PROPOSITIONS: TAKE MY ADVICE - OR FLIP A COIN

You know why 200,000 or so people voted early in Arizona?

Because if you have your ballot at home, you can throw darts at it to
decide your vote on those darn propositions. Or you can take your time
and throw the ``I Ching.'' Or you can devise some way of letting your
cat decide for you.

But it's too late to vote early. So here are my suggestions. I could
be wrong, but there is a 50 percent chance in each case that I'm right.

* Proposition 100 - New rules that provide added protection for the
state retirement system. Nothing to think about here. An easy ``yes.''

* Proposition 101 - Salary commission. This would increase the size of
the state's salary commission and make its decisions final unless
overturned by the Legislature. The real change is that recommendations
for legislative raises would no longer have to be approved by voters.
(That's because voters never approve them.)

I tend to think people work better when they're paid better. Even
legislators.

* Proposition 102 - Investment of state trust funds. This would allow
Arizona to invest portions of its state education trust funds in the
stock market. Another easy ``yes.''

* Proposition 103 - Open primary. This is not a true open primary
scheme. It simply allows voters who don't claim a particular party to
ask for whichever party's ballot looks interesting at primary election
time. It will open up the process and increase participation. It's
another easy ``yes.''

Some party leaders complain it will weaken the two-party system by
creating a huge block of voters with no allegiance to the Democrats or
Republicans. So what else is new?

* Propositions 104 and 105 - The ``don't touch that'' initiatives. If
either of these measures pass, it will be much tougher for legislators
to mess with voter-passed laws in the future.

Proposition 104 would require a two-thirds vote to change any
voter-passed law and would apply to laws passed previously by the voters.

Proposition 105 would not apply to previously passed laws, would
require a three-fourths vote to change its terms and would not allow
any change that does not further the purpose of the law, whatever that
means.

I tend to favor 104. It makes the point to not tamper with the will of
the voters, but it allows for adjustment if necessary. These things
sometimes need changing.

* Proposition 200 - Public financing of political campaigns. Under
this law, we get to fund campaigns for state offices with money from
fines, a tax on lobbyists and income taxes.

This is not the greatest public-financing scheme in the world. It
wouldn't end runaway spending. Candidates would still be free to
refuse the state's money and collect the usual millions from the usual
suspects.

But less of that garbage would go on, and any improvement is
welcomed.

Proposition 201 - Cockfighting. A ``yes'' will protect roosters from
exploitation and death and make criminals of their owners; a ``no''
will keep cockfighting legal.

I'm going to flip a coin. This is a society whose elite dress up in
tuxedoes and evening dresses and pay thousands of dollars for
front-row seats to watch professional boxers beat each other into
senselessness. It's tough to get outraged about fighting chickens.

Proposition 202: The IRS pledge.

If candidates for Congress sign a pledge that vows to eliminate the
Internal Revenue Service and replace the income tax with a consumption
tax, they would be entitled to have the words ``signed the IRS
elimination pledge'' included on the ballot with their names.

You have to remember that this is a year when the attorney general and
his would-be successor, Tom McGovern, swore an oath and signed a
notarized affidavit proclaiming that ``we have never, at any time in
our lives, taken, consumed or used marijuana or any other illegal drug
or substance.''

Maybe that pledge should be on the ballot, or perhaps something about
promising never to diddle the interns, or to brush your teeth daily.
Or maybe we should just forget the whole stupid thing.

Propositions 300 and 301: We passed a law two years ago that ordered
treatment, rather than imprisonment, for people convicted of simple
use or possession of drugs. The Legislature tried to undo it.

That law also made it possible for doctors to prescribe marijuana (and
a bunch of other drugs) to patients suffering from chronic or terminal
diseases. The Legislature tried to undo that as well.

A ``no'' on these two propositions would stop the legislative attempt
to thwart the will of the voters. A``yes'' accepts the premise that
we're too stupid to make our own laws.

Proposition 302 - Legislative pay raise. This boosts legislative
salaries from $15,000 to $24,000. Vote yes. Some of them deserve a
raise.

Proposition 303 - Open space. This is the ``growing smarter'' plan of
Gov. Jane Hull and the Legislature.

Part of me says take the money and run. The proposition offers $220
million for purchase of open space over the next 11 years.

But there is no guarantee the Legislature will actually spend the
money, the state can only buy state land with it, and purchases would
be directed by a board heavy with development interests. In addition,
the law would forbid the state from ordering urban-growth boundaries
or development impact fees.

Which is what you might expect from a law written by and for
developers, who feared an actual ``slow growth'' measure on the ballot.

It's a sham and a subterfuge and we're all rubes if we expect a
``yes'' vote to put Arizona on the path of ``growing smarter.''

Proposition 304 - extending the state lottery.

Vote ``yes'' if you think the state should continue to sponsor
gambling. Vote ``no'' if you don't. If you're ambivalent about
gambling, flip a coin.

Checked-by: Patrick Henry