A minor taxpayer revolt in Baja Arizona

"Espresso Pundit" Greg Patterson has a friend who asked around at a recent gun show to find out why TUSD budget overrides were voted down. The reported answer is somewhat surprising: not fiscal irresponsibility, not "secession" and frustration over having to pay when kids in their families don't go to public school, but rather the "La Raza Studies" program.

It seems completely lost on proponents of overrides, "home rule", and other fiscal laxity, that the relationship between the government and the governed, between the taxpayer and the tax spender, is one of give-and-take. It isn't symmetric, but the people have expectations of government--and they are right to have expectations of government. It is not sufficient for elected and appointed officials to have good intentions or to want to do Nice Things with the taxes collected; they must also deliver the goods, and respect the taxpayer.

In Pima County we're now learning the meaning of "consent of the governed". Teaching kids ethnic nationalism, group identity, that some people are better than others or otherwise "special" because their ancestors came from a certain place, or that there exists such a thing as group oppression, that's disrespect for taxpayers not from the elevated class. Likewise, manufacturing a "budget crisis" when there is a 1% revenue shortfall in order to justify tax increases, instead of cutting back the scope of city government, that's disrespect for the taxpayer. That's treating the interests of elected officials--those interests being re-election and supporting those niceties that have been added to the budget through the years--as more important than the interests of individual taxpayers. And asking--no, demanding!--constantly for more, more, more, out of proportion to population growth, is a disrespect of the voters.

The final results of this month's election (with irregularities presumably cleared up): defeat of "home rule", TUSD overrides, and even a few overrides in districts operating with overrides--a rare occurrence!--reflect nothing short of a loss of the consent of the governed. Rather than go on and on about how important education is (a non sequitur argument, really) those unhappy with the result ought to think: what's being done wrong? Should we try again or try another paradigm? And if we try again, how can we uphold our end of the bargain this time around?

Tucson/Pima County election early results: some good news

From the Elections Division's website, with 98.9% of precincts reporting:

• Proposition 200 is being handily defeated, 70%-30%,
  
• Proposition 400 is surprisingly close, but defeat edges out success almost 31676 against to 31054 for,
  
• Proposition 401 and 402 are both being solidly defeated, with "no" votes amounting to around 60% for both.
  

For those interested in the city council races, Fimbres is far ahead of McClusky, Uhlich has a 600-vote lead on Buehler-Garcia, making it too close to call, and Kozachick, with a 1200 vote lead over Trasoff, is the likely winner.

Amphi's override elections (Propositions 403 and 404) are close, but it looks like "No" is winning, meaning the district's overrides will not be renewed. The Vail bond issue (Proposition 408) looks likely to pass, but it looks like voters are canceling Vail's override (Proposition 409) as well. Sahuarita's override (Proposition 410) is being defeated by a 10% margin. Fiscal responsibility appears popular this year.

Word is turnout on the East Side is high: for the purposes of this race, a good thing.

The unorganized opposition to Prop. 400--who else is out there?--can't celebrate just yet, but there's more reason to be hopeful than I thought possible 24 hours ago. Early voting has the measure succeeding; polling shows the opposite. This isn't the pattern for Props 401 and 402. I can't take credit, but I wonder how many votes my eleventh-hour guest opinion was worth.

Summaries and recommendations for all 17 Pima County ballot questions are up.

Were it not for an editing outage at exactly the wrong time, this would have been posted last night and on Google News this morning.

Over on Associated Content, I have summarized all of the Pima County ballot questions, and provided a voting recommendation for each. A few "yes" votes on the school questions--my erstwhile co-'bloggers should feel free to put up zillion-word posts telling me I'm wrong--but mostly "no"s.

Ballot measure coverage to begin shortly.

Ballot measure time is here. I haven't paid as much attention as usual to the players--the questions are simply that dull--but will, as usual, provide summaries, commentary, recommendations, and links to full text, at least for Pima County/City of Tucson ballot questions. Perhaps Kim or Thane will cover part of what's happening in Maricopa.

You're going to see the word "No" quite a bit. Why I recommend saying "no" to the schoolkids and Officer Friendly, that might be interesting. You'll get my reasoning soon enough, then you can decide.

Comments, as usual, are appreciated. But if any of you call me a shill again based on the content of my Google Ads (just google how those work) I will call on my New Orleans connections and bring some bad juju down on you. Consider it due warning. Ogun and I, we're homies.