LD 25 Meetings and the Rule of Law

The ongoing saga of the LD 25 elections has many facets and players, but at its core it really boils down to one issue:  The rule of law. Do we support it or don't we?

According to our governing Bylaws and, more importantly, State Statute, Chairman Haney and the MCRC do NOT have the authority to invalidate district elections.  Even if they did, the way the investigation and invalidation of LD 25's elections happened violated open meeting laws and the due process rights of every member of the board who had their election overturned.  In addition, as noted previously on this blog, there was no fraud discovered during the investigation, only some carelessness by the Credentials & Tally Committee regarding 5 proxies and the inclusion of numerous PCs on the State Committeemen ballot who had not qualified to be there according to the requirements of the Bylaws.

LD 25's State Committeemen election needs to be re-done because of the inclusion of PCs who had not qualified to be on the ballot.  Two meetings have been called.  One to be held on January 2, 2013 and another to be held on January 9, 2013.

The meeting being called for on January 9th is problematic in several ways:

• It is being called less than 10 days before the MCRC Statutory Meeting on January 12th.  A meeting held that late cannot actually nominate candidates to become SCs.  At that point only Chairman Haney can appoint our delegation.
• It is changing the Bylaws without a vote of 2/3 of the PCs by allowing for the submission of new Nomination Questionnaires after the deadline of September 30th.
• It penalizes those who complied with the Bylaws by making them run a second time, and gives those who did not an unfair "second chance" to do it right.  Think about this:  If you had recently won an election and your opponent asked for a do-over of the entire election because they hadn't filled out their forms correctly in the first place - would you just roll over and let that happen?  Of course not!  That is why elections have rules - even district elections.
• According to the MCRC Bylaws, after December 10, 2012 neither the district nor the county chairman can call for a new district meeting on their own authority.  A new meeting can only be called upon the request of 10% or more of the PCs in the district.  This meeting was not called at the request of the PCs.
• It is too late to send out an official call for a meeting that will allow us to actually certify our nominations for State Committeemen.  The last day that could be done was December 21st.

In contrast, the meeting on January 2nd:

• Will be held in time to have our nominations for State Committeemen certified to the MCRC before the MCRC Statutory Meeting.
• Will adhere to the Bylaws regarding who can be on the ballot based on who submitted the required forms by the September 30th deadline.
•  Will not penalize those who complied with the Bylaws by submitting the forms in a timely manner.
• Was called at the request of over 13% of the PCs in the district
• Was appropriately called for in a written letter sent out on December 21st.  The resulting meeting will allow us to certify our own choices for State Committeemen instead of having the MCRC Chairman choose for us.

I have been asked why several PCs were not included in the list of nominees for State Committeemen that went out with the call letter for the January 2nd meeting.  As noted in the call letter, this list was compiled based on the best information we had available to us about who submitted the Nomination Questionnaires by September 30th.  Unfortunately our record is not complete because Chairman Haney has all of the documents and has refused to give us a copy of anything, contrary to County Bylaws.  What we have was what we were able to get from documents that former chairman Haydee Dawson was able to share with the district as well as forms we collected and submitted ourselves.  As stated in the call letter - if you filled out the form and turned it in to the board before September 30th, please forward us a copy of your questionnaire as well as documentation that it was submitted by the September 30th deadline to ld25chairman@gmail.com.  Once we verify your information we will add you to the ballot

When I ran for Chairman, I ran on a platform of healing our rifts and bringing us together as a district.  Unfortunately the circumstances of this election have created an even bigger divide, with each side suspicious of the other.  The course of action I have pursued in this matter has been called divisive by some, but I have to ask:  Should I be "everyone's" chairman by ignoring the Bylaws?  We are in this mess because of the violation of our Bylaws.  The fairest way out is to strictly adhere to them now and going forward.

Any sober assessment of the position I am in reveals the fact that I will be suspected and perhaps even hated by a large group of people, regardless of my decisions or the final outcome.  Based on that reality, the only peace I will find is in administering the District according to the Bylaws and allowing the chips to fall where they may.

I believe in the rule of law.  Do you?

LD 25 Election Controversy

To the PCs of LD 25 and any other interested parties:

A lot of rumors, half-truths and whispered accusations have been swirling around the LD 25 officer/state committeemen elections since our meeting on November 29th.  As someone who is directly affected by this controversy and as a participant in the ensuing investigation I would like to clear the air on this issue.   The facts that I will be stating here have come from either my own firsthand observation/participation in the events described, or by my conversation with individuals who have firsthand knowledge of the events.

Before I launch into this, I would like to clarify a very important point - The candidates who ran for offices in our election were divided into two slates.  The slate that I ran with did substantially better than the opposing slate, winning all but two of the officer races and winning roughly two-thirds of the State Committeemen positions.  I bring this up because the allegations of fraud cast the longest shadow over me and the individuals who ran on my slate.  As you will see in the rest of this letter, this is unwarranted and unfair to the good people who ran with me.  I also want to be clear that I am not casting blame or suspicion on the good people on the other slate that ran in the election.  We simply do not know who perpetrated the fraud that set this whole thing off.  Any guesses about who did this are just that, guesses.

Without further ado, my statement of the facts regarding the LD 25 elections on November 29, 2012 (please see footnotes for additional clarifications): 

·        An unknown person or persons signed nominating questionnaires for five Precinct Committeemen in the Apache Wells precinct to run as State Committeemen.  These individuals did not wish to be nominated.  Their names were fraudulently submitted for inclusion on the ballot.

·        This was brought to the attention of both the LD25 and MCRC Chairman by Barbara Parker, who had obtained sworn affidavits from the five affected PCs stating they had not signed the five documents in question.

·        Before the vote on State Committeemen was taken, the names of these five PCs were taken off of the State Committeemen ballot.

·        While we were waiting for the new ballots to arrive at our meeting, Chairman Haney revealed what had happened and directed that if anyone’s name appeared on the ballot without their authorization they were to contact Chairman Haney immediately, as they may also be the victims of some type of voter fraud.

·        Between 15 and 30 people (to my knowledge the exact number has never been specified) approached Chairman Haney and claimed that they had not asked to be included on the ballot.

·        A solution was proposed that anyone whose name appeared on the ballot but who did not wish to run for the office have their name written on the large whiteboard at the front of the room so that they wouldn’t be voted for.  A small handful of people wrote their names on the board, and none of them were elected as State Committeemen.

·        The results of the officer elections were announced during the balloting for State Committeemen.[i]  I was elected as the new Chairman of LD 25 by a comfortable margin.

·        The Credentials and Tally reports and all proxy forms, which should have immediately been turned over to me as the new Chairman, were improperly taken home by the chairman of the C&T committee for this election.

·        At the end of the night manual recounts were done for both a third vice-chairman spot as well as the corresponding secretary.  A tie was discovered in each race and cards were drawn to determine the winners.  This was done with the affected parties being present via phone call and with their consent to proceed.

·        Once this was concluded (around 1am) Tyler Godfrey, the newly elected Treasurer and I, the newly elected Chairman, were sworn in to office[ii].  All other newly elected officers had gone home earlier that evening.

·        The state committee ballots were tallied and the remaining officials present determined that 108 votes were the minimum number of votes needed to be elected as a state committeeman.  It was determined that 10 individuals had tied for last place.

·        The ballots were turned over to me as the new Chairman and the meeting was adjourned.

·        On Saturday, December 1^st, at the behest of MCRC Chairman Rob Haney, an email was sent to all LD 25 PCs by Ian Murray stating that there was a possibility that the entire election would be thrown out due to fraud.

·        Chairman Haney created an investigative team[iii] to review all of the paperwork involved in the election to determine if there had been any additional fraud.  The team was convened and met on Wednesday, December 5^th, Thursday, December 6^th and Friday, December 7^th at AZ GOP Headquarters in Phoenix.

·        On Monday, December 3^rd, I formally requested via email to Rob Haney, Ian Murray and Pat Oldroyd (as well as by phone call to Chairman Haney) that, as the duly elected chairman of LD 25, I be given custody of the C&T Reports, the nominating questionnaires and all other materials regarding this election.  This request was denied by Chairman Haney who argued that he wanted as few hands as possible on these materials between then and the time when they could be turned over to him as part of the investigation.  I did not push the issue any further.

·        On Tuesday, December 4^th, Brent Ellsworth, newly elected Recording Secretary of LD 25 submitted a formal challenge to the State  Committeeman election on the basis that Chairman Haney’s comments before the SC voting on November 29^th had irreparably compromised the integrity of the election.

·        On Wednesday, December 5^th, Brent Ellsworth came to AZ GOP Headquarters at my request, but without Chairman Haney’s prior knowledge or consent, to observe the investigation.  He was told by Chairman Haney he could not stay and he promptly left[iv].

·        When the committee convened, the major points of this issue were recounted for the benefit of those members of the committee who were not from LD 25 and were not acquainted with the history involved.  Chairman Haney then explained that, because so many people came forward stating they had not requested to be on the ballot, we needed to determine if the fraud was limited to the original 5 PCs already mentioned or if the problem was more widespread.  To determine this we set out to collect the following data

o       Who was on the ballot?

o       How did they get on the ballot?

§        Were nominating questionnaires submitted, as required by the Bylaws?

§        Were they signed, as required by the Bylaws?

§        Were they included on the Mandatory Precinct Meeting report?

o       In the case of signed forms – did the signatures on the documents match the signatures on file with the County Recorder’s office?

o       Were the proxy forms properly filled out?

o       Did the signatures on the proxy forms match the signatures on file at the County Recorder’s office?

o       Was there any way to determine who perpetrated the original fraud involving the five nomination questionnaires from Apache Wells precinct?

·        The committee was divided into two teams:

o       One team went to the Recorder’s Office to compare all signatures received with the signatures on file with the County Recorder.  If a signature looked questionable, a certified copy of the signature was obtained from the Recorder so the entire committee could compare it to the nominating questionnaire and determine if it was indeed questionable.

o       The other team reviewed all the forms to capture the pertinent data:  Who had a form, had they intended to run, were the forms signed, were they included on the Mandatory Precinct Meeting form and where did they appear on the ballot (i.e. on the At-large or the Precinct Nominated sections of the ballot).

·        During the course of our investigation we uncovered the following:

§        The vast majority of the LD 25 PCs were on the State Committeeman ballot.  At least 40 (and probably more) of these looked like they were arbitrarily put on the ballot without the submission of any form whatsoever.  We could not come to any certain conclusion as to why this happened.  Our speculation was that these names were added by those managing the election out of a sincere desire that nobody be left off who wanted to run, even though such action was a clear violation of the Bylaws.  The Bylaws state that to qualify to be on the ballot, a PC must submit a signed nomination questionnaire by a certain date.  Many of those who appeared on the ballot did not submit the required signed nomination questionnaires.

§        At least one individual asked to run as a State Committeeman but was left off the ballot.

§        One individual who was on the ballot had moved out of the district and was no longer eligible to serve.

§        Two entire precincts[v] and a large portion of another[vi] submitted non-standard nominating questionnaires that did not include a signature line, as required by the Bylaws, for the individual to personally attest to their intention to serve if elected.  Based on the handwriting it appeared that a single individual in two of the precincts had filled out all of the nominating questionnaires.

§        Numerous individuals, including 9 prominent members of LD 25 who were elected as State Committeemen[vii], had not filled out or signed the Nomination Questionnaire as required by our Bylaws[viii].  For some of these individuals[ix] the only documentation was the Precinct Meeting Report[x], which, according to the Bylaws, is not enough to qualify to be on the ballot.

§        Five proxy forms should have been rejected by the C&T Committee due to crossed out names, missing signatures, notary omissions or other irregularities.[xi]  The committee was highly critical of the C&T procedures that did not prevent these types of errors but recognized that, on election night, the C&T committee is the final judge on what is accepted or rejected.

§        About 40 nominating questionnaires had signatures that the first team deemed questionable.  Upon review by the entire committee this number was pared down to between 15 and 20 signatures that were deemed different enough from the signatures on file with the Recorder as to bring their authenticity into doubt.  Of these 15-20 signatures there was only unanimous agreement on about 3 of the forms that they were indeed questionable.  Every other signature had between two or three people who saw enough similarities between the signatures to say that they were probably signed by the same person.

·        At no time did the committee ever say that this conclusively proved that fraud had occurred in the election.  It was also said, several times during the course of the investigation, that none of us were handwriting experts and that we were thus not competent to state with ANY certainty whether or not fraud had actually occurred.

§        It was agreed (upon the recommendation of Maricopa County Attorney Bill Montgomery) that the five documents that were known to be fraudulent (due to the sworn affidavits) as well as the few nomination questionnaires with questionable signatures would be turned over to Mesa PD for further investigation.

§        It was suggested that the controversy concerning the questionable signatures could be resolved by calling the individuals and asking them if they had signed the form.  During the course of this discussion several different ways of asking the PC about the document were proposed in an effort to see if the PC could remember what they signed, what they requested and who they had given the forms to.  It was pointed out that this line of questioning would probably not resolve the doubt, because many of these people were “paper PCs” and likely would not remember what they had signed or to whom they had given their proxies.  It was also said that this might taint an investigation by Mesa PD and it would be best to leave it alone.[xii]

·        The conclusions of the investigation were:

§        There were enough irregularities in the way that PCs were placed on the State Committeemen ballot to clearly warrant a redo of that election.  The committee decided that in the new election the nomination questionnaires from the November 29^th election should be disregarded and the ballot could include even PCs who did not comply with the requirements of the Bylaws in the November 29^th election.

§        The five proxies that should have been rejected by the C&T committee could have had a material impact on the two tied elections for board positions.  It was decided, by consensus – not by an actual vote, that the board election should also be vacated and redone.

§        A long discussion was held throughout the three days we met on who should be allowed on the ballot of the new election if we held one.  One position was that only those who had clearly complied with the Bylaws by previously submitting a nominating questionnaire be allowed on the ballot[xiii].  Another position was that those who filled out the nominating questionnaire as well as those whose names were listed on the Precinct Meeting reports be allowed on the ballot, even though that would permit individuals to appear on the ballot who had not complied with the Bylaws.  In the end it was to start over again and have a new election and allow everyone to submit new nominating questionnaires.

§        It was decided that the interim board resume their positions to handle the dissemination of this information as well as to call and make arrangements for the new election to take place.

All of the above was agreed to by consensus without an actual vote taken on accepting these recommendations.  The formal notice of this action was given when Ian, at Chairman Haney’s direction, sent out his letter to the district informing everyone of the outcome of the investigation.

The committee investigated the officer election on its own initiative, as no formal challenge to that election was filed.  In my opinion, the invalidation of the officer election is highly unusual, as that election was certified on the night of the election and any irregularities in that election were probably equivalent to irregularities that would appear in any election.

Once the formal announcement was made I returned all passwords I had been given to Ian Murray and directed those who had won the officer elections on November 29^th to return any materials and/or passwords to the previous board.  Because I ostensibly have no official position I have not communicated with the district in any official capacity.

Some final thoughts on the whole affair – I was on the committee that decided to start over and redo the election.  At the time, I agreed with this decision because I wanted to dispel the cloud of doubt surrounding the election.  I have now had some time to think about this and feel that we are establishing a very dangerous precedent.  A group that does not have clear authority to do so has decided that the certified results of an official election are null and void based on allegations of fraud THAT WERE NOT PROVED IN THE INVESTIGATION.  The only fraud that was proved was the fraud that was caught and dealt with BEFORE THE ELECTION.  Since when do we just arbitrarily throw out the results of an election?  We do not know who perpetrated the original fraud and anyone who claims that they know who did it is engaging in pure speculation.  Each faction in LD 25 is absolutely sure that the other faction is responsible, but the only thing we absolutely know is that WE ABSOLUTELY DO NOT KNOW WHO DID THIS, any claims to the contrary notwithstanding. 

Regardless of who wins in the upcoming redo of this election, there will always be some who will believe that the entire election was stolen by one side or the other.  If this was the intention of the person who submitted the fraudulent nominating questionnaires then they have certainly succeeded in their quest.  

Sincerely,

E. Paul Whetten

---

[i] The results were certified by George Teegarden, who was administering the ballot counting for the MCRC, and announced to the group by outgoing Chairman Haydee Dawson.  MCRC Chairman Rob Haney was still present at the meeting when the results were announced.

[ii] This was administered by LD 26 Chairman Raymond Jones, witnessed by several individuals including Haydee Dawson and Ian Murray, outgoing Chairman and 1^st Vice Chairman, respectively, and partially videotaped by Colleen Wheeler.

[iii] The committee members were: Rob Haney, Tom Husband, Lyle Tuttle, Ian Murray, Paul Whetten, Barbara Parker, Pat Oldroyd, George Teegarden, Elaine Gangluff, Milt Wheat, Vera Anderson, Lynne Breyer, James Alberts and

Ray Sweeney.  Haydee Dawson, the outgoing LD 25 Chairman, had requested of Chairman Haney that the investigative team include Colleen Wheeler, Alan Soelberg and Tracy Langston, all of whom were actively involved in collecting nomination questionnaires from the PCs and would presumably have information that might be helpful in the investigation.  That request was denied by Chairman Haney.

[iv] I believed that Brent’s presence as an observer was reasonable since he had actually filed a formal complaint against the State Committeemen election.  Barbara Parker was serving on the team because she was the one that brought the allegations of fraud to everyone’s attention.  Mr. Haney was irritated at me for taking this action without consulting him first.

[v] Tonto and Leisure World precincts

[vi] Greenfield Park Precinct

[vii] Justin Pierce, Cortney Pierce, Pat Oldroyd, Gary Pierce, Sherry Pierce, Matt Salmon, Nancy Salmon, Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce.

[viii] I am NOT accusing these individuals of deliberately ignoring our Bylaws, merely calling attention to an important fact.  I don’t know why these individuals didn’t have signed forms or if they even wanted to run in the first place.

[ix] Pat Oldroyd, Russell Pearce, Lester Pearce

[x] There were two groups who were running slates, and I was recruited by one of these groups.  The group that recruited me also recruited several people to run as State Committeemen.  Of the people recruited as SC’s by that group – NOT ONE was missing the appropriate documentation.  The signatures on several of those forms were later called into question by Chairman Haney’s committee.

[xi] This could have materially affected the outcome of the officer races that were tied, but would not have affected the outcome of the other officer elections.  This was later the basis for the decision to vacate the Board Elections, NOT because there was evidence of any voter fraud.

[xii] I find it interesting that all it took to create an allegation of fraud was to state that you did not ask to be on the state committeemen ballot; but if someone had a signed document stating that they wanted to run, simply asking that individual if that was their intention was not sufficient to remove the suspicion of fraud.

[xiii] This was the position that I advocated.  To be consistent with our Bylaws I felt that only those who had substantially complied with the requirements of the Bylaws should be on the ballot. 

Adams and Jefferson Support...

Tuesday, August 289th is Primary Election Day here in Arizona.  The congressional and legislative district I live in has some of the hottest, most contentious races in the state, and I have thought long and hard about who to support.  Without further ado, my thoughts on who to vote for in Tuesday's primaries:

United States Senate - Jeff Flake
Since taking office in 2001, Jeff Flake has been consistently rated as one of Congress' most fiscally conservative members.  His steadfast opposition to earmarks resulted in the current Congressional ban on the practice.  He has a practical approach to the issues of our day and will serve us well in the US Senate.  
Learn more about Jeff on his website:  http://www.jeffflake.com/

See the Senate Debate here:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1zWMyhK-uo


United States Representative, CD 5 - Kirk Adams
In 2010 many of the "Old Guard" Republicans were replaced by a more conservative group of freshmen representatives.  In the past two years they have been holding Republican leadership's collective feet to the fire on the issues that matter most to conservatives.  This trend needs to continue to gain strength in this year's election, and Kirk Adams is the man for the job.  He has first-hand experience working with difficult budget issues and passing meaningful reforms in how the government does business.  He is a voice we need to have in Washington. 
For more information on Kirk's positions and accomplishments visit:  http://www.kirkadams2012.com/

State Senator, LD 25 - Bob Worsley
Bob Worsley is a successful entrepreneur who knows what it takes to build a business from the ground up.  He understands the impact government rules and regulations have on the business climate of our state because he has dealt with them personally.  We NEED this perspective down at the State Capitol right now more than anything else.  Bob will represent us well in the State Senate.
More information about Bob can be found on his website:  http://www.bobworsleyforsenate.com/

County Supervisor, District 2 - Steve Chucri
Steve Chucri has excellent business credentials to take on the responsibility of working with the $billion+ budget of Maricopa County.  That alone qualifies him in my book, but in this race it really comes down to one issue for me:  The incessant cat fights between the supervisors and the sheriff  have cost the taxpayers of Maricopa County MILLIONS OF DOLLARS!  I am sick and tired of the horse-hockey going on down there and feel that, in this race, Steve Chucri is the individual most likely to stop the nonsense. 
For more information on Steve visit his campaign website at:  http://www.stevechucri.com/

Precinct Committeemen - Valencia Groves:
If you live in the Valencia Groves Precinct please consider supporting the following individuals:

BIEHL, KENNETH J. "JOE"                                    
BROWN, BETTY J.                                            
BROWN, CHARLES A.                                          
BROWN, EMILY E.                                            
BUDGE, KALET B.                                            
ELLINGSON, JAY T.                                          
ELLSWORTH, PACE M.                                         
HANCOCK, PARKER D.                                         
WRIGHT, RICHARD
KERNAGHAN, ANDREW                                          
KERNAGHAN, LISA                                            
KRUMMENACHER, GLENNA A.                                    
KRUMMENACHER, STEVE A.                                     
SCHROEDER, JOHN                                            
SCHROEDER, KELLIE                                          
SCOFIELD, BRIAN R.                                         
STAHLE, JAYNIE                                             
STAHLE, REX                                                
TAYLOR, EARL L., JR.                                       
TAYLOR, RUTH                                               
WALTON, FRANCES                                            
WALTON, GARY                                               
WHETTEN, E. PAUL*                                          
WHETTEN, SALLY**

All Other Races
The above recommendations are all of the contested races in this year's primary elections.  The remainder are uncontested - but you should still vote for them.  I wholeheartedly support all of the remaining candidates with the exception of Joe Arpaio.  (See my thoughts on County Supervisor, District 2 for an explanation of one of my reasons)

* Full disclosure - this is me.
**Full disclosure - this is my lovely wife.

I can see November from my house!

The Price of Freedom

Since September 11, 2001, I have lowered the flag in my front yard on numerous occasions to honor the sacrifice of a soldier, sailor, marine, or airman who had recently paid the utmost price for my freedom. In each instance I have said a prayer for the family of the departed hero as my flag lowered to honor their sacrifice. During the official period of mourning, the sight of my half-masted flag was a quiet and eloquent reminder of the fact that "Freedom Isn't Free".

On Friday night I went out to my flagpole and, once again, lowered my flag to half mast. But the prayer I offered that night was for my own family this time. Earlier that day my cousin, SFC Glen Jacob Whetten, joined the ranks of those who have given the last full measure of devotion for their country.

The flag in my front yard flies at half mast, and I see Jake now every time I pass it. When the official word gets out and flags across the state lower to half mast, I will see Jake. And I will cry. I am more intimately acquainted with the price of my freedom now. The Hall of Heroes is no longer a nameless, faceless group of men and women from ages past. It now has the name and face of someone I know and love, someone I looked up to and prayed for.

SFC Glen Jacob Whetten, United States Army
March 19, 1978 - March 12, 2010
Operation Enduring Freedom

Mr. Reagan on Big Tents

Exerpts from a Speech at

Conservative Political Action Conference

Washington, DC

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

March 1, 1975

Americans are hungry to feel once again a sense of mission and greatness.

I don ‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur - even more - the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

When have we ever advocated a closed-door policy? Who has ever been barred from participating in this Republican Party?

Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people?

Let us show that we stand for fiscal integrity and sound money and above all for an end to deficit spending, with ultimate retirement of the national debt.

Let us also include a permanent limit on the percentage of the people’s earnings government can take without their consent.

Let our banner proclaim a genuine tax reform that will begin by simplifying the income tax so that workers can compute their obligation without having to employ legal help.

Let our banner proclaim our belief in a free market as the greatest provider for the people.

Let us also call for an end to the nit-picking, the harassment and over-regulation of business and industry which restricts expansion and our ability to compete in world markets.

Let us explore ways to ward off socialism, not by increasing government’s coercive power, but by increasing participation by the people in the ownership of our economic machine.

Our banner must recognize the responsibility of government to protect the law-abiding, holding all those who commit misdeeds personally accountable. Laws already on the books should be enforced!

And we must make it plain to international adventurers that our love of peace stops short of “peace at any price.”

We will maintain whatever level of strength is necessary to preserve our free way of life.

A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.

I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principles. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert our principles and raise them to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their own way.

100 REASONS TO OPPOSE "OBAMACARE"

The AZ GOP distributed the following points during their executive board meeting on Saturday, August 22, 2009:

Limited choices
1. The Health Choices Czar will choose your healthcare plan for you.
2. A Government committee will decide what treatment procedures you receive.
3. Government will create a healthcare exchange to control private healthcare plans.
4. Government will dictate benefit packages for private healthcare plans under the healthcare exchange.
5. All individuals who are deemed Medicaid-eligible will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid.
6. It will prohibit the purchase of new private healthcare insurance from qualifying as acceptable coverage for purposes of the individual mandate after the effective date of the new regulations.
7. Will create one size fits all healthcare standards.
8. Government will decide which healthcare providers can participate in the public healthcare option.
9. Will require all employer-provided healthcare plans to be approved by the Department of Labor and a new Health Choices Administration (Czar).
10. Government will decide personal health decisions.
11. Government legislation will increase the cost and limit the healthcare choices for veterans.
12. The bill will lead to a "single-payer" system as private insurers are eliminated by a Government monopoly on regulations and controls.
13. Government plan will not create competition because federal government will impose a list of benefits that each plan will be required to offer.
14. Preventive care will be reimbursed, but patients will pay for all other routine doctor visits and tests with their own money from their HSA account.
15. Government will determine and provide approved list of end-of-life resources and procedures.
16. Government will control end-of-life treatment.
17. Government plan will eliminate diversity of plans and creativity in the healthcare insurance sector. Government Intrusion 18. Government will have real-time access to individuals' financial information.
19. Government may have direct access to your bank accounts for automatic funds transfer.
20. Individuals not having acceptable healthcare coverage, according to government regulations, will be taxed 2.5 percent.
21. School-Based Health Clinics will provide healthcare services for students without parental notification.
22. Will require cumbersome Government review of claims.
23. Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to financial and personal records.
24. Government bureaucrats will instruct and consult with individuals regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc.
25. Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as a patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for an end-of-life plan.
26. Government plan will unleash the IRS on anyone who fails to sign up for a government-approved healthcare plan.
27. The IRS is authorized to verify incomes of those under the public healthcare options.
28. Government plan will lead to interference in families and the growth of intrusive Child Protective Service agencies.
29. Government is more likely to pass additional restrictions or increase taxes on smoking, fast food, etc., leading to a further loss of personal freedoms.

Limited Healthcare
30. Government will ration healthcare. You will only get so much medical care per year.
31. Government will have the authority to deny coverage to dependent family members of veterans.
32. Government plan will require people to be assigned a primary care doctor, and the doctor will control your access to specialists.
33. Government plan will reduce services for Medicaid covered patients.
34. Government plan will reduce spending for Medicare and Medicaid, resulting in rationing.
35. Government plan will suppress the development of new medical procedures by doctors and hospitals as they will not be reimbursed for their research efforts.
36. Government plan will make the medical profession less attractive and rewarding to people, which will lead to fewer people entering the field.

Financial Implications
37. Most of the population will be forced onto the Government plan until they will have no choice but to raise taxes on all Americans.
38. Will force young, healthy people, new to the work force with lower incomes than older workers, to pay more than their actual healthcare cost.
39. Government plan will subsidize older workers, who have private health insurance plans by limiting premiums.
40. Government plan will ban insurers from charging premiums based on the health of the individuals, thus most will pay more.
41. By mandating plans, Government will prevent individuals and employers from choosing less expensive plans that cover only major medical expenses.
42. No ability for cross-state shopping for a cheaper, better insurance plan.
43. The CBO says the current Democrat House plan would increase the deficit by $239 billion over 10 years.
44. Reductions to reimbursements similar to those made in Medicare by Government, could prompt health providers to charge private insurers more.
45. A sudden change due to government intervention in how payments for healthcare are made could significantly disrupt cash flows and financial strength of businesses.
46. Government plan doesn’t address the future infrastructure and capital financing aspects of healthcare.
47. Government plan could severely impact the financial strength of the U.S. drug companies, which employs hundreds of thousands of workers.
48. For taxpayers who earn between $32,490 and $43,320 a year, they will lose health insurance deductions, effectively a tax increase.
49. Government plan eliminates a provision in the Medicare prescription drug law, which would eliminate coverage for drug costs over $2,700 a year.
50. Patients aren't likely to curb their drug costs and doctor visits if healthcare is free; thus, total costs will be several times what they are now.

Government Mandates
51. Government will mandate linguistic appropriate services. For example, translators for illegal aliens.
52. No new private insurance will be allowed after passage of this bill.
53. For many employees in large corporations all ready covered by the Employee Retirement Security Act of 1974, they will be required to choose only from approved plans after five years.
54. If an employer's health insurance co-pay, deductible, or coverage changes for any reason -- the employee must drop out and shop through the exchange.
55. Government will set mandated rates for public health insurance options.
Impact on Business
56. Government will audit the financial records of all small and large employers who self-insure.
57. Employers will be mandated to pay for healthcare for part-time employees and their families.
58. Employers with payroll of $400,000 and above, who do not provide a healthcare plan, will pay an 8 percent tax on all payroll to the government.
59. Employers with payroll between $251,000 and $400,000 who do not provide a healthcare plan will pay a 2 to 6 percent tax on all payroll to the government.
60. Will require employers to provide healthcare coverage for their employees or pay a tax penalty of $750 per year.
61. Half of all small businesses with 20-249 employees will have their income adversely affected by a surtax.
62. If the surtax on businesses doesn’t generate enough revenue to cover the costs of the government plan by 2013, the surtax automatically doubles.
63. Large employers will be required to automatically enroll workers in coverage, which will cost over $1 trillion.
64. Employers will be required to prove compliance under the proposed law to the Government.
65. Employers will drop their private health insurance coverage when offered a cheaper Government-run plan.
66. For small businesses, that can choose from a wide range of plans to offer their current employees will be forced to offer only "qualified" plans to new employees, via the health exchange.
67. Government plan will not allow businesses a deduction for employee health plan. Medical Profession
68. Government will set standards for doctor/patient time, professional judgment, methods, etc., thus determining the value of medical service.
69. Will impose new regulations on the individual and small group insurance providers.
70. Doctors will be financially rewarded for denying care, as HMO physicians were rewarded more than a decade ago.
71. No matter what medical specialty a doctor may have, all will be paid the same wage, thus suppressing individual effort, productivity and creativity.
72. Hospitals and clinics will be penalized for what the government deems to be preventable readmissions.
73. Possible penalties for Doctors who treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission.
74. Doctors would be prohibited from owning and investing in private healthcare companies.
75. Hospitals and clinics will be unable to expand without government approval.
76. Government plan could restrict drug companies' patents, which will lead to legal disputes, fewer new drugs and delay cheaper generic drugs.
77. Less income could force doctors to lay off fellow doctors, nurses and assistants.

Miscellaneous
78. Government may use partisan political groups such as ACORN to sign up individuals for government healthcare plan.
79. No company or individual can sue the government on price fixing. No "judicial review" against government monopoly.
80. Another federal bureaucracy, Health Choices Administration, will be created.
81. Will leave over 30 million uninsured based on Congressional Budget Office analysis.
82. Free healthcare for 12 to 13 million illegal immigrants.
83. Government will surcharge high income individuals.
84. Government legislation does not include tort reform. Trial lawyers will continue to cause unneeded defensive medical procedures by doctors.
85. The public option never has been and never will be cheaper (see Massachusetts', Canadian, British, and French plans).
86. No private company or individual will be able to sue the government for price-fixing.
87. Government will regulate rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
88. Government plan will make abortion more widely available and more common by requiring insurers to pay for the procedures and providing funding to pay for abortions.
89. Workers and businesses already pay for everybody on Medicare and Medicaid and the Government plan would just add more people to them.
90. Government plan will require insurance companies to sell coverage to anyone at any time, which will allow people to buy insurance only when they need medical care.
91. Existing healthcare in the U.S. already covers over 90% of citizens.
92. No matter how much regulation or enforcement effort, no government healthcare plan will be 100 percent effective.
93. Government plan will establish price controls, which will lead to a black market in healthcare services
94. Real reform in healthcare should be market driven and not government controlled.
95. The unintended consequences of such a hastily assembled Government healthcare plan will be daunting and costly.
96. Government will mandate linguistic appropriate services. For example, translators for illegal aliens.

What it DOESN’T Do
97. Government plan will not allow for the adoption of health information technology.
98. Government plan does not provide guidelines to stop unnecessary medical procedures.
99. Government plan provides no incentives for quality and positive patient outcomes.
100. Government plan does not provide incentives to existing Medicare and Medicaid programs to reward more efficient and effective doctors and hospitals.