Important propositions on the Arizona ballot have been overshadowed by the reality TV series we’ve come to know as the presidential election.
One of the most startling is Proposition 120, which proposes a state constitutional amendment to assert, “Arizona’s sovereign and exclusive authority and jurisdiction over the air, water, public lands, minerals, wildlife and other natural resources within the state's boundaries.”
With the exception of Native American reservations and certain federal properties, over 25 million acres of public land will be held under the state’s full jurisdiction.
Proposition 120 is an attempt to remove Arizona’s natural environment from the authority of the federal government and drop it in the hands of the state or private owners.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Chester Crandell, R-Heber, cites the 2011 Wallow Wildfire, the worst in U.S. history, to justify state management of federal land.
Crandell claims lack of cooperation and mismanagement on the federal government’s part is responsible for the wildfire. He and other sponsors, such as State Sen. Sylvia Allen, R-Snowflake, believe that public lands could be more profitable and better managed by states once the feds get out of the way.
Proposition 120, however, is only another attempt by the Arizona legislature to flaunt an immature symbolic show of arms to the federal government.
The Morrison Institute for Public Policy reported, as part of their “Understanding Arizona’s Propositions” series, that “anxiety over federal authority and the perceived weakening of states’ rights are the driving influences behind state sovereignty measures such as Proposition 120.”
Not to mention that it’s already being labeled unconstitutional for ignoring the precedent set by Cooper v. Aaron, a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot nullify federal law.
Furthermore, if Crandell and Allen think that the federal government has done a bad job managing the land, granting sovereign rights to Arizona would raise that bar exponentially.
There is no infrastructure and simply no money available to manage 25 million acres of public land. Billions of liability responsibilities would emerge, while revenue from tourism, military bases and other federal agencies would be subsequently lost.
This proposition is part of the legislature’s disappointing trend of sacrificing its constituents and state concerns for a political sideshow.
Crandell and sponsors of the bill are trying to send a message to the federal government that here in Arizona, we’re no-bull cowboys who will run you off our land if you try to tell us what to do with it.
The Arizona Republic was right when it issued an editorial that said HCR 2004, the original bill that proposed the same measure, is “an ideological tantrum that’s gone too far.”
Our legislators are taking shots at our public lands and flashing their shiny guns to remind the rest of the country that the Wild West is even crazier than it thought.
We all know Proposition 120 is just a bluff.
Reach the columnist at Damills3@asu.edu or follow him at @Dan_iel_Mills.
Want to join the conversation? Send an email to opiniondesk.statepress@gmail.com. Keep letters under 300 words and be sure to include your university affiliation. Anonymity will not be granted.
