Opinion L.A.

Observations and provocations
from The Times' Opinion staff

« Previous Post | Opinion L.A. Home | Next Post »

Arizona's preemptive strike against card check

You've got to hand it to Arizonans for being ahead of the curve in picking fights with the feds. Two years ago, long before Congress even took up healthcare reform, opponents of mandatory health insurance put an initiative on the state ballot to bar Arizonans from being compelled to participate in any healthcare system. Voters narrowly defeated it, but the state Legislature agreed last year -- nine months before Congress enacted a healthcare reform bill with an individual mandate -- to put a similar proposal on the ballot in November.

Now state legislators have proposed an amendment to the Arizona Constitution that would bar workers from unionizing through signature drives -- better known as "card check" unionization. Labor leaders have pushed hard for card-check rights, but their efforts have gotten nowhere in Congress despite the support of President Obama.

The proposed constitutional amendment, headed for a vote in November, would give workers in Arizona the right to a secret-ballot vote on any proposal to unionize. But like the healthcare ballot measure, the amendment conflicts with federal law and is almost certain to be preempted.

The National Labor Relations Act allows unions to organize not just through a secret-ballot election but also by collecting signatures from a majority of the eligible employees. The latter option has a major handicap, however: The act doesn't require employers to recognize unions formed this way. As a consequence, not many do. Hence organized labor's eagerness to enact the card-check bill (dubbed the Employee Free Choice Act), which would compel employers to recognize unions approved through signature drives.

I'm no fan of the card-check legislation -- a better way to answer labor's complaints about employers gaming the current system would be to beef up enforcement of the law's prohibitions against obstructing or manipulating secret ballots. But the proposed Arizona amendment goes too far in the other direction, attacking an option for organizing workers that employers already hold veto power over. And given the conflict with federal law, you have to wonder whether the purpose is to set policy or just score political points with the anti-union crowd. Then again, maybe state legislators just like to tussle with the feds.

-- Jon Healey


Comments () | Archives (18)

The comments to this entry are closed.


Go Arizona -- stay ahead of the game and give some direction to this country!

Randy L

I feel our state has to do something in all these matters or the advocacy groups, the unions, this administration (and future ones) and illegals will walk all over the people of our state and our country.

No one else seems to have the testicular fortitude (cajones is not allowed to be used) to stand up.


Good for AZ...someone has to stand up to the Feds.


Hell Randy, Balls is Balls, but standing up, that's a Democrat thing. Never could figure out just what they have against chairs.


Go Arizona !!!

It might be time to blockade California. If they want electricity and water, maybe Mexico can provide it.


Wasted time.

Jim  Frego

Full article: http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/25983


In a stunning development that could potentially send the nation into a Constitutional crisis, an astute attorney who is well-versed in Constitutional law states that the ruling against the state of Arizona by Judge Susan Bolton concerning its new immigration law is illegal.

(Daniel Bayer/CBS News via Getty Images). The inept U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder.

The attorney in question submitted her assertion in a special article in the Canada Free Press. Her argument states in part,

"Does anyone read the U.S. Constitution these days? American lawyers don�t read it. Federal Judge Susan R. Bolton apparently has never read it. Same goes for our illustrious Attorney General Eric Holder. But this lawyer has read it and she is going to show you something in Our Constitution which is as plain as the nose on your face.

"Article III, Sec. 2, clause 2 says:

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction."

In other words, the Judge in the Arizona case has absolutely no Constitutional jurisdiction over the matter upon which she ruled. As the Constitution makes abundantly clear, only the U.S. Supreme Court can issue rulings that involve a state.

This means that neither Judge Bolton nor the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, to which the case is being appealed, have any legal standing whatsoever to rule on the issue.

Thus, U.S. Attorney-General Eric Holder filed the federal government's lawsuit against the state of Arizona in a court that has no authority to hear the case.

The attorney whose heads-up thinking concerning the Constitution provides the legal remedy for dealing with this blatant disregard for Constitutional law in the article at Canada Free Press, which can be accessed at the link above.

In a related development, another explosive discovery was made by those who actually take the Constitution seriously. The Constitution specifically allows an individual state to wage war against a neighboring country in the event of an invasion, should there be a dangerous delay or inaction on the part of the federal government. This information was cited by United Patriots of America.

From Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, we find these words: "No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay."

No one who is actually familiar with the crisis at the southern border can deny that Arizona is endangered by the relentless assault of lawless Mexican invaders who ignore our laws, inundate our schools and medical facilities with unpaid bills, and even endanger the very lives of citizens with criminal drug cartels that engage in kidnapping, murder, human trafficking, and other mayhem, including aiming missile and grenade launchers directly at U.S. border cities from just across the Mexican border.

This is every bit as much of an invasion as the nation of Iran sending in a fleet of warships to the Port of Charleston.

The Constitution that forms the basis of the rule of law in this country says that Arizona has legal right to protect itself in the case of inaction or delay on the part of the federal government, including waging war in its self-defense.

This, when coupled with the clear Constitutional mandate that only the Supreme Court hear cases involving the states, should be ample legal basis for attorneys representing Arizona to go after the federal government with a vengeance.

Governor Jan Brewer and the stalwart members of the Arizona legislature have ample legal reason to stand firm against the illegal bullying of an arrogant, lawless federal government.


Since unions ideally are formed when employees feel intimidated by their employer, it seems to me a card check system would reveal those employees who want the union and can be threatened by their employers in the future. The secret ballot is the logical way to go. Admittedly, many union are sought because a few disgruntled or lazy employees want some alleged job security.

Maybe some bright, sunny day in the future will see the realization of Samuel Gompers belief, which I'll paraphrase, that the object of the union is to eliminate itself. That is, when employers and employees can work in harmony.

Marie Sullivan

Go Arizona! Jan, you have cajones! - but do keep an eye out on the 'good ole boys'. No racial profiling please....

Arnold, we would like to hear from you. We know you are no girly-girl..

Ron Kilmartin

Nullification is the answer to an over-grabbing central government. See new book by Thomas E, Woods. The Governor of Arizona should call a national conference on Nullification - all the governors, including the blue staters, not just on border control but health care and finance as well. This socialism can be reversed and our founders showed the way!

Nullification was Jefferson's idea in 1798 and its time has come again! You have to deal the Supreme Court out of the game when it comes to a matter between the states and the feds, since the SC is a federal institution and they cannot deal out blind justice on a state-federal issue Therefor the final say lies in the hands of the people, who created the fedeal government, as represented by their state governments (Jefferson, Madison, Calhoun, etc., and at least a dozen states have gone to the mat before on nullification).

Jon  Healey

@Ron -- Since when is John Calhoun a founder? The United States had already declared its independence by the time he was born, and he was five when the Constitution was adopted. :-)

More seriously, you left a few important names off your list of people who have gone to the mat on nullification. How about Lincoln, Grant and Webster? The Civil War should have closed the book on states' rights to nullify. That's not to say states can't do what Arizona is doing -- the feds could always withhold enforcement, as the current Justice Department has done with medical marijuana in California and other states. But to argue that states have a *right* or the *power* to nullify, I think, is to try to deny history.


"The proposed constitutional amendment, headed for a vote in November, would give workers in Arizona the right to a secret-ballot vote on any proposal to unionize."

Sounds like a good idea. Protects you from union thugs.


Didn't know there were so many weird there in AZ. These nutty decisions just show what happens when you put psychotics on crack. Apparently this is happening with so many of the correspondents here, as well: go easy on the illegal drugs, please.
Crackpot attorney wildly misread ArtIII. SCOTUS has appellate jurisdiction, meaning fed courts under them have same. Stare Decisis for around 220 years, as well. Thus Judge Bolton's courageous defense of America and our Constitution and her blow against unAmerican bigotry was not only wise but also completely Constitutional. Mr. Frego: back to law school and Con Law for you, Cupcake.

Mitchell Young

"The Civil War should have closed the book on states' rights to nullify."

Now Jon, didn't your parents teach you that violence doesn't solve anything?


Ahhh Arizona....my kinda place....where the Governor and people have balls !


I am really scared when the secret ballot is attacked. In Russia you used to have to give your ballot to a poll worker to be filed. Your vote was not secret. Ending secret ballots is wrong. It is unAmerican

Tim Bowman

Arizona's experience is that the federal government, especially the current administration, enforces or fails to enforce laws as it sees fit, and a federal government promise isn't worth the paper on which it is printed. Consequently, Arizona once again shows leadership in defining the rules. No one is preventing unions from organizing, they are just ensuring a level field for all interested parties.


Hey Randy, just say balls! Speak American!
I am sorry that this misleading initiative will be passed into law, and people [smart people}are tricked into voting for it.
Of course we all revere the secret ballot- but that is NOT WHAT THIS IS ABOUT!
Please honor all your immigrant Grandfathers and Grandmothers, and educate yourselves on this matter!
This is about making it more difficult to form Unions - I suppose that sounds good to you Randy. It didn't sound good to your Coal mining Steel Making Factory working Grandpa. Unions are for the working Man , and Woman} Go on with yourself and trust the Chamber of Commerce Propaganda Machine- We can pay workers 78 cents a day - no benefits The rich will get richer, poor will get more numerous and you will blame it on the Democrats ! {I mean Socialists}



In Case You Missed It...



Recent Posts
Reading Supreme Court tea leaves on 'Obamacare' |  March 27, 2012, 5:47 pm »
Candidates go PG-13 on the press |  March 27, 2012, 5:45 am »
Santorum's faulty premise on healthcare reform |  March 26, 2012, 5:20 pm »


About the Bloggers
The Opinion L.A. blog is the work of Los Angeles Times Editorial Board membersNicholas Goldberg, Robert Greene, Carla Hall, Jon Healey, Sandra Hernandez, Karin Klein, Michael McGough, Jim Newton and Dan Turner. Columnists Patt Morrison and Doyle McManus also write for the blog, as do Letters editor Paul Thornton, copy chief Paul Whitefield and senior web producer Alexandra Le Tellier.

In Case You Missed It...