accuser

Okay, if you live in Arizona (specifically district 5 but some of this stuff applies across the state), here's how you should vote if you're like me. Look at my past posts to determine if you are like me. You'll notice some Republicans in here. They're sane Republicans. Sanity is more important than political party. Sane Republicans become people like Barry Goldwater. That's good.

Remember to VOTE this November. Arizona is almost assuredly going red and my presidential vote will be thrown out the moment it does, but this other stuff is up for grabs and makes a difference. Make it happen!

If I'm misinformed about any of this, by all means let me know.

President:
Barack Obama (D)

U.S. Representative In Congress:
Harry Mitchell (D)

State Senator:
Carolyn Allen (R)

State Representative:
Stephanie Rimmer (D)
Michele Reagan (R)

Corporation Commissioner:
Paul Newman (D)
Sandra Kennedy (D)
Barry Wong (R)

County Board of Supervisors:
Joel Sinclaire (D)

County Assessor:
Keith Russell (R) (this is less a vote for him more a vote against his crazy, unqualified Libertarian opponent)

County Attorney:
Tim Nelson (D)

County Recorder:
Helen Purcell (R) (again, less a vote for her more a vote against the crazy Libertarian who thinks 9/11 was a government conspiracy... seriously, his name is Ernest Hancock and he put that on his website. Though he does like V For Vendetta, that doesn't really qualify him for anything.)

County School Superintendent:
Tentatively Dan Covey, but I sent him a question and his response might change my mind. I can't find anything on his opponent, but it's another Libertarian. That's who I want in charge of public schools - something who thinks all schooling should be privatized.

Sheriff:
Dan Saban (D) (though he'll never win)

Maricopa County Special Health Care District:
Robert Carey (one guy is crazy and the other guy answers most policy questions with "I don't know" "Undecided" or "I'll have to learn more about that" - this guy is, by far, the best of the three)

School Governing Board Member:
Paige Frenkel
Eric Meyer (I couldn't find anything on the other two, so these are the only ones I recommend even though you can pick three)

Mayor:
Mary Manross

City Councilmember:
Ron McCullagh
[s]Nan Nesvig[/s] (further information arose, don't vote for her- vote Suzanne Klapp)
Betty Drake

-----------
Second Page
-----------

Supreme Court Justices
Scott Bales: Vote "Yes" to retain

Court of Appeals Justices:
Vote "Yes" to retain all three

Judges of the Superior Court:
Oof. Somebody else do that one. There are dozens of them, I've put enough work into this.

Prop 100:
Tough call. Yes means they can't add what will probably be a 0.5% tax on home transfers. Seems like we don't need to make the home selling process any more difficult right now, but this Prop seems to go too far with it. That tax and all future new taxes on property sales or transfer. No one likes taxes, but money has to come from somewhere. Vote whatever you feel makes sense.

Prop 101:
No. This is an attempt to prevent socialized medicine in Arizona. It goes too far and there's no need for such a drastic measure. Socialized medicine isn't coming anytime soon and even if it somehow did the early versions (at least, if not all versions) will allow people to opt-out.

Prop 102:
Big no. Vote no as many times as you can. This is an attempt to put bigotry directly into our state constitution. The idea here is to prevent our state becoming one of those durned queer states. The current law preventing gay marriage is potentially vulnerable to being declared unconstitutional. This proposition seeks to pre-empt that possibility and cement the currently popular form of bigotry into our government for years to come. Shoot it down.

Prop 105:
No. This is an attempt to muck up future voting as much as possible. They want to require a majority of all registered voters on tax increases instead of a majority of all the people who actually voted. That means that everyone who didn't vote gets counted as a "No" automatically. That makes it about impossible to get anything done. No one likes taxes, but money has to come from somewhere and our society needs money to run. If you disagree with something, go out and vote against it. You'll probably win anyway.

Prop 200:
Yes. This has to do with Payday Loan places. I don't think anyone here uses those. This attempts to make the process a bit safer and protects it from being banned in 2010, which it probably would be. I don't think it should be banned. They're crappy loans, but that's a matter of personal responsibility. Overall, it seems the effect they have on the economy is good. The opposition's argument against that is, "Legalizing drugs would be good for the economy but we still don't do it!" Good job, you just convinced me to vote against your side with that horrible example - we absolutely should legalize a lot of drugs. But I digress. Tentative yes on this unless other information comes up.

Prop 201:
No. This is supposed to protect homebuyers against contractors but adds a lot of mandatory bureaucracy. Basically, if you have a problem, you have to bring the government into it. It also enables frivolous lawsuits by "protecting" homebuyers from paying the legal fees of contractors in the event that their case is lost or thrown out.

Prop 202:
No. Tries to make the argument that it's tough on illegal hiring but doesn't do a very good job. It enforces the use of the federal system of residency verification which is less effective than what Arizona already uses. Just not worth it.

Prop 300:
No. It's a pay increase for a part time civil job. They already make $24,000 for 100 days a year. If you don't want to do it, don't apply. This isn't supposed to be a career thing. Napolitano is against it as well, I let her position inform mine.