2008 Ballot Proposition Guide
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT
TO THE CONSTITUTION OF
Text of Proposed Amendment
SECTION 1.1. TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY THROUGH TRUE MAJORITY RULE, AN INITIATIVE MEASURE THAT ESTABLISHES, IMPOSES OR RAISES A TAX, FEE, OR OTHER REVENUE, OR MANDATES A SPENDING OBLIGATION, WHETHER ON A PRIVATE PERSON, LABOR ORGANIZATION, OTHER PRIVATE LEGAL ENTITY OR THIS STATE, SHALL NOT BECOME LAW UNLESS THE MEASURE IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS THEN REGISTERED TO VOTE IN THIS STATE.
Proposition 105 would amend the Arizona Constitution to provide that an initiative measure that establishes, imposes or raises a tax, a fee or other revenue or mandates a spending obligation on a private person, a labor organization, other private legal entity or this state shall not become law unless the initiative measure is approved at the election by a majority of qualified electors registered to vote in the state.
Fiscal Impact Statement
State law requires the Joint Legislative Budget Committee (JLBC) Staff to prepare a summary of the fiscal impact of certain ballot measures. The fiscal impact cannot be determined in advance. Ballot propositions are currently approved by a majority of votes cast on a measure. By increasing the current vote threshold for an initiative that increases a tax or fee or creates a mandatory spending obligation, Proposition 105 may reduce the number of such initiatives that are approved in the future.
Arguments "For" Proposition 105
Argument in Favor of The Majority Rules Initiative
Proportionally, our state government has the largest budget deficit in the nation. One of the main causes of the fiscal crisis is the fact that almost half of the state budget is on autopilot. Every year, the Governor and Legislature are forced by voter-approved ballot measures to spend more and more money on certain government programs.
Because of voter-approved spending mandates, the Governor and the Legislature are not allowed to freeze or reduce the spending for those government programs--even during a recession, when companies are closing, people are losing their jobs, and tax revenues are drying up.
The Majority Rules Initiative would not affect existing voter-approved spending mandates, but it would raise the bar, making it harder for special interests to enact new spending mandates. That makes sense. When you're deep in a hole, the first thing you should do is to stop digging.
The Majority Rules Initiative would also make it harder for special interests to use ballot initiatives to raise our taxes. Of course, if we, as a strong majority of voters, want new spending obligations or tax increases, we can still vote for them.
Paid for by "Americans for Prosperity"
Vote yes on Proposition 105 because a true majority should set new taxes at the ballot box.
With some irony this initiative is forced by previous initiatives which have created out of control state spending and burdensome regulations by special interests of using the ballot box. Low voter turnout elections create situations where taxes, spending and regulations can be driven by narrow special interests, but the costs are borne by everyone on a permanent basis.
This initiative says if the voters of Arizona want to enact new taxes and mandates on government and the private sector, the measure must be passed by a majority of those qualified to vote in that election. This initiative does not affect proposals referred to the voters by the legislature. These proposals are thoroughly debated and are tested beyond the "slick and misleading" slogans special interests use when they put their measures on the ballot. It also does not effect local bonding elections for local government and schools.
Paid for by
Our legislators and our governor have
Concerned About Our Budget Deficit? Vote Yes For Majority Rule
Our state faces a massive, crushing, and growing budget deficit. When a family has these problems, it cuts its spending. So too did our Legislature try to curb the spending frenzy of years past. But it couldn't, because much of the spending was approved through ballot measures, and it is nearly impossible to reduce it, even in times of fiscal emergency.
Moreover, special-interest groups not only benefit from higher taxes and spending, but they often lavishly bankroll campaigns to convince voters to approve them through the initiative process. Once approved, even if voter turnout is light, those increases often are locked in forever.
It makes sense that if
voter-approved spending measures are largely off-limits even when
circumstances change, they should reflect the will of a true majority of
Taxes and spending in
The Majority Rules Initiative, Proposition 105, promises to make it harder for the tax and spend special interests, whose appetites seem never satiated, to highjack our ballot box and with a minority of the people in this state impose new taxes or new spending on the rest of us.
Under current law, out-of-state special interests can hire paid circulators to put tax and spend measures on the ballot which can become law without a broad state consensus that the taxing or spending is necessary or wise. Indeed, they can become law with only a minority of registered voters supporting them. Special interests have done just this with the result that the Legislature is powerless to cut back on the mandated spending, even if it means paying taxes we can't afford or spending more than we have in the state's treasury.
It is more important than ever, when taxes are choking us and state spending is out of control, that we put the brakes on runaway special interests high jacking our ballot box for their favorite tax and spend schemes. If a measure is worthy of support, it will attract a broad consensus -- a majority of qualified electors -- to become law. Accepting less than a true majority of qualified voters means that a measure does not have the broad support that it should have before new taxes or new spending are forced onto the entire state.
Please remember the wise counsel of Thomas Jefferson: "We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared."
In 1992 voters approved a measure that
made it tougher for state lawmakers to raise taxes. Instead of a simple
majority needed to pass a tax increase, it now takes 2/3 of the legislature
to pass a tax increase on
Interest groups have successfully raised taxes and spending for their causes by circumventing the legislature and getting approval from only a simple majority of election-day voters. This means that a minority of registered voters can raise taxes on everyone.
End Unfairness of Micro-Minority Rule
Imagine that only 15 of your neighbors decide that the other 85 of you should be charged for decades or longer for a project that was destined to bankrupt the entire neighborhood. This is precisely what happens now under the rules that allow a small percentage of voters to raise taxes or spending through ballot initiatives. Requiring a simple majority of qualified voters before new spending or taxing can be instituted would be a far superior system. And infinitely fairer.
It's all in a name. One trick is to give a ballot measure such warm and fuzzy titles that a small number of voters (currently the threshold for passage) is enticed into agreeing to more spending or taxation, sometimes in perpetuity. A busy citizen caught up in the business of supporting a family or surviving crises is no match for a highly-paid public relations consultant who knows the right catch phrases to splash across a 5-color brochure in order to bag an affirmative vote for ever more juicy entitlements.
Argument in Favor of the Majority Rule Initiative
Since the initiative
process has been taken over by lobbyists and special interest groups, I
In recent years the
initiative process has been hijacked by lobbyists and special interest groups
whose sole mission is to trample on the many for the benefit of the few, and
it has become a plague on
In an effort to curb
wasteful government spending,
With all of the
On Election Day, please don't let your guard down. The special interests will do their best to scare us, but don't be fooled. The best thing we can do for ourselves, our families and our state is to take back the power from these special interests and finally let all of the people decide. Please join me in voting yes on Prop 105.
Argument in Favor of The Majority Rule Initiative
My belief in our representative government is why I support the Majority Rule Initiative. Unfortunately, the initiative process has diverted the electorate's attention away from who is in their State Legislatures, which is a detriment to our system and to the cause of freedom. That is why I believe Majority Rule is a critical step to begin to reform the process. By removing the ability for special interests to use ballot initiatives to raise our taxes and mandate increased spending, voters will shift their focus back where it belongs: our elected state leadership.
Passage of Majority
Rule will improve the quality of our elected leadership, protect
representative democracy, improve
My Grandfather, Carl Karcher, started Carl's Jr. with a seventh grade education, a Hot Dog Cart, and hardly a penny to his name. This is possible only in a free enterprise system. The more the free enterprise system is encroached upon by taxes and spending that are mandated by special interest through the current initiative process, the more the free enterprise system is diminished.
The Majority Rule
Paid for by "MJKL Enterprises"
Argument Against Prop 105
initiative is intended to tie the hands of voters in
Proponents of Prop 105 are empowering registered voters who don't exercise their right and civic duty to vote. In this Presidential Election, Arizonans will come out to vote in masses; nearly 70 percent of registered voters will cast a ballot. If Prop 105 were in effect this election, a ballot initiative would have to achieve 75 percent of the vote to make up for the 30 percent of voters who opted to stay home.
Paid for by
Argument Against C-19-2008:
democratic rights in the
This proposal causes a small minority to dictate that our social contract to abide by a simple majority vote is destroyed by their distorted, small minority sense of what is good for them, but a disaster for a democratic society. Specifically, they want a majority of registered voters plus 1 for new governmental revenues to be enacted.
Only 45.8 percent voted in Yr-1998; therefore, even if 100 percent voted yes - it would have been impossible to enact any revenue issues. Even if 100 percent voted 'yes', the law would still not pass.
Why should we let people that don't
bother to vote decide an election? Prop. 105 would do this by counting people
registered to vote - but who don't bring themselves to actually cast a ballot
-- as a no vote in any initiative designed to raise funds for issues such as
education. It is plain undemocratic, un-American and bad for
If Prop. 105 had been
in effect in 2000 the voters would not have passed the six-tenths of a cent
sales tax that has provided a funding stream of more than $2 billion to
increase teacher salaries and classroom opportunities for public school
children. Can you imagine our classrooms even more shortchanged than they
already are - even less for teacher salaries, reducing class size and
extending educational programs? 50th place: that is
Prop. 105 is one of
the worst ideas to come along in a long time and would severely jeopardize
Paid for by "Arizona School Boards Association, Inc."
The so-called "Majority Rule Initiative", actually contradicts majority rule and allows a small minority of voters to overrule the will of the majority. Passage of this measure will destroy our citizen initiative process which has been a core constitutional right of Arizonans since we became a state in 1912.
This act would apply to almost every initiative placed on the ballot preventing Arizona voters from implementing programs that have even small administrative costs (Humane Treatment of Farm Animals), increase state revenues even without raising taxes (Indian Gaming), or raise the standard of living for Arizona's working poor (State Minimum Wage).
Requiring approval by
a majority of all registered voters (including those who have died or moved
out of state, but are still on the rolls), is not only undemocratic but will
effectively kill any ballot measure, even extremely popular ideas that pass
by more than a three-to-one margin at the polls. For example, in a typical
If this measure had been in place since statehood popular ideas as diverse as our Heritage Fund for public parks, our Independent Redistricting Commission, Smoke Free Arizona, increased classroom funding, funding for early childhood development and Clean Elections all would have been defeated despite receiving majority votes due to their great appeal and broad benefits.
Paid for by "Clean Elections Institute"
Currently, ballot initiatives either pass or fail based on the majority of people voting. If Prop 105 passes, most citizen initiatives will fail unless they receive yes votes from a majority of all persons registered to vote--not a majority of people actually voting. Typically, only about 50 percent of registered voters actually vote. That would mean for nearly every initiative, every single person who takes the time to vote would have to vote for the initiative to make it become law. In other words, people who don't vote will actually have more power than citizens who take the time to go to the polls to vote.
If this "Ultra-Minority Rule" had been in effect before, we would not have Clean Elections to diminish the influence of special-interest money in state government; we would not have smoke-free restaurants and hotels; we would not have the Heritage Fund that protects our parks, trails and wildlife; we would not have the tobacco tax that helps fund healthcare for millions of Arizonans and we would not have the Arizona Indian Gaming initiative that funds emergency rooms and trauma centers all over Arizona. The initiatives that created all those programs would not be law even though they were passed by large majorities of the people voting. People who didn't vote would have had more power than people who did vote.
Paid for by
Anyone reading this letter obviously is a conscientious voter. Congratulations on taking your right to vote seriously. Ironically, Prop 105 aims to marginalize you by diluting your right to vote.
The proposition says that any voter who takes the time (like you) to learn an issue can still vote "yes" or "no" on an initiative and all those who do not care to take the time and do not vote are counted as a "no". Why does that make sense? It doesn't.
Majority Rules is a dangerous constitutional amendment that guts your rights. Even if you and I as informed voters may not agree on an issue, yet we take the time to learn the issue and then vote on it, our voices should be heard equally. Not so according to Prop 105
Prop 105 wrongly puts the will of people who don't vote at our level of importance. It requires initiatives to receive the majority vote from all registered voters- even those who don't bother voting in essence cast a ballot. This proposition is being pushed by special interests who fear people like us because you and I actually vote. In a patronizing sweep of illogic, these groups (this proposition is being paid by the liquor and fast food industry) claim that anyone not actually voting would therefore be a "no". Why does that make sense? It doesn't.
Vote no on "Majority Rules", Prop 105
We at Healthy Arizona
have, twice, offered
If this initiative had
been in place, voters would never have been able to vote to use lawsuit
settlement money, from the tobacco industry, for funding healthcare. If not
for the voters of
And this restriction only applies to initiatives where you decide to spend money, not ones that cut revenues. The legislature can still vote to stop revenues, and bankrupt the programs we support, like funding for schools and healthcare. If we pass this initiative, there's nothing we can do to correct it.
Paid for by
"Church Women United urges a No vote.
Did you vote, a few
years ago, to increase the tax on cigarettes, in order to fund schools? Did
you vote for the money, that
If you said "yes," then you are with the majority of Arizonans. Or, at least, with the majority who vote. But then, this constitutional amendment no longer leaves such matters in the hands of those who vote. Read the last sentence-- "approved by a majority of qualified electors then registered to vote." If this measure passes, none of the things you've supported in the past, or want to support in the future, will pass. Because voters will be "outvoted" by nonvoters, under this thing.
Church Women United has no axe to grind in this. We are not special interest lobbyists, trying to undermine free elections. But, then, in our denominations, when elections are held, only those folks who show up in the pews, and at the conventions and meetings and councils, actually decide things. We don't consider ourselves "outvoted" by the folks who sleep in on Sundays. We cannot understand why voters who make it to the polls would allow the illusion that those, who don't, should cancel our votes.
Paid for by
"Church Women United in
"As Candidates of the Arizona Green Party, we urge a No vote.
For example, it creates a limitation on us voters, but only when we decide something is valuable enough to pay for. If this were such a good idea, why doesn't it cut both ways? If the decision is truly ours, then any limitation, in our constitution, should be even handed. After all, right now being able to run initiatives is the only way we voters have to bypass stalemates in the legislature, and get past the lobbyists' wish-lists for our tax dollars. Why tie our hands?
But, get this, it isn't about voters deciding, either. Because a majority of actual voters can't decide anything, ever again, if we pass this measure. Only a majority of "registered" voters. So if, say, 49 percent of registered voters make it to the polls, then, even with 100 percent approval, what we want fails. That's right-- the phantom voter, who doesn't cast a ballot, can cancel your vote. This measure disenfranchises people who actually vote, in favor of people who are registered, but do not vote.
The Green Party is about giving people more reasons to vote, not about presuming that folks who don't show up are somehow voting against funding education, healthcare, protecting the environment, the air, the land. We actually believe that voters are smart, and want to save the planet, even if it means taxing themselves, or taxing some special interest that is trying to pull a fast one on them. To learn more about this measure, and to read what about other initiatives, go to the AzGP website at www.azgp.org
Paid for by "Kent Solberg for the House"
The "Majority Rules"
initiative is anything but that - it's a backhanded attempt to basically end
the citizens' initiative process in
This proposal, Prop 105, would take everyone on the voter rolls who doesn't show up to vote - those who didn't bother to get a ballot or go to the polling place, people who have moved, even dead people - and count them as "no" votes. By requiring that a majority of all registered voters - not just those who show up, but all registered voters - to approve of an initiative, the promoters of this proposal would set up a threshold for passing an initiative that's almost impossible to meet.
In recent years, turnout in presidential election years may approach 60 percent - which means that about 83 percent of people who cast their ballots would have to approve of an initiative for it to pass. This would mean that even if a big majority of Arizonans who showed up to vote - 65, 75, 80 percent - approved of a proposal, it still couldn't pass.
The supporters of this initiative will say it's just about taxes - but really, the way it's written, Prop 105 would doom almost any voter initiative, because all of them require some kind of administrative cost in order to implement them.
The so-called "Majority Rules" initiative's slogan is "Let the People Decide!" but it really should be "Let the Non-Voters Decide!"
If it passes, any initiative that involves a tax, fee, or other revenue source must be approved not by a majority of those voting, but by a majority of all registered voters. If someone didn't vote, they voted no.
Because not everybody votes, the initiative cedes power to those who don't vote. A typical off-year election has 50 percent turnout, so no spending or tax initiative could pass, even with 100 percent of the votes. It wouldn't be a majority of all registered voters.
Initiatives for taxes
are the ballgame in
The initiative depends on a cute legal trick, switching the way people usually talk about elections with a deceptive phrase that means something entirely different. We're comfortable deciding things based on a majority of voters. That's how we elect candidates, right? But switching the common term "voter" for "qualified elector" means that those people who actually vote no longer get to decide, because those who don't vote suddenly count.
So vote no, then raise a toast to the Beer & Wine Distributors of Arizona, major funders of this truly bad idea. Hey, if they believe so deeply in majority rule, then liquor licenses should be approved by a majority of qualified electors, not just a namby-pamby majority of those voting.
Paid for by "Coppersmith Gordon Schemer & Brockelman PLC"
Protect Our Constitutional Rights:
Proposition 105 refers to the ballot yet another constitutional amendment that, if approved, would significantly restrict the ability of Arizona voters to enact laws via the initiative process, which is the only way we have been able to get many important protections and programs. For example, the Arizona Heritage Fund, which provides funding for parks and wildlife as well as for trails and playground equipment, was enacted via a citizen initiative and was approved by nearly a two-thirds vote. If Proposition 105 passes, even measures such as the Heritage Fund that receive overwhelming support would not pass as they would need a majority of everyone registered rather than of everyone who voted.
This proposition gives more power to the people who sit home and don't vote and dilutes the power of voters who take the time to learn about the measures and vote for or against each of them based on thoughtful consideration. We require no such hurdles for our elected officials; why should we require it of ballot measures?
The initiative and referendum process in some form is older than our country itself -- it dates back to the 1600s when via town meetings, communities voted on ordinances and other issues. The authors of the Arizona Constitution thought that the initiative and referendum process provided citizens with both a check on the legislative branch and on the then widespread corruption of big business and monopolies. They thought it was critical that the citizens have an equal opportunity to create laws directly via the initiative process. We agree with that.
Paid for by
Democracy is Not a Spectator Sport
Why is the proposition not transparent? Because it is misleading. Voters read "majority rules" and support that. The League strongly supports majority rule, but this is something else. This proposition changes our election process. It takes away the voter's voice and gives it to others. The proposition is not about the majority of Voters; it is about the majority of possible voters.
Additionally misleading is that voters who support fiscal responsibility may find they have done just the reverse. In all practicality, Prop 105 eliminates citizens' ability to establish or adjust funding for programs and services - including safe roads, jails, prisons, public safety, schools, libraries, parks, or effective police and fire protection. Once locked into law, it may be difficult to ever repeal.
We think voting is both a right and a responsibility. Not everyone acknowledges this responsibility. That is their choice. But why should those who do not vote have as much say in governance as voters who take their responsibility seriously?
Why should government interpret the wishes of 'no-show people' who are not 'voters'? The assumption here is that people who haven't voted would vote 'no'. But how can anyone know? Government must be responsible to those who Do vote - not allow others to cancel their vote.
Paid for by
"League of Women Voters of
Look at the citizens' initiatives that voters have passed in recent years by overwhelming margins - more resources for early childhood education and health, laws for the humane treatment of farm animals, the creation of an independent redistricting commission.
Now think if all of these initiatives, which won overwhelming support at the ballot box, couldn't become law because it fell short of the threshold it needed to pass - 83 percent of those who came to vote.
Do you think that would
be majority rule? Well, there's a group of people who think so - and who also
think that 60 percent, 70 percent, 80 percent approval just isn't enough
consensus for the citizens of
The so-called "Majority Rules" initiative, Prop 105, would basically count everyone who doesn't show up to the polls - even those who remain on the voting rolls but have moved, or are even dead - as "no" votes against citizen initiatives. Because at the highest, voter turnout has gotten up to 60 percent in recent years, it would mean that an initiative would have to pass by more than a 6-to-1 margin to win.
I don't know why the supporters of Prop 105 don't trust Arizonans to make their own laws. But it seems like common sense that if the citizens want to place a proposal on the ballot, it shouldn't take some kind of super-majority to pass.
It's overwhelmingly clear that if you support the democratic process and citizens' initiative, you should vote against gutting the ability of Arizonans to make laws for themselves, and vote no on Prop 105.
Paid for by
"Professional Fire Fighters of
Majority Rules is a catchy title for a measure that in reality would thwart the will of the people and their constitutional right to make law through the initiative process. While it sounds good, Majority Rules is in reality a title designed to deflect its real intent.
While "Majority Rules" sounds democratic, it is cleverly designed to make any initiative of the people virtually impossible to pass. It would require a majority of registered voters to pass an initiative, a very daunting task. We elect representatives by a simple majority of those who chose to vote. Why would we willingly give up the right to pass or reject initiatives in the same manner?
After nearly 100 years, the initiative process has become ingrained as part of the state's governance structure. I don't believe we should support weakening it or rendering it powerless. Apathy should not be a weapon to hinder the rights of those who take the time to be involved in the process.
If Majority Rules were in place, most, if not all, of the public safety, immigration, education and infrastructure initiatives that have recently passed would have failed. It cuts across the board for conservatives, moderates and liberals alike.
We believe this is bad
public policy that has would have a serious and detrimental negative impact
Paid for by "
Vote No on Majority Rules
Among the 2.7 million
people registered in
In 2006, Prop 207, Private Property Rights Protection, 65 percent of Arizonans voted Yes. Under Majority Rules, it would have failed because more than 83 percent of the voters would have had to agree.
virtually removes the right to petition government in
Rules would allow 19 percent of people registered (one half million) who are
most likely dead or no longer in
WESTMARC is a regional
coalition of business, government, and education that advocates for good
public policy. As a partnership between business and government, it is
paramount that we thoroughly consider public policy issues and work
collaboratively toward public policy that is good for our
our government system is a democratic republic, not a populist government; we elect people to represent us in government, that citizens have the right to choose to vote or not, and that if citizens choose not to vote that the majority of voters should not be penalized for others not exercising their right.
Paid for by "WESTMARC"
The Arizona Advocacy Network urges you
to vote No on Prop 105. Passage would effectively eliminate the
constitutional right of
automatically makes every registered voter who has moved, died, been turned
away at the polls due to lack of ID, or who doesn't bother to get up off the
couch on election day into a No vote. In a typical
This would only apply to measures put onto the ballot by citizens. Ballot measures created by the Legislature would still only require a simple majority of those voting. Why this double standard? The people behind this initiative think they can use their influence to control the Legislature; it's the people they don't trust.
Paid for by
Argument Against Majority Rules
In reality no initiative would likely be able to gather a yes vote by over 80 percent of the individuals who actually voted. Therefore, in this example the individuals who were registered to vote but did not vote had a very significant say in the outcome. This is not the American way to determine the outcome of an election. Vote no on Prop. 105.
Paid for by "Chuck Essigs"
The backers of Prop 105, heavily funded by the liquor industry, want to eliminate the citizens' historic ability to pass laws and give all of the power to the state Legislature, which they can more easily influence.
Paid for by
Requiring a Yes vote on a ballot issue from a majority of all registered voters (instead of a majority of those who actually vote, as in all other American elections) would make it nearly impossible to pass any ballot measure.
As a result, this proposition would disproportionately disadvantage women and families. Consider all the family-friendly ballot measures passed by voters that would have been impossible to pass under the rules of this proposition: the increase in the minimum wage, the extension of health benefits under Healthy Arizona, the added funding for early childhood education to name a few.
Just as the economy has shifted, so have some of the social and economic realities of women's lives. More women than ever are working in the paid labor force, and they continue to earn less than men. Women's work in the home remains undervalued. Due to the lower earned income, it is women who are disproportionately living in poverty both before and after retirement.
Paid for by "Eleanor Eisenberg"
Defense League of
The Animal Defense
League of Arizona urges you to vote No on Proposition 105. This measure
carries the misleading title of "Majority Rules". However, it would
deprive the majority of voters participating in an election of the right to
decide ballot initiatives. It would virtually eliminate citizens' initiatives
Prop 105 not only
desecrates voting rights, it is contrary to the principles on which
On behalf of
Paid for by
"Animal Defense League of
The Humane Society of the
In 2006, voters
overwhelmingly approved Proposition 204 to provide more humane treatment of
farm animals, by a landslide vote of 62 percent to 38 percent. The initiative
won majorities in 12 of 15 counties across the state. Industrial factory
farms in the state will phase out the cruel confinement of calves and pigs in
small cages where they don't even have enough room to turn around and stretch
their limbs. The measure prevents animal cruelty and protects
But the initiative could not have passed if the changes mandated by Prop 105 had been in place. Although it had the overwhelming support of the majority of people who voted, it would not have met the nearly impossible threshold of a majority of all registered voters in the state. Indeed, no ballot initiative could meet that standard, and Prop 105 is a de facto ban on the ballot initiative process.
People who have died
or moved and are still on the voter rolls, or people who simply choose not to
vote or don't make it to the polls, should not be considered automatic
"No" votes. No candidate is held to that standard, and no ballot
initiative should be either. It's undemocratic and unworkable. The Humane
Society of the
Paid for by
"The Humane Society of the
The sponsors want to prevent future citizens' initiatives from being approved by requiring the support of the majority of all registered voters. This includes voters who do not go to the polls on Election Day.
Tucsonans and all Arizonans have strongly supported valuable initiatives to invest in vital services such as public education and healthcare. These important efforts would not have succeeded if Prop 105 had been in law at the time.
Paid for by "Jonathan Pitel"
This measure tampers with our constitution by putting the will of people who don't vote above those who do. Prop 105 requires initiatives to receive the majority vote from ALL registered voters -- even those who don't bother to cast a ballot. This dilutes the power of those Arizonans who invest the time and effort to vote and puts special interests above the will of the people. This reckless initiative will prevent Arizonans who vote from having their voices heard when it comes to important initiatives.
Time and time again,
voters have supported and passed initiatives that improve the quality of life
Paid for by "Jonathan Pitel"
Proposed Amendment To The Constitution
PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE
REQUIRES AN INITIATIVE MEASURE THAT ESTABLISHES, IMPOSES OR RAISES A TAX, FEE, OR OTHER REVENUE, OR MANDATES A SPENDING OBLIGATION, WHETHER ON A PRIVATE PERSON, LABOR ORGANIZATION, OTHER PRIVATE LEGAL ENTITY OR STATE, SHALL NOT BECOME LAW UNLESS THE MEASURE IS APPROVED BY A MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS REGISTERED TO VOTE.
A "yes" vote shall have the effect of requiring that a majority of registered voters approve any initiative measure establishing, imposing or raising a tax, fee, or other revenue, or mandating a spending obligation, whether on a private person, labor organization, other private legal entity, or the state, in order to become law. Yes
Ballot Format displayed in HTML reflects only the text of the Ballot
Proposition and does not reflect how it will appear on the General Election
Next to 200