The Arizona Catholic Conference has released its 2006 Voters Guide as part of the latest issue of The Catholic Sun, and it is billed as an important educational tool to provide unbiased information on the upcoming election. Readers are encouraged to reproduce the four-page insert and distribute it to parishes.Candidates for all state and federal offices in Arizona were asked 12 questions that were first presented to them in June, well before the September primary. Republican, Democratic and Libertarian candidates were asked to indicate whether they support, oppose or had no answer to the questions. (www.azcatholicconference.org)The first thing that jumps out is the number of candidates who, for various reasons, did not return their surveys. While some may say they never received the survey so they could not respond, most surely saw no political value in posting their stands, especially with the questions about abortion, contraception and a definition of marriage. Candidates typically get a whole bunch of such surveys from interest groups, teacher organizations, the media and others. Sometimes the questions are innocuous, but most often the questions are directly related to the groups own hot button issues and to answer honestly to such groups wont help them win.The guide lists 201 total candidates. Candidate did not answer survey was noted 97 times. Thus 48.2 percent of all seeking offices did not respond to the Conferences inquiry. It was worst in the races for the Arizona Senate — 31 out of 56 not responding, or 55.4 percent. The state House races found 45 percent (46 of 102 hopefuls not responding). Eleven of 25 running for the U.S. House of Representatives chose not to respond. Eight of 15 for state executive offices did not send back surveys. Of the 97 not returning them, 66 were Democrats, 18 were Republicans, nine were Libertarians and the rest were Reform or Independent candidates. Among the 12 questions were: prohibiting all forms of human cloning; legalizing physician-assisted suicide; amending the United States Constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman; and requiring informed consent for abortion to inform a woman considering an abortion about the medical and psychological risks, fetal development and abortion alternatives, and to include a 24-hour period for the woman to review the information. In some cases, there are asterisks by names of candidates who felt compelled to elaborate on their answers lest a support/oppose oversimplified their positions. One House candidate (Lynne Pancrazi in District 24) gave no S or O, but did respond to all questions with written comments. Same for Libertarian U.S. House District 2 candidate Powell Gammill.So have the non-responders struck a blow to the democratic process? The short answer is yes, but I dont believe they could be called cowardly or even disingenuous. Stark 15-word, unqualified statements about some of societys most knotty issues can be daunting and even unworthy for S or O responses. In districts where candidates have a strong hold of their seats, there is less risk in giving answers that might be unpopular to Catholics, in this instance. Or by not answering at all may carry no real risk. But where races could be close, the risks of honest answers - giving a firm "no" or "yes" answer — may be political folly. Some candidates may actually resent a large religious institution so brazenly posing such contentious moral issues. And if you are running for the Arizona Corporation Commission, you may ask yourself, "What do these have to do with the cost of electricity?"Finally, many candidates know full well that the issues identified by the leadership of an organization, in this case the Arizona Catholic Conference and diocesan hierarchies, are not necessarily supported entirely by members/followers. And there is, in fact, opposition within the ranks for issues the church supports.

Posted in: Uncategorized |

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.