AZ Early Voting Ballot - How did you vote?

Arizona ballot placed incumbent as the first options for all downballot elections. However the incumbent for president is reversed, placing Robme in the first position and the incumbent Obama in second position.

Romney's first on the list, Obama second

Come to think of it, if I remember right, all the Dem's were on top of each section.

I voted only for Cynthia Davis; she was a principal who was allegedly fired because of her sexual orientation. It was a unanimous decision and since the remaining candidates are members of the school board I refused to vote for any of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/20/cynthia-davis-gay-arizona-principal-speaks_n_1367000.html

A big part of me feels that the crime victim should not be responsible for damages to the one breaking into the house.

I wish I knew the reasoning for voting no on this one.

I voted for no judge because I couldn't get any info on them.

Az go blue!

started a discussion here http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021483484

Is there any organization that keeps an eye on the judiciary? Does anyone know?

I am not aware of anyone opposing it except trial lawyers who are looking for someone to sue no matter what the reason.

because I feel judges and juries should decide whether lawsuits have merit or not. I'm against the pre-emptive strike. Plus, I feel the broad wording could prove to be problematic. For example, kick someone's ass enough to send them to the hospital while they're smoking a joint? Can't sue for damages because he/she was injured while engaged in a felony. It is simplistic example but you can see where things can go wrong or if someone takes injuring someone too far.

Plus, I don't have a problem w/ a criminals suing police/city as it is when they go too far like Rodney King who likely committed felonies w/ driving 2 times over the legal limit and high speed evasion.

John Hannah, Jr. who got a NO.

What's up with John Hannah, Jr.?

starting on page 136 of Bennett's voting booklet titled, "What's on My Ballot: Arizona's General Election Guide." Ten commissioners voted "Does Not Meet" judicial performance standards for Hannah. This is all I could go on b/c I don't have a working knowledge of any of these judges. Maybe this is unfair, but based on the ratings that the other judges received, he looked like a distinct outlier.

http://azdem.org/Arizona_2012_Election_Ballot_Propositions_Recommendations/

for the state party recommendations.

Thank You! I hope they can help with the darn school board part!!!!

If you do a crime and get hurt you deserve it. The people did not ask to be victims. It is not like you are working for that person and something that that person done or not done causes you to get hurt. The Victims don't hire a person to hurt them. The criminals should get nothing from the victims.

And there is no way in hell I am for a criminal who breaks into someone's house being able to sue because they were then injured. Who the hell came up with that bit of wackadooism?

It is a good idea to vote no because people such as security guards shouldn't have free reign to do whatever(as far as civil lawsuits go, it doesn't stop criminal proceedings) just because someone committed a felony.

PHOENIX - Eight years ago, a Tucson man suspected of stealing a bottle of lotion was asphyxiated by a security guard.

<snip>

The proposed change wouldn't just stop criminals from collecting; it prohibits even filing a claim. For many victims, the cost of having to defend themselves in court can be brutal, even if they win.

A key case in the push for Proposition 114 came in 2004, when Jose Howard, a private security guard for Sonoran Desert Investigations working at a Safeway store, said he stopped Frank Hernandez Jr. because he stole a bottle of lotion.

According to the lawsuit, Howard restrained Hernandez by wrestling him to the floor, face down, and placing his arm around Hernandez's neck. The claim says Hernandez complained he couldn't breathe, but Howard did not release him until Hernandez was handcuffed with the assistance of two store employees.

http://azstarnet.com/news/local/crime/proposition-criminals-no-longer-could-sue/article_0eadd727-f04f-5d7e-a9f2-5c2d881e458d.html

Some more background on the history of the prop

<snip>
Two existing Arizona statutes forbid such lawsuits against victims by criminals. However, part of one of the statutes was found to conflict with the Arizona Constitution, which states, “The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not be subject to any statutory limitation.”

<snip> (references case I posted above and that lawyers for the store requested the lawsuit thrown out)

The judge wanted to let the jury decide. The Arizona Court of Appeals agreed with the trial judge that the portion of the law that forbade lawsuits by people who had committed misdemeanors was unconstitutional because it denied the right to let the jury ascertain the person’s level of negligence.

<snip> (goes over Russell Pearce sponsoring a clause and him referencing two stories -- one misleading and another over a rancher(Barnett) holding illegal immigrants at gunpoint)

However, Proposition 114 would not have applied to Barnett’s case because Barnett had not stopped people who had committed felonies, and his suit was brought in federal, not state, court.

Robbins, the attorney, said, “The question is: Do we change our Constitution over a case in southern Arizona that a jury decided (who) should win?”

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20121012proposition-lawsuits-victims.html

It appears like the article said that is a solution without a problem since rarely have criminals sued victims and the events that caused it wouldn't have applied as those were misdemeanors.