October 30th, 2008
The Arizona ballot for the election on Nov. 4 will feature eight citizen initiatives, also known as propositions, for voters to choose to pass or reject.
A citizen initiative is a proposal to amend either an existing law or the state constitution. For an initiative aimed at amending a law, a petition signed by at least 10 percent of Arizona’s registered voters must be submitted to the Secretary of State. For an initiative that would amend the state constitution, at least 15 percent of registered voters are required to sign the petition. Votes on initiatives are held every two years, with the options of “Yes” or “No.”
Proposition 102 relates to Arizona’s definition of marriage. The official title of Prop 102 says it “defines that only a union of one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state.”
Kelly Molique is the spokeswoman for Prop 102 and for the Web site yesformarriage.com, one of the key supporters of the initiative.
“The language of the proposition is 20 clear words that define marriage as one man and one woman,” Molique said.
Under Arizona state law, same-sex marriage is already prohibited. However, Molique said amending the constitution is still important.
“It gives Arizonans a chance to choose their definition of marriage instead of legislators or judges,” Molique said. “Laws can be changed at any time, so by amending the state constitution, Arizonans get to decide.”
Molique cited California and Connecticut as instances where state laws were overturned in favor of allowing same-sex marriage. However, she said this is not the main motivation for the initiative.
“The reason Prop 102 has gained so much support is because the proposition is very clear and not because of any fear,” Molique said.
Jim Burroway, the campaign chairman for No on Prop 102, said the initiative is being used as a distraction.
“We think it’s unnecessary and divisive,” Burroway said. “We already have a law defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and it’s been ruled on by the Arizona Supreme Court.”
Burroway said the legislators behind the initiative should be held accountable for putting Prop 102 on the ballot.
“I think what’s going on is that Phoenix politicians are shoving more important issues to the side for this one, and that shows their priorities are screwed up,” Burroway said. “We expect them to pay attention to important issues like the economy instead of these insignificant and divisive ones.”
In 2006, Proposition 107, which would have amended the constitution with a same-sex marriage ban, failed to pass. This was the first time in the United States where a same-sex marriage ban failed to pass the initiative process. Burroway said voting should be the final word.
“We need to send a message to our legislators that if we vote no on a proposition, we really do mean no,” Burroway said. “They have to trust the voters. We’re finding people are fed up with having to deal with this proposition again when we already dealt with it two years ago.”
However, Molique said Proposition 102 offers voters a new choice.
“Proposition 102 is different than what we saw in 2006,” Molique said. “We’re only defining marriage. It doesn’t deny benefits and it doesn’t get into any legal issues.”
Another initiative on the ballot is Proposition 105, which creators have called the “Majority Rule – Let the People Decide Act.” The descriptive title for the initiative says it “requires an initiative measure that establishes, imposes or raises a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandates a spending obligation…shall not become a law unless the measure is approved by a majority of qualified electors registered to vote.”
Tom Jenney is the Arizona director of Americans for Prosperity, which has endorsed Proposition 105.
“The current budget deficit crisis in Arizona is one of the nation’s worst and one of the main reasons for this is because the state budget is on auto pilot,” Jenney said. “Because of citizen-mandated spending increases, the governor and legislature are forced to spend more and more each year.”
Jenney said forced spending is a problem when the government does not have the money they are required to spend.
“Even when money is short, there’s nothing they can do about it,” Jenney said. “Prop 105 would stop this digging. Prop 204 in 2000 makes us spend more and more on the state’s Medicaid program, regardless of whether the economy is in a recession.”
Kristin Greene, the campaign manager for No on Prop 105, said voters need to be made more aware of what the initiative will actually do.
“We think this is the most misleading ballot initiative we’ve ever seen in Arizona,” Greene said. “The way they wrote it, it’s going to apply to every citizen initiative.”
Greene said if Proposition 105 were to pass, it would put an end to the initiative process.
“There’s no initiative in the past that would have met this standard,” Greene said. “This includes the state-wide smoking ban and health care. This would kill the initiative process. They’re going to put this in the Arizona Constitution.”
Jenney said the initiative only affects those that would mandate a spending or tax increase.
“It would not kill citizen initiatives,” Jenney said. “But it would make it very difficult to pass ones that mandate increased spending or tax increases. Our concern with the current system is that it allows 51 percent of the small amount of voters that turn out to show up and create these problems.”
Jenney said this initiative would be consistent with the views of Arizona’s founding fathers.
“The founding fathers of Arizona put a lot of things in our constitution that is not simply majority rule,” Jenney said. “They established checks and balances to prevent a small number from creating problems. I think people are catching on that when they approve a spending increase, it’s going to hit them in the pocket.”
Greene said the passing of this initiative would create a negative precedent for the initiative process.
“There’s a message that this sends,” Greene said. “There’s a lot of national interest in this. It would leave legislators to be the only one to pass public policy.”
A third initiative on the ballot is Proposition 200, known as the Payday Loan Reform Act. Payday loans are short-term loans given to borrowers to cover expenses until their payday. The current Arizona legislation that allows for payday loans is set to expire on July 1, 2010. Proposition 200 would extend the legislation while claiming to reform various aspects of it.
Stan Barnes, the campaign chairman for Yes on 200, said expanding the payday loan law is a necessity.
“Voters understand reform is better than elimination,” Barnes said. “Eliminating credit option in a down economy like this is not the way to go.”
In addition to extending the law, Barnes said Proposition 200 would reform several aspects of the system.
“Prop 200 lowers fees, makes it illegal to charge more fees to extend a loan, mandates a ‘no cost to the customer’ repayment plan for those that can’t meet the obligation, and cracks down on non-regulated internet lenders,” Barnes said.
Ken Clark, the campaign manager for No on 200, said the initiative really doesn’t provide reform.
“Proposition 200 is a shell game,” Clark said. “The payday loaning industry has spent $13 million to say they need reform. So they’re actually attacking themselves, but they’ve given themselves little Christmas gifts.”
Clark said the clauses in the proposition are written in order to mislead voters.
“The biggest claims they’re making is that they’re going to raise fees,” Clark said. “But they’re only going to drop about 450 percent APR interest to 391 percent APR interest. That really doesn’t make much of a difference, because what they’re not telling you is that each borrower is making around 12 loans a year at around $300. And they don’t want to give people payment plans; they want to roll them over and over in debt.”
Clark said college students in particular are paying the price for the corruption in the payday loans.
“These students are thinking this is a good way to pay off one thing or another,” Clark said. “But what’s happening is they are having to pay them off when they should be worrying about studying and paying off financial aid, so payday lenders are starting to target college students more.”
However, Barnes said payday loans are a superior option for short-term lending.
“Arizona consumers need credit options,” Barnes said. “They’re cheaper than bouncing a check or overdrafting on a credit card. And there are approximately 2,500 jobs in the industry and eliminating them makes no sense. Opponents have nothing to talk about, so they use fear because they know it’s possible to scare voters into a ‘no’ vote.”
Clark said these claims are another way of misleading the voters.
“Between now and 2010, the payday loan industry can give up and leave or the legislature can extend it or there could be a compromise,” Clark said. “Why do we want to put something into statute that can’t be changed? What if there’s something wrong with it? You should never write a law like that.”
Clark said a rejection of Proposition 200 would not automatically lead to the elimination of payday loans.
“I have reason to believe they will continue, but they’re going to have to negotiate,” Clark said. “But they just want to have it their own way. There are 100 different options better than going into debt with 450 percent interest.”
There are five other initiatives on the ballot:
Proposition 100 would prohibit “any new tax, fee, or other assessment on the sale, purchase, transfer or other conveyance of any interest in real estate.”
Proposition 101 “prohibits laws that restrict person’s choice of private health care systems or private plans” and other restrictions concerning a person’s choice in health care.
Proposition 201 is known as the Homeowners’ Bill of Rights and lays out a series of new guidelines concerning legal issues regarding homeowners.
Proposition 202 “modifies laws that suspend or revoke business licenses for employers who knowingly or intentionally employ an unauthorized alien” and relates to other employer infractions regarding illegal hiring.
Proposition 300 “provides for an increase in the salaries of state legislators from $24,000 to $30,000 per year.”
Source: jackcentral.com