As far as how I voted; for the most important choice of all: of course I voted for Kyrsten Sinema.
Sinema used to represent my district (in the house of reps) & I am well aware she's a centrist. Nevertheless, I know she'll be more independent of Democratic interest than McSally & GOP interests. In other words, McSally would be nothing more than a Trump/McConnell flunkie, Sinema would be more of an independent lawmaker.
Here are a few of the other choices I made that I deem important:
I voted "yes" on prop 419 which would require individuals and organizations to disclose any campaign donations valued at more than $1000 intended to influence a Phoenix election.
I voted "yes" on prop 127. Prop 127 would amend Arizona's state constitution to require utility companies to get 50 percent of the power it sells from renewable sources like solar, wind, and biomass by 2030.
I'm surprised "the valley of the sun" is not actively researching and preparing for using solar energy in the future without a mandate from the voters. Heck,"APS" & "SRP" can afford to do some research on their own (APS earned $488 million in profits last year). Nevertheless, according to an article on Tucson.com, Governor Ducey signed legislation earlier this year with the specific intent of allowing utilities to ignore the mandate proposed in prop 127 by paying a minimal fee. Speaking of Ducey, of course I voted against him and for David Garcia.
I voted "no" on prop 126 which would preserve the states' & local governments' authority to impose a tax on services in the future, because you shouldn't be able to take away a potential revenue source for the state.
I voted "no" on prop 305 because if approved, it "would poke holes in the funding bucket of public education". Prop 305 wants to fund ESA expansion by taking away money from the public and charter school systems.
I voted "no" on prop 306 because if approved:
http://ktar.com/story/2254626/proposition-306-would-alter-arizonas-clean-elections-funding-system/
"It will take away the rule-making authority of Clean Elections and put it in a gubernatorially appointed partisan body that will eventually neuter Clean Elections, and we will lose our publicly financed system”
As far as the other important choice (for me): Mayor of Phoenix, I had to do research on four candidates.
Of course I wouldn't choose the Libertarian or the Republican candidate so it came down to the Democrat Daniel Valenzuela & the supposedly Independent Kate Gallego:
Kate Gallego is a Harvard and Wharton School graduate. According to a recent AZCentral (opinion) article she pretty much won a recent Mayoral debate. But she does support a water rate increase of about $2.35 per month in 2019 and an additional $2.29 per month in 2020 for the average consumer (less for people who don't use a lot of water).
Like most people, I feel like I pay a lot for water as it is, but the "AZCentral" article does explain the increase would support "$1.5 billion in new systems for north Phoenix, repairs and replacement of aging water pipelines in south and central Phoenix and other updates to the city's massive water treatment and delivery systems".
Apart from that, I've found no negative news on Gallego (only did "research" on google for a few minutes though), Only other relevant info is, she has been endorsed by EMILY's list.
I did find some negative news on Valenzuela. First news story has to do with salacious unverified claims from an anonymous woman, however:
https://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/news/media-allegation-against-phoenix-daniel-valenzuela-mayoral-10921744 "New Times was unable to confirm the veracity of the woman's claims and is not publishing the allegations, nor the video."
The other story has to do with reports Valenzuela was $12,208 in debt and his city salary was being garnished to pay back the money:
"Court records include a 2006 agreement to obtain the open-ended credit plan; the document bears Valenzuela's signature, but does not mention his spouse."
Having large debts is not a big deal to me, but Valenzuela blaming his exwife for it does seem lame. However, I don't like "salacious claims" from a woman, then again, the claims are unverified.
I admit it was a tough choice between Gallego and Valenzuela. Valenzuela seems more than capable of doing the job, & he is endorsed by former mayors Phil Gordon, Paul Johnson and Skip Rimsza as well as by the "Arizona police association" and "the professional fire fighters of Arizona".
Still, I chose Kate Gallego; it seems to me she's smart and willing to make hard choices for the benefit of the city of Phoenix.
As far as the rest of the candidates & propositions there's too many to list, but I think you get the idea of how I voted. I did vote against the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Bolick, Pelander), because supposedly, if David Garcia were to win, he would appoint their replacements.
Unfortunately, Ducey leads Garcia by a wide margin in recent polls. Speaking of it, every report I see from the MSM insists Arizona will remain red which I know is depressing. Nevertheless, I hope those reports don't stop you from voting early or in person: there's too much at stake and there's no excuse for you to stay on the sidelines.
As far as the rest of the candidates & propositions there's too many to list, but I think you get the idea of how I voted. I did vote against the two Justices of the Supreme Court (Bolick, Pelander), because supposedly, if David Garcia were to win, he would appoint their replacements.
Unfortunately, Ducey leads Garcia by a wide margin in recent polls. Speaking of it, every report I see from the MSM insists Arizona will remain red which I know is depressing. Nevertheless, I hope those reports don't stop you from voting early or in person: there's too much at stake and there's no excuse for you to stay on the sidelines.