Dear gaynetters, Yesterday was the deadline for submission of ballot measure petitions for the statewide November ballot in Arizona, and the anti-gay initiative will NOT be on the ballot! It turns out that I was incorrect in my post the other day when I said that they had to turn in all petitions. According to state law, petitions must only be submitted for proposed recall elections. In fact, of the 37 proposed constitutional amendments/initiatives, only three turned in petitions yesterday. As you will see in the article below, Arizona TVC head Frank Meliti *claims* his group had more than enough signatures to qualify the initiative, but refused to turn them in or to even show the petitions to anyone. Based on reports I have seen in the mainstream and RRR media, however, I think we would be wise to assume he didn't have the numbers he claimed. There were no reports of organized signature-gathering for the initiative, and many of the state's RRR organizations gave no support to Meliti and his organization. However, the issue is not dead. Meliti also announced plans to challenge the Tucson anti-discrimination ordinance, on the books since 1977, in court. Again, more details in the article below: (reprinted without permission from the July 8 _Arizona Daily Star_, pp. 1B-2B) Anti-gay group fails to win November ballot spot By Ann-Eve Pedersen, the Arizona Daily Star and Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services Arizona avoided a divisive battle over homosexual rights yesterday when an anti-gay group failed to place an initiative on the November ballot. The measure would have outlawed state and local ordinances that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Frank Meliti, head of the Traditional Values Coalition of Arizona, said the group had gathered 247,000 signatures, well over the 158,311 needed to place the measure on the ballot. But Meliti said he will not file the petitions -- or pursue the ballot measure -- because "militant homosexuals" would keep the issue tied up in court for years. At a press conference yesterday at the State Capitol, Meliti refused to open four cardboard boxes sealed with duct tape, which he said contained the petitions. Dianne Post, who co-chairs the steering committee of Arizonans for Fairness Coalition, challenged Meliti to "show these signatures to any reputable journalist and allow a sample to be checked against the voter lists for authenticity." She said reporters should "stop cooperating in his continued deceptions" if he refuses. Meliti refused to show the signatures to reporters. State law does not require him to turn in the petitions to the Secretary of State's Office. Opponents filed a lawsuit in April in Maricopa Superior Court to block the initiative. "This is part of their strategy, the militant homosexuals and their allies, to tie us up in court," said Meliti. But David Sherman, a Tucson lawyer and member of the Arizonans for Fairness Coalition, disputed Meliti's claims. "The real reason they were scared off was because what they were trying to do was unconstitutional," said Sherman. A similar measure passed in Colorado in 1992 but was ruled unconstitutional by a state court. Backers of that measure are now appealing the matter to the Colorado Supreme Court. "The whole thing was an exercise in futility just to stir up his right-wing agenda," said Sherman. The city of Tucson will be the anti-gay group's next target. Within several weeks, they plan to sue the city to repeal an ordinance prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation in housing, employment and public accommodations, he said. Ed Kahn, a Tucson lawyer with a history of involvement in other conservative causes, has agreed to bring the lawsuit at no charge, said Meliti. Kahn defended anti-abortion activists five years ago who had blocked the entrances of a Planned Parenthood clinic at 127 S. Fifth Avenue. He represented families last year who wanted to end a 16-year federal court desegregation order for Tucson Unified School District. Depending on the success of the Tucson lawsuit, the group may challenge a Phoenix city law and a Maricopa Community College policy. The Phoenix law prohibits employment discrimination by the city and firms with more than 35 workers who do business with the city. Maricopa Community College has regulations similar to the Phoenix law. Although Meliti's group has been operating on a shoestring, it is about to receive financial backing from two Phoenix "industrialists," as well as overseas and national "oil interests," Meliti said. Sherman questioned Meliti's credibility. "This guy is a fraud," Sherman said. "Nobody takes him seriously. They shouldn't after his behavior today, for sure," he said. To fight Tucson's ordinance, the group would have to find a Tucson resident or business harmed by the law to file the suit, said Tucson City Attorney Tom Berning. Meliti said several people have offered to become plaintiffs for the case, but said he won't identify anyone yet "because they're afraid." Even if the ordinance is challenged, Berning is confident it will be upheld. Opponents of the law contend that it grants special privileges to individuals based on sexual orientation, said Berning. "But when you analyze the issue, there are no special privileges," he said. The ordinance says "you can't treat these people any differently than anyone else," he said. Lobbying the Tucson City Council to change the ordinance would be a lost cause. The council just reaffirmed the ordinance Feb. 15, Sherman said. The mayor and council are also members of the Arizonans for Fairness Coalition. "I find it very sad that any group that calls itself Christian would be as intolerant as to try to make life hell on Earth for any human being," said City Councilman Bruce Wheeler. "We will fight this challenge," he vowed. --30-- More background info for you: -- The University of Arizona and Arizona State University also have non-discrimination policies including sexual orientation. I do not know whether Northern Arizona University has such a policy as well. -- Meliti has cited the state's "archaic" laws (i.e, sodomy and "lewd conduct" laws) as one basis for challenging the ordinances. -- A recent decision by the Arizona Court of Appeals held that employers in the state could fire employees on the basis of sexual orientation, since state law provides no such protections (as it does for AIDS/HIV). Most observers don't think this will affect existing ordinances, but Meliti could try to use it as an argument. Sorry this is so long, but I thought you'd want/need all this info. I'll continue to post on gaynet as events occur. Cheers, Stan :)