October 18, 2006 - Get our your Ballot Propositions Guide from the Secretary of State and follow along as I pick the props.

100 - Yes. Eliminates bail for serious felonies committed by illegal aliens if proof evident and presumption great. Bail is used when flight risk is present. A no-brainer.

101 - Yes. Caps local property taxes.

102 - Yes. Keeps illegals from receiving punitive damages in civil suits. Why are illegals allowed to sue citizens in the first place?

103 - No. Some should find a new horse to ride beside "English Only Again" in this symbolic portion of the immigration debate.

104 - No. Gives more power to local governments. They have too much Now.

105 - Yes.

106 - No. 105 is the counter proposal to 106. Sierra Club says: "It is about the Legislature continuing to interfere with citizen initiatives." How dare the people's duly elected representatives actually involve themselves in governing! Policy decisions should be made by snot-impacted elite groups who appoint each other to private committees that define the issues. 106 creates an abominable unelected bureaucracy consisting of professional tree-huggers, select developers, and the teacher's union. It's the second most arrogant power grab on the ballot.

107 - Yes. Legal needs for the those unmarried and living together for whatever reason can be handled now by a variety of options from medical powers of attorney to simple wills.

This is really about two different constituencies seeking approval for their lifestyles. It ought to be about insurance coverage. Pass 107 and you will force jurisdictions only covering "domestic partners" (people having sex with each other) to replace it with a general provision extending coverage to others living with an employee - two brothers, grandma and grandson, whatever - or admit their decisions were just political posturing in the first place. This alternative would greatly increase coverage for those not covered by health insurance now.

200 - No. Biggest turkey on the ballot. Why would present non-voters vote if their only reward was a lottery ticket they can buy anywhere for a buck?

201 and 206 - No on both. I sympathize with bar owners trying to avoid the oppression in 201 and I grasp the dangers of secondhand smoke and recognize that the tobacco companies were run by scum. Only no one makes you go to or work in particular restaurants or bars. The decision should rest with owners and individuals. It's freedom and property rights versus safety and coercion. I pick freedom.

202 - No. A sleazy stealth power grab. Does much more than raise the minimum wage as careful reading shows. Empowers unions to crawl all over employers and creates another unelected bureaucracy to do it.

203 - No. Built on the highly debatable premise that pre-schoolers do better when institutionalized early. The most arrogant proposal this side of 206. Creates another massive unelected bureaucracy outside the purview of folks we elect and pays for it with a regressive tobacco tax - for now. Like the lottery, tobacco taxes are finite. The program will ultimately need money from elsewhere - like from the rest of us.

204 - Yes. Would only a cover a few "pig factories." The arguments against it are the real "hogwash."

205 - No. Makes couch potato voting mandatory. Eliminates the sample ballot. Will increase voter intimidation by eliminating the secret ballot for the sake of "convenience." Makes elections even more trivial while claiming to increase interest.

207 - Yes. Greatly curtails use of eminent domain by local governments. Also forces compensation for property owners when rules are changed. The opposition focuses on the second part by falsely claiming Oregon's similar measure is the same and had problems with retroactive application. They ignore the clear provision against retroactivity in 207. Opponents like local governments having more powers, including broadened eminent domain. Their arguments are disingenuous, a polite way to say "lie."

300 - No. We usually look upon illegals as adults using their own volition. But often they bring children with them. If you deny educational and other benefits to those children, then be prepared to advocate their deportation. Leaving them as a permanent underclass is counter-productive.

301 - No. The "meth threat" has caused massive over-reaction.

302 - No Legislative pay-raise, see previous column.

Final score, seven Yes and 12 No. Who says I'm not a moderate?

BACK TO TOP

EMIL FRANZI

EMAIL FRANZI

BUT WATCH WHAT YOU SAY!

About Emil Franzi

Emil Franzi is the owner and host of "Inside Track" on KVOI - 690AM and KAPR - 930AM in Douglas. The program airs on Saturdays from 12 pm till 5 pm.

Franzi currently writes a weekly column for the EXPLORER (formerly the NORTHWEST EXPLORER). He filled the TUCSON WEEKLY with close to a million relevant words from 1993 to 2004 and was an OpEd regular with the Az Daily Star from 1994 to 1998. His writing has also appeared in PHOENIX Magazine, ARIZONA HIGHWAYS, and the late CITY MAGAZINE in Tucson.

But then, Franzi is an iconoclast.

This website is Franzi's baby, put together with work, faith, and a little help from his friends, like Tom Danehy, Joyce Downey and Mike Tully. The concept -- politics, books, humor, the Old West, movies, "Pet Talk" and letters -- is Emil's. This unique brew seems to work. This website averages more than a thousand "hits" a day and keeps growing.

You can read Emil Franzi's views on all things political and cultural, as well as opposing views, on our "Politics and More" page.