Page 1

Arizona Legislative

SCORE CARD 2006 47th State Legislature

www.azlcv.org Arizona Conservation Voter Volume 15, Number 3

Summer 2006


From the director Dear Conservation Voter, In reflecting back over the 2006 legislative session, I am again reminded how critical our work to elect proconservation candidates to public office is. After 2004, many of us were deeply disappointed by the hardright turn of state government, and we have experienced the impacts of that over the past two legislative sessions. We have now seen the welcome adjournment of one of the worst legislative sessions in recent memory. Our State Legislature set a new record for the number of bills introduced — almost 1500 this session — and also set a record for poorly conceived and sparsely debated legislation. We saw the introduction of over 20 bills to restrict or eliminate eminent domain authority coupled with regulatory takings language limiting local governments’ ability to plan and manage growth effectively. We saw the introduction of a measure to undermine regulation of hazardous air pollutants, lifting the pollution emission levels above levels that are known to cause cancer and death in human populations. In response to this onslaught from the Legislature, the Governor also set a new record for gubernatorial vetoes, proving once again to be a valuable stopgap against the worst and most ill-considered anti-conservation measures put forward. There were some small, yet significant, gains made, including measures to support clean and renewable energy and energy efficiency. But most positive measures, such as those introduced to manage our water resources more effectively and protect our critical streamside, riparian habitats were defeated. Here, at the close of the 2006 legislative session, we face a critical election year. Each chamber of the Legislature is a mere handful of votes away from having a veto-proof majority. Our last defense against the worst of the antienvironmental legislation is in jeopardy. But we have a tremendous opportunity to change this trend this election year. Our right to a clean and healthy environment as well as the preservation of Arizona’s stunning natural heritage for this and future generations is at stake. The League will be putting all of our energy into promoting pro-conservation candidates and preventing the establishment of a veto-proof majority. Our work is more important now than ever. I hope that you find the Scorecard informative, and invite you to share it with your friends, family, neighbors, and community, and to educate others about the conservation records of our elected officials. Thank you for your support. Sincerely,

Susan Culp Executive Director

Staff

Board of Directors

Advisory Council

Susan Culp Executive Director Duke Mertz Director of Administration Kate Whalen Government Relations Liaison Steve Arnquist Membership Director

Anne Graham Bergin President, Tucson Jessica Catlin Secretary, Phoenix Deborah Tuck Treasurer, Flagstaff Maria Baier, Phoenix Ken Clark, Phoenix Brian Davidson, Phoenix John Hartsell, Phoenix Thomas Hulen, Tempe Roselyn O’Connell, Scottsdale William Roe, Tucson Patricia Turpin, Phoenix Roberta Voss, Phoenix

Betsy Bolding, Tucson Carolyn Brickey, Tucson George Clark, Phoenix Jill Faber, Paradise Valley LaVelle McCoy, Flagstaff Luther Propst, Tucson Priscilla Robinson, Tucson Elisabeth Ruffner, Prescott Jim Walsh, Phoenix Lyn Wilson, Tucson Tom Woods, Phoenix

Scorecard design by Julie St. John

www.azlcv.org

2

The Arizona Conservation Voter, the newsletter of the Arizona League of Conservation Voters, is published three times annually: January, April and September. The League also publishes an annual Scorecard following the legislative session. Contents are copyrighted, but articles may be reprinted provided credit is given to authors and the League. Annual membership for the League begins at $35. All members receive the above publications. info@ azlcv.org

www.azlcv.org in Phoenix: 2701 N 16th St., Suite 105, 85006 602.277.3326 in Tucson: 738 N. Fifth Ave., Suite 102, 85705 520.622.2819 COVER

Pima Canyon saguaros courtesy Julie St. John

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Snapshot of the Scores Honor Roll

House of Representatives Meg Burton Cahill (D-17) – 100% Ted Downing (D-28) – 100% Steve Gallardo (D-13) – 100% Martha Garcia (D-13) – 100% Pete Hershberger (R-26) – 100% Leah Landrum Taylor (D-16) – 100% Linda Lopez (D-29) – 100% Tom O’Halleran (R-1) – 100% Tom Prezelski (D-29) – 100% Pete Rios (D-23) – 100% Senate Edward Ableser (D-17) – 100% Bill Brotherton (D-14) – 100% Jorge Luis Garcia (D-27) – 100% Richard Miranda (D-13) – 100%

Bottom Scores House of Representatives Eddie Farnsworth (R-22) – 0% Colette Rosati (R-8) – 16% Judy Burges (R-4) – 19% Rick Murphy (R-9) – 19% Pamela Gorman (R-6) – 20% Russell Pearce (R-18) – 21% Andy Biggs ( R-22) – 22% Trish Groe (R-3) – 23%

Senate Ron Gould (R-3) – 6% Jack Harper (R-4) – 6% Karen Johnson (R-18) – 6% Linda Gray (R-10) – 12% Thayer Verschoor (R-22) – 12% Robert Burns (R-9) – 15% Chuck Gray (R-19) – 18% Lowest Scoring District: LD 22 – 11% Represented by Senator Thayer Verschoor, Representative Andy Biggs, and Representative Eddie Farnsworth

Other High Scores

House Democrats David Bradley (D-28) – 94% Olivia Cajero Bedford (D-27) – 94% Ann Kirkpatrick (D-2) – 94% Debbie McCune-Davis (D-14) – 94% Albert Tom (D-2) – 94% David Lujan (D-15) – 93% Robert Meza (D-14) – 93% House Republicans Jennifer Burns (R-25) – 84% Michele Reagan (R-8) – 75% Marian McClure (R-30) – 78% Cheryl Chase (R-23 ) – 71% Lucy Mason (R-1) – 70% Senate Democrats Albert Hale (D-2) – 96% Victor Soltero (D-29) – 94% Paula Aboud (D-26) – 88% Linda Aguirre (D-16) – 88% Rebecca Rios (D-23) – 85% Senate Republicans Toni Hellon (R-26) – 82%

Top Scoring District: LD 13 – 100% Represented by Senator Richard Miranda, Representative Steve Gallardo, and Representative Martha Garcia.

Averages: House Average Score: 61% Average Score (Democrats): 87% Average Score (Republicans): 46% Senate Average Score: 51% Average Score (Democrats): 85% Average Score (Republicans): 28%

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

3

www.azlcv.org


Actions used for scoring

Guidelines for Scoring Each legislator’s score is based on his or her total pro-conservation votes over the course of the session. Measures are weighted according to their importance, and no credit is given for missing votes. However, members are not penalized for excused absences. In all cases, the scores are based on the final vote each measure receives in either chamber.

Starting with this Scorecard, the League will be giving “extra credit” to legislators who sponsor positive environmental legislation (prime-prime sponsors only). For every pro-environment bill introduced, the legislator will receive an additional point to their final score. For those measures that actually become law, the legislator will receive an extra 2 points on their final score. For those who sponsor anti-conservation legislation, 1 point will be subtracted from their final score for every such measure introduced, and 2 points will be subtracted from their score if the measure ultimately passes. Final scores are capped at 100%.

(Allen) This measure requires that a pesticide applicator notify a child care facility at least seventy- two hours in advance of any pesticide application and requires that the child care facility notify parents, guardians, children, and personnel at least forty-eight hours in advance of any pesticide application. Prior to this measure, notification laws were in place for school aged children attending schools, but not child care facilities. The bill provides some exemptions for the least toxic substances.

(Allen) This measure would raise de minimis levels for hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) to the level at which cancer actually occurs and is not protective of the public health. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality would have to show that the de minimis amount by which a facility’s emissions are being increased is by itself sufficiently harmful to humans, and ADEQ could not rely on data showing that the total amount of HAPs emitted by the facility (including the increase) is harmful, no matter how clear the data might be. Additionally, ADEQ would have to prove that an individual (most likely to be among the most vulnerable in our society, such as children and the elderly) was actually harmed by the pollutant before it could set a de minimis level.

(Hellon: Cannell, L. Lopez) This measure prevents the purposeful feeding of wildlife. The bill excludes people who are in the process of hunting or fishing, and those who are engaged in wildlife management activities. Tree squirrels and birds are exempted from the measure. Feeding wildlife promotes human-wildlife conflicts, putting both people and animals at risk. www.azlcv.org

4

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 2 Passed the Senate: March 13, 2006 Passed the House: May 23, 2006 Passed Senate Final Read: May 25, 2006 Signed by the Governor: June 1, 2006

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 5 Passed Senate: March 8, 2006 Passed House: April 18, 2006 Passed Senate Final Read: April 26, 2006 Vetoed by Governor: May 2, 2006

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 1 Passed Senate: March 8, 2006 Stalled in the House: Passed the Natural Resources Committee but was never heard in Judiciary

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Actions used for scoring

continued

Spring at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge courtesy Julie St. John

(JP Weiers, Mason: Biggs, et al) This measure increases penalties for poaching and creates substantially higher penalties for taking endangered species or “trophy animals.” A floor amendment added by Senator Toni Hellon also attached the language from SB 1438 unlawful feeding of wildlife.

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 2 Passed House: March 2, 2006 Passed Senate: April 24, 2006 Passed House Final Read: April 27, 2006 Signed by Governor: May 2, 2006 A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 1 Passed House: February 20, 2006 Stalled in Senate: Passed Natural Resources & Rural Affairs Committee and Rules Committee, but was never sent to Committee of the Whole.

(Landrum Taylor, Chase, Downing, et al) This bill would require the Arizona Emergency Response Commission to ensure that mandatory hazardous training programs are available for first responders, and also sets up an Arizona Response Coordination Task Force. The Task Force coordinates the activities of the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Health Services and emergency response personnel in responding to a chemical fire or toxic release event. This is the fifth time that Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor has introduced chemical fire response legislation, and the fifth time we have seen it fail.

(O’Halleran) This measure would expand the water resources component of a comprehensive general plan developed by a municipality or county to include reports on current and committed water supplies, future demand projected over twenty years, water conservation efforts and drought management efforts. It would require certain municipalities and counties to consider the practicality of regional integration and coordination with other jurisdictions within the same groundwater basin. It also requires that cities that do not have general plans collaborate and provide information to other governing bodies in their region. Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

5

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 4 Passed House: March 2, 2006 Stalled in the Senate: Never heard in committee.

www.azlcv.org


Actions used for scoring (Mason, Boone, Chase, et al) This measure increases commercial solar energy income tax credits and directs the Department of Revenue to establish a procedure for identifying commercial solar energy projects that qualify. The total commercial solar tax credit is capped at $1 million per year and the credit is only offered from 2006 through 2012.

(Mason, Chase, Boone, et al) This measure removes certain restrictions on encouraging energy efficient products in school districts by establishing that energy life cycle costing alone shall be used to evaluate all solar energy and energy conservation design, equipment and materials. It will help to ensure that solar and other good renewable energy systems be given ample time to prove their efficiency.

(Mason, Burns J, Burton Cahill, et al) This measure requires a seller of five or fewer parcels of land, other than subdivided land, in an unincorporated county to include a notice in the affidavit of disclosure that accompanies the deed. The notice says that the Arizona Department of Water Resources may not have made a water supply determination and that they should contact their water provider for more info. Prior to amendment, the measure required that the notice disclose whether or not the property is served by an adequate water supply, which would have been a better requirement. However, the bill is still useful as a tool for educating property buyers about water adequacy.

(Mason, O’Halleran, Bee, et al) This measure would establish a tax credit for certain energy efficient appliances certified as Energy Star by the U.S. Department of Energy or the Environmental Protection Agency. The tax credit is for tax years 2006 and 2007.

www.azlcv.org

6

continued

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 2 Passed House: March 2, 2006 Passed Senate: June 20, 2006 Passed House Final Read: June 20, 2006 Signed by Governor: June 21, 2006

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 1 Passed House: February 13, 2006 Passed Senate: April 11, 2006 Signed by Governor: April 17, 2006

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 1 Passed House as amended: March 2, 2006 Passed Senate: April 4, 2006 Signed by Governor: April 11, 2006

A “YES” vote is a green vote. Weight: 1 Passed House: March 13, 2006 Stalled in Senate: Passed Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee but did not progress.

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Actions used for scoring (Huppenthal) SCR 1008 would have sent to the November ballot a measure to broaden the permissible subject matter that may be included in a constitutional amendment. This could result in constitutional amendments that look like statutes and could possibly confuse voters by making them vote on an all-or-nothing initiative.

continued

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 3 Passed Senate: February 2, 2006 Was the subject of an unrelated strike-everything amendment in the House. A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 3 Failed Senate: March 16, 2006

(Martin) This measure would limit funding for state operations to “permanent revenues,” yet fails to define what is considered permanent. Virtually any revenue, including much of the funding that supports the Department of Environmental Quality and the Department of Water Resources, could be considered to be temporary. As a result, the legislature could spend most of its time during session debating the status of various revenues rather than addressing the needs of the citizens of this state.

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 3 Failed House: March 13, 2006 Brought back for reconsideration and failed again on March 16, 2006.

(Pearce, Gorman, Huffman, et al) This measure is a House version of SCR 1027 (see above).

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 4 Passed Senate as amended: March 22, 2006 Stalled in House: Passed Federal Mandates and Property Rights Committee but did not progress.

(s/e amendment by Gray, C.) This measure is identical to HCR 2031, and was introduced as a strike-everything amendment. It would entitle property owners to “just compensation” if government enacts or enforces a new land use regulation that restricts the use of private real property. Compensation would be based on a “highest and best use” standard for the property. This “regulatory takings” language would create significant expenses for local governments, and effectively tie the hands of municipalities in their attempts to make effective land use and planning decisions for the benefit of the entire community. SCR 1019 is given a slightly lesser weight than HCR 2031 since members who voted were told at the time that the regulatory takings language would be stripped from the bill in the House.

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 5 Failed House: March 23, 2006

(Gray, C.) This measure is identical to SCR 1019 (see above).

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

7

www.azlcv.org


Actions used for scoring (s/e by C. Gray) After HCR 2031 failed on the House floor and SCR 1019 was never heard in House committee, the sponsor of both those bills, Rep. Chuck Gray, introduced a strike-everything amendment to a third bill. This amendment included the same regulatory takings problems as the two failed measures and was introduced late in the afternoon on the final day of session. Members of the Judiciary Committee were given only minutes notice, and members of the public were given virtually no notice whatsoever.

continued

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 5 Introduced via a strikeeverything amendment: June 21, 2006 Passed the Senate: June 21, 2006 House Speaker declined to bring the measure to a vote in the House.

(Nelson, Boone, Brown, et al) This measure was introduced with the sole intent of defeating the Conserving Arizona’s Future initiative campaign. It provides for the set-aside of only 42,511 acres in high-growth areas such as Phoenix, Prescott and Tucson, and requires cities to pay for those lands in order to permanently conserve them. It also gives the State Legislature discretion to designate an additional 400,000 acres in less populated parts of the state. Given the Legislature’s historic lack of support for conservation, however, the preservation of additional lands through such a mechanism would be highly unlikely. The measure also fails to provide better tools to the State Land Department for the management and planning of any lands that are conserved.

A “NO” vote is a green vote. Weight: 5 Passed House: March 16, 2006 Passed Senate: June 21, 2006 Passed House Final Read: June 21, 2006 Transmitted to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the November ballot.

Wupatki Ruins courtesy AZLCV

www.azlcv.org

8

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Profiles: Conservation Heroes Representative Tom O’Halleran (R-Dist 1), chair of the House Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee, is one of the most informed and proactive members of our legislature when it comes to protection of our natural resources. In particular, he has been a champion of responsible water planning — an issue that becomes increasingly important with each new year of unprecedented growth and development. This year, Rep. O’Halleran introduced several measures pertaining to water resource management, most notably a measure that would have required a water resources component in municipalities’ comprehensive general plans and required collaboration and information-sharing between jurisdictions. This bill flew through the House with bipartisan support but was unfortunately not heard in Senate Natural Resources and Rural Affairs Committee. Rep. O’Halleran has also been a strong advocate for air quality and forest health issues, and was invaluable in working to defeat the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights (TABOR) measure, which would impose an arbitrary funding formula that could seriously threaten critical government programs such as environmental protection, education, and healthcare. Rep. O’Halleran’s work as a committee chair has also earned him the AZLCV “Statesman” honor (see page 11). Representative Lucy Mason (R-Dist 1) was once again a leader in promoting clean and renewable energy use in Arizona. Among the bills she sponsored this year were measures to increase commercial solar tax credits, another to encourage energy efficient products in school districts, and yet another that would establish tax credits for energy efficient products. Rep. Mason also sponsored bills to substantially increase penalties for poaching, particularly for the taking of endangered species, and to require full funding of the Arizona Water Protection Fund. Rep. Mason has made enormous progress in the area of conservation policy since her first year in the House, and now stands as one of the strongest advocates for renewable energy in the

LEFT TO RIGHT:

O’Halleran Mason Sinema

State Legislature. Her persistence on behalf of this issue in particular is a credit to her and to her constituents. Representative Kyrsten Sinema (D-Dist 15) has been a loyal advocate on conservation issues, especially when it comes to environmental justice. Rep. Sinema sits on both the House Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee as well as the House Environment Committee. On each of them she has been tireless in promoting legislation that would protect Arizonans from the health threats caused by pollution. This session, she sought to establish a cumulative environmental risk study committee to examine whether polluting facilities are clustered in a way that results in a concentrated or increased health risk to particular groups. She also sponsored legislation that would reinstate Arizona’s citizen suit provisions, allowing the public to take legal action if the state government refuses to enforce environmental laws. Despite being outnumbered on both of her committees by colleagues who don’t seem to consider environmental justice or public health a priority, Rep. Sinema continues to be a leader in bringing these issues to the forefront. Representative Pete Hershberger (R-Dist 26), last year’s AZLCV “Statesman,” has continued his work on behalf of Arizona’s communities this session. A consistent high scorer on conservation issues, some of Rep. Hershberger’s most important contributions have been in reaching out to other members of his party as well as across the aisle to reach reasonable compromises on divisive issues. Rep. Hershberger has been instrumental in defeating the Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights measure, and also worked alongside continued next page

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

9

www.azlcv.org


Profiles

continued worked hard to make sure that members of the community who have come to express their views are treated with respect and given the opportunity to fully articulate their positions. In a room where industry lobbyists often outnumber ordinary citizens, her encouragement of public participation in the committee process shows true leadership.

LEFT TO RIGHT: Hershberger Hellon Landrum Taylor

Conservation Heroes

continued

Rep. O’Halleran in a valiant effort to stop a harmful measure relating to hazardous air pollutants (HAPS) on the floor of the House. His efforts behind the scenes and his willingness to work in a bipartisan fashion on behalf of Arizona’s residents make him an invaluable member of the Legislature. Senator Toni Hellon (R-Dist 26) this year sponsored a measure that would prevent the purposeful feeding of wildlife—an important issue since feeding wildlife promotes human-wildlife conflicts where both people and the animals are at risk. At a time when Arizona is dealing with unprecedented growth and the boundaries between neighborhoods and wilderness are becoming blurred, this measure is badly needed. A major setback for the legislation came when, after it passed the Senate, it seemed to die in the House when Rep. Eddie Farnsworth refused to hear it in his committee. Sen. Hellon, with the support of Rep. Jerry Weiers, sponsor of HB 2129, succeeded in amending the poaching bill to include the wildlife feeding language. The bill was ultimately passed and signed by the Governor. Representative Leah Landrum Taylor (D-Dist 16) remains one of the legislature’s most dependable advocates for public health protections from toxins. She succeeded again in passing her chemical fire response coordination legislation through the House, only to again see it die a silent death on the other side of the courtyard. Despite this disappointing result, Rep. Landrum Taylor’s service on the notoriously anti-environment Environment Committee has been extremely important to conservation and environmental justice advocates. Along with Rep. Sinema, Rep. Landrum Taylor has www.azlcv.org

10

Out of Step The Arizona League of Conservation Voters considers the following legislators “out of step” with the sentiments and conservation concerns of Arizona’s public when it comes to protecting our land, air, water and quality of life. Representative Eddie Farnsworth (R-Dist 22) has plunged to new depths, dropping from a mere 8% on last year’s Scorecard to an absolute 0% after this legislative session. In addition to his votes on the Floor, Farnsworth also worked to defeat good conservation and public participation measures in his role as chair of the House Judiciary Committee. Among other measures, Farnsworth blocked the bill that would make wildlife feeding illegal, a measure which enjoyed widespread support on both sides of the aisle, by simply refusing to hear it. Representative John Nelson (R-Dist 12) had been a rational voice in the Legislature, and reasonable in the past when it came to responsible conservation legislation. However, this session he has truly been out of step on one critical issue, state trust land reform, promoting a measure that would not be in the best interests of Arizona residents. His bill, HCR 2045 state trust land reform, was a clear effort to derail the Conserving Arizona’s Future citizens’ initiative by confusing voters at the ballot. This was a deeply disappointing move, and a blow to both conservation and the spirit of public participation.

LEFT TO RIGHT:

Farnsworth Nelson

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Spotlight: Public Participation Statesman Recognition This year’s “Statesman” is Representative Tom O’Halleran, in recognition of the strong example he sets as a committee chair who consistently encourages public participation in the political process. Rep. O’Halleran’s Natural Resources and Agriculture Committee heard a number of highly contentious measures this session, chief among them the anticonservation state trust land reform measure. These committee meetings often saw large numbers of people signing in to testify for or against the measures. On several occasions, the numbers of people wanting to testify were so great that testimony would have to be cut off after two or even 3 hours so that committee members could go vote on the House floor. In these cases, Rep. O’Halleran went the extra mile to accommodate public participation by reconvening his committee in the afternoon to make sure that interested parties would have an opportunity to testify. Rep. Tom O’Halleran in a shining example of a legislator who understands that public participation in the political process is a necessary and vital part of our democratic system.

The Tyrants This session, the legislators who have best earned the title of “Tyrant” are Representative Russell Pearce (RDist 18) and Senator Chuck Gray (R-Dist 19). Rep. Pearce is the chair of the House Appropriations committee and Senator Gray, prior to his appointment to the Senate in March, was chair of the House Federal Mandates and Property Rights committee. Both earned reputations for limiting public participation in policy debate by preventing citizens from testifying in opposition to bills the chairs were supporting. In one instance, when Pearce’s Appropriations Committee was considering his “Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights” measure, Pearce limited testimony to only one speaker in opposition to the bill and one speaker in favor — Pearce himself. Compounding the problem,

he also failed to read into the record the names of those who had signed in to oppose the bill — more than 100 in total. No one had signed in favor of the measure, but his behavior prevented committee members and members of the public from understanding the level of opposition before the vote was taken on the measure. In his committee, a measure that had provoked concern from many community advocates and private citizens was given less time than a measure regarding home cooking schools received later in the session. Gray had a similar modus operandi as Federal Mandates and Property Rights Chair. Private citizens were repeatedly denied the opportunity to testify, despite the fact that many had traveled from all over the state to have their voices heard. Gray’s distressing lack of respect for public participation went with him to the Senate. On the final day of session, late in the afternoon, Senator Gray introduced a strike-everything amendment that revived a measure which had failed twice during the session in the House. Members of the Judiciary Committee had only 15 minutes notice before hearing the bill, and the public was given virtually no notice whatsoever. A measure that had faced mountainous opposition its first two times through the process was ramrodded through with no opportunity for opposition to register their concerns. Fortunately for the public, House Speaker Weiers declined, at 11 o’clock on the evening of sine die, to hear the measure on the House floor. Arizona’s citizens deserve the opportunity to have their voices heard on policies that affect their lives. Representative Pearce and Senator Gray would do well to respect not only the people they represent but also the ideals of open government, which too often this session were LEFT TO RIGHT: ignored. Gray

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

Pearce

11

www.azlcv.org


Senate voting tally & Committee Scores The AZLCV scores are based on floor votes, and not votes taken in committee. However, it is important that we understand the makeup of the committees to which a majority of bills dealing with our natural environment are sent for consideration. Here are snapshots of three Senate committees that are especially important to conservation. Senate Natural Resources & Rural Affairs Member Jake Flake (chair) Marsha Arzberger Timothy Bee Robert Blendu Robert Cannell Chuck Gray Rebecca Rios

Party R D R R D R D

District 5 25 30 12 24 19 23

Score 47% 48% 35% 29% 56% 18% 85%

Committee Average Score: 45.4% Senate Government Member Jim Waring (chair) Edward Ableser Bill Brotherton Jake Flake Linda Gray Albert Hale Barbara Leff

Party R D D R R D R

District 7 17 14 5 10 2 11

Score 41% 100% 100% 47% 12% 96% 26%

Committee Average Score: 60.2% Senate Judiciary Member John Huppenthal (chair) Linda Aguirre Bill Brotherton Ron Gould Chuck Gray Jack Harper Dean Martin Richard Miranda

Party R D D R R R R D

District 20 16 14 3 19 4 6 13

Committee Average Score: 47.5% www.azlcv.org

12

Score 37% 88% 100% 6% 18% 6% 25% 100%

Scorecard Key

= ✘

Pro-environment vote

= Anti-environment vote

— = Not voting (counts against score) EA = Excused absence (does not count against score)

Scorecard Bills Weights SENATORS Edward Ableser Paula Aboud Linda Aguirre Carolyn Allen Marsha Arzberger Tim Bee Ken Bennett Robert Blendu Bill Brotherton Robert Burns Robert Cannell Ken Cheuvront Jake Flake Jorge Luis Garcia Ron Gould Chuck Gray Linda Gray Albert Hale Jack Harper Toni Hellon John Huppenthal Karen Johnson Barbara Leff Dean Martin Richard Miranda Rebecca Rios Victor Soltero Jay Tibshraeny Thayer Verschoor Jim Waring

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

FINAL SCORE 100% 88% 88% 48% 48% 35% 24% 29% 100% 15% 56% 65% 47% 100% 6% 18% 12% 96% 6% 82% 37% 6% 26% 25% 100% 85% 94% 26% 12% 41%


2

5

      —

              

 ✘ ✘ ✘

EA

     ✘ ✘

2

    ✘

  

2

1

  

 

 

  

EA

  

  

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

EA

 ✘ ✘ ✘

EA

 ✘

— —

    —

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘

✘ ✘

 

✘ EA

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

  

✘ ✘ ✘

EA

EA

EA

 

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

  

  

  

  

  

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘

 

✘ ✘ ✘

EA

 

 

     

   

       

 

  

— EA

EA

 

   

EA

EA

5

 

   

✘ ✘ ✘

EA

5

4

3

✘ ✘

         

3

 

EA

1

          

    ✘  ✘  ✘        ✘  ✘  ✘

1

 ✘

✘ ✘

     

     

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

 ✘

Senate Average 51% Senate D Average 85% Senate R Average 28%

 ✘

 13

www.azlcv.org


House voting tally & Committee Scores The AZLCV scores are based on floor votes, and not votes taken in committee. However, it is important that we understand the makeup of the committees to which a majority of bills dealing with our natural environment are sent for consideration. Here are snapshots of two of five House committees that are especially important to conservation. House Environment Member

Party

Ray Barnes (chair) Martha Garcia Steve Huffman Leah Landrum Taylor Gary Pierce Michele Reagan Bob Robson Colette Rosati Kyrsten Sinema

R D R D R R R R D

District 7 13 26 16 19 8 20 8 15

Score 55% 100% 50% 100% 44% 84% 45% 16% 93%

Committee Average Score: 65.2% House Natural Resources & Agriculture Member

Party

Tom O’Halleran (chair) John Allen Jack Brown Cheryl Chase Russ Jones Ann Kirkpatrick Lucy Mason John Nelson Kyrsten Sinema

R R D R R D R R D

District 1 11 5 23 24 2 1 12 15

Score 100% 27% 56% 72% 53% 94% 70% 57% 93%

Committee Average Score: 69.1%

continued next page www.azlcv.org

14

Scorecard Key

= ✘

Pro-environment vote

= Anti-environment vote

— = Not voting (counts against score) EA = Excused absence (does not count against score)

Scorecard Bills Weights HOUSE

FINAL SCORE

Kirk Adams Amanda Aguirre John Allen Manuel Alvarez Mark Anderson Ray Barnes Nancy Barto Andy Biggs Tom Boone David Bradley Jack Brown Judy Burges Jennifer Burns Meg Burton Cahill Olivia Cajero Bedford Ted Carpenter Cheryl Chase Ted Downing Eddie Farnsworth Steve Gallardo Martha Garcia Pamela Gorman Trish Groe Pete Hershberger Steve Huffman Russ Jones Ann Kirkpatrick Laura Knaperek Bill Konopnicki Leah Landrum Taylor

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

29% 68% 27% 81% 41% 55% 31% 22% 44% 94% 56% 19% 84% 100% 94% 41% 72% 100% 0% 100% 100% 20% 23% 100% 50% 53% 94% 45% 58% 100%


2

5

 ✘   EA

   ✘  ✘  ✘ ✘

✘ ✘

    ✘

2

1

4

2

1

1

1

3

5

5

      

EA EA

EA

 

EA

EA

EA

EA

 

  

 

EA

✘ ✘

  

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

 

 

     

     

    

 

 

 

EA

✘ ✘

✘ ✘

✘ ✘

      

EA

 

— —

✘ ✘

EA

 

 

EA

               

EA

 

  

 —

     

  

 

 

    EA

✘ ✘

   EA  ✘    ✘ ✘

EA

 

✘ ✘

 —

    

EA

    — —

  EA

      ✘

    —

✘ EA EA

          

EA

✘ ✘

  

   

     

     

 

 

✘ ✘

    —

  

     EA

EA

             EA EA

          

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

EA

✘ ✘ ✘

 ✘ ✘ ✘

  ✘ ✘

 ✘

15

 www.azlcv.org


House voting tally & Committee Scores The AZLCV scores are based on floor votes, and not votes taken in committee. However, it is important that we understand the makeup of the committees to which a majority of bills dealing with our natural environment are sent for consideration. Here are snapshots of the final three House committees that are especially important to conservation. House Federal Mandates & Property Rights Member Party District Score Warde Nichols (chair) R 21 Manual Alvarez D 25 Nancy Barto R 7 Judy Burges R 4 Gary Pierce R 19 Tom Prezelski D 29 Committee Average Score: 62.6% House Judiciary Member

Party

District

Eddie Farnsworth (chair) R 22 Ray Barnes R 7 Nancy Barto R 7 Ted Downing D 28 Steve Gallardo D 13 Ben Miranda D 16 Jonathan Paton R 30 Doug Quelland R 10 Steven Yarbrough R 21 Committee Average Score: 54.8% House Transportation Member Party Andy Biggs (chair) R` Amanda Aguirre D Meg Burton Cahill D Pamela Gorman R Russ Jones R Marian McClure R John Nelson R Tom Prezelski D

District 22 24 17 6 24 30 12 29

38% 81% 31% 19% 44% 100%

Score 0% 55% 31% 100% 100% 84% 57% 33% 34%

Score 22% 68% 100% 20% 53% 78% 57% 100%

Scorecard Key

= ✘

Pro-environment vote

= Anti-environment vote

— = Not voting (counts against score) EA = Excused absence (does not count against score)

Scorecard Bills Weights HOUSE

Phil Lopes Linda Lopez David Lujan Lucy Mason Marian McClure John McComish Debbie McCune-Davis Nancy McLain Robert Meza Ben Miranda Rick Murphy John Nelson Warde Nichols Tom O’Halleran Jonathan Paton Russell Pearce Gary Pierce Tom Prezelski Doug Quelland Michele Reagan Pete Rios Bob Robson Colette Rosati Kyrsten Sinema Bob Stump Albert Tom Steve Tully James Weiers Jerry Weiers Steven Yarbrough

Committee Average Score: 62.3% www.azlcv.org

16

FINAL SCORE

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

84% 100% 93% 70% 78% 41% 94% 50% 93% 84% 19% 57% 38% 100% 57% 21% 44% 100% 33% 84% 100% 45% 16% 93% 31% 94% 34% 53% 30% 34%


2

5

    EA  EA

  ✘

   ✘     ✘

✘ ✘

EA

    ✘

✘ ✘

   —

✘ ✘

    ✘ ✘

   ✘    — —

✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

2

    —

   EA

 ✘

   EA

      

1

               ✘

     

EA

      

✘ —

   

4

         —

                   

2

 

1

1

        

        

EA

   

    

     

                   

  — —

 —

EA

  ✘

 ✘

EA

 

    

1

       ✘

  ✘

3

         

5

5

   

  

✘ ✘ ✘

 

 

✘ ✘ ✘

 ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘

 

 

 

✘ ✘

EA

✘ ✘

✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

✘ ✘ ✘ ✘

 ✘

  ✘

    

 ✘ ✘

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006

 ✘ ✘

17

House Average 61% House D Average 87% House R Average 46%

www.azlcv.org


Focus: State Trust Land Reform The past year has been a particularly meaningful time when it comes to the crucial issue of state trust land reform. On the one hand, we have seen a broad-based coalition of educators, conservationists, and businesspeople mobilize to prepare a citizens’ initiative for the November 2006 ballot that would conserve almost 700,000 acres of ecologically valuable state trust land. In the legislature, on the other hand, we’ve seen the passage of a measure designed with the express purpose of defeating that important initiative by confusing voters at the polls. And the fight has only begun. State trust land reform has been an issue of great concern in Arizona for many years. Arizona received at statehood almost 11 million acres of land to be held in trust for a variety of beneficiaries, including the state’s education system. We are now facing a period of unprecedented growth and development, and must act quickly to prevent the loss of many of our most ecologically valuable lands. When the lands were originally granted, there was little consideration as to how the ecological value of those lands would fit into the quality of life of Arizonans. Had the land been auctioned off more quickly over time, Arizona would be in the same situation as many western states, with little remaining of the original trust and no opportunity left of preserving any of those lands for greater public benefit. In 2006, however, we face the very real possibility that some of the remaining natural crown jewels of state trust lands could be lost to development without a chance to plan responsibly for our natural resources and future quality of life. The Conserving Arizona’s Future (CAF) initiative is an effort to enact comprehensive, consensus-driven state trust land reforms to address the issues of growth, improved land use planning for state trust lands, and preserving our

important natural heritage. The initiative sets aside 694,000 of the most environmentally sensitive and valuable trust land for preservation. The initiative also provides Arizona with better tools to plan, manage, and add value to the trust with the remaining acres available for development. And this initiative has generated immense support from the people of Arizona. On June 30th, the CAF coalition turned in more than 300,000 signatures — over 100,000 more than what was required and about one out of every ten registered voters in the entire state! Unfortunately, when it comes to our state Legislature, no good deed goes unpunished. At the request of the Central Arizona Homebuilders and the Arizona Cattle Growers, Representative John Nelson, a Republican from Glendale, and others in the State House of Representatives introduced a competing measure, HCR 2045. This measure refers a measure to the ballot that would only preserve 42,000 acres of state trust land in the urban areas (those lands already reclassified for conservation under the Arizona Preserve Initiative). Additionally, it gives the legislature the discretion to allocate up to 400,000 additional acres in the rural areas, if they should ever choose to do so. However, given the past actions of the legislature, it is doubtful that they would ever act to set aside any additional acres at all. And even if they do, the science and the rigorous process of vetting that the CAF coalition used to identify the most critically important and ecologically sensitive lands would not likely be adhered to in the legislative process. In the grand scheme of things, the 400,000 acres referenced in the measure could well end up being none at all. In the past, when competing measures have been placed on the ballot, the response from the voting public has to been to play it safe by sticking with the “status quo,” voting both measures down. That has been the goal of the CAF initiative’s opposition. The purpose of HCR 2045 is not to preserve 42,000 urban acres; rather it is to prevent any acres from being preserved at all. Despite the best efforts of the conservation, education, and business communities, HCR 2045 was passed by the House and Senate and will appear on the November ballot alongside the citizen’s initiative. If both measures pass, then the proponents of each would likely end up in a long, drawn out litigation process to reach a compromise. The results of such an action would be uncertain at best. That is why, this fall, we will be counting on informed citizens to get the word out about the Conserving Arizona’s Future initiative. We need you to tell your neighbors, friends, and colleagues to vote for the measure supported by conservation groups, education interests, the progressive business community, Governor Napolitano, and so many other community groups and leaders in our state. Please support comprehensive and meaningful state trust land reform. This year we have an unprecedented opportunity to pass a conservation supported measure — and it’s about time!

Blue River courtesy Julie St. John

www.azlcv.org

18

Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card Summer 2006


Now that you know the score… Take Action! There are four simple things you can do to help hold your legislators accountable on conservation issues: 1. Contact your legislators. Call, write, or email your representatives to thank them if they supported pro-conservation measures. Those who safeguard our quality of life deserve our appreciation. Or, if they voted against protecting our natural environment, you can send them a short, polite note expressing your disapproval of their performance.

2. Share the Scorecard. Make sure your neighbors and friends know how their representatives voted on important conservation legislation. Contact the Arizona League of Conservation Voters for additional copies of the Scorecard, or let us know if you would like to host a party or meeting to discuss the results of the Scorecard.

3. Vote for pro-conservation candidates. Contact the AZLCV for information on endorsed or pro-conservation candidates at the local, state, and federal level. And keep an eye out for our Voter Guide, coming later this summer.

4. Join the Arizona League of Conservation Voters eAction Network. Receive weekly legislative updates and information on how you can influence your legislators to make conservation friendly policy decisions during the legislative session. Email kwhalen@azlcv.org to join!

Contacting your legislator

During session, you can reach your legislator at:

The Arizona Legislature meets for regular session from mid-January to anywhere from the end of April to the end of June. You can also find your legislators’ direct contact information, including email addresses, at www.azleg.gov/MemberRoster.asp.

Senator / Representative _______________ Arizona State Senate / State House of Representatives 1700 W. Washington Phoenix, AZ 85007 Info desk (toll free): 800.352.8404 Senate: 602.926.3559 House: 602.926.4221

Yes! I want to contribute* to the Arizona League of Conservation Voters! Enclosed is my gift of:

❏ $1,000

❏ $500

❏ $250

❏ $100

❏ $50

❏ $35

❏ I would like to help even more by making a payment of $_____ per month on my credit card.

Method of payment:

❏ Check (please make payable to AZLCV) ❏ Credit card

Name: ________________________________________________________ Address: _______________________________________________________ City/State/Zip: __________________________________________________ Phone/Email: ___________________________________________________ Please mail form & payment to: AZLCV, 2701 N 16th St., Suite 105, 85006

Credit card no.: __________________________ Type: _______________ Exp. Date: __________ Signature: ______________________________ *Contributions to the Arizona League of Conservation Voters are NOT tax deductible due to our lobbying efforts.


th

47 Legislature Members & Scores 2005/2006 District 1 67% / 65% Sen. Ken Bennett, R (Prescott) 41% / 24% Rep. Lucy Mason, R (Prescott) 59% / 70% Rep. Tom O’Halleran, R (Sedona) 100% / 100%

District 11 43% / 29% Sen. Barbara Leff, R (Paradise Valley) 72% / 26% Rep. John Allen, R (Scottsdale) 23% / 27% Rep. Steve Tully, R (Phoenix) 25% / 34%

District 21 46% / 33% Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R (Chandler) 59% / 26% Rep. Warde Nichols, R (Chandler) 25% / 38% Rep. Steve Yarbrough, R (Chandler) 55% / 34%

District 2 85% / 95% Sen. Albert Hale, D (Window Rock) 85% / 96% Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick, D (Flagstaff ) 93% / 94% Rep. Albert Tom, D (Chambers) 78% / 94%

District 12 51% / 39% Sen. Robert Blendu, R (Litchfield Park) 47% / 29% Rep. John Nelson, R (Glendale) 49% / 57% Rep. Jerry Weiers, R (Glendale) 58% / 30%

District 22 15% / 11% Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R (Gilbert) 13% / 12% Rep. Andy Biggs, R (Gilbert) 25% / 22% Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R (Gilbert) 8% / 0%

District 3 28% / 26% Sen. Ron Gould, R (Lake Havasu City) 3% / 6% Rep. Trish Groe, R (Lake Havasu City) 23% / 23% Rep. Nancy McLain, R (Bullhead City) 58% / 50%

District 13 97% / 100% Sen. Richard Miranda, D (Tolleson) 97% / 100% Rep. Steve Gallardo, D (Phoenix) 100% / 100% Rep. Martha Garcia, D (Phoenix) 93% / 100%

District 23 88% / 86% Sen. Rebecca Rios, D (Apache Junction) 97% / 85% Rep. Cheryl Chase, R (Kearny) 73% / 72% Rep. Pete Rios, D (Hayden) 90% / 100%

District 4 28% / 23% Sen. Jack Harper, R (Surprise) 8% / 6% Rep. Tom Boone, R (Peoria) 63% / 44% Rep. Judy Burges, R (Skull Valley) 13% / 19%

District 14 96% / 96% Sen. Bill Brotherton, D (Phoenix) 92% / 100% Rep. Debbie McCune-Davis, D (Phoenix) 95% / 94% Rep. Robert Meza, D (Phoenix) 100% / 93%

District 24 81% / 59% Sen. Robert Cannell, D (Yuma) 74% / 56% Rep. Amanda Aguirre, D (Yuma) 93% / 68% Rep. Russ Jones, R (Yuma) 76% / 53%

District 5 64% / 54% Sen. Jake Flake, R (Snowflake) 62% / 47% Rep. Jack Brown, D (St. Johns) 73% / 56% Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R (Safford) 56% / 58%

District 15 86% / 84% Sen. Ken Cheuvront, D (Phoenix) 82% / 65% Rep. David Lujan, D (Phoenix) 93% / 93% Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D (Phoenix) 83% / 93%

District 25 81% / 71% Sen. Marsha Arzberger, D (Willcox) 72% / 48% Rep. Manuel Alvarez, D (Elfrida) 90% / 81% Rep. Jennifer Burns, R (Tucson) 80% / 84%

District 6 34% / 29% Sen. Dean Martin, R (Phoenix) 38% / 25% Rep. Ted Carpenter, R (Phoenix) 56% / 41% Rep. Pamela Gorman, R (Anthem) 8% / 20%

District 16 95% / 91% Sen. Linda Aguirre, D (Phoenix) 100% / 88% Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor, D (Phoenix) 91% / 100% Rep. Ben Miranda, D (Phoenix) 93% / 84%

District 26 76% / 77% Sen. Toni Hellon, R (Tucson) 61% / 82% Rep. Pete Hershberger, R (Tucson) 98% / 100% Rep. Steve Huffman, R (Tucson) 69% / 50%

District 7 44% / 42% Sen. Jim Waring, R (Phoenix) 69% / 41% Rep. Ray Barnes, R (Phoenix) 40% / 55% Rep. Nancy Barto, R (Phoenix) n/a / 31%

District 17 88% / 82% Sen. Edward Ableser, D (Tempe) n/a / 100% Rep. Meg Burton Cahill, D (Tempe) 100% / 100% Rep. Laura Knaperek, R (Tempe) 63% / 45%

District 27 97% / 93% Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia, D (Tucson) 97% / 100% Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D (Tucson) 93% / 94% Rep. Phil Lopes, D (Tucson) 100% / 84%

District 8 59% / 49% Sen. Carolyn Allen, R (Scottsdale) 83% / 48% Rep. Michele Reagan, R (Scottsdale) 75% / 84% Rep. Colette Rosati, R (Scottsdale) 20% / 16%

District 18 27% / 23% Sen. Karen Johnson, R (Mesa) 13% / 6% Rep. Mark Anderson, R (Mesa) 41% / 41% Rep. Russell Pearce, R (Mesa) 28% / 21%

District 28 97% / 94% Sen. Paula Aboud, D (Tucson) n/a / 88% Rep. David Bradley, D (Tucson) 91% / 94% Rep. Ted Downing, D (Tucson) 100% / 100%

District 9 23% / 22% Sen. Robert Burns, R (Peoria) 26% / 15% Rep. Rick Murphy, R (Glendale) 15% / 19% Rep. Bob Stump, R (Peoria) 28% / 31%

District 19 46% / 30% Sen. Chuck Gray, R (Mesa) 35% / 18% Rep. Kirk Adams, R (Mesa) n/a / 29% Rep. Gary Pierce, R (Mesa) 58% / 44%

District 29 96% / 98% Sen. Victor Soltero, D (South Tucson) 95% / 94% Rep. Linda Lopez, D (Tucson) 93% / 100% Rep. Tom Prezelski, D (Tucson) 100% / 100%

District 10 53% / 33% Sen. Linda Gray, R (Glendale) 59% / 12% Rep. Doug Quelland, R (Phoenix) 58% / 33% Rep. James Weiers, R (Phoenix) 43% / 53%

District 20 45% / 27% Sen. John Huppenthal, R (Chandler) 33% / 37% Rep. John McComish, R (Phoenix) 43% / 41% Rep. Bob Robson, R (Chandler) 58% / 45%

District 30 57% / 57% Sen. Tim Bee, R (Tucson) 62% / 35% Rep. Marian McClure, R (Tucson) 65% / 78% Rep. Jonathan Paton, R (Tucson) 44% / 57%

2701 N 16th Street, Suite 105 Phoenix, AZ 85006

Return Service Requested

NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION U.S. POSTAGE PAID PHOENIX, AZ PERMIT NO. 533

2006 Scorecard  

AZLCV's annual scorecard for 2006.

Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you