Thanks for not adding to voter confusion

Re: the Oct. 22. article “Ducey: Arizona to keep March 22 primary day.”

Thank you to Gov. Ducey for not changing the date of the Presidential Preference Election because there is already enough voter confusion about that election. A main source of confusion is who can vote. Arizona is a “closed primary” state, so only those registered with a political party can vote in the March 22 Presidential Preference Election, a type of primary.

So-called “independents,” those who did not choose a political party when they registered to vote, cannot vote in that election. “Independents” must switch registration to Democrat or Republican by Feb. 22. They can then switch back if they so choose.

Another primary, in August, for all offices except president, is open to “independents,” who may vote for either party. Those “independents” who wish to vote on March 22 can re-register at the Pima County Recorder’s website: https://www.recorder.pima.gov/regvote

Phil Lopes

West side

The truth about the Oro

V

alley golf purchase

Re: the Oct. 26 letter “OV citizens should have voted on golf course.”

The writer states that the Oro Valley town council incumbents should have allowed the OV citizens to vote “yes” or “no” on the acquisition of the golf course. It has been stated many times before that Oro Valley is a Title IX town, and state law does not allow the town to refer to the voters for the acquisition of the golf course. This was made clear by the Town Attorney at the town council meeting of Dec. 17, 2014.

The acquisition of the golf course could have gone before the OV voters, but the recall challenger botched the referendum effort by not following simple instructions required for the referendum petition paperwork.

Don’t blame the incumbents for not referring to the voters for the acquisition, they were following the law. Blame those who didn’t fill out the referendum paperwork correctly. The truth may be inconvenient to some, but it is the truth.

Kathy Borg

Oro Valley

Dog rescue groups pay for injured greyhounds

Re: the Oct. 25 article “State isn’t told about all of Tucson track’s greyhound injuries.”

Once again we see how Tucson Greyhound Park doesn’t follow the rules and spouts one thing about schooling or unofficial races while the racing statute states otherwise. How is that going to be rectified, or is the Arizona Department of Gaming going to sweep it under the rug?

The article misleads the reader to believe that track veterinarians or the kennel operators take the dogs to outside veterinarians for injury treatment. While a broken leg might be temporarily wrapped at TGP, these dogs are now mercifully done racing. It is the greyhound rescue groups that bear the horrendous financial burden of fixing and rehabilitating these dogs who suffer costly broken legs and other severe injuries.

Karyn Zoldan

Midtown

An agrument against red-light cameras

I am voting yes on Proposition 201, and here is why. I was heading north on Swan Road approaching Grant Road. Prior to the intersection of Swan and Grant I got into the right-hand turn lane. There was a driver ahead of me turning right onto Grant also. The light was red. The driver in front of me stopped and I did also. There were no cars in the intersection so we both proceeded to turn right onto Grant. Unfortunately, and for reasons I do not understand, I received a red light photo ticket for not stopping before making my turn. I paid the fine and went to driver’s school. In the class I asked the teacher how close to the intersection you had to be for your stop to be registered on the red light camera and he could not answer the question. My ticket was not justified. This is why I am voting yes on Proposition 201.

Richard Earls

Midtown

What benefit is there from hippos on skates?

People say to vote for the bonds package as if it’s all one thing. Don’t be hoodwinked. Do we really need a new highway for the benefit of developers, high-end resorts, home builders and our local peddler of weapons of mass destruction? Should we destroy another archaeological site? Vote no on Proposition 425. Should low or fixed income property owners and those living in the far reaches of Pima County pay a mandatory annual tithe to a hand-picked selection of so-called non-profits? Is a new zoo exhibit or cowboy skit going to bring tangible benefits to the lives of Pima County homeowners? Even if a pygmy hippo did a high-wire act on roller skates would tourists flock to Tucson, and would all property owners benefit, somehow, from that? Vote no on Proposition 427.

Matt Finstrom

West side