Voters Read All About It!
|
Voters Read All About It!
|
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IV, PART 2, SECTION 5, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, AS AMENDED BY PROPOSITION 107, AN INITIATIVE MEASURE ENACTED IN 1992; REPEALING ARTICLE V, SECTION 1, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, AS AMENDED BY PROPOSITION 100, AS ENACTED BY LAWS 1991, H.C.R. 2001; AMENDING ARTICLE V, SECTIONS 6, 8 AND 9, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO THE EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT.
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:
1. Article IV, part 2, section 5, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
5. Ineligibility of members of legislature to other public offices
Section 5. No member of the Legislature, during the term for which he shall have been elected or appointed, shall be eligible to hold any other office or be otherwise employed by the state of Arizona or , any county or incorporated city or town thereof. This prohibition shall not extend to the office of school trustee, not to employment as a teacher or instructor in the public school system, NOR TO A PERSON WHO IS APPOINTED BY THE GOVERNOR TO THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR PURSUANT TO ARTICLE V, SECTION 1.
2. Article V, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by Proposition 107, an initiative measure enacted in 1992, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
1. Executive department; term limits; state officers; term lengths; election; residence and office at seat of government; duties
Section 1. A. The executive department shall consist of the governor, secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction, each of whom shall hold office for a term of four years beginning on the first Monday of January, 1971 next after the regular general election in 1970, EXCEPT THAT THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SHALL HOLD OFFICE FOR FOUR YEARS BEGINNING ON THE FIRST MONDAY IN JANUARY, 1999 NEXT AFTER THE REGULAR GENERAL ELECTION IN 1998. No member of the executive department shall hold that office for more than two consecutive terms. This limitation on the number of terms of consecutive service shall apply to terms of office beginning on or after January 1, 1993. No member of the executive department after serving the maximum number of terms, which shall include any part of a term served, may serve in the same office until out of office for no less than one full term.
B. THE GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SHALL BE MEMBERS OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY. IN THE PRIMARY ELECTION AND IN THE GENERAL ELECTION, ONE VOTE SHALL BE CAST FOR THE JOINT CANDIDATES. THE DETERMINATION OF THE WINNER AMONG THE JOINT CANDIDATES FOR GOVERNOR AND LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SHALL BE MADE ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE DETERMINATION OF THE WINNER OF THE OTHER EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT OFFICES.
B. C. The person having a majority THE HIGHEST NUMBER of the votes cast for the office voted for shall be elected . If no person receives a majority of the votes cast for the office, a second election shall be held as prescribed by law between the persons receiving the highest and second highest number of votes cast for the office. The person receiving the highest number of votes at the second election for the office is elected , but if the two OR MORE persons have an equal AND THE HIGHEST number of votes for the office, the two houses of the legislature at its next regular session shall elect forthwith, by joint ballot, one of such persons for said office.
C. D. The officers of the executive department during their terms of office shall reside at the seat of government where they shall keep their offices and the public records, books, and papers. They shall perform such duties as are prescribed by the constitution and as may be provided by law.
3. Article V, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by Proposition 100, as enacted by Laws 1991, H.C.R. 2001, is proposed to be repealed as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
Article V, section 1, Constitution of Arizona, as amended by Proposition 100, as enacted by Laws 1991, H.C.R. 2001, relating to the executive department, is repealed.
4. Article V, sections 6, 8 and 9, Constitution of Arizona, are proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
6. Death, resignation, removal or disability of governor; succession to office; impeachment, absence from state or temporary disability
Section 6. A. In the event of the death of the governor, or his resignation, removal from office, or permanent disability to discharge the duties of the office, the secretary of state LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, if holding by election, shall succeed to the office of governor until his successor shall be elected and shall qualify. If the secretary of state be LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR IS holding otherwise than by election, or shall fail to qualify as governor, THE SECRETARY OF STATE, the attorney general, the state treasurer, or the superintendent of public instruction, if holding by election, shall, in the order named, succeed to the office of governor UNTIL HIS SUCCESSOR IS ELECTED AND QUALIFIES.
B. IF, BY REASON OF DEATH, RESIGNATION OR DISQUALIFICATION, THE GOVERNOR-ELECT IS UNABLE TO ASSUME THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE GUBERNATORIAL TERM, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR-ELECT SHALL ASSUME THE OFFICE OF GOVERNOR FOR THE FULL TERM. IF, AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF SUCH TERM, THE GOVERNOR-ELECT FAILS TO ASSUME THE OFFICE BY REASON OF DISABILITY, THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR-ELECT SHALL SERVE AS GOVERNOR UNTIL THE DISABILITY OF THE GOVERNOR-ELECT TERMINATES.
C. The taking of the oath of office as governor by any person specified in this section shall constitute resignation from the office by virtue of the holding of which he qualifies as governor. Any successor to the office shall become governor in fact and entitled to all of the emoluments, powers and duties of governor upon taking the oath of office.
D. In the event of the impeachment of the governor, his absence from the state, or other temporary disability to discharge the duties of the office, the powers and duties of the office of governor shall devolve upon the same person as in the case of vacancy, but only until the disability ceases.
Section 8. A. When any office shall, from any cause, become vacant, and no mode shall be provided by the constitution or by law for filling such vacancy, the governor shall have the power to fill such vacancy by appointment.
B. WITHIN NINETY DAYS OF A VACANCY IN THE OFFICE OF LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR, THE GOVERNOR SHALL NOMINATE A PERSON WHO IS A MEMBER OF THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY TO SERVE IN THAT OFFICE SUBJECT TO SENATE CONFIRMATION UNTIL HIS SUCCESSOR IS ELECTED AND IS QUALIFIED TO HOLD OFFICE. THE PERSON WHO IS NOMINATED SHALL BEGIN TO DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF THAT OFFICE ON BEING NOMINATED BY THE GOVERNOR SUBJECT TO TERMINATION OF SUCH AUTHORITY IF THE SENATE REJECTS THE NOMINATION.
9. Powers and duties of state officers
Section 9. The powers and duties of secretary of state, state treasurer, attorney general, and superintendent of public instruction shall be as prescribed by law. THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR SHALL PERFORM THOSE DUTIES THAT ARE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
5. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCR 1014
The shaded sections of this proposition were included to resolve language differences. The runoff provision in the Constitution was repealed by the voters in the 1992 General Election.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
Proposition 100 would amend the Arizona Constitution to create the office of Lieutenant Governor. The Lieutenant Governor would be first in the order of succession to the office of Governor and would step in to serve as Governor if the Governor died, resigned, was removed from office or was permanently unable to serve. The Secretary of State is currently first in the order of succession and would be moved down one step in priority. In addition, the Lieutenant Governor would act as Governor on days when the Governor is out of the state. Other specific responsibilities of the Lieutenant Governor and the issue of salary are not included in this proposition.
A candidate for Lieutenant Governor would be from the same political party and would run as a team with a candidate for Governor in both the primary and the general elections. A voter would cast a single ballot for the "team" in each election. If the office of Lieutenant Governor became vacant after an election, the Governor would name a person from the same political party to be the Lieutenant Governor, if approved by the State Senate.
The Lieutenant Governor would serve a four-year term (the same term of office as the Governor) and would be subject to the same term limits that are imposed on other top state elected officials.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 100
Three times since 1977, Arizona was governed by people not originally elected to the office of Governor, thus frustrating the will of the voters. Arizonans deserve to have a Governor that will continue the same policies as the one they elected. A Lieutenant Governor provides for such a smooth and stable transition between leaders.
The Lt. Governor would perform the duties of Governor in his or her absence and would be first in line to succeed the Governor. The Lt. Governor and Governor must be from the same political party and run as a team in the primary and general election.
As the state has grown to more than 4 million people, the demands on the office of Governor have increased dramatically. Currently, the functions and duties of Governor are performed by the Secretary of State in the Governor's absence. The Secretary of State - who can be from a different political party - also is first in line to succeed the Governor in the event of death, resignation or disqualification from office.
However, the duties of Secretary of State - voter registration and other election matters - do not prepare that officeholder for the complex policy issues and statewide leadership role required of a Governor. We need a second in command who understands the complete workings of government, not just clerical functions.
For these reasons, Arizona should join the other 42 states in the union and create the office of Lieutenant Governor.
This proposal would not increase the cost of government since the Lt. Governor could also assume the duties of an existing cabinet position such as Director of Commerce. This would also increase the visibility of the state's economic development efforts nationally and internationally.
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE X, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, BY ADDING SECTION 12; RELATING TO STATE LANDS.
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:
1. Article X, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows, by adding section 12, if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
SECTION 12. A. AFTER PUBLIC NOTICE, THIS STATE MAY EXCHANGE LANDS GRANTED OR CONFIRMED BY THE ENABLING ACT FOR OTHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LANDS UNDER SUCH RULES AS THE LEGISLATURE MAY BY LAW PRESCRIBE IF ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE MET:
1. THE EXCHANGE IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE STATE LAND TRUST.
2. THE TRUE VALUE, AS DETERMINED BY AT LEAST TWO INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS, OF ANY LANDS RECEIVED IN THE EXCHANGE EQUALS OR EXCEEDS THE TRUE VALUE OF THE LANDS THE STATE EXCHANGES.
3. THE EXCHANGE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF EITHER:
(a) CONSOLIDATING STATE LAND HOLDINGS TO IMPROVE MANAGEMENT OPPORTUNITIES OR TO INCREASE STATE LAND VALUES.
(b) TRANSFERRING STATE LANDS TO OTHER FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, INCLUDING PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES.
(c) ACQUIRING LAND THAT IS NEEDED BY THE STATE FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES, INCLUDING PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES.
B. LAND EXCHANGES ARE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE SALES FOR PURPOSES OF THIS ARTICLE.
C. LAND EXCHANGES INVOLVING FEDERAL LANDS MAY BE MADE ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY ACTS OF CONGRESS AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by Article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCR 1009
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
If approved, Proposition 101 will amend the State Constitution to permit exchanges of state trust land for other public or private lands if (1) the exchange is in the best interest of the state land trust, (2) the other land is at least equal in value to the state land (as determined by at least two independent appraisals) and (3) the purpose of the exchange is to consolidate state land holdings or to transfer or acquire land for public purposes, including environmental protection. A land exchange would be governed by procedures, conditions and restrictions enacted by the Legislature. Exchanges of state land for federal land would also be subject to any additional restrictions imposed by the federal government.
In 1910, Congress passed the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act that authorized the residents of the Territory of Arizona to form a state government. One provision of the Enabling Act granted the new state millions of acres of land to be held in trust to support various public institutions (schools, colleges, penitentiaries, etc.). Congress allowed Arizona to sell or lease the land only under very specific conditions. The State Constitution explicitly incorporated the Enabling Act restrictions on the disposal of trust lands.
Through the years Congress has amended the Enabling Act to allow Arizona more flexibility in managing and disposing of trust land. In the 1930's two acts of Congress authorized the state to exchange trust land for other public or private lands. However, the state never amended its constitution to incorporate that authority for land exchanges, but the state did enact statutes to provide for exchanges of trust land. Since that time the State Land Department, acting under the statutory authorization, has periodically exchanged state land with the federal government and with private landowners.
In 1990 the State Supreme Court determined that without amending the State Constitution the state cannot conduct land exchanges. The State Land Department has halted its land exchange activities. The effect of Proposition 101 will allow the State Land Department to resume state trust land exchanges. The department's ongoing trust land lease and sale programs would continue.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 101
We urge your support of Proposition 101, which will increase the revenue generated for public schools, without raising taxes, by allowing exchanges of State Trust lands.
The state public school and institutional Trusts own 9.4 million acres of Trust lands that were given to the state by the federal government at the time of Statehood for the purpose of raising money for the support of the public schools and institutions which are the Trust beneficiaries. About 8.2 million acres or approximately 88% of the Trust lands are in the public school land grant.
Land exchanges will allow the state to consolidate land holdings to increase the value of Trust lands for sale or lease. Every dollar received from the sale or lease of State Trust lands goes to the support of schools and institutions.
There are significant public safeguards. All exchanges must be in the best interest of the Trust and the purpose of the exchange must be to consolidate State Trust land holdings to improve its value, or to transfer or acquire lands for public purposes. Furthermore, public hearings on exchanges are required, and the land received must be at least equal in value to the State Trust land as determined by at least two independent appraisals.
Since funding for public education declined at the same time our children's needs have increased, creating a way to get more from our State Trust lands is critical.
Support Proposition 101 -- you'll help Arizona's children get a better education.
"Yes on 101" Committee: Larry Landry, Chairman
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 101
The Arizona School Boards Association, through action by its Delegate Assembly which is comprised of representatives of school district governing boards throughout the state, supports the efforts of the State Land Department to increase the revenue generated by the State Trust Lands.
Millions of acres of land were set aside by the federal government, under the provisions of the Enabling Act, to be held in trust for the public schools and other public institutions when Arizona became a state in 1912. The common schools K-12 are the single largest beneficiary of the revenues generated by the State Land Trust. The interest generated by the Trust goes directly into the state's general fund where it is used as state aid for public schools K-12, thereby relieving some of the burden on taxpayers.
The State Land Department has been hampered in its maximization of the use of Trust Lands since the Supreme Court halted the exchange of lands in 1988. The passage of Proposition 101 will allow the Land Department, through the exchange process, to consolidate land holdings to enhance Trust land values and management practices. Exchanges may not be made unless the exchange is in the best interest of the Trust and equals or exceeds the value of the Trust land as determined by two independent appraisals.
Since funding for public education K-12 has been severely cut during the last four years while the needs of Arizona's students have continued to escalate, enhancing the revenue potential of the State Trust Lands is especially critical. Your "YES" vote on Proposition 101 will allow the Land Department to better use one public resource - the State Trust Lands - to help Arizona's most important future resource -Arizona's school children.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 101
Do you share our concern for protecting Arizona's natural resources?
Some of Arizona's prime natural areas are on State Trust land. You can help protect them by voting "yes" on Proposition 101 which gives the State the authority to exchange State Trust lands.
By law, State Trust lands are sold or leased for the highest economic return. There are no provisions for environmental protection. Therefore, the best way to protect ecologically important parcels of State Trust land is to trade them to agencies with an environmental protection mandate in exchange for land that can be developed.
- The State acquired land for Catalina State Park in Tucson and Red Rock State Park in Sedona and valuable additions to Picacho, Lake Patagonia and Homolovi Ruins State Parks through exchanges.
- The State transferred to public ownership the Trust land parcels inside Grand Canyon National Park, in wildlife refuges, Wilderness areas, Aravaipa Canyon and Lake Pleasant so these lands can be managed for their scenic, wildlife, riparian and public recreation resources.
Since then, the courts have ruled that Arizona's Constitution must be amended in order to continue these exchanges. There are still many wonderful opportunities:
- The State Trust owns land in the Rogers Lake wildlife habitat area near Flagstaff, in the Burro Creek and Bill Williams Riparian Areas, in Saguaro and Organ Pipe National Monuments. These should be traded to federal agencies for protection and public enjoyment.
- Trust lands are dotted all around metropolitan Phoenix and Tucson. Trading State Trust lands in the Tortolita Mountains, Empire Cienega Ranch and McDowell Mountains to local entities would protect natural values and provide recreational opportunities.
However, this can only be done by allowing the State to regain the authority to exchange State Trust lands. Vote "yes".
"Yes on 101" Committee: Larry Landry, Chairman
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 101
The Federal Government granted the State of Arizona certain lands to be held in Trust and leased and sold to raise funds to support public schools and institutions. These Trust lands are widely scattered throughout Arizona. Many Trust land parcels are inside National Forests, National Parks and Monuments, and in areas dedicated to wilderness, wildlife and other public uses. Other Trust lands are intermingled with private lands that are critical to the industry, economic stability, and tax base of our local communities.
The State needs to be able to work with Federal, State and local government and private citizens in land exchanges that will rearrange land ownership patterns. Through land exchanges, environmentally sensitive Trust lands can be acquired, at no expense to the taxpayers, by public agencies whose duty it is to protect and manage lands for scenic, wildlife, wilderness, recreation and historic and archaeological purposes. In return the trust can receive lands more suitable for lease and sale. Through land exchanges, Trust and private lands can be consolidated to reduce conflicts, and improve management, land values and development opportunities.
Land exchanges will help the State protect environmentally sensitive lands and recreation areas without expense to the taxpayers. Land exchanges do not reduce the tax base; they enhance the financial benefits to our educational institutions; and they help stabilize industries and local economies.
These are good reasons to Vote "YES" on Proposition 101.
"Yes on 101" Committee: Larry Landry, Chairman
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 101
The Arizona Tax Research Association encourages your support of Proposition 101. Granting the State Land Department the authority to make land exchanges will provide the necessary flexibility to protect environmentally sensitive lands as well as acquire land near urban areas more valuable to the state trust.
Allowing the State Land Department to trade lands with other governmental entities for eventual sale to private interests provides many benefits to the taxpayers. Revenues from the sale of state trust land are used to support Arizona's public schools. Selling more state lands to private interest will certainly aid the state's efforts to fund our educational needs. Also, selling state property to private interests adds value to the property tax base that benefits all taxpayers by spreading the costs of all levels of government over a larger tax base.
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 101
Suppose that a state office building administrator traded his building for another private office building that he liked better! He'd be in jail by morning.
Administrators cannot trade buildings or anything else. Such transactions are rightfully prohibited by law because they easily lend themselves to collusion, inside dealing, and corruption.
When the state transfers property, the taxpayers obtain the best possible deal through competitive bidding and fair competition.
Proposition 101 changes that by amending the constitution to allow the director of the state land department to trade state land for other land. (The people have voted this down repeatedly).
Land trades were done until 1987 and many of them stunk to the high heavens (when somebody discovered that the constitution required bidding and cash transactions . . . great idea).
Land trade proposals eliminate competition. Appraisal is often very difficult, and government bureaucrats are no match for land speculators who often know what's going to happen to land values. (Or can cause it to happen).
For example, in 1986 the state traded 3,400 acres on the far northwest side of Tucson for 33 acres near a Tucson resort. Both parcels were appraised at $14.8 million. Everyone knew that the far northwest side was going to become the next boom area (as it has).
Now, developers are making a killing (and an environmental disaster) with their 3,400 acres while the state's 33 acres recently appraised for $3 million.
It is especially sad that some environmentalists have bought into this scam which is being pushed by the land barons. While there may be an environmentally beneficial trade now and then, the vast majority will not benefit taxpayers or the environment. Since land trades have been suspended, the state and federal park systems have done very well buying and selling land as needed.
A CONCURRENT RESOLUTION PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE IX, SECTION 13, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; RELATING TO PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION.
Be it resolved by the Senate of the State of Arizona, the House of Representatives concurring:
1. Article IX, section 13, Constitution of Arizona, is proposed to be amended as follows if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
13. Inventory, materials and products of manufacturers; production livestock and animals; tax exemption
Section 13. No tax shall be levied on:
1. Raw or unfinished materials, unassembled parts, work in process or finished products, constituting the inventory of a manufacturer or manufacturing establishment located within the state and principally engaged in the fabrication, production and manufacture of products, wares and articles for use, from raw or prepared materials, imparting thereto new forms, qualities, properties and combinations, which materials, parts, work in process or finished products are not consigned or billed to any other party.
2. LIVESTOCK, POULTRY, AQUATIC ANIMALS AND HONEYBEES OWNED BY A PERSON WHO IS PRINCIPALLY ENGAGED IN AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, SUBJECT TO SUCH CONDITIONS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED BY LAW.
2. The Secretary of State shall submit this proposition to the voters at the next general election as provided by article XXI, Constitution of Arizona.
FINAL VOTE CAST BY THE LEGISLATURE ON SCR 1004
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
Proposition 102 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to provide that a person who owns livestock, poultry, aquatic animals or honeybees would be exempt from paying property taxes on the animals if the person is principally engaged in agriculture.
Under current law, these animals are subject to property tax and are assessed at 8% of their valuation.
This proposition would allow the Legislature to set conditions, such as requiring owners to send in reports and other information, to qualify for the exemption. The Legislature could also define the categories of exempt animals to include or exclude specific species.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
Eliminating the personal property tax on livestock will reduce the cost of producing milk and beef and make these products more cost-effective to consumers in Arizona. In essence, the tax on livestock is a disguised equivalent to a tax on food and should be abolished. Arizona voters should vote YES on Proposition 102.
Currently only two states, Arizona and New Mexico, assess a property tax on livestock. The tax places a distinct disadvantage with other farmers from neighboring states, such as California, who pay no property tax on livestock. For example, under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) farmers will engage in frequent trade with Mexico. However, because Arizona dairy farmers have to pay a property tax for each animal over one year old, prices for Arizona dairy products are higher than products from other states where farmers do not pay property tax on livestock. Thus, Arizona milk is less attractive to buyers from Mexico and other states. Without the property tax, Arizona milk would become more competitive.
Although the fiscal impact to the state of eliminating the tax is minimal and will not significantly reduce revenues, the property tax on livestock is a substantial expense for each dairy and livestock farmer. Having to pay property tax on each animal is an additional and unnecessary burden on the farmer trying to make a living at raising livestock. A farmer incurs numerous and costly business expenses. The additional obligation of paying a property tax on livestock simply adds to the farmer's already weighty financial obligations.
There is no logical or sound reason to keep burdening farmers with unfair personal property tax on livestock. The tax should be eliminated. Vote YES on Proposition 102.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
This letter is in reference to Proposition 102. Eliminating the personal property tax on livestock will make the state of Arizona a much more attractive place for the American ostrich farmer to relocate. The ostrich industry is a well established industry that is looking for the proper place in the U.S. to raise these birds. Although there are six or seven states that are truly ideal for raising ostriches, Arizona is losing potential farms to Nevada and California. The reason -the livestock property tax.
When you look at a small town like Willcox, AZ, it is amazing that over 30 farms have been bought in the last 12 months, with more farms on the way. This represents over 6,000 acres of before unused and, in some cases, untaxed land just sitting idle. The ostrich industry has had a big impact on the state of Arizona and will continue to do so if this tax is repealed. The livestock property tax is a major concern of many people contemplating relocating to Arizona. Many of us currently located in Arizona were unaware of this tax at the time of our move, and may have chose a different location for our farms. This tax places an unnecessary burden on the farms trying to get established and make a living here in Arizona.
Arizona is very unique with this tax, with New Mexico being the only other state to have this tax in effect. If Arizona wants to continue to be a leader in the future of the ostrich industry, a vote of "YES" on Proposition 102 is a must.
|
Jeff J. Reising, Vice President |
Beverly A. Johnson, Sec.-Treas. |
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
We are representing a new agricultural industry. The ratite industry is being revived in Arizona with prospects of becoming a major asset to Arizona's already established livestock industry. Any taxation to this industry by the State deters growth. It reduces the people willing to relocate, it reduces expansion of established ranches and it places doubt on longevity with another burden to assume.
This product is a recognized meat that will be available to the public in the future. All dairy and farm products are food products that should not be burdened with this taxation. This increases the cost of doing business and increases to cost the consumer. It is an unfair burden to the livestock industry.
Currently only two states, Arizona and New Mexico, assess a property tax on livestock. This places a distinct disadvantage with competitive selling from neighboring states who are not required to pay property tax. The North American Free Trade Agreement will have opportunities available to the livestock industry in Arizona but with the burden of property tax, the Arizona market may not be able to compete.
The financial impact to the State of Arizona from eliminating the tax is minimal but very real and substantial to the ranchers, farmers and dairymen. We strongly urge you to vote YES on Proposition 102.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
Arizona is one of only two states in the country that taxes livestock placing our livestock products at a distinct disadvantage not only by increasing the price of food products to the Arizona family but also by making our products less able to compete in a national and international market. Ratite (ostrich, emu and rhea) ranchers in Arizona are the only such ranchers in the U.S. that pay livestock taxes. New Mexico has given the ratite industry a five year moratorium on taxes enabling the industry to become successful in its launch.
Arizona has attracted hundreds of new ratite ranchers from other states due to the excellent climate for the birds. This has brought new economic growth to rural Arizona. But many more people have chosen not to bring their business to the state due to the livestock tax which, in addition to other personal property taxes not experienced by ranchers in other states, has made the business too expensive to conduct in Arizona.
Arizona ratite ranchers are preparing to enter a processing market in the next three years, hoping to compete with other states in the end products market. The state of Arizona is poised to become a world leader in meat and leather production from these birds. Tax relief will make the products more competitive in the national and international markets and bring greater income to the state of Arizona.
By eliminating the tax on livestock, everyone in the state wins. Ranchers of all types will be relieved of the unnecessary burden of expense which will help relieve rising costs of food products derived from the animals. Vote yes on Proposition 102 to give ranchers the opportunity to bring you good products at fair prices.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
One of the newer industries in Arizona is the breeding of Ostrich that are sold as breeding stock, meat, leather and feathers. The climate in Arizona is ideal for the ranching of Ostrich and it is expected that in the near future we will be a leader in the production of Ostrich products. Ostrich meat is lower in fat and cholesterol than chicken but is a red meat and tastes like beef. The leather is in high demand but very short supply. Ostrich feathers are used ornamentally and in industrial applications.
Currently only two states, Arizona and New Mexico, assess a property tax on livestock. This not only places the Arizona Ostrich rancher at a competitive disadvantage with other states but discourages existing ranching operations in other states from moving to Arizona. While there are many Ostrich ranches in operation in Arizona only a few of them are large operations. Most of the ranches are what we would call mom and pop operations. Individuals invest their hard earned savings in the purchase of a pair of breeding ostrich and build their breeding stock from there. The assessment of personal property tax on Ostrich places an additional burden on the limited resources of these small ranches. The average Ostrich does not reproduce until the age of three years and it is normal to obtain a pair of breeders at the age of three months. Therefore the small rancher is paying property tax on their livestock for three years before they realize any profit.
We should look forward to the growth of this new industry that will ultimately provide new jobs and revenue. The time to tax is when this new industry is in production, not when we are just getting off the ground.
This tax should be eliminated. Vote YES on proposition 102.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
By removing the personal property tax on livestock, Arizona would be able to compete on a level playing field with other western livestock states. The Arizona Farm Bureau supports Proposition 102.
Arizona's livestock and poultry industries, and the jobs associated with them, have declined in the last decade as producers moved to other states.
California, Texas, Colorado and Utah; Arizona's southwestern neighbors, along with 44 other states, do not have a personal property tax on livestock. The producers in those states clearly have a competitive advantage when marketing their livestock and livestock products.
The personal property tax will hamper Arizona trade benefits due to new trade agreements. The North American Free Trade Agreement will result in more Mexican cattle being fed in the Southwest because of high grain costs in Mexico. Mexican livestock owners will be seeking the most economical feeding operations in the Southwest. Our personal property tax will deter these livestock investments in Arizona. Today, Arizona producers of milk, beef, eggs, pork and lamb must overcome higher costs imposed by these taxes when competing against other states for a share of the Mexican and Canadian markets.
It's time to allow Arizona livestock producers to compete on a level playing field so they can continue to supply jobs and economic stability in Arizona's rural areas.
|
Andy Kurtz, Executive Secretary and Chief Administrative Officer |
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
The Arizona Pork Council feels the personal property tax on livestock should be eliminated in Arizona. This will make Arizona Pork more attractive to buyers from other states and, with the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico. The tax on livestock is a disguised equivalent to a tax on food and should be abolished.
Arizona and New Mexico are the only two states to assess a property tax on livestock. The Arizona Pork Council is currently involved in trying to increase the interest in investing in pork production in Arizona. Some existing producers are considering expansion. This tax places Arizona pork producers at a distinct competitive disadvantage with other farmers from neighboring states, such as California, who pay no property tax on livestock. Under NAFTA, farmers hope to engage in frequent trade with Mexico. However, since Arizona pork producers have a property tax to pay for each animal over fifty pounds, they are forced into a less competitive position than producers from other states who do not pay property tax on livestock.
The financial impact on the state by eliminating the tax is very minimal and will not significantly reduce revenues. The majority of pork producers in Arizona are family farmers and the property tax on livestock is a substantial expense for these families trying to make a living at raising livestock. A producer has enough expenses they cannot control without this unneeded tax.
The Arizona Pork Producers have been a part of the improvement of their product that compared with just a decade ago, is lower in fat, lower in saturated fat, lower in calories and lower in cholesterol after cooking and trimming.
We believe it will make sound business sense to eliminate the personal property tax on livestock. Vote YES on Proposition 102.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
Arizona and New Mexico are the only two states in the country to assess a property tax on livestock. This puts the Arizona farmer at a distinct disadvantage by not only increasing the price of food products to Arizona families, but also less able to compete in the national and international markets. Ostrich, emu, and rhea farmers in Arizona are the only ratite farmers to pay livestock tax. New Mexico has given the ratite industry a seven year moratorium on taxes.
Arizona is abundant with both fledgling and large, established, ratite farms. Hundreds of Arizona residents are entering, and/or diversifying, into the ratite industry. Many large farms are re-locating from other states to Arizona due to its excellent climate. This has brought a surge of economic development to rural Arizona. Unfortunately, there are many more people who have chosen not to move to Arizona due to the livestock tax, which, in addition to other personal property taxes not experienced by farmers in other states, has made the ratite business too expensive to operate in Arizona.
Arizona ratite farmers will enter a processing market soon, and need to be able to successfully compete with other states in the end product market. Arizona has the potential to become a world leader in the sale of ratite oil, meat, and leather products. Tax relief will make Arizona farmers more competitive in both the national and international markets. The minimal fiscal impact on the state by eliminating said tax will be offset by the monies generated by a growing ratite industry in Arizona. The public will also see more affordable livestock food products in the marketplace. Vote yes on Proposition 102 to give ranchers/farmers the opportunity to bring you good products at fair prices.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 102
A "YES" vote for Proposition 102 will benefit the consumers of Arizona's agricultural products. The burden from this personal property tax falls squarely on the consumer and the agricultural industry.
It is widely held that the personal property tax on small businesses, such as farmers and ranchers, restrains growth and economic development in the State of Arizona. This restraint deters farmers and ranchers from either expanding or relocating to Arizona. Over a period of time this loss of opportunity ultimately costs the taxpayer and consumers of Arizona.
The elimination of this personal property tax will create more jobs and thus, more revenue. With a total economic impact of $6.2 Billion, Arizona's agricultural industry is a major provider of jobs, revenues, and food for all citizens.
Help lower food costs by voting "YES" on Proposition 102.
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE II, SECTION 31, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 5, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA; AMENDING ARTICLE XVIII, SECTION 6, CONSTITUTION OF ARIZONA, RELATING TO CIVIL JUSTICE REFORM.
Be it enacted by the People of the State of Arizona:
The Constitution of Arizona is proposed to be amended as follows, by amending Article II, section 31; Article XVIII, section 5; Article XVIII, section 6, if approved by the voters and on proclamation of the Governor:
Section 1. Article II, section 31, Constitution of Arizona is amended to read:
31. Damages for death or personal injuries
Section 31. No A law shall MAY be enacted in this State limiting the amount of damages to be recovered for causing the death or injury of any person.
Section 2. Article XVIII, section 5, Constitution of Arizona is amended to read:
5. Contributory negligence and assumption of risk
Section 5. UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LAW, the defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall , in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall , at all times, be left to the jury.
Section 3. Article XVIII, section 6, Constitution of Arizona is amended to read:
6. Recovery of damages for injuries
Section 6. The right of action to recover damages for injuries shall never MAY be abrogated, and the amount recovered shall not MAY be subject to any statutory limitation.
ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
The Constitution of Arizona provides that no law limiting or prohibiting the right to sue for death or injury and no law limiting the amount of money to be recovered can be enacted. The Constitution of Arizona also provides that in a lawsuit the jury determines all questions relating to the legal defense of "contributory negligence" or "assumption of risk".
Proposition 103 would amend the Constitution of Arizona to:
1. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could limit or prohibit a person from bringing a lawsuit to recover money or benefits for injuries;
2. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could limit the amount of money or benefits a person could recover for death or personal injuries, and
3. Allow the Legislature or the people to enact laws that could remove the defense of "contributory negligence" or "assumption of risk" from the consideration of a jury.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Arizona is one of the few states in the country where prisoners, drunk drivers and criminals can sue their victims -- that's absurd. A "YES" vote on Proposition 103 will put a stop to these types of absurdities, so you can't be sued by a criminal or a drunk driver.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
It is time we put a stop to the madness and absurdity in our legal system. The people of Arizona deserve a legal system that protects us from frivolous lawsuits. We need a legal system that is fair and responsive to our people. Voting Yes on Proposition 103 will help us fix our out of control legal system.
On behalf of the Arizona Chamber of Commerce I urge you to vote Yes on Proposition 103.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
"Modifications of these three outdated sections of the Arizona State Constitution will go a long way towards helping victims better protect themselves from being sued by their attackers."
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
The future of recreational trails in Arizona and the preservation of our Western way of life depends on the passage of this proposition. Without the modifications and updates of our outdated legal system that this initiative will bring, the liability concerns of private landowners may force the closure of some of our state's most popular hiking, horseback riding and mountain biking trails, and the effect on our quality of life will be tremendous. We urge you to support this constitutional reform proposition.
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Senate Bill 1305 will protect volunteers who work for many worthy organizations, such as Arizona Special Olympics, from frivolous liability lawsuits that arise from their volunteerism. However, Senate Bill 1305 will become law only if Proposition 103 is passed. Generous volunteers acting in good faith should not have to worry about frivolous lawsuits.
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
I support this initiative because it will allow previously-passed legislation dealing with volunteers to be more effective. This initiative will help protect nonprofit and public agencies and their volunteers from frivolous lawsuits. It will remove some barriers that prevent citizens from volunteering.
|
Lucia Causey, Executive Director |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
This amendment will support legislation that will protect 501(c)(3) charitable organizations and their volunteers from frivolous liability lawsuits, gross negligence notwithstanding. With these invaluable protections, Arizona Not-For Profit Organizations will not have to waste their precious resources defending themselves from ridiculous lawsuits; and civic minded individuals will not be threatened by ridiculous lawsuits because they wish to volunteer their time to support community projects.
|
Maria Hoffman, Executive Director |
AZ Council of Centers for Children and Adolescents Legislative Commit tee |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
As a 27 year adult volunteer to youth sports programs in Arizona, I fully support the provisions of this proposition, specifically regarding the Adult Volunteer Immunity, and the safeguards that the school districts obtain by permitting the use of their facilities. With all of the problems of our youth of today, it is a tragedy that so many adults are afraid to volunteer their time, because of the fear of being served a lawsuit, for actions that were well intended, and not in violation of any law. The youth needs their help!
|
Dan Rich, Past President Madison #1 Little League |
Victoria A. Gamby, Director of Finance |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
If the frivolous law suits are allowed to continue, the cost to the Taxpayers will continue to rise. In order to live in a free society we must not be in fear of frivolous cost to family and estate for our efforts to volunteer and serve in our communities.
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Fixing the outrageousness in our legal system will go a long way towards protecting the services that Arizona's towns and cities provide their people. As a former mayor of Tolleson, Arizona, as a homeowner and as a taxpayer who works hard for his money (I'm a barber), I know what phony lawsuits, or the threat of these type of lawsuits cost in taxes and insurance dollars. A "YES" vote on Proposition 103 will put a lid on some of the more frivolous lawsuits, protecting your right not to have your hard earned dollars go to a few greedy lawyers .
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
"Our small town has many volunteer community services that are threatened by ridiculous lawsuits. This constitutional amendment will protect our town's most valuable asset -- its volunteers -- by ending the threat of frivolous lawsuits."
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Law Enforcement Officers are becoming increasingly more apprehensive about performing their required duties due to the vast numbers of lawsuits being filed against them. This proposition is therefore supported by the Arizona State F.O.P. who feel that it will only enhance law enforcement in the state by allowing duty performance of officers without fear of harassment from and by law breakers. This proposition should maintain the following criteria: In the event a person is injured or property is damaged as a result of actions being taken by a certified law enforcement officer and that law enforcement officer is performing their duty within the guidelines of established state and federal laws as well as their departmental rules and regulations, then that law enforcement officer is protected from lawsuits by that person or owner of said property. Restitution should be the responsibility of the law breaker.
The F.O.P. also feels the only way these vital efforts can truly take effect is with the proposed changes in the State's Constitution as related to the civil justice reform on Article II section 31; Article XVIII section 5 and Article XVIII section 6 of the Arizona Constitution.
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
The Arizona Cotton Growers Association urges its members to support Proposition 103. And we further urge the people of Arizona to vote Yes on Proposition 103 to create a fairer legal system and to do away with frivolous law suits.
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
The funds utilized to defend an individual or organization against a frivolous lawsuit are often taken from precious monies that should be used to provide additional services to the people in need. This is particularly true in the case of not-for-profits. This fear of these lawsuits have driven many good people out of the helping industries into other "safer" professions.
Support of this proposition will allow the state to protect professionals and volunteers from frivolous lawsuits and allow these individuals in the helping professions to perform the duties that we, the public, need.
I urge you to support this action and these hard working people.
|
Former President of the AZ Council of Children and Adolescents |
Maria Hoffman, Executive Director |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
I, and many others, support this initiative as a proposition to amend the Constitution of Arizona. This proposition is important to the people of Mohave County and Arizona because it is the beginning of putting common sense back into the legal system. It will help to end frivolous lawsuits. It will allow legislation that reduces the exposure to liability for emergency medical technicians, firefighters and police officers, charities, schools, landowners, and numerous volunteers.
It will make the felon accountable for their actions. It will put meaning back into the phrase "if you do the crime, you will have to do the time." A beginning to free neighborhoods again, establishes justice and removes profit from the unscrupulous.
|
Sam Standerfer, Supervisor, District 1 |
Pat Chastain, Clerk of the Board |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
This amendment is the only way to put an end to the senseless waste of the Arizona legal system. As taxpayers and as consumers we are all paying for the high cost of frivolous and unnecessary lawsuits and so the Board of Directors of the Gilbert Chamber of Commerce supports this modification of the Arizona State Constitution as the way to bring about lasting lawsuit reform.
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Should a business that is trying to stay afloat and provide jobs to people in this time of economic uncertainty have to deal with the fear that it could be wiped out with just one frivolous lawsuit?
Should a man be able to sue a woman jogger for damages he incurred in a car wreck that he caused, claiming that her "attractiveness" made him take his eyes off the road?
Should a convicted prisoner be able to sue the people of Arizona for damages, or should a gang member be able to sue a family who is trying to make ends meet, when he injures himself while trying to steal their car? These are just a few examples of the frivolous and ridiculous lawsuits that are filed in Arizona each year.
During the 1993 Legislative session, Senate Bill 1055 was passed. This was a positive step in granting immunity to people and organizations against frivolous lawsuits. Unfortunately, the Arizona Trial Lawyers Association managed to get this overturned.
During the 1994 Legislative session, it was brought up under Senate Bill 1305 and was passed by our legislators. Therefore, the most important step in the process is now to reform a very unfair legal system. The way to get that done is to modify the three sections of the Arizona Constitution that relate to the civil justice system.
The Kingman Area Chamber of Commerce strongly supports this change in out legal system and asks that all chambers of commerce and voters in Arizona do as well.
|
Robert R. Rodriguez, President |
Beverly J. Liles, Executive Vice President |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
"The Town of Pinetop-Lakeside is very much in favor of amending these three sections of the Arizona State Constitution and strongly encourage all Arizonans to vote yes on this proposition. Our community is tired of having its services limited because our taxpayer dollars are wasted by paying for foolish and unnecessary lawsuits."
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
We urge a vote of "YES" for Proposition 103, so Arizona State Association of 4-Wheelers can enjoy the use of Arizona public and private lands for safe four wheel drive recreational use.
|
Gary Keller, Land Use Chairman |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "FOR" PROPOSITION 103
Silly lawsuits and unreasonable damage awards cost Arizona consumers and businesses too much money. Often these costs are hidden from the consumer because they are built into the price we pay for goods and services. We can cut these useless costs -- Vote YES on proposition 103!
|
Tom Jones, Executive Vice President |
People for a Fair Legal System: Joanne MacDonnell, Treasurer
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
This initiative completely turns around the laws that protect us. The verbs change "shall never" to "may".
This is an insurance company bill.
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
There's a principle older than written civilization which, put simply, says: "You break it, you pay for it." Every civilization has said it, because it's right; but only one, ours, has guaranteed it. And the cornerstone of that guarantee - the only thing that assures it against powerful and wealthy influences - is the right to a trial by jury whenever we're injured by someone else's carelessness or spite.
The framers of both the American and Arizona Constitutions thought these rights and principles were important enough to mention several times in each document. We teach our children these principles because they are morally right and are the "cornerstone of our democracy".
This Proposition is a sweeping change which would effectively take away our right to a jury trial and replace it with politicians' decisions and lobbying influences. It would give the Legislature broad power not only to limit but to actually eliminate our right to be paid for injuries caused by others.
Let me remind you of something you already know: once we give up a right, we never get it back, especially if we vote it away. These rights are too important to be given up. They are too fundamental to be "tinkered with." They have been right too long to be changed. They are too personal to be entrusted to politicians.
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
The Arizona Constitution represents the best of our 200+ year experiment with freedom and democracy. Drafted in 1910-11, our Constitution was the last, and possibly the best attempt to limit the abuses of special interests in the contiguous 48 states.
It is no accident that Article II (Statement of Rights) includes a specific prohibition against the Legislature ever attempting to limit the power of citizens acting as jurors. The framers of Arizona's Constitution trusted juries of average citizens and knew, from experience, how easily the Legislature could be used by powerful special interests.
It is no accident that Article 18, Section 6, reaffirms the framer's trust in juries and goes on to state citizens' absolute right to seek justice from their peers: "the right of action . . . shall never be abrogated" (abolished). No special interest could ever buy or control a jury of ordinary citizens, while few Legislatures around the country have ever resisted completely the power and money represented by those same special interests.
Proposition 103 is a blatant attempt by national insurance companies to abolish these constitutional protections and put decisions affecting your rights into the Legislature where they can more likely control votes. They are even using your premium dollars to finance this campaign to take away your rights!
The Arizona Constitution stands to protect the rights of everyone. It should never be amended to allow special interests like insurance companies to prevail over average citizens it was written to protect. I urge you to vote "NO" on Proposition 103.
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
Every year, over 24,000 people are killed, and hundreds of thousands seriously injured, by drunk drivers. This does not take into account victims who are injured or killed by all other forms of negligent behavior.
Last year, Mothers Against Drunk Drivers spoke out against the insurance industry's hold on our Legislature as Senate Bill 1055 (now Proposition 301) was pushed through. It is astounding to us that a bill which opens personal medical records to "any interested party", which excuses government from liability for unsafe roads and bridges, and tampers with the jury system for deciding fault and responsibility, could pass so easily.
Contrast that to MADD's four-year, unsuccessful fight to lower the legal alcohol limit to .08. The legislature seems to have it backwards.
MADD joined many Arizonans in creating and passing the Crime Victim's Bill of Rights four years ago. However, the rights of the victim of negligence have been established since statehood. The rule of accountability for one's behavior is basic to our form of self-government.
Too often, responsible individuals must rely on our civil justice system to hold people accountable who are negligent and escape any consequences under criminal law. It's tough enough to get a courtroom conviction against the negligent, even drunk, driver. We should not make it any tougher to do so in civil courts.
It is our fundamental responsibility to oppose Proposition 103. Wrongdoers should not be allowed to evade their responsibility while the insurance industry profits at the victim's expense.
We oppose Proposition 103 and urge a NO vote.
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
Proposition 103 is not a popularity contest about who you like better, one side or the other. It is, by our experience, a practical matter of deciding what's best for you.
The insurance companies supporting this proposition are interested in one thing - money, and the more the better, especially at our expense.
Giving up invaluable and fundamental protections to allow wrongdoers to escape responsibility and big insurance companies to profit is not in our best interest.
As Senior Citizens, we live and lead by example. Our experiences are practical lessons of history. These include survival through the most harsh of economic times; sacrifice through world conflict for the sake of peace; and "good old-fashion horse sense" to deal with shams.
We have the opportunity to teach a basic lesson about right and wrong by saying NO to Proposition 103. Individual responsibility and accountability are principles many have lived by and died for. These principles have always been in our best interest.
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
In 1990, the voters in Arizona rejected an insurance company sponsored amendment to the Constitution by the greatest margin ever recorded in the state: 85% against to 15% for. That amendment would have permitted the Legislature to create a "no fault" auto insurance system and, ironically, would have amended the same sections of our Constitution as does Proposition 103.
What part of "NO" don't they understand?
There is no secret to the real agenda behind this proposition. The insurance companies have lined up the votes they need at the Legislature to pass a "no fault" system. That part is easy for them.
The Arizona Republic , in a July 7th story, reported that "If voters accept the constitutional amendment, insurance companies are expected to push for a no-fault auto-insurance system." Many incumbent legislators have said the same in their campaign literature. It's simply no secret that the insurance companies can get from the Legislature what they can't get from you, the voters.
The campaign they are waging in 1994 is clearly more sophisticated and more clever than what they did in 1990. But the result will be the same. What they call "lawsuit reform" is nothing but a euphemism for "no fault."
"No fault" means good drivers subsidize bad ones. "No fault" means your rates go up after a claim even if you did nothing wrong. "No fault" means caps on your medical payments and no protection if your company goes against you.
The insurance companies are nothing if not patient and persistent. Tell them you see through this sham. Tell them AGAIN that you're not interested.
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
We oppose Proposition 103 because it hurts Arizona families. Most of us are hard-working, play-by-the-rules folks who have just enough to get by. We pay our bills on time, set a little aside for the future and buy insurance to protect ourselves against catastrophe.
It's never easy paying insurance bills, what with the cost always going up and the real hope being that you'll never use it. But we do it for our families, knowing that to not have insurance when you need it is a certain ticket to the welfare rolls. Our children have to be protected.
Most of us don't know much about the law, but we expect it to protect us, too. So when insurance companies pour millions of dollars into political campaigns to change the law, we get suspicious.
Proposition 103 isn't about people getting rights or protection. It's about losing rights and protection. It's about letting insurance companies and the legislators they control make the rules. Right now, the people have a fighting chance. If Proposition 103 passes, we don't have a chance.
The real irony here is that the insurance companies are using our premium dollars to pay for this campaign against us. It's not illegal . . . but it's wrong.
We've got to send them a message. Vote "NO" on Proposition 103.
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
Over the past few years, emergency medical care has advanced in keeping injured persons alive. Today, the injured person with a severe head injury has a much-improved chance of recovering and living a productive life. But recovery is an expensive process, one that is as dependent on holding the wrongdoer financially accountable as it is the medical care and technology available. Treatment and therapy have improved, but the cost of these vital services often exceeds $100,000 in the first year of rehabilitation alone. In reality, for the head injury patient, the road to recovery is a slow, tedious, frustrating and expensive path to regain personal independence.
Limiting a victim's recovery and excluding negligent people from accountability is wrong and puts an unnecessary burden on us all. The resources of a head injury patient and the patient's family are spent quickly, creating a dependence on available State and County services, systems that are already over-burdened and driving taxes higher.
It is the role of the private-sector insurance industry, with its massive resources, to step to the forefront on behalf of the injured. Yet here, in pushing for the passage of Proposition 103, they do no such thing. Instead, they use precious premium dollars to diminish their own responsibility and increase their financial windfall at the cost of the victims' dignity.
Proposition 103 is the insurance companies' protection act. Its passage would lead to further injury to those who most need help. We oppose Proposition 103 and urge a vote "NO".
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
The Arizona Constitution is currently based on the simple premise that people injured by the negligence of others should be compensated, and that persons who cause these injuries should be held responsible for their actions.
This principle lies at the very core of our social fabric -- our sense of right and wrong -- from the 10 year-old who hits a baseball through a neighbor's window to a toxic dumper polluting city wells.
Our civil justice system tries to mirror this basic rule. No, it's not perfect, but it does try to produce fairness and personal responsibility.
It's one thing, however, to recognize the imperfections in a system and another thing altogether to debase it with lies and distortions. Proponents claim that our court system is clogged with "frivolous" suits. Yet the truth, as reported in the June 11th, Arizona Republic , is just the opposite -- that fewer cases are being filed. When pressed to give specifics, proponents toss out all manner of unsubstantiated anecdotes -- funny stuff, to be sure -- but untrue, and straight from the annals of urban legend, like crocodiles in the sewers.
Dan Quayle used to like to say that America has 70% of the world's lawyers and spends $100 billion a year in wasteful litigation. It struck a cord and the insurance companies loved it. Unfortunately, it ain't so. America has only about 3% of the world's lawyers, which isn't bad considering Bosnia has almost none. And the total cost of personal injury litigation runs about $4 billion, roughly half of what we spend on cigarettes and a bit more than we buy in hot dogs.
ARGUMENT "AGAINST" PROPOSITION 103
The following Analysis was prepared by legislative staff. They felt it was an accurate and impartial analysis of the effect of Prop 103, which is what state law requires them to prepare. The staff worked on this for weeks before submitting it to legislators on the Legislative Council Committee for inclusion in this very pamphlet.
But it was never even considered.
Instead, Senate President John Greene, co-chairman of the insurance company-funded campaign for Prop 103, wrote the other argument entitled "Analysis by Legislative Council" that appears a few pages before this. The President then convinced other legislators to insert his argument in place of the impartial analysis by staff.
We urge you to read both. You be the judge of the Legislature's impartiality.
" ANALYSIS BY LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
(In compliance with A.R.S. section 19-124)
The Constitution of Arizona provides that no law eliminating the right to sue for death or injury and no law limiting the amount of money to be recovered can be enacted. The Constitution of Arizona also provides that in a lawsuit the jury determines all questions relating to the legal defense of `contributory negligence' or `assumption of risk'.
This proposition would amend the Constitution by:
1. Allowing the Legislature to enact laws that would eliminate a person's right to bring an action to recover money or benefits for injuries,
2. Allowing the Legislature to enact laws that would limit the amount of money or benefits a person could recover for death or personal injuries, and
3. Allowing the Legislature to enact laws that would remove the defense of `contributory negligence' or `assumption of risk' from the consideration of a jury."
Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, (FAIR): Randy Gray, Chairman
