Even some who voted for Barack Obama felt that Sarah Palin had been treated unfairly by the media.

Sarah Palin obviously retains national ambitions despite the pounding she took as the Republican vice presidential nominee in 2008. If she does re-emerge, will she come back more like Dan Quayle or Ronald Reagan?

On its surface, the former seems more likely than the latter. Palin was not the primary reason Republicans lost the White House in November, but she became so polarizing – largely on questions over her competence – that she may have Quayle-esque mountains to overcome.

Palin remains wildly popular with the most devoted Republicans, witnessed by the rock-star reception she received while campaigning for the re-election of Sen. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia’s runoff.

But among the chronically uncommitted and independent Americans who typically decide national elections, Palin was not nearly so well received. This is the group the Alaska governor will have to sway if she has any future beyond Juneau.

Still, those writing her off entirely ignore recent history. During Ronald Reagan’s first run for national office in 1976 he, too, was criticized as a shallow intellect and too conservative to be elected.

Four years later, he stomped a reformist Democrat, incumbent Jimmy Carter. Taking any bets on the re-election of Barack Obama, another Democrat reformist, in 2012 is risky business.

Most significantly, a post-election poll of American women by Republican Kellyanne Conway and Democrat Celinda Lake suggests Palin’s problems could be different from what Quayle faced after his first national campaign in 1988.

Quayle never was able to shake the disastrous label that he was not ready for prime time, a claim that was neatly encapsulated in the “you’re no Jack Kennedy” sound bite from the late Lloyd Bentsen, Quayle’s ’88 opponent for vice president.

But while devoted Republicans to this day still think Quayle got a bum rap from a hostile media, most other Americans did not. That does not appear to be the case with Palin, at least among women, who are a permanent majority of the American electorate.

A big majority – 64 percent – of the women surveyed by Conway and Lake said they felt Palin got more negative media coverage than other candidates did because she was a woman. That was more than twice as many as the 31 percent that said the same thing of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Sympathy toward Palin stretched across ideological and party identifications, with many women who did not vote for Palin saying she was unfairly covered because of her gender. The poll of 600 women, taken Nov. 21-24, had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

During the Democratic primaries, some Clinton supporters believed President-elect Barack Obama ran a subtly sexist and condescending campaign against her.

That twice as many women would think Palin was unfairly treated because of her gender was one of the most startling findings of the Conway-Lake poll, conducted for Lifetime Networks.

Women, Conway said, believe no male would face questions about “the maternity of a man’s baby, or a wardrobe or hairstyles.” The references were to Internet-fueled falsehoods that Palin’s youngest son actually was her daughter’s, about controversies over clothing the campaign bought for her and about criticism of her appearance.

“I just don’t read the same stories about hair plugs or bad comb-overs,” Conway said, a not-so-subtle reference to Vice President-elect Joe Biden.

Women running for national office, Conway said, are so different from the norm of “what is probably the second oldest profession, and one that is perhaps the most male-dominated,” that Palin was bound to be judged differently. People had a short window to draw their conclusions and this unfamiliar model.

And Conway argued the Alaska governor would have been far more effective if John McCain’s campaign had her focus on issues important to women, like special-needs children and the economy, instead of making her the primary attack person of Obama’s ties to 1960s radical William Ayres.

Conway said Palin should understand “this is Barack Obama’s time,” and to “first wait, and then plan and proceed.”

“She needs to reintroduce herself on her own terms without handlers and people controlling her schedule and buying her clothes and telling her which black dot to stand on,” Conway said, “and (to say) stupid things like, ‘palling around with terrorists.’ ”

Chuck Raasch is political editor for Gannett News Service. E-mail: craasch@gns.gannett.com.

———

Read Raasch’s blog

Get more behind-the-scenes reports, context and analysis about politicians and the political process in Raasch’s Furthermore blog.

The village green has grown to include the village screen.

The 21st century dynamics of free press and free speech are an intriguing blend of traditional news media, new technology, personal messages and even entertainment programming.

And, considering the success of President-elect Barack Obama’s use of e-mail, text messages and social-networking sites like facebook.com in his campaign, First Amendment scholars may be revising contemporary definitions of assembly and petition as well.

Consider these post-Election Day observations, based on reports from colleagues at the Newseum in Washington, D.C., and news reports elsewhere:

• Modern-day “town criers” brought Election Night news in a personal way: News reports said more than 1.2 billion text messages were sent between 7 p.m. and midnight on Nov. 4, as broadcasters and Web sites reported state-by-state results and then the news broke around 9 p.m. Tucson time that Sen. Obama would be the 44th president of the United States.

• Mainstream print media still matter, but in new ways: Beginning at 5 p.m. on Nov. 5, Newseum visitors and tourists stood as many as five deep at 555 Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. to examine newspaper front pages from the 50 states and overseas reporting Obama’s historic victory. Television crews followed. It was a unique New Age experience – people posing with printed newspapers, in front of broadcast media, for cell-phone photos to be sent wirelessly to Web sites.

• Journalism is not only “the first draft of history,” but also the historical memento: USA TODAY sold an extra 380,000 copies post-election and more online since. The Washington Post printed 1,050,000 commemorative editions. The Chicago Tribune printed more than 1.1 million copies of the Nov. 5 edition, about 410,000 more than its regular run. The Los Angeles Times printed at least 200,000 extra copies. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution had to reprint five times for a total of 248,000 extra newspapers.

• TV ratings were shared in a new way: ABC News topped all Election Night competitors with 13.2 million viewers, but cable’s CNN came in second at 12.3 million. NBC’s “SNL Presidential Bash” on Monday night was the network’s top entertainment program for the week, with 14.4 million viewers. Comedy Central’s “Indecision 2008″ special alone drew 3.1 million.

In the nation’s earliest years, pamphleteers like Thomas Paine, partisan newspaper editors and publishers such as Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Bache and a host of Colonial orators in town halls and on village greens fueled debate and provided information to the public.

It was that politicized press and speech, and a desire to protect the public’s right to challenge and petition its government for change, that prompted the 45 words of the First Amendment.

Fast-forward to 2008. A Nov. 3 article by Adam Nagourney of The New York Times was premised on the idea that the Obama Internet strategy has “rewritten the rules on how to reach voters, raise money, organize supporters, manage the news media, track and mold public opinion, and wage – and withstand – political attacks.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas of The Washington Post has been researching “Triple O,” the nickname for Obama’s online operation, and its reach to new groups of voters such as students and its fund-raising success.

He told a Newseum audience in October that the model for this 2008 effort was none other than Sen. John McCain’s 2000 campaign’s use of the Net to attract donations.

Vargas says the Web is outpacing television as the source for news and information: “The press as we know it has been governed by images and sound bites. I think we’re transitioning away from the era of sound bites . . . . The way we interact with news has fundamentally changed. People want to talk back. People want to feel as if they’re represented.”

Not all the “talk back” on Election Night was positive. A University of Texas football player posted an election-related comment including a racial slur in response to a facebook.com template question: “What are you doing right now?”

After his comment went out widely on the Web beyond his intended audience, the sophomore player was expelled from the team despite an apology for his “bad judgment” in posting the remark.

That’s how the First Amendment works: In any era, it protects you from prior government restraint, but you get to deal with the results of what you say – be that winning a presidential election or commenting on the victor.

Gene Policinski is vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center (www.firstamendmentcenter.org). E-mail: gpolicinsk@fac.org

Proposition 201 creates a huge incentive for dissatisfied buyers to sue. There's little risk in going to court to ask for more than the homebuilder is offering.

Proposition 201 proponents, mostly unions, say the initiative is to protect new homebuyers against shoddy construction.

Opponents of Prop. 201, mostly homebuilders, claim that its intent to encourage litigation and enrich trial lawyers.

Although some of their arguments are stretched, opponents have the much better case. The primary effect of Prop. 201 would be to increase litigation rather than fix homes.

Consumer surveys indicate that most people are generally satisfied when they buy a new home. When they aren’t, however, it is a very big deal. For virtually everyone, their home is a major investment, both financially and emotionally.

In the 1990s, the home construction industry in California was racked by an explosion of construction defect litigation. The condo market largely froze.

In a former life, when I ran a public affairs agency, I was hired by the industry here in Arizona to promote an alternative dispute mechanism to prevent the California litigation craze from coming here.

I apparently wasn’t very successful, because legislation wasn’t passed in Arizona until long after I had become a journalist.

However, legislation was passed in 2002, on a very strong bipartisan vote. Only three of 90 legislators voted against it.

The current law is intended to encourage the resolution of disputes over home construction without litigation.

The buyer tells the homebuilder what he thinks is wrong. The homebuilder can make an offer to fix it. If buyer and builder agree, the repair is made. If not, the buyer still can sue.

If the dispute goes to court and the buyer gets more than the homebuilder offered, the homebuilder has to pay the buyer’s attorney fees. If, however, the buyer gets less than the homebuilder offered, the buyer has to pay the homebuilder’s attorney fees.

Under Prop. 201, the buyer would never have to pay the homebuilder’s attorney fees. In fact, the buyer would get attorney fees if he won anything, even if it was considerably less than the homebuilder offered before litigation.

This creates a huge incentive for dissatisfied buyers to sue. There’s little risk in going to court to ask for more than the homebuilder is offering.

You have to really like litigation to think that’s a good idea. And it’s likely to work against most dissatisfied buyers who just want their problems fixed, because it dramatically reduces the incentive of the homebuilder to be proactive before litigation.

That’s the heart of the measure and the main reason it should be rejected. Prop. 201, however, has other provisions, the consequences of which opponents are at least somewhat exaggerating.

You may have heard the opposition protesting that Prop. 201 even allows people who don’t buy a home to sue. That, however, isn’t for construction defects, which would clearly be ridiculous.

The proposition also requires that new home contracts contain additional disclosures, mostly about financial arrangements the seller may have with those doing the financing for the homeowner. This is the provision over which nonbuyers can sue.

That’s less ridiculous, but only slightly so. If someone doesn’t end up buying, what harm has he suffered? If there are harmful nondisclosures, real buyers can make the case.

Opponents are also making a big deal out of Prop, 201 striking current law exempting new home contracts with arbitration clauses from the dispute resolution mechanism set up by the statute. The proponents are trying to do away with arbitration is the claim.

What the proponents are trying to do by striking that provision in existing law is unclear, and certainly the overall thrust of the proposition is to encourage litigation. The Federal Arbitration Act, however, protects arbitration contract provisions and pre-empts state laws to the contrary.

There is one provision of Prop. 201 that would be a major disservice to most buyers of new homes that isn’t getting discussed enough. It would allow buyers to back out of a deal within 100 days and get 95 percent of their deposit back. If that were enacted, either construction on new homes would be routinely delayed for 100 days or deposits would become astronomical.

Proponents of Prop. 201 want voters to think it’s about a 10-year warranty on new homes. But Arizona courts have generally held that there is an implied warranty that new homes have to remain functionally fit for eight years, so there’s less gain in this than it appears.

Regardless of the motivation or the intent, the primary effect of Prop. 201 will be to have construction defects litigated rather than fixed.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

A mandate to purchase health insurance can be seen as a self-responsibility requirement and an anti-free rider protection.

Proposition 101 stands for a simple and commendable principle: People should have the right to use their own money to purchase the health care they want.

How the proposition would affect Arizona’s health care system now and in the future isn’t quite so simple.

The proposition is intended to preclude the imposition of a government health care plan that would mandate that everyone participate and forbid the purchase of health care outside the plan.

It is also intended to preclude government mandates that individuals purchase health insurance or that employers provide health insurance or pay a fine.

These are not idle concerns. In 2006, Massachusetts passed a plan with both individual and employer mandates. Vermont adopted an employer mandate that same year.

New Jersey has adopted a requirement that all children be insured. California is considering a Massachusetts-styled proposal.

In Arizona, House Democratic Leader Phil Lopes has been touting a proposal in which a government commission would establish a standard benefit plan for the state and set reimbursement rates for health care facilities and practitioners. Private insurance would be forbidden for services covered by the government plan.

The opposition to Prop. 101 is claiming that it could dramatically increase costs for the state’s Medicaid plan, which is based on restricting choices regarding health care providers.

That’s nonsense. Proposition 101 confers a constitutional right on individuals to purchase health care services and coverage directly. It confers no rights on individuals with respect to health care purchased for them by others, either the government or employers.

If individuals decide to enroll in the state’s Medicaid plan, they have to abide by the rules of that plan. Proposition 101 doesn’t change that at all.

In reality, opponents of Proposition 101 want to preserve the option of mandated participation and a governmental system without opt outs.

If there is to be universal access, the health care of those sick, particularly those with chronic illnesses, has to be subsidized.

Universal access could be easily provided simply by allowing anyone to buy into the state’s Medicaid pool. In that way, however, the subsidy would be reasonably transparent and borne by taxes.

Many universal access advocates prefer to hide the subsidy through the premium mechanism. By mandating that individuals purchase insurance, particularly in a governmental system without opt outs, the young and healthy are subsidizing the chronically sick without knowing it.

An employer play-or-pay requirement also hides the cost of the government social welfare policy.

Universal access is a laudable policy. But the necessary subsidy should be provided transparently through the tax mechanism, not hidden through the premium mechanism or employer mandates.

To the extent Proposition 101 precludes more opaque options, it forces reform discussion in the right direction.

However, the claim by supporters that Proposition 101 is purely preventative is probably not true. Proposition 101 would also probably make fairly sweeping changes in the existing private health insurance market.

Arizona, like many states, imposes a variety of mandates on private health insurance plans. These mandates include various medical conditions, such as autism, and various health care procedures, such as breast reconstruction in cancer cases.

There also are mandates that various health care professionals, such as chiropractors, be covered if the medical condition being treated falls within their scope of practice.

Proposition 101 says that no law can be passed that restricts an individual’s freedom of choice regarding “private plans of any type.” That presumably would include plans free of the mandates the state currently imposes.

Now, I happened to think that this is a good thing. Government shouldn’t be dictating the terms of insurance contracts. And these mandates are widely thought to drive up the cost of health insurance. People should have the right to purchase stripped-down insurance policies if they want.

But it does mean that the impact of Proposition 101 is probably far broader than proponents are admitting.

I certainly agree with Proposition 101′s goals of protecting the right of individuals to purchase health care services directly and to preclude employer play-or-pay provisions.

I’m more ambivalent about precluding a government mandate that people purchase health insurance. After all, if people get sick, they get taken care off. And if they don’t have insurance, often the rest of us are stuck with the bill one way or another.

A mandate to purchase health insurance can be seen as a self-responsibility requirement and an anti-free rider protection.

In the final analysis, however, it’s better to have the right to purchase health care independent of government constitutionally protected than not.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

You wouldn’t have picked up on it during the debates, but John McCain and Barack Obama actually agree on some issues. One of them is gay marriage.

Both presidential candidates oppose the concept, preferring instead the squishy alternative of civil unions.

They’re both wrong. I can sympathize. In 2000, when 61 percent of California voters approved Proposition 22, a ballot measure that defined marriage as between a man and a woman, I was an opponent of gay marriage. I thought that gay rights activists should concentrate on a more achievable goal such as a federal civil rights bill outlawing private-sector discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Then a gay family member helped me see that the issue wasn’t as complicated as I was making it. I now believe we simply can’t have a two-tiered system where some of us have the right to marry and others don’t, based on sexual orientation.

The fact that gays and lesbians – including some who are already in committed relationships – want to get married doesn’t weaken the institution. It strengthens it by allowing more people to participate.

As more states allow gays and lesbians to marry – Connecticut recently joined the list – I’ve taken note that civilization has not crumbled.

Here in California, some people are still worried it might. Proposition 22 was struck down last spring by the California Supreme Court, thus clearing the way for gay marriages. Now the opponents of gay marriage have proposed another ballot initiative, Proposition 8, which would amend the state constitution to ban gay marriage.

McCain has endorsed the measure. But Obama’s position is all over the map.

Despite having said that he opposes same-sex marriage and that each state should reach its own decision, Obama has also said that he opposes “divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution” in order to prohibit gay marriage.

There you have one of the inconsistencies in the “No on 8″ campaign.

After President Clinton signed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 – defining marriage as between a man and a woman and excusing states from recognizing gay unions approved by other states – supporters of gay marriage said the matter should be settled by the states.

Now that Californians are trying to do just that, the supporters of gay marriage are yelling foul. If the federal government can’t settle this issue, and the states can’t either, then where do opponents of gay marriage – misguided though they may be – go to make their voices heard?

The “Yes on 8″ campaign has its own built-in contradiction. Opponents of gay marriage make a fuss over the fact that a handful of judges overrode the wishes of millions of voters. You don’t say?

These people are all too eager to use ballot initiatives to play citizen legislators, as they did eight years ago. But when real legislators pass a law, whatever they come up with must be able to survive judicial review.

The same goes for a voter-approved initiative. The opponents of gay marriage want all the power that comes from making laws, but none of the responsibility of making sure the laws they pass are constitutional.

Meanwhile, the California campaign is topsy-turvy. A Field Poll released Sept. 18 found that 38 percent of likely voters backed Proposition 8 and 55 percent opposed it.

Now, just one month later, a Survey USA poll – conducted on behalf of four California television stations – finds that 47 percent of likely voters support the initiative while just 42 percent oppose it.

One reason for the turnaround seems to be radio and television ads. A despicable offering from the “Yes on 8″ camp plays on the fear that, if gay marriage continues, it will make its way into the public school curriculum.

The television ad features a little girl who comes home from school and informs her mother that she’s reading a book about a prince who can’t find a princess to marry and so instead he marries another prince. And, she says, when she grows up, she can marry a princess.

Good heavens. The spot does not explain that California parents have the right to be notified of any instruction of sexually implicit material and to pull their children out of class if they so desire.

Instead, what you wind up with is Willie Horton meets “Sesame Street.”

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a columnist and editorial board member of The San Diego Union-Tribune. E-mail: ruben.navarrette@uniontrib.com

Many proposals swirling around Arizona and the rest of the country would increase government’s role in health care. Their common denominator: reduced individual choice and control over medical decisions.

Proposition 101, the Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act, would preserve the rights of Arizonans to make their own health-care decisions.

The initiative would amend the state constitution to protect against future schemes that would restrict individuals’ “freedom of choice of private health care systems or private plans of any type,” the “right to pay directly for lawful medical services,” or freedom to participate or not participate in health insurance programs.

Essentially it would codify the choices we can exercise today.

It would not change existing health care policy in Arizona, but it would prevent health insurance schemes based on government coercion rather than freedom of choice.

Those who oppose it hope that people will not read the initiative’s short, simple and clear language, but will succumb instead to arguments that twist the language beyond recognition.

The campaign against Proposition 101 has consisted of a parade of what I call the “mighty mights” – scary things the initiative might do.

For instance, the directors of our state’s Medicaid program, AHCCCS, have used taxpayer money to suggest that the initiative “might” harm that program.

To the contrary, Proposition 101 would not affect AHCCCS at all, because AHCCCS is a voluntary program. If the state were to force Arizonans to participate in AHCCCS or any other health insurance program, that would be a different story.

Others have suggested that the initiative “might” affect the right to abortion one way or the other. It would not.

The initiative merely preserves for individuals the right to pay directly for “lawful” medical services, leaving to the people or their elected representatives the power to determine what those lawful services are.

Nor does the initiative require that any health insurance provider cover or pay for any specific services – that is a matter left to each health-insurance provider and the people who choose to patronize them.

Courts interpreting initiatives work diligently to interpret the intent of those who drafted and voted for them. Here the intent is clear: no change in rights or programs that Arizonans presently enjoy, but a healthy dose of protection against future government coercion.

It is not unusual for opposition campaigns to enlist the “mighty mights” when there are no good substantive arguments against an idea.

Two years ago, many government officials campaigned against Proposition 207, the Private Property Rights Protection Act, predicting all manner of doom and gloom if it passed. The voters approved it overwhelmingly, and the sky did not fall.

Arizonans, as a result, now enjoy greater property rights protections than citizens of any other state. So, too, will they have greater control over health care decisions if they approve Proposition 101.

Among those funding the “No on Prop. 101″ campaign are large companies that want to ensure their piece of the health insurance pie, as well as special-interest groups who favor greater government control of health care.

Those who support Proposition 101 differ on solutions to the health-care challenges that face Americans and the initiative would allow a wide range of approaches.

But Proposition 101 would assure that whatever policies are adopted, they must preserve voluntary individual choice. Such freedom of choice, on matters as vital and intimate as medical care, is a bedrock of our free society.

That freedom is under serious assault. Proposition 101 would provide bulletproof armor against those who would take it away.

Clint Bolick is director of the Goldwater Institute Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation.

Nothing seems to bring out the paternalistic instincts of the left these days more than payday lending.

The Arizona Legislature passed a law permitting the practice in 2000. The law, however, had a sunset provision and evaporates in 2010.

The industry got worried that the Legislature wouldn’t extend the law. So, it put Proposition 200 on the ballot, which extends the law without an expiration date while restricting certain industry practices.

Payday lending involves small loans (from $50 to $500) for a short period (five to 35 days).

The borrower gives the payday lender a check for the amount to be borrowed and, under Proposition 200, up to a 15 percent fee, to be tendered at some later date. The borrower walks out with cash.

It’s a terrible deal.

It’s not as bad as opponents depict it. Opponents take the maximum fee on a two-week loan, annualize it, and say that it’s an interest rate of 391 percent.

Under Proposition 200, those having a problem repaying the loan can have, at their option, a repayment plan of up to four months with no additional fee. In that circumstance, it would be an annualized interest rate of more like 36 percent.

Still, a terrible deal.

However, it’s an understandable transaction in dollars to those who make it. Get $200. Pay $230.

The question is whether state law should prohibit that transaction, as Proposition 200 opponents would like to see.

To get a payday loan, a borrower has to have a job and a checking account. As a practical matter, it’s a mechanism used by the lower middle-class, not the poor.

Opponents claim that payday lending is a debt-trap, that people end up owing much more than what they originally borrow. Nationally, according to the opposition’s literature, the average payday borrower pays “nearly $800 on a $300 loan.”

In Arizona, however, that’s a mathematical impossibility.

The practice opponents object to is rolling over the debt for an additional fee. So, a guy borrows $300 and owes $345. But he can’t pay it, so the lender extends it for another period for another $45 fee. And so on.

Arizona law already limited such rollovers to three times, so here the debt could never have become the multiple opponents claim.

And Proposition 200 would eliminate such rollovers entirely. The payback period could be extended, but no additional fee could be charged.

Payday loans are a very bad option. But there are not really many alternatives for small, short-term loans.

The industry is competitive. There are several national players and many local firms crop up wherever the practice is permitted. These days, that includes the vast majority of states.

There aren’t major barriers to entry. So, if money can be made by providing such loans for less, the door is wide open.

About 5 percent of Americans have taken out a payday loan. There’s scant evidence that their lot would have been better if denied that opportunity.

A study by two economists with the New York Federal Reserve Bank found that after Georgia and North Carolina abolished payday lending, bounced checks and Chapter 7 bankruptcies increased.

Opponents of payday lending tend to depict those in the industry as loan sharks, because of the very high interest rates they charge. However, if you don’t pay back a payday lender, he has to take you to court. If you don’t pay back a loan shark, he breaks your legs.

That’s an important difference. Creating legal opportunities for high-rate loans reduces the market for illegal ones.

No one makes anyone take out a payday loan. It’s a voluntary decision on easily understood terms.

Proposition 200 opponents think it’s a bad choice for lower middle-class people and want to make it unavailable.

If Proposition 200 opponents don’t like payday lending, they should channel their energy into stimulating and publicizing less-expensive alternatives for small, short-term loans.

However, this particular option, the payday loan, shouldn’t be taken away from those who want to use it.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Many propositions are named to tweak your interest and keep you from digging deeper into the real meaning of what you'll be voting on.

I know it’s early, but I’ve already decided to collect signatures for an initiative on the 2010 Arizona ballot.

The name of the initiative is set: The Free Cookies for All Act.

What’s the initiative about? Who cares? I haven’t decided yet. I have the title, so I’ll come up with the initiative later.

It won’t have anything to do with cookies. Or with free stuff. But The Free Cookies for All Act is a catchy name, and I’m sure people will vote for it once I send out literature that includes the name of my initiative.

Maybe it will be an initiative on property taxes. Or smoking. Or gay marriage (that seems to be a regular thing). Maybe something to do with illegal immigrants.

It doesn’t really matter. The title is all that counts. People will hear about free cookies, and who could possibly be opposed?

Sadly, there is no Free Cookies for All Act on next month’s general election ballot. But there are a bunch of propositions that are similar: The name of the measure is designed to tweak your interest and keep you from digging deeper into the real meaning of what you’ll be voting on.

In most cases, it’s outright dishonesty. Supporters of the propositions know they are peddling an unpopular cause, so they slap on a misleading label and hope that does the sales job.

Arizona is hardly alone in permitting this – but we do it better (or worse) than anyone else, one expert in the field says.

“Arizona has one of the worst systems in the nation for selecting titles,” said Joel Foster. He is deputy executive director of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, based in Washington, D.C.

But Joe Kanefield, Arizona state elections director, says it’s not his fault. He agrees some initiative titles are misleading – but he says the state constitution prevents him from doing anything about it.

“They are required to have a title,” Kanefield said of initiatives. But the state constitution “doesn’t specify whether the title has to be accurate.”

Take a look at some of the initiatives on this year’s ballot. Clearly accuracy was not a paramount concern when a title was chosen:

• Prop. 101 is Medical Choice for Arizona. But it actually would limit some possible future medical choices.

• Prop. 105 is Majority Rules – Let the People Decide. The initiative would actually allow people who don’t vote to decide. Propositions that involved spending money would have to win the support of a majority of all voters – not just all voters who vote. The majority who voted wouldn’t get to decide.

• Prop. 200 is the real doozy. It’s called the Payday Loan Reform Act. But the only real reform it includes is allowing payday loan operators to stay in business instead of being forced to close shop, as current law requires. Payday loan operators knew they wouldn’t stand a chance calling their initiative the Payday Loan Preservation Act, which would have been accurate.

• Prop. 202 is called Stop Illegal Hiring. But it makes changes to the state’s employer sanctions law – which has stopped a lot of illegal hiring – to make it less stringent.

There is a common goal. The idea is to come up with a title that elicits a positive response. Yes, we want payday loan reform! Yes, we want medical choice! And yes, we want illegal hiring stopped!

The tobacco industry is the recognized expert in initiative obfuscation – in Arizona and elsewhere. In 2006, the industry placed and financed the Arizona Non-Smoker Protection Act. It didn’t protect nonsmokers. It would have allowed smoking in many indoor places – but was defeated by the more strict Smoke Free Arizona initiative placed by the health care industry.

Foster, of the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, says Colorado does it right when it comes to the titles of ballot initiatives. There are public hearings to gather views on the accuracy of titles and an appeal process before a final decision is made.

“Arizona really should consider some reforms,” Foster said, “to make titles as clear or as unambiguous as possible.”

That would require a change to the state constitution, Kanefield said. And that would require – of course – a ballot initiative. And a title.

Maybe that’s what should be called The Free Cookies for All Act. Use a misleading title to prohibit the use of misleading titles.

Mark Kimble appears at 6:30 p.m. Fridays on “Arizona Illustrated” on KUAT-TV, Channel 6. He may be reached at mkimble@tucsoncitizen.com or 573-4662.

Given that having a real estate transfer tax is the prevailing practice among the states, having one wouldn't put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage. And using the proceeds to reduce other taxes could make Arizona's economy more productive. Don't take it off the table.

There are two propositions on the November ballot to limit state taxation and spending.

That is something I customarily thump the tub for. However, both propositions are problematic.

Proposition 100 would constitutionally prohibit a real estate transfer tax. The wisdom of doing this can only be considered in the broader context of Arizona’s fiscal structure.

Virtually all economists believe the tax structure most conducive to economic growth involves low rates on broad bases. Conservative economists also generally believe that reliance on sales taxes rather than income or property taxes is more conducive to growth.

Arizona does have relatively high reliance on sales taxes. But Arizona’s sales tax base is rather narrow, basically sales of goods to end consumers.

In 2007, state government collected $5.7 billion in sales taxes. According to the Arizona Department of Revenue, expanding the tax to services would have netted another $2 billion.

Now, most economists, liberal and conservative, would agree that expanding sales taxes to services would be a good idea. It would allow a lower rate on a broader base and hitch state revenues more to the faster growing portion of the economy.

Voters, however, tend to say it’s spinach and they aren’t going to eat it. Sales taxes on services tend to be very unpopular and few states impose them.

Nevertheless, the discussion about expanding the sale tax base in Arizona and using the revenue to reduce other taxes – the sales tax rate on goods or preferably income taxes – should remain open. And a real estate transfer tax should be part of that discussion.

Most other states (35 by most counts) impose a real estate transfer tax. At the median rate of other states (four-tenths of 11 percent), a real estate transfer tax would raise north of $200 million in Arizona.

Advocates of Proposition 100, primarily the Realtors’ association, complain that a real estate transfer tax is double taxation, since homes and businesses already pay property taxes.

There is some merit to that argument and if Arizona ever got serious about fundamental tax reform, it should be taken into account.

However, virtually all excise taxes involve double taxation, and a tax on a tax, to some extent. The current sales tax certainly does. The property and income taxes producers and retailers pay are imbedded in the cost of the good to which the sales tax is applied.

Given that having a real estate transfer tax is the prevailing practice among the states, having one wouldn’t put Arizona at a competitive disadvantage. And using the proceeds to reduce other taxes could make Arizona’s economy more productive. Don’t take it off the table.

Proposition 105 would require initiatives that raise state revenues or mandate spending to be passed by a majority, not just of those voting, but of those registered to vote.

Although the proposition applies only to initiatives put on the ballot by petition, and not to measures referred by the Legislature, no ballot proposition in the last 10 years, initiative or referendum, has gotten a majority of registered voters.

So, as a practical political matter, Proposition 105 would abolish initiatives that raise taxes and establish new state spending programs.

I’m actually in favor of that. How much the state takes from the economy in taxation, and where it spends that money, is an inherent balancing act, requiring a comprehensive perspective. That can only be achieved in the Legislature. It cannot be achieved in the context of a ballot proposition focusing on just one program.

Unfortunately, Proposition 105 is loosely drafted, applying to any initiative that raises any state revenue or “mandates a spending obligation” on any public or private entity.

This is highly likely to catch up initiatives not customarily thought of as primarily taxation or spending measures, such as the increase in the state minimum wage and the smoking ban.

Even the ballot measure abolishing bilingual education would have likely fallen victim to the increased requirement, since it mandated more student testing.

All initiatives require someone to do something, and doing something almost always requires spending some money. Liberally construed, Proposition 105 threatens to do away with initiatives entirely.

Taxation and particularly spending in Arizona needs to be restrained. Unfortunately, these two measures either miss or overshoot the mark.

E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Robert Robb

Some members of the Arizona business community are making a big bet with Proposition 202, the initiative to gut Arizona’s system of sanctions for employers who consciously hire illegal immigrants.

The bet here is that they lose their bet big time, either this election or next.

If Arizona wants to do what it can as a state to cut off the access of illegal immigrants to the formal economy, the system the Legislature has adopted is sensible and workable.

Federal law, of course, already prohibits hiring illegal immigrants. But the enforcement mechanism is best described as a wink-and-a-nod approach.

Employers are required to ask for two forms of identification from workers they hire and submit a form to the federal government.

Sometimes the federal government will send back a letter indicating that Social Security has no record of such an individual with such a Social Security number. But employers don’t have to do anything in response to these no-match letters.

So, under the existing federal law, an employer can easily hire, with little risk, illegal workers possessing phony documents.

The federal government has an electronic database of eligible workers that employers could use: E-Verify. But the feds make use of the system voluntary.

The Arizona law makes the use of E-Verify virtually mandatory. The law says that all Arizona employers must use the system, but provides no penalties for not doing so. Instead, it makes the use of E-Verify a rebuttable presumption against a new state offense of intentionally or knowingly hiring illegal immigrants.

The sanctions under the Arizona law are harsh. A first offense can result in a suspension of a company’s business licenses. A second offense will result in their revocation.

Federal law, however, doesn’t give the state much choice. It pre-empts all state sanctions except licensure.

Proposition 202 would gut the additional state requirement for employers and render the Arizona law useless.

Proposition 202 gives employers a nonrebuttable presumption against having intentionally or knowingly hired an illegal worker not only for using E-Verify, but also for using the current federal wink-and-nod system.

Nonrebuttable presumption means no amount of evidence to the contrary matters. If a state employer uses the federal wink-and-nod system, it’s immune to state sanctions.

A more honest approach would have been simply to propose repealing the law.

The elements of the business community wanting to maintain access to an illegal work force by using the federal wink-and-nod system have been slandering the E-Verify system as faulty and prone to error.

However, the system confirms work eligibility 92 percent of the time within seconds. Most of the so-called “errors” are input mistakes, not the system pumping out false information.

To the extent there is a failure to confirm an eligible worker, it’s usually because of the failure of the applicant to inform Social Security of changes, such as a name change after a marriage.

At the end of the process, the system fails to confirm the work eligibility of less than one-tenth of 1 percent of applicants. That’s because illegal workers drop out before the end.

Proposition 202 should be easily defeated. However, getting the word out requires money, and it’s not clear how much the opposition will raise.

But even if Proposition 202 supporters bamboozle the voters this election, that likely will only trigger an even more draconian law, by referendum or initiative, for the 2010 election.

There are two honest arguments against Arizona’s employer sanctions law.

First, that the state shouldn’t unilaterally disadvantage state businesses by giving them less access to illegal workers than competitors located elsewhere.

Second, that the state’s economy needs the workers.

The Arizona electorate, however, hasn’t been in the mood to buy those arguments. Instead, the push has been for the state to do what it can on its own to reduce the incidence and consequences of illegal immigration.

So, those who want to preserve access to an illegal work force through the federal wink-and-nod system will be making dishonest arguments for Proposition 202, a dishonest approach.

E-mail Arizona Republic public policy and political columnist Robert Robb at robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com.

The Homeowners Bill of Rights is based on the simple notion that if you buy a home and it turns out to be poorly built, you should be able to do something about it.

One of the largest investments a working family will make is their home.

Many hardworking Arizonans scrimp and save for years to have their piece of the American dream for their families.

These dreams can quickly be shattered by the realization of faulty construction, defects and no real process to remedy the situation.

As families move into these homes, too many times their dreams become a nightmare.

Foundations start to crack, shoddy roofs bring leaks that turn to mold, and faulty wiring makes the simple flip of a light switch a potential hazard.

These homeowners do everything possible to correct the problems. They make calls, fill out paperwork and experience a never-ending maze of bureaucracy in their attempts to have a livable home for their family.

Time and time, again the homebuilders fail to meet their responsibilities for their faulty construction and defects.

In 2002, lobbyists for the homebuilders convinced the Arizona Legislature to pass legislation to radically change homeowners’ rights in favor of the builders’. It stripped most of the basic consumer protections that should be part of every purchase made by families.

The Homeowners Bill of Rights is based on the simple notion that if you buy a home and it turns out to be poorly built, you should be able to do something about it.

It is based on the notion that consumers should get what they pay for and that sellers should be held accountable for the quality of their product.

A home is usually the largest investment a family ever makes, and the builder should proudly stand by its product.

Shelter is a basic human need; it is not an option. In a place like Arizona, with its extreme weather, quality is essential and defects need to be addressed in a timely way.

People who spend their hard-earned life savings in the purchase of shelter deserve a reasonable course of action if their purchase turns out to be problematic.

The Homeowners Bill of Rights uses ordinary, nontechnical language that anyone can understand. It requires that sellers do the same in their dealings with purchasers.

Should Arizona consumers settle for anything less?

This initiative, when passed, will restore the rights of these families to have their concerns and complaints responded to in a timely manner and to have the repairs done on their homes by reputable contractors.

It will put an end to deceptive sales tactics and require the homebuilders to be forthright with information needed by working families when making their decision to purchase.

The opponents of this proposition will say Prop. 201 will prohibit two parties from agreeing to resolve their disputes without going to court and hiring attorneys. False. The Federal Arbitration Act preempts any state law that tries to interfere with arbitration/ ADR agreements.

The opponents will also say this forbids the defendants from recovering attorney’s fees even if the case is frivolous or they win. False. The courts, as a separate branch of government, have the inherent power under the state constitution to impose sanctions against lawyers and parties who bring frivolous suits.

The opponents will also claim that all disputes, large or small, go to court – raising costs for everyone. False. Most builders already put in their sales agreement an arbitration clause, and courts refuse to hear disputes that are supposed to be heard in arbitration.

The homebuilders will spend a lot of money in an attempt to stop the votes from approving this bil. Why? An argument can be made that they should stand behind their product.

Why should a home have less of a warranty than a car? That’s the way it is now in Arizona, even though a home is the family’s biggest investment.

The Homeowners Bill of Rights will fix that and many other ways that current law favors big builders over homeowners.

Highlights of Proposition 201 include: Provide a 10-year warranty on new homes; homeowner will have the right to demand either that builders correct construction defects or compensate the homeowner; a homeowner will get to participate in the selection of contractors to do repairs; and model homes must reflect what is actually for sale.

Voting “yes” will balance the rights of the homeowners and the homebuilders. It’s time to make things right, which is why it is in the hands of the voters.

Rebekah Friend is executive director of the Arizona AFL-CIO.

The failure to get them to the ballot resulted from almost a comedy of errors. The initiative drives were launched too late in the political season. Management was turned over to political consultants loyal to Napolitano but with scant experience in ballot measure campaigns.

The first thing that needs to be observed about the demise of the transportation sales tax initiative is that it represents an astonishing debacle for Gov. Janet Napolitano’s political operation.

The transportation sales tax, along with an initiative to preserve state trust lands, were to be Napolitano’s legacy markers.

They were largely her creations. She negotiated the policy and political deals that formed the initiatives.

The failure to get them to the ballot resulted from almost a comedy of errors. The initiative drives were launched too late in the political season. Management was turned over to political consultants loyal to Napolitano but with scant experience in ballot measure campaigns.

Given the tightness of time, standard verification checks appear to have been skipped or done shoddily. Then the Democrat’s legal A-team for election issues missed a filing deadline to challenge invalidations by the Secretary of State’s Office.

Make no mistake about it: Napolitano still rules the political roost in Arizona. Still, this is a big and should be a deeply embarrassing failure.

Not being able to get legacy markers to the ballot shouldn’t happen to a politician of Napolitano’s stature and clout.

Rather than blame events, surprising legal requirements or others, there should be some soul-searching in Napolitano- land.

Substantively, however, the demise of the transportation sales tax initiative is a very good thing. This was a monumentally bad transportation finance plan. Its demise provides the opportunity to start over and do transportation finance right, if anyone has the inclination to do so.

Rather than being based on the prioritization of transportation needs and sound transportation finance principles, this initiative was based upon a series of political calculations.

The first political calculation was about what revenue source would be politically the easiest and how much could voters be persuaded to pony up? The answer was a one-cent increase in the state sales tax.

After that, the allocation of the money wasn’t driven by transportation needs, but stitching together the political coalitions necessary to get it passed.

As a result, huge pots of money were simply given over to local governments throughout the state to do with pretty much whatever they want. Another big pot was set aside for environmental stuff.

While some highway improvements have been specified, most of the money was designated for stuff that hasn’t even been fully conceptualized, such as passenger rail, or without any specificity at all, such as the local subventions.

Here are what would be some elements of a sensible approach:

• First, there shouldn’t be a statewide proposal. Whenever there is one, the urban areas end up heavily subsidizing the rural areas.

In this transportation proposal, for example, rural areas were to receive nearly 40 percent of the funding even though they constitute less than a quarter of the state’s population.

Yes, urban residents use roads statewide and some degree of subsidization is probably in order. But that should be discussed separately, not as a political price of admission to get the funds the urban areas want to devote to their own transportation improvements.

• Second, transportation needs should be considered separately rather than all together in one comprehensive package. Lower priority items shouldn’t be permitted to free ride on higher priority items. Each should stand on its own merits to justify its funding.

• Third, no funding commitments to projects until there are specific proposals to consider. Passenger rail may very well be an important transportation option for the future and funding to study and develop a specific proposal would be in order. This transportation proposal committed nearly $7 billion to building passenger rail when there is no specific proposal on the table.

• Fourth, to the extent possible, keep to the concept of user pays, at least for roads. Many of the major new highway improvements needed are to connect developing nodes with the already developed urban areas.

That’s a situation where toll roads, or benefit districts or impact fees are highly appropriate. This transportation proposal jumped instantly to the sales tax, which should be the last rather than the first resort.

Existing funding sources probably can’t get the job done for Arizona’s transportation future. However, a rigorous evaluation needs to take place about how existing funds are being used and how far reprioritization could take us.

There is, however, a right way and a wrong way to go about transportation finance. The right way is more painstaking than trying to calibrate the politics of raising a big pot of money for purposes to be decided later.

But it would be fairer and cheaper to taxpayers, and do more to actually improve transportation.

Robert Robb, an Arizona Republic columnist, writes about public policy and politics in Arizona. E-mail: robert.robb@arizonarepublic.com

Faux fix seeks to fool voters, perpetuate usurious loans in Az

If Prop. 200 passes, payday lenders will keep charging their outrageous, triple-digit interest - which they prefer to call "fees."

Proposition 200 takes this year’s prize as the initiative with the most misleading name.

The so-called “Payday Loan Reform Act” makes just enough phony promises to seem authentic.

But in truth, the proposition is designed with one aim in mind: Keep payday lending alive in Arizona – permanently – with interest at an annual rate of 400 percent.

While every other lender in Arizona is restricted to 36 percent APR maximum, payday lenders persuaded the Legislature in 2000 to make an exception for them.

The resulting legislation turned out to be a very bad law indeed, as Arizonans have discovered.

Lawmakers did include an escape hatch, though – a sunset provision to eradicate payday lending in Arizona in July 2010.

That means that in just 23 months, payday lenders would be subject to the state’s longstanding Super Loan Act, which imposes the 36 percent APR limit on all Arizona lenders.

Such an even playing field doesn’t appeal to the wealthy payday lending industry, which has carefully crafted this initiative to delude voters so it can continue business as usual.

If Prop. 200 passes, payday lenders will keep charging their outrageous, triple-digit interest – which they prefer to call “fees.”

Misleading terminology on the ballot question spurred Arizonans for Responsible Lending, No on 200 to file a lawsuit Friday against Secretary of State Jan Brewer.

The group wants the ballot question to clarify that Prop. 200 would permanently legalize 400 percent APR as opposed to the 36 percent the standard law allows.

Brewer’s office has said the ballot language won’t be changed.

That’s troubling, to say the least. Just because the wealthy and powerful payday lending industry was able to influence our Legislature eight years ago doesn’t mean it should be allowed to hoodwink the voters of Arizona.

Voters should be able to expect straightforward, clear ballot language so they’ll know what they’re voting for or against.

That’s especially true given the $9 million in pro-Prop. 200 advertising purchased so far by payday lending industry operatives from out of state.

Payday lenders insist they provide a “choice” many Arizonans need.

Hogwash. We got along without them before they invaded our state eight years ago – and we’ll get along far better when they’re gone.

We’ll be stuck with them, though, if voters approve Prop. 200. And these greedy lenders will continue to prey upon the poor and economically ignorant to hawk their deeply flawed product.

We hope Arizonans see through this subterfuge. The Tucson Citizen urges a “no” vote on Proposition 200, the Payday Loan Reform Act.

———

PROP. 200 AT A GLANCE

Payday loan industry-backed initiative lowers fees on short-term loans, stops expensive loan rollover, and removes 2010 expiration date on statutes regulating the industry.

CONTRIBUTIONS • Arizonans for Financial Reform (supports proposition): $2.3 million. • Stop Pay Day Predators (opposes proposition): $23,000

Initiatives on Arizona’s ballots should come with a warning: Beware, contents may not match the label.

In 2006, Big Tobacco brought us the “Non-Smoker Protection Act,” which was really a nonprotection smokers’ act.

In 2008, the payday loan industry has collected enough signatures to get the “Payday Loan Reform Act,” aimed less at reform and more at the industry’s survival, on the November ballot, while another group is collecting signatures for the “Arizona Civil Rights Initiative,” a measure that would reduce opportunities for women and minorities.

The latest candidate for most deceptively named initiative is “Majority Rules, Let the People Decide,” a proposal that would let the minority of voters in an election decide the outcome of many statewide initiatives.

Majority Rules spokesman Nathan Sproul, a noted and controversial Republican strategist, said organizers have enough signatures to meet the Thursday deadline for placement on the November ballot.

The measure would amend the Arizona Constitution to require that any initiative that mandates state spending or imposes or raises a tax would become law only if the majority of all registered voters – not just those who voted in an election – approved the measure.

Those people who stayed away from the polls would, in effect, count as a “no” vote. By Sproul’s calculations, this means the initiatives in question would have to pass with at least 70 percent of the vote.

When I did my calculations based on the 60.5 percent turnout in Arizona’s 2006 general election (about average for a nonpresidential election year), the threshold required for passage under Majority Rules would have been 83 percent of votes cast.

Think about that. A 17 percent “no” vote could derail any spending initiative under this proposed measure.

“The purpose is to raise the threshold before a special interest can use the initiative process to increase taxes on the entire state or mandate spending on the entire state. . . . I think there’s a lot of special interest groups that have used the initiative process as their own private ATM,” Sproul said.

Special interests? In recent years, Arizonans have used the initiative process to provide youngsters with early childhood education and to make sure the poor get health care.

“The threshold is not high enough,” Sproul said.

Umm, by what measure? Isn’t democracy based on the pretty simple idea that the majority of people – 50 percent plus 1 – who actually vote in an election get to make the decisions, pick our representatives and set the course for government?

Sproul said the measure’s chief backer is Jason LeVecke, CEO of MJKL Enterprises, the franchise owner of 52 Carl’s Jr. locations. The Arizona secretary of state also lists $50,000 contributions from Services Group of America and TCAG Management Group, the latter of which stands for the Tuttle-Click Automotive Group, as well as $25,000 contributions from the Beer & Wine Distributors of Arizona and J.W. Teets Enterprises.

“There are a lot of people who realize it’s in Arizona’s best interest to have a state that has competitive tax rates and is not drowning in a sea of red ink year after year,” Sproul said.

Actually, although Arizona faced a $2 billion deficit this year – during a nationwide economic downturn – it hasn’t been in the red year after year.

Majority Rules is an über conservative measure for people who abhor government spending and taxation, no matter how necessary the cause or how beneficial to society.

Arizonans aren’t passing spending initiatives because they’re stupid or financially irresponsible. They simply support health care and education to a greater extent than has been reflected by the state Legislature.

Arizonans know these things cost money and have shown a willingness to pay. In 2004, voters passed Proposition 101 requiring that any proposed initiative or referendum that required the spending of state funds also would have to create a new fund and revenue source to feed it.

The backers of Majority Rules have figured out they can’t win on the quality-of-life issues that resonate with the voters. So, they’re seeking to change the rules of the game by persuading voters to disenfranchise themselves.

It’s an undemocratic but clever move. Don’t fall for it.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogean@tucsoncitizen.com. Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

———

By Any Means Necessary is the name of an out-of-state student activist group that has swooped into Arizona to keep a ban on affirmative action off the state’s November ballot.

And BAMN’s tactics are living up – or down – to its name.

At issue is the proposed Arizona Civil Rights Initiative, which would ban race and gender preferences in public education and government contracting and employment. Supporters need 230,000 signatures by July 3.

BAMN members are harassing petition circulators on Phoenix streets until circulators are driven away or give up the petitions. The group is filming people who sign the petition while BAMN members loudly and repeatedly inform them they are signing a racist measure that will resegregate Arizona and keep black and Latino students out of state universities.

I’ve written two columns opposing the proposed initiative, which is part of an effort by Californian Ward Connerly, a black businessman, to ban affirmative action throughout America. The very name of the initiative is deceitful.

But the bullying behavior of Detroit-based BAMN is deplorable. Frankly, BAMN’s tactics resemble those used by anti-abortion activists to prevent women from entering abortion clinics.

BAMN organizer Monica Smith said BAMN is simply “educating voters on what they are really signing, that it’s not an end to discrimination, that they are trying to end affirmative action. . . . We let them know it’s up on the KKK’s Web site.”

Smith said BAMN has 25 core volunteers in the Phoenix area – 10 from Detroit and 15 from California, all current or former university students. The group is operating mainly in Phoenix because initiative organizers are collecting the majority of signatures in Maricopa County.

On Monday, BAMN volunteers blocked the entrance of a downtown Phoenix office where circulators deliver their petitions to the initiative’s organizers. There was so much yelling and intimidation that police had to be called, said Max McPhail, executive director of the initiative drive. BAMN members returned the next day but have stayed away from the door.

BAMN is so proud of its tactics – which it calls “blocking” – that it announced in a news release that it would send out “blocking teams” and posted videos of its activities on YouTube.

In one clip, filmed near Arizona State University, a BAMN volunteer who identifies herself as Candice Young calls a circulator a racist and accuses him of trying to “get rid of black opportunity.” Young yells at passersby, “Don’t talk to him. He’s passing out petitions that are supported by the KKK.” In the last seconds of the tape, the circulator appears prepared to give up his petition to the BAMN blocking team.

In another clip, Young said she’s collected hundreds of petitions from circulators, which Smith confirmed. In yet another YouTube moment, BAMN members harangue a 40ish white man as he signs a petition.

Clint Bolick, director of the Scharf-Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation at the Goldwater Institute, which supports the initiative, said, “I find this shocking and I honestly would find it equally shocking if the shoe was on the other foot. I think it’s very important to stand up for the initiative process and its integrity here in Arizona.”

Although it’s not clear any laws are being broken, BAMN is interfering with the constitutional right of Arizonans to petition their government by blocking people from signing and by hijacking petitions, Bolick said.

Even a leading Arizona opponent of the proposed initiative disavowed BAMN’s methods.

“I believe very strongly in a person’s right to sign a petition,” said state Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, a Phoenix Democrat who chairs Protect Arizona’s Freedom, a statewide coalition formed to defeat the initiative.

Sinema said the name calling and taking of petitions is insupportable. She said her mode of operation and that of Protect Arizona’s Freedom is to sway minds through reasoned argument and civil discourse.

She said Protect Arizona volunteers offer information sheets to people who are about to sign the petitions but otherwise allow petition circulators to do their job in peace.

I asked Sinema how it was that BAMN appeared at her Tucson news conference earlier this month, when Sinema accused initiative supporters of using deceitful and illegal methods to get signatures. She said BAMN was not invited but also turned up at the Phoenix news conference where members heckled her as she told the media present that Protect Arizona’s Freedom was not connected with BAMN.

Kevin Tyne, deputy secretary of state, said BAMN doesn’t appear to be breaking any election laws.

When I asked BAMN’s Smith if she agrees Arizonans have a right to circulate and sign the petitions for the initiative, she said passage of the initiative would amount to “tyranny of the majority” on the minority.

Smith equated the affirmative action ban to Jim-Crow segregation laws and slavery.

“They don’t have the right to take away our rights,” she said.

Are you kidding? Affirmative action is important to offset the lingering effects of a history of oppression and discrimination against women and minorities, but comparing an affirmative action ban to the reimposition of of segregation and slavery is a bit extreme.

BAMN is clearly passionate about protecting the rights of women and minorities.

But BAMN is showing a disgusting lack of respect for the democratic process and the right of all Arizonans to participate in it.

Anne T. Denogean can be reached at 573-4582 and adenogea@tucsoncitizen.com . Address letters to P.O. Box 26767, Tucson, AZ 85726-6767. Her columns run Tuesdays and Fridays.

———

On the Web

BAMN video on YouTube

youtube.com/watch?v=jGVIF0wbGAc