Page 8 - the NOISE October 2014

VOtEGUIDE: thE PROPs
By BOB reynOLDS
stated: “People just can’t thumb their noses at the federal government without conse- quences.” And his final point: “If it passes, it only authorizes people to put it into the Ari- zona Constitution if it coincides with the US Constitution.” So, he anticipates most of this will end up in the courts and decided there.
PROP #304
A statute by the Commission on Salaries for Elective State Officers was not discussed at the Civil Discourse forum but was talked about after.
Summary: Proposition 304 would raise the salaries for state legislatures in Arizona from the current $24,000 to $35,000 per year, effective January 1, 2015.
Background: The Commission on Sala- ries for Elective State Officers (CSESO) of five citizens conducts a biennial review of the rates of pay for elected officials. The review is made for the purposes of determining the pay levels appropriate for the duties and responsibilities of the positions subject to review. The last time salaries were increased for legislature was 1999, as voters did not ap- prove to increase salaries in 2000, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2008. Legislators from Maricopa Coun- ty receive $35 per day, including weekends, for the first 120 days in session and $10 a day thereafter, plus mileage. The figure is $60 for lawmakers from the rest of the state for the first 120 days and $20 daily after that, plus mileage. The session is supposed to be 3 1⁄2 months but can go up to six months. Arizona ranks 29th in the national roster, 21 states pay more and 28 states pay about the same or less. The annual fiscal impact for 30 sena- tors & 60 representatives is projected to be $1,318,400 including the employer share of salary-based employee benefits.
Supporters: Quality candidates can be ex- pected to run for public office only if the salary is commensurate with the duties for the par- ticular office. Voters need to decide if the cur- rent salary is enough to accomplish good gov- ernment. Finally, some states pay salaries and per-diem and others a daily allowance only.
Opponents: Legislators receive per-diem payments along with their salary, plus mile- age, health insurance and a vested pension after five years. This should suffice for what is only a part-time job, as sessions are sched- uled for three months. (If it were 12 months, their salary would be $96,000.) Also, it’s not time to raise salaries as the economy may have improved in larger counties but most areas are still depressed economically.
One of the commentaries against Prop 304 came from Karen S. Johnson who serves on the CSESO. She opposes the raises. “There are good reasons for modest salaries. First, most legislatures are part-time, so no one should expect a full-time paycheck. Second, offering modest pay helps screen the field of candidates. A small, part-time salary means that those who run for office are more likely to be older, advanced in their careers or re- tired. They are likely to be more mature and more seasoned. Election to the legislature was never envisioned as ‘employment’ and should not be treated as such. Being a legis- lator is not a ‘job,’ it’s a public service. Please vote NO on Prop 304.”
Three members of CSESO, Lisa Atkins, Joseph Kanefield & Dennis Mitchem, ar- gued for Prop 304 with an ad in the Arizona’s General Election Guide, saying in one unified voice: “No one is going to get rich in the Ari- zona Legislature.”
| Bob Reynolds has his mock ballot ready. bob@thenoise.us
On Thursday 9/18/14 a Civil Discourse Discussion was held simultaneously across Arizona in Sedona, Tempe, Flagstaff and Coolidge. Law Professor from ASU, Paul Bender and Len Kirschner, former AARP President, focused on Proposition #122 & #303 — each of them taking up one of the propositions for a summary, some back- ground explanation and then discussed what the supporters and opponents might say about the proposition.
Then, for an hour in these rooms across the state, citizens could interact, with some guided questions from informed moderators (our group had Blaise Caudill), take notes, discuss, jot down ideas, and at the end of the hour, their thoughts were sent to Tempe to be tabulated and find some consensus. It tru- ly was structured as an exercise in a type of Democracy we don’t see much — participa- tory & civil — where ideas are shared, written down, respected and considered. Although the number and demographic of partici- pants didn’t vary much from 17 in Sedona, to 20 in Flagstaff — white, educated and middle class — this type of civil discourse hopefully will expand to the larger populace.
PROPOsitiOn #303:
Use of Investigational Drugs; Biological Products; Devices, “The Right To Try Act”
Summary: Prop 303 would allow the manufacturer to make available to an eligible patient an investigational drug, biological product or device. The measure permits, but does not require, a health care insurer or state agency to provide coverage for the investiga- tional drug, biological product or device.
Background: US Food & Drug Adminis- tration (USFDA) oversees the safety of food, drugs and cosmetics. Investigational drugs are new and have not yet been approved or in the process of being approved for safety and effectiveness. Proposition 303 would al- low a terminally ill patient — whose physi- cian agrees there is no comparable USFDA- approved treatment available — to have access to medications made available by a manufacturer that has not completed the full USFDA approval process.
The patient and the physician must deter- mine the probable risk to the patient from the new medication is not greater than the risk from the disease before taking the medi- cation. The patient must give informed con- sent for the new use of the drug, biological
product or device. An “investigational drug, biological product or device” is defined as such that has successfully completed phase one of a clinical trial, but has not been ap- proved for general use by the USFDA.
The manufacturer may provide the investi- gational drug, product, device, with or with- out charge. It does not require a health care insurer or state agency to provide coverage. It also prohibits a state regulatory board from taking action against a physician’s license based solely on the physician’s prescription for treatment with the investigational drug.
The fiscal impact cannot be determined in advance. The real fiscal impact would come if AZ Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS) and AZ Department of Adminis- tration (ADOA) chose to provide coverage for investigational drugs. As the coverage is optional, the impact cannot be determined.
Supporters: It would allow terminal pa- tients who have explored other options to make their own decision to try a drug that has received FDA Phase One Clearance. It also requires a physician and monitoring and makes sure the patient knows the risks. And finally, to access treatments, patients either go through a lengthy FDA exemption process or wait for FDA approval. Thousands could die as bureaucratic wheels slowly turn.
Opponents: It does not address the ex- pense of drugs. Drug and device companies are under no obligation to give patients any- thing. End of life medical expenses can leave family members burdened with substantial debt. Without a good doctor to guide a pa- tient through possible opportunities avail- able, the law will not have any effect. And finally, it does not track doctors who enroll patients in trials which have bad outcomes. No way to hold them “accountable if they cause a lot of people to die more rapidly.”
Mr. Kirschner discussed this proposition in more detail, saying it would pull at the “heart-strings of people” but wasn’t sure “if
the science was there to back up its claims.” He mentioned many wonderful anecdotes that may sway the listener but the long term science isn’t there. Also, who offers ‘protec- tion’ for the doctors who give experimental drugs; if they can’t be sued, who’s account- able? Mr. Kirschner thought the act would pass because a “Right to Try Act is a good PR campaign, it’s emotional.”
PROP #122
Rejection of Unconstitutional Federal Ac-
tions, A Constitutional Amendment Referred to the ballot by the State Legislature
Summary: Proposition 122 would allow Arizona to restrict the actions of its person- nel and the use of its financial resources to purposes consistent with the US Constitu- tion by passing an initiative, referendum or bill or by pursuing any other available legal remedy. The state, counties, cities, towns and other political subdivisions would be prohib- ited from using any personnel of financial re- sources to enforce, administer or cooperate with federal action or program if the people or their representatives have exercised their authority to restrict such action or use.
The Background: The US Constitution es- tablishes and provides authority for the legis- lative, executive, and judicial branches of the federal government. Additionally, within its articles, the Constitution provides a means for amending itself and binds all legislative, executive and judicial officers to support the Constitution, stating it is the supreme law of the land. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments to the US Constitution which safeguard individual and state’s rights.
The 10th Amendment confirms state sov- ereignty providing that, “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Consti- tution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” The people have several reserved powers to allow direct participation in the legislative process. These reserved rights of initiative, recall and referendum are pro- vided for electors by Article IV, Part 1 of the Arizona Constitution.
A proposition was defeated on the 2012 ballot which declared state sovereignty over state natural resources including land, air, water, mineral and wildlife. It reaffirms the federal and state government must abide by the US Constitution. The fiscal impact of this proposition cannot be determined in ad- vance as it would depend on future electoral, legislative, and legal actions.
Supporters: It would let Arizona voters decide how Arizona resources should be spent. It can help stop the federal govern- ment from taking land and water away from communities that need it. Arizona should not lose doctors and insurance plans they want to keep. This would prevent the federal gov- ernment from making side deals with state bureaucrats restricting choices of patients and businesses. Finally, the Supreme Court agrees that states do not have to enforce fed- eral acts — constitutional or otherwise.
Opponents: This would have an extreme- ly negative impact on the protection of natural resources, especially relative to the Legislature’s role. If voters or the Legislature decide to deny services for certain federal ac- tions, the federal government will likely sue and the courts would be the deciding factor in the end. Opponents claim the measure unconstitutional as the state cannot super- sede federal authority. And finally, this kind of legislation is more ammunition for the late night talk shows to laugh at Arizona.
Mr. Bender, ASU Professor of Law, ana- lyzed some of the points in the proposition that could potentially come up. He stated upfront that federal law is supreme, but if it is unconstitutional, the states can inter- cede. He went on to say, “If we don’t like that law, we change it. But the idea that we can change from state to state our federal laws, does not allow us to be a country any more.” He thought this proposition was symbolic.
“This proposition could conceivably repeal Common Core or Obamacare or any num- ber of federally financed programs.” And he
8 • OCTOBER 2014 • the NOISE arts & news • thenoise.us