Yes on 140 as well. Open up the primaries and will elect more moderate legislators in gerrymandered districts where the primary controls and the election is a formality. The candidate will need to answer to all of the voters not just the majority of the controlling party,
The problem with 140 is that it's poorly written. Check out Civil Engagements Beyond Voting's (CEBV) analysis:
"Too risky. It appears Prop 140 is trying to force our legislature to be sensible. This is a fool’s errand and opens the door to meddling. Over the years, we've seen too much meddling come out of our legislature to give our state lawmakers the benefit of the doubt. Handing the details of our elections over to a legislature — especially one that looks anything like our current one — is a recipe for chaos.
We recommend a NO vote. CEBV believes the flaws of this measure outweigh its intentions. Though CEBV is open to reform of Arizona's current primary system, Prop 140 – well-intentioned though it may be – has the potential to be considerably worse than what we have now.
Conflicts with Prop 133. If both Prop 133 and Prop 140 pass in November, whichever one gets the most votes will be enshrined into the state constitution. We recommend a NO vote on both measures. "
And what proof do you offer for this allegation? Many of Arizona's districts ARE competitive, and not overtly gerrymandered; although less so after Ducey gamed the 'Independent' redistricting commission. They DO tend to reflect the actual leaning of the constituents of the district.
Also this concept implies that both parties are equally extreme.
They're not. The GOP has put the Overton Window on a rocket sled rightward for over 40 years, to the point that to be 'moderate' in 2024 would have made that person uneletably far right in 1980.
FFS Ronald Reagan was a reactionary right wing politician who launched his campaign in 1980 with an overtly white supremacist speech about 'young bucke eating t-bone steaks' and he couldn't make it through a Republican primary today because he'd be labelled a marxist radical leftist today.
The modern conceit that 'both sides are equally bad' (or the purity pony version "The Uniparty", usually said with extreme derision) simply does not hold up to factual analysis.
"Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."
(and I would contend that Clinton's "welfare reform" was far more center right than center left, but that's just my radical left marxist communist 'opinion' /s )
the contention that holding party primaries versus a jungle primary rewards the extremes of both sides simply doesn't hold up in the current US political landscape, where one side is advocating measures to fight the kind of global warming that causes hurricanbes like Helene and Milton to be so destructive (and, incidentally, things like Tucson's record-setting 111 days above 100°, or is it 112?) and the other side telling people that FEMA wants to steal their land and homes, and is purposely not helping places that voted Republican.
What is the 'moderate' position in that instance? It sure as hell isn't 'midway between those two positions'
I'll leave a comment but not that I disagree - I don't, rather I wish to make it perfectly clear that the legal statement of "you have no legal standing (men) in this matter" applies here. Of the six-pack of corruption on the mislabeled 'supreme court' five do not have 'legal standing'. Endure labor, suffer a miscarriage, fall victim to a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest or carry a dead organ you once loved in your body that can now be the source of your painful death then you just might have 'a say so', although highly unlikely, but then you can - just maybe - render a "legal opinion" on your morally "legal grounds" - but until then "shut the hell up". Just the opinion of an 84 year old white Christian male Vet married for over 60 years to a bright beautiful women - begging you to vote 'yes' on Prop 139 - God will love you all the more for it.
I'm voting YES on Prop 140 as well. That one was NOT put on the ballot by MAGA douche bags and I believe it will help make our elections more fair and less two-party controlled. But agree on everything else!
My lineup exactly, almost... I was going to vote yes on 140 too but now, after further research, I don't like the "future law" hinge. (The meddling.) Thanks, Fitz and others who commented.
I like 139 and 140. I'm hoping it moderates the candidates since they have to get a majority of all voters in the primary and allows Independents a say. I'm also voting out the 2 Justices. Those who say we should not have politics in the selection or retention of judges forget that Governor Ducey expanded the Court and added 2 more seats so that he could appoint the majority of the court. It is already political.
As to the debate re: prop 140, while I agree our selection of candidates needs to be improved, I cannot help but think there is some unstated agenda in this proposition since it is the work of our idiotic legislators. I vote no. They give new meaning to the word “stupid”.
Agree with all but trying to dig deeper into Prop 140. It's interesting that Vote NO website (https://no140az.com/) includes Regina Romero along with Abe Hamadeh, Andy Biggs, Debbie Lesko, Sheriff Mark Lamb, Ben Toma, and Warren Peterson. Maybe it’s a threat to them as well?
I follow CEBV - civic engagement beyond voting, they have done the deepest research on bills, propositions, judges, etc., and make excellent recommendations, they also teach us how to request to speak on bills to make comments to thumbs up and thumbs down things in our Arizona legislature. Check out their website CEBV .org
Thank you, David. The Future of Democracy is at a Critical juncture now, more than any time that I can remember, including 9/11 . I cannot understand or believe their support of this Disgusting criminal sex offender. The question I would ask a Trump supporter is, Would you be comfortable as an airline passenger if Donald Trump were in the Pilot's seat? That is where we are headed !! Thanks, David. Tom.
A foolproof shortcut through the labyrinth of ballot propositions: if it says "by the Legislature," vote NO.
Yes on 140 as well. Open up the primaries and will elect more moderate legislators in gerrymandered districts where the primary controls and the election is a formality. The candidate will need to answer to all of the voters not just the majority of the controlling party,
The problem with 140 is that it's poorly written. Check out Civil Engagements Beyond Voting's (CEBV) analysis:
"Too risky. It appears Prop 140 is trying to force our legislature to be sensible. This is a fool’s errand and opens the door to meddling. Over the years, we've seen too much meddling come out of our legislature to give our state lawmakers the benefit of the doubt. Handing the details of our elections over to a legislature — especially one that looks anything like our current one — is a recipe for chaos.
We recommend a NO vote. CEBV believes the flaws of this measure outweigh its intentions. Though CEBV is open to reform of Arizona's current primary system, Prop 140 – well-intentioned though it may be – has the potential to be considerably worse than what we have now.
Conflicts with Prop 133. If both Prop 133 and Prop 140 pass in November, whichever one gets the most votes will be enshrined into the state constitution. We recommend a NO vote on both measures. "
Simple answer, vote NO on 133.
Vote YES on 140. CEBV is NOT the final authority for analysis.
Prop140.com I recommend YES on 140.
Prop 140 EMPOWERS voters at the expense of GOP dominance/hegemony.
And what proof do you offer for this allegation? Many of Arizona's districts ARE competitive, and not overtly gerrymandered; although less so after Ducey gamed the 'Independent' redistricting commission. They DO tend to reflect the actual leaning of the constituents of the district.
Also this concept implies that both parties are equally extreme.
They're not. The GOP has put the Overton Window on a rocket sled rightward for over 40 years, to the point that to be 'moderate' in 2024 would have made that person uneletably far right in 1980.
FFS Ronald Reagan was a reactionary right wing politician who launched his campaign in 1980 with an overtly white supremacist speech about 'young bucke eating t-bone steaks' and he couldn't make it through a Republican primary today because he'd be labelled a marxist radical leftist today.
The modern conceit that 'both sides are equally bad' (or the purity pony version "The Uniparty", usually said with extreme derision) simply does not hold up to factual analysis.
Thomas Mann and Norm Ornstein showed this over 10 years ago https://wapo.st/4dK90Cc
"Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post."
(and I would contend that Clinton's "welfare reform" was far more center right than center left, but that's just my radical left marxist communist 'opinion' /s )
the contention that holding party primaries versus a jungle primary rewards the extremes of both sides simply doesn't hold up in the current US political landscape, where one side is advocating measures to fight the kind of global warming that causes hurricanbes like Helene and Milton to be so destructive (and, incidentally, things like Tucson's record-setting 111 days above 100°, or is it 112?) and the other side telling people that FEMA wants to steal their land and homes, and is purposely not helping places that voted Republican.
What is the 'moderate' position in that instance? It sure as hell isn't 'midway between those two positions'
140 will EMPOWER voters at the expense of GOP hegemony. AZ will no longer be a one-party state, in terms of #azleg.
I'll leave a comment but not that I disagree - I don't, rather I wish to make it perfectly clear that the legal statement of "you have no legal standing (men) in this matter" applies here. Of the six-pack of corruption on the mislabeled 'supreme court' five do not have 'legal standing'. Endure labor, suffer a miscarriage, fall victim to a pregnancy conceived in rape or incest or carry a dead organ you once loved in your body that can now be the source of your painful death then you just might have 'a say so', although highly unlikely, but then you can - just maybe - render a "legal opinion" on your morally "legal grounds" - but until then "shut the hell up". Just the opinion of an 84 year old white Christian male Vet married for over 60 years to a bright beautiful women - begging you to vote 'yes' on Prop 139 - God will love you all the more for it.
BINGO, Fitz! Blue all the way. Agree with all your recommendations. Thanks for putting this out there.
I'm voting YES on Prop 140 as well. That one was NOT put on the ballot by MAGA douche bags and I believe it will help make our elections more fair and less two-party controlled. But agree on everything else!
Even more important, 140 will make it nearly impossible for AZ to any longer be a ONE-party dominant legislature.
My lineup exactly, almost... I was going to vote yes on 140 too but now, after further research, I don't like the "future law" hinge. (The meddling.) Thanks, Fitz and others who commented.
I like 139 and 140. I'm hoping it moderates the candidates since they have to get a majority of all voters in the primary and allows Independents a say. I'm also voting out the 2 Justices. Those who say we should not have politics in the selection or retention of judges forget that Governor Ducey expanded the Court and added 2 more seats so that he could appoint the majority of the court. It is already political.
As to the debate re: prop 140, while I agree our selection of candidates needs to be improved, I cannot help but think there is some unstated agenda in this proposition since it is the work of our idiotic legislators. I vote no. They give new meaning to the word “stupid”.
Agree with all but trying to dig deeper into Prop 140. It's interesting that Vote NO website (https://no140az.com/) includes Regina Romero along with Abe Hamadeh, Andy Biggs, Debbie Lesko, Sheriff Mark Lamb, Ben Toma, and Warren Peterson. Maybe it’s a threat to them as well?
Prop140.com
I follow CEBV - civic engagement beyond voting, they have done the deepest research on bills, propositions, judges, etc., and make excellent recommendations, they also teach us how to request to speak on bills to make comments to thumbs up and thumbs down things in our Arizona legislature. Check out their website CEBV .org
I love CEBV also, especially their weekly 4pm Sunday Zoom when legislature is in session. Just note... the correct URL for the website is CEBV.us
I like Prop 140. I think it is time to loosen the party grip on candidates, both sides.
Already DONE it!😎😎👍👍
Waiting for a ballot, here!
Oh no! Trust Fitz when you receive. It’s huge with many garbage propositions.
Thank you, David. The Future of Democracy is at a Critical juncture now, more than any time that I can remember, including 9/11 . I cannot understand or believe their support of this Disgusting criminal sex offender. The question I would ask a Trump supporter is, Would you be comfortable as an airline passenger if Donald Trump were in the Pilot's seat? That is where we are headed !! Thanks, David. Tom.
I like the way you think. Let's get this done.
Yes on 140 makes sense. Why are we tied to a political party?
Thanks Fitz, you have concisely, perfectly simplified voting recommendations.
It coincides with the wrinkled piece of paper I've been carrying in my purse with my voting notes.
You could have saved me a bunch of time a week ago (!)