View
216
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
8/8/2019 Prop 112
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prop-112 1/3
Morrison Institute for Public Policy 1
Proposit ion 112 has a varied
l ist of supporters, including:
• Arizona Farm Bureau
• State Senate President Bob Burns (R)
• State Rep. Chad Campbell (D)
• Arizona Chamber of Commerce
Source: Secretary of State’s Office
Understanding Arizona’s Propositions: Prop 112
By Krist in BornsSenior Policy Analyst
Morrison Institute for Public Policy
Proposition 112 – Changing the Initiative Filing DeadlineProposition 112 would amend the Arizona Constitution to require petitions for citizen initiatives to be
filed with the secretary of state’s office six months prior to the election. Currently, petitions must be
filed four months out. Proposition 112 was referred to voters by the Legislature, where it enjoyedunanimous support. i
Initiatives allow citizens to put forward their own statutory or constitutional changes for approval by
voters, circumventing the formal legislative process.
Arizona is one of 24 states that allows for citizen initiatives, and ranks near the top for use. ii States
vary in their filing timelines, with a number utilizing the four-month timeframe. However, there are
variances, including requirements to file prior to a legislative session, and in Missouri there is a
requirement to file eight months out from the election. iii
Arizonans have passed term limits, created a state
lottery and required a supermajority to raise taxes through successful initiativesiv. This year, only one citizen
initiative will appear on the ballot: legalizing medical
marijuana.
One initiative that has affected all those that have come
after is the Voter Protection Act. Passed in 1998, the act
requires a three-fourths supermajority in both state houses to make any changes to referendums
and initiatives passed by voters. Additionally, these changes must “further the purpose” of the
original proposition. As a result, successful initiatives are nearly impossible for the Legislature to
modify without referring the issue back to voters for action.
Proposition 112 will not be the first time Arizona voters have weighed in on changing the timeframes
for filing initiative petitions. In 1984, Proposition 100 sought to change the deadline to six months,
just as Proposition 112 does. Voters rejected it, however, with 60% voting no. In 2004, Proposition
104 proposed changing the deadline to seven months out. Again, voters said no, with 68% rejecting
the proposition.v
Yes on Proposition 112?Initiative petitions must have signatures equal to the number of 15% of voters in the previous
gubernatorial election to qualify for a constitutional amendment and 10% of total votes cast in the
prior gubernatorial election to change statute. For this year’s election, that equals 230,047
signatures for a constitutional amendment and 153,365 for statutory changesvi.
8/8/2019 Prop 112
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prop-112 2/3
Morrison Institute for Public Policy 2
“Providing more time for the signature review phase will allow for
a more thorough verification process for each initiative thatappears on the election ballot. Ensuring that signatures are
properly filed, processed, counted and verified will only
strengthen our electoral system and citizens’ initiative process.”
-- Senate President Bob Burns, R-Peoria
Source: Secretary of State’s Office
If the number of signatures meets the constitutional minimum, the secretary of state must then
randomly select 5% of those signatures submitted for verification by county recorders.vii
Proposition 112 proponents, with
varied interests and from both
ends of the political spectrum, say the present short timeframe
makes it extremely difficult to
challenge petitions through the
court system. They also claim it
adds additional stress to county
recorders.
The new timeframe, they say, would allow for appropriate vetting of measures, ensuring they meet all
legal requirements before appearance on the ballot.
State Rep. Chad Campbell, D-Phoenix, noted: “It’s such a compressed timeframe that, by the time
you get the [signatures] verified by the county recorders and secretary of state, you literally have only two or three weeks to get a lawsuit through the court process before the ballots are printed.” viii
County recorders echo that an earlier filing date is beneficial. According to Maricopa County Elections
Director Karen Osborne, in 2008 reportedly her staff of 40 employees was “examining signatures
around the clock,” reviewing 132,000 signatures in 18 days. Her comment: “It’s an inhuman task.”ix
The Arizona Farm Bureau touts the measure because it raises the bar for initiatives to receive ballot
consideration. In its statement of support filed for publication in the election pamphlet, the bureau
noted: “It is hard to hold the process or our elected representatives accountable when citizens
create policy. Through initiatives, narrow ideas can become a tyrannical majority, as there is neither
nuance nor compromise as in legislative debate.”
No on Proposition 112?Filing petitions two months earlier condenses the timeframe that initiative organizers have to gather
signatures and educate potential voters on a measure.
The Farm Bureau argument for making it more difficult for initiatives to qualify for the ballot is
precisely what some opponents of Proposition 112 would point to as a reason to vote “no.”
Opponents note that Arizona has a strong history of direct democracy through use of the citizen
initiative. Proposition 112 could serve to unnecessarily restrict citizen voices, they say.
Other opponents ask, exactly how substantial is this issue? And, is there even a problem to correct?
Such opponents argue that in reality, the initiative system – including the timeframes set in the state
constitution – is effective and this measure is really much ado about nothing.
The Bottom LineA “yes” vote would amend the Arizona Constitution to require petitions for citizen initiatives to be
filed at least six months prior to the election date. Currently, petitions must be filed at least four
months prior to Election Day.
8/8/2019 Prop 112
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/prop-112 3/3
Morrison Institute for Public Policy 3
iHouse Concurrent Resolution 2018. Located at www.azleg.gov. Also, Legislative Council Analysis of HCR2018.
iiBerman, David R. “Governance: Direct Legislation.” http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/state-of-our-state/state-of-
our-state-governance/governance-direct-legislationiii http://www.iandrinstitute.org/iv Berman, David R. “Governance: Direct Legislation.” http://morrisoninstitute.asu.edu/state-of-our-state/state-of-
our-state-governance/governance-direct-legislationv Secretary of State’s Office.vi http://www.azsos.gov/election/IRR/Initiative_Referendum_and_Recall.pdf vii Ibid. p.19viii
Small, Jim. “O’Connor House measures would reduce ballot initiative fraud.” Arizona Capitol Times. March 25,
2010. ix
Ibid.
August2010/MorrisonInstituteforPublicPolicyisaleaderinexaminingcriticalArizonaandregionalissues,
andisacatalystforpublicdialogue.AnArizonaStateUniversityresource,MorrisonInstituteusesnonpartisan
researchandcommunicationoutreachtohelpimprovethestate’squalityoflife.
Recommended