Slate of Liberal Democrats Are Posing as Moderates in Swing Legislative Districts

by admin | Sep 15, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates

Democrats are hoping to convince voters that a slate of candidates running in swing legislative districts in Arizona are harmless pragmatic “moderates” to gain legislative majorities in the state house and senate.

Despite parroting middle of the road messaging, these radical progressives in fact hold the same ideological beliefs as the activists sweeping Seattle, Portland, and Los Angeles, who have left burned, looted and destroyed cities in their wake.  If these candidates are elected, Arizonans should prepare themselves for a sharp left turn down a road to defund the police, sanctuary cities, California-style energy mandates and Bernie Sanders tax everything policies.

Legislative District 17 – Jennifer Pawlik Backs the Bernie Sanders Plan of Massive Tax Hikes, Radical Gun Control and the Green New Deal

Despite being from a legislative district in the East Valley with a 10-point Republican advantage and a more moderate flavor, Democrat Jennifer Pawlik has worked to convince voters in LD17 that she is a middle-of-the-road Democrat. 

Her support for sky high tax rates and extreme gun control laws is evidence to the contrary.  In just her first term, Pawlik supported over $5.7Billion in tax hikes, backing plans to increase income taxes, online sales taxes, property taxes and taxes on small businesses! She even opposed efforts to repeal the $32 vehicle registration fee. Pawlik hasn’t said no to a single tax increase since being elected to the legislature.

These aren’t the only issues Pawlik wishes to legislate from the far left.  In line with the Bernie Sanders Agenda, Pawlik supported banning the sale of firearms by individuals, implementing a shutdown of our economy  to reduce carbon emissions, banning natural gas and prohibiting the use of plastic bags.

Legislative District 20 – Judy Schweibert pals around with anti-border patrol and defund the police groups

Legislative District 20 located in Glendale and Peoria is considered “in-play” for 2020 and is being heavily targeted by Democrats.  Though Schweibert emphasizes “listening and working together” on her campaign site, her true alliances are with radical organizations such as LUCHA and out-of-state-interest groups such as Sister District that are actively pushing their radical progressive agendas in Arizona.

At the legislature, birds of a feather truly do flock together and voters can tell a lot by the organizations candidates rely upon for policy advice.  Schweibert has not been shy in claiming LUCHA as her friend.  Voters should be aware this radical group supports dangerous proposals such as abolishing ICE and defunding the police.  And far from the moderate grassroots support in LD20, Schweibert is a Manchurian Candidate for the Sister District Project, a San Francisco-based political group that aims to “turn states blue” by taking out-of-state volunteers “from deep blue districts” and sending them into “carefully targeted races in swing district” in other states.   Arizona’s legislative district 20 is their target.

Legislative District 4 – Geraldine Peten supports sky-high utility bills

Geraldine Peten is the current representative for LD 4, located in southwestern Arizona in predominately Yuma and Pima Counties. Peten has a reputation for making false and radical claims at the legislature, including the idea that charter schools are racist attempts to segregate children, that Arizona should pass a $40Billion budget (a 300% increase in spending), and make discrimination against certain hair styles illegal. 

Peten was also an outspoken proponent of Prop 127, a measure soundly defeated by nearly 70% of voters in the State that would have increased citizens’ utility bills by $1,000 a year!  Not only was this radical measure being pushed by out of state special interests costly to ratepayers, Peten argued it did not go far enough (22:12)!  If Peten had it her way, Arizonans would adopt California-energy mandates that have caused “rotating” blackouts and sky-high energy prices. 

Legislative District 6 – Coral Evans supports sanctuary cities

Coral Evans lives in Coconino County in a district which encompasses areas as diverse as Flagstaff and Yavapai, Navajo and Gila Counties.  Evans is a member of the Flagstaff city council where she has actively supported the city using taxpayer-funded lobbyists to advocate for hiking the state gas tax.

In addition to her high-tax agenda, Evans doesn’t believe walls should exist between countries and even compares citizens who do to slave owners.  If Evans were elected, she would opt for Arizona to be a “sanctuary state” (1:04) free of the enforcement of federal immigration laws.  Even in progressive Tucson, the idea of sanctuary cities was way too radical for most voters.

Arizonans beware of false advertising!  These so-called “moderate” Democrats are anything but.  If their deception is successful, voters in the Grand Canyon State are sure to have a lot of buyer’s remorse.

Prop 208 Tax Hike Punishes Small Businesses and Neglects Families in Need

by admin | Aug 31, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates

In a few months the Arizona residents will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 208, a measure funded by out of state labor unions and special interest groups to impose a $1 Billion income tax increase on small businesses and entrepreneurs in the middle of a pandemic.  Not surprisingly, employers around the state are speaking out against the measure, as Prop 208 would kill thousands of jobs, punish small business owners and destroy our fragile economic recovery.

While the economic impacts may be devastating, what may be more infuriating to Arizona families is that Prop 208 does NOTHING to assist frustrated parents and students currently dealing with Covid-19 school closures and disrupted learning schedules. The revenue generated from this 78% tax increase would come with little accountability or oversight, leaving it up to school districts and administrators to spend the money how they see fit.

Prop 208 Crafted to Benefit Unions and Provide Pay Raises to Administrators

The backers of this massive tax increase do not care about families or small businesses in Arizona.  If they did, they would not have crafted a measure full of loopholes that allow funding to be siphoned off by district administrators and away from teachers and classrooms.  The initiative redefines teacher to include non-classroom administrative staff and changes existing law so that money is no longer earmarked for teachers and classroom spending. 

Of the $1 Billion anticipated to be collected if Prop 208 passes, not one dime will support parents as they battle to educate their children, not one dime is guaranteed to support teachers, and not one dime addresses improvements needed to overcome current environmental learning challenges.

Sadly, this lack of funding accountability in Prop 208 is by design. The backers of this measure know most people support K-12 and want to see improvements in the system. They are hoping that voters will not take a closer look at the fine print.

Measure will Derail AZ’s Economic Recovery by Punishing Job Creators and Small Businesses

According to the Tax Foundation, Prop 208 would give Arizona one of the highest small business tax rates in the country.  Under Prop 208, AZ small businesses will be taxed at a top rate of 8 percent (a 78 percent increase), giving us a higher income tax rate than Nevada, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas. Employers and entrepreneurs will flee to these lower tax states, turning the Grand Canyon State into the mini-California of the Southwest.

Sadly, the small businesses who have survived so far are just starting to dig themselves out of the wreckage of the Covid-19 shutdown. It is undeniable that small businesses were hit hardest by the economic downturn, as most mom and pop shops were forced to close while big corporations (who are exempt from this tax increase) were allowed to stay open. Now just as they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel, out-of-state labor unions and special interest groups want to hammer them with a massive tax hike at the ballot. They do not deserve this treatment.

Tone Deaf Measure Ignores Parents and Children in Desperate Need for Help

A cursory reading of Prop 208 shows that the backers of this tone-deaf initiative care little about Arizona families.  Currently the biggest crisis facing parents and students are the district-wide school closures and substandard online/distant learning conditions that have been forced upon them. They need help, yet the “solution” being offered up by the unions and special interest groups bankrolling this initiative is to dump more money into the system with no strings attached.

The only worthwhile investment in K-12 that should be considered right now is to provide direct aid to families to explore alternative educational opportunities and to help parents escape dysfunctional learning environments that are inflicting permanent damage on their kids.  Instead, Prop 208 soaks hardworking Arizona taxpayers with a massive tax hike that will likely result in nothing more than pay raises for school administrators in the middle of a pandemic.

Arizona voters should not be fooled – Prop 208 is bad for families, businesses, and our education system!

Misleading Ballot Initiatives Should Be Thrown Out By The Courts

by admin | Jul 23, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates

There is an obvious reason why our state is constantly being preyed upon by out of state interests, pushing radical ideas every cycle at the ballot box as “citizen initiatives”. Arizona has exceptionally low standards for qualification compared to other states.  

Despite extremely high stakes, (if an initiative passes it is basically permanent and can never be changed), none of the best practices applied in other states have been adopted.  A measure only requires a simple majority passage.  Proponents do not need buy-in from the whole state, only the major metropolitan areas.  There is no required sunset on the measure to allow an ever-changing electorate to revisit the issue.  And a measure need not be restricted to just one subject but instead may be packed with a myriad of policies even if the campaign only ever promotes one “winning” issue.  Even up to two years ago, campaigns could hire felons to collect signatures.

Most citizens intuitively know there is something wrong with the initiative process.  Polling done in 2019 demonstrated clearly that voters believe these measures are intentionally misleading and confusing.  Of those polled, 70 percent of individuals were concerned with ballot language being confusing and the intent difficult to understand.  This applied across party lines.

And groups pushing these initiatives have fully taken advantage of the confusion and lack of guardrails. 

Therefore, it was a major win in 2018 when groups challenged the InvestInEd initiative’s 100-word description for being misleading to voters and the courts ruled in their favor.  The education union had very clearly made several serious misrepresentations in their description to voters, by both omitting the fact that all taxpayers were going to see a tax increase as well as wrongly confusing their tax on the rich as percent increases not percentage-point increases. 

This set a new and needed precedent.  Initiative proponents cannot lie to voters to make their initiative seem more palatable.  In other circumstances, lying for material benefit is called fraud.

These radical measures are back this year and luckily so are the legal challenges. Although the education union has done much to rewrite the 2018 version of InvestInEd in their effort to make the public more accepting of a massive new tax increase, they have still failed to be completely transparent about what the measure purports to do.  Challengers are again making the argument that the 100-word summary of the petition which is usually what singers read (not the entire initiative language) omits critical information about the measure including that many businesses and higher income persons would see an almost 80 percent increase in their taxes.  The description also fails to mention that new funds generated do not only go to teachers but to any non-administrative employee.

Hopefully, the courts make the right decision again and do not erode the previous legal determinations.  Afterall, given the few safeguards in place to qualify a measure, the very least we can expect is proponents are not allowed to obfuscate the truth to get their proposal passed. 

“Second Chances” Criminal Justice Initiative is Radical and Dangerous

by admin | Jul 14, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates

At a time when our country is witnessing unprecedented social upheaval and the undermining of the rule of law, the last thing Arizona needs is a liberal group from California funded by George Soros infiltrating our state to rewrite our criminal justice laws.

Yet that is exactly what the “Second Chances” initiative would do if passed in November. Unlike other sensible criminal justice reform efforts, this jail-break initiative would gut much needed protections to stop the release of dangerous predators into our neighborhoods and eliminate essential reporting and transparency requirements used to track criminal trends in the state.

Over the last several years the Free Enterprise Club has been a strong advocate for reasonable criminal justice reform efforts, including measured expansions of earned release credits for non-violent felons, requiring a criminal conviction in civil asset forfeiture cases, and ensuring individuals with a record can obtain any required licenses for employment. 

Many of these common-sense reforms were opposed by the very liberal groups now pushing this initiative, leaving one to question whether their commitment to criminal justice reform is more about politics than good public policy.

Soros Initiative Goes Too Far, Too Fast

When it comes to improving the criminal justice pool, one toe at a time makes the most sense.  Every tweak has consequences intended and unintended.  Unlike many other areas of policy, those consequences can leave literal carnage in their wake.  “Second Chances” dives head-first. 

For example, the initiative significantly expands the state’s Earned Release Credits (ERC) program by allowing for as much as a 50% reduction in an inmate’s sentence as well as making more felons eligible for the program.

Which criminals would benefit from the new ERC program?  Felons that defrauded an elderly couple out of their life savings, con artists engaging in extorsion and anyone convicted of selling fentanyl-laced drugs to minors.  Also, violent offenses that are pled down to non-violent offenses would be eligible as well. There is no exception or consideration for persons serving for non-violent offenses who are a part of a “security threat group” i.e. a gang member from being released early. 

And perhaps worst of all, current law does not allow inmates who were previously convicted of a violent or aggravated felony to be eligible.  “Second Chances” eliminates that exception.  Even if someone is serving for a drug offense currently, if they previously served 25 years for 2^nd degree murder, they should not be treated the same as the person who does not have a violent record. 

The backers of the measure are clearly worried that their initiative will lead to more crime.  It is probably why they purposefully removed the reporting requirements by the Department of Corrections designed to collect meaningful data on any earned release credit program.  This intentional shift to remove transparency and accountability is a way to cover their tracks and dodge blame for creating more victims.

Furthermore, the initiative makes sweeping changes to the state’s mandatory sentencing system. The initiative eliminates the ability to charge repetitive offenders (such as someone who burglarizes 10 homes) more severely than someone who committed just one offense. Giving judges complete discretion to deviate from sentencing guidelines will lead to a wide spectrum of arbitrary sentences for the same offenses.

Initiative is Being Pushed by the Liberal Tides Network

So, who could possibly want to take a wrecking ball to Arizona’s criminal justice system?  The answer is liberal Silicon Valley residents who do not have to live in our neighborhoods once the prison doors swing wide open.  Second Chances is being bankrolled by Tides Advocacy, an arm of the Tides nexus that is funded by liberal billionaire George Soros.

It isn’t enough they’ve destroyed their own state.

In 2014 these same groups pushed Proposition 47 in California, which significantly lowered penalties for several criminal offenses.  Since then, property crimes and drug offenses have gone through the roof, adding to an already serious homelessness problem.  Fraudsters and organized theft rings are migrating to the state, knowing these offenses are no longer felonies and if caught, are likely not to be charged by county attorneys.

A coordinated jail break is just the start of the madness.

Criminal Justice Should NEVER be Done at the Ballot Box

The area of criminal justice reform is too complex and the effects too severe to be decided at the ballot box.  This is especially prescient given our inability to change voter approved laws due to the Voter Protection Act.  The drafters of “Second Chances” included language to make it clear that the legislature may only expand the generous benefits provided to convicted felons, they are not allowed to roll them back.

Backers are sure to spend a lot of time talking about the “Victim and First Responder” fund that is set up by transferring money from revenues from medicinal marijuana under this measure. Which is fitting because the initiative is sure to lead to a lot more victims.

Ultimately, Arizonans would be wise to not invite more chaos into our state.  “Second Chances, Rehabilitation, and Public Safety Act” is not about justice and it is not about compassion.  It will damage public safety, harm victims and is a tool being used by the left to further promote their agenda. Voters would be wise to vote NO come November.

Out of State Special Interests Continue to Dominate Arizona’s Initiative Process

by admin | Jul 2, 2020 | Elections, News and Updates

When Arizona’s founding fathers sought to include a voter initiative process in Arizona’s constitution, the intended purpose was to provide regular citizens with a check against wealthy special interests and political insiders that often dominate the legislative process.

Yet it appears that the very system designed to curtail the influence of wealthy billionaires and the political establishment has been taken over by them. Even worse, the hijacking of the initiative process has been carried out primarily by out of state special interests parachuting into Arizona to buy their way onto the ballot box.  

In 2018, all of the high-profile ballot measures that qualified for the ballot were primarily funded by California billionaires and special interest groups. This campaign cycle is no different. Four initiatives appear to be on track to qualify for the November ballot. All four are being bankrolled by deep pocketed unions and liberal special interest groups from outside the state:

• Healthcare Rising is an initiative seeking to make several radical changes to Arizona’s hospital system, has received 99.5 percent of their funding from the California chapter of the Services Employee International Union. Of the $3.2 million they have raised to date, only $14,000 (in the form of an in-kind contribution) has come from Arizona.
• Criminal Justice Reform measure looking to overhaul Arizona’s sentencing guidelines has been 100 percent funded by Oakland based Tides Advocacy; a well-financed 501(C)(4) organization with close ties to George Soros and other major progressive donors.
• Invest in Ed is an education measure looking to double the state income tax on small businesses and high earners in the state. Of their funding, 90 percent has come from Stand for Children, Inc., a liberal education group located in Portland, Oregon.
• Smart and Safe is a proposal seeking to legalize marijuana in Arizona. Nearly half of their funding is from large dispensary corporations throughout the country who stand to profit immensely from the exclusive licenses that they will be granted if the ballot measure passes.

Arizona’s initiative process was never intended to be a petri dish for experimental policy cooked up by wealthy special interests from around the country. Yet that is what the process has devolved into because of the low standards that exist to purchase your way onto the ballot.

Based on the current signature requirements and constitutional protections for paying circulators to collect signatures, it is possible to gather enough signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot for around $2 Million dollars.

Though to most Arizonans that sounds like a lot of money, for wealthy donors and political players in California or Washington DC looking to promote radical reforms, $2 million is a small sum of money. Add in the fact that the initiative process is often seen as a way to increase voter turnout and force your political opponents to spend precious resources battling you at the ballot box, these types of financial investments are a no-brainer.

Can Arizona’s initiative process be fixed to protect it from outside influence? It’s possible, but it will require reforms geared toward increasing transparency and requiring more local support and involvement when collecting signatures for the ballot.

One reform worth considering is a geographic distribution requirement for signature collection. Under current Arizona law, initiative measures are not required to gather signatures from around the state in order to qualify for the ballot. Any group can make the ballot simply by gathering signatures from one large city or county.

Stipulating that initiatives must gather signatures from every legislative district would make it much more difficult for out of state special interests to parachute into Arizona and flood the Phoenix Metro area with paid circulators. Additionally, rural communities would gain a voice in the process since initiative groups would have to build support for their ideas in all corners of the state. Of the 27 states with a voter initiative or referendum process, 15 require a geographic distribution of signatures.

Another solution would be to limit the number of topics that may be included in an initiative. One factor that has made Arizona’s ballot measure process so attractive to groups around the country is the ability to include multiple issues in the same measure. Often referred to as log rolling, campaigns will include a few unrelated popular provisions in the initiative in order to provide political cover for other sweeping reforms of which voters are unaware. A single subject requirement, which already exists for all bills proposed at the legislature, would eliminate log rolling and reduce voter confusion at the ballot.

Arizona’s initiative process should not be for sale. It especially should not be controlled by special interests with deep pockets and no ties to our state. Fixing this problem won’t be easy, but should be an issue all Arizonans can rally around.