Propositioning Arizona: A Review of 2010 Statewide Ballot Measures
Presented by
The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation
1616 E. Indian School Road, Suite 340 • Phoenix, AZ • 85016 • 602-297-2500
www.azadvocacy.org
A NOTE FROM THE ARIZONA ADVOCACY NETWORK FOUNDATION
Board of Directors
Dear Voter:
Mike Valder
This November Arizonans will have the opportunity to decide ten statewide ballot measures, many of which will have long-term consequences for the state. Making sense of ballot measures can be challenging. The brief descriptions printed on the ballots are not always clear, making it difficult for voters to determine whether they support or oppose a particular measure. With ten measures on the 2010 ballot, those entering the voting booth without having educated themselves on each measure will face a daunting task.
President
Eric Ehst Treasurer
Michael Gonzales Randall Holmes Beth Meyer Tim Schmaltz Michelle Steinberg Penny Willrich Héctor Yturralde
Staff Linda Brown Executive Director
Emily Pohl Research Assistant
Tai Fukomoto Research Assistant
The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation (AzANF) is pleased to present our biannual guide to Arizona’s ballot measures as a tool voters can use to make informed decisions about how to vote on each measure. This nonpartisan guide presents both supporting and opposing arguments so that you, the voter, can decide each issue. For each measure we have summarized: • •
Description of the measure Background of the measure
• • • • • •
Impact of the measure The sponsors of referenda and a summary how the Legislature voted Arguments in favor of and against the measure Partial list of supporters and opponents of the measure List of major contributors that gave money to support or oppose the measure Websites of interest
Voters interested in reading the full text of each measure will find links to each on the Secretary of State’s website at: www.azsos.gov/election/2010/General/ballotmeasures.htm Between now and November 2nd, AzANF is presenting a series of educational forums to discuss the ballot measures. If you would like us to make a presentation to your group, please contact us at 602-297-2500 or Linda@azadvocacy.org.
Sincerely, Linda Brown
2
2010 Ballot Measures YES 1.
Prop 106: Health Care Services Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
2.
Prop 107: Preferential Treatment or Discrimination Prohibition Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
3.
Prop 109: Hunting and Fishing Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
4.
Prop 110: State Trust Lands Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
5.
Prop 111: Lieutenant Governor Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
6.
Prop 112: Initiative Petitions Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
7.
Prop 113: Union Elections Regulation Referendum, Constitutional Amendment
8.
Prop 203: Medical Marijuana Citizens Initiative, State Statute
9.
Prop 301: Land Conservation Fund Referendum, State Statute
10.
Prop 302: Early Childhood Development & Health Programs Referendum, Repeal of Voter Approved State Statute
NO
** Important Note: Throughout this booklet we have indicated the amount of money contributed in support of or in opposition to each measure. This information was obtained from the Secretary of State’s website as of September 30, 2010 and is subject to change at any time as new contributions are added and prior reports are amended.
3
Prop 106: Health Care Services – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the measure? Prop 106 is a constitutional amendment claiming to preserve and protect the right of individuals to choose their health care and health insurance, or to opt for no insurance at all. It allows employees or individuals to pay providers directly for services and prohibits any law requiring that everyone carry insurance. Background This is part of a national effort to thwart provisions in federal health care legislation. In 2008 voters narrowly rejected a similar proposal (Prop 101—Freedom of Choice in Health Care.) Backers of 106 say it resolves problems in the previous measure. The Legislature referred this to the ballot to tell Congress that Arizona would not accept a “public option” requirement or a mandate that everyone carry health insurance. The referral saved backers the time, trouble and hundreds of thousands of dollars they would have needed to gather signatures for a citizens’ initiative. The backers, consisting largely of health care products and services entities and ideological conservatives, used model language promoted by the ultra-conservative state law incubator— the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC.) Similar measures passed or are being proposed in VA, ID, GA, MO, OK, FL. Sponsor and Vote The measure sponsored by State Rep. Nancy Barto (R-7) and passed the House 34 to 19 on a party-line vote with all yes votes coming from Republicans, all no votes from Democrats. One Rep. and six Dems. did not vote. It passed the Senate on an 18 to 11 vote, with all yes votes coming from Reps., all no votes from Dems. & one Dem. not voting. Impact This measure would bar Arizonans from participating in a single payer health insurance system or any system that requires all Arizonans to be covered by health insurance. It would preserve the status quo under which more than one million Arizonans have no health care coverage. The measure also provides legal protections for insurance companies that choose not to provide coverage. Legal scholars believe federal legislation would over-ride such provisions in the state constitution. Those who support the Prop 106 include the following in their arguments: 1. This constitutional amendment will keep patients in control of their health and health care and prevent them from having their health care choices dictated by government-appointed bureaucrats. 2. If patients lose control over their health care decisions, then they will no longer be free. They will be hostages of the special interests and their political friends. 3. Giving the government complete control over what care you can receive and when, is not the solution. One system does not fit all. No single system should remove your personal freedom to decide which treatment options are best. 4. “Prop 106 clearly states that we can spend our own money for any legal medical procedure we want and we can opt out of private or government run health care plans. It is simple.” – Mary Budinger, AZ Center for Advanced Medicine Those who oppose Prop 106 include the following in their arguments: 1. Similar provisions were placed in state statute by the bill authorizing Gov. Brewer to join the lawsuit seeking to overturn federal health care legislation. A constitutional amendment is redundant. Federal health care law will likely pre-empt any state restrictions, but passage of this measure would ensure expensive and lengthy court battles. 2. When those who believe they are immune to health concerns refuse to carry insurance, they neglect routine check-ups and preventive care and put Public Health at risk. High health care costs are attributable to the uninsured using emergency rooms for health care, not from insurance coverage mandates. 3. Prop 106 will permanently allow private insurers to limit services and exclude individuals with pre-existing conditions. The health care industry would forever be able to dictate reimbursement, determine services patients receive, and dictate who will be granted or denied access to care. 4. Because backers have chosen to present this as a constitutional change, any unintended consequences of Prop 106 will plague Arizonans forever. Supporters: US Health Freedom Coalition (Benjamin Rush League, Dr. Eric Novak (Orthopedic Surgeon) $1,912,000; Services Group of America (Family owned; donors to Libertarian causes) $25,000; Charles Burnett III (contributed to Ron Paul's campaigns) $52,741; Robson Communities (CEO Edward J. Robson is donor to Repub. Candidates) $10,000; Enhanced Medical Imaging of Milwaukee (Private imaging clinic) $10,000; Jeff Yass (CEO of SIG which finances pharmaceutical and medical companies) $10,000; Eric Crown (Insight Computers) $10,000; Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; League of Women Voters of Arizona; Arizona Education Association; Nurses for Real Choice; Leslie Kaminski, M.D.; Mary Ellen Bradshaw, M.D.; George Pauk, M.D.; Jonathan Weisbuch M.D.; Raymond F. Graap; M.D., Rep. Phil Lopes (D-27) More information:
http://www.prop106endangersyourhealth.org/ http://www.azhealthcarefreedom.com/
4
Prop 107: Preferential Treatment or Discrimination Prohibition – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the measure? Prop 107 would amend the state Constitution to eliminate public equal opportunity programs, although its backers claim it would bar discrimination against any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of in the operation of public employment, public education or public contracting. It exempts any program whose termination would result in a loss of federal dollars to Arizona. Background The primary backer, California businessman Ward Connerly, is on a mission to put an end to equal opportunity programs on a state-by-state basis. Like Prop 106, the state legislature opted to refer this measure to the ballot, thereby saving Connerly the time, trouble and hundreds of thousands of dollars he would have needed to place a citizens’ initiative on the ballot. Similar measures have passed in CA, MI, WA, and NE. The measure failed in CO. In the past, similar measures failed to qualify for the ballot in AZ, MO and OK in 2008 after widespread allegations of petition fraud. Sponsor and Vote The measure was sponsored by Rep. Steve Montenegro (R-12) in the House and Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) in the Senate. It passed the House 32-18 along party lines with all 32 yes votes coming from Republicans, and all 18 no votes coming from Democrats. Three Reps. and seven Dems. did not vote. It passed the Senate 17-11 on a party-line vote with all yes votes coming from Reps. and all no votes coming from Dems. One Rep. and one Dem. did not vote. Impact: This measure would put an end to equal opportunity programs designed to ensure that those who have not had access to the table can vie for a seat. Programs that encourage young women to study math and science would be ended, as would special programs for victims of domestic violence, pregnant teens and teenage mothers. After California passed a similar initiative, enrollment of people of color in state colleges and universities plummeted. Those who support Prop 107 include the following in their arguments: 1. Banning preferential-treatment programs would "do so in the mirror image of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlawed racial segregation and solidified equal rights for all citizens." --Ward Connerly 2. “The referendum will eliminate racial and gender preference programs...that send minorities a message that they are inferior and in need of special treatment to be successful." –Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) 3. “True affirmative action means helping people who have had to overcome disadvantages, regardless of their race or ethnicity. States such as Florida, Texas and California have banned racial preferences, yet have increased opportunities by rewarding individuals who work hard and overcome obstacles. That is true affirmative action, and it begins in earnest only when government no longer has the power to substitute it with racial preferences.” – Clint Bolick, Goldwater Institute Those who oppose Prop 107 include the following in their arguments: 1. Prop 107 eliminates essential programs for keeping women and students of color in college, and would likely bar programs benefiting Native Americans. 2. Quotas are already illegal and are not used to ensure equal opportunity. Equal opportunity programs force decision-makers to work a little harder to encourage under-represented constituencies to apply for schools, jobs and contracts. 3. Prop 107 would bring back the “good old boys networks” where decision-makers go for the lowest hanging fruit—people they know—rather than reaching out to invite equally qualified candidates from underrepresented communities. 4. Prop 107 would eliminate equal opportunity programs for women and people of color in public employment, education, and contracting. Experience has shown that these programs work. Students admitted to college do as well as their peers. Workers perform their jobs and contractors deliver on their contracts. These opportunities allow people to lift up their families so that future generations are even more successful. 5. Prop 107 will not prevent discrimination, but will deny tens of thousands of Arizona citizens an equal opportunity to share in the benefits of our society, and this hurts us all. Supporters: American Civil Rights Coalition (established by Ward Connerly) $50,000; Goldwater Institute; Senator Russell Pearce (R-18) Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; Protect Arizona’s Freedom; Arizona Education Association; Los Abogados Hispanic Bar Association; American Association of University Women Arizona; Arizona Public Health Association; Mayor Phil Gordon, City of Phoenix More Information: http://protectarizonafreedom.com/
http://www.arizonacri.org/
5
Prop 109: Hunting and Fishing – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the measure? Prop 109 would amend the State Constitution to give the Legislature exclusive authority to enact laws regulating harvesting wildlife and hunting and fishing, and bar voters from passing any law restricting these activities. It also states that lawful public hunting and fishing shall be the preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife. Background The National Rifle Association and sport hunting groups have backed this and similar measures across the country as a means of pre-empting any conceivable regulations or restrictions on hunting. They claim that anti-hunting groups are seeking to place unreasonable limits on their right to hunt like a Michigan initiative that banned dove hunting. 13 states include wildlife management in their constitutions. TN, SC and AR are voting on similar measures this year. Sponsor and Vote Sponsored by Rep. Jerry Weiers (R-12) it passed the House 37 to 18 on a near party-line vote with all yes votes coming from Republicans with the exception of Rep. Lynn Pancrazi (D-24), Barbara McGuire (D-23), and Jack Brown (D-5). Two Reps. and three Dems. did not vote. The Senate vote was similar with 18 voting yes and nine voting no. In addition to 16 Republicans, Dems. Manny Alvarez (D-25) and Rebecca Rios (D-23) voted yes. All nine no votes were Democrats. One Dem. and two Reps. did not vote. Impact: The amendment would remove authority from the Arizona Fish and Game Department which works under the direction of five government appointees to regulate hunting and fishing. Could overturn voter approved bans on leg-hold traps. Those who support Prop 109 include the following in their arguments: 1. The constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that radical anti-hunting groups cannot impose limits on hunters. 2. The NRA supports the measure; they traditionally oppose any reduction in hunting rights. 3. Prop 109 rightly prohibits restrictions generated by emotion, politics, or the will of one minority to impose its arbitrary preferences on another. 4. Prop 109 not only ensures the preservation of an American tradition, it further ensures the funds critical to support wildlife conservation through hunting and fishing licenses. Those who oppose Prop 109 include the following in their arguments: 1. Prop 109 is another blatant power grab by the Legislature to give politicians sole authority over hunting and fishing and preempt potential changes recommended by wildlife scientists and voters. 2. The Legislature is out of step with mainstream Arizonans; it doesn’t deserve more exclusive decision-making power. 3. It will undermine the current system of wildlife management in Arizona and give science a backseat to politics. 4. There is no threat to these rights under the management system the Fish and Game Department has used for decades; even the Sierra Club does not oppose hunting. 5. Proposition 109 is designed to exclude a majority of Arizonans and the animal protection community from having a voice in wildlife policy decisions. Supporters: National Rifle Association $19,000; Arizona Chapter National Wild Turkey Federation; Arizona Sportsmen for Wildlife; Arizona Wildlife Federation; Gov. Jan Brewer; Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; Stop the Arizona Power Grab; Sierra Club; White Mountain Conservation League; The Humane Society of the United States; Animal Defense League of Arizona; Humane Voters of Arizona More Information: http://www.nraila.org/yeson109/
http://www.noon109.com/
6
Prop 110: State Trust Lands – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the Measure? Prop 110 would amend the state Constitution to allow the state to exchange state trust land for other public lands and permits the state to sell, lease or otherwise manage state trust land without auction or advertisement to avoid uses that would interfere with military installations, airspace or operations. Background: At least five previous measures proposing changes to the way state trust lands are exchanged for federal lands have failed at the ballot because key stakeholders opposed them. This measure is the result of compromises among all stakeholders and has achieved the support of both the Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Sierra Club. Approximately 9.2 million of the original 10.9 million acres granted to the state land trust by the federal government remain. 1.6 million acres have been exchanged or sold. Sponsor and Vote: Prop. 110 was sponsored by Senator John Nelson (R-12) and received nearly unanimous support in the Senate with one Democrat not voting. The measure received unanimous support in the House. Impact: Prop. 110 for the first time provides a way to exchange state trust land for other public lands that includes accountability and transparency. The exchange process will have an open and public process, which identifies all lands that will be exchanged up front; requires two land appraisals; includes an analysis of the impacts; and requires two public meetings. All of this must happen prior to any exchange moving forward. This helps limit backroom deals that have been a problem with some past exchanges. Each land exchange must also go to the voters, so the voters have the final say and provide a screen for ensuring that an exchange is truly in the public’s interest. This will also help to limit the number of exchange proposals. Those who support Prop 110 include the following in their arguments: 1. Finally we can be assured that land exchanges are fully transparent and all interested parties will have an opportunity to share their opinions. 2. By requiring each exchange to go before the voters we are further ensuring full consideration of the pros and cons of each proposed land exchange. 3. “Proposition 110 would preserve and protect many portions of Arizona by converting those special places from restricted State Trust Land to public lands managed by another government agency. This would allow for conservation and public access to many wonders in Arizona.” – Valley Partnership 4. “Proposition 110 strengthens the partnership among agencies, organizations, and stakeholders at the local, State, and federal levels, with the common goal of preserving the unique and irreplaceable assets of Arizona’s network of military facilities and ensuring their long-term sustainability as keystones in the nation’s defense and a cornerstone of the State’s economy.” – Governor’s Military Affairs Commission Those who oppose Prop 110 include the following in their arguments: 1. Land sales should be open to the forces of the free market with no regulation. 2. The measure won’t change very much. Supporters: Arizona Advocacy Network; Sierra Club; Governor’s Military Affairs Commission; The Nature Conservancy; The Sonoran Institute; Arizona State Land Commissioner Maria Baier; Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry Opponents: No one submitted arguments to the Secretary of State More Information: http://www.voteyeson110.com/index.html
7
Prop 111: Lieutenant Governor – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the Measure? Prop. 111 would amend the State Constitution to rename the position of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor beginning with the November 2014 general election. The Lieutenant Governor would assume the same duties and responsibilities as the Secretary of State, including overseeing elections and being second in line for the Governor's Office. Candidates for governor and lieutenant governor in the same party would run separately in their primaries but join together on a unified ticket for the general election. Voters would cast one vote for Governor and elect both the Governor and Lieutenant Governor running on the same ticket in general elections. Background: No Arizona Governor has served two full terms since 1987. When Governor Janet Napolitano resigned in the middle of her second term to serve in President Obama’s cabinet, the line of succession defined in the Arizona constitution dictated that the Secretary of State assume the governorship. Republican Governor Brewer was not elected by the voters to serve in that role and immediately began working with the legislature to reverse many of the policies Democratic Governor Napolitano had put into place. In all but five states the second in line for the governorship is the Lieutenant Governor. About half the states elect the top two positions as a team in the General Election so that should the elected Governor be unable to serve out her or his term, the voters are assured that the person who steps in will be of the same party, and likely carry out policies similar to those the elected governor would have. Many Arizonans are unaware that the Secretary of State is second in line to serve in the governor’s office should the governor not be able to serve. Sponsor and Vote: Prop 111 was sponsored by Senator Jonathan Paton (R-30) and passed the Senate with a unanimous vote. It passed the House with a vote of 51 to nine with all nine no votes coming from Republicans. Impact: Passage of this amendment would make significant changes to the way parties and candidates for the state’s top two offices plan and execute their campaigns. Similarly, it will surely affect how voters view those campaigns and elections. It will not change the function of the Secretary of State’s office. But voters may look at the second post more carefully when it is obvious to them that she/he could move into the governor’s office. Those supporting Prop 111 use the following in their arguments: 1. By renaming the office of Secretary of State to Lieutenant Governor, Proposition 111 will leave no doubt in voters’ minds about the chain of succession in Arizona government, and it will smooth the transition in cases where the governor leaves office before the end of his or her term. 2. Forty-five states have a Lieutenant Governor and ‘truth in advertising’ supports renaming the Secretary of State. Arizona voters should have a clear understanding of our State executive’s line of succession. 3. Since 1987, no Arizona governor has completed two full terms. When a governor leaves before completing a term the voters should be able to count on the new governor to substantially agree with direction and policies of the elected governor. 4. Candidates qualified to serve as Secretary of State are not necessarily qualified to serve as governor. Those opposing Prop 111 use the following in their arguments: 1. The proposition makes no mention of what to do if a gubernatorial or a lieutenant governor candidate runs as an independent. Given that one third of the Arizona electorate is registered as “Independent” or “Party Not Declared,” there is a strong likelihood that if passed, the amendment will face legal challenges. 2. “It is inappropriate and unworkable to expect partisan candidates for governor and lieutenant governor to run separately before the primary and then to act as at ‘team’ after the primary. This proposition needs more work.” – Arizona Farm Bureau 3. This change does not address the problem of having a partisan politician in charge of elections and could actually make that situation worse by tying the state’s chief elections officer directly to the sitting governor. Supporters: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; The O’Connor House; State Senator Robert L. Burns (R-9), Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; Arizona Farm Bureau; Former Representative Chris Deschene (D-2)
8
Prop 112: Initiative Petitions – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the Measure? Proposition 112 would amend the State Constitution to change the deadlines for submitting signatures to qualify an initiative for the ballot from four months before an election to six months before an election. The start date for gathering signatures (after the preceding general election) would not change. Background: Currently, initiative petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State no less than four months preceding the date of the election. As the state has grown, the number of signatures necessary to qualify for the ballot has increased. Constitutional amendments require valid signatures from 15 percent of the number of voters that voted in the most recent election in which we voted for governor-- approximately 233,000; statutory changes require signatures from ten percent— approximately 155,300. The current deadline for filing initiatives leaves very little time during which legal challenges can be brought and adjudicated to keep noncompliant measure off the ballot. The pressure on the Secretary of State’s office and County Recorders to verify signatures in time for ballots to be printed has become burdensome. Grassroots organizations that have mounted initiative campaigns told legislators they would support this change only if the number of required signatures were reduced because of the shortened window in which to secure them. Legislators chose not to include this provision in the final version of Prop 112. Sponsor and Vote: Prop 112 was sponsored by Representatives John McComish (R-20), Andy Biggs (R-22), Chad Campbell (D14), Kyrsten Sinema (D-15), and Senator Jonathan Paton (R-30). It passed the House nearly unanimously with three Reps. and two Dems. not voting. Prop 112 passed the Senate nearly unanimously with two Reps. and one Dem. not voting. Impact: This will give elections officials more time to validate signatures and allow adequate time for legal challenges to measures to be considered by the courts. It will also make it far more costly and difficult to gather signatures for citizens’ initiatives and likely reduce the number of true citizen initiatives in Arizona. We will see more big-money measures and legislative referenda. Those supporting Prop 112 use the following in their arguments: 1. This proposition increases the time between the submission of petitions to the secretary of state and an election, thus allowing more time for any challenges or legal reviews to take place. 2. “Ensuring that signatures are properly filed, processed, counted, and verified will only strengthen our electoral system and citizens’ initiative process.”– Sen President Robert Burns (R-9) 3. The additional two months to verify signatures will allow for proper review of signatures and for initiative sponsors (or opponents) to have the decision reviewed in court, if necessary. Those opposing Prop 112 use the following in their arguments: 1. Requiring that signatures be filed two months earlier without simultaneously reducing the required number of signatures gives yet another advantage to the big-money machines to use the “citizen initiative process” to further their policy agendas, while ensuring that grassroots citizens groups will have a far more difficult time qualifying any measure for the ballot. This favors the big-money, out-of-state ideologues and further dis-empowers citizens groups. 2. To date the cost to collect signatures for ballot measures has been between $3.00 and $6.00 per signature. That equates to between $500,000 and $1,160,000 to gather enough valid signatures to qualify a statutory measure for the ballot and between $800,000 and $1,800,000 to qualify a constitutional amendment for the ballot. Shortening the window for signature collection will ensure that the cost per signature will jump to the higher level. Grassroots citizens groups will not be able to raise the funds necessary to place initiatives on the ballot. Many backers of Prop 112 have been campaigning for years to place other barriers to citizens’ initiatives ensuring that only wealthy special interests can take advantage of Arizona’s constitutionally guaranteed process of direct democracy. This measure effectively shuts the door to grassroots groups seeking to pass laws through the initiative process. 3.
Supporters: Arizona Farm Bureau; Arizona Chamber of Commerce; The O’Connor House; State Representative Chad Campbell(D14); Senate President Robert Burns (R-9); Sen. Russell Pearce (R-18) Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association
9
Prop 113: Right to Vote a Secret Ballot in Union Organizing Elections – Referendum, Constitutional Amendment What is the measure? Prop 113 would constitutionally bar employees from choosing any method of organizing a union other than secret ballot elections. Background: This and similar measures have been promoted by big business all over the country as a means to thwart unionization. It is particularly popular now because President Obama has stated his support for the alternative method of organizing a union known as “Card Check.” Under Card Check, workers collect signatures from colleagues affirming their support for a union. Once they have collected cards from more than 50 percent of the employees, collective bargaining can begin. Workers assert that the secret ballot process for forming unions has become entirely corrupted by business interests who have succeeded in watering down regulations and neutering the National Labor Relations Board making winning secret ballot elections nearly impossible. When employers learn that workers are interested in forming a union they embark on aggressive and coercive campaigns to ensure that workers vote against unionization. Employers have the right to choose the date for the election, and routinely postpone that date, using the time interval to hire professional union-busting companies to intimidate and propagandize workers against unions. SC, SD, and UT are considering similar measures all backed by big business. An earlier version of this measure (Prop 108) was removed from the ballot by the court for violating constitutional requirements for ballot measures. Gov. Brewer called a special session of the Legislature just to place this measure back on the ballot. Sponsor and Vote: The measure was sponsored by Republican leadership in the Senate, and Rep. Andy Tobin (R-1) in the House. It passed the Senate 18-11, largely along party lines with one Dem., Sen. Amanda Aguirre (D-24), voting yes and one Rep. absent. It passed the House 36-19, largely along party lines with one Dem., Rep. Lynne Pancrazi (D-24) voting yes and five Dems. absent. Impact: This amendment would constitutionally bar workers from choosing to organize through the process known as “Card Check.” It would create an additional barrier to organizing a union in Arizona. Passage of the federal Employee Free Choice Act might pre-empt this measure. Those who support Prop 113 include the following in their arguments: 1. This constitutional amendment is necessary to ensure that Arizona’s “right-to-work” tradition is protected if federal law allows other methods through which workers may organize. 2. The amendment would protect workers from intimidation by labor groups during a union election. 3. The secret ballot has ensured that the voter’s decision is his or hers alone, and that no one is forced to cast a ballot with which he or she disagrees. Those who oppose Prop 113 include the following in their arguments: 1. There is no need for this measure because the secret ballot is not being threatened. The secret ballot is supported by all— workers, unions and employers. This measure is designed to deny freedom of choice to workers by dictating that the only option for organizing a union in Arizona is through the so-called secret ballot election. 2. Proposed federal legislation would offer employees the freedom to choose whether to organize through secret ballot elections or through a process of collecting affidavits from employees supporting formation of a union called “Card Check,” a majority sign-up process. Card check does not bar secret ballot elections as an option. Workers should have the freedom to choose if and how they wish to form a union. 3. “Prop 113 is designed to counter the Employee Free Choice Act, a proposed federal bill that would make it easier for employees to create a union through a majority sign-up process. Under the current process for forming unions, employers are not required by law to accept the signed decision of a majority of employees.” – Arizona Education Association 4. The shrinking of the American middle class is directly linked to the decline in union membership. As union membership has plummeted, corporations have dramatically increased compensation for top executives while middle management and working people’s wages have stagnated or declined. Workers deserve the freedom to choose to organize a union through a simple process without long delays whereby employers coerce and intimidate workers to vote against forming a union. Supporters: Save Our Secret Ballot (big business interests headquartered in Las Vegas) $623,000; Arizona Farm Bureau; Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; most local Arizona Chambers of Commerce; Gov. Jan Brewer Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; Arizona Education Association; most unions More Information: http://www.progressivestates.org/node/22564 http://www.sosballot.org/
10
Prop 203: Arizona Medical Marijuana Act – Citizens Initiative, Statutory Change What is the Measure? Prop 203 would not amend the State Constitution. It would enact a law allowing patients with a debilitating medical condition such as cancer, HIV or multiple sclerosis to purchase, possess and use up to 2.5 ounces of marijuana every two weeks with a doctor's recommendation. Non-profit dispensaries regulated by the state would grow and sell the drug to approved patients. It still would be illegal to use marijuana in a public place or drive under the influence of marijuana, but the initiative would forbid employers from firing qualified medical-marijuana users who test positive for the drug unless the employer can prove patients used or were impaired while at work. Background: Fourteen states allow the possession of small amounts of marijuana for medical purposes, although only California has established a widespread network of dispensaries to distribute it. Arizona passed similar measures in 1996 and 1998 that were not implemented. Impact: Passage would launch a regulated marijuana growth and dispensary system allowing doctors to prescribe the drug for a narrowly defined list of ailments. Patients with such ailments who are currently using the drug illegally would be ensured that they could access it legally and the product would meet regulatory safety requirements, as opposed to black market drugs. Those supporting Prop 203 use the following in their arguments: 1. Medical marijuana provides the only relief available and tolerated by many people who suffer from cancer, AIDs, HIV, Alzheimer’s, Hepatitis-C and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. 2. Doctors all over Arizona already tell patients that their pain and other symptoms could be relieved by marijuana, but there is no legal means for patients to obtain the drug. Patients who have exhausted all other possible remedies should not have to risk criminal prosecution if they seek out and use marijuana for medical purposes. It will also free them from the shame, danger and unreliability of having to find the medication they need on the streets. 3. The distribution regulations outlined in the measure will ensure the drug could only be dispensed within the strictest guidelines of prescription medications. 4. The drug can be taken through means other than smoking, negating the harmful effects of smoking. 5. Prop 203 is self-funding and no taxpayer dollars will be used to implement the initiative. This model bill will tightly regulate the non-profit dispensaries limiting the number to 120 statewide. The initiative will require a doctor’s certification of need before a registry identification card can be issued. Municipalities will be able to regulate the location of dispensaries to ensure that they are not in neighborhoods or near schools. 6. Requiring dispensaries to be non-profit discourages unscrupulous actors from selling the drug for “off-label” uses. 7. Zoning requirements can keep dispensaries in commercial areas away from schools. Those opposing Prop 203 use the following in their arguments: 1. This is the camel’s nose under the tent and leads us down the slippery slope toward legalizing marijuana for recreational use. 2. There is no secure way to regulate the growth and distribution of marijuana. 3. There are not adequate assurances barring dispensaries from setting up in neighborhoods or near schools. 4. The measure could result in lawsuits to solve the legal questions surrounding the issue of medical marijuana and its legalization. 5. "No medication has ever been approved by popular vote rather than by the FDA. No FDA-approved medicine is smoked." 6. “Smoking marijuana is not part of the normal medical management of pain, and marijuana hasn’t been tested by the FDA for its safety or effectiveness for pain management. […] Because pain is a personal experience that’s difficult to confirm with diagnostic tests, recreational marijuana users may complain of ‘severe or chronic pain’ to their doctors and get a marijuana registration card.” – Arizona Department of Human Services 7. “There is nothing ‘medical’ about a drug with no recommended dosage amounts and no recommended means of delivery – not to mention that this proposition does not even require a doctor to examine a patient before signing off that the patient is ‘likely to benefit’ from using marijuana.” – Center for Arizona Policy (Focus on the Family affiliate for Arizona) Supporters: Arizona Advocacy Network; Marijuana Policy Project (National organization that advocates abolishing criminal penalties for possessing marijuana) $578,000 Opponents: Arizona Department of Health Services; Center for Arizona Policy More Information: http://stoparrestingpatients.org/home/ http://keepazdrugfree.com/index/
11
Prop 301: Land Conservation Fund – Referendum, Statutory Change What is the measure? Proposition 301 would not amend the State Constitution. It would enact a law that would raid a voterprotected fund for land conservation and sweep $123 million into the General Fund and the Arizona Legislature will determine later how it is appropriated. Background: The Land Conservation Fund was established by the voters in 1998 when they approved the Growing Smarter Act. The money in this fund provides a one-to-one match for communities to acquire state trust lands for conservation, including lands that are part of the Pima County Sonoran Desert Conservation Plan, the Scottsdale McDowell Sonoran Preserve, the Flagstaff Open Space Plan, lands near Prescott, and more. The fund received $20 Million per year for 11 years and will not receive any further funds. The 2011 state budget approved in April included sweeping of this fund to balance the budget. Sponsor and Vote: Prop 301 was sponsored by House Speaker Kirk Adams (R-19) and passed the House on a strict party-line vote with all Republicans voting yes and all Democrats voting no. It passed the Senate 17 to 10 with all yes votes coming from Republicans and all no votes from Democrats. Two Democrats and one Republican did not vote. Impact: Once money is swept from a fund it is highly unlikely the Legislature would ever replenish those funds, even in good times. This move will hurt both conservation efforts and education – funds from the Land Conservation Fund go into the Trust to benefit the Trust beneficiaries, most notably public education. Some argue that these conservation funds would not be used in a down economy, but land conservation continues in a down economy and, in fact, much of the money generated recently for the trust came from land conservation. Those supporting Prop 301 use the following in their arguments: 1. The state is in a fiscal crisis. This fund is tying up precious dollars that the legislature should be able to redirect to bare necessities. 2. When there are budget deficits, the Legislature must reprioritize to allocate available resources to essential services and the niceties must be put on hold.” – Arizona Tax Research Association, an anti-tax organization 3. Failure to pass Prop 301 will result in a $123 million hole in the state budget that will have to be filled by cuts in other areas. Those opposing Prop 301 use the following in their arguments: 1. Arizona devotes limited funds to conservation overall and the Legislature has already raided most of the funds that did not enjoy the protection of voters. One need look no further than our State Parks to see how little this Legislature values conservation. Don’t let the Legislature do even more harm by grabbing these funds. 2. Because the Legislature refused to respect voters’ priorities, citizen groups have resorted to initiatives to provide funding for education, low-income healthcare, early childhood programs, and land conservation. 3. The Legislature has bowed to the wishes of every moneyed special interest to enact reckless tax exemptions creating the current budget deficit which threatens essential services. It should not be permitted to grab these funds set aside by voters to fix the mess created by the Legislature. 4. “Using the Growing Smarter funds for deficit reduction badly undermines the ability of cities, towns, counties, and non-profit organizations to preserve precious and threatened State Land. Natural open space is a major contributor to Arizona’s quality of life and our ability to attract visitors, new residents, and key businesses to our beautiful state.” – McDowell Sonoran Conservancy 5. Once these funds are gone, the Land Conservation Fund created by the voters will be eliminated. Supporters: Arizona Tax Research Association Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona Taxpayers Association; Arizona Education Association $35,000; The Sonoran Institute; Sierra Club; Coalition for Sonoran Desert Protection; McDowell Sonoran Conservancy; Blue Cross/Blue Shield $10,000; Arizona Native American Tribes $295,000
12
Prop 302: Early Childhood Development and Health Programs - Referendum, Repeal of Voter Approved Statute What is the measure? This is not a Constitutional Amendment. It would repeal a voter-passed program and take the $345 million balance in the First Things First account, which pays for early childhood development and health, and send it to the general fund. It also would re-direct all future revenue from the 80-cent-a-pack tobacco tax that funds First Things First to the general fund. The tax raises approximately $120 million a year. Currently, the money is controlled by a citizen board. Arizona voters created First Things First in 2006, making it voter-protected. Voter approval is therefore needed to dismantle it. Background: The Legislature is counting on accessing the funds in this program to help balance the FY 2011 budget. First Things First’s mandates include improving the quality of and access to Early Childhood Development and Health (EDCH) programs for our most vulnerable children. These include preventive health programs and screenings; offering parents and families support for, and education about, early childhood development and literacy; providing Arizona communities a means to identify programs to address their particular needs; and providing training and support to early childhood development providers. Before proposing to eliminate this program, the Legislature already eliminated funding for all-day kindergarten and cut education funding by $250 million. Sponsor and Vote: The measure was sponsored by House Speaker Kirk Adams (R-19) and barely passed the House with a vote of 31 to 28, with all yes votes coming from Republicans and all but two no votes coming from Democrats. Two Republicans Rep. Doug Quelland (R-10) and Rep Vic Williams (R-26) voted no. It passed the Senate 17 to 13 on a nearly party-line vote with all yes votes coming from Reps., all Dems. voting no, and one Republican, Sen. Jay Tibshraeny (R-21) voting no. Impact: Voter approval of Prop. 302 would give the Legislature full control of the funds and allow it to use them for any purpose it chooses. It would permanently eliminate the highly successful and valued First Things First program. Those supporting Prop 302 use the following in their arguments: 1. The state has no good options as it continues to dig out from a fiscal crisis. While the mission of First Things First is one that many in the business community support, the state finds itself in a situation where funding must be prioritized. If Prop. 302 were to fail it would almost certainly result in fewer funds being available for health and human services for children. 2. Appropriation of funds and spending rightly resides with the Legislature, not through the citizen initiative process. 3. We cannot afford to spend taxpayer money on programs outside the core functions of state government. 4. Failure to pass Prop 302 will result in a $345 million hole in the state budget and require cuts in other areas. Those opposing Prop 302 use the following in their arguments: 1. For years the Legislature has been out-of-step with voters who support for early childhood development, health care and education. Voters overwhelmingly approved First Things First in 2006 and established an eighty cents per pack tax on cigarettes to fund the program. It has already improved the lives of more than 300,000 children 2. Before the current recession, more than one in five Arizona children lived in poverty. Each day those numbers grow. First Things First addresses the spectrum of early childhood issues that impede children’s health and development. 3. First Things First is held to very high standards of performance. Administrative costs are limited to no more than ten percent. In times of need, we must protect valuable programs that give children a fighting chance. 4. When voters passed this initiative they did not intend to create a slush fund for the Legislature to dip into whenever their fiscal mismanagement caused a crisis. It is disingenuous of Legislators, many of whom signed “No Tax” pledges, to decide they can avail themselves of a tax voters imposed upon themselves to solve other problems the Legislators created. 5. There is no end to the Legislature’s hunger for funds voters have set aside for specific critical needs. They must not be permitted to overturn the will of the voters. 6. “It's money that Russell Pearce and John Kavanagh are salivating over, and the same thing is true for the open-space money. I don't know that I necessarily want the money to get into their grubby hands." — Sen. Carolyn Allen Supporters: Arizona Chamber of Commerce and Industry; Arizona Farm Bureau Opponents: Arizona Advocacy Network; Arizona School Boards Association, Inc. $50,000; Arizona Public Schools $50,000; Arizona Education Association; League of Women Voters of Arizona; Arizona Public Health Association; Stand For Children Arizona; Arizona Dental Association; Arizona Child Care Association; Arizona Children’s Association; Former Governors Rose Mofford and Raúl Castro More Information: http://www.savingfirstthingsfirst.org/ comprised of representatives of corporate Arizona)
http://kidsfirstaz.com/ (Funded by AZ Tax Research Association
13
Help AzANF get IN the vote in 2010. Call NOW to volunteer at 602-297-2500. In 2008, more than 100,000 voters went to the polls in Maricopa County and were forced to vote provisional ballots. Of those nearly 30,000 did not count. The most common cause of disenfranchisement was that voters were at the wrong polling places. You can help make sure that those who make the effort to go to the polls are successful in casting a valid ballot.
Here is what volunteers will be doing: • • •
Alert all stakeholders to make sure they tell their voters to vote early, VOTE BY MAIL or risk not voting at all. Help make that a reality by phone banking to sign up people to Vote By Mail. Publicize the 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) and 1-866- VE-Y-VOTA (1-866-839-8682) hotlines widely so that voters have access to attorneys who can help them if they are wrongly denied the right to vote on election day. Recruit and train volunteers to be outside high-traffic polling places with cell phones ready to call the hotline to aid disenfranchised voters.
Call NOW to volunteer at 602-297-2500.
IMPORTANT VOTING INFORMATION nd
Early voting begins on October 2, 2010. You must request an early ballot by October 22 at 5:00pm. Early ballots th must be submitted to your county recorder by Thursday, October 28 . To request an early ballot go to www.azsos.gov/election/county.htm and click on the link for your county recorder. Or you may call your county recorder and request an early ballot request form. The last day to register to vote for the November 2nd election is October 4, 2010. You can register online at http://servicearizona.com/webapp/evoter/ or contact your county recorder and request a registration form. Making sure your vote counts: Arizona’s voter identification laws make voting at the polls difficult for many people. The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation encourages you to vote by mail if possible. If you vote by mail, or at an early voting site, you will avoid the identification requirements at the polls that will likely disenfranchise many voters in November. ID at the polls: If you plan to vote at the polls rather than by mail, make sure you bring with you either a valid Arizona driver’s license or non-operating identification card showing the address you listed when you registered to vote, or a tribal identification. OR you may choose to bring two of the following documents, provided they list your name and address as they appear on the voter rolls: recent utility bills, recent bank statements, vehicle registration or insurance card, property tax statement, voter registration card, polling place notification card, or tribal identification card.
If you have difficulty voting at the polls: Call 1-866-OUR-VOTE (1-866-687-8683) or 1-866- VE-Y-VOTA (1-866-839-8682).
14
Background on Initiatives and Referenda When Arizona became a state in 1912, the populist movement to exercise more direct power by citizens was in full swing. The right of citizens to pass laws and amend the constitution via initiative and referendum (I & R) was written into our constitution. Arizona is one of 24 states with some form of I&R. Statutory initiatives require signatures from ten percent of the number of voters that voted in the last gubernatorial election. Constitutional amendments require signatures from 15 percent of the number of voters that voted in the last gubernatorial election. A legislative referendum is placed on the ballot by a simple majority vote of both houses of the legislature and cannot be vetoed by the governor. A voter referendum may also occur if the legislature passes a law to which voters object. A voter referendum requires signatures from five percent of the number of voters in the last gubernatorial election. Citizens can use the petition process to block the law from taking effect by referring it the ballot for voter approval or rejection. On average, Arizonans vote on fifteen initiatives and referenda every two years. Counties and other entities such as special taxing districts are subdivisions of state government and cannot do certain things (mostly financial) without legislative approval. This is why in earlier years the legislature placed local issues such as the Maricopa County Transportation Tax, County Hospital District, and the Bank One Ballpark on the ballot. State legislators frequently see the initiative process as a threat to their power, and seek to limit the power of citizens to pass legislation and constitutional amendments or question actions by the legislature. After the first initiative, women’s suffrage, passed in 1912, the legislature wasted no time in attempting to limit citizens’ rights to initiative and referendum. Until a few years ago, the Arizona legislature frequently passed laws to modify or gut measures passed by citizens. Voters responded by passing the Voter Protection Act in 1998, limiting the ability of the legislature to repeal or change measures passed by the voters. In 1992 voters passed an anti-tax measure requiring a two-thirds vote in the legislature to increase revenues. Given that the legislature rarely musters a two-thirds majority for any bill, this has forced all revenue increase requests to the ballot. In 2004, legislators referred to the voters a referendum stipulating that all citizen initiatives requiring funding include a dedicated funding source other than the general fund. This tug of war between voters and the legislature will likely continue. At nearly every legislative session legislators attempt to enact measures that would make it more difficult for citizens to place initiatives on the ballot. In spite of its challenges, the I & R process is necessary to governance in Arizona. It is the only method by which we can amend the constitution. It has become necessary for dealing with state finances. And when the Legislature won’t take action because an issue is too politically volatile, it refers it to the ballot for the voters to decide. The Arizona legislature has long been more conservative than the electorate. As a consequence, the initiative process has been the only way by which citizens can pass popular laws, such as the Martin Luther King Holiday, the Heritage Fund, the Clean Elections system, Healthy Arizona, and the Independent Redistricting Commission.
15
We Need Your Support for This Work! The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation relies entirely on donations from supporters like you to produce and distribute materials such as this guide. With your support, we can distribute this booklet as widely as possible across the state. Please give as generously as you can. The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation is a 501(c)(3) organization. Contributions are tax deductible. Online donations are gratefully accepted at www.azadvocacy.org. Contributions may be mailed to the address below. Please mail your check to the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation today to: Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation 1616 E. Indian School Road, Suite 340 Phoenix, AZ 85016 602-297-2500
About the Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation Mission The Arizona Advocacy Network Foundation (AzANF) promotes social, economic, racial, electoral and environmental justice by connecting and building power among activists and leaders in those fields, and by leading efforts for electoral justice and increased civic participation.
Scope of Work AzANF works directly to promote electoral justice and full civic participation by protecting and improving citizen access to voting. AzANF does so currently by: •
Leading a statewide Election Protection program to ensure that voters who make the effort to vote can cast a ballot when they go to the polls.
•
Supporting and promoting public financing of campaigns for political office at all levels of government.
•
Working to protect citizens’ rights under the Arizona constitution to enact or oppose legislation through initiative and referendum. AzANF’s Ballot Measure Education Campaign, including this Voter Guide, assists voters in making informed decisions on proposals to change state law or amend the state’s constitution.
•
Working for justice for immigrants by educating voters and providing support to other organizations that serve the immigrant communities.
About the Arizona Advocacy Network The Arizona Advocacy Network (AzAN) is a 501(c)(4) organization that advocates for progressive public policy including Clean Elections legislation at the local state and federal levels; rational and humane immigration reform; access to justice; quality education; energy independence; and quality, affordable health care for all. Donations to AzAN are not tax deductible as they may be used to influence legislation.
AzAN Recommends: VOTE YES on Props 110 and 203; VOTE NO on all others. www.azadvocacy.org
16