Parent’s remarks trigger school lock down

PAGE — Elementary school officials ordered a “soft lock down” at local campuses after an angry parent made comments referring to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

The alleged comments were connected to the parent’s insistence that his son not be allowed to listen to President Barack Obama’s speech. Since Sept. 11 was coming back up, staff at Lake View Elementary saw it as a potential threat.

According to the Lake Powell Chronicle, about 300 children stayed home from school because parents were notified by an automated message about a possible threat. Parents perceived it was a bomb threat, the paper reported, and began inundating the local police department and FBI with phone calls.

The paper quotes Page police Capt. Ray Varner saying:

“We couldn’t really pin down what was said and who said it. It was something about 9-11 and since 9-11 was coming around, we thought we’d have a soft lockdown.”

Check out the Chronicle’s full story here. To surf more headlines from around the state, visit our interactive news map here.

Mothers of disabled children sue state over budget cuts

TUCSON — The Arizona Department of Economic Security wrongfully cut programs supporting developmentally disabled children in order to help the state reduce its $1.6 billion budget shortfall, a recent lawsuit claims.

The class-action suit in federal court in Tucson is being brought against the department and its interim director, Linda J. Blessing, by three mothers, whose children suffer from various maladies that pose a severe learning curve.

The case stems from a decision by the Arizona Legislature in 1990. That’s when lawmakers enacted laws that created “early intervention services” for certain infants and toddlers. The legislation helped children under the age of three who have developmental delays in at least one of five areas: cognitive, physical, social/emotional, communication and adaptive/self-help skills.

It offered a broad range of services with financial help from the U.S. Department of Education. They include help with vision, hearing, medical, nutritional, psychological, transportation issues and more.

All three of the plaintiffs’ children meet the criteria to be eligible for help under the program, according to the complaint. One 23-month-old girl from Tucson has a 50-percent or greater delay in communication; another 28-month-old girl from Tucson has a heart defect; and a 20-month-old boy from Peoria was born prematurely and has a chronic lung disease.

Lawyers for the children claim all three had shown significant improvement under Arizona’s early intervention services. They were three of the roughly 10,670 children who allegedly participated in the program between October 2007 and September 2008, according to the lawsuit.

But on Jan. 31, the program went under the knife. Senate Bill 1001 was passed in order to trim the state’s massive budget deficit. The state Department of Economic Security reduced its funding for early intervention services, allegedly leaving more than 3,000 children in the lurch.

Lawyers for the children claim only some of the families who used the program received notice of the changes. Meanwhile, a Maricopa County Superior Court judge issued a preliminary injunction in a smaller, related lawsuit in Phoenix to restore services to a small group of children who had filed a similar complaint.

Now lawyers are asking U.S. District Court Judge David C. Bury to rule against the state, force officials to restore early intervention services and notify all of the affected parents.

Tucson lawyers JoAnn Sheperd, J.J. Rico and Jennifer L. Nye (Arizona Center for Disability Law) are representing the plaintiffs.

Click here to download a copy of their complaint (27 pages, 148 KB) or here to download a copy of the exhibits (35 pages, 956 KB).

Winslow levee issue goes to Congress

On Wednesday, TZR blogger Ryan Reinhold had the scoop on a levee in Winslow whose design was threatening to swamp Native American ruins at Homol’ovi Ruins State Park.

But since we brought this to you, Navajo County officials have made fixing the levee one of the top priorities in President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

The day after we broke the story and completely coincidentally, Democratic U.S. Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick visited with Navajo County officials in Holbrook to get their feedback on what infrastructure projects are the most crucial for the region – the idea being that she would take that information back to Washington, D.C., to see that it gets fixed under Obama’s plan to rebuild America’s aging infrastructure.

Now, we weren’t at that meeting. But according to a press release issued today by Navajo County spokeswoman Laurie Stradling, Navajo County officials put the Winslow Levee at the top of the list, along with several beat-up dirt roads on the reservation.

Kirkpatrick, if you’ll recall, just won the Congressional District 1 seat formerly occupied by Rick Renzi, a Republican whose land dealings led to a federal probe and his eventual resignation. The district includes part of northern and eastern Arizona. She reportedly told Navajo County officials:

“Since arriving in Washington, D.C., we immediately started working on the economy, and the recovery package. My big concern is making sure we get our fair share of the money that’s allocated for Arizona. I want to make sure it’s creating and saving jobs here in Navajo County, in Holbrook, and in Winslow.”

The Winslow levee issue popped up, but so did the city’s concern that FEMA didn’t seem to care. According to Stradling’s press release, Winslow officials were sweating  the agency’s de-certification of the Winslow Levee as a major problem in light of several residents living nearby.

“This is a real concern for our citizens, especially those who are paying increased insurance rates for living in a flood zone,” Winslow City Manager Jim Ferguson reportedly told Kirkpatrick. “We stand ready to support you in any process here.”

The FEMA de-certification is especially troubling considering the levee’s flooding due to recent rains, which we highlighted in Wednesday’s story. It also suggests there may be other areas affected as well.

We’ll email Ferguson and officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for more details.

State’s top Dem to resign today

The rumor came out of Northern Arizona instead of Phoenix or Tucson, which tells you just how much of a political shocker it was to find out that the Arizona Democratic Party will announce today that its new chairman, Paul Eckerstrom, plans to resign.

We’ve tried to confirm it with party spokespeople at the Legislature and at party HQ and get some comment, but it appears to be so.

Eckerstrom, if you’ll recall, was an assistant Arizona Attorney General under Janet Napolitano, who led that state office before becoming governor. Eckerstrom presided over party operations in Pima County before ascending to the statewide seat less than two weeks ago.

That’s when Eckerstrom won an upset victory over party chairman Don Bivens at the party’s annual conference. He won 56 percent of the vote thanks to the party’s lackluster finish in several 2008 legislative races under Bivens, which pushed several members toward Eckerstrom’s camp. You can read about it here on ArizonaGuardian.com.

But now he’s is stepping down. We’ll see if we can find out why.

In the meantime, our source tells us the party will call a special meeting to replace Eckerstrom. Flagstaff Democrat Harriet Young (first vice-chair) and Pinetop Democrat Ken Smith (senior vice-chair) will preside.

1st UPDATE: It appears the news has caught even some top party members by surprise. Harriet Young tells me that Eckerstrom is coordinating a 6 p.m. conference call, but that the details are mum. “I know that rumors are flying around, but I haven’t got any better information than anybody else,” Young says. Stay tuned.

2nd UPDATE: Sources say Eckertsrom chose to resign because he realized he was “in over his head” when it came ot managing party operations statewide. They also say that Don Bivens – long known as a successful fundraiser for the party – may be interested in coming back as the state party’s chair. They also hint that might be for the best to fill the leadership void and prop up the party’s sagging operating budget. Stay tuned.

Budget squabbles singe rural firefighters

SONOITA — As chief of the Sonoita-Elgin Fire District in Santa Cruz County, Joseph De Wolf oversees the response to everything from large wildfires to rollover accidents involving speeding trucks full of illegal migrants.

He does it all on a budget of only $890,000 – not enough to meet the challenges he confronts every day, he says.

“We’re under a huge amount of financial pressure right now,” De Wolf says. “I don’t have what I need to cover my area.”

De Wolf has other pressures to contend against as well. For more than a year, he and others in the county have been battling a lawsuit from local residents that protests the formation of the fire district two years ago, and the additional property taxes the district imposes on homeowners.

The lawsuit is just one example of the growing dissatisfaction across Arizona with the state’s fire district assistance tax. Fire districts provide both fire suppression and emergency medical services for many residents outside of major metropolitan areas.

Over five years, levies for the state’s nearly 160 fire districts have grown by 129 percent, an average of 26 percent per year since 2003, according to the Arizona Tax Research Association. That’s more than three times the rate of growth for total property tax levies over the same period.

“The one jurisdiction that has aggravated taxpayers more than any other are the fire districts,” says Kevin McCarthy, executive director of the Arizona Tax Research Association. “Fire districts have flat-out abused taxpayers throughout the state.”

Most property taxes in the state are capped at an overall growth rate of 2 percent per year. Yet under state law, fire districts have no cap on their year-to-year growth, and are free to raise levies up to a maximum rate of $3.25 per $1,000 in home valuation.

Unrestrained by law, many fire districts took advantage of soaring property values to raise levies far beyond the growth rate of other taxes.

Anti-tax activists such as Marc Goldstone, chairman of the Arizona Tax Revolt, a voter initiative that would cap property tax increases for all tax districts at two 2 percent per year, have used fire districts as the “poster child” of property taxes gone out of control.

Neither the Arizona Tax Revolt, nor a similar initiative, Proposition 13, made the 2008 ballot after failing to collect enough voter signatures. But if their supporters regroup for 2010 and are successful in curbing the powers of tax districts, the fiscal impact will be severe for rural fire chiefs.

“If Prop 13 goes through, I would anticipate that fire district funding would probably decrease by at least a third or one-half,” says Rick Southey, Bullhead City fire chief and president of the Arizona Fire Districts Association. “There’s no way around it. Services will be cut.”

---

---

INTERACTIVES

[pcviewer=9,525,300]

---

---

Both initiatives would rein in the taxing powers of special districts, and rely on differing formulas to achieve that end. Proposition 13 would roll property values back to 2002 levels, and cap further increases at two 2 percent annually. The Arizona Tax Revolt proposition, while also rolling back property valuations and capping tax increases, would further require a two-thirds majority vote for any taxing entity to raise future property levies.

The Arizona Tax Research Association, under the leadership of Kevin McCarthy, opposed both of last year’s property tax initiatives. But he has lobbied the legislature to curb the taxing power of fire districts.

With voter anger mounting, the state legislature may ultimately take the matter into its own hands, and pass legislation along the same lines of the initiatives. Unless some action is taken, enough voters may ultimately be swayed to approve a radical anti-tax initiative, regardless of the consequences.

“When they get irritated enough, they don’t care what the impacts are going to be of some of these measures,” McCarthy says. “If Prop 13, or something like it passes, [fire districts] should view it as a self-inflicted wound.”

The impacts of any major restriction of fire districts’ taxing powers would likely fall disproportionately on the state’s poorer regions. With local property values well below those of wealthier areas, these districts are already struggling to provide an acceptable level of service. Rolling property tax valuations back to 2002 levels would be particularly devastating.

“How are we going to maintain our labor and our growing call volume?” asks chief De Wolf. “How can I pay wages that are competitive when I’m working off a budget that’s six years old?”

De Wolf says he must already rely on volunteer help to provide services to the 2,000 homes and 3,000 residents in his district. Spread over 350 square miles, the region is home to Arizona’s wine country, and its rolling hillsides are increasingly dotted by “cowboy mansions” built by the retired ultra-rich.

But as volunteers are called on to assist with car rollovers and other gruesome incidents, this solution is proving problematic.

“When people volunteer, they volunteer to help with the grandma who fell and broke her hip,” De Wolf says. “They don’t volunteer to come onto a scene with an overturned truck full of illegals with massive head injuries.”

As for the lawsuit against De Wolf and other county officials, its outcome is yet to be resolved.

Nevertheless, this November, voters in Santa Cruz County voted by an overwhelming margin against dissolving the Sonoita-Elgin fire district, dealing a significant blow to the lawsuit’s backers.

As a result, many of the lawsuit’s supporters have dropped out. Yet Tom Pescod, an area veterinarian and the lead plaintiff in the case, is carrying on – and still demanding $1 million in compensation.

“It’s a nice number,” he told opposing attorneys in a court deposition. Pescod did not respond to TZR’s numerous requests for comment.

On the state level, anger against high property taxes may be slow to dissipate. Even as property values plummet, relief from fire district taxes may still take some time. This year’s taxes will be based on 2007 property values – well before the big plunge seen in 2008.

“Taxpayers won’t see increases,” McCarthy says. “But they’re not likely to see a lot of relief.”

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

State money woes tie Brewer’s ideological hands

Last November, after Democratic Gov. Janet Napolitano announced that she was President-elect Obama’s pick to head the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Arizona Republicans could barely contain their glee.

“We are all hoping she hops off to D.C. as quickly as possible,” Arizona Republican Party chairman Randy Pullen told The Arizona Republic at the time. “In fact, I will drive her if she needs a ride.”

With Napolitano now out of the picture, Secretary of State Jan Brewer, a staunch 64-year-old conservative from Glendale, is set to move up next week and fill out the remainder of her term. Brewer’s rise will hand control of the state House, Senate and governor’s office back to the GOP after six years of divided government.

Yet while Republicans may savor the return of one-party rule, their new monopoly on power could ultimately prove less a blessing than a curse.

The party will take the helm at a moment of rare economic peril, with job losses mounting and government revenues plummeting. But with Napolitano gone, gone too will be conservatives’ favorite scapegoat for the state’s fiscal woes.

The unenviable task of cutting as much as 30 percent from the 2010 budget will fall to Brewer and Republican leaders alone. And as the ax falls on one popular program after another, public anger is sure to grow – and vent itself on the party in power, if history is any guide.

Brewer herself faces daunting challenges: bringing state spending in line with revenues, and reining in an emboldened Republican majority in the Legislature – all the while attempting to fill the outsize shoes of a widely admired predecessor with national name recognition.

Add to the mix a vocal Democratic minority that has high hopes of winning back the governor’s office in 2010 – with Attorney General Terry Goddard topping the list of potential opponents – and Brewer has a virtual minefield of political peril to maneuver through over the coming months and years.

“It’s not a pleasant position for a Republican politician to be in,” says David Wells, a senior lecturer on political science and economics at Arizona State University. “She’ll have to show real leadership to navigate her caucus through this.”

The budget crisis appears likely to put Brewer’s reputation as a fiscal conservative to the immediate test. Already she has said tax hikes are “on the table” – a remarkable statement from a politician who, as recently as 2006, signed an anti-tax pledge circulated by Americans for Tax Reform, a national conservative group.

“I will oppose and vote against any and all efforts to increase taxes,” Brewer pledged in the document. [Consequently, the Arizona constitution – article 9, section 1 – declares, “the power of taxation shall never be surrendered, suspended or contracted away.”]

Some degree of salvation may lie in the stimulus plan proposed by President-elect Obama, under which Arizona could receive as much as $1 billion in immediate relief. Yet such a bailout – financed by ballooning federal deficits – would be another blow to Brewer and her party’s claims of fiscal conservatism.

And with expenditures projected to exceed revenues by a whopping 30 percent in 2010, even federal relief is unlikely to completely stem the tide of red ink bleeding out of the budget.

A continued drop in revenues would make major cuts to popular programs such as health care and public education virtually unavoidable. A tax hike would be one way to soften the blow of such cuts.

Nevertheless, Republican legislators have already introduced a bill to enact a major tax cut in 2009 by permanently abolishing the state equalization property tax. Repealing the tax would effectively gouge another $250 million hole in the 2010 budget, money that would have to be offset by further budget cuts.

Napolitano vetoed an attempt to abolish the tax last year.

“Permanently repealing a tax that supports such basic needs as schools and education during a time of severe budgetary deficits would be the height of fiscal irresponsibility,” Napolitano wrote in her veto statement.

Yet vetoing another attempt to abolish the tax – a relatively safe move for a Democrat like Napolitano – would likely stir a backlash among fiscal conservatives, and possibly endanger Brewer’s prospects for victory in the 2010 election. Allowing the tax to return (it has been suspended since 2006) would amount to a tax increase, they have argued.

“If she goes in there and does a tax increase, then I can guarantee you she’ll get a primary challenge [in 2010],” says state Sen. Ron Gould, R-Lake Havasu City.

On the other hand, allowing $250 million in ready money to slip through the state’s fingers – at a time when massive, across-the-board cuts to public education and other state agencies appear inevitable – would give Democrats a strong opening to portray the new governor as beholden to the far right wing of her party.

“The real question is whether Brewer can truly govern for all of Arizona,” says Vince Rabago, Pima County Democratic Party chairman. “She’s said that’s her goal, but the test remains whether she can follow through on that.”

Even were the property tax to return, Brewer would still likely face trouble fulfilling Arizona’s constitutional requirement for a balanced budget – a tall order given the projected shortfall of $1.6 billion for 2009 and possibly twice that for next year.

The state may be forced to borrow money to bridge the gap, another move almost guaranteed to rub conservatives the wrong way. State Treasurer Dean has estimated that the state will soon need to take out short-term loans to stay afloat. The interest due on those loans will only add to the state’s budget woes over the long-term.

“The easy way out is borrowing, but borrowing is technically unconstitutional,” says Tom Jenney, Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative group. “I wouldn’t recommend it.”

Ironically, it may be the New Deal-style economic recovery plan of the incoming Obama administration that rides to the rescue of the soon-to-be Republican-dominated Arizona government. The state could receive as much as $1 billion in aid from the federal government in the coming months, Napolitano announced last week.

That money may come at a price, however.

“The short story is, the money that comes from Washington is going to come with some pretty heavy strings attached,” Jenney says. “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”

With Arizona dependent on federal aid, policies on everything from education policy to immigration could be influenced. “When you’re the federal government you can buy a lot of compliance with that money,” Jenney says.

Yet with job losses accelerating and state revenues continuing to drop, even federal assistance may offset no more than a fraction of the needed budget cuts. Spending may still need to be decreased by as much as 30 percent or more from next year’s budget, a decrease unprecedented in modern times.

Slashing state spending is liable to create powerful new enemies for both Brewer and the Republican majority in the legislature. Layoffs are looming for state workers, as are deep cuts for the state’s university system. All-day kindergarten, another popular program championed by Napolitano, is also on the chopping block. Rising anger from such cuts is virtually inevitable.

Brewer’s handling of the budget mess is certain to leave a lasting impression on voters.

“There are no easy budget cuts,” Wells says. “If she’s seen as too ideological on things, she’s going to put her prospects for 2010 on the line.”

As the pain spreads, opposition Democrats are likely to lay the blame on Republicans’ doorstep, arguing that the anti-tax policies of the past decade have left the state high and dry now that recession has hit. Such arguments could prove persuasive to voters in the next cycle of elections.

“While this state was booming in development, the Republican leadership kept cutting and cutting taxes,” Rabago says. “When the development boom burst in Arizona and the revenues from building dried up, what you had was a starved government without the resources to deal with the issues.”

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

In Pinetop, ‘biosolids’ break winds of political change

WHITE MOUNTAINS — Two men who support recycling the leftover sludge from the local wastewater plant for use as a soil conditioner won a surprising election victory in Pinetop-Lakeside.

A few other political changes are also coming in 2009 to the towns of Navajo County, which hosts about 112,000 residents and three American Indian tribes.

In a hotly contested race in the county’s southern tip, challengers Dave Renner and Mark Wessel won seats on the five-person Pinetop-Lakeside Sanitary District governing board.

Their platform was based on recycling “biosolids” from the local wastewater treatment plant to be used as composting sludge and applied as agricultural and landscaping soil conditioner. Wessel is a health professional and Renner is the former owner of a waste management company.

Other newly elected officials will take office next week in Navajo County. Among the new officials is Sheriff K.C. Clark, who had been serving as a commander of the Major Crimes Apprehension Team at the sheriff’s office.

Clark replaced Navajo County Sheriff Gary Butler, who retired after 20 years as the county’s top law enforcement official. Butler began his 42-year career in Scottsdale in 1967 before becoming the chief of police in Show Low and being elected county sheriff in 1988.

Also newly elected is Navajo County Attorney Brad Carlyon, who is also chairman of the Navajo County Democratic Committee. Carlyon was chief deputy county attorney in neighboring Apache County for four years and had previously been a Navajo County prosecutor. He replaces incumbent county attorney Mel Bowers, who retired.

In the Navajo County Board of Supervisors office, district 1 Supervisor Jonathan Nez defeated 20-year incumbent Percy Deal, who had been the first American Inidan to hold elected office in Navajo County. Also re-elected were District 2 Supervisor Jesse Thompson; District 3 Supervisor J.R. DeSpain; District 4 Supervisor David Tenney; and District 5 Supervisor Jerry Brownlow.

The newly elected Superior Court Judge in Division 2 is Carolyn Holliday, who defeated incumbent Dale Nielsen. Judge Holliday will join re-elected Superior Court Judge Michala Ruechel and Superior Court Judge John Lamb. The Arizona Supreme Court named Ruechel Presiding Judge of the county.

In the Kayenta Justice Court, Justice of the Peace Susie Nelson was re-elected. Newly elected Justice Precinct Constable Lorenzo Yazzie replaces Larry Wallen, who vacated the office in order to run – unsuccessfully, it turns out – for Navajo County Sheriff. Constable Dave Wood was elected in the Snowflake Justice Precinct.

Returning elected officials are County Recorder Laurette “Lori” Justman, Assessor Cammy Daris, Treasurer Manny Hernandez and Superintendent of Schools Linda Morrow.

Foodie movement spurs a super-sized change

PHOENIX — Fast food and chain restaurants are hustling to catch up to new regulations for calorie counting that are a response to a growing consumer trend.

Some outlets are responding with healthier menu options. For example, Taco Bell stores now feature a Fresco Menu, bearing the slogan “Less Fat. More Taste.” Their official website freely gives caloric content and fat amounts. Calorie counts and nutritional information are now even being placed next to cashiers at each location.

Other fast-food chains are attempting to save their consumers calories by making nutritional changes.

Starbucks claims to have saved the nation 17 billion calories since last October by swapping 2-percent milk for whole. A McDonald’s large French fry order has dropped to 500 calories from 570 calories last year. Quiznos is testing smaller portion sizes and Dunkin Donuts has added a new low-calorie egg-white sandwich to their menu.

But some nutritionists and health-conscious Americans are not entirely convinced that decreasing calories is the answer to weight problems.

“Just because certain foods have less calories doesn’t necessarily mean they are better for you,” says Karen Seymour, owner of Sole Sports Running Store in Tempe. “Sometimes they pump in artificial sweeteners that are worse for you than the calories.”

Two proposals making their way through Congress would make calorie posting mandatory nationwide.

The Labeling and Nutrition Act would allow grocery stores and restaurants that already sell prepared foods to choose their labeling format. This includes posters or disclosures near the back of the menu. The proposal is backed by the restaurant industry.

Then there’s the Menu Education and Labeling Act, which is supported by public health advocates. It would require chain restaurants to provide calorie counts directly next to menu items. Vending machines would also be required to display the number of calories per item.

“I think it would be a great idea if Congress passed that law,” Seymour says. “I really don’t think people understand just how many calories are in the food they are eating. If I were to see something on a menu that had the same size meal for 650 calories or 320 calories I would definitely pick the 320 calories. I think most people would.”

In New York, restaurants with 15 or more locations were recently forced to display calorie counts on the menu next to food items under a new city code championed by the health commission and Mayor Michael Bloomberg. City health inspectors now issue violation notices for restaurants that do not have calorie counts beside prices on their menu boards.

Mixed reactions have been a result of the calorie-posting requirement in New York.

“Congress shouldn’t pass any laws relating to this type of stuff. More government is not the answer. People need to take personal accountability for what they eat and the amount of what they eat,” says Wendy Williams, who studied holistic nutrition in college.

Harvard University Dining Services recently removed calorie counts from index cards composed of nutritional information for dining halls. Parents and students were concerned that displaying calorie counts would affect students in an unhealthy manner and perhaps lead to eating disorders.

Even with the law receiving mixed reviews, some companies are following along. Coca-Cola and M&M’s are now planning on printing their calorie counts on the front of their packages voluntarily.

“When consumers are aware of what they are eating, they are more willing to make better food choices. So, I think that providing information to consumers is definitely a step in the right direction,” says Dr. Colleen O’Brien, an ASU professor who teaches a class on food and culture.

Another noticeable trend is the emergence of the 100-calorie pack sold in grocery stores. Participating vendors include Nabisco, Mars Snackfood, and Kellogg’s.

Shoppers are also searching for healthier options when it comes to cereal and cereal bars. Weight Watchers, The South Beach Diet, and Kellogg’s Special K are among healthier choices for consumers.

With the emerging trends in health foods, some are interested to know where this seemingly sudden increase of health awareness originated.

“Concern about weight gain varies by region in the U.S. and by socioeconomic status. Studies reveal that the weight of your family and friends does affect your own weight concerns,” O’Brien says. “If you see your friends and family trying to eat healthy you will tend to eat more healthy too.”

The answer to the weight problem is not definite. Nutritionists and health-conscious Americans differ in their proposed solutions.

“Consumers should have significantly more education as to what they place in their bodies for nourishment,” Williams says. “An occasional hamburger and fry isn’t going to kill someone. It’s the people who eat said meal daily or more than once per day in excess who have the issues.”

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

Arizonans vote with their emotions

PHOENIX — First-time voters here expressed a sense of pride at being able to cast their vote in what has become one of the most historical elections in history, with the U.S. electing its first African-American president.

The presidential election of 2008 marked one of the highest voter turnouts in history with many polls predicting the turnout as high as 80 percent. Much of this voter turnout included first-time voters eager to have their voice heard in an election that directly affects their future.

Between the years of 2002 and 2006, 18- to 24-year-olds increased their registration and voting rates by 3 percent, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. In 2004, 64 percent of U.S. citizens age 18 and over voted in the presidential election, which was up from 60 percent in 2000.

As the 2008 presidential election came to a head, many young people of voting age took an active role by registering and voting. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there were about 500,000 new registered voters in the state of Arizona recorded as of October 2008.

Tyler Fitzgerald, an ASU student and first-time voter, says it was fun to watch the race cross the finish line and felt as if he was a part of history.

“I was glad I could finally have a say, and glad that many young people finally have a say,” Fitzgerald says.

While he enjoyed the election process, Fitzgerald says he thinks the voting system should be revamped with better technology and more voter stations to handle so much voter participation.

Brittaney Burgers says she feels like crying when she thinks of what her first presidential vote meant in this historical election.

“I made a difference in an attempt to make my country a better place,” Burgers says.

Zach Vie, another first-time voter, had personal reasons for casting his first presidential vote for Illinois Democrat Barack Obama. He also says he favored what Obama planned to do for the economy if elected.

“My brother is in the Marines, so his war policies was a big decision in my vote for him,” Vie says.

On the other side was Mark Yates. Although he was proud to have voted in the election for the first time, he was not happy about the outcome because his candidate, Arizona Republican John McCain, did not win.

“I don’t think the country made the right decision, and I don’t think voters were educated enough about the election,” Yates says. “I think our country is going to fall apart.”

While there were mixed views among many young voters about the outcome of the election, they are all in agreement that their vote mattered and they were pleased to be apart of such a historical election – even if 64 percent of Arizona voters participated, well below the national average but good in terms of state turnout historically.

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

Gay marriage ban revives old tensions

PHOENIX — Jake Harvey wants voters to ask one question: When was the last time you were discriminated against by the Arizona Constitution?

Harvey says he and other members of Arizona’s young gay and lesbian community feel this discrimination is imminent if Proposition 102 passes tonight.

The controversial proposition will appear on the Nov. 4 ballot. If passed, it will amend the state Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman – even though Arizona law currently doesn’t recognize gay marriages.

Prop. 107, a similar but more detailed initiative, failed by just a 4-percent margin in 2006. In the two years since, passionate opinions have not mellowed.

For opponents of Prop. 102 like Harvey, the passing of the initiative is redundant since gay marriage is already illegal in Arizona. However, he says the failure of the initiative is imperative to make the state more accepting of the gay and lesbian community.

“[Vote] yes or no, gay marriage will still be illegal in Arizona on November 5,” Harvey says. “There is no reason to put blatant discrimination against a group of people into our constitution.”

Harvey, an international affairs student and member of Young Democrats at NAU, says he believes that as time progresses, so must Arizona’s acceptance of non-traditional lifestyles.

“Fifty years ago, my parents could not have wed because interracial marriage was not legal,” he says. “Now that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Arizonans are becoming more visible and accepted, [traditional] marriage and Proposition 102 are becoming a last stand for people who are ignorant of homosexuality.”

Harvey is the creator of a Facebook group against Prop. 102 that includes more than 8,000 members. He feels young people can be a driving force for acceptance of non-traditional marriages.

“Young people are the most accepting of gay and lesbian couples,” he says. “If the young people in Arizona are mobilized against Proposition 102 in this state, we can become a driving force for tolerance in Arizona.”

Jessica Aguilar, a political science junior, says Prop. 102 harms human rights.

“If this proposition is passed, it would say that Arizona legitimizes hate,” she says. “It would also be a violation of the 14th Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause.”

Supporters of Prop. 102, however, say the measure will make the current marriage definition statute permanent by making it a part of the Arizona Constitution.

The amendment would make it impossible for judges to re-define marriage as has recently been done in Massachusetts, California and Connecticut courts.

“It will prevent judges throughout our state from legislating what their personal ideological beliefs are from the bench,” says Jessica Bender, membership and recruitment director for College Republicans at ASU. “By adding it into our state constitution, it prevents such activists from changing the traditional view of marriage in Arizona. It defines marriage more clearly.”

Bender says she believes many Arizonans have misconceptions about the meaning of Prop. 102.

“Many people try to label Prop. 102 as [a means of] forcing religious views onto society,” she says. “This is simply not true. A traditional definition of marriage cuts across all religious, political, and cultural lines.”

Bender also stresses that the measure will not take away rights of gays and lesbians. She believes they have the right to their private lives but not to redefine marriage for everyone.

Paul Gambill, a computer engineering systems junior and Republican, says the similar Prop. 107 failed in 2006 due to voters’ misunderstanding and misconstrued arguments against it. He recommends Arizonans vote with their conscience this election.

“I believe marriage between a man and a woman is fundamental to the growth of healthy families in America,” he says. “The [traditional] family is the basis of all that is good about America.”

Harvey disagrees. “The only people affected by this proposition are gay and lesbian Arizonans,” he says. “Young gay people like me deserve the same rights as my heterosexual friends to get married in Arizona.”

= = =

>>Email the editor at aklaw@zoniereport.com.

Next Page »