Sie sind auf Seite 1von 46

POLICYreport

Goldwater Institute
No. 240 I August 19, 2010

2010 Legislative Report Card for Arizona’s Forty-Ninth Legislature,


Second Regular Session
By Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for constitutional government
and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A. Moller Center for Constitutional Government

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

2010 Legislative Report Card for Arizona’s Forty-Ninth


Legislature, Second Regular Session
By Nick Dranias, the Goldwater Institute Clarence J. and Katherine P. Duncan chair for
constitutional government and is the director of the Institute’s Dorothy D. and Joseph A.
Moller Center for Constitutional Government

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

The purpose of state government as set forth in the Arizona Constitution is


to “protect and maintain individual rights.”2 As such, the Arizona Constitution
eloquently recognizes the most fundamental principles of individual rights. It
protects life, liberty, and property with the promise of due process and equal
protection under the law, also identifying crucial civil rights meant to prevent
the worst abuses of government power.3 It declares that freedom of speech shall
not be infringed - without an exception for campaign or commercial speech.4 It
declares that contracts shall not be impaired — without an exception for social
engineering.5 And to ensure that the listing of specific rights is not read to suggest
that government power is otherwise unlimited, it contains a general reservation of
rights reemphasizing that the power of government is constrained by inherent and
inalienable rights, which have been retained by the People.6

Too often, however, lawmakers’ good intentions and political considerations


for special interests create a government that violates rights and involves itself in
the minutia of citizens’ lives. This problem arises from the government’s power to
pass laws bestowing concentrated benefits on a few, with costs dispersed over the
many.7 The wide dispersion of costs ensures that the public, in general, does not
become outraged or even concerned about the passage of such laws. Indeed, the
costs are often so minimal when individually distributed across the voting public,
it can be downright irrational for citizens to invest time in trying to understand
these laws, much less oppose or vote against them.8

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.

If the electorate can identify those legislators whose commitment to liberty


is relatively ironclad, then they will have a rational way of ensuring they vote
for legislators who generally advance liberty — without having to commit their
personal time and resources to assessing, supporting, or opposing every bill floated
in the legislature. Moreover, if well-meaning legislators see assessments of their
own commitment to advancing liberty as measured by past votes, they are better
able to seek counsel and to educate themselves about the liberty implications of
future bills.

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

Figure 1: Number of Bills Introduced, 1997-2010

3
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Figure 2: Number of Votes Included in Report, 2003-2010

smaller samples of legislative activity.10 The appendix (available online at www.


goldwaterinstitute.org) lists included bills, along with a brief explanation of how
each is scored.

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.

In the other direction, a grade of F– is assigned to the lowest group of scores,


but the designation does not stand alone in representing poor voting records.
Arguably, legislators who score below 50 percent (a grade of D+ or lower) have
voted to restrict freedom in more instances than they voted to expand it. But again,
it is more instructive to think of these scores and grades in a relative context.

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.

The importance of leadership, vision, and dedication is a critical part of


legislative service. It is highly subjective work, however, that cannot be objectively
measured. For this reason, we are unable to include effort or leadership skills in the
report. On a continuum of legislative action, the more one attempts to quantify
these elements, the more one risks sacrificing the impartiality and objectivity of
the assessment.

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

criticisms of “cherry-picking” or otherwise contriving end results.16 Certainly,


considering characteristics such as a legislator’s constituent service or committee
membership has merit, but doing so would require subjective judgments that
would sacrifice this report card’s objective scoring system. At the end of the day,
voting records provide the best data for objective analysis.

Additionally, a major drawback to weighting bills equally is that it risks


mischaracterizing the records of legislators who have inconsistent voting patterns.
The method may award high grades to legislators who are “penny-wise and pound-
foolish.” If a legislator votes “no” on nine small spending increases and “yes” on a
single massive spending increase, that legislator would have a raw score of +8 on
those 10 votes, equating to a final score of 90 percent. A second legislator with
the exact opposite voting record would end up with a score of –8 (10 percent),
even though he or she may have voted for less spending overall. In response to this
limitation, we believe the large number of votes we assess will minimize the risk
of “penny-wise and pound-foolish” legislators receiving the top scores. The highest
scoring legislators have to maintain such a high degree of consistency in voting
to maintain their rank that their scores and grades are unlikely to reflect votes for
massive anti-liberty bills.

A related limitation of our equal weighting methodology is that some legislators


may deliberately trade anti-liberty votes on bills of purportedly minor significance
to secure votes from other legislators on major pro-liberty bills. Because the pro-
liberty bills that reach Third or Final Reads might never have left committee
without such “horse-trading,” higher scoring legislators could be the beneficiaries
of the compromises made by others. In this way, one might criticize the report’s
methodology for penalizing political effectiveness in advancing liberty in favor of
“ivory tower” philosophical purity.

In response to this limitation, we first observe that the actual dynamics of


compromise by which votes are secured for bills simply cannot be described
without detailed interviews with legislators about the tens of thousands of
individual votes this report assesses. Such an undertaking is currently beyond
the resources of the Institute. More important, many seemingly “minor” bills
incrementally and collectively cause major changes in the status quo and political
culture - especially if a horse-trading culture develops, which routinely excuses
compromises of principle.

For example, legislation requiring workers in an ordinarily harmless trade, such


as interior design, to register with the state can lay the groundwork for legislation
requiring anyone using the title “Interior Designer” to become professionally
certified, which then, according to at least one academic study, can lead to
legislation requiring interior designers to be licensed by the state.17 Legislators

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

Arizona students score relatively poorly on most achievement measures. Yet,


Arizona spends an average $9,500 per student, nearly double the average private
school tuition in Arizona.19 That poor performance need not be a foregone
conclusion. Research shows that students in schools facing competition from
charter and private schools progress faster than their peers in noncompetitive
schools.20 An open, competitive education system lets parents choose the schools
and curricula that are best for their children, and requires schools to improve and
compete to attract students.

Accordingly, we assess education bills from the premise that liberty is


advanced through greater individual choice and use of the free enterprise system
in education. Bills that give parents more education choice, make existing public

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.

The average Senate education score is 79 percent and the House of


Representatives average is 77 percent. While these averages may seem high,
indicating broad support for education choice, it should be noted that the
legislature considered few education bills this session. Scores are based on just
26 votes in the Senate and 23 votes in the House. Rather than a measure of the
absolute legislative commitment to education choice, these scores indicate the
relative willingness of legislators to make public schools more accountable and
give parents and students more control over their education. Even so, it appears
that this legislative session was an especially good session for pro-liberty education
bills. In the Senate and House respectively, the median scores are 91 percent and
84 percent, which means half of all legislators score letter grades of A or above in
our education category. Moreover, a relatively high number of perfect scorers are
in both Houses. Specifically, Reps. Amanda Reeve, Debbie Lesko, and Kirk Adams
each hold the highest education scores in the House, with perfect scores of 100
percent. Sens. Ron Gould, Russell Pearce and Thayer Verschoor have the highest
education scores in the Senate, each also scoring 100 percent. With traditionally-
funded and Clean Elections candidates equally distributed throughout the rankings
shown in Tables 1 and 2, it does not appear that the source of campaign funding
for candidates had any impact on scores in the education category.

Table 1: Senate Scores: Education21


Finance Status

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

Chuck Gray 19 Republican Traditional 92 A+


Robert Burns 9 Republican Traditional 92 A+
John Nelson 12 Republican Traditional 92 A+
Barbara Leff 11 Republican Traditional 90 A
Jay Tibshraeny 21 Republican Traditional 90 A
Carolyn Allen 8 Republican Traditional 71 A-
Amanda Aguirre 24 Democrat Public 71 A-
Leah Landrum Taylor 16 Democrat Public 65 B
Ken Cheuvront 15 Democrat Traditional 65 B
Manuel Alvarez 25 Democrat Public 62 B-
Richard Miranda 13 Democrat Traditional 62 B-
Rebecca Rios 23 Democrat Public 60 B-
Jorge Garcia 27 Democrat Public 58 C+
Linda Lopez 29 Democrat Traditional 52 C-
Albert Hale 2 Democrat Traditional 50 C-
Paula Aboud 28 Democrat Traditional 50 C-
Debbie McCune Davis 14 Democrat Traditional 48 D+
Meg Burton Cahill 17 Democrat Public 46 D
MEAN 79 A
MEDIAN 91 A

Table 2: House of Representatives Scores: Education22

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

Nancy McLain 3 Republican Traditional 93 A+


Michele Reagan 8 Republican Traditional 93 A+
Rich Crandall 19 Republican Public 93 A+
Doris Goodale 3 Republican Public 93 A+
Frank Pratt 23 Republican Public 93 A+
David Gowan 30 Republican Public 91 A
Vic Williams 26 Republican Traditional 91 A
Russell Jones 24 Republican Public 91 A
Jim Weiers 10 Republican Traditional 89 A
Doug Quelland 10 Republican Public 87 A
Carl Seel 6 Republican Public 85 A
Steve Montenegro 12 Republican Public 85 A
Laurin Hendrix 22 Republican Public 85 A
Jerry Weiers 12 Republican Traditional 85 A
Rick Murphy 9 Republican Traditional 83 A
Lucy Mason 1 Republican Traditional 83 A
Judy Burges 4 Republican Public 81 A
Tom Boone 4 Republican Public 81 A
Andy Biggs 22 Republican Traditional 78 A-
Barbara McGuire 23 Democrat Public 67 B+
Eric Meyer 11 Democrat Public 65 B
Rae Waters 20 Democrat Public 65 B
Matt Heinz 29 Democrat Public 63 B
David Schapira 17 Democrat Public 63 B
Robert Meza 14 Democrat Traditional 61 B-
Jack Brown 5 Democrat Public 59 C+
David Lujan 15 Democrat Public 59 C+
Anna Tovar 13 Democrat Appointed 59 C+
Nancy Young Wright 26 Democrat Public 57 C+
Ben Miranda 16 Democrat Public 57 C+
Edward Ableser 17 Democrat Public 57 C+
David Bradley 28 Democrat Traditional 57 C+
Chad Campbell 14 Democrat Traditional 56 C
Patricia Fleming 25 Democrat Public 56 C
Steve Farley 28 Democrat Public 56 C
Kyrsten Sinema 15 Democrat Public 54 C
Cloves Campbell, Jr. 16 Democrat Traditional 54 C
Phil Lopes 27 Democrat Public 54 C
Christopher Deschene 2 Democrat Public 52 C-
Lynne Pancrazi 24 Democrat Public 52 C-
Daniel Patterson 29 Democrat Public 52 C-
Martha Garcia 13 Democrat Traditional 52 C-
Olivia Cajero Bedford 27 Democrat Public 48 D+
Tom Chabin 2 Democrat Public 43 D
MEAN 77 A-
MEDIAN 84 A

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

The proper purpose of government is to secure “rightful liberty”- the protection


of “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the
equal rights of others.”24 As such, “rightful liberty” and genuine individual rights
are “negative” in that they demand nothing more than respect for boundaries
within which people are left free to enjoy their lives, properties, and to pursue
their happiness. This is in contrast to the idea that government should secure
“positive” liberty or rights - i.e., “freedom from want” or “the right to health care,”
the fulfillment of which affirmatively requires seizing other people’s property,
services, and money against their will through the force of government mandates
and wealth redistribution.25

Additionally, a proper government is organized around foundational laws that


seek to minimize the corrupting influence and abuse of power, and also the undue
influence of special interests. Those laws must first recognize that broad popular
assent is the foundation of government power - not legal custom, social status,
heredity, or the “divine right of kings.” Second, government powers must be
defined, limited, and separated to diffuse, and balance and check the concentration
of coercive power in minorities or majorities.

In short, a proper constitutional government is a republic founded on popular


sovereignty, devoted to securing “rightful liberty” and geared to preventing tyranny.
The Arizona Constitution embodies these principles, declaring, “All political power
is inherent in the people, and governments derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed, and are established to protect and maintain individual rights.”
The Arizona Constitution also expressly declares that the powers of government
are to be divided into legislative, executive, and judicial departments, and provides
for numerous checks and balances among those departments. Finally, the Arizona
Constitution limits the legislature’s powers by prohibiting laws that single out
favored or disfavored groups for benefits or punishments, and by banning gifts of
taxpayer dollars or credit to individuals and private enterprises.

Despite these protections and guarantees, Arizona government often


steps beyond its constitutionally limited powers, to the detriment of individual
freedom. This is the case when city governments view themselves as drivers of
economic growth, using public tax money for subsidies to private businesses.26

12
August 19, 2010

In other cases, governments impose civil and criminal sanctions on individuals


whose actions have not violated the rights of other individuals.27 Legislation
that empowers executive agencies, commissions, and boards to legislate through
rulemaking threatens individual liberty by ignoring constitutionally mandated
divisions of power and checks and balances.

Accordingly, bills garner a –1 score if they are beyond the constitutional


power of government to enact, blur the divisions of power among governmental
departments, undermine constitutional checks and balances, or threaten to violate
inalienable individual rights — such as the freedom to engage in peaceful pursuits
so long as one respects the like freedom of others. Bills that protect popular
sovereignty by ensuring transparency and accountability in government, that secure
individual rights, such as property rights from abusive exercises of eminent domain,
or that enforce other constitutional guarantees and protections are scored a +1.

The Senate scores a 59 percent average in constitutional government, while


the House achieves 54 percent. These scores indicate that votes in both houses
slightly favored liberty. With a score of 87 percent, or an A, Rep. Carl Seel has the
highest constitutional government score of both houses, followed closely by Sens.
Ron Gould (85 percent), Russell Pearce (84 percent), Sylvia Allen (84 percent),
and Jack Harper (84 percent).

While traditionally-funded candidates hold the majority of the top-10 scores


in the Senate (Table 3), a near-even number of Clean Elections candidates rank in
the House top 10 (Table 4). Traditionally-funded and publicly-financed candidates
are closely distributed among the bottom-10 scores in both houses. These mixed
results suggest that campaign-funding sources have little to do with scores in the
constitutional government category.

Table 3: Senate Scores: Constitutional Government


Finance Status

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

Barbara Leff 11 Republican Traditional 76 A-


Steve Pierce 1 Republican Traditional 75 A-
Robert Burns 9 Republican Traditional 74 A-
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 73 A-
Linda Gray 10 Republican Public 70 A-
Al Melvin 26 Republican Public 70 A-
John Huppenthal 20 Republican Public 70 A-
Ed Bunch 7 Republican Appointed 69 B+
John Nelson 12 Republican Traditional 61 B-
Jay Tibshraeny 21 Republican Traditional 61 B-
Carolyn Allen 8 Republican Traditional 53 C
Amanda Aguirre 24 Democrat Public 48 D+
Manuel Alvarez 25 Democrat Public 44 D
Leah Landrum Taylor 16 Democrat Public 42 D-
Rebecca Rios 23 Democrat Public 42 D-
Ken Cheuvront 15 Democrat Traditional 39 F+
Albert Hale 2 Democrat Traditional 39 F+
Jorge Garcia 27 Democrat Public 38 F+
Linda Lopez 29 Democrat Traditional 36 F
Paula Aboud 28 Democrat Traditional 34 F
Meg Burton Cahill 17 Democrat Public 31 F
Debbie McCune Davis 14 Democrat Traditional 29 F-
Richard Miranda 13 Democrat Traditional 28 F-
MEAN 59 C+
MEDIAN 65 B

Table 4: House of Representatives Scores: Constitutional Government

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

Kirk Adams 19 Republican Traditional 68 B+


Nancy McLain 3 Republican Traditional 68 B+
Cecil Ash 18 Republican Public 67 B+
John McComish 20 Republican Traditional 67 B+
Andrew Tobin 1 Republican Traditional 67 B+
Ted Vogt 30 Republican Appointed 67 B+
Warde Nichols 21 Republican Public 67 B+
David Gowan 30 Republican Public 67 B+
Amanda Reeve 6 Republican Appointed 66 B
Michele Reagan 8 Republican Traditional 66 B
Adam Driggs 11 Republican Public 65 B
Steven Yarbrough 21 Republican Public 65 B
Ray Barnes 7 Republican Traditional 65 B
Rich Crandall 19 Republican Public 65 B
Doris Goodale 3 Republican Public 65 B
Vic Williams 26 Republican Traditional 65 B
Frank Pratt 23 Republican Public 64 B
David Stevens 25 Republican Public 63 B
Tom Boone 4 Republican Public 63 B
Russell Jones 24 Republican Public 61 B-
Lucy Mason 1 Republican Traditional 61 B-
Bill Konopnicki 5 Republican Traditional 59 C+
Barbara McGuire 23 Democrat Public 46 D
Matt Heinz 29 Democrat Public 42 D-
Chad Campbell 14 Democrat Traditional 41 D-
Eric Meyer 11 Democrat Public 38 F+
Rae Waters 20 Democrat Public 38 F+
Jack Brown 5 Democrat Public 37 F+
Christopher Deschene 2 Democrat Public 35 F
Lynne Pancrazi 24 Democrat Public 35 F
Kyrsten Sinema 15 Democrat Public 34 F
Daniel Patterson 29 Democrat Public 34 F
Robert Meza 14 Democrat Traditional 33 F
Nancy Young Wright 26 Democrat Public 33 F
Tom Chabin 2 Democrat Public 32 F
Cloves Campbell, Jr. 16 Democrat Traditional 31 F
David Schapira 17 Democrat Public 30 F
David Lujan 15 Democrat Public 30 F
Martha Garcia 13 Democrat Traditional 30 F
Ben Miranda 16 Democrat Public 29 F-
Phil Lopes 27 Democrat Public 29 F-
Edward Ableser 17 Democrat Public 28 F-
David Bradley 28 Democrat Traditional 28 F-
Patricia Fleming 25 Democrat Public 28 F-
Anna Tovar 13 Democrat Appointed 27 F-
Olivia Cajero Bedford 27 Democrat Public 27 F-
Steve Farley 28 Democrat Public 26 F-
MEAN 54 C
MEDIAN 64 B

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

Policymakers implement regulations ostensibly to reduce various risks


for consumers, employees, and citizens. Much regulation, however, is
counterproductive, resulting in higher compliance costs for businesses, fewer jobs,
and fewer choices for consumers. In general, regulation stunts economic growth
and exposes consumers to unforeseen risks.29

While the principles of limited government allow authorities to mitigate


genuine public-good problems and punish fraud,30 most regulation addresses
concerns the free market could solve more efficiently and effectively if individuals
and businesses were allowed to exchange freely.31 The impetus behind some
regulatory policy is a phenomenon economists call “regulatory capture,” where
certain industry interests use government power to prevent competition.32
Moreover, most industries can, and many do, self-regulate, including kosher food
certifiers and companies involved with product safety testing and certification
(e.g., Underwriters Laboratory).

Accordingly, for bills in the regulatory category, we take heed of Thomas


Jefferson’s definition of “rightful liberty,” as well as John Locke’s observation that
the end of law is not to prohibit or restrain. The primary criterion for assessing
bills in the regulatory category is whether the bill secures a greater or lesser degree
of such “equal freedom” in the context of economic liberty - the freedom of each
individual to pursue productive aims without causing injury to another.

Legislation that adds regulation, including increasing the burden of licensing


schemes on private business, receives a –1. Legislation that removes regulation and
fosters a free economy receives a +1. Figure 3 outlines the criteria the Goldwater
Institute’s Dr. Byron Schlomach and Nick Dranias use to assess regulation as well
as tax and budget bills.

The Senate scores an average of 44 percent and the House an average of


39 percent. These are dismal scores indicating that both houses voted for more
regulation and less liberty. Nevertheless, a few legislators stood above the rest.
The highest-scoring legislators in the regulation category in both chambers were
Sen. Ron Gould (76 percent) and Rep. Andy Biggs (70 percent). As with the
prior scoring categories, there is no discernable pattern of high or low scores for
traditionally-funded versus publicly-financed candidates in either house, further
confirming the absence of any apparent connection between funding sources and
voting behavior.

16
August 19, 2010

Figure 3: Assessing Regulation (and Tax and Budget) Bills

Table 5: Senate Scores: Regulation


Finance Status

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

Barbara Leff 11 Republican Traditional 39 F+


Rebecca Rios 23 Democrat Public 37 F+
Carolyn Allen 8 Republican Traditional 35 F
Manuel Alvarez 25 Democrat Public 34 F
Linda Lopez 29 Democrat Traditional 34 F
Richard Miranda 13 Democrat Traditional 32 F
Ken Cheuvront 15 Democrat Traditional 31 F
Albert Hale 2 Democrat Traditional 31 F
Debbie McCune Davis 14 Democrat Traditional 31 F
Meg Burton Cahill 17 Democrat Public 30 F
Leah Landrum Taylor 16 Democrat Public 28 F-
Paula Aboud 28 Democrat Traditional 25 F-
MEAN 44 D
MEDIAN 40 D-

Table 6: House of Representatives Scores: Regulation

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

Doug Quelland 10 Republican Public 43 D


Jerry Weiers 12 Republican Traditional 43 D
Bill Konopnicki 5 Republican Traditional 42 D-
Rich Crandall 19 Republican Public 42 D-
Kirk Adams 19 Republican Traditional 41 D-
John McComish 20 Republican Traditional 41 D-
Adam Driggs 11 Republican Public 40 D-
Frank Pratt 23 Republican Public 40 D-
Russell Jones 24 Republican Public 40 D-
Ray Barnes 7 Republican Traditional 39 F+
Nancy McLain 3 Republican Traditional 38 F+
Warde Nichols 21 Republican Public 37 F+
Michele Reagan 8 Republican Traditional 37 F+
Doris Goodale 3 Republican Public 37 F+
Andrew Tobin 1 Republican Traditional 36 F
Barbara McGuire 23 Democrat Public 36 F
Lynne Pancrazi 24 Democrat Public 35 F
Matt Heinz 29 Democrat Public 33 F
Cloves Campbell, Jr. 16 Democrat Traditional 32 F
Jack Brown 5 Democrat Public 30 F
David Lujan 15 Democrat Public 30 F
Christopher Deschene 2 Democrat Public 30 F
Nancy Young Wright 26 Democrat Public 29 F-
Edward Ableser 17 Democrat Public 29 F-
Robert Meza 14 Democrat Traditional 28 F-
Ben Miranda 16 Democrat Public 28 F-
Chad Campbell 14 Democrat Traditional 28 F-
Kyrsten Sinema 15 Democrat Public 28 F-
Phil Lopes 27 Democrat Public 28 F-
Daniel Patterson 29 Democrat Public 28 F-
Eric Meyer 11 Democrat Public 27 F-
Rae Waters 20 Democrat Public 27 F-
Steve Farley 28 Democrat Public 27 F-
Tom Chabin 2 Democrat Public 27 F-
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 26 F-
Patricia Fleming 25 Democrat Public 26 F-
David Schapira 17 Democrat Public 25 F-
Anna Tovar 13 Democrat Appointed 25 F-
David Bradley 28 Democrat Traditional 25 F-
Martha Garcia 13 Democrat Traditional 25 F-
Olivia Cajero Bedford 27 Democrat Public 23 F-
MEAN 39 F+
MEDIAN 38 F+

19
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Tax and Budget

To respect the liberty of citizens, government should restrain spending and


keep taxes as low as possible. Such a policy of low taxes on individuals and
businesses lays the foundation for a regionally and nationally competitive economy.
Numerous studies show that states with low taxes enjoy economic growth that
exceeds growth in states with high taxes.33 When legislators authorize the state
to provide another service or expand an existing service, they take resources from
the private economy, reducing the resources available for new businesses and
investment.34 This is also true in good economic times, when budget surpluses
create the illusion that government is not diverting resources from the private
economy.35 To restrain spending, legislators must provide only those services the
private sector truly cannot.36

Many current government functions are inconsistent with the principles of


limited government outlined in the Arizona Constitution and could be provided
more efficiently through privatization.37 Even an economy that has low taxes and
little regulation may not be a true free-market economy. Frequently, legislators who
claim to be “pro-business” are in fact guilty of creating a kind of crony capitalism,
where government gives special tax exemptions and payouts to favored businesses
and industries. Such arrangements generally advantage existing market players and
limit competition from smaller players and potential market entrants.38

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

Accordingly, bills that increase government spending, create new programs,


manipulate the market through industry-specific incentives, or otherwise increase
taxes receive a –1 score. Bills that reduce the tax burden, make government
expenditures more transparent, or restrain government spending earn a +1.

The Senate average is 54 percent and the House comes in at 47 percent. As


such, tax and budget joins regulation as a low-scoring category. Nevertheless, some
legislators have relatively high scores. The highest tax and budget scores in both
chambers goes to Sen. Ron Gould (79 percent), Rep. Carl Seel, Rep. John Kavanagh,
and Rep. Debbie Lesko (63 percent each). Traditionally-funded candidates
represented the majority of the top 10 and bottom 10 scorers in the Senate (Table
7); publicly-financed candidates represented the majority of the top 10 and bottom
10 scorers in the House (Table 8). This suggests no overall connection between the
source of funding and voting patterns within the tax and budget category.

20
August 19, 2010

Table 7: Senate Scores: Tax and Budget

Finance Status

Tax & Budget

Tax & Budget


District

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

Table 8: House of Representatives Scores: Tax and Budget

Finance Status

Tax & Budget

Tax & Budget


District

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

Bill Konopnicki 5 Republican Traditional 45 D


Russell Jones 24 Republican Public 45 D
Andrew Tobin 1 Republican Traditional 45 D
Tom Chabin 2 Democrat Public 45 D
Eric Meyer 11 Democrat Public 44 D
Lynne Pancrazi 24 Democrat Public 43 D
Nancy Young Wright 26 Democrat Public 43 D
David Bradley 28 Democrat Traditional 43 D
Edward Ableser 17 Democrat Public 42 D-
Chad Campbell 14 Democrat Traditional 42 D-
Martha Garcia 13 Democrat Traditional 42 D-
Patricia Fleming 25 Democrat Public 41 D-
Barbara McGuire 23 Democrat Public 40 D-
Cloves Campbell, Jr. 16 Democrat Traditional 40 D-
Daniel Patterson 29 Democrat Public 40 D-
Rae Waters 20 Democrat Public 40 D-
Anna Tovar 13 Democrat Appointed 40 D-
Jack Brown 5 Democrat Public 39 F+
Phil Lopes 27 Democrat Public 39 F+
Olivia Cajero Bedford 27 Democrat Public 39 F+
Kyrsten Sinema 15 Democrat Public 38 F+
Steve Farley 28 Democrat Public 38 F+
David Schapira 17 Democrat Public 36 F
David Lujan 15 Democrat Public 34 F
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 29 F-
MEAN 47 D+
MEDIAN 47 D+

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.

Despite the continuation of low average scores in both houses, differences


among individual legislators, between the parties, and among the districts continue
to stand out. Tables 9 and 10 show that eight legislators hold overall grades in
the A range. The highest overall scorer in either chamber is Sen. Ron Gould (R-
3), with 83 percent. Reps. Andy Biggs (R-22) and Carl Seel (R-6) tie for highest
overall score in the House, each with 71 percent, an A-. Senate Republicans score

23
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Figure 4: Average Legislative Scores, 2003–2010

66 percent on average, which is 26 points higher than Senate Democrats, who


score an average of 40 percent. House Republicans have an average score of 59
percent, which is 23 points higher than House Democrats’ score of 36 percent.
In both houses, traditional and publicly-financed candidates appear roughly equally
dispersed among the highest and lowest scoring rankings, reconfirming that the sources
of campaign funding have no apparent connection to voting behavior. Finally, Table
11 shows that districts 6 and 22 tie for the highest district average at 68 percent.41

Table 9: Senate Scores and Grades

Tax & Budget Grade


Tax & Budget Score
Regulation Grade
Regulation Score
Education Grade
Education Score

Con. Gov. Grade


Con. Gov. Score
Finance Status

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

Barbara Leff 11 Republican Traditional 61 B- 59 2 90 A 76 A- 39 F+ 58 C+


Linda Gray 10 Republican Public 60 B- 63 -3 96 A+ 70 A- 39 F+ 55 C
Al Melvin 26 Republican Public 60 B- 58 2 96 A+ 70 A- 40 D- 53 C
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 60 B- N/A N/A 96 A+ 73 A- 42 D- 48 D+
Ed Bunch 7 Republican Appointed 59 C+ N/A N/A 96 A+ 69 B+ 40 D- 50 C-
John Nelson 12 Republican Traditional 56 C 59 -3 92 A+ 61 B- 40 D- 50 C-
Jay Tibshraeny 21 Republican Traditional 56 C 55 1 90 A 61 B- 40 D- 50 C-
Amanda Aguirre 24 Democrat Public 48 D+ 38 10 71 A- 48 D+ 40 D- 47 D+
Carolyn Allen 8 Republican Traditional 48 D+ 51 -3 71 A- 53 C 35 F 46 D
Rebecca Rios 23 Democrat Public 43 D 34 9 60 B- 42 D- 37 F+ 45 D
Jorge Luis Garcia 27 Democrat Public 43 D 30 13 58 C+ 38 F+ 42 D- 43 D
Manuel Alvarez 25 Democrat Public 43 D 36 7 62 B- 44 D 34 F 42 D-
Ken Cheuvront 15 Democrat Traditional 42 D- 43 -1 65 B 39 F+ 31 F 53 C
Leah Landrum
Taylor 16 Democrat Public 42 D- 33 9 65 B 42 D- 28 F- 50 C-
Albert Hale 2 Democrat Traditional 39 F+ 33 7 50 C- 39 F+ 31 F 49 D+
Linda Lopez 29 Democrat Traditional 39 F+ 30 9 52 C- 36 F 34 F 45 D
Richard Miranda 13 Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 35 3 62 B- 28 F- 32 F 47 D+
Debbie McCune
Davis 14 Democrat Traditional 36 F 42 -6 48 D+ 29 F- 31 F 51 C-
Paula Aboud 28 Democrat Traditional 34 F 31 3 50 C- 34 F 25 F- 39 F+
Meg Burton Cahill 17 Democrat Public 34 F 30 4 46 D 31 F 30 F 37 F+
MEAN 56 C 51 4 79 A 59 C+ 44 D 54 C
MEDIAN 58 C+ 55 3 91 A 65 B 40 D- 51 C-

Table 10: House of Representatives Scores and Grades


Tax & Budget Grade
Tax & Budget Score
Regulation Grade
Regulation Score
Education Grade
Education Score

Con. Gov. Grade


Con. Gov. Score
Finance Status

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

Nancy K. Barto 7 Republican Traditional 61 B- 62 -1 93 A+ 72 A- 45 D 57 C+


David Gowan 30 Republican Public 61 B- 61 0 91 A 67 B+ 48 D+ 58 C+
Amanda A. Reeve 6 Republican Appointed 60 B- N/A N/A 100 A+ 66 B 46 D 50 C-
Jim Weiers 10 Republican Traditional 60 B- 63 -3 89 A 73 A- 45 D 55 C
Cecil P. Ash 18 Republican Public 59 C+ 59 0 96 A+ 67 B+ 44 D 54 C
Doug Quelland 10 Republican Public 59 C+ 55 4 87 A 70 A- 43 D 55 C
Vic Williams 26 Republican Traditional 59 C+ 56 3 91 A 65 B 51 C- 50 C-
Kirk Adams 19 Republican Traditional 58 C+ 61 -3 100 A+ 68 B+ 41 D- 51 C-
Steve Court 18 Republican Public 58 C+ 62 -4 96 A+ 69 B+ 43 D 47 D+
David W. Stevens 25 Republican Public 58 C+ 61 -3 94 A+ 63 B 46 D 52 C-
Jerry Weiers 12 Republican Traditional 58 C+ 64 -6 85 A 73 A- 43 D 49 D+
Steven B.
Yarbrough 21 Republican Public 58 C+ 59 -1 96 A+ 65 B 45 D 49 D+
Lucy Mason 1 Republican Traditional 57 C+ 58 -1 83 A 61 B- 52 C- 45 D
Rich Crandall 19 Republican Public 56 C 55 1 93 A+ 65 B 42 D- 49 D+
Adam Driggs 11 Republican Public 56 C 61 -5 96 A+ 65 B 40 D- 51 C-
John McComish 20 Republican Traditional 56 C 58 -2 96 A+ 67 B+ 41 D- 47 D+
Ray Barnes 7 Republican Traditional 55 C 59 -4 94 A+ 65 B 39 F+ 47 D+
Nancy McLain 3 Republican Traditional 55 C 61 -6 93 A+ 68 B+ 38 F+ 49 D+
Warde V. Nichols 21 Republican Public 55 C 61 -6 94 A+ 67 B+ 37 F+ 50 C-
Tom Boone 4 Republican Public 54 C 61 -7 81 A 63 B 45 D 46 D
Doris Goodale 3 Republican Public 54 C 58 -4 93 A+ 65 B 37 F+ 47 D+
Bill Konopnicki 5 Republican Traditional 54 C 49 5 96 A+ 59 C+ 42 D- 45 D
Frank Pratt 23 Republican Public 54 C 59 -5 93 A+ 64 B 40 D- 46 D
Michele Reagan 8 Republican Traditional 54 C 58 -4 93 A+ 66 B 37 F+ 47 D+
Andrew M. Tobin 1 Republican Traditional 54 C 57 -3 96 A+ 67 B+ 36 F 45 D
Russell L. Jones 24 Republican Public 53 C 52 1 91 A 61 B- 40 D- 45 D
Barbara McGuire 23 Democrat Public 43 D 37 6 67 B+ 46 D 36 F 40 D-
Matt Heinz 29 Democrat Public 42 D- 38 4 63 B 42 D- 33 F 47 D+
Lynne Pancrazi 24 Democrat Public 39 F+ 35 4 52 C- 35 F 35 F 43 D
Frank Antenori 30 Republican Traditional 38 F+ 60 -22 N/A N/A 82 A 26 F- 29 F-
Chad Campbell 14 Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 32 6 56 C 41 D- 28 F- 42 D-
Eric Meyer 11 Democrat Public 38 F+ 36.7 1 65 B 38 F+ 27 F- 44 D
Robert Meza 14 Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 38 0 61 B- 33 F 28 F- 48 D+
Jack A. Brown 5 Democrat Public 37 F+ 39 -2 59 C+ 37 F+ 30 F 39 F+
Christopher
Deschene 2 Democrat Public 37 F+ 34 3 52 C- 35 F 30 F 46 D
Rae Waters 20 Democrat Public 37 F+ 37 0 65 B 38 F+ 27 F- 40 D-
Nancy Young
Wright 26 Democrat Public 37 F+ 37 0 57 C+ 33 F 29 F- 43 D
Cloves C.
Campbell, Jr. 16 Democrat Traditional 36 F 40 -4 54 C 31 F 32 F 40 D-
Ben R. Miranda 16 Democrat Public 36 F 38 -2 57 C+ 29 F- 28 F- 46 D
Edward Ableser 17 Democrat Public 35 F 33 2 57 C+ 28 F- 29 F- 42 D-
Daniel Patterson 29 Democrat Public 35 F 35 0 52 C- 34 F 28 F- 40 D-
Kyrsten Sinema 15 Democrat Public 35 F 40 -5 54 C 34 F 28 F- 38 F+

26
August 19, 2010

David Bradley 28 Democrat Traditional 34 F 35 -1 57 C+ 28 F- 25 F- 43 D


Tom Chabin 2 Democrat Public 34 F 30 4 43 D 32 F 27 F- 45 D
Martha Garcia 13 Democrat Traditional 34 F 36 -2 52 C- 30 F 25 F- 42 D-
Phil Lopes 27 Democrat Public 34 F 32 2 54 C 29 F- 28 F- 39 F+
David Lujan 15 Democrat Public 34 F 31 3 59 C+ 30 F 30 F 34 F
David Schapira 17 Democrat Public 34 F 32 2 63 B 30 F 25 F- 36 F
Patricia V. Fleming 25 Democrat Public 33 F 29 4 56 C 28 F- 26 F- 41 D-
Anna Tovar 13 Democrat Appointed 33 F 33 0 59 C+ 27 F- 25 F- 40 D-
Steve Farley 28 Democrat Public 32 F 30 2 56 C 26 F- 27 F- 38 F+
Olivia Cajero
Bedford 27 Democrat Public 31 F 38 -7 48 D+ 27 F- 23 F- 39 F+
MEAN 49 D+ 50 -1 77 A- 54 C 39 F+ 47 D+
MEDIAN 54 C 56 -2 84 A 64 B 38 F+ 47 D+

Table 11: District Grade Averages

Tax & Budget Grade


Tax & Budget Score
Regulation Grade
Regulation Score
Education Grade
Education Score

Con. Gov. Grade


Con. Gov. Score
Finance Status

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

Rep. Brown Democrat Publicly 37 F+ 39 -2 59 C+ 37 F+ 30 F 39 F+


Mean 55 53 84 60 45 50
DISTRICT 6
Sen. Braswell Republican Traditional 74 A- N/A N/A 96 A+ 79 A 64 B 68 B+
Rep. Seel Republican Publicly 71 A- 70 1 85 A 87 A 60 B- 63 B
Rep. Reeve Republican Appointed 60 B- N/A N/A 100 A+ 66 B 46 D 50 C-
Mean 68 70 94 77 57 60
DISTRICT 7
Sen. Bunch Republican Appointed 59 C+ N/A N/A 96 A+ 69 B+ 40 D- 50 C-
Rep. Barto Republican Traditional 61 B- 62 -1 93 A+ 72 A- 45 D 57 C+
Rep. Barnes Republican Traditional 55 C 59 -4 94 A+ 65 B 39 F+ 47 D+
Mean 58 60 94 69 41 51
DISTRICT 8
Sen. Allen, C. Republican Traditional 48 D+ 51 -3 71 A- 53 C 35 F 46 D
Rep. Kavanagh Republican Publicly 67 B+ 66 1 96 A+ 73 A- 54 C 63 B
Rep. Reagan Republican Traditional 54 C 58 -4 93 A+ 66 B 37 F+ 47 D+
Mean 56 58 87 64 42 52
DISTRICT 9
Sen. Burns Republican Traditional 63 B 66 -3 92 A+ 74 A- 43 D 62 B-
Rep. Lesko Republican Publicly 66 B 64 2 100 A+ 75 A- 49 D+ 63 B
Rep. Murphy Republican Traditional 65 B 68 -3 83 A 70 A- 60 B- 56 C
Mean 65 66 92 73 51 60
DISTRICT 10
Sen. Gray, L. Republican Publicly 60 B- 63 -3 96 A+ 70 A- 39 F+ 55 C
Rep. Weiers, Jim Republican Traditional 60 B- 63 -3 89 A 73 A- 45 D 55 C
Rep. Quelland Republican Publicly 59 C+ 55 4 87 A 70 A- 43 D 55 C
Mean 60 60 91 71 42 55
DISTRICT 11
Sen. Leff Republican Traditional 61 B- 59 2 90 A 76 A- 39 F+ 58 C+
Rep. Driggs Republican Publicly 56 C 61 -5 96 A+ 65 B 40 D- 51 C-
Rep. Meyer Democrat Publicly 38 F+ 37 1 65 B 38 F+ 27 F- 44 D
Mean 52 52 84 60 35 51
DISTRICT 12
Sen. Nelson Republican Traditional 56 C 59 -3 92 A+ 61 B- 40 D- 50 C-
Rep. Montenegro Republican Publicly 67 B+ 68 -1 85 A 80 A 57 C+ 59 C+
Rep. Weiers, Jerry Republican Traditional 58 C+ 64 -6 85 A 73 A- 43 D 49 D+
Mean 60 63 87 71 47 53
DISTRICT 13
Sen. Miranda Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 35 3 62 B- 28 F- 32 F 47 D+
Rep. Garcia Democrat Traditional 34 F 36 -2 52 C- 30 F 25 F- 42 D-
Rep. Tovar Democrat Appointed 33 F 33 0 59 C+ 27 F- 25 F- 40 D-
Mean 35 35 58 28 27 43
DISTRICT 14
Sen. Davis Democrat Traditional 36 F 42 -6 48 D+ 29 F- 31 F 51 C-
Rep. Campbell Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 32 6 56 C 41 D- 28 F- 42 D-
Rep. Meza Democrat Traditional 38 F+ 38 0 61 B- 33 F 28 F- 48 D+
Mean 37 37 55 34 29 47
DISTRICT 15
Sen. Cheuvront Democrat Traditional 42 D- 43 -1 65 B 39 F+ 31 F 53 C
Rep. Sinema Democrat Publicly 35 F 40 -5 54 C 34 F 28 F- 38 F+

28
August 19, 2010

Rep. Lujan Democrat Publicly 34 F 31 3 59 C+ 30 F 30 F 34 F


Mean 37 38 59 34 30 42
DISTRICT 16
Sen. Taylor Democrat Publicly 42 D- 33 9 65 B 42 D- 28 F- 50 C-
Rep. Campbell, Jr. Democrat Traditional 36 F 40 -4 54 C 31 F 32 F 40 D-
Rep. Miranda Democrat Publicly 36 F 38 -2 57 C+ 29 F- 28 F- 46 D
Mean 38 37 59 34 29 45
DISTRICT 17
Sen. Burton Cahill Democrat Publicly 34 F 30 4 46 D 31 F 30 F 37 F+
Rep. Ableser Democrat Publicly 35 F 33 2 57 C+ 28 F- 29 F- 42 D-
Rep. Schapira Democrat Publicly 34 F 32 2 63 B 30 F 25 F- 36 F
Mean 34 32 55 30 28 38
DISTRICT 18
Sen. Pearce Republican Publicly 79 A 76 3 100 A+ 84 A 67 B+ 76 A-
Rep. Ash Republican Publicly 59 C+ 59 0 96 A+ 67 B+ 44 D 54 C
Rep. Court Republican Publicly 58 C+ 62 -4 96 A+ 69 B+ 43 D 47 D+
Mean 65 66 97 73 51 59
DISTRICT 19
Sen. Gray, C. Republican Traditional 71 A- 72 -1 92 A+ 80 A 57 C+ 70 A-
Rep. Adams Republican Traditional 58 C+ 61 -3 100 A+ 68 B+ 41 D- 51 C-
Rep. Crandall Republican Publicly 56 C 55 1 93 A+ 65 B 42 D- 49 D+
Mean 62 63 95 71 47 57
DISTRICT 20
Sen. Huppenthal Republican Publicly 64 B 62 2 94 A+ 70 A- 48 D+ 63 B
Rep. McComish Republican Traditional 56 C 58 -2 96 A+ 67 B+ 41 D- 47 D+
Rep. Waters Democrat Publicly 37 F+ 37 0 65 B 38 F+ 27 F- 40 D-
Mean 52 52 85 58 39 50
DISTRICT 21
Sen. Tibshraeny Republican Traditional 56 C 55 1 90 A 61 B- 40 D- 50 C-
Rep. Yarbrough Republican Publicly 58 C+ 59 -1 96 A+ 65 B 45 D 49 D+
Rep. Nichols Republican Publicly 55 C 61 -6 94 A+ 67 B+ 37 F+ 50 C-
Mean 56 58 93 64 41 50
DISTRICT 22
Sen. Verschoor Republican Traditional 69 B+ 65 4 100 A+ 79 A 49 D+ 68 B+
Rep. Biggs Republican Traditional 71 A- 76 -5 78 A- 80 A 70 A- 59 C+
Rep. Hendrix Republican Publicly 64 B 65 -1 85 A 77 A- 50 C- 60 B-
Mean 68 69 88 79 56 62
DISTRICT 23
Sen. Rios Democrat Publicly 43 D 34 9 60 B- 42 D- 37 F+ 45 D
Rep. Pratt Republican Publicly 54 C 59 -5 93 A+ 64 B 40 D- 46 D
Rep. McGuire Democrat Publicly 43 D 37 6 67 B+ 46 D 36 F 40 D-
Mean 47 43 73 51 38 44
DISTRICT 24
Sen. Aguirre Democrat Publicly 48 D+ 38 10 71 A- 48 D+ 40 D- 47 D+
Rep. Jones Republican Publicly 53 C 52 1 91 A 61 B- 40 D- 45 D
Rep. Pancrazi Democrat Publicly 39 F+ 35 4 52 C- 35 F 35 F 43 D
Mean 47 42 71 48 38 45
DISTRICT 25
Sen. Alvarez Democrat Publicly 43 D 36 7 62 B- 44 D 34 F 42 D-
Rep. Stevens Republican Publicly 58 C+ 61 -3 94 A+ 63 B 46 D 52 C-

29
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Rep. Fleming Democrat Publicly 33 F 29 4 56 C 28 F- 26 F- 41 D-


Mean 45 42 71 45 35 45
DISTRICT 26
Sen. Melvin Republican Publicly 60 B- 58 2 96 A+ 70 A- 40 D- 53 C
Rep. Williams Republican Traditional 59 C+ 56 3 91 A 65 B 51 C- 50 C-
Rep. Young Wright Democrat Publicly 37 F+ 37 0 57 C+ 33 F 29 F- 43 D
Mean 52 50 2 81 56 40 49
DISTRICT 27
Sen. Garcia Democrat Publicly 43 D 30 13 58 C+ 38 F+ 42 D- 43 D
Rep. Lopes Democrat Publicly 34 F 32 2 54 C 29 F- 28 F- 39 F+
Rep. Cajero
Bedford Democrat Publicly 31 F 38 -7 48 D+ 27 F- 23 F- 39 F+
Mean 36 33 53 31 31 40
DISTRICT 28
Sen. Aboud Democrat Traditional 34 F 31 3 50 C- 34 F 25 F- 39 F+
Rep. Bradley Democrat Traditional 34 F 35 -1 57 C+ 28 F- 25 F- 43 D
Rep. Farley Democrat Publicly 32 F 30 2 56 C 26 F- 27 F- 38 F+
Mean 33 32 54 29 26 40
DISTRICT 29
Sen. Lopez Democrat Traditional 39 F+ 30 9 52 C- 36 F 34 F 45 D
Rep. Heinz Democrat Publicly 42 D- 38 4 63 B 42 D- 33 F 47 D+
Rep. Patterson Democrat Publicly 35 F 35 0 52 C- 34 F 28 F- 40 D-
Mean 39 35 56 37 32 44
DISTRICT 30
Sen. Antenori Republican Traditional 60 B- N/A N/A 96 A+ 73 A- 42 D- 48 D+
Rep. Vogt Republican Appointed 68 B+ N/A N/A 96 A+ 67 B+ 59 C+ 60 B-
Rep. Gowan Republican Publicly 61 B- 61 0 91 A 67 B+ 48 D+ 58 C+
Rep. Antenori Republican Traditional 38 F+ 60 -22 N/A N/A 82 A 26 F- 29 F-
Mean 57 60 94 72 44 49

A New Lesson for Voters and Legislators

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

through a single application process. HB 2260 will soon dramatically simplify


regulatory compliance for numerous businesses and industries in the state. It has
a clear systemic impact on the governmental status quo. By contrast, HB 2022
recognizes additional courses that will qualify for fulfilling continuing education
requirements for people who dispense hearing aids. HB 2022 does indeed
increase occupational freedom by making compliance with continuing education
requirements easier, but it does not have a systemic impact on the regulatory status
quo. For this reason, HB 2260 would be considered a “high impact” bill and HB
2022 would be classified an “incremental impact” bill.

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.

The sample individualized report card in Figure 5 illustrates the educational


potential of assessing bills by impact. It shows that Representative Cecil Ash has
an overall score of 59 percent, which is a letter grade of C+. But Figure 5 also
shows that Representative Ash scores 84 percent, or a letter grade of A, with
respect to all high-impact bills, which is nearly 30 percentage points higher than
his scores on moderate- and incremental-impact bills. This might suggest that
Representative Ash does not need to educate himself more broadly about limited
government principles to improve his overall score, but instead should focus on
how to apply limited government principles to bills with less obvious liberty
significance. A closer look, however, shows that Representative Ash’s strengths
and weaknesses are more nuanced.

Only Representative Ash’s high-impact constitutional government and


regulation scores are substantially better than his scores on moderate- and
incremental-impact bills in the same category. In the tax and budget category,
Representative Ash actually scores lower on high-impact bills than on those with
moderate impact. These facts suggest that if Representative Ash wishes to score
higher on the next Legislative Report Card, he needs to consider how fiscal policy
bills affect limited government and develop a more technical understanding of how
regulatory and constitutional government bills advance or contract liberty. His
education scores are nearly perfect regardless of bill impact, so Representative Ash
can take heart that he already firmly grasps the liberty significance of education
bills of any magnitude.

Of course, the foregoing analysis presumes that our categorization of the


impact of bills is reasonably accurate. It is therefore important to underscore
that our categorization has produced results that are consistent with reasonable
expectations. The Republican Party, for example, proclaims itself the party of small
government, seeking to promote liberty in essentially the same sense measured
by this report. By contrast, the Democratic Party is the party that proudly
advances legislative measures to increase the size and scope of government by
protecting “positive” liberty and rights, which would tend to contract liberty in
the sense measured by this report. All but the most cynical would expect that on
genuinely “high impact” bills, a significant difference attributable to the professed
philosophies of each party would arise.

32
August 19, 2010

Figure 5: Rep. Cecil Ash’s Individualized Report Card

33
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Figure 6: Republican and Democratic Scoring Broken Down by Status Quo


Impact of Bill

Democrat
Republican

As shown in Figure 6 above, a huge difference - 56 percent - arises between


the “high impact” scores of the parties. In other words, with respect to bills that
have a systemic impact on the status quo, Republican and Democratic legislators
appear to vote as polar opposites. Figure 6 tends to confirm that our bill-impact
categorizations have captured a real difference in magnitude among bills with
respect to whether they advance or contract liberty.

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

Table 12: Top 10 Scoring Legislators in All Score Categories

Top 10 High Top 10 Mod. Top 10 Inc. Top 10


Overall
Scoring Impact Scoring Impact Scoring Impact Scoring
Score
Members Score Members Score Members Scores Members
Gould*, Pearce*,
83 Gould 97 78 Gould* 81 Gould*
Braswell*
Seel*, Lesko*,
Jim Weiers,
79 Pearce 94 73 Seel* 79 Pearce*
Harper*,
C. Gray*
78 Harper 93 Vogt* 72 Biggs* 78 Harper*

75 S. Allen 92 Murphy, Hendrix 71 Burges* 72 S. Allen*


S. Allen*,
Verschoor*,
74 Braswell 91 71 S. Allen* 71 Braswell*
Pierce*, Burns,
Melvin
Burges*,
Seel, Biggs, C. Gray*,
71 90 Quelland, 69 Harper* 68
C. Gray Verschoor*
Huppenthal
Burges,
69 89 Gowan, Stevens 68 Pearce* 67 Biggs*
Verschoor
Pierce*,
68 Vogt, Pierce 88 Leff 67 Kavanagh* 65
Huppenthal
Kavanagh,
Montenegro*,
Kavanagh, Jerry Weiers,
67 87 67 Montenegro* 64 Seel*
Montenegro Adams,
Yarbrough,
Barnes, Antenori
Biggs*, Nichols, Burges*,
66 Lesko 85 L. Gray, 66 Braswell* 62 Montenegro*,
Tibshraeny Reeve

An asterisk identifies members who are among the top 10 scorers in the standard scoring section of this
report card.

Table 13: Lowest 10 Scoring Legislators in All Score Categories

Lowest 10 High Lowest 10 Mod. Lowest 10 Inc. Lowest 10


Overall
Scoring Impact Scoring Impact Scoring Impact Scoring
Score
Members Score Members Score Members Scores Members
Cajero Cajero
31 16 Farley*, Chabin* 29 Lujan* 32
Bedford Bedford*
Ableser*, Burton Burton Cahill*,
32 Farley 21 31 33 Fleming*
Cahill* Aboud*
Chabin*, Cajero
Cajero Bedford*,
Bedford*, Tovar*,
33 Tovar, Fleming 23 Lopes*, 32 34 Bradley*
Young Wright*,
Patterson*
McCune Davis*

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.

The bottom line is that a legislator’s philosophical (in)consistency in voting to


expand liberty is generally a good predictor of a legislator’s willingness to vote to
expand liberty on bills of any magnitude, which validates the scoring methodology
of our report card. Moreover, the impact categories to which we have assigned the
bills scored by this report card are reasonably accurate measures of their magnitude
and thus provide an additional means of assessing the strengths and weaknesses of
individual legislators, from which both voters and legislators can learn.

36
August 19, 2010

Campaign Funding: No Impact

Figures 7 through 10 look at how traditionally funded versus publicly funded


candidates have scored on the Legislative Report Card since 2003, both in the
aggregate and broken down by party. In the aggregate, Figures 7 and 9 show that
the scores of both traditionally funded and Clean Elections candidates in the Senate
and House have slightly improved since 2003, with a 14 percent improvement
in Senate traditional-candidate scores, a 3 percent improvement in Senate
participating-candidate scores, a 6 percent improvement in House traditional-
candidate scores, and a 9 percent improvement in House participating-candidate
scores. Figure 8 shows that since 2003 the scores of traditional Republican Senate
candidates have improved 18 percent and the scores of participating Republican
Senate candidates have worsened 8 percent. By contrast, Figure 8 shows the scores
of traditional Democrat Senate candidates have worsened 5 percent and the scores
of participating Democrat Senate candidates have improved by 13.5 percent. In the
House, since 2003 the scores of traditional Republican candidates have improved
7.5 percent and the scores of participating Republican candidates have improved
5.2 percent (Figure 10). At the same time, the scores of traditional Democratic
House and participating candidates have both improved 16 percent (Figure 10).

As Figures 7 through 10 show, the scores and score trends of traditionally-


funded and publicly-financed candidates are closely matched absolutely and in
direction, both in the aggregate and by party. There is no substantial indication in
any of these figures that publicly-financed candidates are more or less high-scoring
than traditional candidates in the aggregate or by party. Combined with the fact
there is no evidence that traditionally-funded or publicly-financed candidates are

Figure 7: Senate Mean Score Trend: Traditional vs. Publicly-Financed

37
GOLDWATER INSTITUTE I policy report

Figure 8: Senate Mean Score Trend: Traditional vs. Publicly-Financed (by Party)

Figure 9: House Mean Score Trend: Traditional vs. Publicly-Financed


60

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

disproportionately represented among the top- or bottom-ranked legislators, one


must conclude that the mode by which candidates receive campaign financing -
private donation versus government handout - has no discernable impact on their
scores and voting behavior as measured by the Legislative Report Card since 2003.

Conclusion

This report quantitatively analyzes how well Arizona’s Forty-ninth Legislature


respected the principles of free markets, limited government, rule of law, and
individual rights embodied in the Arizona Constitution. In 2003, the first year
of this report card, average scores for both chambers were “within earshot of
the neutral mark (50 percent).”42 Since 2003, scores have improved slightly, but
they still hover around the 50 percent mark, never indicating a real legislative
commitment to limited government. Further, of the bills included in the report,
which were determined to have some measureable impact on liberty in Arizona,
58 percent of Senate bills and 55 percent of House bills were positive bills. That
the average legislative score remains at about the 50 percent neutral mark while
the majority of bills are positive in nature indicates that legislators may be actively
blocking legislation that limits government and expands freedom, or that they
need to revisit the first principles that define free, republican government. In either
case, this report abundantly establishes that the source of campaign financing has
nothing to do with the scores or voting behavior of Arizona legislators.

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.

1. Barry Goldwater, Presidential Nominee, Speech Accepting the Republican


Presidential Nomination (Jul. 16, 1964) (transcript available at http://www.
americanrhetoric.com/speeches/barrygoldwater1964rnc.htm).
2. Arizona Constitution, art. , sec. .
3. Arizona Constitution, art. 2, sec. 4 (“due process of law”), 8 (“right to
privacy”), 12 (“liberty of conscience”), 17 (“Eminent domain; just compensation
for private property taken; public use as judicial question”), 26 (“bearing arms”).
4. Arizona Constitution, art. 2, sec. 6 (“Every person may freely speak,
write, and publish on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of that right”).
5. Arizona Constitution, art. 2, sec. 23 (“No . . . law impairing the obligation
of a contract, shall ever be enacted”).
6. Arizona Constitution, art. 2, sec. 33.
7. A.C. Pritchard and Todd J. Zywicki. “Finding the Constitution: An
Economic Analysis of Tradition’s Role in Constitutional Interpretation.” North
Carolina Law Review 77, (1999): 409, 478–79, 483.
8. Ibid., 483.
9. James M. Buchanan and Gordon Tullock. The Calculus of Consent (Ann
Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1962); Pritchard and Zywicki, 481.
10. For example, see Sierra Club Grand Canyon Chapter, “2007 Environmental
Report Card: Arizona Legislature and Governor,” July 12, 2007, http://arizona.
sierraclub.org/political_action/pa_2007/2007ReportCardFinal.pdf, and Arizona
Federation of Taxpayers Association, “22nd Annual Legislative Report Card,”
August 15, 2006, http://www.aztaxpayers.org/Finalissimo_Chart_2006.pdf.
11. In Arizona, bills must go through several steps to be passed by either
chamber, and they must pass both chambers to become law. In the process, a
bill is heard, debated, and amended by various entities within the considering
chamber. The “third-read” is the formal voting stage. The third-read vote is
conducted by means of an electronic roll call vote that records each legislator’s
vote or lack thereof. If a bill is passed by a majority of the entire chamber, or by
a two-thirds supermajority in cases of “Proposition 108” or “emergency” bills, it
is then transferred to the other chamber for consideration. In the case of simple
resolutions and memorials, the measure is transmitted directly to the secretary
of state. In a small number of instances, a bill is voted on twice in the third-read
phase, upon motion to reconsider. In these instances, this report considers each
vote separately, with each vote representing a potential point in the final tally. For
bills that reached a final-read, only the final-read vote was scored unless the final-
read bill was substantially different from the third-read version, in which case both
votes were included. For a comprehensive explanation of legislative procedures
and processes, refer to Arizona Legislative Council, Arizona Legislative Manual

40
August 19, 2010

(Phoenix, 2003), http://www.azleg.state.az.us/alisPDFs/council/legman2003.pdf.


12. These criteria were aptly summed up by U.S. Rep. Howard Buffett
(R-Neb.) when he asked before every vote, “Will this add to, or subtract from,
human liberty?” Bill Kauffman, “Meet Warren Buffett’s Daddy,” The American
Enterprise, July/August, 2003, 48.
13. Legislators were not held accountable for votes from which they were
excused or otherwise vacant. In instances where this occurred, legislator totals are
determined by the number of votes for which they were able to vote.
14. Negative raw scores will result in a final score of 0% < x < 50%; positive
raw scores will fall in a range of 50% < x < 100%; a raw score of 0 will equal a final
score of exactly 50%.
15. Final-read votes were used when available.
16. This was acknowledged in an editorial written about the 2003 Legislative
Report Card: “The upshot is, if you embrace the political ideals of Goldwater, the
Institute’s report card is an apt guide of legislative performance. If Goldwater’s
politics offended you, low-scoring lawmakers are right up your political alley.
Regardless of one’s political leanings, the Goldwater Institute does a thorough and
useful job of political analyses.” “Our Opinion: Goldwater’s Ideals Don’t Fly in
Tucson,” Tucson Citizen, September 29, 2003, Opinion section.
17. See Dick M. Carpenter, II, Designing Cartels: How Industry Insiders Cut
Out Competition 19-22 (Institute for Justice, 2007), available at http://www.
ij.org/images/pdf_folder/economic_liberty/Interior-Design-Study.pdf.
18. Timothy Sandefur, “Rights Are A Seamless Web,” RUTGERS LAW REVIEW
26 (2002) 5; see also Lynch v. Household Fin. Corp., 405 U.S. 538, 522 (1972)
(“. . . the dichotomy between personal liberties and property rights is a false one.
Property does not have rights. People have rights. The right to enjoy property
without lawful deprivation, no less than the right to speak or the right to travel, is
in truth a ‘personal’ right, whether the ‘property’ in question be a welfare check,
a home, or a savings account. In fact, a fundamental interdependence exists
between the personal right to liberty and the personal right in property. Neither
could have meaning without the other. That rights in property are basic civil rights
has long been recognized.”); Richard Epstein, Takings 138-39 (1985) (“Can
anyone find a society in which freedom of speech flourishes where the institution
of private property is not tolerated? A country in which there is a free nationalized
press?”); James Madison, On Property, in Madison: Writings 515 (Jack Rakove,
ed., 1999) (“This term in its particular application means ‘that domination which
one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in exclusion of
every other individual.’ In its larger and juster meaning, it embraces everything to
which a man might attach a value and have a right; and which leaves to everyone
else the like advantage. In the former sense, a man’s property in his opinions and
the free communication of them . . . In a word, as a man is said to have a right to
his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights . . . .).
19. Vicki Murray and Ross Groen, “Survey of Arizona Private Schools:

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

“Consumer Alert to the United States Department of Transportation, National


Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Concerning Its Proposed Light Truck
Fuel Economy Standard for Model Years 2005–07,” National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, February 26, 2003, http://cei.org/gencon/027,03371.cfm;
Doug Bandow, “The FDA Can Be Dangerous to Your Health,” Fortune, January
29, 1997, http://www.cato.org/dailys/1-29-97.html; Kay H. Jones and Michael
Gough, “Smog Proposal Promises a Legacy of High Costs and Lost Lives,” Detroit
News, July 8, 1997, http://www.cato.org/dailys/7-08-97.html; and Jonathan Klick
and Thomas Stratmann, “Subsidizing Addiction: Do State Health Insurance
Mandates Increase Alcohol Consumption?” Mercatus Center, February 3, 2003,
http://www.gmu.edu/jbc/stratmann/rational%20addiction%20jls3.pdf. For a
more general discussion of the theory of detrimental regulation, see Robert W.
Crandall, “An End to Economic Regulation?” in Competition and Regulation in
Utility Markets, ed. Colin Robinson (London: Edward Elgar, 2003), and Sam
Peltzman, “The Economic Theory of Regulation after a Decade of Deregulation,”
in Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Microeconomics 1989 (Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution Press, 1989).
30. The phrase “public good” is used here in the strict economic sense, with
the further caveat that the very few goods having the characteristics of public
goods actually require government provision. For an exploration of the concept
of public goods, see Public Goods and Market Failures: A Critical Examination, ed.
Tyler Cowen (New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers, 1991).
31. Yesmin Yilmaz, “Private Regulation: A Real Alternative for Regulatory
Reform,” Cato Policy Analysis, no. 303 (1998), http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/
pa-303.pdf; “Health and Safety Policy,” ch. 35 of Cato Handbook for Congress:
Policy Recommendations for the 108th Congress (2003), http://www.cato.org/pubs/
handbook/hb108/hb108-35.pdf.
32. Sean Barrett, “Regulatory Capture, Property Rights and Taxi Deregulation:
A Case Study,” Economic Affairs, no. 23 (December 2003): 34–40; Richard Posner,
“Theories of Economic Regulation,” Bell Journal of Economics and Management
Science, no. 5 (1974): 335–58; Michael E. Levine, “Regulatory Capture,” in New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics and the Law 3 (1998), 267–71; and Irina Slinko,
Ekaterina V. Zhuravskaya, and Evgeny Yakovlev, “Laws for Sale: An Empirical
Study of the Effects of Regulatory Capture,” Center for Economic and Financial
Research Discussion Paper, March 2004, http://ssrn.com/abstract=402840.
33. Matthew Ladner, “The Tax Man and the Moving Van: Fiscal Policy and
State Population Shifts,” Goldwater Institute Policy Report no. 194 (2004), http://
www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1258; Zsolt Besci, “Do State and Local Taxes
Affect Relative State Growth?” Economic Review (Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta)
(March/April 1996): 18–36; Gerald Scully, “The Institutional Framework and
Economic Development,” Journal of Political Economy (June 1988); Robert Carroll
et al., “Personal Income Taxes and the Growth of Small Firms,” National Bureau
of Economic Research Working Paper W7980, October 2000; Ross Gittell, Allen

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

http://www.goldwaterinstitute.org/article/1102; and Stephen Slivinski, “Put


a Cap on It: How to Control Government Spending and Balance the Budget,”
Goldwater Institute Policy Report, no. 167 (2001), http://www.goldwaterinstitute.
org/article/898.
41. Averages were calculated by averaging scores of the senator and
representatives from each district, with equal weight given to each.
42. Satya Thallam, “2003 Legislative Report Card,” Goldwater Institute Policy
Report, no. 83 (2003), http://goldwaterinstitute.org/pdf/materials/346.pdf.

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

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen