3 Propositions: Russell Pearce's Arguments For and Against

The Hon. Russell Pearce, former President of the Arizona State Senate, has submitted the following Arguments either For or Against the following Propositions that will appear on the November 6, 2012 ballot.

OPPOSE I-16-2012 Quality Education and Jobs Act 201200362 (Not Assigned a Proposition Number Yet)

As President of the Arizona Senate, I made sure we balanced Arizona’s budget and we did it the right way – in accordance with our Constitution, by holding the line on spending, and without tax increases. Why? Because that was our job and that was the right way to do it. Our families and our businesses cannot spend more than they have, and while the Federal Government can just print money to pay its bills, the state of Arizona cannot. Plus, our families and businesses are already overtaxed, and increasing taxes will only hurt our economy and cost us more jobs.

In 2010 the voters of Arizona supported a TEMPORARY sales tax increase that the politicians and groups supporting it promised would be temporary. They gave their word. That three-year long tax increase has not even expired yet and they are already breaking their promise. Shame on them!

Enough is enough. I hope that the taxpayers and freedom loving citizens of this great state will make themselves heard loud and clear. A deal is a deal, a promise is a promise, and No New Taxes!
Government already takes too much, and in these tough times we must reduce the burden that taxes place on working families. We have 17 million Americans out of work, record foreclosures and yet the special interests want even more of your money to pay for their pet projects.

This same idea was defeated in California. If even California can figure out that it is a bad idea, then I trust the message will be sent loud and clear from the good citizens of this state. Vote No on this permanent, job-killing, multi-billion dollar tax increase!

Hon. Russell Pearce, former President of the Arizona State Senate

SUPPORT Proposition 114 – The Crime Victims Protection Act of 2102 (I wrote this Proposition when in 2011 for the ballot).

Here is a simple and good idea. Let’s stop the bad guys from suing their victims. Do you believe a criminal should be able to sue you, after assaulting you, robbing you, and/or raping you? An unrestricted constitutional “right to sue” exists, which even permits criminals to sue those they victimize. “A person's home is their castle,” however our Arizona Constitution allows anyone to sue for any reason and offers little protection to a property owner who defends his family, or his property, from violent criminals (home invasion, burglary, arson, etc.). For example, a burglar breaks into your home and your dog bites him, you can be successfully sued for any injury sustained by the burglar!

Here is one true story -- a burglar fell through a kitchen skylight of a home, landing on a knife that was left on the kitchen counter. The burglar impaled himself on the knife, then sued the homeowner for an “unsafe condition”; the court awarding him damages for his injuries. That is not justice!

Those defending the rights of criminals to sue will argue state statutes already protect property owners from such travesties of justice. If that were true, then why would they try to defeat this Proposition? The fact is the Arizona Court of Appeals has ruled statutes are insufficient, therefore a constitutional amendment is needed to stop criminals from suing victims of crime. A criminal should not be able to victimize their victim twice, and this amendment is necessary to protect victims of crime.

Please vote yes on Proposition 114, the Crime Victims Protection Act, and let’s ensure that a criminal is never able to sue the very person they victimized.

Hon. Russell Pearce, Former President of the Arizona State Senate

OPPOSE Proposition XXX The so-called “Open Elections/Open Government Act” Initiative

Don’t be fooled. This initiative effectively blocks candidates who are not Republican or Democrat from making it onto your General Election ballot. Smaller parties and Independent candidates will not have the votes needed to make the “top two” and will not have the opportunity to win. Even worse, they won’t even have the opportunity to try to win. Americans love choices and we ought to have lots of them, especially in our politics and candidates. Telling Arizonans that they are only allowed to have two candidates to choose from is un-American. This initiative discriminates against smaller parties and Independents. It actually will discriminate against Republicans and Democrats too. Because most districts are very Republican or very Democrat, voters in those districts will have two candidates from the same party to choose from. In roughly 20 of Arizona’s 30 legislative districts, you won’t even have two parties to choose from, so Democrats in Republican districts will only have two Republicans to choose from and Republicans in Democrat districts will only have two Democrats to choose from.
This initiative will decrease voter turnout. Arizona already has very high turnout relative to other states. Arizona’s 2010 primary turnout was more than 30% while California’s first primary under these new rules was 15%. And it makes sense. If you offer voters fewer choices they will be less interested. Our system is not perfect, but it is far superior to this new scheme. Supporters of this initiative say they want to change the rules because they want to change the type of candidate who wins, but rigging the rules to ensure that only a specific type of candidate can win is un-American and very dangerous for Arizona.

Hon. Russell Pearce, Former President of the Arizona State Senate