Arizona is among the states that have a robust citizen's initative history. Oft the bane of legislators, who prefer to have their laws crafted in accordance with their particular special interest obligations, citizens' initatives often run roughshod over lobbyist efforts. But the practice isn't perfect.
There are two particular initiatives pending for the Arizona general election. Proposition 105 has been approved by the secretary of state and is being fitted for the ballot. Confusingly titled Majority Rules - Let the People Decide the proposition purports to amend the Arizona constitution to prohibit any initiative measure from establishing or increasing a tax or fee, or creating any mandatory spending obligation, unless the measure is approved by a majority of qualified registered voters.
On the face this seems like a redundant measure. Of course majority rules! He with the most votes, wins! The crafters of this devious piece of law are counting on people thinking just that. The problem is in the language of the initiative. It calls for a majority of qualified registered voters of the whole state, not just a majority of those who bother to cast their ballot. In the last 10 years no initiative in the state has ever gotten votes from a majority of registered voters. Arizona has benefitted greatly from past citizens' initiatives, using tobacco taxes to fund health care and early childhood development programs for our kids, increase education funding. Of course, this year a budget shortfall has made legislators covetous of the monies that are locked for these programs and they would love nothing more than to be able to deny the will of the people in future elections. This iniative asks nothing less than for Arizona voters to disenfranchise themselves by allowing non-voters equal footing in the deciding of citizen initiatives.
The other initative that could possible end up on the ballot is the grossly mistitled Proposition 101 - Medical Choice for Arizona. Although this initiative is currently being challenged for having enough eligible signatures there is a chance it could make its way onto the ballot.
Despite it lofty title, Medical Choice For Arizona has nothing to do with medical choices. The language of the proposition claims that it would amend the Arizona Constitution to prohibit the imposition of a penalty for choosing to obtain or deline health insurance covereage or for participating in any particular health care system or plan.. Proposition 101 would also prohibit any law that restricts a person's choice of private health care systems or interferes with a person or entity's right to pay directly for medical care.
Essentially this is an effort by AHIP to throw up roadblocks to any form of universal health care for Arizonans. Looking at the website FAQ for the sponsoring group, this is quickly evident through language such as
Health care providers who know that government run, socialized medical systems limit choice and increase waiting times for their patients believe in the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act.
This is clearly intended as a scare tactic for Arizonans, who have been showing more and more support for universal health coverage.
To top it off, later in the FAQ, it becomes even more evident that the Medical Choice for Arizona act has little to do with real freedom of choice.
I am pro-life. Will this Initiative prevent laws from being passed that can limit abortion?
The Initiative does not take any stance on the abortion issue. By using the phrase `lawful medical service' the initiative defers to the legislature to define which medical services are legal and which ones are illegal.
I am pro-choice. Will this Initiative hurt the current rights of women to choose?
The Initiative does not take any stance on abortion. By using the phrase `lawful medical service' the initiative defers to the legislature to define which medical services are legal and which ones are illegal.
I believe in freedom of conscience protections for health care providers of all types. Will this Initiative prevent laws from being passed that address freedom of conscience issues?
The Initiative does not take any stance on freedom of conscience protections. The Initiative does not restrict in any way an individual health care provider's or insurance company's right to determine what services to provide, or the legislature's power to protect or expand such rights. It is not the intent of the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act to be interpreted so that health care providers would be forced to provide health care services with which they have an objection.
Does this mean people can use illegal drugs for medicinal purposes?
The Initiative does not take any stance on medical marijuana or any other currently illegal substance. By using the phrase `lawful medical service' the initiative defers to the legislature to define which medical services are legal and which ones are illegal.
So to be clear this act is supposed to protect our healthcare choices against lobbyists, special interests and non-expert legislators, except when it is deferring to lobbyists, special interests and non-expert legislators.
No thanks. Lets hope this one doesn't find its way to the ballot.
There are some other rather odious propositions finding their way onto our ballot, I will try to piece together an analysis for those later.
Arizona - Sorry about that McCain thing.
---edited to add links to proposition proponents websites---
http://www.medicalchoiceforaz.com/
http://www.nfib.com/...