The Citizens Clean Elections Commission was established by the enactment of the Citizens Clean Elections Act. The Commission’s mission is to fairly, faithfully and fully implement and administer the Citizens Clean Elections Act. All members must be registered to vote in the State of Arizona. No more than two members of the commission may be members of the same political party. No more than two members of the commission may be residents of the same county.

A participating candidate is an individual who has decided to run for a statewide office or the Legislature, agrees not to accept special interest monies and adheres to the Citizens Clean Elections Act and commission rules. In return, the participating candidate will receive funding from the Citizens Clean Elections Fund. In order for a candidate to receive funding, the participating candidate must collect a specified number of $5 Qualifying Contributions from registered voters within his or her district for a legislative candidate or registered voters in Arizona for a statewide candidate.

This Citizens Clean Elections Commission Nonparticipating Candidate Guide was created to provide information to candidates interested in running for legislative or statewide office. Participating candidates for statewide offices and legislative offices are eligible to participate in the public funding program. The system is voluntary; candidates may choose to participate in the system or they may choose to raise funds in the traditional manner. Candidates who choose to raise funds with private campaign contributions are referred to as “nonparticipating candidates.”

Majorities of all panelists statewide named crime/public safety as among the chief indicators of “quality of life” and as among the top issues their officials should address. Nearly half said they thought crime was getting worse. But looking beneath these overall views reveals a pair of seeming paradoxes. The first is that, despite their strong concerns about crime, most respondents also said that their own neighborhoods are relatively safe places, and that they felt safe walking alone at night. The second paradox is that, generally speaking, those Arizonans who are less personally liable to become victims seem more emphatic in their concern about crime than those who seem more likely to be victimized.

When they’re not sleeping, working, or tending to other duties, Arizonans keep busy. From museum tours to farmer’s markets, softball to spiritual quests, they spend their personal time on a wide array of different activities, from high culture to casual pastime. And—little surprise here—they tend to like to do them outside. These findings arise from a survey asking Arizonans about their leisure-time pursuits, leaving it for them to decide what they consider to be “arts and culture” or “leisure activities and pastimes.” In response, 45% of panelists say they regularly attend at least one type of arts and cultural event, and 77% say they say they regularly participate in leisure activities and pastimes.

Good jobs and good schools—few would disagree that these are essential elements of a secure and rewarding life. Both are also vital components of a healthy society: Good jobs create revenue to support quality schools, which in turn produce a superior workforce to fill those jobs. Based on survey panelists’ responses, most Arizonans seem to feel that they’re doing well on the employment front, but not quite so well concerning education.

Arizonans have gained a reputation for their low opinion of government, despite -- or perhaps because of -- the major role played by all governmental levels in residents’ daily lives. This view was reflected in the responses to this segment of the survey, as panelists generally gave low ratings to the government services they were asked to judge. This was especially true of lower-income panelists. But the respondents’ low ratings might not always have been based upon personal experience: Few panelists said they had sought information from government or community agencies. This may be due to the increasing popularity of the Internet as a self-help source, but it could also mean that relatively few residents need the services or know they are available. In any case, more than half of those who did seek information said they were satisfied with the result. Panelists were not dismissive of all collective efforts at social betterment. They expressed high levels of agreement that good community-based programs can prevent many social problems, from drug and alcohol addiction to child abuse and juvenile delinquency. Asked how they themselves would distribute public funds for social problems, most respondents choose programs for children, affordable housing, and health insurance.