Vote NO on AZ Prop 112


This one is pretty simple folks. Proposition 112, if passed would make it much harder for citizens initiatives to be voted on. That should mean a lot to this crowd because the current citizens initiatives to ban photo radar and red light cameras in Arizona cities would require many more volunteer hours to get the required signatures… 50% more hours, to be specific.

Prop 112 would not only require 50% more signatures but it also shortens the length of time allowed to collect them by 2 months.

How this passed through the State Legislature of AZ is a huge mystery to all of us. What they are saying, in effect, is that they only want lawmakers aka “career politicians” to have any say in what laws are passed. It sounds like they all want to lose their jobs because that’s pretty damn good reason to vote them all out.

Only one proposition on the ballot this year was put on by citizens. The other 8 were added by legislature. Of course, Prop 112 doesn’t require more signatures for political candidates to get on the ballot making it extremely one-sided and hypocritical. What this means is that politicians won’t have to pay more money to run their campaigns in the form of signature collector fees. But conversely, it’s okay for them to require more of the citizens. This is unacceptable.

Please vote NO on proposition 112. A no vote would retain the following requirements of citizen initiatives without making them more difficult:

**10% of previous voter count.

**July 1st signature turn-in deadline for general and mid-term elections.

18 Responses to Vote NO on AZ Prop 112

  1. LoneWolf says:

    I mentioned this prop here a few weeks back. My guess is that the state and scam companies were sweating because we cut it close with the signatures so they want to make sure there’s no more close calls that would thwart their sinister ways of producing income for this state.

    The state’s excuse for this one is that they need more time to get an accurate count of signatures and to be able to verify the validity of the signatures.

  2. Sure says:

    Sponsor and Vote Prop 112 was sponsored by Representatives John McComish (R-20), Andy Biggs (R-22), Chad Campbell (D-14), Kyrsten Sinema (D-15), and Senator Jonathan Paton (R-30). It passed the House nearly unanimously with three Reps. and two Dems. not voting. Prop 112 passed the Senate nearly unanimously with two Reps. and one Dem. not voting.

    Supporters of 112

    Arizona Farm Bureau; Arizona Chamber of Commerce; The O’Connor House; State Representative Chad
    Campbell(D-14); Senate President Robert Burns (R-9)

    http://progressivevotersguide.com/2010/arizona/general/pdf/AANBallotMeasureAnalysis.pdf

    • B says:

      To be fair, Andy Biggs was a HUGE opponent of the speed camera system and fought hard to get anti-camera legislation through the House (despite that dickwad Speaker of the House that fought any full house votes).

      I am also voting NO on this one, along with just about every other prop on the ballot. Almost every single prop on the ballot wreaks of Legislature power grab in the name of “hunting rights”, “lieutenant governor re-org” (especially egregious – the politicos of both political parties never want another “loose cannon” like Jan Brewer getting the governor’s chair without their pre-election approval), “fiscal responsibility” (they really want to gut the Voter Protection Act), etc.

      I’m a fiscal and social conservative, GOP guy, to boot…

      If they really wanted to reform the ballot process, they’d cap the number at 100,000 or maybe double the however many signatures it takes to get a governor on the ballot (also capped at 100,000).

      • 4409 says:

        B….To be fair Andy Biggs is the douche bag who introduced and passed the Toll Road bill….AGAIN, ALL OF THESE POLITICIANS ARE LIARS AND WILL SCREW YOU THE MINUTE YOU TURN AROUND.

  3. Jury Nullification says:

    Looking forward to Nov. 2.

  4. Anonymous Coward says:

    I don’t support this proposition, but I want to point out that it does not change the number of signatures required. You should really read the proposition. The change to the number of signatures required is a formality – it just replaces the phrase “per centum” to “percent”. This aspect of the proposition does nothing to change the actual signatures required.

    • LoneWolf says:

      Thanks, we were well aware of it. That’s the main reason we oppose this prop.. Had they proposed to reduce a fair number of signatures required to go along with this, then it might’ve stood a better chance of being voted in favor of.

  5. photoradarscam says:

  6. Stacey says:

    The FBI is investigating a toxic substance found inside a package that was sent to the office of Arizona Rep. Raul Grijalva, a spokesman for the congressman said.

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/10/22/arizona.congressman.toxic.package/index.html?hpt=Sbin

  7. Stacey says:

    Quayle’s communications director – Jay Heiler

    “You can see the sleight of hand in the statement he put out today. Now he puts out quotes that he’s not even attributing to Ben Quayle,” said Jay Heiler, Quayle communications director.

    http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/arizona-capitol-times/mi_8079/is_20100908/commentary-arizonas-3rd-congressional-district/ai_n55353539/

  8. LoneWolf says:

    New Jersey Toll Roads Waste $43 Million in Driver Cash
    Union contracts allow New Jersey toll collectors to pocket millions in tolls.

    http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/32/3299.asp

    This is really pathetic. I wouldn’t vote for anyone who’s for toll roads even if they’re against photo enforcement.

  9. Sure says:

    Ran into Karen Finley tonight in Scottsdale – got a photo of her all gussied up:

    CameraFRAUD.com

    Phoenix, AZ
    1,121 Volunteers

    Welcome to CameraFRAUD. We are united in our effort to get rid of every speed camera, red light camera, and photo radar van here in Arizona and across the country. We were suc…

    Check out this Meetup Group →

  10. Sure says:

    California: Class Action Lawsuit Hits Federal Court
    Federal court hears class action lawsuit seeking refund of every red light camera ticket issued in 59 California cities.

    http://thenewspaper.com/news/33/3302.asp

  11. […] like to thank everyone who read our original post, “Vote No on Prop 112.” With more than 1,000 views leading up to election day, it’s clear that you were able […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: