The House will be considering a bill to require married couples to wait 180 days after filing for a divorce.  The present waiting period is 90 days.

Proponents believe waiting a longer period of time will ultimately cause couples to reconcile.  There is some evidence that states with a longer waiting period have a lower divorce rate.

Opponents believe that it is wrong to make couples wait once they have decided to get divorced.  Waiting prevents people from moving on with their lives.

Although the photo radar program is expiring June 30th, it is possible that the legislature may have an opportunity to have a say in the renewal of the program.

The legislature will have to decide whether or not to go to extraordinary measures in order to keep the Chicago Cubs in Mesa for Spring Training.  This most likely will mean placing a new tax on rental cars or hotel rooms, increasing the cost of tickets for Cactus League game, or perhaps taxing other tourist activities. 

Supporters estimate that the Cubs bring in somewhere between $80 million to $120 million to the East Valley's economy each year, and that without the Cubs, the entire Cactus League would suffer.

Opponents believe that the new taxes will potentially decrease tourism, and that government should not be helping professional sports teams.

Social conservatives believe that there should be a preference in adoption cases for married couples.  In other words, all other factors being equal, an adoption board should give preference to a married couple over a single applicant.

Proponents suggest that there is a real need for each child if possible to have the example of both a mother and father.

Opponents believe that the stated preference in the statutes would decrease the number of applicants for adoption, and therefore the number of adoptions.

Over the last few years, the state has enacted by statute and initiative process a number of laws to restrict illegal immigration.  A new statute is being promoted that will designate it a misdemeanor for someone to be in the state illegally.   Cities and counties will not be able to have a policy that will prevent individual officers from inquiring into a person's legal status when there is reasonable suspicion that some one is in the country illegally.  In addition, it will be a misdemeanor for someone who is in violatin of a criminal offense to give a ride to someone who is here illegally.

This is a Second Amendment question.  Arizona currently permits its residents to carry a firearm without restrictions provided it is out in the open, that is, the gun must be visible to others.  A person can carry a concealed weapon provided they get a permit through the Department of Public Safety, which requires the submitting of fingerprints and taking several hours of training. A new bill would remove the requirement of obtaining a concealed weapons permit, and allow any person to carry a concealed weapon.

Proponents believe that the Second Amendment precludes the government from restricting a person from having a firearm.   Proponents reason that since the "bad guys" will not follow the law anyway, that law abiding citizens should have the right to protect themselves.  Also, people in cold country should be entitled to have a firearm under their coats.

Opponents believe that times have changed, and that allowing anyone to carry a weapon without some training and without some restriction risks greater harm to the general population.

Arizona's budget is obviously the biggest issue facing the state.  Budgets for all departments and agencies are being cut.  Nevertheless, it will be necessary to assign priorities as we continue to attempt to resolve the budget crisis.  I would be interested in your assessment of where the priorities should be.   Please indicate, with 7 being the most important and 1 being the least important, what you feel the priorities should be in Arizona.

Generallly speaking, in this economy I favor: