Goldwater2009 Institute Annual Report Goldwater Institute 500 East Coronado Road Phoenix, Arizona 85004 T 602.462.5000 F 602.256.7045 [email protected] www.goldwaterinstitute.org may well be remembered as the year when the sound of freedom began 2009 to echo more vibrantly in town halls and capitol buildings across America. In the face of persistent economic hardship and major threats to freedom emanating from message from Washington, hundreds of thousands of Americans stood together against the growth of the president and government power and called for a return to liberty. In Arizona, freedom advanced on the chairman several important fronts. An Arizona ballot proposal to use state constitutions to block federal healthcare that took root at the Goldwater Legislative measures to expand school choice (page 9), Institute has now spread to more than 30 other states improve government transparency (page 20), and more (see page 3). A second proposal to curb union power and efficiently provide transportation infrastructure (page 19) protect workers is also headed for the ballot (page 3). also helped to strengthen freedom. Freedom also advanced in court. U.S. District Court The Goldwater Institute is proud to be leading these judge Roslyn Silver agreed with the Goldwater Institute efforts. The Institute was honored in 2009 to again that Arizona’s Clean Elections system “is not supported be recognized by the Arizona Capitol Times as the Best by a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored, and Capitol Watchdog. We are thankful to columnist George is not the least restrictive alternative. The Act is Will, who called the Institute “America’s most potent unconstitutional under the First Amendment” (page 4). advocate of limited government.” In Tucson, judge Paul Tang ruled favorably in our These successes could not have come without the case against regulatory takings of private property, commitment and generosity of our donors, who continue declaring “the Court believes that the public’s interest to make this work possible even through difficult economic Darcy Olsen Thomas C. Patterson in laws requiring compensation for partial regulatory times. We recognize that Americans still face a host of PRESIDENT AND CEO CHAIRMAN takings is significant and arguably compelling” (page 14). challenges and threats to freedom at both the state and The ruling means that Tucson will likely have to compen- federal levels, and that it will require a tremendous sate builder Mike Goodman, who builds and refurbishes effort to turn the tide of government growth. But we student housing, for regulations that impeded his are grateful for the significant advances freedom made projects. The case does much to uphold property rights in 2009, and are optimistic that these victories will and Proposition 207, which requires government to pave the way to a brighter, freer future. The Goldwater compensate property owners when they pass laws or Institute will remain steadfast in its commitment to regulations that diminish property values. the principles of economic liberty, educational freedom, In a victory for economic freedom, a superior court and limited government. judge ruled that the city of Tempe did not have the right to revoke the business permit of Tom and Elizabeth Preston, who were initially given the go-ahead to open a tattoo studio (page 11). In a similar lawsuit, the Goldwater Institute is defending the right of Gilbert Darcy Olsen small business owner Cindy Vong to continue offering her PRESIDENT & CEO fish foot treatment against the state cosmetology board’s attempts to shut her down (page 11). If successful, the case will help protect entrepreneurs against arbitrary and burdensome regulations. Thomas C. Patterson CHAIRMAN 1 standing up for states tates can stand up to the federal government, and two SGoldwater Institute proposals are showing how. As the federal government attempts to gain more control over Americans’ Arizona doctors gather at the state capitol. Polls show 65 percent health care, a proposal crafted by Dr. Eric Novack and the Goldwater Institute of doctors oppose the federal government’s proposed health care would protect health care freedom by prohibiting government from forcing expansion. A proposal crafted with the help of the Goldwater Institute { would protect doctors’ and patients’ rights against a federal takeover. people to participate in health care systems and guaranteeing the right to directly purchase lawful medical services. As the New York Times recently wrote, “The idea of amending state constitutions to block the core of the federal health care legislation, including the requirement that individuals and businesses buy insurance, began at the conservative Goldwater Institute in Arizona, the state where the first such measure will appear on the ballot next year.” Arizona’s ballot measure is already serving as a model in 32 other states that have recently proposed similar measures. A second proposal that would defend the state against federal overreach is the Save Our Secret Ballot referendum, an idea drafted at the Goldwater Institute. The ballot measure would help forestall the federal “card check” bill moving through Congress, which would eliminate the right of workers to have secret ballots in elections to determine whether workplaces are unionized. Taking anonymity out of the process would enable unions and employers to pressure individual workers in unionization votes. If voters approve the Save Our Secret Ballot referendum, the act will amend the state constitution to protect workers’ right to a secret ballot. It is well established that the federal constitution sets the baseline for the protection of our liberties, and that state constitutions are free to offer more protection of those liberties. All state constitutions do exactly that, containing protections of individual rights and structural restraints on government unknown to the national constitution. These two proposals, if approved by voters, would defend the states against growing national government power and encourage the use of state constitutions to protect some of our most fundamental liberties. 2 3 freeing speech ree elections and free speech are at the heart of free Fsocieties. Arizona’s Clean Elections system, however, threatens both. Clean Elections offers taxpayer campaign financing to candidates for statewide and legislative office. Funding levels are determined in part by the program’s “matching funds” provision, which gives publicly financed candidates additional money to match whatever their privately funded opponents spend. That makes privately financed candidates hesitant to spend money and gives public candidates the advantage of not having to pay for fundraising. The Goldwater Institute filed a lawsuit, McComish v. Bennett, to challenge the matching funds provision based on a precedent from the June 2008 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Davis v. FEC. That case held that the goal of “leveling” electoral opportunities does not justify a campaign finance system in which “the vigorous exercise of the right to use personal funds to finance campaign speech produces fundraising advantages for opponents in the competitive context of electoral politics.” In her ruling in McComish v. Bennett, judge Roslyn Silver wrote, “The [Clean Elections] Act, in its current form, is not supported by a compelling interest, is not narrowly tailored, and is not the least restrictive alternative. The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment.” The Goldwater Institute expects matching funds to be eliminated by 2011. The ruling enhances First Amendment rights in Arizona, and is in keeping with the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that overturned numerous campaign finance restrictions. Goldwater Institute constitutional government director Nick Dranias stands outside the downtown Phoenix The Goldwater Institute filed an amicus brief in the Citizens United federal courthouse where he successfully argued that case, arguing that citizens should be free to hear all arguments at all { Arizona’s Clean Elections system violates free speech. times during elections. 4 5 defending taxpayers acing a $14 million budget shortfall, Gilbert, FArizona found itself, like cities across the nation, with difficult budget decisions to make. And, as in many other cities, Gilbert officials proposed raising taxes to cover the budget gap, ultimately approving three measures to raise various sales and use taxes. But Gilbert citizens fought back. A hastily organized group of citizens launched referendum drives to put the tax increases to a vote. But when they went to register their committees and get petitions, the town clerk told them their efforts were a waste of time, according to Kevin Ross, who chaired the citizens’ committees. Town officials claimed the tax measures were not referrable. But within 30 days citizens turned in roughly 2,500 signatures for each of the three referendum issues, far more than needed to force the issues to the ballot. They also contacted the Goldwater Institute to help battle the town’s claim that the issues were not referrable. Goldwater Institute attorney Carrie Ann Sitren looked into the town’s claim and found that the law is clear – tax issues can be referred to voters. At a town hall meeting, Sitren warned the council that any attempt to block the referendum would subject the town to a legal challenge from the Goldwater Institute. The council finally backed down and repealed all three tax measures. Goldwater Institute attorney Carrie Ann Sitren Gilbert resident David Molina wrote, “Thanks to you, it turned out stands outside Gilbert Town Hall, where she successfully defended the right of citizens to to be a great day for Gilbert’s taxpayers!…Without your…eloquent { refer tax increases to the ballot. and resolute participation in the council meeting last night, the council would not have given effect to the will of the people.” 6 7 Ciana Cunningham and her son, Keon Gregory, at the New Millenium Worldwide Academy, a private school in South Phoenix that Keon attends thanks educational opportunity { to a tuition tax credit scholarship.