AZ Prop. 111: Vote NO if you support SB 1070

As readers of Seeing Red AZ are aware, this site does not put forth a list of election recommendations, although we do advocate on behalf of various conservative candidates and issues. For those desirous of such a definitive list we often suggest following recommendations from specific conservative sites. 

When it comes to Proposition 111, however, one of those highly esteemed go-to sites took a pass and gave no position, choosing to remain neutral on that single issue. The organization has its own reasons for taking that tact, which we accord them.

However, we view this Constitutional Amendment as an extremely important proposition and one that has far-reaching and potentially devastating consequences.

Prop. 111 calls for the creation of the office of Lieutenant Governor to replace our current Secretary of State. But, it is far more than an innocuous name change.  The proposition requires a tag-team of candidates for Governor and Lt. Governor.  This has everything to do with line of succession and plays directly into the hands of the Democrats who demeaned current Republican Governor Jan Brewer as the “accidental governor” when she ascended to office after their liberal heroine, veto-queen Janet Napolitano abandoned them for a post with Barack Obama.

Was the term “accidental governor” bandied about when Republican Evan Mecham left the governor’s office in the hands of Democrat Rose Mofford? Of course not. This is a one-way street piece of work that comes with tar and feathers concealed by the malcontents offering it.

Don’t be confused.  For those of us who are among the 71 percent of Arizona voters who support SB 1070, remember that it was signed into law by the “accidental governor” so despised by the liberals among us.  We don’t need tag-team candidates.  Let’s continue to have people run on their own merits. That is what the process is and should be about.

Seeing Red AZ urges a NO vote on Prop. 111.

Advertisement

20 Responses to AZ Prop. 111: Vote NO if you support SB 1070

  1. Another LD11 PC says:

    So why is the AZGOP supporting this Prop?

    Very disappointing. Randy, what the he** is going on? Have you totally sold out?

  2. Pima Pal says:

    Thanks for this clarification. We were going to vote our early ballots this afternoon and get them in the mail. Glad I saw this first! I would have voted the other way, although it looks like this post may be too late for many voters. I was completely ill informed on this issue! I sincerely wish this site would put up a list of recommendations.

  3. Kent says:

    What the hell is this from the AZ GOP? Fat lotta guidance. Thanks for nothin’.

    http://www.azgop.org/site/c.qtK2KeMSKuG/b.6282231/k.9EA2/Arizona_Ballot_Propositions.htm

    I see what you mean, LD11.

  4. Seen It All says:

    Ah, but the party of McCain wants us to support them. Did you see that on the same web page with the link? I give whatever support I can to candidates not the party.

  5. Justin says:

    You all seem to have come to the dance a bit late. Tuesday is election day. I hope you’re not planning on mailing those ballots in now. Take them to the elections dept. downtown to make sure they are in the first count or to your neighborhood polling place. I know we’re all busy and I do agree that the message should have been stronger. I also agree that the truth about this particular proposition should have been told loud and clear. I fear we’ve all been led down the primrose path on this one. The average voter has been led to think this is only a name change. In fact, it is a construct of the left for their own purposes. Too bad Brewer, who of all people should be steadfastly AGAINST it, is supportive.

  6. Ben F says:

    The perspective makes the picture.

    If the exact events had happened when Evan Mecham was Governor, Beehive Mofford would have vetoed 1070.

    Our job is to make sure that ALL Republican candidates are conservative in the Primaries and then make sure that ALL of them are elected in the General.

    Prop 111 will actually give more certainty if there is an unplanned exit of the Chief Executive.

    Like it or don’t like it, but 1070 should not be used as the straw man.

  7. Realist says:

    If the Party would seek out and groom candidates for Governor & Lt. Governor who upheld the constitution of the U.S. and Az. and who would also adhere to the party platform—I don’t see a problem.

    It could be a win win!

    • Joe Evans says:

      Nope, Realist. That would put the candidate for governor in the position of having to run in tandem with someone not of his or her choosing and also being responsible for vetting that person. The only way it would be palatable is if they ran independently. Teams are for sports not politics on this level and as this is being configured.

      There is nothing to recommend this disaster except the side-step of those we should be able to count on. Someone’s been bought. I’m not suggesting with money, but there are plenty of ways to be purchased.

      • Ben F says:

        Anybody who disagrees with your position must have been bought??

        That would include EVERY Republican Senator on Third Read, and nearly all the House Republicans – except mostly the moderates. Yep, Biggs, Burges, Seel, Pearce, Gould, etal were ALL bought simply because you do not agree with their vote.

        I am sorry that I was not aware of your opposition before I made my prior post.

    • Doc says:

      MOST of our current electorate, & Many of the incoming Freshmen legislators, can barely READ the Constitution. Our own senior ?senator? can’t make up his mind which way he wants to vote most of th’ time. Honestly Realist…how many legitimately conservative candidates can you name of the current crop? There are a couple…but uuuhhh…

      “groom candidates for Governor & Lt. Governor…”

      uuuhhh…no. Seeing Red-THANK YOU for this WAY ENLIGHTENING article! You guys ROCK!!!

      • Ben F says:

        Like I said before, there are good reasons to support OR oppose this legislation. More importantly, to limit the number of incoming candidates as conservatives to only a couple shows your absolute lack of needing to see a Doc — a shrink would be recommended. Please do not medicate yourself, you are not qualified.

  8. LD 18 Voter says:

    This is a constitutional amendment, for God‘s sake!! That alone should make it worthy of more than a neutral opinion = no opinion at all.

  9. Teller Of Truth says:

    A bit simplistic coupled with a huge dose of wishful thinking that we can insure ALL conservatives get elected. We are not the only ones voting. The real issue is not to cut our own throats or do anything to make it easier for the other side to win in the process. Prop. 111 increases the power of the hierarchy over the rest of us. I am appalled that the pro-open border Chamber of Commerce along with it‘s opportunistic CEO Glen Hamer, former state senator and well known RINO Susan Gerard, Tom Simplot, Reginald Ballantyne, III and Government for Arizona’s 2nd Century are in the tank for this, while not a single conservative group appears to have come out in opposition. I can only conclude we have lost our minds. There are times we get exactly what we deserve. I hope this is not one of those times.

  10. Night Owl says:

    Thanks for this. I only wish I had seen it sooner, since I mailed in my ballot last week and now realize I made a mistake. If you don’t mind a scolding from a loyal reader, you guys goofed by not getting this up sooner.

    I’ve sent this link out to my list hoping I could catch some others who might not have this information.

    https://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/az-prop-111-vote-no-if-you-support-sb-1070/

    • Another LD11 PC says:

      They didn’t know sooner. They just figured it out.
      Even Russell Pearce’s original prop “recommendations”
      (poorly thought out) said yes on 111.

  11. Tyler M says:

    I am extremely opposed to Prop. 111. There are many bad points to the this poorly written & conceived initiative. Here’s my list of reasons to oppose it, on top of what was already said:

    (1) It makes the State’s Chief Election Officer, a much more political position. That would be wrong.

    (2) This amendment will immediately be destroyed by the Courts because it would basically make it so that if an independent is elected as Governor, there would be no Lieutenant Governor, and hence no Chief Election Officer. In other words, this amendment tries to give more power to political parties.

    (3) Our current system of succession IS NOT broken to begin with, so this amendment is completely unnecessary. All that this amendment does is give the Secretary of State “a vanity promotion” as somebody put it in the voter guide.

    (4) If having a Lieutenant Governor was so important, that doesn’t mean that we should get rid of the position of Secretary of State.

    (5) (And this is what potentially scares me the most about this) If we have a candidate for Lieutenant Governor being forced to run on a “Joint Ticket” with the candidate for Governor of the same political party, this could lead to the bottom-of-the-ticket candidate openly opposing his or her running mate. If a candidate for Governor is expected to run together with another candidate, that candidate for Governor should get to choose his or her running mate.

    Otherwise, Democrats will try to screw Republicans by running “Chris Mays-like” fake Republicans in Republican Primaries. A split vote of conservatives between two or more conservatives running for Lieutenant Governor, we could get a faux-Republican stuck on the ballot by default. Even if having a Lieutenant Governor was a good idea, this is the wrong way to do it. Or it could be even worse & Dems could somehow get a David Duke-like figure to run for Lieutenant Governor. Then the entire campaign for Governor will be about making excuses for the racist or other possibly horrible positions of that running mate. Candidates for Governor could lose just because their running mates are now made to be a huge campaign issue, even though the candidate for Governor had nothing to do with the fact that person was put on his or her “Ticket”.

    ——–

    In other words, this initiative is a terrible, terrible, terrible idea!

  12. Night Owl says:

    Ben F. tells us to visit a shrink if we dare to disagree with his exalted opinions. If he were registered as an Independent and was completely shut out of the process by this foolish proposition, which doc would he visit? A shrink or a proctologist?

  13. Mad Gramma says:

    Memories of NY D23 Dede Scozzafava dropped out of the race 4 days before the election and had 6% of the vote, to bad for early voters NO DO OVERS!and a wasted vote.

  14. Cassandra says:

    Thank you for this coverage. It is exactly the kind of conservative vantage point I’ve been looking for. I really appreciate this information! There is too little out there. But when I passed a campaign sign that showed what I considered questionable supporters of this proposition, I decided to look further. Much appreciated!!

%d bloggers like this: