The Valley’s National Public Radio affiliate, KJZZ-FM (91.5) recently invited me into the studio with morning news anchor Dennis Lambert for an interview about three Arizona ballot measures: Proposition 100, an constitutional amendment that would ban any taxes on the sale of real estate; Proposition 101, another amendment that would guarantee anyone’s right to pay for private health care from their own pockets; and Proposition 201, which would mandate 10-year warranties on new home construction. The interview was presented today during NPR’s Morning Edition, at about half of the length of the entire conservation (which is rather generous for a broadcast interview).

These initiatives are widely seen as “less sexy” than a constitutional ban on gay marriages or the measure pushed by the payday loan industry; and the details can be complicated. While the Tribune Editorial Board has taken a stand on all of the measures, I sought to give a balanced explanation about what they would do and outline the strongest arguments provided by those for and against them. Listen for yourself and let me know how I did.

MARTIN SHULTZ 

   In an example of mind-boggling micro-management, the folks behind the proposed statewide 1-cent sales tax hike for transportation turned away more than 18,200 petition signatures and a check for $27,000 from central Arizona homebuilders association, Capitol Media Services reported Monday.
   The TIME coalition apparently is trying to hold the homebuilders to the original deal they struck with Gov. Janet Napolitano to provide the campaign $100,000 in cash, in exchange for the initiative not including any new impact fees or special taxes on building construction.
   The homebuilder association apparently thought the TIME Coalition could use help gathering more signatures, since the campaign only started May 8 and has to deliver at least 153,365 valid signatures by Thursday’s deadline. (And a general rule of thumb is a initiative campaign should collect at least 25 percent more signatures than the minimum required to safely qualify for the ballot.)
   But the TIME Coalition wants all of the money, not help with signatures.
   “We’re still waiting,” coalition treasurer and APS uber-lobbyist Martin Shultz told Capitol Media Services.
   It’s a clear reflection of how Napolitano wants complete control of her proposals, regardless of who else might be involved. Does that mean she’ll take the blame if the TIME coalition doesn’t manage to make the November ballot? Somehow, I doubt it.
Update:
   The TIME campaign says Wednesday it has submitted more than 250,000 signatures to put this initiative on the November ballot. Those signatures still need to be verified. But it looks like the coalition didn’t need any help from the homebuilders after all.

Gov. Janet Napolitano (second from right) along with ADOT director Victor Mendez help to open a stretch of the Santan Freeway in 2005. (Found at azgovernor.gov)

Tribune writer Dennis Welch has a hot story about Gov. Janet Napolitano cutting a secret deal with Arizona’s biggest homebuilder group to provide $100,000 for an initiative campaign to raise the state sales tax for transportation projects.

The coalition behind the initiative, Transportation and Infrastructure Moving AZ’s Economy, previously had claimed that making growth pay for itself would be essential to any successful statewide transportation plan. Now we know why no such funding mechanism was included in the actual proposal when the campaign to collect initiative signatures was launched Tuesday.

Napolitano was willingly to protect homebuilders, who will benefit heavily from additional transportation construction, in exchange for their cash to get this campaign underway even as the state struggles with a multi-billion budget shortfall.

Ward Connerly

When Ward Connerly predicts Arizona will easily adopt a constitutional amendment to abolish affirmation action programs, his track record says you have to take him seriously.

The former regent of the University of California system has become a national leader in the movement to end all government programs that offer preferential treatment to women or minorities. He was the voice and face of initiatives to stop public colleges and universities from considering race for admission in California, Washington and Michigan. Now, Connerly is the force behind a bid to bring constitutional amendments to November general elections in five states at once, including Arizona, that would ban preference programs related to public education, government employment and public contracts.

Connerly plans to formally launch his campaign for a “Super Tuesday for civil rights,” next week. But he gave a preview in Phoenix Thursday at breakfast fundraiser for the Goldwater Institute.

The Arizona campaign already has high-profile chairman in Maricopa County Andrew Thomas. But Connerly is expected to be the heart and soul of the five-state strategy. As a black man raised by his grandmother, aunt and uncle in the pre-civil rights era of the 1950s, Connerly has been the perfect foil to various groups who say opponents of affirmation action are closet racists.

Connerly says his direct experience with overt discrimination has led him to believe no person should be judged by their skin color or gender, even if the underlying intentions are well-meaning. He says the “morally wrong” focus on race actually keeps society from addresses the problems that harm minorities such as poverty and a lack of education.

Connerly spoke for more than 30 minutes without notes so his speech was somewhat rambling. But his passion emerged during a question-and-answer session when he was challenged by audience member Ed Valenzuela, the former regional director of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Connerly easily cited a litany of statistics that enrollment and graduation rates climbed for blacks and Asians at specific University of California campuses after that state’s voters banned affirmation action in higher education. He argued black students are now matched better with the programs where they can succeed instead of being accepted into schools for which they weren’t prepared. And Asians clearly were discriminated against in order to prop open campus doors for blacks, he added.  “It is Orwellian to say that by demanding that people be treated equally, you are suppressing their numbers,” Connerly said.

Connerly’s petition drive is formally called the Arizona Civil Rights Initiative and it would “prohibit preferential treatment or discrimination by state government, state universities, colleges, community colleges, school districts, counties and local governments to any individual or group based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting.”

The initiative has to collect at least 230,047 valid signatures from registered voters by July 3 to qualify for the Nov. 5 general election.