Prop 112

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



“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



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.

Documents

Prop 112