Friday December 6, 2013
Jump to content
A bill to change the current recall system has passed the House and is on its way to the Senate. It was prompted by the recall against Senate President Russell Pearce, who was ousted in a 2011 recall.
Pearce was recalled, you may remember, in a Republican district, but in the recall, though he was pitted against another Republican, both Democrats and Republicans were allowed to vote.
If the new law passes, which is likely, a recall will resemble a regular election; there will first be a primary for each party, and there will then be a general election between the two candidates.
I have some questions for you:
Why, exactly do you think the bill was written? In other words, who was it intended to benefit--and how?
Do you think the new system is fair and equitable? If not, what's wrong with it?
Can you think of a better system?
I'm not entirely convinced that the new law is the way to go.
Look at it this way: Someone is elected from a major party. That is the choice of the majority of the people who voted. If that person is recalled, how then does that change the choice of the people allowing both major parties, and independents as well, to vote for his replacement?
I would think that the only people allowed to vote in a recall are those who voted FOR the person being recalled, and that the only people allowed to run would be people of that party.
Agree? Disagree? Got a bettter idea?
Forget the party. Vote for the person.
The problem with what happened to Russell Pearce is that he was elected in a fair and honest election, and then removed from office immediately afterward. Tha clearly shows that his removal was not the will of the people of his district.
I just wonder if this new law will fix that or just turn recalls into expensive three ring circuses?
I'm really not sure if it is a good idea, or if there isn't perhaps a better one.
The homosexual, lesbian, transgender, transvestite, bi-sexual organizations are now attempting a recall election effort on AZ State Rep. Kavanaugh. He had just sponsored a AZ State law bill that would supercede the new Phoenix City Gender Neutral Bathroom public/private use ord. that they have implemented in the City of PHX. He apparently through a monkey wrench and a gauntlet at them with his bill proposal. My belief this is all a connected agenda in conjunction with the State illegal immigration reform push (legal status for them and a soon to come right to vote effort), recall of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, and the liberal slant of the Phx City Council. All the same groups and people involved if you look closely. I agree with your view Tom. The current process is skewed enough with voter fraud and suspicion, why double the perception .
Maybe it was not the will of the people in his district and honest election when he was elected ??
The election was held. People voted. In a democracy, that's that! The time to correct it, unless the person does something the people don't like after being elected, is during the election. And as far as I'm concerned, letting people from the opposing party vote during a recall is VERY wrong.
By the way, Don, if the bill passes it will be retroactive to the date of Joe Arpaio's election, thereby screwing up the current plot to do the same number on him that was done on Pearce. Boy do I hate it when someone uses a valid system of seeing to it that people stay responsible to the electorate to do something else. Did you notice that the group trying to recall Sheriff Arpaio tried to slip in its recall before the six month after election limit required by the Arizona Constitution? They got caught at it, though, and have been taken to court.
As to gays, lesbians et al, my stand--which I think is the fair, honest, and proper stand under our constitution--is that the government should not intrude into the private lives of adults. Total neutrality is what is correct, just as it is regarding religion. I do not tell people what they should believe. In return, they do not tell me what to believe.
Mind you, I am NOT telling anyone how they should feel about such things. That's a matter of individual choice. Nor am I saying that people should go against what their religion tells them. Read on and you'll soon see where I stand, for what that may be worth.
I myself have known not just a few, but many, gays and lesbians. Not one of them ever had any cause to believe that I judged them, or ever had me treat them any differently from anyone else. Some of my friends and co-workers over the years would no doubt be happy to testify to that. In fact, I'm willing to bet some of them never had a clue that I was aware of their preferences.
The trouble with what we are seeing now is that people who are at last free to live their lives as they choose--a BIG change from when I was young--now seem to feel that others should endorse their lifestyle. That is not what is called for under a system which treasures freedom and liberty; it is using the government to force people to change their fundamental beliefs, and that is as wrong as things can be.
When it comes to ridiculous things like trying, for example, to change the definition of the term "marriage," people go too far. Marriage is now, always has been, and always will remain the coming together of a man and woman in a special bond. If other people want to bond together, and to enjoy the legal benefits of it, they have my blessing. But please to do not try to redefine an institution which, because of its value to the children it produces and the very special environment it creates for them, is different from the mere coming together of two individuals in a special commitment.
Posting comments requires a free account