🗳️ Arizona's Ballot Battleground: Conservative Crusade to Reshape Elections
🐘 The GOP's Last Stand: Defending Partisan Primaries in a Changing Arizona ⚡ Fast-Track to the Supreme Court: Arizona's New Initiative Challenge Process
Based on the 9/20/24 Winn Tucson Show on KVOI-1030AM.
These interviews show that the Tucson Crime Free Coalition is just another arm of the right-wing pushing such harmful propositions that have nothing to do with crime or Tucson.
⏮️ ICYMI: From the Last Show…
😽 Keepin’ It Simple Summary for Younger Readers
👧🏾✊🏾👦🏾
📢 Arizona is talking about changing how voting works! 🗳️ Some people want to make sure political parties can choose their own candidates. 🏙️ They also want to make sure people from all over Arizona get a say in new laws, not just those in big cities. 🚨 There's a plan to limit what the governor can do during emergencies, like what happened with COVID-19. ⚖️ And they want to check if new ideas for laws are okay before people vote on them. 🤔 These changes might make things different for how Arizona makes decisions!
🗝️ Takeaways
🗳️ Proposition 133 aims to constitutionally mandate partisan primaries, potentially conflicting with open primary initiatives
🏙️ Proposition 134 seeks to distribute initiative signature requirements across all legislative districts, empowering rural voices
🚨 Proposition 135 limits gubernatorial emergency powers to 30 days without legislative approval, likely in response to COVID-19 measures
⚖️ Proposition 136 allows earlier legal challenges to ballot initiatives, potentially preventing unconstitutional measures from reaching voters
🔍 The propositions collectively reflect a conservative approach to governance, emphasizing checks on executive power and scrutiny of direct democracy
🤝 Some proposed measures may find bipartisan support, particularly those increasing accountability and representation
📻 Radio Show Topics
🗳️ The Partisan Primary Predicament: Proposition 133
Proposition 133 stands at the forefront of Arizona's electoral reform debate, aiming to enshrine partisan primaries in the state constitution. This measure, a direct response to the looming threat of open primaries proposed in Proposition 140, seeks to maintain the traditional party-controlled primary system.
Under this proposition, political parties would retain the right to conduct their own primary elections, allowing them to maintain a tight grip on the candidate selection process. Proponents like Joel Strabella argue that this system is crucial for preserving party integrity and ensuring candidates represent party principles. As Strabella puts it, "What Proposition 133 intends to do is mandate partisan primaries in Arizona."
The push for partisan primaries reflects a conservative desire to maintain the status quo in Arizona's electoral system. It's seen as a bulwark against the "California-style jungle primaries" that Proposition 140 would introduce. This clash of propositions highlights the ongoing tension between traditional party politics and calls for more open electoral systems.
However, the discussion on the show largely ignores the potential drawbacks of partisan primaries. Critics often argue that such systems can lead to increased polarization, as candidates may feel compelled to appeal to the most partisan elements of their base to secure the nomination. Furthermore, the radio conversation did not address the exclusion of independent voters from meaningful participation in the primary process – a growing concern as more voters eschew party affiliation.
The proposition's supporters frame it as a protection of political parties' rights and a safeguard against what they see as electoral chaos. Yet, this framing fails to consider the evolving nature of political engagement and the increasing desire among voters for more choice and less party control in the electoral process.
🏙️ Bridging the Urban-Rural Divide: Proposition 134
Proposition 134 introduces a significant change to Arizona's ballot initiative process, aiming to distribute the power of direct democracy more evenly across the state's diverse geography. This measure would require citizen initiatives to collect signatures from all 30 legislative districts in Arizona rather than just focusing on populous urban centers.
Joel Strabella explains that the primary goal is to involve rural and less densely populated areas in the ballot initiative process. He states, "What this proposition does is it pretty much keeps the same percentages, but it requires the percentages from each of the 30 legislative districts." This change would theoretically prevent initiatives from reaching the ballot solely through support from urban areas like Phoenix and Tucson.
Proponents argue that this measure would create a more representative democracy, ensuring that initiatives have broad support across the entire state before making it to the ballot. They present it as a way to give rural Arizonans a stronger voice in direct democracy, addressing long-standing concerns about urban dominance in state politics.
However, the show's discussion doesn't delve into the potential challenges this proposition might create. Critics often point out that such requirements can make the initiative process more expensive and logistically challenging, potentially favoring well-funded interest groups over grassroots movements. There's also a question of whether this change might effectively give veto power to a single legislative district, as failing to meet the threshold in even one district could disqualify an initiative.
The show's conversation frames this proposition as a straightforward matter of fairness and representation. However, it doesn't explore the nuanced debate about population-based versus geographic representation that often surrounds such measures. The potential impact on minority communities, who are often concentrated in urban areas, is also not addressed.
🚨 Curbing Emergency Powers: Proposition 135
Proposition 135 emerges as a direct response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the extensive use of gubernatorial emergency powers during that crisis. This measure aims to significantly limit the governor's ability to declare and extend states of emergency, reflecting a broader conservative push to constrain executive authority.
Joel Strabella explained that the key provision of this proposition is that it would "add language to the Constitution limiting the governor's ability to declare an emergency and use emergency powers to a maximum of 30 days unless the legislature concurs with the emergency or the legislature terminates that emergency early." This represents a substantial shift from the current system, where governors can extend emergencies in 30-day increments for up to 120 days before requiring legislative input.
The proposition also includes provisions to make it easier for the legislature to call itself into special session to address emergencies. Strabella notes, "With one-third of each member, they can call themselves in the special session to represent the voters in adjusting or addressing an abuse of power by the governor in declaring an emergency or using his emergency powers."
The discussion on the show frames this proposition as a necessary corrective to perceived overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic. Kathleen Winn expresses concerns about the selective nature of business closures and restrictions during the pandemic, stating, "COVID was not that long ago and the COVID protocols that got put in place really did have a negative effect on so many businesses, but it was selective because certain businesses were allowed to remain open where restaurants churches just were not."
However, the conversation doesn't explore the potential downsides of limiting emergency powers. Critics often argue that such limitations could hamper the state's ability to respond quickly and effectively to fast-moving crises. The show also doesn't address the question of whether the legislature, which is not always in session, can respond as swiftly as the executive branch in emergency situations.
The proposition is presented as a safeguard against "abusive powers," but this framing doesn't consider the complex balance between decisive action and democratic oversight in crisis situations. It also doesn't discuss the potential impact on future emergencies, particularly those that disproportionately affect vulnerable populations.
⚖️ Constitutional Scrutiny: Proposition 136
Proposition 136 introduces a significant change to Arizona's ballot initiative process by allowing for earlier legal challenges to proposed measures. This proposition aims to test the constitutionality of initiatives before they reach the ballot, potentially saving time and resources by preventing unconstitutional measures from going to a vote.
Joel Strabella explains that this proposition "forces the judiciary to address and answer these questions to test the constitutionality at any time during the process up to and including and even after the voters vote that the citizens initiative into law." This represents a shift from the current system, where many legal challenges occur after voters have approved an initiative.
The proposition is framed as a common-sense measure to ensure that only constitutionally sound initiatives make it to the ballot. Proponents argue that it could prevent situations where voters approve a measure only to have it struck down by courts later, potentially saving both time and taxpayer money.
However, the discussion on the show doesn't explore the potential drawbacks of this approach. Critics often argue that allowing early challenges could create additional hurdles for citizen-led initiatives, potentially making it more difficult for grassroots movements to utilize the ballot initiative process. There's also a question of whether this could lead to lengthy legal battles before initiatives even reach voters, potentially delaying or derailing valid proposals.
The conversation also touches on the role of the Secretary of State in this process. Under the proposed system, the Secretary of State would be required not to certify an initiative or prohibit its addition to the ballot if it fails the constitutionality test. This adds another layer of scrutiny to the process and raises questions about the potential for political influence in these decisions.
The show's discussion presents this proposition as a straightforward matter of ensuring legal compliance. However, it doesn't delve into the broader debate about the balance between direct democracy and constitutional governance or the potential impact on citizen participation in the legislative process.
🔍 The Underlying Philosophy: Conservative Governance and Direct Democracy
While not explicitly discussed as a separate topic, the underlying philosophy behind these propositions forms a crucial context for understanding the proposed changes. The measures collectively reflect a conservative approach to governance, emphasizing checks on executive power, protection of partisan interests, and increased scrutiny of direct democracy measures.
The push for partisan primaries (Proposition 133) aligns with a traditional conservative view that political parties should have significant control over their nomination processes. This perspective values party cohesion and ideological consistency over broader participation in the primary process.
The geographic distribution requirement for initiative signatures (Proposition 134) reflects a common conservative concern about urban dominance in state politics. It aligns with broader arguments for systems like the Electoral College at the national level, which give weight to geographic distribution of support rather than pure population numbers.
The limitation on gubernatorial emergency powers (Proposition 135) is framed as a response to perceived overreach during the COVID-19 pandemic. This aligns with conservative principles of limited government and skepticism of executive authority, particularly in areas that affect business operations and personal freedoms.
The allowance for earlier legal challenges to ballot initiatives (Proposition 136) reflects a conservative emphasis on constitutional fidelity and skepticism towards direct democracy measures that might circumvent legislative processes.
These propositions represent a coordinated effort to reshape Arizona's political landscape by conservative principles. However, the show's discussion doesn't explicitly frame them in this way or explore the broader implications of these changes for Arizona's democratic processes.
The conversation also largely ignores potential criticisms of these measures from progressive or moderate perspectives. Issues like voter participation, the rights of independent voters, the balance between urban and rural interests, and the potential for these changes to entrench existing power structures are not thoroughly examined.
While not directly addressed, this underlying philosophy forms the backbone of the argument for these propositions. It's presented as a common-sense approach to governance. Still, listeners are not given a full picture of the ongoing debate about the role of parties, the balance of powers, and the place of direct democracy in modern American governance.
🦉 Three Sonorans Commentary
The Conservative Assault on Democracy: Arizona's Proposition Minefield
As Arizonans, we find ourselves at a critical juncture where the very foundations of our democratic process are being challenged under the guise of "reform." The recent discussion on "Winn Tucson" about four ballot propositions reveals a coordinated conservative effort to reshape our state's political landscape in ways that could disproportionately impact communities of color, low-income residents, and urban dwellers.
We also discover that the Tucson Crime Free Coalition is just another arm of the right-wing.
Proposition 133: The Partisan Primary Trap
The push for constitutionally mandated partisan primaries is nothing short of an attempt to entrench a two-party system that has historically failed to represent the diverse voices of our state. Joel Strabella proudly declared, "Proposition 133 intends to mandate partisan primaries in Arizona." But let's be clear: this move is designed to stifle the growing power of independent voters and maintain the status quo that has long marginalized BIPOC communities.
By forcing voters to align with established parties to have a meaningful say in primary elections, we risk further alienating young voters and people of color who increasingly identify as independents. This proposition directly attacks the political agency of those who feel unrepresented by the traditional party system.
Proposition 134: Rural Empowerment or Minority Suppression?
While framed as a way to give rural communities a voice, Proposition 134's requirement to collect signatures from all 30 legislative districts for ballot initiatives is a thinly veiled attempt to make grassroots organizing more difficult. Strabella explains it as keeping "the same percentages, but it requires the percentages from each of the 30 legislative districts."
This may sound equitable, but in practice, it could silence the voices of urban communities where many of our state's BIPOC residents live. It's a classic tactic of using geographic distribution to dilute the power of densely populated, diverse areas.
We must ask: Is this truly about representation, or is it about maintaining power structures that have historically benefited the white, rural minority?
Proposition 135: Pandemic Politics and Vulnerable Communities
The move to limit gubernatorial emergency powers, as proposed in Proposition 135, is a direct response to COVID-19 measures. Kathleen Winn's comment that "COVID protocols that got put in place really harmed so many businesses" ignores the life-saving potential of these measures, especially for vulnerable populations.
This proposition, limiting emergency declarations to 30 days without legislative approval, could hamper future efforts to address crises that often hit marginalized communities hardest. In a state where environmental justice is a pressing concern, from water scarcity to extreme heat, we cannot afford to politicize emergency responses.
Proposition 136: Judicial Gatekeeping and Grassroots Suppression
Perhaps the most insidious proposal, Proposition 136, allows for earlier legal challenges to ballot initiatives. While presented as a safeguard against unconstitutional measures, this could effectively price out grassroots movements from the initiative process.
Strabella boasts that this "forces the judiciary to address and answer these questions to test the constitutionality at any time during the process." But let's be clear: this additional hurdle will disproportionately affect community-led initiatives that often lack the resources for protracted legal battles. It's a direct assault on one of the few tools available for marginalized communities to bypass an often unresponsive legislature.
The Bigger Picture: A Conservative Power Grab
These propositions represent a concerted effort to consolidate power in the hands of established political parties and rural, predominantly white communities. They seek to limit direct democracy, constrain executive action during crises, and create additional barriers for grassroots movements.
The framing of these measures as common-sense reforms on "Win Tucson" is a masterclass in conservative propaganda. By appealing to fears of government overreach and urban dominance, they mask the real intent: to preserve a system that has long favored the few over the many.
As progressive Arizonans, we must see these propositions for what they are – an attack on the democratic process itself. They threaten to marginalize further communities that are already fighting for equitable representation and resources.
We cannot allow our state's future to be dictated by those who fear Arizona's changing demographics and political landscape. It's time to stand united against these regressive measures and fight for a truly inclusive democracy that amplifies all voices, especially those historically silenced.
The battle for Arizona's soul is on the ballot. Let's ensure our vision of a just, equitable, and truly representative democracy prevails.
If you enjoyed this article, buy us a cup of coffee!
👯 People Mentioned
Kathleen Winn (host):
"COVID was not that long ago and and the COVID protocols that got put in place really did have a negative effect on on so many businesses but it was selective because certain businesses were allowed to remain open where restaurants churches just were not."
"I think it's great that the legislature put this together I hope that people understand how we got here and why we're trying to do this again it's not that the governor can't declare an emergency they're just going to have to keep checking in to see if the reaction or what we're doing in case of an emergency is the right response according to the people"
Joel Strabella (guest):
"What Proposition 133 intends to do is mandate partisan primaries in Arizona."
"What this proposition does is it's pretty much keeps the same percentages but it requires the percentages from each of the 30 legislative districts."
"This piece of legislation does is adds language to the Constitution limiting the governor's ability to declare an emergency and use emergency powers to a maximum of 30 days unless the legislature concurs with the emergency or the legislature terminates that emergency early."
"This forces the judiciary to address and answer these questions to test the constitutionality at any time during the process up to and including and even after the voters vote that the citizens initiative into law."
Doug Ducey (former governor, mentioned indirectly):
Referred to in context of COVID-19 emergency measures
Josh Jacobson (mentioned earlier):
Associated with Tucson Crime Free Coalition
Kevin Daly and Monica Carlson (mentioned briefly):
Co-steering leaders with Josh Jacobson in the Tucson Crime Free Coalition
Brian McIntyre:
Current county attorney in Cochise County, mentioned as being aggressive in prosecuting crimes
Lori Zuko:
Mentioned as likely to replace Brian McIntyre as county attorney in Cochise County
Sheriff Daniels:
Sheriff in Cochise County, mentioned in context of border security issues
🧐 Propaganda AI-nalysis
The "Winn Tucson" radio show exhibits several propaganda techniques:
Framing: The propositions are presented as necessary reforms to protect conservative values and limit perceived overreach.
Appeal to fear: Discussion of COVID-19 measures uses fear of government overreach to justify Proposition 135.
Simplification: Complex issues are reduced to digestible narratives supporting a conservative perspective.
Repetition: Key points about partisan primaries and rural voter involvement are frequently reiterated.
Bandwagon: The host and guest imply widespread support for these propositions among Arizonans.
Selective information: The discussion focuses on potential benefits from a conservative standpoint, with limited exploration of drawbacks or alternative viewpoints.
Emotional appeal: References to negative impacts of COVID-19 measures on businesses and personal freedoms evoke emotional responses.
Us vs. Them mentality: An implicit division between rural/conservative interests and urban/liberal interests is created.
Authority figures: The guest is presented as an expert, lending authority to the pro-proposition stance.
Loaded language: Terms like "abusive powers" when referring to COVID-19 measures color the audience's perception.
While informative, the show clearly presents these propositions from a conservative perspective, potentially influencing listeners' opinions without offering a balanced view.
 | A guest post by
|