A hand recount of the 2006 Regional Transportation Authority election ballots will begin April 6, according to a letter the Arizona Attorney General’s Office sent to the Pima County political party officials Monday.

The recount is part of a criminal probe by the AG into complaints that vote results may have been manipulated.

The attorney general’s office last month seized the ballots from the Pima County Treasurer’s Office, where officials have been seeking court direction on whether the ballots should be destroyed.

“Our examination of the RTA ballots will include a hand count of the ballots,” wrote Donald E. Conrad, criminal division chief counsel at the attorney general’s office. The examination is expected to take five days, he wrote.

Voters in 2006, approved a 20-year regional transportation plan and a half-cent sales tax to help fund it. The plan was approved 60 percent to 40 percent and the sales tax increase 58 percent to 42 percent. About 120,000 votes were cast in the election out of about 462,000 registered voters.

County voters in the previous 15 years had shot down four major transportation plans and funding mechanisms.

At the center of the controversy is the county’s use of electronic vote and ballot tabulating equipment and whether final vote results could have been manipulated to change the election outcome.

“I must emphasize that this is a criminal investigation, not an election process controlled by the applicable Arizona laws,” Conrad wrote. “Attendance and procedures undertaken at this examination will be strictly monitored and overseen by the office of the Attorney General,”Conrad added.

The Pima County Democratic Party in 2007 filed a lawsuit to obtain from the county electronic records of votes and ballot tabulating processes for every election dating back to the late 1990s.

Their concerns were fueled by an increasing number of complaints across the nation that computerized election vote systems and software were vulnerable to hacking in a number of ways, including insider tampering, faulty or deliberately misprogrammed memory cards, software malfunctions, and data alteration after polls close.

Pima Count Superior Court Judge Michael Miller in December 2007 ordered the county to surrender a portion of the electronic vote records, but not those from the May 2006 special election.

The judge’s ruling marked the first time a government in the United States had been ordered to surrender electronic vote records.

The Pima County Board of Supervisors later ordered the RTA and all other electronic vote records released to the Democrats.

Critics of the county’s election system and procedures had maintained that Diebold-GEMS vote devices and software can be tampered with to alter election results and suggested such was the case in the RTA election.

Local elections integrity activists in AuditAZ have said that they have uncovered irregularities in the election vote records they have studied.

They have objected to the attorney general seizing the ballots and removing them to the Maricopa County Elections Division, maintaining that the move of the ballots out of lockdown in Pima County broke the ballots’ chain of custody and subjected the ballots to physical tampering.

“Our biggest concern is the possibility of ballot substitution,” Jim March, an AuditAZ member who has been among the most critical of county elections equipment and practices.

March said the number of recount observers from Pima County political parties – one each – is not sufficient to adequately monitor the recount.

AuditAZ members also investigated electronic vote security this year at the Maricopa County Elections Department and issued a report critical of that agency.

“They can exclude the most hard-core critics of their department,” Marsh complained.

Pima County and RTA officials also support the investigation, as do the Pima County Democratic, Libertarian, and Republican parties.

Brad Nelson, Pima County Elections Division director, said Wednesday that he had not been informed of the April 6 recount start date and was uncertain whether elections division or county administration officials would participate.

“We’ve heard nothing from them,” Nelson said.

———

Recount procedure

The attorney general’s criminal investigation will include:

• Asking local political parties to submit three names each by March 30 for candidates to observe the ballot recount.

The Attorney General’s Office will select one to represent each party.

• The ballots are in the custody of the Maricopa County Elections Division.

Officials of Maricopa Elections will conduct the recount “in a secured facility under the supervisors of police officers employed by this office.”

• No cameras, cell phones, writing instruments or audio or video recorders will be allowed in the recount area.

• The hand recount will begin April 6 and continue for about five days.

• The public will be able to watch the recount via live streaming video.

Caroline Kennedy

NEW YORK – The Rev. Al Sharpton took Caroline Kennedy to lunch Thursday at a famed Harlem soul food restaurant as she continued her quest to join her uncle in the U.S. Senate.

Kennedy smiled as she and the civil rights activist made their way through a throng of media and into Sylvia’s, whose walls are lined with photographs of visiting politicians including the Clintons.

“I come at this as a mother, as a lawyer, as an author, as an education advocate and from a family that really has spent generations in public service,” Kennedy told reporters after lunch. “I feel this commitment, and this is a time when nobody can afford to sit out. And I hope that I have something to offer.”

The late President John F. Kennedy’s daughter acknowledged Wednesday she’s seeking to be appointed to the Senate seat held by Hillary Rodham Clinton, who has been nominated by President-elect Barack Obama to be secretary of state.

Kennedy was asked what she would need to do to prepare herself for the post, which has attracted the interest of at least a dozen Democratic officials including her former relative by marriage, state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

“I have, you know, quite a lot to learn, but I feel like I bring a lot with me, as well,” Kennedy said.

She was also asked why she was plunging into politics now, after spending most of her life carefully cultivating her privacy.

“These are issues that I care so much about and I understand that, really, I have been trying to work on them as a private citizen and in the position that I have,” she said. “But really, to solve our problems, I think government is the place where people need to come together.”

Kennedy’s emergence as a contender has generated both buzz and controversy. She comes from a Democratic dynasty but has never held public office, and some Republicans and Democrats have criticized her lack of experience.

Democratic Gov. David Paterson has said he won’t make an appointment until Clinton is confirmed. The governor confirmed Kennedy’s interest in the seat on Monday, the same day she reached out to Sharpton in a telephone call.

After speaking to Kennedy, Sharpton released a statement saying he disagreed with those who say she isn’t qualified to be U.S. senator.

He said he had invited her to dine wtih him at Sylvia’s this week, reminding her that he took Obama there during his campaign “so it’s a good luck stop since he did all right.”

Caroline Kennedy

ALBANY, N.Y – A person close to the discussions says Caroline Kennedy will seek the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.

Kennedy has told Democratic Gov. David Paterson she wants the job should Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state for President-elect Barack Obama.

The person spoke on the condition of anonymity Monday because neither Kennedy nor Paterson have acknowledged she is seeking the position.

If appointed by Paterson, Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy, would hold the seat once occupied by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy.

Other Democrats seeking Paterson’s nod include New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

PHOENIX – Weeks after voters approved amending Arizona’s Constitution to define marriage as between one man and one woman, gay-rights activists are looking toward 2010.

A man who champions equality for gays in the United Kingdom has traveled to Arizona to begin a drive for a ballot initiative that would establish civil partnerships, which since 2005 have allowed same-sex couples to legally register their relationships.

“We’re not fighting for marriage; we’re fighting for equal rights,” said Gino Meriano, whose UK business, Pink Weddings, arranges commitment ceremonies and provides free legal advice for gay couples wishing to establish civil partnerships.

Steen Lawson, co-founder of Marriage Equality USA’s new Arizona chapter, said civil unions don’t go far enough. His group wants same-sex couples to have the same rights as heterosexual couples who wish to marry.

“Since government uses the word marriage, we must fight for marriage,” Lawson said.

Meriano, Lawson and others are looking for a next step in response to Proposition 102, which Arizona voters approved Nov. 4. Given that the initiative amended Arizona’s Constitution, making a legal challenge difficult, opponents of 102 say any next step likely would be a ballot proposition.

John Garcia, a professor of political science at the University of Arizona, said it would be tough in the current political climate for gay-rights leaders to make the gains Lawson wants. Still, he said civil unions are a realistic goal.

“If new propositions focus in on civil unions, they will gain the necessary votes to pass,” Garcia said.

While the United Kingdom offers civil partnerships, Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire offer civil unions, which provide the same benefits for same-sex couples. Massachusetts and Connecticut are the only states allowing same-sex marriage since California voters approved Proposition 8 in November.

Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, said it’s easy to come up with ideas for initiatives that would establish civil unions or give same-sex couples the right to marry; she said he hears those regularly.

“The problem is they don’t have the money or time to fund it,” she said, estimating that would take $3 million to run a successful campaign.

That kind of money wasn’t available this year for opponents of 102. While supporters raised $7.7 million, most of it from individuals, opposition groups raised $820,000, according to reports filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.

Cynthia Leigh Lewis, campaign treasurer for Arizona Together, an anti-102 group that raised $746,000, said this isn’t a good time to push for gay marriage or civil unions.

She said the economy would make it difficult to raise enough money, and she said the passage of Proposition 102 and GOP gains in the Legislature illustrate a difficult political climate for such as move.

“As our country moved center-left, Arizona moved center-right,” she said.

Meriano, who has yet to submit the paperwork necessary to begin gathering signatures, said he thinks an initiative seeking civil partnerships for gay couples can win because it takes marriage out of the debate.

“The campaign is simple: Vote no for gay marriage, vote yes for civil partnerships,” Meriano said.

Lawson said he and other leaders of Marriage Equality USA think civil unions wouldn’t have equal standing with marriage.

“If someone could show me that a civil partnership was 100 percent equal I would be for it,” he said. “But no one has ever shown me a civil partnership that is 100 percent equal.”

Equality Arizona, a statewide group seeking gay and civil rights, campaigned against 102 and is still evaluating its options for 2010, said Sam Holdren, the group’s public affairs director. But he said it isn’t a good time to push for same-sex marriage.

“We have to take a look at what’s going on,” Holdren said. “Realistically, marriage is off the table in Arizona.”

———

Around the U.S.

States that allow same-sex marriage:

• Connecticut

• Massachusetts

States that allow civil unions:

• New Hampshire

• New Jersey

• Vermont

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 Arizona Legislature will have plenty to occupy its attention when it convenes in January.

First and foremost is resolving the state’s $1 billion-plus budget deficit.

But November’s election revealed another pressing task for lawmakers: Revising laws governing the voter initiative process.

So says the Arizona Supreme Court in a case involving supporters of a transportation initiative that sought a 1-cent boost in the state sales tax to pay for improvements to Arizona’s road and transit systems.

Secretary of State Jan Brewer ruled supporters had not collected enough valid signatures to put the initiative on the ballot.

The initiative’s supporters went to court, which ruled they had missed the deadline to challenge the state’s rejection of their signatures – a deadline that had lapsed while the Secretary of State’s Office, working with the Maricopa County recorder, still was attempting to validate the signatures.

That caught the eye of the Supreme Court, which took the case on appeal. Given the tight deadline (10 days) for fighting rejection of signatures and the growing number of signatures that need to be checked, a “thorough legislative re-examination” of election laws by the Legislature is in order, the court suggested.

That’s a good idea. But we think the Legislature should go further and fix a bigger problem: the way initiatives are named.

The Arizona Constitution mandates that each initiative has a title but does not require that the title be, you know, accurate.

The result: misleadingly named initiatives designed to confuse voters.

Most of the time, voters see through the subterfuge and defeat bad proposals. This year they realized that Proposition 101, “Medical Choice for Arizona,” actually would have limited some possible future medical choices.

And they saw the “Payday Loan Reform Act” for what it was – an attempt by the payday loan industry to hang around past the July 2010 sunset provision approved by the Legislature.

But sometimes bad proposals make it into law. Take Proposition 100, “Protect Our Homes,” which had little to do with protecting our homes. Voters approved the proposal, which amends the state constitution to prohibit Arizona or local governments from taxing real estate sales.

Thus, a common funding mechanism – 35 states allow it – is now verboten in Arizona at a time when the state is desperate for revenue.

Arizona should do what Colorado and other states do: Hold public hearings to determine the accuracy of proposition titles, and create an appeals process so all sides are heard.

Of course, if the Legislature refuses to take up the naming issue, Arizonans have a recourse: They can gather signatures and place it on the 2009 ballot.

PHOENIX – Arizona election laws on voter initiatives don’t work anymore and need to be revised by the Legislature, the Arizona Supreme Court said Tuesday in a ruling that explained why a major transportation funding proposal was kept off the Nov. 4 ballot.

The state high court’s call for a review of initiative laws follows court fights last summer over whether several high-profile proposals’ were eligible to go before voters. Lawmakers have said they plan to look at the issue in 2009.

The so-called “TIME Initiative” proposed a one-cent increase in the state sales tax to pay for highway construction, new rail service and other transportation programs.

In a setback for Gov. Janet Napolitano and other backers, Secretary of State Jan Brewer declared that supporters did not submit enough valid voter signatures to put the measure on the ballot.

A second Napolitano-backed proposal, one on state trust land, also failed because it lacked enough signatures and because supporters didn’t go to court soon enough to challenge that decision.

Supporters of the transportation initiative went to court, but a trial judge ruled that they missed an initial – and previously ignored – deadline to challenge the state’s rejection of some petitions and signatures.

The deadline was 10 days after the secretary of state made an initial screening of petitions before forwarding a random sample to county recorders for voter signature checks.

By the time the county recorders completed their work and the secretary of state said there weren’t enough valid signatures, the deadline to challenge the secretary’s initial work had already passed.

That meant the deadline was impractical and inapplicable to the circumstances at hand, but the justices say state law provided the 10-day deadline as the only basis for a legal challenge of the initial screening.

However, the justices’ unanimous decision said the workability of state elections on initiative laws is in question and suggested a “thorough legislative re-examination” of election laws.

“Our election officials are required to process large numbers of initiative and referendum petitions,” Justice Andrew Hurwitz wrote for the court. “The growth of the state’s electorate means that the number of signatures submitted to qualify for placement on the ballot has also steadily grown. And, even when the secretary (of state) and county recorders complete the verification process within the statutory deadlines, the time for judicial review has been shortened by the need to prepare for early voting.”

———

On the Web

Arizona Supreme Court:

www.supreme.state.az.us

The case is Transportation Infrastructure Moving Arizona’s Economy vs. Brewer, CV-08-0275-AP/EL.

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

With ballots still to be counted, Prop. 101 backers concede loss

Novack

PHOENIX – A group sponsoring a ballot proposition that would prevent laws restricting medical choice in Arizona considers the measure headed for defeat, a spokesman said Thursday.

As of Thursday afternoon, Proposition 101 was losing with 987,857 votes against and 977,112 in favor. Maricopa County had yet to count tens of thousands of provisional ballots, but leaders of Medical Choice for Arizona expect it to lose, said Tom Evans, a spokesman for the group.

“When you have the governor and some big health care companies coming into a highly funded ‘no’ campaign, it was something we couldn’t overcome,” Evans said.

Proposition 101, put forward by two Phoenix surgeons, Dr. Eric Novack and Dr. Jeffrey Singer, took aim at universal health care.

It would have forbidden any law restricting a person’s ability to choose and pay directly for medical care. It also would have prevented tax penalties against those who can afford health insurance but choose to go without it.

Opponents said the proposition’s vague wording would invite legal challenges that could jeopardize funding for the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System, the state’s Medicaid system.

Medical Choice for Arizona raised around $560,000 by mid-October, while the opposition group Stop 101 raised around $600,000, almost all of it from the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, according to records filed with the Arizona Secretary of State’s Office.

Spokeswoman Jody Kent said leaders of Stop 101 are relieved to see the proposition headed for defeat.

“This is a good thing for Arizona taxpayers and Arizona families,” she said.

While saying he wasn’t taking sides, the head of AHCCCS had said a court ruling based on Proposition 101 could force the agency to switch from a managed-care model to fee-for-service model. Anthony Rodgers said that could cost the state $1 billion a year or more in federal funding.

Gov. Janet Napolitano said the proposition was “fraught with unintended consequences” and also could affect private health care plans that used managed care.

Proponents of 101 disputed those claims, saying AHCCCS wouldn’t be affected because it is a voluntary program.

Todd Sanders, vice president of the Greater Phoenix Chamber of Commerce, said the key problem was the proposition’s vague wording.

“No one could understand it because of the way it was written,” Sanders said. “It led to the issue of it being too ambiguous.”

Craig Allen, an associate professor at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said the wording doomed the measure even though polls showed it with solid support.

“The writing was a factor because, owing the relatively low profile of the proposition, people had to figure it out in the voting booth,” Allen said. “Many may not have known for what they were voting.”

———

Key facts about Proposition 101

• Provisions: Prohibit laws that restrict a person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans, interfere with a person or an entity’s right to pay for lawful medical services or impose a penalty or fine for choosing to obtain or decline health care coverage or for participation in any health care system or plan.

• Arguments For: Preserves health care choice and guards against a state-run universal health care plan such as the one to which Massachusetts is transitioning.

• Arguments Against: Ambiguous wording invites lawsuits and could lead to a court ruling that costs hundreds of millions of dollars to Arizona’s system for providing health care to the poor.

Dr. Eve Shapiro

Proposition 101, Medical Choice, has been defeated by the narrowest of margins.

This is a positive step, as passage of this constitutional amendment may have led to costly court battles over its potential implications.

Although nothing will change in the short term, the defeat of this measure enables us to think in broad terms about what we want for our health care system, statewide and nationally.

Our financial crisis is not an excuse to put aside this conversation. In fact, it should be an essential part of what we, as a state and nation, decide about our future.

Why is this so? Consider the dire straits of our three major auto manufacturers, one of which may be facing bankruptcy. Many factors led to this situation, but a major one is the high cost of employee health care, making cars produced in the U.S. much more expensive than those produced abroad.

This is because we have no national health insurance, as enjoyed by every other developed country.

Our financial health rests to a large degree on solving the problems of health care access, cost and quality.

We need to improve our health care system for many reasons.

The number of uninsured, now approaching 1 in 5 Americans, is sure to increase as a result of rising unemployment. As reported recently in The New York Times, hospitals are seeing more and more patients unable to pay their bills and using hospital care as a last resort.

This will lead to hospital closings or increasing costs to those with insurance, affecting all of us.

Costs are expected to increase, leaving more people underinsured and at risk for bankruptcy.

The quality of our health care, compared with that in other nations, is declining.

In the short term,some steps that will be taken on a national level will affect us here in Arizona. The State Children’s Health Insurance Program will be expanded to cover more uninsured children – and possibly their parents as well.

There are proposals to allow people over 50 to buy into Medicare.

And one of President-elect Barack Obama’s proposals is to allow citizens to buy into the federal health plan.

These are all incremental steps that will help in the short run, but we need to look more broadly at how to provide affordable health coverage to all Americans.

The defeat of Prop. 101 illustrates that the majority of our citizens understand that.

Dr. Eve Shapiro is a pediatrician in practice in Tucson. She is chairwoman of Healthy Arizona, an organization dedicated to improving health care access for Arizonans.

Arizonans’ approval of the homes initiative will prevent homeowners and businesses from being hit with new taxes for buying and selling real estate in the state’s depressed economy.

Business leaders say the measure, listed as Proposition 100 on the Nov. 4 ballot, also will keep Arizona more competitive with other states vying to attract new companies and jobs throughout the recession and beyond.

The vast majority of voters agreed Tuesday that government should not impose any new taxes on the sale, purchase or ownership transfer of real property.

In a year that was generally unkind to ballot initiatives, Prop. 100 passed with more than 77 percent approval, according to unofficial election results.

The only other initiative out of eight ballot offerings to pass was Proposition 102, which prohibits same-sex marriages in the state.

Like the marriage ban, Prop. 100 prohibits something that doesn’t actually exist within the state.

But advocates for the new tax law, including the Arizona Association of Realtors and the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry, said they had been concerned government officials would implement a property-transfer tax similar to those in other states to help offset state and local budget shortfalls.

“In the type of down economy that we have right now, all kinds of options are on the table to correct the (budget deficit) situation,” said Ann Seiden, Arizona chamber vice president of communications.

A real-estate sales or transfer tax is collected on the purchase, sale or ownership transfer of a home, commercial building or piece of land.

Transfer taxes imposed by 37 other states range from 0.1 percent to 2 percent of a property’s value.

———

Real-estate industry led charge to ban new taxes

A committee sponsored and funded by real-estate industry groups funded the campaign to approve Proposition 100, which bans any future tax on the purchase, sale or transfer of property in Arizona. There was no organized opposition to the ballot initiative.

Name: Protect Our Homes In Support of Prop. 100

Total contributions: $5.5 million.*

Total expenditures: $4.7 million.*

*Through Oct. 15.

Source: State campaign finance reports

Hundreds are expected to march downtown Friday in response to the passage of Proposition 102 during Wingspan’s “call to action,” a spokesman said.

Community members will join leaders and representatives of the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community at 5 p.m. at El Presidio Park, 160 W. Alameda St., said Jason Cianciotto, Wingspan’s executive director.

“This event will give us an opportunity to share our frustration and sadness over Proposition 102′s impact in our state,” he said. “And we want to turn that energy into a positive source.”

On Nov. 4, Arizona voters approved Proposition 102, which amends the state constitution to define marriage as a union of one man and one woman.

Participants will march from El Presidio Park to La Placita Village, 110 S. Church Ave., where Wingspan will launch its Families You Know program.

“Through this program we want to share who we are with our neighbors so they will no longer vote against us,” he said.

The program includes videos of GLBT families in Tucson and invites people to upload their own videos on Wingspan’s Web site, Cianciotto said.

Opponents of Prop. 102 vow to keep fighting.

PHOENIX – Activists opposed to Arizona’s marriage amendment say battles will continue over issues related to same-sex couples, including inheritance rights, medical decision-making and burial rights.

Voters last week passed a constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Arizona was one of three states to approve a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman on Nov. 4.

“There are many more rights that we need to fight for and address instead of just the right to marry,” said Barbara McCullough-Jones, executive director of Equality Arizona, a group that defends the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people.

Others are also vowing to fight on.

“This amendment, cruel as it was, was not the final word,” said Evan Wolfson, executive director of the Freedom to Marry coalition, which promotes marriage rights for people of the same gender.

Wolfson said views on same-sex marriage, like other issues, evolve over time, and that civil rights advance in a patchwork fashion, with some states ahead of the pack and others trailing. Laws, and even constitutions, can change as society changes its views, he said.

Same-sex couples can obtain many rights through powers of attorney, but that involves costly legal fees, something married couples don’t have to bear, McCullough-Jones said.

“We’re taking a step back, taking a deep breath and letting the anger of Prop. 102 pass,” McCullough-Jones said.

Those who pushed for the constitutional amendment said last week’s success at the ballot box doesn’t signal the end of their call for family-friendly policies.

“I think Prop. 102 shows Arizona can unite around a timeless family value,” said Cathi Herrod, president of the Center for Arizona Policy, which successfully forced lawmakers to put the measure on the ballot.

In 2006, voters rejected a similar measure that also included a prohibition on government benefits for domestic partners.

This year’s ballot question dealt only with same-sex marriage, which Herrod said she believes helped Prop. 102 pass.

“The main difference was the 20 simple words,” she said, referring to the ballot language.

“We weren’t trying to fool anyone.”

Herrod said the coalition that backed Prop. 102, drawing heavily from churches statewide, will not fade away.

“I think it has built a strong and effective voice on policy issues,” she said.

Herrod would not comment on which issues the coalition might support in the future and whether it would include pushing a ban on government-provided domestic-partnership benefits.

You’ll get another chance to improve our kids’ education

Thank you, Tucson. Forty-nine percent of you living within Tucson Unified School District voted for Proposition 403, the budget override to benefit our children.

The fact that this came within a whisker of winning (only 3,600 votes short) during our worst economy in decades is a testament to your generosity, wisdom and recognition that our community’s future depends on our schools’ quality.

For you 12,006 voters who skipped Prop. 403, at the bottom of a long ballot, we’ll do a better job of reaching you next time.

And, yes, there will be a next time. Our kids can’t wait.

As long as the Legislature is content with Arizona’s ranking of 49th in education funding nationwide – a standing not likely to improve during the state’s budget crisis – we will have to rely on ourselves to improve education.

Because of dismal state funding, 80 percent of all school districts in Arizona rely on overrides to provide basics that state money won’t permit, such as small class sizes.

TUSD, which educates more children than all other local districts combined, remains the only local district without an override. It hasn’t had one since the 1980s.

Wealthier districts – such as Catalina Foothills, Vail and Tanque Verde – significantly supplement their budgets with tax credits and private donations.

But in TUSD, where the majority of children live in poverty, that’s not a reliable option.

It was especially cruel for the very small cadre against 403 to target children living in poverty, who desperately need the benefit of small classes, qualified teachers and enrichment programs such as Opening Minds Through the Arts.

I didn’t see any Pima Association of Taxpayer signs opposing the Catalina Foothills override, though anti-tax man John Kromko says everyone should have to cut.

I’m very familiar with the arguments against Prop. 403: The district needs to “tighten its belt” and “prove it can manage money better before we give them any more.”

The district whacked $20 million this year because of decreased funding. Talk about belt-tightening.

It is way past the point of cutting fat; it’s cutting bone. If you doubt that, go spend a day at a school.

Critics also continually gripe that TUSD is top-heavy. An outside audit found that not to be the case, and no one is crediting new TUSD Superintendent Elizabeth Celania-Fagen for eliminating several high-level positions that were vacant when she arrived.

Too many people made this a referendum on the TUSD of the past rather than the TUSD we want for the future.

When a new president takes office, do you hold him responsible for everything that took place in the past administration? Would you refuse to pay a tax increase because you didn’t like the old administration? Of course not. Yet that’s the argument some made.

Other illogical arguments made included one saying we shouldn’t pass the override because a thief stole $30,000 from Catalina High School.

When a high-ranking sheriff’s deputy embezzled thousands of dollars in the 1990s, did citizens suddenly decide to not fund the department and thereby risk public safety? Of course not.

You prosecute the criminals. You do not punish 57,000 children for the actions of one thief.

Voters are familiar with TUSD’s flaws because of its transparency and good investigative reporting.

Unlike other districts, charter schools and private schools, TUSD is scrutinized because it is the largest district.

Do you know how your tax dollars are spent at state-funded charter schools or at private schools, which get public funds through tax credits?

If millions of dollars were embezzled from a private school that decided not to prosecute, would you ever know? No, because its records and meetings are not public though it gets state tax credit money.

Some voters said they could not afford an extra 35 cents a day. Others admitted to not liking kids, saying parents should shoulder their financial burden.

But unless you were sent to a private school or home-schooled, taxpayers supported your education. They may not have liked doing it, and they may have been on a fixed income. But they did it.

We have a social compact whereby one generation helps the next. And it’s in our interest to do so, as we will pay dearly if we raise a generation of uneducated, unmotivated children.

These kids also eventually are supposed to contribute toward your Social Security payments. Suppose they decide they don’t like older people and say parents’ adult children should provide for them? That’s not the way it works.

In the end, 49 percent of you understood that. Again, thank you.

After asking voters Tuesday to pass Prop. 403, I spent Wednesday scouring the online comments sections of both newspapers, a forum I avoid because of all the slurs slung.

Sure enough, within a post or two, I was called a “shill” for TUSD, had been “triple-dog dared” to back up a point I made and finally told to “get a life.”

There was something cathartic about correcting the reams of misinformation about Prop. 403 and TUSD so pervasive on these sites and, I’m afraid, in the community at large.

The outdated information and unfettered anger toward TUSD is a real problem, one I believe prevented victory despite the Herculean effort of a volunteer corps on a shoestring budget trying to inform 240,000 voters without advocating at PTA meetings or other school events.

I am very heartened by the 49 percent support to cut class sizes, recruit teachers in hard-to-fill positions and expand the district’s award-winning music and arts program.

In 2004, in a far better economy, the override request garnered only 43 percent support.

We’re moving in the right direction, but to succeed, this community will have to stop punishing children because of old gripes against TUSD.

This should not have been a referendum on the TUSD of the past; it should have been on the TUSD we want for the future.

Fagen is working hard to transform TUSD into a 21st-century learning environment, but she needs the community’s help.

Hamstringing her financially is not helpful. Amid huge state budget deficits, we can expect more painful cuts that hurt kids.

Of course TUSD needs to be accountable. Measures are in place to do so: a new superintendent, a citizens audit committee, results from an MGT audit on reducing overhead and a new financial team at TUSD.

As the parent of a second-grader, I have a vested interest in ensuring that the bulk of the budget goes into the classroom.

TUSD’s administrative costs get continual comment. But because of efficiencies of scale, those costs are much lower per child in TUSD than in smaller districts, such as Catalina Foothills, Vail and Tanque Verde.

Inefficiencies always can be found in large organizations, but too many people use that to rationalize refusal to pay more.

Even if TUSD was the most efficient operation in the U.S., I suspect these folks would find a reason to justify voting no.

One voter said she hates kids, and parents should pay. An online commenter agreed, adding that she was too old to reap benefits from education.

The problem is, such ducking of responsibility violates our social compact.

We all pay for public schools, Social Security and to cover other needs.

What would happen if we just decided to stop because it doesn’t directly benefit us?

If we care about our community’s economic vitality, if we don’t want to waste $36,000 a year housing every illiterate prisoner who flunked out of school, if we understand this social compact, we will properly fund education.

We’re getting there, Tucson. It was close.

The encounter from this months-long campaign that sticks with me was with a young couple after they voted at the Northwest Neighborhood Center.

They had voiced support for 403 on their way in to the poll, but they pulled up to me as they were leaving to ask one last question.

“Excuse me ma’am,” the young woman said, looking perplexed. “Why would anyone vote against this?”

Ann-Eve Pedersen is a member of the Prop. 403 Invest in Our Kids Committee and of Tucson Unified School Supporters. She is a former reporter and managing editor of the Tucson Citizen.

• It was sad to see money wasted on Proposition 105, the so-called majority rules initiative that voters soundly rejected.

The goal was to do something about spending mandates, a laudable objective. But it would have shut down citizen initiatives entirely. It was a transparent overreach.

If fiscal conservatives want to spend money on initiatives to rein in state spending, two reforms merit the investment.

If voter-mandated spending is the target, then a sensible candidate would be to amend the Voter Protection Act permitting proportionate reductions when state revenues fall below population growth and inflation.

And if controlling spending growth in general is the objective, then a reduction in the state spending limit is the cleanest, most direct approach.

• The thumping voters delivered to Proposition 200, the payday loan initiative, illustrates a mystery that continues to perplex me: Why do political consultants so often choose a deceptive argument when an honest one would do just as well?

Prop. 200 proponents tried to sell it as a crackdown on the industry. That defied credibility once voters found out the industry was paying for the campaign.

The honest argument would have been about continuing the existence of the payday loan option past its scheduled 2010 sunset. A campaign straightforward about that, and noting that the market is open to anyone who can make small, short-term loans less expensively, might have had a better chance.

It certainly couldn’t have done much worse than the 60 percent to 40 percent drubbing the deceptive argument got.

• John Shadegg’s father, Stephen, was a pioneer in modern-day electioneering. He stressed the importance of what today’s consultants sometimes call influencers.

These are people who closely follow politics, might be active in some ways. They are embedded in virtually all social organizations and often influence the votes of others, sometimes directly and sometimes subtly.

The influencers are to be credited with the defeat of Proposition 202, the misnamed “stop illegal hiring” initiative. It was really employer amnesty, giving employers an absolute defense for using the existing federal wink-and-a-nod verification system.

The businessmen wanting to preserve the ability to hire illegal workers spent all the money. But the influencers got the real story out anyway.

• Speaking of Shadegg, his opponent, Bob Lord, turned out to be quite a bust. The Democrats invested millions in him, and he got 42 percent of the vote. Shadegg’s 2006 opponent – Herb Paine, for whom the Democratic Party wouldn’t spring for cab fare – got 38 percent of the vote.

• On the positive side for Democrats, Harry Mitchell and Gabrielle Giffords seem well on their way to entrenching themselves in districts with a Republican registration advantage.

Mitchell won with nearly a 10 percent margin, despite facing about the same size of a registration disadvantage. That means he swept the independent vote and probably got a good chuck of crossover Republicans as well.

Giffords has a much smaller registration disadvantage, just 3 percent, and had the advantage of a big Democratic year. But she faced the tougher opponent in former Senate President Tim Bee, and walked away with a 12 percent margin of victory.

She also raises money with a vacuum cleaner.

• Democratic newcomer Ann Kirkpatrick also scored an impressive victory for Rick Renzi’s vacated congressional seat, even discounting for it being a big Democratic year. Kirkpatrick split the vote in heavily Republican and vote-rich Yavapai County, suggesting strong crossover appeal.

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