Arizona, like 23 other states, allows citizens to circulate petitions and pass statewide laws directly through ballot initiatives. It’s a check on the politicians when they fail to represent their constituents’ views, and on the well-heeled special interests when they block policy reforms. It’s through the initiative process that we’ve helped adopt the major animal welfare policy advances in the state—banning the use of steel-jawed leghold traps on public lands in 1994, outlawing cockfighting in 1998, and in 2006 phasing out the extreme confinement of breeding sows and veal calves on factory farms.
Of course, the special interests in Arizona didn’t like these outcomes. They had everything wired in the state legislature, and they knew the only way for us to achieve these reforms was to take these questions to the people. Now, they’ve cooked up yet another scheme to cling fast to the levers of power.
In past years, the special interests and their allies in the legislature have tried numerous times in Arizona to chip away at voting rights, and they’ve been soundly rejected at every turn. In 2000, a constitutional amendment that would have required a two-thirds “supermajority” on wildlife-related ballot measures, rather than the simple majority needed for all other subjects, went down to defeat—with 62% of voters opposing the measure. And in 2008, an amendment that would have required any ballot measure to get a nearly impossible majority of all registered voters, including those who have died or moved but are still on the voter rolls, rather than a majority of those who actually vote, was soundly defeated, too—with 66% opposing.
Not taking “no” for an answer, Arizona lawmakers and special interests are at it again, by placing Proposition 109 on the November statewide ballot. It’s another power grab by politicians who want to take away the rights of Arizona voters. Prop 109 would take away Arizonans’ voting rights by giving the legislature exclusive authority over wildlife issues. The state wildlife agency would no longer be able to make management decisions without the legislature’s approval—opening up every big issue to the whimsy of lawmakers, who are often captive to the NRA and other extreme organizations that defend animal abuse.
The state constitution should not be used to score political points for extreme groups that use inhumane and unsportsmanlike trophy hunting practices. Prop 109 could even nullify wildlife measures that have been previously approved by Arizona voters—such as the 1994 law to prohibit steel-jawed and body-gripping traps on public lands. These traps are cruel and indiscriminate, and voters made the right call to outlaw these landmines for wildlife more than 15 years ago.
Prop 109 could even cost taxpayers millions of dollars and subject the state to frivolous and expensive lawsuits from individuals who want to argue that bag limits or season dates for a particular species are “unreasonable.” A poacher caught spotlighting animals from the road or shooting animals out of season could argue in court that such restrictions are “unreasonable.” It’s a bad law that solves nothing and only creates problems.
The Arizona Republic, the largest newspaper in the state, called the similar proposition in 2000 “dumb,” saying it was “an ill-founded fear that undercuts majority rule,” and “a bad tonic for a problem that doesn’t exist.” The same principles hold true a decade later, and a dumb idea hasn’t gotten any better with age. If we let the politicians take away our right to vote on wildlife issues, what other issues will be next?
Animal protection groups and others concerned about protecting voting rights are going to form a coalition to fight this power grab. You’ll be hearing more from us on the issue, as we urge Arizonans to say “no” to the special interests and vote “no” on Prop 109.
Paid for by Humane Society Legislative Fund, Michael Markarian, President, 519 C St. NE, Washington, DC 20002.
