2 propositions reflect silliness by our state’s conservatives

From the political notebook: » Propositions 122 and 303 are conservatives being a bit silly. And a bit disingenuous. Prop. 122 says that, by passing a bill or through a vote of the people, Arizona can choose not to fund or enforce a federal law or regulation. Passage of this state constitutional amendment, however, doesn’t actually increase the authority of the state to decline to spend its resources enforcing federal law one iota. The courts generally have found that states already have that ability. To the extent federal law circumscribes it, passing a state constitutional amendment won’t expand it.

A lot of federal laws allow states to administer federal programs. That’s true of many environmental laws and workplace-safety programs. It’s usually the business community urging states to choose to administer these programs, since it generally prefers dealing with state regulators rather than federal ones. But if states decline, the regulations don’t go away. They are just enforced by the feds directly.

The state also administers a range of federal social-welfare programs. Prop. 122 wouldn’t change a single thing about what the state can or cannot do with respect to these programs.

Understandably, proponents have had a hard time coming up with examples of what Prop. 122 would actually accomplish. The two they have come up with are duds.

One claim is that passage of Prop. 122 would allow greater disclosure in cases handled by the new Department of Child Safety. But federal funds flow into that agency. If disclosure restrictions are tied to the federal money, Prop. 122 wouldn’t let the state opt out of the restrictions but still keep the money.

Another claim is that Prop. 122 will “stop Obamacare in Arizona.” The state already opted not to establish a stateadministered exchange for Obamacare plans. So, the feds are running one.

The state did decide to participate in

Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion. But the Legislature voted to do that. Without Prop. 122, the Legislature could repeal it at any time. And voters can already repeal it by initiative. Passage of Prop. 122 won’t change a thing.

The only effect I can see Prop. 122 potentially having deals with city involvement in federal programs. The Legislature could pass a bill that prevents local governments from participating in particular federal programs. Since Prop. 122 is a constitutional amendment, that might trump any claim charter cities might have challenging the Legislature’s authority in that regard.

So, Prop. 122 doesn’t really increase the state government’s authority vis-àvis the federal government. To the extent it affects the balance of power between levels, what it really does is potentially increase the Legislature’s authority over charter cities.

» Prop. 303 has a serious purpose. It would increase the access of terminally ill patients to experimental drugs.

Some of the state’s leading oncologists have come out against it, saying the drugs in question haven’t had their effectiveness proved or the potential side effects fully documented. But that’s from the “mother knows best” school of doctoring. Patients in these circumstances should be empowered to weigh the risks and the benefits and make the decision for themselves.

However, there was no reason voters needed to approve this beneficial advance. It is a straightforward statute. There were the votes in the Legislature for it. The Legislature could have enacted it directly into law.

Prop. 303 is the brainchild of the Goldwater Institute, which has become a leading national advocate on behalf of patient choice. So-called “right to try” legislation has already been passed in some other states, and this is clearly a national movement.

A large margin of approval by Arizona voters, which is widely expected, would be a useful lobbying point in other states. So, Arizona voters aren’t really being asked to approve Prop. 303 to en- act the law here. They are being asked to approve it to increase chances of it being enacted elsewhere.

There have been more cynical, and less beneficial, uses of the initiative and referendum power in Arizona.

» I always support the legislative pay raise (Prop. 304). This year’s proposal would increase the salary from $24,000 to $35,000 a year.

The reason isn’t that I think it will make a bit of difference in who runs or how the state is governed. It’s a matter of fairness. The job is full time for about five months, with significant time commitments the remainder of the year. That merits more than the current recompense.