A discussion with one of our state assembly persons (that's one of our elected leaders) brought out a very interesting point concerning our up coming party primary elections. Because we do not have Democratic Party candidates running for every state assembly district seat in our area, the outcome of the Republican Primary will determine the next person to hold that seat. One point we must consider, perhaps more closely this election cycle than some previous years, is the voting record of our incumbents seeking re-election to any House or Senate seat. We have numerous seats area-wide that do not have challengers to incumbents and that can be a good thing if all their constituents feel they have voted on matters consistent with the expectations of the voters. However, for those who question their elected assembly-person, they have no choice.
As our nation continues to give up personal freedom choices and pursues economic policies that necessitate operating on borrowed money "we (as) the people" must be more aware of how our support of a candidate can potentially conflict with our own value system. Whether it be the degree to which we consider ourselves financially conservative or how strongly we feel about gun control or any other issue, we must be honest with ourselves when we select our candidates.
If you were to evaluate your choice of a candidate on the issues of health care, gun control, abortion rights, our national financial status and personal freedom, which of these areas would be the most important to you? It was an interesting test of my own value system when I tried to rate these issues as one through five in my order of most important. I don't see an immediate threat to my views of gun control, so it was easy to list it last as fifth on my list. Then things got more difficult. The abortion issue seems fairly well settled, for now, so that left only three issues vying for most important.
When it came to choosing between my over whelming concern for our nation's indebted lifestyle and my concern for the uninsured in the field of healthcare, personal conflict really hit home. Knowing that the State of Arkansas is contributing to our nation's dependence on borrowing and when I realize there are people I personally know benefiting from our legislators' decision to support the "private option" for healthcare, the personal question really hit home.
No doubt the decision to support the private option was not an easy one for the Arkansas Assembly members either. But the decision to support their action will rest with us voters on the 20th of May during the Primary elections. Was their decision to support it a humanitarian motivated concern or did they oppose it based on their unwillingness to commit the State of Arkansas to a future obligation based on the faith of those in Washington. Trusting Washington is really scary as far as I'm concerned.
Several other pieces of legislation have shattered my faith in some of our state legislators' actions as well. Changing the dates for filing petitions to get on our primary ballot, making it more difficult to run as an Independent candidate really shook my faith in some of our legislators. This may not appear to be an issue for most voters, but for future candidates it is against everything I believe about opening the campaign process to the average person on the street. And, an equally important blow to my faith was the legislators' choice to put Issue 3, an amendment change on the November ballot. This proposes to be an amendment to regulate campaign contributions, bar gifts from lobbyists, set some salaries and set term limits for members of the General Assembly. For those who don't know it, we already have term limits established by vote of the people in Section 2 of Amendment 73. The mention of term limits implies that this sets term limits when in fact it actually loosens them in favor of members who desire to extend their "service" beyond the current limits. The change would allow senators or representatives up to 16 years in one office rather than the current two four-year terms in the Senate and three two-year terms in the House.
The manner in which this has been slipped into a bill that might otherwise be desirable smacks of self-serving and I cannot support an incumbent who was guilty of conspiring to pass this with their support. It is unfortunate that those we elect to represent us must be watched on every vote to qualify for our trust.
I am going to find it very difficult to support any incumbent until I check his or her voting record.
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 05/07/2014