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.”

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.

A number of significant positive and negative economic impacts could result from Pima County's SDCP and related programs, according to an analysis of existing research on large-scale conservation planning undertaken to provide a framework for community decision-making. This report offers no final verdict on the net economic impact of Pima County's current, ambitious initiatives in habitat conservation and growth management. However, it does provide a framework for future assessment and decision-making.

Though the Great Recession may be officially over, all is not well in Arizona. Three years after the collapse of a massive real estate “bubble,” the deepest economic downturn in memory exposed and exacerbated one of the nation’s most profound state fiscal crises, with disturbing implications for Arizona citizens and the state’s long-term economic health.

This brief takes a careful look at the Grand Canyon State’s fiscal situation, examining both Arizona’s serious cyclical budget shortfall—the one resulting from a temporary collapse of revenue due to the recession—as well as the chronic, longer-term, and massive structural imbalances that have developed largely due to policy choices made in better times. This primer employs a unique methodology to estimate the size of the state’s structural deficit and then explores the mix of forces, including the large permanent tax reductions, that created them. It also highlights some of the dramatic impacts these fiscal challenges are having on service-delivery as well as on local governments. The brief suggests some of the steps state policymakers must take to close their budget gaps over the short and longer term. First, it urges better policymaking, and prods leaders to broaden, balance, and diversify the state’s revenue base while looking to assure a long-haul balance of taxing and spending. And second, it recommends that Arizona improve the information-sharing and budgeting processes through which fiscal problems are understood—so they may ultimately be averted.

A series of 51 individual “stakeholder” interviews and two focus groups conducted with members of the Pima County business community in fall, 2001, documented significantly divided opinion about the likely economic impacts of the county’s Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan (SDCP). The results of the stakeholder inquiries were striking. Only one major finding reflected consensus, while several others revealed sharp differences of opinion in the business community about the potential economic impacts of the SDCP and associated initiatives.

What do we mean by "shoes waiting to drop?" We mean the trends that are already well under way — but that we can't quite see yet. These trends could overwhelm us if we don't spot them now and aggressively use our knowledge to plot our course for the future. The five "shoes" highlighted in the report are: A Talent Shake Up; Latino Education Dilemma; A Fuzzy Economic Identity; Lost Stewardship; and The Revenue Sieve.