Arizona Legislative

SCOREC ARD2 0 0 446th 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 rVolume 13, Number 1 Spring 2004Ph

oto

by L

isa S

tage

Dear Conservation Voter,

The 2004 Legislative Session has certainly been interesting this year! We must admit, we were skepticalgoing into this session. While it has been a rocky ride, there have been some surprising moments as

well. Some of the best news to report is that, while conservation legislation was certainly not ground-break-ing this year, we did make some small steps forward, and overall scores among legislators improved over lastyear. Having a full-time lobbyist representing our interests at the Capitol makes a huge difference. Over thepast two years, Assistant Director Susan Culp has been working successfully to educate, inform, and rallypro-conservation and pro-voter action at the Legislature.

This year, the Legislature passed several modest, but important, bills to restore riparian areas on the ZuniHeaven Reservation, end the use of carcinogenic MTBE as a gasoline additive, and passed regional transportationplanning legislation affecting both Maricopa and Pima Counties. We are also pleased that some of the worst anti-conservation and voter participation bills were defeated. We did not get through the session completely unscathed,however. One of the anti-initiative measures passed by a small margin and was referred to the 2004 ballot. And vio-lations of the integrity of the committee hearing process allowed the so-called animal and ecological terrorism bill tomake it all the way to the Governor’s desk, where it was rightly vetoed.

But the session ended on a remarkable note. An alliance of moderate Republicans and Democrats in the House ofRepresentatives successfully bypassed right-wing leadership to pass a decent budget that invests in Arizona’sfuture. What’s more, this extraordinary coalition of legislators helped conservation interests to defeat yet anotherattempt to raid the Heritage Fund in the budget process. It just goes to show what true bipartisan effort in theinterests of the people of Arizona can do! Thank you for all those phone calls, emails and letters to legislators.They really do make a difference.

We have a critical election year facing us, and we’ll be operating under the 2002 district maps after all, which limitsour options for improving conservation representation in the Legislature. But, this session we’ve seen that we havegood friends there, and we will be working hard to help those who supported our land, air, water, and quality of life.

Sincerely,

FROM THE DIRECTOR

The Arizona Conservation Voter is thenewsletter of the Arizona League ofConservation Voters. The ArizonaConservation Voter is published threetimes annually: January, April andSeptember. The League also publishes anannual scorecard following the legislativesession in May. Contents are copyrighted,but articles may be reprinted providedcredit is given to authors and theLeague. Annual membership for theLeague begins at $35. All membersreceive the above publications.

Staff:Stephanie C. Sklar, Executive DirectorLyn Wilson, Membership DirectorSusan Culp, Assistant DirectorNicole De Ment, Assistant to the Director

for Development and CommunicationsMichael Monyak, Director of AdministrationJessie Bhangoo , Data Base/Technology

AdministratorLaura Smith, Membership Outreach

SupervisorMembership Outreach: Erin Willet Conservation Interns: May Tang

Board of Directors:Jason Bass, Treasurer, Tucson, AZGeorge Clark, Phoenix, AZKaran English, Flagstaff, AZEric Gorsegner, Phoenix, AZAnne Graham-Bergin, Tucson, AZKurt Kroese, Tucson, AZAndy Laurenzi, Phoenix, AZKaren Peters, Phoenix, AZLuther Propst, Tucson, AZWilliam Roe, Tucson, AZDeborah Tuck, Flagstaff, AZPatricia Turpin, President, Phoenix, AZFeliciano Vera, Phoenix, AZ

Stephania Williams, Secretary, ParadiseValley, AZ

Advisory Concil:Betsy Bolding, Tucson, AZCarolyn Brickey, Tucson, AZJoan Kaye Cauthorn, Tucson, AZLaVelle McCoy, Flagstaff, AZPriscilla Robinson, Tucson, AZElisabeth Ruffner, Prescott, AZGeorge Seitts, Cave Creek, AZMariette Spence, Phoenix, AZJim Walsh, Phoenix, AZTom Woods, Phoenix, AZ

Arizona League of Conservation Voters PO Box 40154 Tucson, AZ 85717Phone: (520) 622-2819 Fax: (520) 624-2577 azlcv@earthlink.net www.azlcv.org

Mission: The Arizona League of Conservation Voters is the largest member-supported statewide conservation organization in Arizona. As the political arm of the environmentalcommunity, the League works to elect pro-conservation candidates to state offices, educates elected officials on issues of importance to its members and lobbies on behalf of conservation measures. The League produces an annual scorecard assessment of legislators’ performance for the protection of Arizona’s land, air, water, wildlife and the ability ofcitizens to fully participate in the political process.

HouseAverage Score: 70%Average Score (Democrats): 95%Average Score (Republicans): 58%Average Score (Independents)*: 45% *Based on one score – Sylvia Laughter

SenateAverage Score: 70%Average Score (Democrats): 90%Average Score (Republicans): 54%

www.azlcv.org 3

HONOR ROLL

House of RepresentativesDavid Bradley (D-28) – 100%Olivia Cajero Bedford (D-27) – 100%James Carruthers (R-24) – 100%Ken Clark (D-15) – 100%Jack Jackson, Jr. (D-1) – 100%John Loredo (D-13) – 100%

Debbie McCune Davis (D-14) – 100%Robert Meza (D-14) – 100%Tom O’Halleran (R-2) – 100%Tom Prezelski (D-29) – 100%Wally Straughn (D-15) – 100%

SenateLinda Aguirre (D-16) – 100%Ken Cheuvront (D-15) – 100%Slade Mead (R-20) – 100%Harry Mitchell (D-17) – 100%Pete Rios (D-23) – 100%Victor Soltero (D-29) – 100%

A SNAPSHOT OF THE SCORES

OTHER TOP SCORES

House of RepresentativesAmanda Aguirre (D-24) – 93%Manny Alvarez (D-25) – 95%Meg Burton Cahill (D-17) – 95%Ernest Bustamante (D-23) – 93%Cheryl Chase (D-23) – 93%Steve Gallardo (D-13) – 95%Pete Hershberger (R-26) – 95%Leah Landrum Taylor (D-16) – 93%Phil Lopes (D-27) – 98%

SenateMarsha Arzberger (D-25) – 89%Bill Brotherton (D-14) – 96%Jack Brown (D-5) – 89%Jorge Luis Garcia (D-27) – 89%Gabrielle Giffords (D-28) – 81%Richard Miranda (D-13) – 89%

BOTTOM SCORES

House of RepresentativesRay Barnes (R-7) – 35%Andy Biggs (R-22) – 28%Chuck Gray (R-19) – 25%Russell Pearce (R-18) – 30%Doug Quelland (R-10) – 38%

SenateJack Harper (R-4) – 44%Marilyn Jarrett (R-19) – 26%Barbara Leff (R-11) – 44%Thayer Verschoor (R-22) – 37%

AVERAGES

Photo by Steve Ackerman

4 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

JOIN THE PACThanks to the generous support of our members, the

Arizona League of Conservation Voters is uniquely posi-tioned to affect the outcome of the critical 2004 elections. As abattle ground state for the White House, much attention will beplaced on Arizona. This places the League in an even strongerposition to effect change at the legislative level.

Our political action committee, AZLCV Committee for theEnvironment, is in the process of qualifying as a Super PAC.Achieving this status enables us to participate at a far greaterlevel in contributing to candidates, sending out political mail-ings and providing campaign staff to endorsed candidates.

In order to qualify as a Super PAC, we are required to collect aminimum of 500 contributions from individuals in amounts ofup to a maximum of $3,360, and while we’re getting closer toour goal, we aren’t nearly there yet. Because so many races willbe decided in the primaries this year, we are pushing extra hardto reach this goal as quickly as possible.

Over the course of the past two legislative sessions, there have been some legislators who have stood out in their support for conservation issues. The Arizona League of Conservation Voters is pleased to recognize those Senators and Representatives by

endorsing them early. We have also made endorsements in national races that will be on the ballot in 2004.

2004 EARLY ENDORSEMENTS...

For President of the U.S.John Kerry (D)

For U.S. Senate John McCain (R)

For U.S. House of RepresentativesCongressional District 1 – Paul Babbitt (D)Congressional District 4 – Ed Pastor (D)Congressional District 7 – Raul Grijalva (D)

State LegislatureRepresentative Amanda Aguirre (D) – LD 24Senator Linda Aguirre (D) – LD 16Senator Carolyn Allen (R) – LD 8Representative Manny Alvarez (D) – LD 25Representative David Bradley (D) – LD 28Senator Bill Brotherton (D) – LD 14Representative Meg Burton Cahill (D) – LD 17Representative Olivia Cajero Bedford (D) – LD 27Senator Ken Cheuvront (D) – LD 15

Representative Ted Downing (D) – LD 28Representative Steve Gallardo (D) – LD 13Senator Gabrielle Giffords (D) – LD 28Representative Deb Gullett (R) – LD 11Representative Pete Hershberger (R) – LD 26Representative Steve Huffman (R) – LD 26Representative Leah Landrum Taylor (D) – LD 16Representative Phil Lopes (D) – LD 27Representative Linda Lopez (D) – LD 29Representative Debbie McCune Davis (D) – LD 14Senator Slade Mead (R) – LD 20Representative Robert Meza (D) – LD 14Representative Ben Miranda (D) – LD 16Senator Richard Miranda (D) – LD 13Senator Harry Mitchell (D) – LD 17Representative Tom O’Halleran (R) – LD 1Representative Tom Prezelski (D) – LD 29Senator Pete Rios (for House of Representatives) (D) – LD 23Senator Victor Soltero (D) – LD 29

That’s where you come in! If you haven’t already sent in yourPAC contribution, please do so today, and if you have, pleaseconsider making another—the more we raise, the more we’ll beable to do.

One more tip to help us reach our bench mark of 500 contribu-tions as quickly as possible—if you want to contribute as a cou-ple, and are considering, for example, an amount of $100, ithelps us more if you each contribute $50 separately. Just fill outthe information asked for on the enclosed envelope on a separatepiece of paper, sign and enclose your checks. (We are required bylaw to collect this information for each contribution)

Together we are going to make 2004 an election victory for theenvironment and for all of us who care about conservingArizona for future generations.

Please note that your contributions to the PAC go directly to sup-port endorsed candidates candidates. Your generous contributionsto the AZ League of Conservation Voters (see page 19) supportour general operating expenses. Both are extremely important ifwe are to change Arizona’s political landscape for the greener!

www.azlcv.org 5

AIR QUALITY & TRANSPORTATION

HOUSE BILL 2546 transportation excise tax; election(Pierce, et al)

This measure places the 1/2 cent sales tax extension to fund theMaricopa Association of Government’s (MAG) regional trans-portation plan to a vote of Maricopa County residents inNovember of 2004. It allocates the funding as follows: 56.2%for highways, 33.3% for public transportation, and 10.5% forstreet improvements. Accountability is built in, with annual and5-year reviews, to ensure that funds are not spent on non-per-forming projects. Weight: 3

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House February 3, 2004• Substituted for SB 1074 on the Senate floor and passed

February 3, 2004• Signed by the Governor February 5, 2004

HOUSE BILL 2507 regional transportation authority;excise tax (Huffman, et al)

This measure gives counties with populations between 400,000and 1 million people the authority to levy sales taxes to financeregional transportation plans, essentially allowing Pima Countyto pursue and fund a regional transportation plan. The bill alsodirects those counties to develop 20- year, rather than 10-year,regional transportation plans – encouraging them to look fur-ther into the future. Weight: 1

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House February 1, 2004• Passed the Senate April 12, 2004• Passed House Final Read April 19, 2004• Signed by the Governor April 23, 2004

SENATE BILL 1064 regional haze; penalties (C Allen, et al)

This is a technical measure that places the penalty provisions forthe regional haze program of the Arizona Department ofEnvironmental Quality in the correct part of statute and enablesthe Department to enforce regional haze amendments to theState Implementation Plan. Weight: 1

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate February 5, 2004• Passed the House April 13, 2004• Signed by the Governor April 19, 2004

HOUSE BILL 2207 air quality; fuel reformulations(Huffman, et al)

House Bill 2207 requires the use of CARB* 3 gasoline inArizona, rather than CARB 2, and eliminates the use of methyltertiary butyl ether (MTBE) as a fuel additive. MTBE is apotential human carcinogen and is a problematic groundwatercontaminant. Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Passed the Senate May 20, 2004• Conference Committee appointed May 6, 2004• Passed House Final Read May 25, 2004• Signed by the Governor June 1, 2004

HOUSE BILL 2142 S/E gasoline; methyl tertiary butylether (Konopnicki, et al)

This is a measure that was amended as a strike-everything in theSenate Health Committee by Senator Carolyn Allen. The meas-ure would prohibit the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether(MTBE) in gasoline sold in Arizona in recognition of the risksMTBE poses to healthy drinking water supplies. Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate April 22, 2004• Passed House Final Read as a “strike-everything” May 5, 2004• Signed by the Governor May 11, 2004

ENERGY POLICY

HOUSE BILL 2526 solar electricity; property taxclassification (Clark, et al)

HB 2526 is one of several that Representative Ken Clark cham-pioned to promote solar and renewable energy use. It requiredthe Department of Commerce to create a program to assist busi-nesses in qualifying for on-site solar energy tax credits. To be cer-tified for this program, businesses would have to generate at least10% of their electricity needs from on-site solar energy devices.This would have created incentives for businesses to engage inrenewable energy use, including roof-top solar. Weight: 3

ACTIONS USED FOR SCORING

continued on page 6

* CARB stands for California Air Resources Board. It is a body created bythe California Legislature to attain and maintain healthy air quality,research the causes of air pollution, and work for cost effective reductionof pollutants and vehicle emissions.

6 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 15, 2004• Failed to progress through the Senate Committee process

HOUSE BILL 2527 schools; solar equipment (Clark, et al)

This bill required the School Facilities Board to adopt rules forpromoting renewable energy use in schools by June 30, 2005.The guidelines would have required the use of solar water cool-ing and heating at a minimum and supplementation of electrici-ty from solar sources where appropriate. Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Passed the Senate Education Committee, but then failed to

progress

HOUSE BILL 2528 state buildings; solar standards(Boone, et al)

This measure required capital projects in state buildings to useenergy life cycle costing to evaluate the ccosts of solar hot waterheating and cooling facilities. This would have shown how costeffective it is over the long haul to use alternative energy. It alsoexempted solar photovoltaic products from the simple paybackrequirements on state buildings. Weight: 1

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Passed the Senate Government Committee, but then failed to

progress

HOUSE BILL 2613 taxation; solar energy equipment(Graf)

This bill expanded the tax credit for residential solar energydevices and created a new category for commercial solar energydevices. The credit allowed to businesses who install solar ener-gy devices would have been equal to 25% of the cost of thedevice, or $5,000 per tax year, whichever was less. It createdadditional incentives for distributed, renewable electricity gener-ation. Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Passed the Senate Finance Committee, but then failed to

progress

HOUSE BILL 2703 state buildings; energy savings(Boone, et al)

This bill clarifies existing statute ensuring that the Departmentof Administration may use the funds gained from energy con-

servation to implement additional energy conservation measuresin state buildings. Weight: `

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Passed the Senate April 29, 2004• Signed by the Governor May 6, 2004

TOXICS, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE,PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY

HOUSE BILL 2088 brownfields program (Huffman, et al)

This bill reconciles Arizona state law with the federal Superfundlaw, which is necessary in order for Arizona to continue toreceive funding from the brown fields clean up revolving fund.The money pays for the clean up and redevelopment of con-taminated sites, and creates a better incentive for infill in oururban areas. The measure also expands the types of sites thatqualify for the funds. Weight: 1

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House February 25, 2004• Passed the Senate April 8, 2004• Passed House Final Read April 27, 2004• Signed by the Governor May 3, 2004

HOUSE BILL 2268 S/E solid waste program penalties(Huffman, et al)

HB 2268 was a strike everything amendment to resurrect ameasure that would have removed the cap for solid waste penal-ty fees if the violator’s actions were posing a danger to publichealth, welfare or the environment. It was placed on the bill inthe Senate Health Committee by Senator Carolyn Allen. Thestriker was a bit more limited that the original legislation onsolid waste program penalties, but a step in the right direction.Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate May 11, 2004• Failed in Conference Committee between the Senate and

House

GROWTH MANAGEMENT & LAND USEPLANNING

HOUSE BILL 2400 vested property rights (Farnsworth)

This is a bill that would have given developers a vested propertyright upon submission of a site plan that met the zoningrequirements at the time of submission. Passage of the measurewould have created great difficulties for planning and zoning

ACTIONS USED FOR SCORINGcontinued from page 5

www.azlcv.org 7

entities charged with balancing the needs and desires of thecommunity with development interests. Weight: 2

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 16, 2004• Held in the Senate Judiciary Committee and failed to progress

WATER RESOURCES

HOUSE BILL 2244 water rights; Zuni settlement(Konopnicki, et al)

This bill is particularly important to Native American commu-nities and will provide the Zuni Tribe with water rights owedthem by the state. This water is intended to restore a riparianarea and lake on the Zuni Heaven Reservation in easternArizona. Weight: 2

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House February 23, 2004• Passed the Senate April 1, 2004• Passed House Final Read April 12, 2004• Signed by the Governor April 16, 2004

SENATE BILL 1349 water; exempt wells (Hellon)

This is a measure that would tighten restrictions for drillingexempt wells within Active Management Areas (urban areaswhere water supplies are managed and planned) and also within100 feet of existing drinking water supply systems. This wouldenable the Arizona Department of Water Resources to maintaincloser watch over groundwater supplies in urban areas. Weight: 1

A “YES” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate March 22, 2004• Failed to progress in the House Committee process

WILDLIFE HABITAT & RESOURCE PROTECTION

SENATE BILL 1411 Committee of the Whole Motion

SB 1411 was one of the budget reconciliation bills, and it relat-ed to environmental protections. The version that was voted outof the Senate included some cuts to the Water QualityAssurance Revolving Fund and a few other environmentally-related funds, but included no raid on the Arizona HeritageFund. However, the House Appropriations Committee amend-ed the measure to include a $1.8 million raid on the HeritageFund to provide money to the Arizona Commission on theArts. A substitute floor amendment, which did not raid theHeritage Fund, was successfully offered in House Committee ofthe Whole (COW) by Representative Bill Wagner. The COW

motion scored is one made by Representative Johnson toexclude the Wagner substitute floor amendment and restore theraid on the Heritage Fund. Weight: 5

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Failed House Committee of the Whole

OTHER CONSERVATION BILLS

SENATE BILL 1081 S/E ecological and animal terrorism(Verschoor, et al)

SB 1081 is the “animal and ecological terrorism” bill put forwardby Senator Verschoor and Representative Biggs. In its originalform, the bill contained vague, overly broad language that couldhave led to the prosecution of mainstream environmental organi-zations and activists for any activity that could be linked to orconstrued as “terrorism.” Such activities, under the broad word-ing of the bill, could have included picketing, coordinated share-holder actions, and forms of nonviolent civil disobedience inaddition to what one would normally consider terrorism. Thebill was amended to remove most of the objectionable language,but it was still unnecessary and would not have benefited lawenforcement activities against felony actions since such crimesare already punishable by existing laws. The political overtonesbehind this measure remained troubling, as well as the lack ofintegrity in the legislative process while considering this bill andthe bill’s sponsors’ declaration that the measure was just a start-ing point. Weight: 3

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate March 16, 2004• Passed the House May 5, 2004• Vetoed by the Governor May 12, 2004

VOTER PARTICIPATION

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2009 initiatives;filing date (Quelland, et al)

This refers to the 2004 ballot a measure moving up the filingdate for initiative signature petitions by four months, from Julyto April. This reduces the time available to gather signatures toplace a measure on the ballot. The bill was amended in theSenate to extend the time frame to gather the signatures backbefore the previous election, creating logistical and technical dif-ficulties. Representative Quelland, the bill’s sponsor, had agreedto amend the bill in the House Judiciary Committee to propor-tionately reduce the number of signatures required so that therewas no net negative impact on grassroots groups or citizensworking to put something on the ballot. But Quelland went

continued on page 9

8 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

Have you always been interested in getting more involvedin the legislative process, but weren’t sure how to do it as a

citizen activist? The Arizona State Legislature has developed agreat system that makes it easy for busy, concerned citizens toweigh in on issues that are important to them – and it is allonline! It is the A.L.I.S.* “Request to Speak” system. Throughthis online tool, offered through the A.L.I.S. website athttp://www.azleg.state.az.us, people who normally would not beable to take time off work or away from their children to partic-ipate in the legislative hearing process can send comments orstate their position on a bill to a legislative committee online inadvance of the hearing. You don’t need to be a lobbyist to dothis – it is open to everyone!

While the Arizona Legislature often seems as if it is not themost responsive government body it could be, legislators do lis-ten to the opinions of citizens and constituents. Comments sub-mitted to a committee go into the record and can make a differ-ence in the debate over a piece of legislation. Citizens also pro-vide insights that may be overlooked and can attest to on-the-ground impacts of legislative measures on the lives of everydaypeople. Just follow the basic steps to create an ALIS account,and you’ll be up and running!

Creating an ALIS Account

The first step must be done at the State Capitol, but this will bethe only time you need to physically show up at the Legislature.Kiosks are stationed in the House and Senate lobbies and out-side hearing rooms. The folks at the information desk can directyou to them. Once there, simply log on to the system:

1) The computer will ask you if you’ve created an account onthe system before. Enter “NO”.

2) A page will come up with fields for your address, phonenumbers, and other information. One of the fields will bestating whether you are a lobbyist. Enter “NO.”

3) The system will also ask you to create an account user nameand password.

4) Once complete, your account can be accessed through theinternet by your computer at home, and you can submityour comments and positions, also called “requests to speak”or slips, on legislation being heard at the Capitol.

Using ALIS to Submit a “Request to Speak”

Once you’ve created your account, you can keep track of theHouse and Senate committee hearing schedules throughAZLCV’s E-Action Alert system. If you are not already on theE-Action network, please e-mail susanculp@earthlink.net, andyou will be added. If you see a bill come up that you would like

to comment on, or register your support or opposition, you cansubmit a “request to speak” to the Committee Chairpersononline through ALIS.

1) On your internet browser, go to the ALIS website athttp://www.azleg.state.az.us. Click on the “Request to Speak”button the left-hand navigation bar.

2) You will be taken to a page that will prompt you for youraccount user name and password. You will also be able toselect whether you’d like to submit your comment to a com-mittee in the House or Senate. Once that is entered, you willbe taken to a page that lists the names of all the standingcommittees in that chamber.

3) Select the committee that will be hearing the bill you areinterested in.

4) You will be taken to a page listing the bills that will be heardby that committee in the next hearing. Select the bill youwant to submit comments or a position on.

5) The page you will see is the place where you register yourposition in support, against or neutral on the bill itself. Thereis also a space for comments, if you would like to explainyour position in greater detail. You will also need to enteryour name in the field provided, as well as whether or notyou are a lobbyist, and who you are representing (for citizens,it is always “Self ”). Once you complete the informationrequired and type in your comments, you can submit theinformation to the Committee Chairperson.

6) If you change your mind about your comments or your posi-tion, you can always edit your submission later by accessingthe system and selecting “Review Requests” from the menuat the top of the page. You can edit up until the time thatyour submission is read into the record by the CommitteeChairperson.

A.L.I.S. BASICS

Participation of an active citizenry is the heart of any democracy

* A.L.I.S. stands for Arizona Legislative Information System.

www.azlcv.org 9

It is simple, and convenient enough to do in advance from yourown home! For League members who are interested in gettingmore involved in the legislative process, this is a great way toparticipate without actually having to make countless trips tothe State Capitol in person. Participation of an active citizenryis the heart of any democracy, and we encourage anyone whowants to make a difference in conservation policy in Arizona tosign up for an ALIS account and become a part of the dialogue.

If you have any further questions about ALIS and how to use it,please contact our assistant director, Susan Culp, in theAZLCV’s Phoenix office at susanculp@earthlink.net, or byphone at (602) 277-3326. And don’t forget to sign up for leg-islative alerts through our E-Action Network! Simply e-mailSusan Culp and she will put you on the listserve!

back on his word and stripped the amendment on the Housefloor before the final vote on HCR 2009. Weight: 3

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 12, 2004• Passed the Senate May 24, 2004• Passed House Final Read May 25, 2005• Transmitted to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the

2004 ballot

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2011 voterapproved expenditures; limitation (Konopnicki, et al)

This measure is another proposed restriction on the citizens’ ini-tiative and referendum process. It would require that any meas-ure or program passed by the voters via the initiative processinclude a new and separate funding source to cover all presentand future costs of the program. It also contains a provisionstating that if this revenue source should ever fail to fully fundthe program, the Legislature could, by a simple majority vote,reduce the appropriation to the program. This reduced amount,rather than what the voters passed originally, would be used tocalculate all future appropriations to the program. It wouldenable the Legislature to sidestep the Voter Protection Act andreallocate monies that had been directed by the voters to bespent on a certain program. Weight: 3

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Passed the House March 8, 2004• Passed Senate Appropriations Committee, but then failed to

progress

HOUSE CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 2016 taxincrease by initiative; vote (Biggs, et al)

HCR 2016 would require any initiative that results in a netincrease of state revenues to pass by a 2/3 majority vote of thepublic. Weight: 3

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Failed in the House upon Third Read March 8, 2004

SENATE BILL 1375 voting; identification required(Martin, et al)

This measure would require all voters to present state-issuedphoto identification, such as a valid driver’s license or non-oper-ating license, passport, or military ID card, before being allowedto vote. If a voter could not show photo identification at thetime of voting, they would have to vote a provisional ballot.The measure could open the door to voter harassment,increased costs for elections, and burdens on poll workers. Itwould further depress voter turnout in Arizona, where voterturnout is already 50th in the nation. Weight: 5

A “NO” vote is a green vote.• Passed the Senate March 16, 2004• Failed to progress to House Third Read

ACTIONS USED FOR SCORINGcontinued from page 7

A.L.I.S. BASICScontinued from page 8

Phot

o by

Ste

ve A

cker

man

10 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

CONS. BILLS HB2456 HB2507 SB1064 HB2207 HB2142 HB2703 HB2088 HB2268 HB2244 SB1349

Weights 3 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1

Linda Aguirre + + + + + + + + + +

Carolyn Allen + + + + + NV + + + +

Mark Anderson + – + + + + + – + +

Marsha Arzberger + + + + + + + + + +

Tim Bee + + + + + + + + + +

Ken Bennett + + + + + + + – + +

Linda Binder + + + + NV NV NV + + +

Robert Blendu + + + + + + + – + –

Bill Brotherton + – + + + + + + + +

Jack Brown + + + + + + + + + +

Robert Burns + + + + + + + + + +

Robert Cannell + + + NV + + + + + +

Ken Cheuvront + + + + + + + + + +

Jorge Luis Garcia NV + + + + + + + + +

Gabrielle Giffords NV + + + + + + NV + +

Albert Hale + + + + + + + NV NV +

Jack Harper + + – + + + + – + –

Toni Hellon + + + + + + + NV + +

Marilyn Jarrett – + NV + + NV + – NV +

Barbara Leff – – + + + + + + + +

Dean Martin + + + + + + + + + +

Slade Mead + + + + + + + + + +

Richard Miranda + + + NV + NV + + + +

Harry Mitchell + + + + + + + + + +

Pete Rios + + + + + + + + + +

Victor Soltero + + + + + + + + + +

Jay Tibshraeny + + + + + + + + + +

Thayer Verschoor – – + + + + + – + +

Jim Waring + + + + + + + + + +

Jim Weiers + + + + + + NV + + +

SENATE VOTING TALLY Conservation Legislation

www.azlcv.org 11

SB1081 Cons. Score VOT. BILLS HCR2009 SB1375 Vot. Score Combined Score

3 31 points 3 5 8 27

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

– 79% – – 0% 56%

– 68% – – 0% 48%

– 84% + + 100% 89%

– 84% – – 0% 59%

– 74% – – 0% 52%

+ 79% – – 0% 56%

– 68% – – 0% 48%

+ 95% + + 100% 96%

– 84% + + 100% 89%

– 84% – – 0% 59%

– 74% – + 63% 70%

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

+ 84% + + 100% 89%

+ 74% + + 100% 81%

+ 79% NV + 63% 74%

– 63% – – 0% 44%

– 74% – – 0% 52%

– 37% – – 0% 26%

– 63% – – 0% 44%

– 84% – – 0% 59%

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

+ 84% + + 100% 89%

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

+ 100% + + 100% 100%

– 84% – – 0% 59%

– 53% – – 0% 37%

– 84% – – 0% 59%

– 79% – – 0% 56%

Senate Voting Tally, cont. Conservation/Voter Participation Legislation

12 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

HOUSE VOTING TALLY Conservation Legislation

CONS. HB HB SB HB HB HB HB HB HB HB HB HBBILLS 2456 2507 1064 2207 2142 2526 2527 2528 2613 2703 2088 2400

Weights 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 2

Amanda Aguirre + + + + + + + + + + NV +

John Allen + + + + + – – + + + + –

Manny Alvarez + + + + + + + + + + + +

Bill Arnold NV + + + + + + + + + + –

Ray Barnes – – + + + + + + NV NV + NV

Andy Biggs – – NV + + – – + + + + –

Tom Boone + + + NV + + + + + + + –

David Bradley + + + + + + + + + + + +

Jennifer Burns + + + + + + + + + + + +

Meg Burton Cahill + + + + + + + + – + + +

Ernest Bustamante + + + + + NV + + + + + +

Olivia Cajero Bedford + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ted Carpenter + – + + + + + + + + + –

James Carruthers + + + + + + + + + + + +

Cheryl Chase + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ken Clark + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ted Downing NV NV + + + + + + NV NV + NV

Eddie Farnsworth + – + + + + – + + + + –

Jake Flake + + + + + NV + + + + + –

Steve Gallardo + + + + NV + + + + + + +

Randy Graf + + + + + + + + + + + –

Chuck Gray – – + NV + – + + + + + –

Linda Gray + – + + + + + + + + + –

Deb Gullett + + + + + + + + + + + –

Phil Hanson + + + + + + + + + + + +

Joe Hart – NV + + + + + + + + + –

Pete Hershberger + + + + NV + + + + + + +

Carole Hubbs + + + + + + + + + + + –

Steve Huffman + + NV + + + + + + NV + –

John Huppenthal + – + NV + + – + + + + –

www.azlcv.org 13

House Voting Tally, cont. Conservation/Voter Participation Legislation

HB SB1411/ SB Cons. VOT. HCR HCR HCR Vot. Combined2244 HFA 1081 Score BILLS 2009 2011 2016 Score Score

2 5 3 31 3 3 3 9 40

NV + + 90% + + + 100% 93%

+ – – 52% – – – 0% 40%

NV + + 94% + + + 100% 95%

+ + – 74% – – + 33% 65%

+ – – 45% – – – 0% 35%

+ – – 35% – – – 0% 28%

+ – – 61% – – NV 0% 48%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + – 90% – + + 67% 85%

+ + + 94% + + + 100% 95%

+ + + 90% + + + 100% 93%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ – – 65% – – – 0% 50%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + – 90% + + + 100% 93%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + + 71% + + + 100% 78%

+ – – 58% – – – 0% 45%

+ – – 58% – – – 0% 45%

+ + + 94% + + + 100% 95%

+ – – 68% – – – 0% 53%

NV – – 32% – – – 0% 25%

+ – – 65% – – – 0% 50%

+ + + 94% – + + 67% 88%

+ + – 90% – – + 33% 78%

+ – – 55% – – – 0% 43%

+ + + 94% + + + 100% 95%

+ + + 94% + – + 67% 88%

+ + + 87% – + NV 33% 75%

+ – – 52% NV – – 0% 40%

14 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

House Voting Tally, cont. Conservation/Legislation

CONS. HB HB SB HB HB HB HB HB HB HB HB HBBILLS 2456 2507 1064 2207 2142 2526 2527 2528 2613 2703 2088 2400

Weights 3 1 1 2 2 3 2 1 2 1 1 2

Jack Jackson, Jr. + + + + + + + + + + + +

Clancy Jayne + + + + + + + + + + NV –

Karen Johnson – – + + + + + + + + + –

Bill Konopnicki + NV + + + NV + + + + NV –

Leah Landrum Taylor + + + + + + + + + + + +

Sylvia Laughter + – NV + + NV + + + + NV –

Phil Lopes + + + + + + + + + + NV +

Linda Lopez + + + + NV + + + + + + +

John Loredo + + + + + + + + + + + +

Lucy Mason + – + + NV NV + + + + + –

Marian McClure + + + + + NV + + + + + NV

Debbie McCune Davis + + + + + + + + + + + +

Robert Meza + + + + + + + + + + + +

Ben Miranda + + + + + + + + NV NV + NV

John Nelson + + + + + + + + + + + +

Warde Nichols + – + + + + – + + + + –

Tom O'Halleran + + + + + + + + + + + +

Russell Pearce – – + + + – – + + + + –

Gary Pierce + + + + + + + + + + + –

Tom Prezelski + + + + + + + + + + + +

Doug Quelland – – + + NV + + + + + + –

Michele Reagan + NV + + + + + + + + + –

Bob Robson + + + + + + + + + + + –

Colette Rosati – – + + + + + + + + + –

Wally Straughn + + + + + + + + + + + +

Bob Stump + – + + + + + + + NV + –

Mark Thompson + + + + + + + + + + + –

Stephen Tully + + NV + + + – + – + + –

Bill Wagner + + + + + – + + – + + –

Steven Yarbrough + – + + + + + + + + + –

www.azlcv.org 15

House Voting Tally, cont. Conservation/Voter Participation Legislation

HB SB1411/ SB Cons. VOT. HCR HCR HCR Vot. Combined2244 HFA 1081 Score BILLS 2009 2011 2016 Score Score

2 5 3 31 3 3 3 9 40

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + – 81% – – + 33% 70%

+ – – 55% – – – 0% 43%

+ + – 68% – – + 33% 60%

+ + + 100% + + NV 67% 93%

+ NV – 48% – – + 33% 45%

+ + + 97% + + + 100% 98%

+ + NV 84% + + + 100% 88%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + NV 65% – – – 0% 50%

+ + + 84% + – + 67% 80%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ + + 84% + + + 100% 88%

+ – – 74% – – + 33% 65%

+ – – 58% – NV – 0% 45%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ – – 39% – – – 0% 30%

+ – – 68% – – – 0% 53%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ NV – 48% – – – 0% 38%

+ + + 90% – – – 0% 70%

+ – – 68% – – – 0% 53%

+ – – 55% – – – 0% 43%

+ + + 100% + + + 100% 100%

+ – – 61% – – – 0% 48%

+ + – 84% – – + 33% 73%

+ – + 61% – NV + 33% 55%

+ + – 68% – + + 67% 68%

+ – – 65% – – – 0% 50%

16 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

THE BEST…

Representative Ken Clark (D – District 15)received 100% scores for both 2003 and 2004legislative sessions. He worked hard this year toprepare workable legislation to promote renew-able energy use, most notably solar energy. Hegained bipartisan support for introducing three

bills to provide incentives for generating and using solar energy,but unfortunately, they became mired in the Senate Committeeprocess.

Representatives Tom O’Halleran (R – District 1)and Pete Hershberger (R – District 26) deservecommendation for standing up to party politics inorder to support the needs and wishes of their con-stituents and all of Arizona’s citizens. Rep.O’Halleran in particular had spent a great deal oftime in working groups, advisory councils andother stakeholder processes searching for practicalsolutions to natural resource concerns in the state,including forest health, rural water resources, andland use planning. He introduced several measuresthat would have taken Arizona in the right direc-

tion toward solving long-term problems on those issues, butunfortunately none were given a hearing.

Senator Jack Brown (D – District 5) andRepresentative Michele Reagan (R – District 8)made the most improvement in their scores sincethe previous session in 2003. Senator Brownearned an 89%, up 47 points from last year’s42% score. Rep. Reagan received a 70% score,which is a 43-point jump from her prior score of27%.

Representative John Loredo (D – District 13)deserves recognition for maintaining a 100%score for the longest time running on theAZLCV Scorecard. Rep. Loredo maintained a100% score from 2000 through 2004.Congratulations are due! He will be sorely

missed next year, as he is term limited in the House ofRepresentatives.

Representative Marian McClure (R – District30) has had a rocky history with the ArizonaLeague of Conservation Voters, particularly onissues of local land use planning and privateproperty rights. However, we would like to rec-ognize the substantial improvement Rep.

McClure has shown over the last session, earning an 80% vot-ing score and supporting a number of critical League issues.Thank you, Rep. McClure!

IMPROVED SCORE RECOGNITION

This session, many legislators made considerable improvementsin their scores over last year, and sometimes over several years.Their performance merits pats on the back for a job well done!

Legislator 2003 Score 2004 ScoreRep. Tom O’Halleran 70% 100%Rep. Carole Hubbs 53% 88%Senator Jack Brown 42% 89%Rep. Bill Konopnicki 27% 60%Rep. Clancy Jayne 50% 70%Rep. Michele Reagan 27% 78%Rep. Bill Arnold 40% 65%Rep. John Nelson 40% 65%Rep. Mark Thompson 43% 73%Rep. Cheryl Chase 67% 93%Senator Marsha Arzberger 63% 89%Rep. Pete Hershberger 77% 95%Rep. Marian McClure 53% 80%

PROFILES

www.azlcv.org 17

THE WORST…

Representative Joe Hart (R – District 3) gainedquite a reputation as the Chair of the HouseEnvironment Committee for being the place thatgood bills came to die. Any whisper of controver-sy or complication on any measure and the billwould often end up being held, never to resur-

face. There is also the infamous “gavel-gate,” where Rep. Hartgaveled the meeting to a close in the midst of the vote on SB1081 (which would have failed, otherwise). He managed toconvince Speaker Flake to reassign it to a more “friendly” com-mittee, giving further life to a bad bill. No points for processthere.

Representative Doug Quelland (R – District10) had committed that he would address theconcerns with the measure HCR 2009 that theprogressive interests aimed at protecting citizens'constitutional rights to the initiative and referen-dum process had with the bill. He had agreed toan amendment proportionately lowering the

number of signatures required along with shortening the timeto collect them for an initiative. This was done, and organiza-tions such as the League became neutral, or even supportive ofthe bill. However, Rep. Quelland went back on his word andstripped off the amendment once the bill passed out of commit-tee and went to the House floor.

House Speaker Jake Flake (R – District 5)sought to punish fellow Republican (and pro-conservation) Representatives O’Halleran andHershberger for bucking the party line during a2003 Special Session on Child ProtectiveServices. He stripped them both of their com-

mittee chairmanships, and all of the bills they introduced forthe 2004 session were ignored and never given hearings. It is ashame when party politics becomes of greater importance thanserving the needs of the public.

Representative Cheryl Chase (D – District23) actually scored quite a bit better this yearthan in previous years, with a 93%. However,as the prime sponsor of the forest health meas-ure, HB 2549, Rep. Chase ignored much of thescience, expertise and recommendations thatwere offered by conservation groups, experts in

the field, and the Governor’s Forest Health Advisory Council.In seeking common ground with these interests on a foresthealth bill, the Senate passed an amended version with theintent of sending the bill to Conference Committee in order towork out some outstanding issues. However, Rep. Chaseallowed the bill to slide through the Concur Calendar, not with-drawing it for Conference Committee. This allowed a weakerforest health bill to pass than was originally hoped for.

THE WALL OF SHAME

While it would be hard to say that major progress was madethis legislative session towards protecting natural resources andArizonan’s quality of life, most legislators made a good faitheffort to “do no harm” and, as a result, demonstrated a signifi-cant improvement in their overall scores. The average scoreswere also higher for both House and Senate from previousyears. However, a small number of legislators still managed toget scores substantially under 50%.

Rep. Ray Barnes (R – District 7) – 35%Rep. Andy Biggs (R – District 22) – 28%Rep. Chuck Gray (R – District 19) – 25%Senator Marilyn Jarrett (R – District 19) – 26%Rep. Russell Pearce (R – District 18) – 30%Rep. Doug Quelland (R – District 10) – 38%Senator Jack Harper (R – District 4) – 44%Senator Barbara Leff (R – District 11) – 44%Senator Thayer Verschoor (R – District 22) – 37%

Phot

o by

Ste

ve A

cker

man

18 Arizona League of Conservation Voters Score Card 2004

Wildland forest fires that swept through Arizona over thepast few years have been catastrophic for communities,

forest habitats and ecosystems, the economies of rural areas, andto some degree, to rational debate over how to solve the prob-lem. Forest health is a critical issue in Arizona, no doubt aboutit. But reaching agreement on practical solutions has been tricky.

Governor Janet Napolitano worked hard to get a healthy dialogueon this issue off on the right foot by hosting annual forest healthsummits open to everyone who cared about forest health, so as tobegin productive discussions on next steps. She established theArizona Forest Health Advisory Council, composed of experts inthe field, community members, conservationists, public landsmanagers, and others, to provide recommendations and real-worldsolutions. Late last year, the Council came forward with principlesthat would make communities safer, and ultimately restore healthto Arizona’s forests. This work deserves to be commended.

However, the recommendations of the Council languished in theState Legislature. Representative Tom O’Halleran introduced abill to implement those recommendations, but it collected duston the Speaker’s desk and was not assigned to a committee orgiven the opportunity to be heard. Instead, an alternate plan washatched by a legislative working group that ignored the work ofthe members of the Council. These legislators proposed a sepa-rate plan for restoring forest health.

HB 2549 and SB 1212 introduced by Representative CherylChase and Senator Marilyn Jarrett, respectively, outlined a“healthy forest pilot program.” In and of itself, it was not a badidea, but much of the language was troubling – including plansto conduct “thinning” deep in the forest, an area where there issubstantial disagreement remaining. It also ignored the “fire-wise” principles laid out by the Council – principles aimed atprotecting communities from wildfires and focusing limitedresources on the areas most at risk for property damage and haz-ards to communities.

These alternative measures encountered some resistance fromconservation groups concerned that it would open the door tologging efforts in the back country and do little to alleviate thevery real risks of wildfire near areas where people live. Later, theywere amended to create “healthy forest management zones”where tax credits and a variety of other incentives would be pro-vided to industries who sought to “thin” the forests in thesezones. Very few safeguards were incorporated to ensure that oldgrowth forest stands would remain protected or that thinningefforts would be concentrated in the areas where they were need-

ed most and included the truly small diameter trees that serve askindling for forest fires. The Governor’s office, Council mem-bers, conservation groups, and legislators worked to hash outsome sort of consensus where the recommendations of theCouncil could be incorporated into the bill, and some safeguardsand limitations could be placed on the existing language.Representative O’Halleran’s measure was resurrected briefly atthis time as a strike-everything amendment, which was success-ful, at least, at encouraging folks to work on a compromise.

While some of the issues raised with the forest health legislationwere addressed, in the final analysis, the bill was far from perfect.In the end, the tax credits would apply to anyone who conduct-ed projects on the forest where at least 50% of the timber takenwas “biomass” or small diameter. However, the definitions areloose, and the fact remains that half of the trees logged could infact be old growth forest under this policy. The tax credits andincentives didn’t get tightened up as much as would have beendesirable. It will certainly not help Arizona’s forests to subsidizelogging activities that could, in the end, worsen the problem.

At the close of session, when the measure was being rushedthrough before sine die, a substitute floor amendment offered bySenator Arzberger was passed almost unanimously in the Senate.This amendment included some of the compromises negotiated,but not all. The Senators and the public were given to under-stand that the bill would go to conference committee to dealwith the outstanding issues on the legislation. However,Representative Cheryl Chase refused to pull it from the HouseConcur Calendar once it made it through the Senate process,and the bill eventually reached the Governor’s desk.

While a far cry from the recommendations of the Arizona ForestHealth Advisory Council, the bill was signed by GovernorNapolitano.

The Arizona League of Conservation Voters did not take a posi-tion on the final forest health bill. It was weak enough not tomerit our support. However, opposition seemed inappropriatesince passage of the bill might provide a few helpful tools and aframework to build upon in the future. In the end, however, itdoes little to help forest habitats and ecosystems. Forest health isone of the primary natural resource initiatives that GovernorNapolitano has taken on, and we are watching the progression ofthis issue closely. We had hoped for more significant policyprogress to result from the efforts of the past year and a half, butwe remain interested in working for substantive improvements infuture legislative sessions.

FOREST HEALTH POLICY

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 ❏ Credit card

Name: _______________________________________________________

Address: ______________________________________________________

City: ________________________ State: _____ Zip: ___________________

Phone: _____________________ Email: _____________________________

Please make checks payable to AZLCV and return to PO BOX 40154, Tucson, Arizona 85717

Contributions to the Arizona League of Conservation Voters are NOT tax deductible due to our lobbying efforts.

Credit card information:

Number:_________________________

Type:_________ Exp. Date:___________

Signature:________________________

NOW THAT YOU KNOW THE SCORE...

TAKE ACTION!There are four simple things that you can do to help hold your representativesaccountable on conservation issues.

1 Contact your legislators. Call, write or e-mailyour representatives to thank them if they voted on pro-conservation measures. Those that hold strong in safeguard-ing 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 dis-approval of their performance.

2 Share the Scorecard. Make sure your neighbors andfriends know how their representatives voted on importantconservation legislation. Contact the Arizona League ofConservation Voters for additional free copies of theScorecard, or let us know if you would like to host a partyor meeting to discuss the results of the Scorecard.

3 Vote for pro-conservation candidates.Contact the Arizona League of Conservation Voters for infor-mation on endorsed or pro-conservation candidates at thelocal, state and federal level.

4 Join the Arizona League of ConservationVoters E-Action Network. Receive weekly legisla-tive updates and information about how you can influenceyour legislators to make conservation friendly policy deci-sions during the legislative session. E-mail susanculp@earth-link.net to join!

CONTACTING YOUR LEGISLATORThe Arizona Legislative meets for regular session from mid-January to around the end of April. At that time, you canreach your legislator at:

Senator/Representative _____________Arizona State Senate OR Arizona StateHouse of RepresentativesCapitol Complex1700 W. WashingtonPhoenix, AZ 85007Info Desk (toll free): (800) 352-8404Senate: (602) 926-3559House: (602) 926-4221Fax (Senate): (602) 926-3429

Senator/Representative ____________Tucson Office of the State Legislature400 W. Congress Street, Suite 201Tucson, AZ 85701Senate Info Desk: (520) 628-6596House Info Desk: (520) 628-6593Fax: (520) 628-6615

After sine die, or adjournment of the legislative session, yourlegislators will probably return to their home town until thenext session starts. To contact them after session, visit theArizona State Legislature’s website at www.azleg.state.az.us/members/members.htm to find their con-tact information during the interim.

Arizona League of Conservation VotersPO Box 40154Tucson, AZ 85717

Return Service Requested

NonprofitOrganizationU.S. Postage

PaidTucson, AZ

Permit No. 1434

THE 46TH ARIZONA LEGISLATURE

District 1Sen. Ken Bennett, R (Prescott) – 42% / 52%Rep. Lucy Mason, R (Prescott) – 37% / 50%Rep. Tom O’Halleran, R (Sedona) – 70% / 100%District 2Sen. Albert Hale, D (Window Rock) – NA / 74%Rep. Jack Jackson, Jr., D (Window Rock) – 80% / 100%Rep. Sylvia Laughter, I (Kayenta) – 33% / 45%District 3Sen. Linda Binder, R (Havasu City) – 47% / 56%Rep. Joe Hart, R (Kingman) – 20% / 43%Rep. Bill Wagner III, R (Bullhead City) – 53% / 68%District 4Sen. Jack Harper, R (Glendale) – 37% / 44%Rep. Carole Hubbs, R (Sun City West) – 53% / 88%Rep. Tom Boone, R (Glendale) – 43% / 48%District 5Sen. Jack Brown, D (St. Johns) – 42% / 89%Rep. Jake Flake, R (Snowflake) – 27% / 45%Rep. Bill Konopnicki, R (Safford) – 27% / 60%District 6Sen. Dean Martin, R (Phoenix) – 37% / 59%Rep. Ted Carpenter, R (Phoenix) – 27% / 50%Rep. Clancy Jayne, R (Phoenix) – 50% / 70%District 7Sen. Jim Waring, R (Phoenix) – 47% / 59%Rep. John Allen, R (Scottsdale) – 40% / 40%Rep. Ray Barnes, R (Phoenix) – 20% / 35%District 8Sen. Carolyn Allen, R (Scottsdale) – 68% / 56%Rep. Michele Reagan, R (Scottsdale) – 27% / 70%Rep. Colette Rosati, R (Phoenix) – 37% / 43%District 9Sen. Robert Burns, R (Peoria) – 47% / 59%Rep. Philip Hanson, R (Peoria) – 43% / 78%Rep. Bob Stump, R (Peoria) – 23% / 48%District 10Sen. Jim Weiers, R (Phoenix) – 32% / 56%Rep. Linda Gray, R (Phoenix) – 20% / 50%Rep. Doug Quelland, R (Phoenix) – 33% / 38%

District 11Sen. Barbara Leff, R (Paradise Valley) – 42% / 44%Rep. Deb Gullett, R (Phoenix) – 67% / 88%Rep. Steve Tully, R (Phoenix) – 47% / 55%District 12Sen. Robert Blendu, R (Litchfield Park) – 26% / 48%Rep. Bill Arnold, R (Goodyear) – 40% / 65%Rep. John Nelson, R (Glendale) – 40% / 65%District 13Sen. Richard Miranda, D (Phoenix) – 95% / 89%Rep. Steve Gallardo, D (Phoenix) – 100% / 95%Rep. John Loredo, D (Phoenix) – 100% / 100%District 14Sen. Bill Brotherton, D (Phoenix) – 95% / 96%Rep. Debbie McCune Davis, D (Phoenix) – 90% / 100%Rep. Robert Meza, D (Phoenix) – 93% / 100%District 15Sen. Kenneth Cheuvront, D (Phoenix) – 100% / 100%Rep. Ken Clark, D (Phoenix) – 100% / 100%Rep. Wally Straughn, D (Phoenix) – 83% / 100%District 16Sen. Linda Aguirre, D (Phoenix) – 95% / 100%Rep. Leah Landrum Taylor, D (Phoenix) – 97% / 93%Rep. Ben R. Miranda, D (Phoenix) – 100% / 88%District 17Sen. Harry Mitchell, D (Tempe) – 95% / 100%Rep. Meg Burton Cahill, D (Tempe) – 97% / 95%Rep. Mark Thompson, R (Tempe) – 43% / 73%District 18Sen. Mark Anderson, R (Mesa) – 32% / 48%Rep. Karen Johnson, R (Mesa) – 37% / 43%Rep. Russell Pearce, R (Mesa) – 20% / 30%District 19Sen. Marilyn Jarrett, R (Mesa) – 37% / 26%Rep. Chuck Gray, R (Mesa) – 23% / 25%Rep. Gary Pierce, R (Mesa) – 20% / 53%District 20Sen. Slade Mead, R (Phoenix) – 100% / 100%Rep. John Huppenthal, R (Chandler) – 20% / 40%Rep. Bob Robson, R (Chandler) – 40% / 53%

District 21Sen. Jay Tibshraeny, R (Chandler) – 42% / 59%Rep. Warde Nichols, R (Mesa) – 37% / 45%Rep. Steven Yarbrough, R (Mesa) – 37% / 50%District 22Sen. Thayer Verschoor, R (Gilbert) – 37% / 37%Rep. Andy Biggs, R (Gilbert) – 20% / 28%Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, R (Gilbert) – 23% / 45%District 23Sen. Pete Rios, D (Hayden) – 84% / 100%Rep. Ernest Bustamente, D (Mammoth) – 77% / 93%Rep. Cheryl Chase, D (Kearny) – 67% / 93%District 24Sen. Robert Cannell, D (Yuma) – 53% / 70%Rep. Amanda Aguirre, D (Yuma) – 90% / 93%Rep. James Carruthers, R (Yuma) – 73% / 100%District 25Sen. Marsha Arzberger, D (Willcox) – 63% / 89%Rep. Manny Alvarez, D (Elfrida) – 100% / 95%Rep. Jennifer Burns, R (Tucson) – 47% / 85%District 26Sen. Toni Hellon, R (Tucson) – 47% / 52%Rep. Peter Hershberger, R (Tucson) – 77% / 95%Rep. Steve Huffman, R (Tucson) – 73% / 75%District 27Sen. Jorge Luis Garcia, D (Tucson) – 79% / 89%Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D (Tucson) – 100% / 100%Rep. Phil Lopes, D (Tucson) – 100% / 98%District 28Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, D (Tucson) – 100% / 81%Rep. David Bradley, D (Tucson) – 100% / 100%Rep. Ted Downing, D (Tucson) – 100% / 78%District 29Sen. Victor Soltero, D (South Tucson) – 89% / 100%Rep. Linda Lopez, D (Tucson) – 97% / 88%Rep. Tom Prezelski, D (Tucson) – 100% / 100%District 30Sen. Timothy Bee, R (Tucson) – 26% / 59%Rep. Randy Graf, R (Green Valley) – 23% / 53%Rep. Marian McClure, R (Tucson) – 53% / 80%

Legislators by district, with their 2003 score, and 2004 score in bold.