Antenori Archives, Day 4: Dim Bulbs and the U.S. Constitution

The Antenori Archives closes its doors for the week with a trip down memory lane to the time State Sen. Frank Antenori decided his socks were worth a Constitutional challenge.

Bipartisan legislation passed in 1997 requires that by 2014, light bulbs be 25 to 30 percent more efficient than they were at that time. Energy-saving carbon filament bulbs have made that leap. Incandescent bulbs have not and will likely fall by the wayside. Antenori wants Arizona to opt out of the federal law, in part because he says he fears his own wardrobe malfunctions.

Antenori's house is lit with energy-saving light bulbs -- except for his bedroom, where these bulbs have been replaced by electricity-gobbling fluorescent bulbs.

“I got sick and tired of going outside when I thought I had black socks on; I had blue socks on,” he said.

It gets better. The law was written to tie Arizonans up in costly and protracted legal battle over the constitutionality of regulating interstate commerce, according to a report in the Arizona Capitol Times.

“That will trigger a lawsuit, which is really the intent of this bill,” Antenori told the committee. “This is a mechanism to let us go to court.”

Can Arizona afford to trigger lawsuits as it slashes education and health care dollars? Pima County Democratic Party Chair Jeff Rogers says “no.”

“Arizona still doesn't have a balanced budget and Frank wants to pick a constitutional fight with Washington ... over light bulbs? Because his socks don't match?” Rogers asked. “This bill was so crazy even Jan Brewer opposed it and decided to veto it. That's saying something.”

###