It seems that I have become the subject of the first major controversy of my political career.  A demonstration is planned for Tuesday (3/18) in Bullhead City at which time the unhappy folks will suggest that I be "fired."

A little background:  I voted "NO" on HCM 2003, "Opposing a North American Union."  This was a poorly worded "postcard" to Congress to suggest that we withdraw from the "Security and Prosperity Partnership" between Mexico and the United States, and to support a Congressional resolution to "not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada."

For starters, these "postcards" have no force or effect, and are usually ignored by anyone to whom they are sent.  Secondly, I mostly vote "NO" against any of these resolutions because I believe that we could be spending our time more productively.  And lastly, I am not convinced by those who see an eminent danger of the "North American Union" becoming reality.

This HCM failed in its vote on the floor of the House, but a motion to reconsider on the 18th was passed.  I received a few e-mails from some who were displeased with my "NO" vote, which I tried to answer with my reasons for voting as I did.  But as the e-mails continued to come in the tone became more hostile, with comments suggesting that because I voted against this HCM I must necessarily be FOR the NAU.  This, of course, was not the case at all.  Had this been an up or down vote on the U.S. becoming any part of a "Union," my vote would have been unequivocally "NO."  Then a message was forwarded to me (I never received the original) from someone who promised to stage a sit-in at my office with a chain around his neck.  Another e-mailer called me a traitor who had voted to give away our Arizonan and American sovereignty.    All seemed to believe that this HCM would actually make a difference in stopping the NAU.

On Friday, I sent my response to everyone who had e-mailed, and I am reprinting it here:

       "There is a lot of misinformation circulating on what a House Concurrent Memorial (HCM) is and does.  Whether from the Senate or the House, concurrent memorials are simply "postcards" to Congress when are meant to convey positions the Arizona legislature may have on federal issues but over which is has no jurisdiction.  While this sounds good, in reality, these memorials have absolutely no force or effect and are usually disregarded by anyone to whom they are sent.
       I am a strong defender of our country's right to protect its borders, but HCM 2003 does nothing to conserve Arizona's or America's sovereignty.  It would be much more effective if, at such time as any federal legislation is actually proposed, that we all contact our federal legislators and insist that they not vote for that issue.  The defeat of the Kennedy-McCain immigration bills is a good example of citizen activism at this level.
       While the e-mails I received were not great in number considering the population and area of LD3, your concerns were communicated and I seriously considered changing my vote if the bill comes up for reconsideration.  In fact, I told several people that I would do so.  However, because of some of the outrageous, false, and vitriolic emails I received, I will be voting "no" once again.  I have always said that I appreciate receiving comments on any matter from my constituents, but I will not be intimidated by abusive, counterproductive tactics.
       To those of you who responded to my explanation with a respectful answer, thank you very much.  I believe that we can have intelligent dialogue on an issue even if we don't agree."

The real "hard liners" on this issue could not accept this explanation, and the rhetoric became even more inflammatory.  And the plan to protest on Tuesday was hatched.  That is certainly this group's right, but it will be interesting to see how many people are actually involved.  I have been further criticized for not agreeing to change my vote; but I see this as a matter of not setting a precedent. I represent nearly 200,000 people, and it's a sure bet that not everyone agrees with me on every issue.  If I give in to this type of orchestrated campaign, then I agree that it works.  And the next time someone in this district disagrees with a position I have taken, that person will try the same tactic and expect the same result. 

Just as happened in the 2006 campaign, my stance on illegal immigration has been totally distorted.  Anyone who has read my "weekly reports" over the past 3-1/2 years knows that I have a record that can be documented.  But with some people, if you disagree with them on the slightest point then you can no longer be considered on their side.  But I am confident that the majority will not take this position and will continue to express their support for both me and my representation of their interests.

There will be more on this next week.  Until then,

Nancy