My Take on Arizona Propositions–Or-The Reason I’ve Been Busy
I have been slaving over the gray booklet that came in the mail with proposition information, typing my fingers to the bones on the computer to find more information to explain the confusing gray booklet that came in the mail. And trying really hard to interpret the information from the different sources. Here are my opinions about this years propositions. I may be totally off with some, but I tried. Read the info, go to the links, form your own opinions, or follow my left leaning lead and make me happy. Either way, vote!
Proposition 100: “Protect Our Homes”
For: There are tons of people “For” Prop 100 because they call it better for home buyers to not have the additional cost of buying a house, they call it double taxation. It is seen as a burden on the little people. The sponsor of the bill has a web site: http://www.protectourhomes.com/home/
Against: Well, from what I understand there is not currently a tax or fee assessed at the sale or transfer of a home…this prop would just make sure to keep it that way. One argument would naturally be: do we really need an amendment to our constitution that might “tie the hands” of law makers in the future if additional state revenue is needed (I mean really….what if people stop smoking and we loose all those cigarette taxes?). There are people who feel that this prop would only be helping “special interests groups” like people in real estate. The main opposition to the prop appears to be The Arizona Education Association. From what I read it sounds like the opposition is because of the possibility of lost revenues to help fund schools. I could not find any websites specifically created to oppose this proposition.
Links:
Official Ballot Proposition information: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop100.htm
Here’s a great website with general information (if you are still awake after reading the official information): http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_100_(2008)
My vote:
I will be voting no because of the part of about not really needing it at this time. I am torn between the people saying this hurts home buyers and the people saying it mostly helps “special interests groups” or Big Business. When I looked at the horribly boring booklet sent to my house I saw people who supported it that I have some respect for, but that is not enough. The biggest reason to vote no is that we do not need an amendment to our state constitution for something that “might” happen in the future.
* * *
Proposition 101–AKA Medical Choice for Arizona or Freedom to Choose Act
All righty then…and I thought 100 was confusing. This one I totally don’t get, but I’ll give it a try.
The Nitty-Gritty:
This law would amend the Arizona Constitution to say that a law cannot be created in the future that could keep a person from being able to choose the health care plan or system that they want or saying a person cannot pay personally for health care provided. It also says that no law can be created that could impose a fine if a person choosing or declining insurance coverage, or participating in a particular system or plan.
Whew. I wrote it out. Don’t totally get it, but maybe the pros/cons will help.
For:
The group that wants people to vote yes (”Medical Choice for Arizona) are comparing our freedom to choose medical care/coverage to our freedoms of speech, bearing arms, and property rights. They say it is our obligation to make sure that we maintain our freedom of choice in health care.
This is straight from their website:
The “Freedom of Choice in Health Care Act” will preserve and protect the rights of individuals to make their own health care and health insurance choices. Currently, many lobbyists and special interest groups in Arizona and around the country are promoting policies that would limit or even eliminate the ability of people to have choices when seeking out health care for themselves and their families.
This initiative will guarantee the right of Arizonans to make their own health care choices. Lobbyists and special interests will see their power to control and dictate your health care limited.
Against:
If I am interpreting what I’ve read correctly the biggest Con is that it is against any kind of universal health care system. The other arguments against it have to do with it addressing the possibility of future laws that we are anticipating rather than a specific law with rules we are opposing. And there could be a loss of coverage for people on Medicare & Medicaid (I don’t know how), and it could limit “legislative options” in the future. The other argument is that the language is too confusing and would need to be interpreted by the courts.
My take:
I will be voting no. I like the idea of universal health care and don’t want to make an amendment to the state constitution that will make that difficult. I think the wording used to get people to vote for this is based more on creating fear than on what is really needed. I mean it does make sense that we consumers should have the final say on health care, but I’m not sure that this proposition is needed at this time–before any actual talk about universal health care has come up.
Links for more information:
The official general election website:
http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop101.htm
Balletpedia.org:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_101_(2008)
The sponsor of the props website:
http://www.medicalchoiceforaz.com/
I couldn’t find a web site for a group that opposes this proposition.
* * *
Proposition 102: AKA Marriage Protection Amendment
The Nitty Gritty:
Proposition 102 is probably the easiest to explain: The proposition would amend the Arizona Constitution to state that a marriage will only be “valid or recognized” if it is between one man and one woman. So, if passed, as long as this amendment was in place there would be no legalized marriages allowed here in Arizona and an otherwise legal marriage in other states or countries would not be recognized in our state.
The official information can be found at: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop102.htm
For:
I’ll be honest here and say that I can’t think of anything that would be a pro for this proposition. I suppose if you don’t think that two people who love each other but are of the same gender should have the same rights as two people of opposite genders and should not be able to enter into a marriage contract then you would want to vote no. Or perhaps you feel that no one should be married at all then you might be inclined to vote no. But I truly feel that if you aren’t interested in marrying someone of the same gender then you shouldn’t, but what business is it of yours of someone else does. For others that feel differently, please chime in.
If you want to get more information from the group that believes in this proposition try the website for supporters: http://www.yesformarriage.com/
Against:
Well…a wise person once told me that our constitution (US, and presumably state as well) is a document that should make sure we are ensured freedoms and rights and not be a document that would limit them. One other thing is to remember that this was also voted on in 2006 (with a few differences) and was defeated, but politicians have decided to try to get it passed again.
For more information against Prop 102: http://www.aztogether.org/ or http://www.votenoprop102.com/web/index.php
My take:
Ummm…NO! Oh, yeah, like it’s not already obvious! First of all same sex marriage is already NOT ALLOWED in Arizona! But if it ever was an option my opinion has always been that if *you* do not believe in gay marriage then don’t marry someone of the same gender. And I do not believe that if two people of the same gender marry it will in any way devalue my marriage or any other heterosexual marriage. We heterosexuals have done a good enough job on our own of devaluing marriage. There are many legal benefits to being married and I do not believe that people should be denied those benefits because others might get the heebie jeebies about gay honey moon activities. And as far the argument that “the bible says…” Ummm, I’m a big huge believer that the bible is irrelevant because of how I interpret separation of church and state. Also, there was a time that people could not enter into marriage contracts because of the color of their skin. Times changed then and times are a changin’ now. Voting no on this proposition is not the same as legalizing gay marriage (the current law only allows one man and one woman in our state to marry), but it would recognize marriages from other states and countries that do allow it. Only Massachusetts and California have legal same sex marriages, and a few countries. I am not sure what our current law says about if Arizona currently recognizes marriages (same sex or even “common law” so I am not sure if voting against Prop. 102 would mean our state would not recognize marriages from any of the places where it is legal. But if this proposition wins our state cannot recognize same sex marriages from other states or countries where it is legal unless the constitutional amendment was changed and that would be difficult to do.
Other links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/08/26/arizona-proposition-102-marriage-protection-amendment.htm
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_102_(2008)
* * *
Proposition 105 AKA Majority Rules Initiative
The Nitty Gritty:
Proposition 105 would change the state constitution to state that any future propositions voted on that increase taxes or spending must be approved by a majority of overall voters…not just voters that went to the polls and voted, but *all* qualified registered voters.
Official information: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop105.htm
For:
It would require a “true majority” to pass a proposition that would increase taxes or spending then when a small or “special interest” group can get a few voters out to vote.
I could not find a website that is for this proposition.
Against:
The commercials basically say that any non-vote would count as though it was a “no” vote so for people who either don’t bother making it to the polls or people who prefer to leave something blank rather than vote if they don’t feel they know enough will possibly derail decent propositions if they don’t get enough “yes” votes. According to one website it would have affected past votes including gaming compacts, tobacco taxes, and even the smoking ban.
The website against 105 is http://thevotersofaz.com/
My Take:
I will vote no on this. Aside from it not being fair to voters who are unable to go to the polls (by choice, by circumstance, by pure laziness or even by death*) I also think it is admirable for voters to just choose not to vote if they don’t understand enough about something and their vote should not automatically be a “no” vote.
Other Links:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_105_(2008)
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/09/13/proposition-105-majority-rules-let-the-people-decide.htm
*The death part would be that if a registered voter died just before an election their vote would be counted as a no because they are still listed as a valid voter.
* * *
Proposition 200: Payday Loan Reform Act
Nitty Gritty:
Prop 200 would amend the state constitution to allow for the continuation of payday loan businesses (otherwise this type of loan industry is currently set to expire in 2010).
According to the official text this prop purpose is to
-
reduce the cost of the pay day loans (by approx 2 dollars per 100 dollars)
-
promote responsible lending practices (does not have specific detail on how)
-
provide lenders fair terms with reasonable time to pay back loans
-
“regulate the covered products in a comprehensive and efficient manner” I put that in quotes, but have no idea what it actually means
-
make sure that internet lenders follow the same rules
-
reduce the number of payday loan offices in our neighborhoods
Here is the official information: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/prop200.htm
Other information I found said that the number and frequency of loans to an individual would be limited and that repayment plans would have to be offered.
For:
Without this proposition payday loans could be eliminated all together when the current law runs out in 2010 and it would eliminate a necessary choice for some people to be able to borrow money easily when needed that could result in higher costs of credit cards or fees to reconnect utilities.
It would more strictly regulate payday loans and make them more consumer friendly and reduce some of the fees. It would also require that internet lenders would have to follow the same rules as a local payday loan office.
The website Reform AZ Payday Loans is http://www.affr2008.org/
Against:
This proposition originated as a response to an initiative that did not get enough signatures to be on the ballot that tried to eliminate payday loan businesses altogether. Prop 200 was started by the payday loan businesses themselves. That might say a lot about who it really is aiming to help the most.
Lowering fees isn’t the same as lowering interest rates and the fee is only lowering by much.
Payday loan businesses prey on a vulnerable group of people that could spiral further into debt.
Payday loan businesses would gain electronic access to borrowers bank accounts.
Interest rates that were previously capped at 36% could go to over 300%.
The website for the opposition to this prop is No on 200: It’s No Reform At All: http://www.200isnoreform.com/
My take:
I am voting no. Some of the ideas of this reform sound great…especially fewer payday loan locations. But I hesitate to support a proposition about reforming a business created by the very business it is supposed to be reforming…ya know what I mean? Loan sharks have always been around and I don’t think that this business will ever go away completely, but I think that true reform will come more from a group outside of the business.
More information:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_200_(2008)
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/09/16/proposition-200-payday-loan-reform-act.htm
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2008/10/02/20081002robb03.html
video: http://www.azpbs.org/horizon/flash.asp?ID=985&vidnum=2
* * *
Proposition 201 AKA Homeowner’s Bill of Rights
Nitty Gritty:
Why can’t they all be easy to understand like 102? The official ballot proposition sounds all birds chirping and roses (”We want our houses to look good and last for generations to come.”) but it’s hard for me to understand what it is actually proposing. It looks like a change to existing laws (A.R.S.-Arizona Revised Statute) with some things crossed out and a few things changed or added.
From what I read on websites to explain the proposition it boils down to these things:
-
A home builder would be required to give a 10 year warranty on a new home. If there is a defect then the buyer can choose repair, replacement, or financial compensation. If repairs are made the homeowner helps choose the licensed contractor.
-
The time a home buyer has the right to sue is extended to 10 years (from 8 years).
-
The home buyer can sue without being responsible for paying the home builder’s legal fees.
-
Home buyers have the right to cancel within 100 days and can get back most of their deposit.
The official information on this proposition is at: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop201.htm
For:
Well, who wouldn’t want a home warranty good for 10 years? Especially on a newer home that I have heard are not made as sturdy as an older home. I’ve only lived in older homes, but I’ve heard stories from people who have lived in them and from our electrician. Apparently they are ready to fall over in the first strong wind. Maybe having a bill like this would make the builders stop cutting corners and build better homes? This proposition is supposed to give home buyers more leverage when dealing with their home builders if there are any defects in their home.
I could not find any websites dedicated to the support of this bill. It was sponsored by the Sheet Metal Workers Union.
Against:
Most of the opposition I have seen to this proposition just says that it goes too far and encourages lawsuits without first trying to resolve the issue in a non-litigious way with the home builder (I’m a lawyer’s wife–must say with New Yawk accent–and I love using the word litigious!). The other opposition I’ve read relates to the sponsor of this proposition–a union attempting to unionize the home building industry by creating strict regulations. Someone I know and love who is very anti-union would call this just one more bullying attempt by unions to try to force people in our right to work state to unionize.
My Take:
I’m about 90% sure I’m voting no on this. I’m really going to have to think about this a little longer. I think home buyers should have recourse, but I feel like I need to know more about the going too far part. Maybe someone who knows something about real estate could give me their opinion (also on Prop 100)? I have been pro-union for as long as a person could be pro-union, but if this is a prop that is just a way to strong arm an industry to unionize then I don’t want to reward that kind of thing.
For more information:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ballot/articles/2008/09/30/20080930prop201.html
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Arizona_Homeowners_Bill_of_Rights_(2008)
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/09/20/arizona-proposition-201-homeowners-bill-of-rights.htm
* * *
Proposition 202 AKA “Stop Illegal Hiring”
The Nitty Gritty:
Possibly the worst of all for me to comprehend and decide on: Prop 202 would amend an Arizona Revised Statutes (A.R.S.) regarding illegal hiring. It seems to be a response to Fair and Legal Employment Act (HB 2779) passed in 2007.
Proposition 202 will change some of the requirements of the existing law. Narrowing down all the crappola that I’ve been reading the three biggest changes I can see are:
-
Other ways of verifying citizenship will be acceptable–not just relying on E-Verify
-
The new law will require that businesses that use “cash labor market” such as day laborers (landscaping/construction) will have the same requirements
-
Stricter rules regarding identity theft
-
People who file a complaint about a business can no longer be anonymous
Official information: http://www.azsos.gov/election/2008/Info/PubPamphlet/english/Prop202.htm
For:
The proponents of this proposition feel that the changes would be more fair–particularly because they apply to all businesses including the “cash market.”
Requiring a person alleging that a business is hiring undocumented workers sign the complaint would reduce the chances of someone filing a complaint just to harass a particular business.
Russell Pearce is against it (that may be reason enough to be for it!).
Websites for the supporters of this proposition: http://stopillegalhiring.com/ and http://www.wakeuparizona.org/
Against:
The opponents of this bill feel that it weakens the current law and would be making it too easy for employers to hire illegal workers.
Some opponents are claiming that it weakens the existing laws because it only applies to a business owner or “officer” to have knowledge that an employee is not legal to work for the business to face any of the penalties. (When I looked for more information regarding this on the official proposition I couldn’t find any thing about it. I started to look for a definition of the word “officer” and couldn’t find anything on this part at all. That doesn’t mean it isn’t there, but I couldn’t find it and neither could a lawyer that I know.)
Using anonymous reporters has been successful in the past.
Websites for groups against 202 are http://stopproposition202.com/index.html and http://immigrationbuzz.com/?p=2468
Addendum: I emailed someone who I trusted to give me good information on this proposition. Here’s her response:
As far as Prop 202, goes Russell opposes it because it does relax some portions of the existing law. Of course, it also increases some penalties, creates a new felony for identity theft and includes more businesses in the scope of the law. So it’s a mixed bag. But here’s the big reason to vote no – this initiative would, if passed, be voter-protected, which means that the legislature could never go back and repeal or change any portions of it. This is bad because one day, when the anti-immigrant rage is over, we will want to go back and get rid of this crap. If it’s a state law, we can fix it easily. If it’s passed by initiative, we can never fix it.
My take:
I’ve decided to vote no. My first impression is, “my head hurts.” My second impression is, “If Russell Pearce and some other wack-jobs are against this, then I am definitely FOR it!” Seriously, when l read some of the comments from people against this it was frightening. The most vocal people seem to be the people who are very angry about illegal immigration either because of the idea of securing our borders or just plain racist beliefs. There isn’t much compassion in their words only the kind of hatred that I can’t stand. I would be interested in hearing more from people who are against this proposition that would also like to see an immigration reform that will help people visit, live, or work in our country in a legal and humane way.
I really want to lean toward the vote no because we don’t need to use this process to create laws that are harder to change if a better way comes around. I just can’t wrap my mind around being against the same thing as people like Russell Pearce and probably Joe Arpaio (egads). I will be needing to take a very hot shower after wards.
Other links:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_202_(2008)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ballot/articles/2008/09/30/20080930prop202.html
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/09/19/arizona-proposition-202-stop-illegal-hiring.htm
audio story: http://kjzz.org/news/arizona/archives/200810/prop202
* * *
Proposition 300: State Legislator’s Salaries
The Nitty Gritty:
Finally, an easy one! If passed this proposition would raise the salaries of a state legislator from $24,000 a year to $30,000 a year.
For:
If paid more then maybe better qualified people would run for office.
Against:
The job of a legislator is only considered part-time and with Per Diem they are paid enough.
Addendum: Remember the person I trusted to give me info on Prop. 202? Well she also gave me a reason she will be voting no for Prop. 300. And considering she is a legislator it is very impressive for her to take this view:
My take:
I always vote yes for this. It’s my hope that if we voters give the politicians pay raises they will be more inclined to vote yes when raising the minimum wage votes come up for them. I don’t think it has ever passed. It is time that it does in my opinion.
For more information:
http://phoenix.about.com/b/2008/09/22/arizona-proposition-300-state-legislators-salaries.htm
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Arizona_Proposition_300_(2008)
http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/ballot/articles/2008/09/30/20080930prop300.html
I’m voting no on the pay raise this year. I usually support it because I believe you get what you pay for. But during the biggest fiscal crisis of our lifetimes, when thousands of people are losing their homes, I can’t in good conscience ask for more money for myself.
Whew:
Prop 300 is the last of the state propositions.For more general information about all of the propositions go to these websites:
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2008/10/03/20081003votersguidearticles.html
http://www.azpbs.org/vote2008/
Or watch Horizon: The Ballot Propositions 2008 at 2 p.m. on Sunday (Oct. 12) on channel 8.
For a pretty good blog with recommendations go to: http://worldaccordingtobilly.blogspot.com/2008/09/voter-guide-to-2008-ballot-propositions.html
I’m voting no on the pay raise this year. I usually support it because I believe you get what you pay for. But during the biggest fiscal crisis of our lifetimes, when thousands of people are losing their homes, I can’t in good conscience ask for more money for myself. As far as Prop 202, goes Russell opposes it because it does relax some portions of the existing law. Of course, it also increases some penalties, creates a new felony for identity theft and includes more businesses in the scope of the law. So it’s a mixed bag. But here’s the big reason to vote no – this initiative would, if passed, be voter-protected, which means that the legislature could never go back and repeal or change any portions of it. This is bad because one day, when the anti-immigrant rage is over, we will want to go back and get rid of this crap. If it’s a state law, we can fix it easily. If it’s passed by initiative, we can never fix it.
Thanks for the hard work. I’ve been trying to unravel the language in the initiatives as well. . not easy. Prop 201 was particularly confusing. It seems like a good idea until you look at the language. I don’t think consumers get an ounce of benefit from this initiative.
I found this video about it, kinda funny, but seems rather true at the same time. . ..
http://www.stoplawsuitabuseaz.com/video-center/no-on-201-commercial
Comment by Thanks — October 13, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
Not that there’s anything wrong with lawyers dancing in the aisles every once in awhile, right?
Cute video. I think the propositions in general are very confusing. I had to really take a look at what it was named and why and who sponsored it, etc. And in the end if there’s even a chance it might be a bad idea it is safer to error on the side of voting no because voter initiatives are harder to change later if needed.
I am still glad that the smoking ban passed a few years ago, so I wouldn’t abolish propositions all together!
Comment by iwanna — October 14, 2008 @ 2:01 am
Holy Crap, I can’t imagine how long it took you to do this post! Good Job though.
Comment by Kristy — October 15, 2008 @ 12:20 am
My entire neighbor hood is covered in Yes on 102 signs. Makes me want to move. Although I’m also finding it a good tool to decide who to vote for. Yard with 3 yes on 102 signs and some signs for politicians? Remember those politician - and vote for the other person
This is amazing by the way. Is this what you are doing with your abundant time with all the kids in school?
Comment by Karen — October 18, 2008 @ 3:36 am
Reading this made my head hurt… and I don’t even live in Arizona anymore. Made me go look at all the props in Florida. I swear that the people who write these props are intentionally trying to confuse us!
Comment by Amy — October 25, 2008 @ 3:58 pm
Amy-
Researching it made my head hurt! It took over a week doing one at a time to get through it all.
Comment by iwanna — October 27, 2008 @ 3:53 am