Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Goldwater Institute
No. 240 I August 19, 2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The annual Goldwater Institute Legislative Report Card scores Arizona lawmakers on their support of principles of limited
constitutional government. Each piece of legislation is assessed in four categories for whether it expands or contracts liberty.
Education bills that give parents more choice, make public schools more accountable, expand the teaching pool through
relaxed certification requirements, and encourage local control are scored a +1.
For constitutional government, legislation scores positively if it repeals and restricts government programs outside of the
government’s constitutional duties, decentralizes authority, or allows people to govern themselves.
Legislation adding regulation on private business receives a –1. Legislation removing regulation receives a +1.
Bills in the tax and budget category are scored a +1 if they reduce tax burdens, make government expenditures more
transparent, or restrain government spending. Bills that increase government spending, create industry-specific incentives or
increase taxes receive a –1.
Each legislator’s voting record is tallied into final percentage scores with letter grades. We hope legislators will use the
individual report cards available online to identify specific strengths and weaknesses.
This report card assesses 411 bills. Scores remain around the 50 percent mark, indicating a near equal amount of votes
that undermined liberty as upheld it. Although this score resembles those of recent years, the trend for the Senate continues
to show upward movement.
The Institute’s 2010 report includes two new features. The first is an assessment of each bill’s impact on the status quo
with “high impact,” “moderate impact,” and “incremental impact” categories.
The second feature compares traditionally-funded and Clean Elections candidates. This assessment reveals the source of
campaign funding has no significant impact on liberty-sensitive voting behavior.
The 2010 Legislative Report Card is not an absolute measure of a legislator’s merit and does not constitute any endorsement.
The report is meant to be a tool for general research and for legislators to learn where they succeed or fail in advancing liberty,
hopefully to improve their standing in future years.
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Introduction
“Now, we Americans understand freedom. We have earned it, we have lived for it, and
we have died for it. This nation and its people are freedom’s model in a searching world.
We can be freedoms’ missionaries in a doubting world. But, ladies and gentlemen, first
we must renew freedom’s mission in our own hearts and in our own homes.” 1
–Barry Goldwater
By contrast, the select citizens who receive the laws’ concentrated benefits have
an incomparably strong interest to become informed about them, pursue their
passage, and maintain their existence.9 As a result, even well-intentioned legislators
are left with the impression that special interests speak for the majority of their
constituents.
2
August 19, 2010
This dynamic has created a growing government far different than the republic
the state constitution envisions. Nevertheless, government growth can be checked
and reversed.
The key to overcoming the undue influence of special interests and poorly
informed “good intentions” is the ability to quickly assess legislators’ commitment
to a consistent, pro-liberty political philosophy. Apart from its intrinsic research
value, this report filters the mass of the legislative session into easily understandable
grades, the primary criterion of which is whether a bill expands or restricts
individual liberty.
By assigning total scores, the report gives a summary view of each legislator’s
commitment to liberty. To reveal specific strengths and weaknesses, the report card
classifies bills into four policy areas, and by each bill’s impact on the status quo. By
analyzing 411 votes (192 in the Senate and 219 in the House of Representatives),
which is a relatively high number (see Figures 1 and 2 below), this report card
attempts to reduce the potential selection biases of other ratings that are based on
3
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Methodology
Bill Selection
This report card strives to objectively gauge whether the totality of each
legislator’s votes expands or limits liberty in Arizona. Thus, we reviewed the
greatest possible number of bills the House or Senate voted on in a Third Read
or Final Read. Rather than selecting bills that are especially meritorious or
egregious, this report card assesses all bills, including memorials and resolutions,
that have a discernable impact on liberty in one of the Goldwater Institute’s core
areas of research: education, constitutional government, regulation, and tax and
budget issues.11 Bills pertaining to more than one category are assigned based on
the dominant policy area they stand to affect. Bills that do not pertain to one
of the categories are excluded. Omnibus bills are generally excluded because of
their broad reach and the difficulty in determining whether they would have a
net positive or negative effect on liberty. The majority of bills that reach a floor
vote are of a technical nature and do not clearly advance or restrict liberty, and are
therefore excluded from scoring.
Scoring
For each of the 411 votes in the report card, a determination is made
whether a vote for (yes) or against (no) advances liberty through its fundamental
components: limited government, the free enterprise system, and the rule of law.12
4
August 19, 2010
Bill information is primarily derived from an assessment of the text of the bill
and the fact sheets assembled by legislative staff. Points are awarded according to
a straightforward +1, 0, or –1 system. For example, a legislator who votes “yes”
on a bill that creates unnecessary regulation receives a –1, while voting against
the bill earns the legislator a +1. Those who do not vote on the bill are assigned
a 0. The points are then summed to determine the legislator’s raw score. Final
scores are calculated on a percentage basis (from zero to 100 percent) by adding
the raw score to the total number of votes and then dividing by two times the
number of votes.13 This puts all scores into a positive range, enabling side-by-side
score comparisons.14 We provide additional detail as to the criteria that guided our
assessment of each bill in the following sections.
Weighting
This report card treats all legislators equally, rather than weighting them
according to leadership, committee membership, rank, or bill sponsorship: each
vote is worth one point. This reflects the arrangement of the legislature itself, where
roll call votes assign equal influence to each legislator - no member’s vote is worth
more than any other’s. Additionally, all votes are given equal weight in the final
score calculation. The equal weighting of bills disregards differences in importance
and magnitude among the bills, but it ensures that the final score calculation
measures the consistency of each legislator in voting for liberty-expanding bills
and against liberty-contracting bills of any dimension.
Final Grades
Final grades are determined by converting the raw percentage scores, between
zero and 100 percent, to letter grades based on the following scale:
Lower Upper
Limit Limit Grade
92 100 A+
79 91 A
70 78 A–
67 69 B+
63 66 B
60 62 B–
57 59 C+
53 56 C
50 52 C–
47 49 D+
43 46 D
40 42 D–
37 39 F+
30 36 F
0 29 F–
5
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Letter grades are a tool for comparison of various legislators (e.g., Legislator X
voted more consistently according to the principles of liberty than did Legislator
Y) and are not absolute measures of quality. During the session covered in this
report, the highest overall score of any legislator is 83 percent. Although that
score corresponds to a grade of A on our scale, the percentage score shows there is
significant room for improvement.
As the grade scale indicates, the grade distribution is curved - the percentages
are not equated with letter grades according to the normal grading convention
(i.e., 90 to 100 percent equals an A, 80 to 90 percent equals a B). Such a curve
assigns a fuller range of grades and facilitates comparison.
Limitations
The legislative process is both complicated and nuanced. With that in mind,
the methodology employed in this report, and the resulting grades, use legislators’
Third Read votes as proxies to measure legislative commitment to individual
liberty, the rule of law, and free enterprise.15 Legislators, however, have much more
responsibility in advancing or hindering those principles. Ideally, a measure of
legislative performance would account for the balance of each legislator’s work.
Before a bill is even introduced, legislators must determine which issues they
will concern themselves with. They must arrange for cosponsors and negotiate
support, as well as perform and commission research on the issue, among other
efforts. Once the bill is ready, a legislator often strategically aligns votes in
order to advance it. This may involve considering which other bills are likely
to be introduced, maneuvering the content and language of the bill to assuage
opposition, writing opinion pieces, giving speeches to civic groups, etc.
So, while the methodology employed may be accused of being obtuse by not
accounting for subjective qualities such as leadership ability, it credibly deflects
6
August 19, 2010
7
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
might regard only the licensure bill to be a “major” anti-liberty bill, but such a bill
would likely have never arisen without the first two bills being enacted. Therefore,
legislators who are willing to horse-trade an anti-liberty vote in support of the first
two bills may, in fact, be the progenitors of the ultimate passage of an anti-liberty
bill that even they would regard as “major.”
As illustrated by this example, from a long-term perspective, few bills are truly
“minor,” because liberty is a seamless web.18 Encroachment on seemingly minor
freedoms opens the door to further encroachments, ultimately causing a substantial
loss of liberty. Accordingly, our report operates on the premise that, in the long
run, a consistent philosophical commitment to liberty is a more useful measure
of effectiveness than any measure that entrusts legislators with horse-trading their
principles effectively. Consequently, despite its limitations, the report’s scoring
and grading will continue to assign equal weight to all votes, regardless of the
magnitude or importance of the bill in question.
Format
The report card separates legislative votes into four categories: education,
constitutional government, regulation, and tax and budget. Each section contains
a brief description of the principles that should guide government involvement in
that area and provides the guidelines for scoring bills. A summary of scores in that
category for both chambers is provided. “Total Score” discusses overall trends and
results. “New Lesson for Voters and Legislators” furnishes an educational analysis
of how legislators vote on high, moderate, and incremental impact bills. The final
section, “Campaign Funding: No Impact,” details findings that show the source of
campaign financing has had no apparent aggregate effect on voting behavior since
the report card was first published.
Education
8
August 19, 2010
schools more accountable and competitive, expand the pool of potential teachers
through relaxed certification requirements, and encourage local control of schools
are scored a +1. Bills that thwart competitiveness and accountability score a –1.
Education
Education
District
Grade
Score
Party
Senators
Ron Gould 3 Republican Traditional 100 A+
Russell Pearce 18 Republican Public 100 A+
Thayer Verschoor 22 Republican Traditional 100 A+
Sylvia Allen 5 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Jack Harper 4 Republican Public 96 A+
David Braswell 6 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Steve Pierce 1 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Linda Gray 10 Republican Public 96 A+
Al Melvin 26 Republican Public 96 A+
Ed Bunch 7 Republican Appointed 96 A+
John Huppenthal 20 Republican Public 94 A+
9
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Finance Status
Education
Education
District
Grade
Score
Party
Representatives
Debbie Lesko 9 Republican Public 100 A+
Kirk Adams 19 Republican Traditional 100 A+
Amanda Reeve 6 Republican Appointed 100 A+
John Kavanagh 8 Republican Public 96 A+
Steve Court 18 Republican Public 96 A+
Cecil Ash 18 Republican Public 96 A+
John McComish 20 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Andrew Tobin 1 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Ted Vogt 30 Republican Appointed 96 A+
Adam Driggs 11 Republican Public 96 A+
Steven Yarbrough 21 Republican Public 96 A+
Bill Konopnicki 5 Republican Traditional 96 A+
Warde Nichols 21 Republican Public 94 A+
Ray Barnes 7 Republican Traditional 94 A+
David Stevens 25 Republican Public 94 A+
Nancy Barto 7 Republican Traditional 93 A+
10
August 19, 2010
11
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Constitutional Government
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for; but one which should not
only be founded on free principles, but in which the powers of government should be so
divided and balanced . . . that no one could transcend their legal limits, without being
effectually checked and restrained by the others.”23
–Thomas Jefferson
12
August 19, 2010
Con. Gov.
Con. Gov.
District
Grade
Score
Party
Senators
Ron Gould 3 Republican Traditional 85 A
Russell Pearce 18 Republican Public 84 A
Sylvia Allen 5 Republican Traditional 84 A
Jack Harper 4 Republican Public 84 A
Chuck Gray 19 Republican Traditional 80 A
Thayer Verschoor 22 Republican Traditional 79 A
David Braswell 6 Republican Traditional 79 A
13
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Government Score
Finance Status
Constitutional
Con. Gov.
District
Grade
Party
Representatives
Carl Seel 6 Republican Public 87 A
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 82 A
Steve Montenegro 12 Republican Public 80 A
Andy Biggs 22 Republican Traditional 80 A
Judy Burges 4 Republican Public 78 A-
Laurin Hendrix 22 Republican Public 77 A-
Debbie Lesko 9 Republican Public 75 A-
John Kavanagh 8 Republican Public 73 A-
Jim Weiers 10 Republican Traditional 73 A-
Jerry Weiers 12 Republican Traditional 73 A-
Nancy Barto 7 Republican Traditional 72 A-
Doug Quelland 10 Republican Public 70 A-
Rick Murphy 9 Republican Traditional 70 A-
Steve Court 18 Republican Public 69 B+
14
August 19, 2010
15
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Regulation
“The end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”28
–John Locke
16
August 19, 2010
Regulation
Regulation
District
Grade
Score
Party
Senators
Ron Gould 3 Republican Traditional 76 A-
Jack Harper 4 Republican Public 71 A-
Russell Pearce 18 Republican Public 67 B+
Sylvia Allen 5 Republican Traditional 64 B
David Braswell 6 Republican Traditional 64 B
Steve Pierce 1 Republican Traditional 58 C+
Chuck Gray 19 Republican Traditional 57 C+
Thayer Verschoor 22 Republican Traditional 49 D+
John Huppenthal 20 Republican Public 48 D+
Robert “Bob” Burns 9 Republican Traditional 43 D
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 42 D-
Jorge Luis Garcia 27 Democrat Public 42 D-
Al Melvin 26 Republican Public 40 D-
Ed Bunch 7 Republican Appointed 40 D-
John Nelson 12 Republican Traditional 40 D-
Jay Tibshraeny 21 Republican Traditional 40 D-
Amanda Aguirre 24 Democrat Public 40 D-
Linda Gray 10 Republican Public 39 F+
17
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Finance Status
Regulation
Regulation
District
Grade
Score
Party
Representatives
Andy Biggs 22 Republican Traditional 70 A-
Judy Burges 4 Republican Public 64 B
Carl Seel 6 Republican Public 60 B-
Rick Murphy 9 Republican Traditional 60 B-
Ted Vogt 30 Republican Appointed 59 C+
Steve Montenegro 12 Republican Public 57 C+
John Kavanagh 8 Republican Public 54 C
Lucy Mason 1 Republican Traditional 52 C-
Vic Williams 26 Republican Traditional 51 C-
Laurin Hendrix 22 Republican Public 50 C-
Debbie Lesko 9 Republican Public 49 D+
David Gowan 30 Republican Public 48 D+
Amanda Reeve 6 Republican Appointed 46 D
David Stevens 25 Republican Public 46 D
Steven Yarbrough 21 Republican Public 45 D
Nancy Barto 7 Republican Traditional 45 D
Jim Weiers 10 Republican Traditional 45 D
Tom Boone 4 Republican Public 45 D
Cecil Ash 18 Republican Public 44 D
Steve Court 18 Republican Public 43 D
18
August 19, 2010
19
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Because the benefits of government programs are generally concentrated and the
costs of government are diffused, the resulting dynamic of special-interest politics
makes it difficult for politicians to resist new spending initiatives and remove existing
spending.39 An institutional mechanism that automatically limits the growth of
government is one way to resist that dynamic and to promote fiscal restraint.40
20
August 19, 2010
Finance Status
Grade
Score
Party
Senators
Ron Gould 3 Republican Traditional 79 A
Russell Pearce 18 Republican Public 76 A-
Chuck Gray 19 Republican Traditional 70 A-
David Braswell 6 Republican Traditional 68 B+
Jack Harper 4 Republican Public 68 B+
Thayer Verschoor 22 Republican Traditional 68 B+
Sylvia Allen 5 Republican Traditional 66 B
John Huppenthal 20 Republican Public 63 B
Robert Burns 9 Republican Traditional 62 B-
Barbara Leff 11 Republican Traditional 58 C+
Linda Gray 10 Republican Public 55 C
Steve Pierce 1 Republican Traditional 55 C
Ken Cheuvront 15 Democrat Traditional 53 C
Al Melvin 26 Republican Public 53 C
Debbie McCune Davis 14 Democrat Traditional 51 C-
Ed Bunch 7 Republican Appointed 50 C-
Leah Landrum Taylor 16 Democrat Public 50 C-
John Nelson 12 Republican Traditional 50 C-
Jay Tibshraeny 21 Republican Traditional 50 C-
Albert Hale 2 Democrat Traditional 49 D+
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 48 D+
Amanda Aguirre 24 Democrat Public 47 D+
Richard Miranda 13 Democrat Traditional 47 D+
Carolyn Allen 8 Republican Traditional 46 D
Linda Lopez 29 Democrat Traditional 45 D
Rebecca Rios 23 Democrat Public 45 D
Jorge Luis Garcia 27 Democrat Public 43 D
Manuel Alvarez 25 Democrat Public 42 D-
Paula Aboud 28 Democrat Traditional 39 F+
Meg Burton Cahill 17 Democrat Public 37 F+
MEAN 54 C
MEDIAN 51 C-
21
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Finance Status
Grade
Score
Party
Representatives
Carl Seel 6 Republican Public 63 B
John Kavanagh 8 Republican Public 63 B
Debbie Lesko 9 Republican Public 63 B
Ted Vogt 30 Republican Appointed 60 B-
Laurin Hendrix 22 Republican Public 60 B-
Andy Biggs 22 Republican Traditional 59 C+
Judy Burges 4 Republican Public 59 C+
Steve Montenegro 12 Republican Public 59 C+
David Gowan 30 Republican Public 58 C+
Nancy Barto 7 Republican Traditional 57 C+
Rick Murphy 9 Republican Traditional 56 C
Jim Weiers 10 Republican Traditional 55 C
Doug Quelland 10 Republican Public 55 C
Cecil Ash 18 Republican Public 54 C
David Stevens 25 Republican Public 52 C-
Kirk Adams 19 Republican Traditional 51 C-
Adam Driggs 11 Republican Public 51 C-
Vic Williams 26 Republican Traditional 50 C-
Amanda Reeve 6 Republican Appointed 50 C-
Warde Nichols 21 Republican Public 50 C-
Steven Yarbrough 21 Republican Public 49 D+
Jerry Weiers 12 Republican Traditional 49 D+
Rich Crandall 19 Republican Public 49 D+
Nancy McLain 3 Republican Traditional 49 D+
Robert Meza 14 Democrat Traditional 48 D+
Steve Court 18 Republican Public 47 D+
John McComish 20 Republican Traditional 47 D+
Ray Barnes 7 Republican Traditional 47 D+
Michele Reagan 8 Republican Traditional 47 D+
Doris Goodale 3 Republican Public 47 D+
Matt Heinz 29 Democrat Public 47 D+
Tom Boone 4 Republican Public 46 D
Frank Pratt 23 Republican Public 46 D
Christopher Deschene 2 Democrat Public 46 D
Ben Miranda 16 Democrat Public 46 D
Lucy Mason 1 Republican Traditional 45 D
22
August 19, 2010
Total Scores
The average House of Representatives score is 49 percent, and the Senate score
is 56 percent. Although a trend may be developing in which the Senate’s average
score is starting to pull away from that of the House, Figure 4 shows that it may be
too soon to read any overall pattern in the direction of scoring. The longer-term
trend in average House and Senate scores has improved slightly; yet still hovers
around 50 percent.
23
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Letter Grade
Total Score
2009 Score
Change
District
Party
Senators
Ron Gould 3 Republican Traditional 83 A 80 3 100 A+ 85 A 76 A- 79 A
Russell Pearce 18 Republican Public 79 A 76 3 100 A+ 84 A 67 B+ 76 A-
Jack Harper 4 Republican Public 78 A- 71 7 96 A+ 84 A 71 A- 68 B+
Sylvia Allen 5 Republican Traditional 75 A- 71 4 96 A+ 84 A 64 B 66 B
David Braswell 6 Republican Traditional 74 A- N/A N/A 96 A+ 79 A 64 B 68 B+
Chuck Gray 19 Republican Traditional 71 A- 72 -1 92 A+ 80 A 57 C+ 70 A-
Thayer Verschoor 22 Republican Traditional 69 B+ 65 4 100 A+ 79 A 49 D+ 68 B+
Steve Pierce 1 Republican Traditional 68 B+ 61 7 96 A+ 75 A- 58 C+ 55 C
John Huppenthal 20 Republican Public 64 B 62 2 94 A+ 70 A- 48 D+ 63 B
Robert Burns 9 Republican Traditional 63 B 66 -3 92 A+ 74 A- 43 D 62 B-
24
August 19, 2010
Letter Grade
Total Score
2009 Score
Difference
District
Party
Representatives
Andy Biggs 22 Republican Traditional 71 A- 76 -5 78 A- 80 A 70 A- 59 C+
Carl Seel 6 Republican Public 71 A- 70 1 85 A 87 A 60 B- 63 B
Judy M. Burges 4 Republican Public 69 B+ 73 -4 81 A 78 A- 64 B 59 C+
Ted Vogt 30 Republican Appointed 68 B+ N/A N/A 96 A+ 67 B+ 59 C+ 60 B-
John Kavanagh 8 Republican Public 67 B+ 66 1 96 A+ 73 A- 54 C 63 B
Steve B.
Montenegro 12 Republican Public 67 B+ 68 -1 85 A 80 A 57 C+ 59 C+
Debbie Lesko 9 Republican Public 66 B 64 2 100 A+ 75 A- 49 D+ 63 B
Rick Murphy 9 Republican Traditional 65 B 68 -3 83 A 70 A- 60 B- 56 C
Laurin Hendrix 22 Republican Public 64 B 65 -1 85 A 77 A- 50 C- 60 B-
25
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
26
August 19, 2010
Letter Grade
Total Score
2009 Score
Difference
Party
Senators and
Representatives
DISTRICT 1
Sen. Pierce Republican Traditional 68 B+ 61 7 96 A+ 75 A- 58 C+ 55 C
Rep. Mason Republican Traditional 57 C+ 58 -1 83 A 61 B- 52 C- 45 D
Rep. Tobin Republican Traditional 54 C 57 -3 96 A+ 67 B+ 36 F 45 D
Mean 60 59 92 68 49 48
DISTRICT 2
Sen. Hale Democrat Traditional 39 F+ 33 7 50 C- 39 F+ 31 F 49 D+
Rep. Deschene Democrat Publicly 37 F+ 34 3 52 C- 35 F 30 F 46 D
Rep. Chabin Democrat Publicly 34 F 30 4 43 D 32 F 27 F- 45 D
Mean 37 32 48 35 29 47
DISTRICT 3
Sen. Gould Republican Traditional 83 A 80 3 100 A+ 85 A 76 A- 79 A
Rep. McLain Republican Traditional 55 C 61 -6 93 A+ 68 B+ 38 F+ 49 D+
Rep. Goodale Republican Publicly 54 C 58 -4 93 A+ 65 B 37 F+ 47 D+
Mean 64 67 95 73 50 58
DISTRICT 4
Sen. Harper Republican Publicly 78 A- 71 7 96 A+ 84 A 71 A- 68 B+
Rep. Burges Republican Publicly 69 B+ 73 -4 81 A 78 A- 64 B 59 C+
Rep. Boone Republican Publicly 54 C 61 -7 81 A 63 B 45 D 46 D
Mean 67 68 86 75 60 58
DISTRICT 5
Sen. Allen, S Republican Traditional 75 A- 71 4 96 A+ 84 A 64 B 66 B
Rep. Konopnicki Republican Traditional 54 C 49 5 96 A+ 59 C+ 42 D- 45 D
27
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
28
August 19, 2010
29
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
As discussed above, average scores in both houses have remained relatively flat
since the inception of the Legislative Report Card. It is entirely possible that the
checks and balances of our legislative system are responsible for preventing any
significant change from the status quo. But it is equally possible that our scoring
and grading methodology have not adequately educated legislators as to how to
improve their performance. To better identify the scoring strengths and weaknesses
of individual legislators and to educate them on where they can improve, for the
first time, this report and its online individual report cards assess the impact of
bills on the governmental status quo.
We have discovered bills that have a high impact on the status quo can be
intuitively distinguished from those that incrementally impact the status quo. For
example, among other systemic changes, HB 2260 (Final) authorizes the creation
of a general permit that will allow compliance with multiple regulatory regimes
30
August 19, 2010
Additionally, when viewed against such bills that have “high” or “incremental”
impact, bills with “moderate” impact on the status quo can also be intuitively
identified. SB 1411, for example, specifies that a dairy operation is a general
agricultural purpose and is not subject to various county planning and zoning
regulations. SB 1411 qualifies as a “moderate impact” bill because its reach is
much more substantial than HB 2022, which affects the hearing aid dispensing
occupation - a specific kind of industry and a narrow set of regulations - rather
than multiple industries and regulatory regimes, as in HB 2260. In other words,
SB 1411 intuitively falls between the margins of high and incremental impact
bills.
After noting that these intuitive distinctions can be drawn fairly reliably
and with a broad consensus among the Institute’s analysts, we adopted a more
rigorous methodology for sorting bills into “high,” “moderate,” and “incremental”
impact categories. Accordingly, a bill’s impact (high, moderate, incremental) has
been assessed for this report based on the extent of change from existing laws and
policies (insubstantial, substantial, systemic), the immediacy of change from the
status quo - effective within 90 days of passage (immediate), effective on a date
certain (soon), or no definite effective date (remote) - and our degree of certainty
of its impact on the status quo (possible, probable, certain). To be classified as
“high impact,” a bill must have probable systemic impact or certain systemic
impact on the status quo, which is not remote. Moderate impact bills are those
with remote or possible systemic impact, probable substantial impact that is not
remote, or certain substantial impact on the status quo. Incremental impact bills
have probable but remote substantial impact, possible substantial impact, or an
insubstantial impact on the status quo.
The liberty significance of high impact bills, which have probable or certain
systemic impact on the governmental status quo, is easier to assess than that of
moderate and incremental bills because the effects are more obvious. Therefore,
a legislator who receives a low score on this report card but consistently scores
well on high-impact bills probably understands limited government principles
but needs to better focus on the liberty significance of moderate and incremental
31
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
impact bills. By contrast, legislators who do not score highly on high-impact bills,
or who fail to score highly consistently, probably have a deeper knowledge gap
when it comes to assessing the liberty significance of bills. If such legislators wish
to improve their scores, they probably need to focus on more broadly educating
themselves in the principles of limited government and freedom-oriented public
policy.
32
August 19, 2010
33
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Democrat
Republican
Finally, our assessment of the magnitude of bills has enabled us to verify that
this report’s equally weighted letter grades are a strong measure of a legislator’s
relative effectiveness (or ineffectiveness) in advancing liberty with respect to bills
of any magnitude. As shown in Table 12, nearly all of the legislators who score in
the top 10 based on equal weighting of their votes for all bills remain among the
10 highest scorers on bills with high, moderate, or incremental impact. Similarly,
as shown in Table 13, nearly all of the 10 lowest-scoring legislators based on
equal weighting remain among the bottom 10 as measured by their votes on
bills with high, moderate, or incremental impact. No legislator jumps from the
bottom- to the top-10 rankings using the report’s equal-weighted scores based
on an assessment of votes on only high-, moderate- or incremental-impact bills,
or vice versa.
34
August 19, 2010
An asterisk identifies members who are among the top 10 scorers in the standard scoring section of this
report card.
35
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Chabin, Lujan,
Lopes, Garcia,
Schapira, Tovar*, Sinema*, Schapira*,
34 24 33 Patterson* 35
Bradley, Miranda* Garcia*
Burton Cahill,
Aboud
Lujan*, Garcia*,
Farley*, Lopes*,
Schapira*,
Patterson, Schapira*,
Bradley*,
35 Ableser, 26 34 Miranda*, 36 Tovar*, Farley*
Aboud*,
Sinema Waters*,
McCune Davis*,
Brown*, Lopez*
Lopez*
Miranda, Lopes*,
Cloves Sinema*,
36 27 Clove Campbell* 35 Garcia* 37
Campbell, Cloves
McCune Davis Campbell*
Miranda*,
Young Wright, Young Wright*, Ableser*,
Waters, Deschene*, Bradley*, Ableser*,
37 29 36 38
Brown, Meza*, Heinz*, Fleming, Meyer, Aboud*
Deschene Cheuvront*, Miranda*
Rios
Meza, Chad
Fleming*, Chad Miranda*,
Campbell,
38 31 Campbell*, 37 Sinema* 39 Meyer*,
Meyer,
Hale* Deschene*
Miranda
Lujan*,
Chabin*,
Patterson*,
Pancrazi, Pancrazi*, Deschene*, Brown*, Chad
39 32 38 40
Lopez, Hale Garcia Alvarez Campbell*,
Meza*,
Pancrazi*,
Burton Cahill*
Heinz, Cloves
Cheuvront, Campbell*,
42 34 Waters* 39 41 Waters*
Landrum Meza*,
Taylor Pancrazi*, Rios
An asterisk identifies members who are among the lowest 10 scorers in the standard scoring section of
this report card.
36
August 19, 2010
37
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Figure 8: Senate Mean Score Trend: Traditional vs. Publicly-Financed (by Party)
50
40
30
20
10
0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Total Mean 46 52 55 47 43 51 50 49
Total Tradional Mean 49 54 56 48 47 56 55 52
Total Public Mean 44 50 54 47 38 47 48 48
Figure 10: House Mean Score Trend: Traditional vs. Publicly Financed (by Party)
38
August 19, 2010
Conclusion
This year’s report offers an additional tool for legislators and voters to educate
themselves — the online individual legislative report card. The individual report
card tallies scores not only within the traditional categories, but also among bills
sorted into “high,” “moderate,” and “incremental” impact categories. This new
tool will help identify each legislator’s policy strengths and weaknesses, allowing
legislators to focus their efforts to understand more clearly which bills promote
or threaten liberty so they might improve their commitment to advancing liberty
before the next legislative session.
39
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
NOTES
The author wishes to acknowledge the contributions of Sean M. Riley and Adam M. Singh for
fully automating the data collection of legislator voting.
40
August 19, 2010
41
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Tuition, Testing and Curricula,” Goldwater Institute Policy Report, no. 199 (2005),
http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1299.
20. Lewis C. Solmon and Pete Goldschmidt, “Comparison of Traditional
Public Schools and Charter Schools on Retention, School Switching, and
Achievement Growth,” Goldwater Institute Policy Report, no. 192 (2004), http://
goldwater.design44.com/aboutus/articleview.aspx?id=431; Caroline M. Hoxby,
“Rising Tide,” Education Next 1, no. 4 (Winter 2001).
21. Table 1 excludes former Senators Gorman, Paton, and Waring because
each voted on fewer than 10% of the bills considered in this report and resigned
from office.
22. Table 2 excludes former Representative Crump because he voted on fewer
than 10% of the bills considered in this report and resigned his office.
23. Thomas Jefferson: Writings Notes on the State of Virginia
(Merrill D. Peterson ed., 1984) (1783).
24. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Isaac H. Tiffany, 1819, available at http://
memory.loc.gov/master/mss/mtj/mtj1/051/0400/0462.jpg (stating “[o]f liberty
I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action
according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our
will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add
‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always
so when it violates the right of an individual”).
25. David Kelley, A Life of One’s Own: Individual Rights and the Welfare State
(Washington, DC: Cato Institute, 1998).
26. Goldwater Institute, “Appeals Court Voids CityNorth Subsidy,” news
release, December 23, 2008, http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/2652.
27. The maxim that government must respect the rights of individuals to
live as they please, so long as they do not actually harm someone else, is one of
the cornerstones of Western civilization and political tradition, as well as a key
element in the American constitutional canon. Numerous thinkers have articulated
variations of that maxim over the past half-millennium. A very short list of such
thinkers includes Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, James Madison, John Stuart Mill,
Robert Nozick, Thomas Paine, and Herbert Spencer. That maxim has also been
defended on a strictly utilitarian basis, from economic and historical evidence,
by numerous thinkers over the past 250 years. A very short list includes Milton
Friedman, F. A. Hayek, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Ludwig von Mises.
28. John Locke, Second Treatise of Civil Government, sec. 57 (Peter
Laslett, ed., (1967) (1690).
29. Total federal regulatory costs alone were estimated to be $860 billion
in 2002 (Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., “Ten Thousand Commandments: An Annual
Snapshot of the Federal Regulatory State,” Cato Institute, June 8, 2003, http://
www.cato.org/tech/pubs/10kc_2003.pdf ). Indeed, many observers have argued
that regulations often cost individuals more than they benefit them. For example,
see Sam Kazman, “Comments of CEI [Competitive Enterprise Institute] and
42
August 19, 2010
43
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report
Kaufman, and Marvin Karson, “The New Economic Geography of the States,”
Economic Development Quarterly (May 2000); and Richard Vedder, “Taxes and
Economic Growth,” Taxpayer’s Network, September 2001.
34. A good introduction to the concept of “deadweight loss” of taxation is
Martin Feldstein, “Tax Avoidance and the Deadweight Loss of the Income Tax,”
Review of Economics and Statistics (November 1999), 674–680. See also Richard
K. Vedder and Lowell E. Gallaway, “Tax Reduction and Economic Welfare,” Joint
Economic Committee, April 1999, http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tax/reduce.
pdf#search=%22deadweight%20loss%20taxation%22.
35. Dean Stansel and Stephen Moore, “The State Spending Sprees of the
1990s,” Cato Policy Analysis, no. 343 (1999), http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-
343es.html.
36. Mancur Olsen, Jr., The Logic of Collective Action (Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press, 1971); James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, Toward a
Theory of the Rent-Seeking Society (College Station: Texas A&M Press, 1980); James
Buchanan and Gordon Tullock, The Calculus of Consent (Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press, 1962); and Gordon Tullock, The Vote Motive (London: Institute
of Economic Affairs, 1976).
37. Adrian Moore, “Privatization: Competition Yields Quality,” Reason Public
Policy Institute Commentary, May 1, 2002; Adrian Moore, “Making Privatization
Work for State Government,” American Legislative Exchange Council Issue
Analysis, August 2002.
38. “Corporate Welfare,” Cato Handbook for Congress. This also occurs in a
form known as “rent seeking,” which was fully explored in Gordon Tullock, Rent
Seeking (Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1993).
39. This is a common public choice explanation of how political interests
operate. Assume that Arizona’s legislature is considering a proposal for a new $40
million program. Also assume that 4,000 Arizonans will benefit from that program
and that they will share those benefits equally. That means each will receive
$10,000 from the program. Meanwhile, assume that the cost of the program in
taxes is spread out equally over 4 million Arizona taxpayers. Each taxpayer will
have to pay $10 for the program. The results of this arrangement are clear: the
beneficiaries, who each stand to gain $9,990 ($10,000 minus $10), have a strong
incentive to lobby for the program. But the average taxpayer, who stands to lose
only $10, has very little incentive to resist the program, even with the rational
understanding that $10 here and $10 there eventually add up to large tax bills. For
further discussion, see Olsen (1971), Buchanan and Tullock (1980), Buchanan
and Tullock (1962), and Tullock (1976).
40. The most promising kind of spending limitation would be based on
Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights, which limits growth in state expenditures to the
rate of population growth plus inflation, with surpluses above the limit refunded
to taxpayers. See Michael New, “Tax and Expenditure Limitations: What Arizona
Can Learn from Other States,” Goldwater Institute Policy Report, no. 180 ( 2003),
44
August 19, 2010
45
The Goldwater Institute
The Goldwater Institute develops innovative, principled solutions to pressing issues facing the states and enforces constitutionally
limited government through litigation. The Institute focuses its work on expanding economic freedom and educational
opportunity, bringing transparency to government, and protecting the rights guaranteed to Americans by the U.S. and state
constitutions. The Goldwater Institute was founded in 1988 with Barry Goldwater’s blessing as an independent, non-
partisan organization. The Goldwater Institute does not retain lobbyists, engage in partisan political activity, or support
or oppose specific legislation, but adheres to its educational mission to help policymakers and citizens better understand the
consequences of government policies. Consistent with a belief in limited government, the Goldwater Institute is supported
entirely by the generosity of its members.
Guaranteed Research
The Goldwater Institute is committed to accurate research. The Institute guarantees that all original factual data are true
and correct to the best of our knowledge and that information attributed to other sources is accurately represented. If the
accuracy of any material fact or reference to an independent source is questioned and brought to the Institute’s attention
with supporting evidence, the Institute will respond in writing. If an error exists, it will be noted on the Goldwater Institute
website and in all subsequent distribution of the publication.
500 East Coronado Rd., Phoenix, AZ 85004 I Phone (602) 462-5000 I Fax (602) 256-7045 I www.goldwaterinstitute.org