As the election draws near.... can we talk about local issues on the ballot?

[QED]

The propositions, judge positions, school board, corporation commission, etc. important and often overlooked. The statements in the election guide can be misleading. So.... can we talk about these?

[QED]

1. MCCCD Governing Board

This is from a poster in an education group offering insight into the candidates for the MCCCD board. Not sure what to make of it - I don't know the poster - but her post got me thinking about the other races.


"I'm not a K-12 teacher, but an adjunct professor here in AZ. i teach at Glendale Community College, and I was having a discussion today with a colleague where the topic of the election came up. With all of the other candidates coming up, I guess I didn't realize that some of our votes this November will ask us to consider who sits on the MCCCD Governing Board, and I found out that some of those running are the complete opposite of our mission and fight for public ed at all levels!

The 1st is Jean McGrath, who very plainly stated in a stump speech how unimportant she felt having full-time faculty on campus is in terms of what is best for students and making sure they get the best education and also in retaining students and reducing the dropout rates (don't even get me started on the issues with lack of full-time faculty at the higher ed levels and the poverty wages adjuncts work at with a required degree of masters and PhD's). I think she may have even been the candidate my colleague was talking about that wants to investigate the idea of eliminating ALL full-time faculty (don't quote me on that because I haven't found anything for sure to support that, but I do know there is concern about some of the upcoming candidates supporting this idea).

The second is John Heep. he doesn't really seem to have a solid platform that I could find, but seems to follow the ideas of Jean McGrath. These two candidates are running for two newly created at-large seats that are being voted on for the 1st time this year.

The 3rd is Johanna Haver. She is a retired teacher who seems to have drank the kool-aid, blames low achievement on low expectations (and wants to apply the idea to higher ed), has been accused of being an "English 1st, last and only" supporting meaning that she doesn't see the purpose in immersion, etc. programs as they don't really work (she denies this, so i'm sure it needs more research) and is a huge, huge supporter of school choice. She'd be wrong for K-12 definitely and is also wrong for higher ed. She is running in district #3, which covers central and north phoenix and parts of North Scottsdale. Can we please spread the word that these 3 candidates are definitely not right for our community college board?

[rdmtimp]

4. I'm in district 3 - thanks for the tip on Haver.

McGrath isn't on my ballot (the at-large candidates on mine are Diaz, Heep, Livingston and Diggs).

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. Both Democratic candidates for corporation commission Are BIG on solar, Water and consumer protect.

Both republic candidates are being funded by and will do the bidding of APS and Alec.

I had a rep from the Jim Holway campaign and Sandra Kennedy herself come talk to our local Democratic club last week. Sandra Kennedy served on the CC before. Prior to the meeting getting started I told her how frustrated I was at getting the solar panels at my house (which were installed in June) lit up. Sandra said "Give me a few minutes to make a phone call". Ten minutes later she walked back into the room and gave me a thumbs up. The next day, I got a call from the head of the renewable energy department at Tucson Electric and on Monday my panels went online. Tuesday I got Follow up calls from Both Sandra and TEP making sure everything went well. Turns out, Solar City had never told TEP that the installation was complete and had passed inspection. Guess who I'm voting for?

There are two slots open. Vote Dem.

David Garcia is the Dem running for Supe of Public Ed and is well qualified. His repuke opponent is a teabag who has only one goal. Privatize.

As a precinct captain, I will be getting a slate for CD1 and LD11 any day now and will post it when I get it.

There is one ballot prop (l don't have the # in front of me) to allow Az. to ignore Federal laws. It is blatantly unconstitutional but it will bring the baggers to the polls. If it passes we get to spend taxpayer fighting over it in court.

Anything else?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

3. I think the one you are talking about is Prop 122.

But I am not sure.

[nightscanner59]

5. That's the one. It's a Koch-based curmudgeon law posed to profiteer

And sounds to me like a counter to the Federal striking down of marriage equality.
Even if that isn't it's intention, it still gets my big, fat, black "NO" on my ballot.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

6. The signs around Tucson about it made me check it out, and I gave it a no vote too!

The signs say: "Make Washington pay it's own bills!"

And for some reason that made my radar go off. So I looked it up.

The Arizona Rejection of Unconstitutional Federal Actions Amendment, Proposition 122 is on the November 4, 2014 general election ballot in Arizona as a legislatively-referred constitutional amendment.

The measure, if approved, would allow the state to opt out of federal laws deemed unconstitutional by the voters or the state legislature. Under the provisions laid out in Proposition 122, if this occurs, the state would be prohibited from devoting any resources toward enforcing the law, and the federal government would be tasked with enforcement.[1][2]

The measure was primarily sponsored in the Arizona State Legislature by Sen. Chester Crandell (R-6) and Sen. Judy Burges (R-22), where it was known as Senate Concurrent Resolution 1016. It would amend Article 2, Section 3 of the Arizona Constitution.[3][2][4]

Rest @ http://ballotpedia.org/Arizona_Rejection_of_Unconstitutional_Federal_Actions_Amendment,_Proposition_122_%282014%29

After researching, it so a NO VOTE for me!