[]

[]

Changes to the Arizona Constitution need to meet certain standards. It’s the law of our land, the code that governs us, and it should be treated as such. That doesn’t mean it’s untouchable, but if we’re going to alter such a document we’re going to set the bar high. And most of the propositions on this year’s ballot don’t rise to that level. Many simply aren’t necessary — non-issues that are being brought up by the Arizona Legislature in the event that something might happen in the future (and give them a chance to snub the federal government in the process). Consider:

Sylvia is a sophisticated young woman who juggles two big jobs: one as a busy lawyer and the other as a single mom to a 2-year-old named Chloe. She and her daughter recently moved from a small condo in the city to a great house in an older, well-established neighborhood. But with most of her time spent working or taking care of Chloe, Sylvia had little time to enjoy her new house, let alone any kind of social life.

Current law says any ballot measure needs a majority of those voting on the issue to pass. This would raise the bar to require a majority of those registered to vote -- even if they stayed home -- for any statewide initiative that would raise taxes or impose new spending requirements on the state, individuals or businesses.

This proposition would put a provision in the constitution defining marriage in Arizona as solely between one man and one woman. It largely duplicates a 1996 state law.

These arguments were filed with the Town of Gilbert for a publicity pamphlet to be mailed to voters in September.

These arguments were filed with the Town of Gilbert for a publicity pamphlet to be mailed to voters in September.

This argument was filed with the Town of Gilbert for a publicity pamphlet to be mailed to voters in September.

A year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that rattled homeowners across the country. In a 5-4 decision, the high court concluded then that a town in Connecticut had the right to bulldoze a two-bedroom Victorian home to make way for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

A year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that rattled homeowners across the country. In a 5-4 decision, the high court concluded then that a town in Connecticut had the right to bulldoze a two-bedroom Victorian home to make way for the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer.

Oct. 24, 2004

A newly approved voter initiative requires state employees to check the immigration status only of those applying for welfare programs — and not even all of them — Arizona Attorney General Terry Goddard concluded Friday.

Here are the Tribune's recommendations for the propositions on today's ballot:

Discrimination should be judged, as a journalism professor of mine once did, by rewriting the statement with a different group’s name. Often a group evokes emotions in people that make them think certain behavior toward someone is acceptable, when the same behaviors toward someone else would be deemed inappropriate.

Last Friday was a good day, not only because it was Week 6 of the high school football season and marquee matchups were every which way, but because, at places like McClintock, the past few seasons of on-field woes might actually lead to a brighter future.