Arizona Legislative

SCORECARD2 0 0 245th State Legislature

w w w . a z l c v . o r gA r i z o n a C o n s e r v a t i o n V o t e rV o l u m e 1 1 , N u m b e r 1 S p r i n g 2 0 0 2ph

oto

© 2

002

Stev

e Ac

kerm

an

Dear Arizona Conservation Voter,

The 2002 Legislative Session has been an exciting one for the Arizona League of Conservation Voters!We opened our Phoenix office this year, and for the first time our organization has had a consistentpresence at the Arizona State Legislature, with Susan Culp lobbying for our priority bills.

We made some small steps forward this session, and our efforts helped to pass two air quality bills, achemical reporting bill, a study committee on renewable energy resources, and assurance that theArizona State Lottery will continue to provide money for the Heritage Fund. With our conservation col-leagues, sympathetic legislators, and your phone calls to legislators, we also prevented the Legislature

from making funding raids on the Heritage Fund.

The League also helped hold the line against attempts by Pima County Representative Marion McClure and others to underminethe Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan and to restrict the citizens’ initiative and referendum process.

Unfortunately, many important bills did not receive the attention they deserved this session—with many not even reaching a floorvote of the House or Senate. Environmental justice legislation, including a bill to create a study committee only to assess the issue,did not progress far through the process. Ironically, in the wake of the worst drought in Arizona since the 1950s, legislation to pro-tect our water resources was either withdrawn due to opposition from special interests or failed in committees.

Legislation regarding state trust lands was especially troubling. Two bills were passed—one that undermines the Arizona Supreme Courtdecision on competitive bidding for grazing leases, and another that allows leapfrog development and sprawl to continue unchecked onstate trust lands. This affirms our conviction that state trust land reform is best handled outside of the Arizona Legislature.

Thank you to all those who made phone calls and wrote letters or e-mails to legislators. Your efforts truly make a difference at theCapitol. We are also grateful for the support you have given the Arizona League of Conservation Voters. Together, we can makeyour conservation votes count, and change Arizona’s political landscape for the greener!

Sincerely yours,

Stephanie C. SklarExecutive Director

Arizona League of Conservation Voters www.azlcv.orgPO Box 40154 Tucson, AZ 85717 (520) 622-2819 (f) (520) 624-2577 azlcv@earthlink.net

49 E. Thomas, Ste. 102 Phoenix, AZ 85012 (602) 277-3326 (f) (602) 604-29150 susanculp@earthlink.netMission: The Arizona League of Conservation Voters is a non-profit, non-partisan environmental advocacy organization. As the political arm of Arizona’s environ-mental community, the League strives to make environmental protection a top priority for Arizona’s elected officials, political candidates, businesses, and voters.

FROM THE DIRECTOR

Staff:Stephanie C. Sklar, Executive DirectorRandy Serraglio, Director, Conservation

OutreachSusan Culp, Assistant DirectorMichael Monyak, Business ManagerJennifer Cleaver, Conservation Outreach

Coordinator

Board of Directors:George Clark, President, Phoenix, AZBillie Hardy, Secretary, Tucson, AZKurt Kroese, Treasurer, Tucson, AZAnne Graham-Bergin, Tucson, AZAndy Laurenzi, Tucson, AZKaren Peters, Phoenix, AZLuther Propst, Tucson, AZWilliam Roe, Tucson, AZPatricia Turpin, Phoenix, AZTom Volgy, Tucson, AZ

Advisory Council:Betsy Bolding, Tucson, AZCarolyn Brickey, Tucson, AZCynthia Henry, Tucson, AZLavelle McCoy, Flagstaff, AZNancy Moll, Tucson, AZPriscilla Robinson, Tucson, AZElisabeth Ruffner, Prescott, AZGeorge Seitts, Cave Creek, AZMariette Spence, Phoenix, AZJim Walsh, Phoenix, AZTom Woods, Phoenix AZ

The Arizona Conservation Voter is thenewsletter of the Arizona League ofConservation Voters. The Arizona ConservationVoter is published three times annually:January, April and September. The Leaguealso publishes an annual scorecard followingthe legislative session in May. Contents arecopyrighted, but articles may be reprintedprovided credit is given to authors and theLeague. Annual membership for the Leaguebegins at $25. All members receive theabove publications.

www.azlcv.org 3

DISHONOR ROLL

SenateTimothy Bee (R-9) – 44%Scott Bundgaard (R-19) – 44%Marilyn Jarrett (R-21) – 19%Joe Eddie Lopez (D-22) – 13%

House of RepresentativesMark Anderson (R-29) – 13%Debra Brimhall (R-4) – 20%Dean Cooley (R-21) – 17%Eddie Farnsworth (R-30) – 0%Randy Graf (R-9) – 13%Linda Gray (R-16) – 20%Karen Johnson (R-30) – 0%Russell Pearce (R-29) – 10%Gary Pierce (R-21) – 10%Robert Robson (R-6) – 17%Jim Weirs (R-16) – 20%

MOST DISAPPOINTINGGiven to the Senator and Representative whosescore has decreased the most since 2001.

SenateJoe Eddie Lopez (D-22)–78%, decrease from 91% to 13%

House of RepresentativesMark Anderson (R-29)–24%, decrease from 37.5% to 13%

SENATE

Average Score: 68%

Average Score (Republicans): 55%Average Score (Democrats): 83%

HONOR ROLL

SenateMary Hartley (D-20) – 100%Elaine Richardson (D-11) – 100%Pete Rios (D-7) – 100%Virginia Yrun (D-13) – 100%

House of RepresentativesCarlos Avelar (D-23) – 100%Bill Brotherton (D-20) – 100%Meg Burton Cahill (D-27) – 100%Gabrielle Giffords (D-13) – 100%John Loredo (D-22) – 100%Richard Miranda (D-22) – 100%Albert Tom (D-3) – 100%

BEST SURPRISESGiven to the Senator and Representative who haveimproved their score the most since 2001.*

SenateLori Daniels (R-6)+ 58%, increase from 17% to 75%

House of RepresentativesBobby Lugo (D-8)+ 46%, increase from 44% to 90%

* Only given to those who score above 50% in 2002.

HOUSE

Average Score: 53%

Average Score (Republicans): 28%Average Score (Democrats): 89%

A SNAPSHOT OF THE SCORESph

oto

© 2

002

Patri

cia T

urpi

n

4 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

The Arizona League of Conservation Voters is committed to influencing the political process to ensure that environmentalprotection and resource conservation are top priorities for public policy. The “Cycle of Accountability” is our way of

ensuring that the decisions made by elected officials reflect the values of our members and the public, and result in soundpublic policy that preserves the beauty, character, health and biological richness of Arizona.

A CYCLE OF ACCOUNTABILITY

Conservation CommunityCommunicates PolicyGoals to Legislators

Legislative SessionLegislature enacts orrejects conservationcommunity agenda

Lobbying andGrassroots

Training/ActivationEfforts

Communication ofLegislative Resultsto ConservationConstituency

(Scorecard, etc.)

Campaign Adviceand Grassroots

Activation

ConservationCommunity

Evaluates andPrioritizes Goals

for Session

Candidate/IncumbentEvaluation andEndorsement

ElectionPublic elects or

rejects candidates

www.azlcv.org 5

AIR QUALITY

House Bill 2560In Arizona, owners of vehicles that are less than 6

years old may pay a $25 in lieu fee instead of putting thevehicle through an emissions test. This bill continues the inlieu fee and directs the monies to the air quality fund, whichis intended to finance programs to reduce the “browncloud” over urban areas. The air quality fund is used for avariety of programs, including voluntary lawn and gardenequipment emissions reductions, the diesel vehicle low emis-sions incentive grant program, voluntary vehicle repair andretrofit programs, and grants to counties for travel reductionordinance programs and voluntary no-drive day programs.Through Senate amendments, the requirements for partici-pation in the diesel vehicle low emissions incentive grantprogram were slightly weakened. Ultra low sulphur dieselburning engines are required to use either oxidative catalystsor particulate filters, not both, according to the new lan-guage. The Senate also amended the legislation to allow 5%of the in lieu fee revenues to be used for ArizonaDepartment of Environmental Quality administration.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 2• Passed the House, April 9, 2002• Passed the Senate, May 6, 2002• House Final Read, May 16, 2002• Signed by Governor Hull on May 22, 2002

House Bill 2585This legislation requires the Arizona Department of

Environmental Quality (ADEQ) to submit a state imple-mentation plan to the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency to address regional haze and visibility problems sur-rounding Class I areas. Class I areas under the Clean Air Actinclude national parks, monuments and wilderness areassuch as the Grand Canyon National Park. It also allowsADEQ to establish an intrastate market trading programand to participate in interstate regional haze programs cre-ated by the regional planning organization. HB 2585 wasamended in the House to allow ADEQ to pursue a state

implementation plan under 40 C.F.R. section 51.309 only ifit is determined that mobile source emissions do not con-tribute substantially to visibility impairments in Class Iareas. This provision was included to prevent oppositionfrom mobile source interests and the Maricopa Associationof Governments. After being amended, HB 2585 passedeasily out of the House and Senate.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 2• Passed the House, April 8, 2002• Passed the Senate, April 30, 2002• House Final Read, May 16, 2002• Signed by Governor Hull on May 20, 2002

ENERGY POLICY

House Bill 2693As introduced, HB 2693 would have provided for the

establishment of an Energy Efficiency Council by theDepartment of Commerce Energy Office, allowed theArizona Corporation Commission to adopt rules relating todistributed generation facilities, and required AgriculturalImprovement Districts and Salt River Project to adoptrenewable energy portfolios. It also would have made it statepolicy to encourage greater use of distributed electrical gen-eration, clean energy resources, and energy efficiency meas-ures. However, a strike-everything amendment offered up inthe House Energy Utilities and Technology Committeereplaced that language with a renewable resource study com-mittee. The committee is to examine policies and incentivesfor renewable energy, costs and benefits of distributed gener-ation and energy efficiency measures, and consumer educa-tion regarding efficiency and renewable energy. Thiscommittee will then submit interim recommendations tothe State Legislature by December 31, 2002, and final rec-ommendations by December 31, 2003.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 1• Passed the House, April 9, 2002• Passed the Senate, May 2, 2002• House Final Read, May 16, 2002• Signed by Governor Hull on May 22, 2002

ACTIONS USED FOR SCORING

6 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

House Bill 2127House Bill 2127 provides for the electronic filing of

emergency and hazardous chemical inventory forms. It isexpected to improve reporting, as well as make data morereadily available to the public. It will also reduce the risk ofinjury and exposure to emergency response personnel andthe public in the event of an accident involving toxic chemi-cals. This bill was introduced during the 2001 RegularSession, where it passed both chambers only to meet withGovernor Hull’s veto. This year, however, Governor Hulldid not veto it. Its passage into law is a victory in protectingour communities and citizens from harmful chemicals.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 3• Passed the House, April 4, 2002• Passed the Senate, April 30, 2002• Signed into law by Governor Hull on May 6, 2002

GROWTH MANAGEMENT & LAND USE

Senate Bill 1353Legislation to create a state-wide “purchase of develop-

ment rights” (PDR) program has been repeatedly introduced atthe State Legislature. In 2001, the conservation communitycame very close to achieving this goal, with the PDR bill pass-ing both House and Senate, but a veto by Governor Hull ter-minated the bill. This year, it was introduced again as theArizona Agricultural Heritage Act. The bill would have estab-lished a 15-member commission to promote agricultural ease-ments conserving farm and ranch lands for open space, wildlifehabitat, and local food production. It also would have created afund to acquire the development rights or agricultural ease-ments on private land from willing sellers. After passing in theSenate with some weakening amendments, it languished in theHouse and the language was finally struck onto HB 2032. HB2032 already passed the House, and contained languagerestricting county authority from the fortunately ill-fated HB2638. Because of the difficulty in separating a vote on the PDRprogram from a vote on the other language of HB 2032, theAZLCV decided not to score HB 2032.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 3• Passed the Senate, March 27, 2002• Placed on HB 2032 through a Senate amendment,

May 2, 2002• HB 2032 passed the Senate, May 2, 2002• Passed House Final Read May 20, 2002• Passed Senate Final Read May 21, 2002• Signed by Governor Hull on May 30, 2002

House Bill 2162The Arizona State Land Department pushed hard for

this particular bill. Current statute requires the State LandCommissioner to promote infill and prevent sprawl andleapfrog development on state trust lands. Language in HB2162 renders this statutory provision meaningless, andwould result in the promotion and accommodation of addi-tional sprawl and leapfrog development on state trust lands.Considering the fiscal impact of poorly managed growth oncommunities, it is difficult to understand how encouragingthis type of development on state trust lands would benefitpublic schools and the other trust beneficiaries.

A “NO” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 2• Passed the House, April 3, 2002• Passed the Senate, May 9, 2002• House Final Read, May 20, 2002• Transmitted to Governor Hull on May 21, 2002

WILDLIFE, HABITAT & RESOURCEPROTECTION

House Concurrent Resolution2012

The Arizona State Lottery was scheduled to sunset on July1, 2003. Lottery revenues comprise the sole funding streamfor the Heritage Fund, allotted $20 million from lotteryproceeds per year, split between Arizona State Parks andArizona Game & Fish. The Heritage Fund is a criticalsource of conservation funding, supporting programs thatrange from wildlife protection and open space to schoolyardgrants and historic preservation. Passage of HCR 2012 refersa ballot measure to a vote by the public in the 2002 electionto continue the state lottery until July 1, 2012.

A “YES” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 3

Actions Used for Scoring continued from page 5

www.azlcv.org 7

• Passed the House, March 26, 2002• Passed the Senate, April 17, 2002• House Final Read, April 25, 2002• Transmitted to the Secretary of State for inclusion on

the 2002 ballot on April 25, 2002

House Bill 2002During the 3rd Special Session of the Arizona

Legislature, adjustments were made to the fiscal year 2002budget to resolve a $675 million shortfall. Heritage Fundhad been targeted for funding sweeps, even though themoney comes from lottery proceeds, not the General Fund.The attempt disregarded public wishes, and the importanceof Heritage Fund investments in our communities and qual-ity of life. The Heritage Fund was passed by voter initiativein 1990 with an overwhelming 2 to 1 margin, and over theyears, the public has fought back over 24 attempts to redirectHeritage Fund dollars. We were successful again in prevent-ing cuts to the Heritage Fund. The House version of thebudget included an $8 million hit to the Heritage Fund, butthat provision was removed in the Senate amended version ofthe budget. Governor Hull vetoed HB 2002 in its final form.

A “NO” vote in the House is the correct vote. Senate ver-sion unscored. WEIGHT: 2

• Passed the House, February 12, 2002• Amended in the Senate to remove Heritage Fund

provision and passed February 28, 2002• House Final Read, March 14, 2002• Vetoed by Governor Hull on March 21, 2002

House Bill 2706The budget for fiscal year 2003 also needed adjust-

ment this session—with an approximately $1 billion shortfallin General Fund revenues. While members of the Legislatureassured the conservation community that funding sweeps tothe Heritage Fund would not again be proposed to addressthis shortfall, the budget bill introduced, HB 2706, includeda $2.5 million hit to the Heritage Fund. The legislation wason a fast track, and swept through the process in the Housethe same day it was introduced. Representative GabrielleGiffords introduced a floor amendment to remove the cutsto the Heritage Fund. That roll call vote was a direct measureof legislative support for the Heritage Fund in the House,and we weighted it heavily. The Senate amended HB 2706,leaving the Heritage Fund intact.

Representative Giffords Floor Amendment—A “YES” voteis the correct vote. WEIGHT: 5

• Giffords Amendment failed on the floor, May 9, 2002• HB 2706 passed the House, May 9, 2002• Passed the Senate, May 22, 2002• House Final Read, May 23, 2002• Transmitted to Governor Hull on May 23, 2002

CITIZEN PARTICIPATION

House Concurrent Resolution2018

Initially, this constitutional amendment would have requiredthat a certain percentage of signatures for an initiative or ref-erendum come from five different counties in order to beeligible for the ballot. Gathering signatures for a ballotmeasure is costly and time-consuming as currently struc-tured—creating additional hurdles and expense would limitthe ability of grassroots and citizens groups to participate.The bill would do nothing to limit moneyed interests fromengaging in the initiative and referendum process. It wouldsimply ensure that only those well-financed groups would beable to afford to place issues on the ballot. The bill wasamended in the House to reduce the number of countiesfrom five to three. It passed in the House, but was voteddown in the Senate Government Committee.

A “NO” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 4• Passed the House, February 12, 2002• Failed in Senate Government Committee, April 22,

2002

House Bill 2381HB 2381 was another bill aimed at limiting the citi-

zens’ initiative and referendum process through several statu-tory changes. This bill would have held a campaigncommittee for an initiative or referendum financially liable ifthe rate of invalid signatures was found to be 1/3 or more. Italso required the Secretary of State to produce an official titlefor an initiative and for the Legislative Council to review themeasure. There was also some concern that HB 2381 wouldbe an unconstitutional limitation on the citizens’ initiativeand referendum process, but nevertheless, it passed in theHouse. However, a strike-everything amendment was placedon it in the Senate Government Committee related to tourna-ment video golf games, effectively terminating the legislation.

8 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

Actions Used for Scoring continued from page 7 1329 would have allowed city or town governments tochoose an alternative computing method that could requiregathering the signatures of 10% all registered voters, a sig-nificantly higher number. Passage of the bill would haveadded to the expense and hurdles citizens face when refer-ring a city or town action to a vote by the people. The billpassed in the Senate, however it failed to move forwardafterwards. It was triple assigned for review in the House,and there was simply not enough time to hear the bill in allthree committees.

A “NO” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 1• Passed the Senate, March 28, 2002• Passed the House Judiciary Committee, April 16, 2002,

but failed to progress through the other two committees.

District 1Sen. Ken Bennett, R (Prescott)Rep. Linda Binder, R (Havasu City)Rep. Henry Camarot, D (Prescott)

District 2Sen. John Verkamp, R (Flagstaff)Rep. James Sedillo, D (Flagstaff)Rep. Tom O’Halleran, R (Sedona)

District 3Sen. Jack Jackson, D (Window Rock)Rep. Albert Tom, D (Chambers)Rep. Sylvia Laughter, D (Kayenta)

District 4Sen. Jack Brown, D (St. Johns)Rep. Debra Brimhall, R (Pinedale)Rep. Jake Flake, R (Snowflake)

District 5Sen. Herb Guenther, D (Tacna)Rep. Robert Cannell, D (Yuma)Rep. James Carruthers, R (Yuma)

District 6Sen. Lori Daniels, R (Chandler)Rep. John Huppenthal, R (Chandler)Rep. Robert Robson, R (Chandler)

District 7Sen. Pete Rios, D (Hayden)Rep. Cheryl Chase, D (Kearny)Rep. Mark Clark, D (Mammoth)

District 8Sen. Marsha Arzberger, D (Willcox)Rep. Bobby Lugo, D (Bisbee)Rep. Mark Maiorana, D (Patagonia)

District 9Sen. Timothy Bee, R (Tucson)Rep. Randy Graf, R (Green Valley)Rep. Marian McClure, R (Tucson)

District 10Sen. Ramón Valadez, D (Tucson)Rep. Victor Soltero, D (South Tucson)Rep. Linda Lopez, D (Tucson)

District 11Sen. Elaine Richardson, D (Tucson)Rep. Debora Lynn Norris, D (Sells)Rep. Carmine Cardamone, D(Tucson)

District 12Sen. Toni Hellon, R (Tucson)Rep. Peter Hershberger, R (Tucson)Rep. Steve Huffman, R (Tucson)

District 13Sen. Virginia Yrun, D (Tucson)Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, D (Tucson)Rep. Carol Somers, R (Tucson)

District 14Sen. Ruth Solomon, D (Tucson)Rep. Marion Pickens, D (Tucson)Rep. Edward Poelstra, R (Tucson)

District 15Sen. Edward Cirillo, R (Sun CityWest)Rep. Robert Blendu, R (LitchfieldPark)Rep. Lowell Gleason, R (Sun CityWest)

District 16Sen. Darden Hamilton, R (Glendale)Rep. Jim Weiers, R (Phoenix)Rep. Linda Gray, R (Phoenix)

District 17Sen. Brenda Burns, R (Glendale)Rep. John Nelson, R (Glendale)Rep. Philip Hanson, R (Peoria)

District 18Sen. Susan Gerard, R (Phoenix)Rep. Deb Gullett, R (Phoenix)Rep. James Kraft, R (Phoenix)

District 19Sen. Scott Bundgaard, R (Glendale)Rep. Roberta Voss, R (Glendale)Rep. Ted Carpenter, R (Phoenix)

District 20Sen. Mary Hartley, D (Phoenix)Rep. Kathi Foster, D (Phoenix)Rep. Bill Brotherton, D (Phoenix)

District 21Sen. Marilyn Jarrett, R (Mesa)Rep. Dean Cooley, R (Mesa)Rep. Gary Pierce, R (Mesa)

District 22Sen. Joe Eddie Lopez, D (Phoenix)Rep. John Loredo, D (Phoenix)Rep. Richard Miranda, D (Phoenix)

District 23Sen. Linda Aguirre, D (Phoenix)Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor, D (Phoenix)Rep. Carlos Avelar, D (Phoenix)

District 24Sen. Dean Martin, R (Phoenix)Rep. Barbara Leff, R (ParadiseValley)Rep. Steve Tully, R (Phoenix)

District 25Sen. Chris Cummisky, D (Phoenix)Rep. Christine Weason, D (Phoenix)Rep. Kenneth Cheuvront, D(Phoenix)

District 26Sen. Tom Smith, R (Phoenix)Rep. Jeff Hatch-Miller, R (Phoenix)Rep. Steve May, R (Phoenix)

District 27Sen. Harry Mitchell, D (Tempe)Rep. Meg Burton Cahill, D (Tempe)Rep. Laura Knaperek, R (Tempe)

District 28Sen. Randall Gnant, R (Scottsdale)Rep. Carolyn Allen, R (Scottsdale)Rep. Wes Marsh, R (Scottsdale)

District 29Sen. David Petersen, R (Mesa)Rep. Mark Anderson, R (Mesa)Rep. Russell Pearce, R (Mesa)

District 30Sen. Jay Blanchard, D (Gilbert)Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R (Gilbert)Rep. Karen Johnson, R (Mesa)

THE 45TH ARIZONA LEGISLATURE

A “NO” vote is the correct vote. WEIGHT: 5• Passed the House, March 28, 2002• Strike-everything introduced in the Senate Government

Committee, April 25, 2002

Senate Bill 1329Yet another limitation on citizen participation in the

political process, SB 1329 would have authorized the use ofan alternative basis for calculating the number of requiredsignatures to refer a city or town government action to avote by the public. Current law states that a person or groupwishing to refer a measure to the ballot must collect the sig-natures of 10% of those voting in the prior election. SB

www.azlcv.org 9

WEIGHTS 2 2 1 3 2 2 3 1 17 points

HB HB HB HB HB SB HCR SB 2002 2001Members 2560 2585 2693 2127 2162 1353 2012 1329 TOTAL Score Change

Aguirre + + + + – + + – 81% 58% 23%Arzberger + + + + – + + – 81% 58% 23%Bee + + – + – – – – 44% 25% 19%Bennett + + – + – + – – 56% 25% 31%Blanchard + + + + + + + – 94% 58% 36%Brown + + + + – + – – 63% 50% 13%Bundgaard NV + + + – – – + 44% 42% 2%Burns + + + + NV – NV NV 50% 33% 17%Cirillo – + + + – + + – 69% 33% 36%Cummiskey + + + + NV + + – 81% 100% –19%Daniels + + + + NV – + + 75% 17% 58%Gerard – + – + NV + + – 63% 60% 3%Gnant + + – + – – + – 63% 33% 30%Guenther + + + + – + + – 81% 50% 31%Hamilton + + + + – – – – 50% 27% 23%Hartley + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 0%Hellon NV + – + – – + – 50% 17% 33%Jackson + + + + – + – – 63% 67% –4%Jarrett NV NV NV NV NV + – + 19% N/AJ. Lopez – NV NV NV + – – NV 13% 91% –78%Martin – + – + – + – + 50% 33% 17%Mitchell + + + + + + + – 94% 92% 2%Petersen – + + + – + – + 56% 33% 23%Richardson + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 0%Rios + + + + + + + + 100% 100% 0%Smith + + – + – + – – 56% 25% 31%Solomon + NV – + + + + – 75% 67% 8%Valadez + + + + + + + – 94% 100% –6%Verkamp + + + + – + + NV 81% 83% –2%Yrun + + + + + + + + 100% N/A

SENATE VOTING TALLY

10 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

WEIGHTS 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 5 4 5 30 points

HB HB HB HB HCR HB HB Giffords HCR HB 2002 2001Member 2560 2585 2693 2127 2012 2162 2002 Flr Amd 2018 2381 TOTAL Score Change

Allen NV NV NV NV NV NV – NV + NV N/A 55.5%Anderson NV NV + + NV NV – – – – 13% 37.5% –24%Avelar + + + + + + + + + + 100% 78.0% 22%Binder + + – + NV – – – – – 23% 0.0% 23%Blendu – + + – + – – – – – 20% 33.0% –13%Brimhall – + – + – – – – – – 17% 11.0% 6%Brotherton + + + + + + + + + + 100% 67.0% 33%Burton–Cahill + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100.0% 0%Camarot + + + + + + – + + + 90% 55.5% 35%Cannell + + + + NV – + + + NV 67% 50.0% 17%Cardamone + + + + + + + NV + + 83% 100.0% –17%Carpenter + + NV + + – – – – – 33% 50.0% –17%Carruthers + + + + + – – – – + 53% 44.0% 9%Chase + + + + + – + + – + 80% 50.0% 30%Cheuvront + + + + – + + + + + 90% 87.5% 3%Clark + + + + + – + + – + 80% 62.5% 18%Cooley – – – + – + – – – NV 17% 37.5% –21%Farnsworth – – – – – – – – – – 0% 11.0% –11%Flake + + + – – – – – + – 30% 25.0% 5%Foster + + – + + + + + + + 97% 78.0% 19%Giffords + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100.0% 0%Gleason + + + + – – – NV – – 27% 33.0% –6%Graf – – + + – – – – – – 13% 0.0% 13%Gray – + + + – – – – – – 20% 12.5% 8%Gullett + + + + + + – – – – 43% 55.5% –12%Hanson – + – + + – – – – – 27% 37.5% –11%Hatch-Miller + + + + – + – – – – 33% 55.5% –22%Hershberger + + + + + + – – – – 43% 55.5% –12%Huffman + + + + + – – – – – 37% 44.0% –7%Huppenthal + + – + – – – – – – 23% 25.0% –2%

HOUSE VOTING TALLY

www.azlcv.org 11

House Tally, cont.

WEIGHTS 2 2 1 3 3 2 3 5 4 5 30 points

HB HB HB HB HCR HB HB Giffords HCR HB 2002 2001Member 2560 2585 2693 2127 2012 2162 2002 Flr Amd 2018 2381 TOTAL Score Change

Johnson – – – – – – – – – – 0% 11.0% –11%Knaperek + + + + – – – – – – 27% 50.0% –23%Kraft + + + + + + – – – – 30% 44.0% –14%Landrum Taylor + + – + + + + + + + 97% 100.0% –3%Laughter – + – + – – + + + + 73% 28.5% 45%Leff – + – + + + – – – – 33% 33.0% 0%L. Lopez + + + NV + + + + + + 93% 78.0% 15%Loredo + + + + + + + + + + 100% 100.0% 0%Lugo + + – + + – + + + + 90% 44.0% 46%Maiorana + + + + + – + + – – 63% 50.0% 13%Marsh – + – + NV + – – + – 37% 33.0% 4%May – + + + + + – – + – 50% 28.5% 22%McClure – + – + + – – – – – 27% 44.0% –17%Miranda + + + + + + + + + + 100% 75.0% 25%Nelson + + + NV + – – – – – 27% 37.5% –11%Norris + + + + NV + + + + + 90% 100.0% –10%O'Halleran + + + + + + – – + + 73% 44.0% 29%R. Pearce – – – + – – – – – – 10% 11.0% –1%Pickens + + – + + – + + + + 90% 78.0% 12%G. Pierce NV NV NV + – – – – – – 10% N/APoelstra + + + + + + NV + NV NV 60% 25.0% 35%Robson + + + NV – – – – – NV 17% 14.0% 3%Sedillo + + + + + + + + + NV 83% 87.5% –4%Soltero + + + + + + + + + NV 83% 67.0% 16%Somers + + + + + – – – – – 37% 44.0% –7%Tom + + + + + + + + + + 100% 78.0% 22%Tully + + – + + – – – – – 33% 12.5% 21%Voss + + NV + + – – – – – 33% 33.0% 0%Weason + + + NV + + + + + + 93% 100.0% –7%Weiers – + + + – – – – – – 20% 25.0% –5%

12 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

PROFILES

GOOD GREEN DEEDS

THE ARIZONA LEAGUE of Conservation Voters realizes that araw percentage score is not always the best indication ofcommitment to conservation and environmental protection.For that reason, we have included this section to highlightthose legislators who frequently go above and beyond tohelp protect Arizona’s natural heritage, environmentalhealth, and quality of life.

Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-District13) – For the second time in a row,Representative Giffords received a 100% votingscore. Not only is she supportive of conserva-

tion on the House floor, but Representative Giffords alsoworks hard behind the scenes to aid the passage of environ-mental legislation. This year, she ran a floor amendment toremove cuts to the Heritage Fund from the FY2003 budget.Thank you Representative Giffords!

Representative John Loredo (D-District 22)– Representative Loredo has shown outstand-ing commitment to the cause of environmen-tal justice in the face of a largely

unresponsive Legislature. Year after year, he introduces legis-lation to address the disparate impact of hazardous wastefacilities on low-income, minority neighborhoods. This ses-sion, he sponsored several bills that would have addressedenvironmental justice issues.

Representative Tom O’Halleran (R-District2) – This year, Representative O’Halleran’sscore jumped from 44% in 2001, to 73%—asignificant increase. Representative O’Halleran

was especially helpful to conservation interests by workingto improve the state trust land legislation considered duringthe session.

Representative Albert Tom (D-District 3) –Representative Tom received a 100% votingscore this year, and we applaud his support ofconservation measures. His integrity, accessibil-

ity and openness serve his constituents and the public well.

Representative Leah Landrum Taylor (D-District 23) – Representative Landrum Tayloragain took on the issue of hazardous chemi-cals, sponsoring three bills to protect the pub-

lic and emergency response personnel from toxic exposure.Thank you for your efforts Representative Landrum Taylor!

Representative Henry Camarot (D-District1) – While the League does not score on taxpolicy or most budget issues, the draconiancuts proposed by Governor Hull and House

leadership impacted many state programs, including conser-vation. Among those, the Arizona Heritage Fund was tar-geted. Kudos to Representative Camarot for showingleadership and vision in proposing an alternative to drasticcuts. His sponsorship of HB 2409 showed courage in seek-ing to address problems with Arizona’s revenue streamthrough closing some tax exemptions and loopholes.

Representative Carmine Cardamone (D-District 11) – Representative Cardamonealmost always gets a perfect score on the con-servation legislation, but this year, an absence

kept him from voting on a critical bill. However,Representative Cardamone deserves applause for his long-standing support of conservation, and his aid in rallyingvotes on the floor for pro-conservation legislation.

Senator Sue Gerard (R-District 18) – SenatorGerard has always been one of our highestscoring Republicans in the Senate. This year,she made steady progress, moving up to 63%

from last year’s score of 60%. Congratulation SenatorGerard, and thank you for your support of conservation.

Senator Elaine Richardson (D-District 11) –We are pleased to report that SenatorRichardson has had a 100% score for twoyears in a row. Not only is she a reliable pro-

conservation vote, she works hard off the floor to promoteenvironmental legislation. Thank you Senator Richardson!

Profiles:Senator Sue Gshould now be63%.

Senator John score should n81%.Senators Jarre- scores shoulJarrett-19%, a13%.

www.azlcv.org 13

Senator Virginia Yrun (D-District 13) –Senator Yrun came in as a freshman legislatorafter the untimely death of Senator AndyNichols. He would be proud to know that she

continued his legacy of support for conservation andreceived a 100% voting score for 2002. CongratulationsSenator Yrun—you’re a quick study!

Senator John Verkamp (R-District 2) –Senator Verkamp nearly came close to beingour first 100% scoring Republican, withonly one incorrect vote and one absence,

bringing his score to 81%. He remains the highest scoringRepublican in the Arizona Legislature. His ongoing supportof conservation is appreciated, and we will miss him nextyear.

Senator Ruth Solomon (D-District 14) –As Chair of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, Senator Solomon should bethanked for standing strong on budget mat-

ters involving cuts to the Heritage Fund. Twice the Housepassed budget bills that cut Heritage Fund, and every time,the Senate refused to include those cuts in their final budgetversions.

DROPPED THE BALL

JUST AS CONSERVATION heroes aren’t always apparent fromthe score, so too are those who undermine conservationgoals at the State Legislature. We have highlighted severalelected officials who have made achieving conservation inArizona more difficult during the 2002 Legislative Session.

Governor Jane Dee Hull – In every budgetbalancing proposal that emerged from theGovernor’s office, the Arizona Heritage Fundwas targeted for raids. It did not seem to mat-

ter that the Heritage Fund is not funded through GeneralFund dollars, and was therefore inappropriate to use as anoffset for a General Fund shortfall. The League believes thatour elected officials have an obligation to respect the wishesof the voters when it comes to programs created throughcitizens’ initiative. The Governor clearly did not do this.

Representative Marian McClure (R-District9) – Over the course of the 2002 legislativesession, Representative McClure sponsoredmore bills that the League had to oppose than

any other legislator. HB 2638 would have trampled overPima County’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan process,and other bills sponsored by Representative McClure wouldhave gutted the citizens’ initiative and referendum process.

Representative Randy Graf (R-District 9) –At the beginning of the session, we were opti-mistic that Representative Graf would showleadership on clean power development.

However, his bill fizzled into a study committee, rather thanresulting in positive policy, without much of a fight. Also,early in the session, he voiced support of the Heritage Fund,but ultimately failed to oppose budget cuts involving theHeritage Fund on the House floor.

Representatives Karen Johnson (R-District30) and Edward Farnsworth (R-District 30)–The Representatives from District 30 are note-worthy in receiving the only 0% scores on theentire scorecard. Their scores demonstrate anemphatic anti-conservation attitude.

Representative Laura Knaperek (R-District27) – As the House Appropriations Chair,Representative Knaperek consistentlyincluded Heritage Fund cuts on the House

budget bills.

Senator Tim Bee (R-District 9) – Senator Bee justly received his below average score bysupporting less than half of the conservation-oriented legislation that came before the

Senate. While the Senate did substantially better in 2002than in 2001, averaging a 68% score for the body as awhole, Senator Bee did not even manage to reach 50%.

Gerard - score

Verkamp -now read

ett and Lopezd be nd Lopez-

14 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2002

Senators Marilyn Jarrett (R-District 21)andJoe Eddie Lopez (D-District 22) receive the“No Show” award for the 2002 session, notvoting on more than half of the bills trackedby the League. Senator Jarrett received a19%, far below the Senate average. SenatorLopez received a 13%, only voting correctlyon one bill tracked by the League.

Representative Marion Pickens (D-District14) – You can’t always judge a book by itscover. Representative Pickens received quite ahigh score—93%. However, her support of

state trust land legislation that undermined conservationinterests, as well as scathing comments on the floor regard-ing the conservation of state trust lands, shows a remarkablelack of support for protecting Arizona’s natural heritage.

Profiles continued from page 13

S P E C I A L T H A N K S

T he Arizona League of Conservation Voters wouldlike to make a special thanks to the Arizona

State Senate. Over the course of the 2002 legislativesession, the Senate has been exceptionally supportiveof two of our priority issues—the Heritage Fund andprotection of citizens’ initiative and referendum powers.In every proposed House budget, the Heritage Fundwas identified for funding raids. However, in everycase, the Senate amended the budget to leave theHeritage Fund intact. Also, two particularly worrisomebills concerning citizens’ initiative powers passed in theHouse to meet with failure in the Senate GovernmentCommittee. Thank you Senators for your support ofconservation programs and citizen participation!

phot

o ©

200

2 Pa

tricia

Tur

pin

Representative Carolyn Allen (R-District 28) has long been a friend to conservation, and we havebeen appreciative of her support and hard work at the Legislature over the years—preserving

open space, improving air quality, among other environmental measures. We have withdrawnRepresentative Allen’s score as a result of her long absence from the 2002 legislative session due tomedical reasons. We wish her the best for a speedy recovery. Carolyn—we’ve missed you!

www.azlcv.org 15

CONTACTING YOURLEGISLATOR

The Arizona Legislative meets for regular session frommid-January to around the end of April. At that time,you can reach your legislator at the Capitol:

Arizona State Senate1700 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007Information Desk: (602) 542-3559

Arizona State House of Representatives1700 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007Information Desk: (602) 542-4221

After sine die, or adjournment of the legislative session,your legislators will probably return to their home townuntil the next session starts. To contact them after session, visit the Arizona State Legislature’s website atwww.azleg.state.az.us/members/members.htm to find their contact informationduring the interim.

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SCORE...TAKE ACTION!There are four simple things that you can do to help hold yourrepresentatives accountable on conservation issues.

Contact your legislators. Call, writeor e-mail your representatives to thank themif they voted on pro-conservation measures.Those that hold strong in safeguarding ourquality of life deserve our appreciation.

Or if they voted against protecting our naturalenvironment, you can send them a short,polite note expressing your disapproval oftheir performance.

Share the Scorecard. Make sure yourneighbors and friends know how their repre-sentatives voted on important conservationlegislation. Contact the Arizona League ofConservation Voters for additional free copiesof the Scorecard, or let us know if you wouldlike to host a party or meeting to discuss theresults of the Scorecard.

Vote for pro-conservation candidates. Contact the Arizona League ofConservation Voters for information onendorsed or pro-conservation candidates at thelocal, state and federal level.

Join the Arizona League ofConservation Voters. Help make yourconservation vote count by supporting theLeague and getting involved in holding ourelected officials accountable.

1

2

3

4 photo © 2002 Steve Ackerm

an

NonprofitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PaidTucson, AZ

Permit No 1434

Arizona League of Conservation VotersPO Box 40154Tucson, AZ 85717

Return Service Requested

YES! I want to help win campaign victories to save our environment. I will join and support theArizona League of Conservation Voters with a dues contribution of:

●● $1,000 Conservation Voter Leaders Circle●● $500-$999 Patron●● $100-$499 Sponsor ●● $50-$99 Sustainer●● $25-$49 Member

All members receive the newsletter and annual scorecard.Since your contribution supports programs that use the political process to protect our environment, it is not tax deductible.

Name _______________________________________

Address ______________________________________

City, State, Zip __________________________________

Phone _________________ Email__________________

Please return this form to: Membership, The Arizona League of Conservation Voters, PO Box 40154, Tucson, AZ 85717

My check payable to the Arizona League of Conservation Voters is enclosed

Please charge my Visa or Mastercard.

Card #_______________________________________

Exp. Date ______________________________________

Signature ______________________________________

GET A MEMBER, GET A T-SHIRTYOUR CONSERVATION VOTE COUNTS!

IF YOU GET a friend to join at $25 or above, you will receive afree t-shirt with our new logo and slogan—“My ConservationVote Counts.”

The member who referred me is _______________________

Address ______________________________________

Phone _________________ Email__________________

T-shirt size M L XL