Temple Emanuel of Tempe will host the “Southeast Valley Ballot Measure Town Hall and Candidate Open House.” on October 31, from 9:00am – 12:30pm. Ward Connerly will be there representing the Yes on 107 campaign. Eric Ehst will be representing Protect Arizona’s Freedom.
People will have the opportunity to hear speakers supporting and opposing most of the statewide ballot measures, ask questions of them, watch videos about the measures, and pick up information explaining the proposed state constitutional amendments and the judicial portion of the ballot. In addition, several candidates will be on hand to discuss why people should vote for them.
Temple Emanuel of Tempe is centrally located at 5801 South Rural Road, in Tempe (Map). The live portion of the town hall will take place at 11:00, but people will have the opportunity to learn more from the representatives before and after.
Defeat Prop 107 Events This Week in both Tempe and Tucson Arizona!
STUDENTS TEXT, TWITTER, TALK IN TEMPE, AZ
Launch Statewide Student-to-Student Effort to Defeat Prop. 107
WHAT: Students lead Joint Press Conference – launch social networking and other student-to-student efforts to defeat Prop. 107. (Simultaneous event to be held on UA campus.)
WHO: Michael Wong, Arizona Students Association
House Minority Leader David Lujan
Student success story showing why Prop. 107 matters
PAF Chairman Mel Hannah
WHEN: Wednesday, October 27, 2010. 10:30 AM
WHERE: Memorial Union, ASU Tempe Campus, 3rd Floor
—————————————————————————-
STUDENTS TEXT, TWITTER, TALK IN TUCSON, AZ
Launch Statewide Student-to-Student Effort to Defeat Prop. 107
WHAT: Students lead Joint Press Conference – launch social networking and other student-to-student efforts to defeat Prop. 107. (Simultaneous event to be held on ASU campus.)
WHO: Elma Delic, Chair of the Arizona Students Association
Jonathan Garcia, student success story, on why Prop. 107 matters
PAF Coalition leaders
WHEN: Wednesday, October 27, 2010. 10:30 AM
WHERE: Women’s Plaza, University of Arizona
ARIZONA REPUBLIC, October 16, 2010
by Jeffrey Milem, the Earnest W. McFarland Distinguished Professor in Leadership for Education Policy and Reform
and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs in the College of Education, U of A
“Proposition 107, deceptively titled the ‘Arizona Civil Rights Initiative,’ is a Constitutional Amendment placed on the Nov. 2 ballot by our Legislature. It is divisive and is fueled by myths and misconceptions…Proposition 107 is in direct conflict with Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s opinion [in Grutter V. Bollinger stating that diversity is a compelling interest for institutions of higher education and for our soceity as whole]…Proposition 107 arguments are purposely misleading…Proponents of 107 assert the use of ‘quotas’ which in fact have been illegal since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1978 decision in Regents of the University of California v. Baake…”
To read the entire opinion:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/10/16/20101016milem16.html
AEA Vice President Thomas Speaks Out Against Proposition 107
ARIZONA REPUBLIC
October 16, 2010
AEA Vice President Joe Thomas eloquently underscored five reasons to vote against Proposition 107.
1. Proposition 107 is an anti-equal-opportunity measure that would eliminate important programs that ensure academic success for Arizona’s students.
2. Prop. 107 threatens many programs that support academic progress and improved student achievement, including: WISE (Women in Science and Engineering), which supports women studying math, science, technology, and engineering; Upward Bound, a program designed to help low-income college students of color learn study habits, enroll in the right classes and prevent dropouts; and the Hispanic Mother-Daughter Program, which provides Hispanic girls in Grades 7-12 and their mothers five years of preparation for college.
3. Proposition 107 is backed by out-of-state interests who are pushing their own agenda and are not concerned with what is best for Arizona. They are not familiar with our state’s equal-opportunity programs. They promote Prop. 107 as an initiative that will end quotas, but the truth is, Arizona doesn’t have quotas for hiring or college admission.
4. We are in a global economy, which means Arizona needs a diverse and talented workforce in order to be competitive.
5. Arizona and society as a whole benefit from a diverse workforce and student population. Our state is served well by programs that recognize and celebrate diversity.
Joe Thomas is vice president of the Arizona Education Association.
Read the entire article here:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2010/10/16/20101016prop107no.html
What We Have are Limited Equal Opportunity Programs -Lujan v. Connerly Debate At Goldwater Institute
“…What we have are limited equal-opportunity programs…that help people who are traditionally underrepresented,” said Minority Leader David Lujan during a Goldwater Institute-sponsored forum on Thursday, October 14. “…It (Proposition 107) is simply an attempt by an out-of-state group to amend our Constitution. Every dollar that is being spent on this campaign…comes from out-of-state money. Two years ago they couldn’t even get enough signatures (to place the initiative on the ballot)…”
Representative Lujan also pointed out in his opening remarks that he had worked to solve Arizona’s problems throughout his career and that as a State Legislator and a candidate for statewide office who had traveled across Arizona that not once had he heard from Arizona citizens that equal opportunity programs were a major problem which needed to be solved by a Constitutional Amendment. Lujan emphasized that a state with the problems facing Arizona did not need to waste time on “solutions looking for a problem,” that Arizona needs a diverse, talented workforce to lead us to economic recovery, concluding that everyone should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed in Arizona. “We’re all in this together,” he said.
To read about the Forum go to:
Come join us at this week’s Goldwater Institute Forum featuring Ward Connerly himself for the pro-107 side and former Representative David Lujan representing the No on 107 side. The Forum is at 5:30 pm on Thursday, October 14th – 500 East Coronado Rd just north of McDowell. We need to be there to show that Arizonans do not support Proposition 107.
If you read the fine print on the “Yes on 107″ signs around town you may notice that they say, “Major funding by out-of-state contributor ACRC.” This proposition is not supported by local Arizonians and relies on special interests outside our state to fund this campaign. Prop 107 does not represent Arizona’s values.
Watch the the debate between Kyrsten Sinema and Steve Montenegro on ‘No on 107′ filmed Sept 20th on the Channel 8 Horizon Show.
Watch here:
http://www.azpbs.org/vote2010/107.php
Prop 107: Preferential Treatment or Discrimination Prohibition – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
What is the measure? Prop 107 would amend the state Constitution to eliminate public equal opportunity programs, although it’s backers claim it would bar discrimination against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. . It exempts any program whose termination would result in a loss of federal dollars to Arizona.
Background The primary backer, California businessman Ward Connerly, is on a mission to put an end to equal opportunity programs on a state-by-state basis. Like Prop 106, the state legislature opted to refer this measure to the ballot, thereby saving Connerly the time, trouble and hundreds of thousands of dollars he would have needed to place a citizens’ initiative on the ballot. Similar measures have passed in CA, MI, WA, and NE. The measure failed in CO. In the past, similar measures failed to qualify for the ballot in AZ, MO and OK in 2008 after widespread allegations of petition fraud.
Sponsor and Vote The measure was sponsored by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-12) in the House and Sen. Russell Pearce in the Senate. It passed the House 32-18 along party lines with all 32 yes votes coming from Republicans, and all 18 no votes coming from Democrats. Three Reps. and seven Dems. did not vote. It passed the Senate 17-11 on a party-line vote with all yes votes coming from Reps. and all no votes coming from Dems. One Rep. and one Dem. did not vote.
Impact This measure would put an end to equal opportunity programs designed to ensure that those who have not had access to the table can vie for a seat. Programs that encourage young women to study math and science would be ended, as would special programs for victims of domestic violence, pregnant teens and teenage mothers. After California passed a similar initiative, enrollment of people of color in state colleges and universities plummeted.
Those who support Prop 107 include the following in their arguments:
1. Banning preferential-treatment programs would “do so in the mirror image of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed racial segregation and solidified equal rights for all citizens.” –Ward Connerly
2. “The referendum will eliminate racial and gender preference programs…that send minorities a message that they are inferior and in need of special treatment to be successful.” –Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18)
3. “True affirmative action means helping people who have had to overcome disadvantages, regardless of their race or ethnicity. States such as Florida, Texas and California have banned racial preferences, yet have increased opportunities by rewarding individuals who work hard and overcome obstacles. That is true affirmative action, and it begins in earnest only when government no longer has the power to substitute it with racial preferences.” – Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute
Those who oppose Prop 107 include the following in their arguments:
1. Prop 107 eliminates essential programs for keeping women and students of color in college, and would likely bar programs benefiting Native Americans.
2. Quotas are already illegal and are not used to ensure equal opportunity. Equal opportunity programs force decision-makers to work a little harder to encourage under-represented constituencies to apply for schools, jobs and contracts.
3. Prop 107 would bring back the “good old boys networks” where decision-makers go for the lowest hanging fruit—people they know—rather than reaching out to invite equally qualified candidates from underrepresented communities.
4. Prop 107 would eliminate equal opportunity programs for women and people of color in public employment, education, and contracting. Experience has shown that these programs work. Students admitted to college do as well as their peers. Workers perform their jobs and contractors deliver on their contracts. These opportunities allow people to lift up their families so that future generations are even more successful.
5. Prop 107 will not prevent discrimination, but will deny tens of thousands of Arizona citizens an equal opportunity to share in the benefits of our society, and this hurts us all.
Supporters: American Civil Rights Coalition (established by Ward Connerly) $50,000; Goldwater Institute
Opponents: Protect Arizona’s Freedom; Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Education Association; Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association; American Association of University Women Arizona; Arizona Public Health Association; Mayor Phil Gordon, City of Phoenix
Because everyone should have an equal opportunity to compete and succeed in Arizona.