence against women
At the Department of Homeland Security, January led the charge to establish the Council on Combating Violence Against Women. She has served on the White House Council on Women and Girls, contributed to the development of the U.S. National Action Plan on Women, Peace, and Security, and volunteered on the Board of Directors of the Arizona Coalition to End Sexual and Domestic Violence. At ALWAYS, she regularly represented victims of domestic violence who would otherwise have no lawyer.ainment System (AHCCCS).
State Treasurer
Voting FOR January Contreras
It used to be the case that you could buy a home, open up a small business and start a family without going into massive debt or flirting with the possibility of poverty. Today that isn’t the case. At least for most of us.
More and more we see people who can’t pay off their college debt, can’t afford a house, can’t qualify for a small-business loan, and can’t afford to start a family. Our kids can’t live at home forever – things have to change.
For too long our political establishment has enabled the bad behavior of corporations that gamble with our money, leaving us behind to pick up the pieces. When the government stops working for the people, we must elect new leaders to fix it. I will fight to create opportunity and restore dignity to an office that for too long has let politicians get away with bad budgets and self-dealing.
State Superintendent
Voting For Kathy Hoffman
Hoffman earned a master’s degree in speech language pathology from the University of Arizona. Her professional experience includes working as a speech language pathologist at the Peoria Unified School District. She has served as a member of the Arizona Education Association and the Arizona Federation for Teachers.[1]
Mine Inspector
Voting for William Pierce
Lets be honest I have not idea what to tell you here – but on this one the democrat looks like a miner not a business man – so I am going with William Pierce over business looking Joe Hart
Arizona Corporate Commission
Voting for First Kiana Sears
Passionate
Kiana Maria Sears is a passionate energy regulatory and public policy professional who is civically engaged as a community advocate and public education champion.
Inspired
She is uniquely inspired by her own background as part of a working family to ensure others are able to live healthy lives.
A Clean Election Candidate
Please join Kiana Sears as she promises to serve with integrity and to work hard every day to restore the public’s trust in this critical branch of Arizona’s democracy.
Best Friend working to get her elected – what else can I say
Then Sandra Kennedy
Sandra D. Kennedy is a Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commission. Kennedy is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.
Kennedy was an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Arizona Corporation Commissioner in the 2014 elections.[1] She is a former member of the commission.[2] She first assumed office in 2009 and served until 2013, following her re-election defeat in the general election on November 6, 2012.[3]
AZ Senate LD 20
Voting for Douglas Ervin
Experience and Education
Chief Development Architect for Phoenix headquartered software firm
Business Analyst for Scottsdale based consulting company
Controller for Phoenix small business
Corporate Tax Auditor for Arizona Department of Revenue
Assistant Manager for a foodservice business
Bachelor of Science in Accounting – DeVry Institute of Technology
Scottsdale High School, Pima and Loloma Elementary
Other
Private Pilot
Ironman Triathlete
Backpacker and Hiker
Passed Certified Public Accountant exam
Trained Leader for Climate Reality Project
Volunteer with PV School District’s VIP Program
Voting FOR Hazel Chandler
Hazel Chandler is a Democratic candidate seeking election to the Arizona House of Representatives to represent District 20. Chandler is running in the general election on November 6, 2018, after advancing from the primary on August 28, 2018.
Biography
Chandler earned her B.S. in child development and family studies from San Diego State University in 1971 and her M.A. in management from the University of Phoenix in 1983. She also completed the public manager program in 2012 at Arizona State University.
Mayor
David Valenzuela
Daniel Valenzuela is a nonpartisan candidate for Mayor of Phoenix in Arizona. Valenzuela is running in the general special election on November 6, 2018.
Valenzuela was a member of the Phoenix City Council in the state of Arizona, representing District 5. He was elected in 2011.[1] Valenzuela stepped down from the city council on July 18, 2018, to run for mayor of Phoenix.[2][3]
Biography.
Valenzuela’s professional experience includes working as an instructor for the Arizona Department of Emergency Management and the director of the National Fire and Rescue Services Information Officer Network.[1]
Propositions
VOTING Against 125
VOTING AGAINST 126
VOTING FOR 127
VOTING AGAINST 305
VOTING Against 306
Arizona Proposition 125, the Adjustments to Elected Officials’ and Corrections Officer’s Retirement Plans Amendment, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]
| A “yes” vote supports this amendment to make adjustments to retirement plans based on cost-of-living adjustments, rather than permanent benefit increases, for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers (Corrections Officer Retirement Plan) and elected officials (Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan). |
| A “no” vote opposes this amendment to make adjustments to retirement plans based on cost-of-living adjustments, rather than permanent benefit increases, for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers (Corrections Officer Retirement Plan) and elected officials (Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan). |
Overview
What would the ballot measure change?
Proposition 125 would allow the Arizona State Legislature to make adjustments to two state pension plans—the Corrections Officer Retirement Plan (CORP) and the Elected Officials’ Retirement Plan (EORP)—based on Senate Bill 1442 and House Bill 2545.[1]
Proposition 125 itself would not make changes to the two state pension plans, but would rather authorize the legislature to make changes. The legislature passed two bills to implement Proposition 125 if the constitutional amendment is approved:
- Senate Bill 1442 (SB 1442) would make adjustments to CORP based cost-of-living adjustments capped at 2 percent, rather than permanent benefit increases. CORP is the public retirement plan for correctional officers, probation officers, and surveillance officers. SB 1442 would also require corrections officers hired on or after July 1, 2018, to enroll in a defined-contribution (DC) retirement plan, rather than the defined-benefit (DB) retirement plan. A DB retirement plan, which officers hired before July 1, 2018, would continue to have, is a retirement benefits plan that guarantees a monthly or annual payment to retired employees based on a certain formula using years of employment, employee age, and employee earnings. A DC retirement plan is a retirement benefits plan that serves as a deferred compensation retirement savings, such as a 401(k).[1]
- House Bill 2545 (HB 2545) would make adjustments to EORP based cost-of-living adjustments capped at 2 percent, rather than permanent benefit increases.[1]
In 1990, Arizona adopted a permanent benefit increase (PBI) formula, which provided increases in retirement payments based on investment earnings. In 1998, the maximum possible increase was capped at 4 percent. The 2018 amendment’s proposed cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) would be based on the inflation rate for the Metropolitan Phoenix-Mesa Consumer Price Index, with the maximum possible increase capped at 2 percent.[1][2]
Why does this change require a constitutional amendment?
Article 29 of the Arizona Constitution describes public retirement systems as a contractual relationship between members and the state, requires that public retirement systems be funded with contributions and investment earnings, and declares that retirement system benefits shall not be diminished or impaired.[3] Article 29 was added to the state constitution in 1998 via Proposition 100.[4] Due to two court cases regarding the interpretation of Article 29—Fields v. EORP and Hall v. EORP—the Arizona State Legislature needs to amend Article 29 to make changes to pension plans that would have the effect of decreasing benefits for current and retired members.[5][6] According to the Arizona Senate Research Staff, the amendment could have a positive impact on the state’s General Fund because of the lower 2-percent cap on annual increases could decrease pension benefits.[2]
Text of measure
Arizona Proposition 126, the Prohibit New or Increased Taxes on Services Initiative, is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to prohibit the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates on services performed in the state. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment, thus retaining the power of the state and local governments to enact taxes on services in the future. |
Overview
What would Proposition 126 change about tax policy in Arizona?
Proposition 126 would prohibit the state and local governments from enacting new taxes or increasing tax rates in effect on December 31, 2018, on services performed in Arizona.[1] Services can include various types of economic activities that don’t involve tangible goods, from personal-oriented activities, including salon services, pet grooming, amusement, and fitness activities, to financial-oriented activities, including real estate transactions, banking, and investment management, to healthcare-oriented activities, such as doctor visits.
Who is behind the campaigns surrounding Proposition 126?
Note: The campaign finance information on this page is according to the most recent scheduled reports, which covered through August 20, 2018. The deadline for the next scheduled reports is October 15, 2018.
Citizens for Fair Tax Policy, a political action committee, is leading the campaign in support of Proposition 126. The Arizona Association of Realtors organized the PAC. Citizens for Fair Tax Policy had raised $6.10 million and expended $4.55 million. The Realtors Issues Mobilization Fund, an organization of the Arizona Association of Realtors, provided the largest contribution—$5.10 million. No PACs had organized to oppose Proposition 126.[2]
Arizona Proposition 127, the Renewable Energy Standards Initiative is on the ballot in Arizona as an initiated constitutional amendment on November 6, 2018.[1]
| A “yes” vote supports this constitutional amendment to require electric utilities that sell electricity in Arizona to acquire a certain percentage of electricity from renewable resources each year, with the percentage increasing annually from 12 percent in 2020 to 50 percent in 2030. |
| A “no” vote opposes this constitutional amendment to require electric utilities that sell electricity in Arizona to acquire a certain percentage of electricity from renewable resources, thereby leaving the state’s existing renewable energy requirements of 15 percent by 2025 in place. |
Overview
What would Proposition 127 change about energy policy in Arizona?
Proposition 127 would increase the state’s renewable portfolio standards (RPS). An RPS is a mandate that electric utilities acquire a minimum amount of electricity from renewable energy sources. As of 2018, Arizona’s RPS is 15 percent by 2025. Proposition 127 would increase the RPS each year until reaching 50 percent in 2030. The initiative would define renewable energy to include sources such as solar, wind, biomass, certain hydropower, geothermal, and landfill gas energies.[1]
Arizona Proposition 305, the Expansion of Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Referendum, is on the ballot in Arizona as a veto referendum on November 6, 2018.[1]
| A “yes” vote is to uphold the contested legislation, Senate Bill 1431, which would phase in an expansion of the state’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) program to make all public school students eligible to apply for an ESA. |
| A “no” vote is to repeal the contested legislation, Senate Bill 1431, which would phase in an expansion of the state’s ESAs program to make all public school students eligible to apply for an ESA. |
Overview
The original program allowed parents or guardians of students with disabilities to sign a contract to opt out of the public school system and instead receive an ESA from the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) that could be spent on private education, homeschooling, or other non-public education. An ESA is funded at 90 percent of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school. Parents or guardians use a prepaid bank card to pay for education-related tuition and fees, textbooks, tutoring, educational therapies, and curriculum. Recipients of ESAs are required to submit quarterly spending reports to DOE. Between 2011 and 2017, the program was expanded to cover students meeting other specified criteria. Arizona was the first state to establish an Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program. [2][3]
How would Proposition 305 change the ESAs program?
A “yes” vote on Proposition 305 would uphold Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431), which was designed to make all K-12 students eligible to apply for an ESA. The expansion would phase in over four school years. A “no” vote on Proposition 305 would overturn SB 1431. Approval of Proposition 405 would phase in the expansion of ESAs as follows:[1]
- For 2017-2018, students in kindergarten or grades 1, 6, and 9 would be eligible for ESAs.
- For 2018-2019, students in kindergarten or grades 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, and 10 would be eligible.
- For 2019-2020, students in kindergarten or grades 1 through 3 and 6 through 11 would be eligible.
- For 2020-2021, all K-12 students would be eligible.
Proposition 305 would cap the number of new students allowed to receive ESAs at 0.5 percent of the total number of students enrolled in school districts and charter schools per year through school year 2022-2023. For school year 2023-2024 and thereafter, the number of new ESAs per year would not exceed the number approved for school year 2022-2023. A student whose family is at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty line would be eligible for an ESA with 100 percent, rather than 90 percent, of what the state would have paid for the student in a district or charter school.[1][4]
Are ESAs the same as vouchers?
Arizona’s Empowerment Scholarship Accounts are often referred to as a school vouchers program.[5][6][7] In 2013, the state Court of Appeals outlined the differences between ESAs, which were upheld as constitutional, and school vouchers, which the state Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional four years earlier, in Arizona.[8][9] In Niehaus V. Huppenthal, the Court of Appeals said that vouchers earmarked state funds for private and sectarian schools, whereas ESAs earmarked state funds for parents of qualifying students to purchase educational services. Vouchers, according to the court, violated Section 10 of Article 9 (Aid Clause) of the Arizona Constitution, which prohibited state aid to private and religious schools. The court said ESAs do not violate the Aid Clause because “none of the ESA funds are preordained for a particular destination.”[10]
Kim Martinez of the American Federation for Children, an organization that advocates for school choice policies, said the difference between vouchers and ESAs is notable, as “ESAs are much more comprehensive than a voucher program and they allow parents to control their child’s state-funded education dollars.”[11] Tim Walker of the National Education Association, a teachers’ professional association and labor union, referred to ESAs as school voucher doublespeak, stating, “The intent is to obscure the fact that these spruced up proposals still produce the same result: less taxpayer money for public schools, more taxpayer money for unaccountable private schools that can, and do, discriminate.”[12]
How did Proposition 305 get on the ballot in 2018?
Save Our Schools (SOS) Arizona, the campaign the collected signatures for the veto referendum, was launched one month after Gov. Doug Ducey (R) signed Senate Bill 1431 (SB 1431) on April 6, 2017. In the Arizona State Legislature, Democrats opposed SB 1431. Most legislative Republicans supported the legislation. U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos (R) described the bill was a big win for students and parents. According to Dawn Penich-Thacker, SOS Arizona’s spokesperson, six women who met at legislative hearings for SB 1431 and were opposed to the legislation organized the veto referendum campaign.[13] On September 8, 2017, Secretary of State Michele Reagan (R) announced that enough signatures were verified to place the veto referendum on the ballot as Proposition 305. Gov. Ducey, speaking at a seminar for conservative donors, said he wanted SB 1431 to go into effect. He stated, “This is a very real fight in my state. I didn’t run for governor to play small ball. I think this is an important idea.”[14]
Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]
A “yes” vote supports this measure to:
|
A “no” vote opposes this measure to:
|
Overview
What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?
The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]
What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?
The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]
The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]
How did this measure get on the ballot?
The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.
Arizona Proposition 306, the Clean Election Account Uses and Commission Rulemaking Measure, is on the ballot in Arizona as a legislatively referred state statute on November 6, 2018.[1]
A “yes” vote supports this measure to:
|
A “no” vote opposes this measure to:
|
Overview
What is the Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC)?
The Citizens Clean Election Commission (CCEC) oversees Arizona’s public financing program for campaigns. The CCEC has five commissioners—two Democrats, two Republicans, and one independent.[2] The commission is exempt from the state’s rulemaking requirements; rather, the commission is empowered to adopt its own rules to govern the commission. Rules must be adopted in public meetings following a 60-day period for public comment. Proposition 200, which voters approved in 1998, created the CCEC.[3]
What would this measure change about the CCEC and public financing?
The measure would prohibit candidates from using their public financing accounts, known as clean election accounts in Arizona, to give funds to political parties or tax-exempt 501(a) organizations that are allowed to engage in activities to influence candidate elections.[1]
The measure would also remove the Citizens Clean Election Commission’s (CCEC) exemption from the state’s rulemaking requirements. The measure would require the CCEC to receive approval from the seven-member Governor’s Regulatory Review Council (GRRC) to finalize rules for the public financing program. The governor appoints six of the council’s seven members.[1]
How did this measure get on the ballot?
The Arizona Constitution required the measure to go on the ballot because the measure would amend a voter-approved ballot initiative—Proposition 200—passed in 1998. Rep. Doug Coleman (R-16) introduced the proposal in the state legislature. The state House voted 34-25 to place the measure on the ballot, and the state Senate voted 17-12. The votes were along partisan lines. Republicans supported the measure. Democrats opposed the measure.[4] Louis Hoffman and Amy Chan, former CCEC commissioners, sued the state over the measure’s placement on the ballot. Hoffman and Chan argued that the ballot measure violates the state’s single-subject rule, which states that “every act shall embrace but one subject and matters properly connected therewith.” Rep. J.D. Mesnard (R-17), the speaker of the state House, responded to the litigation, contending that the former commissioners were trying to stop voters from deciding the rulemaking process.[5][6][7] As of September 28, 2018, the litigation is ongoing.